Some Indian optimists who thought they had had their fill of the ferocity and barbarism of which terrorists were capable would have been taken aback by the lethal force with which the self-styled Deccan Mujahideen executed to near-perfection the latest series of catastrophic terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Posh areas were chosen by the terrorists with an eye on making the maximum national and international impact and causing the maximum number of casualties among hotel guests and innocent civilians who were sitting ducks at that hour of the night.

Jehadi fanatics mounted the attacks coming to the Gateway of India by sea in boats. They immediately fanned themselves out seizing control of the Taj Mahal Hotel, Trident (formerly Oberoi Sheraton) Hotel, Cama hospital, Nariman House and other prominent locations. They were holding about 350 hostages. The toll at the time of writing had reached close to 200, including policemen, and about 370 people were injured, some seriously. The number of bestial killers involved in what is nothing short of waging a war on India is still uncertain, although 11 terrorists are reported killed and one captured.

A number of questions are begging for answers. First, why was the intelligence apparatus of the central and state governments so clueless about a terrorist operation which must have been months in the making in terms of planning and extensive mobilisation of finances, manpower and material resources?

Masterminding attacks at so many different places, on such a scale and over such a long period could not have been possible without the knowledge and collusion of accomplices among the local population.

How is it that all those activities escaped the notice of the supposedly well-oiled intelligence machinery, especially when it was known that the country was in danger of attack at any time and from any direction?

Second, why is it that the presumably ever-alert security formations, especially the police and the Rapid Action Force, took hours to come to grips with the situation? Going by the TV channels, even 9-10 hours after the start of the attack, they were still not in battle-readiness but were ambling about.

However, a number of them including the chief of Maharashtra’s anti-terrorism squad made the supreme sacrifice for the country and the others soon geared themselves for fighting the terrorists to the finish. They gave a valiant account of themselves - all honour to them.

Third, why is it that it took 12 hours for the National Security Guard (NSG), army and the navy commandos to be entrusted with the command and control of the operation against the terrorists? If only they had been inducted and taken position, say, around midnight itself, it could have made a conspicuous difference to the resolution of the crisis. A prompt response was necessary for another reason. For 10-12 hours after the attack, there were half-a-dozen security agencies milling around the places seized, and there was a great danger of uncoordinated retaliation resulting in a large number of casualties of security personnel, the resort to ‘friendly fire’ and even the terrorists gaining the upper hand.

In a sense, India got what it was asking for. Whatever else its record on other counts, insofar as terrorism is concerned, the widespread perception is that the present government was slack in devising and putting into effect stringent measures to leave no one in any doubt that there would be no compromise with terror. In a soft state, which India is increasingly proving to be, perceptions sometimes count for a lot.

The failure is collective, both of the government and the citizen. No government can strike at terrorism without an alert community. We are yet to understand the import of this need for unqualified support to what should be a common exercise. How do we make combating terrorism an obsession with all of us? Anything short of an obsession will give more than leeway to the terrorist for inflicting violence on us.

The focus should now be on how to prevent such carnage in the future. This is more easily said than done. Prevention is intimately linked to availability of solid actionable intelligence. This seems a rare commodity. This is why we need to join hands with key Western intelligence agencies. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been frequently talking about zero tolerance but that has not translated itself into policy and action. On the contrary, his government has given every handle to the accusation that it is soft-pedalling on terror after having witnessed attacks on Parliament, New Delhi, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Jaipur, Varanasi, Bangalore and so on.

It is also seen as being reluctant to let investigative agencies and the police perform their duties and pursue leads and clues fearlessly and independently without regard to political or party considerations.

Some sections of the media and the intelligentsia also, under a mistaken notion of upholding secularism, has been constantly sniping at the police, security and investigative agencies, which, as a consequence, have begun taking to the path of least resistance to save their skins. Further, the solicitude for civil liberties and the religious and sectarian susceptibilities of the political establishment, the libertarian intelligentsia and the media have come in the way of enacting terrorist-proof legislation (embodying some of the provisions of the Patriot Act of the US) and its enforcement by a central organisation for coordinated investigation and maintenance of security. Even though the federal principle is strongly built into the US Constitution, the states have willingly come together in enacting the Patriot Act and establishing the federal

The department of homeland security to fight terror. If such a course was possible in the US, there is no reason for the central government in India to drag its feet citing objections by states.

Finally, the rampant practice of minorityism by governments and political parties has been the cause of untold havoc, whether in dealing with illegal immigrants or implementing the constitutional provision for a common civil code. The law should be the same for everyone.