Hostage situations need uniform policy

Recently the Maharashtra government announced that it was seeking to evolve a response mechanism to deal with hostage situations. The government was candid enough to concede that its standard operating procedures (SOP’s) to deal with terror attacks were obsolete (remaining unaltered since 2006 despite tragedies like 26/11) and there was no SOP in place to deal with a hostage crisis. The state crisis management committee is in the process of evolving a concrete policy to deal with hostage situations.

It is comforting to know that the Maharashtra government is making this effort. However it would be unwise to be elaborately solaced by the same. The Union home ministry had in September 2012 circulated a draft policy pertaining to hostage situations to nine states which were most affected by left wing extremism (LWE). The draft outlined various hostage scenarios and spelt out different responses that need to be taken to deal with a hostage crisis. It recommended that the states set up a committee which would be empowered to take quick decisions to deal with hostage situations. However the response of the states has been painfully tepid. 

Terrorist organisations very often resort to asymmetric warfare in order to achieve their stated objectives. Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly and whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. Taking hostages is a tactic many terrorist organisations employ to weaken a state that possesses conventional military preponderance. We ignore such possibilities at our peril.

There also needs to be a measure of consistency in dealing with such scenarios. The states seem to be pulling in different directions. Take the example of two states which bear the brunt of Maoist violence - Odisha and Chhattisgarh. Maoist guerrillas abducted Jhina Hikaka, an MLA of the Biju Janata Dal, from Koraput district. The state government of Odisha conceded to the demands of the Maoists by releasing several of their cadres from prison or by withdrawing cases against them. It was a very weak response.

On the other hand the Chhattisgarh government responded very differently to the kidnapping of its collector Alex Paul Menon by Maoists. The Maoists had demanded that ‘Operation Green Hunt’ (an anti-Maoist operation) be called off and several of their cadres be released. The Chhattisgarh government firmly rejected these demands. States need to come together and evolve a consistent set of SOP’s to deal with a hostage crisis.

It is not just states affected by Maoist violence that need to evolve a hostage situation policy. Karnataka has had its share of high profile hostage situations. Film actor Rajkumar was kidnapped by forest brigand Veerappan on July 30, 2000 and was released on November 15, 2000 after spending 108 days in his custody. The brigand struck again when he kidnapped former minister H Nagappa in 2002. Nagappa lost his life during the ordeal. Both these incidents exposed the weakness of the state in dealing with such crises. 

The other grave danger is the kidnapping of foreigners on Indian soil. This is an area where the Indian state has repeatedly faltered. There seems to be a collapse of imagination and a pervasive incoherence that informs our policy making. There have been numerous instances of foreigners being kidnapped in India. Both Kashmiri separatists and Maoists have resorted to this technique, sometimes resulting in gruesome consequences like the kidnapping and beheading of the Norwegian tourist Hans Christian Ostro by Kashmiri terrorists in 1995. Two Italian tourists were recently kidnapped in Odisha by Maoists. How do we deal with such situations?

India can learn a few lessons from Britain. The counter terrorism policy department at the British Foreign Office has evolved a few guidelines to deal with such situations. It includes the following measures- keep in constant and close touch with the families of the hostages and the media and keep explaining the evolving situation to them, a co-ordinated action by all government departments and agencies dealing with the situation. It recommends effective liaison with foreign governments, international organisations and non-governmental organisations, which might be able to play a helpful role. 

 There are no easy solutions to such complex challenges. We must set aside this inertness when it comes to concerns of national interest. The imperative now rests with both the Union government and the states. They need to work together and evolve an effective hostage situation policy. This will go a long way in strengthening our national security.