In an era of coalition governments where appeasing of allied parties and opportunistic politics are ubiquitous, there is a pressing need for a united political front that isn't driven by partisan politics. The major, and probably solitary, focus of this front should be on issues that are not only sensitive to the people but are fundamentally complicated to control in a democracy.
For example, we know that the deliberations over anti-terror laws are bound to never end. Considering that the BJP is the main opposition party in Parliament, it will always back POTA no matter what. And it is very likely that they know how POTA has been misused. A new legislation to fight terror is likely to be compared with POTA and the saffron brigade will continue to invest their brains (and the country's time) in egotistic politics. To top it off, we have experienced the full force of their parochial mindset in the form of leaders like Sushma Swaraj who will irresponsibly speak up despite not possessing a needle's worth of knowledge and mental discipline.
Talking of the Left and their undying grudge against the nuclear deal and the Government's pro-US views, they are likely to criticize all steps taken by the UPA to curb the spread of terror and adjudicate against those chiefly responsible. With their ideological mentality, they are unlikely to provide us with any positives.
This is not to say that the UPA hasn't gone soft on terror. Terrorism has been the Achilles' heel of the incumbent Government. And with an abysmally weak home minister at the centre of the country's internal security mechanism, we rightly remain skeptical about improvement. They have failed to understand terrorism and its many faces and have only realized the need to act against it at the final curve of their term in office. This despite the fact that terror attacks have continued to increase since the UPA came to power.
These are the problems that a united front could solve. If Barack Obama and John McCain can set their personal differences aside, and that while in a heated presidential race, then why can't we? Terrorism is the principal threat to internal security and even other people-driven issues like secularism.
Of course, the government would remain the policy-makers and decision-takers. But they can be ably aided by representatives of other parties in an open milieu that must result in action and action only. The predicament with issues like terrorism is that the people (mainly, the victims) bear the brunt of an unstable working agenda against it. Loss of lives has become a regular characteristic of terror attacks and only the spirits of the survivors and the people of the city are seen as a setback for militancy.
The perpetrators of terrorism and leaders of terrorist groups remain unfazed with such responses as they are fine with their members being arrested and taken to task. They know very well that more minds can be brainwashed and truckloads of terrorists can be produced since the country has failed to hit them where it hurts the most - eliminating training camps. Such camps were first thought to be outside territorial control, but now they are prevalent in the form of little modules. Today, terrorists even attack to avenge the loss of their associates who died in a previous attack.
Only a united front is capable of taking action against the largely immaculate network of terror outfits being nurtured in the sovereign outlines of India. Only a proactive approach and constant action will purge the scourge of terrorism. End the passive outlook to issues that are piling up the dead. At least, we should pledge to fight for those who lost their lives out of humanitarian reverence.
How can the people unite or even pay enough attention if their leaders at the top fail to offer substantial examples and are always driven by vested interests? How can we eliminate terror if there is no action taken (open condemnation is NOT action)? Why a potential superpower is subjugated to perpetual torment and is brought down to its knees?
Do something, before it's too late. Hell it may already be too late. Or do we even know what late means?
IF YOU LIKED THIS POST, YOU MIGHT WANT TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE RSS FEEDS