Red Fort terror attack pokes holes in India’s security narrative

It took the Union government 48 hours to describe the Red Fort bomb attack as ‘terrorism’. For two days, the Narendra Modi government was dancing around the Red Fort car bomb attack, calling it a ‘bomb blast’; ‘a conspiracy’; a ‘horrific incident’ — anything but terrorism. Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not cancel his visit to Bhutan after the first major attack in Delhi since 2012, but only said “conspirators will not be spared”, that too the next morning, once he reached Thimphu.

The conspirators had, however, already been booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) Section 16 (punishment for terrorist acts) and Section 18 (punishment for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act). The UAPA is India’s principal anti-terrorist law. It is significant that India’s premier anti-terrorism agency, the National Investigation Agency, was handed over the investigation of the Red Fort attack.

The Modi government was unable to describe the Red Fort attack as ‘terrorism because it had tied itself in knots by escalating its security doctrine and the prime minister’s televised declaration that, “Every act of terror will be treated as an act of war against India.”

Now that firm evidence seems to have emerged of the attack being linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a Pakistan-based terrorist organisation, there was no choice but to call the act by its name: terrorism. However, that does not make the response of the government any easier. Operation Sindoor has set a new threshold for terror response, but adhering to that is no longer easy.

While the Modi government is in negotiations for a trade deal with the Donald Trump administration, it cannot afford any flexing of military muscle against Pakistan. The United States will not look the other way if it were to do so, especially as Trump has made his displeasure known over India’s failure to acknowledge that it was his threat of a 250 per cent tariff that led to the India-Pakistan ceasefire during Operation Sindoor in May. Attacking targets inside Pakistan once again will be more than India thumbing its nose at Trump. No one knows this better than Pakistan..

The choice of retaliation is back to actions that are low visibility, have plausible deniability, and with minimal diplomatic fallout. In effect, dilution of the terrorism-as-declaration-of-war doctrine.

It is clear that the Red Fort attack has punctured the Modi government’s claims of national security dominance, of instituting peace and progress after the revocation of Article 370 and counter-terrorism preparedness. The incident raises several difficult questions about governance, the efficacy of India’s intelligence agencies, and the political priorities of the government.

The narrative that India is safe under Modi was hitherto supported by India’s quick response to terrorism under his leadership — from the Uri surgical strikes and Balakot airstrikes to Operation Sindoor. The Red Fort attack is a reality check. It has exposed the vulnerabilities of India’s urban security and intelligence co-ordination. Or else, how could a car laden with explosives be driven undetected on the roads of the capital for more than 11 hours?

Particularly damning are reports that the Faridabad Police and the J&K Police had apprehended a conspirator on October 30, and recovered 2,900 kg of ammonium nitrate for making explosives 10-days before the attack in Delhi. Was no one aware of the implications of possessing such a large quantity of a precursor for explosives? Moreover, what did the local police do to apprehend one of the conspirators whom they knew was absconding? He was on the run for several days till he blew himself up at the Red Fort.

Nor is it possible to continue the narrative that after August 4, 2019, terrorism was confined to Kashmir. All the alleged conspirators of the Red Fort attack were not only Kashmiris but were part of a network covering the Kashmir Valley, Faridabad, Saharanpur, and Lucknow. The spread of terrorism outside J&K challenges the claim that Article 370 was a masterstroke that would bring peace to J&K.

The ease with which this network operated busts the myth of co-ordination between police forces and intelligence agencies across different states and the Centre. The J&K Police are run by the Union home ministry through the lieutenant governor, Haryana where Faridabad is located, has a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, as do Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, and the Centre. Instead of intelligence co-ordination across these states, what shows up is lapses in surveillance, terror threat assessment, and communication between the different police forces and intelligence agencies.

The Red Fort attack shows a government that is more involved with winning elections than focused on governance. Even while the conspirator led the police to the cache of ammonium nitrate more than a week before the blast, Union Home Minister Amit Shah remained busy campaigning for the Bihar elections — he addressed a record 34 rallies, the highest by any political leader. He was campaigning volubly against ‘ghuspaithyas’ (shorthand for Bangladeshi infiltrators) to polarise the Bihar voters.

Sooner or later Shah’s multitasking as the BJP’s Chanakya, crafting electoral strategies and de facto in-charge of the party, was bound to affect his primary role in government. His political commitments claim his time, adversely impacting his role as the national head of internal security.

No wonder then that the Opposition has trained its guns on Shah following the attack. They have accused him of incompetence and demanded his resignation. As evidence of systemic breakdown under his watch, it has cited the Kashmir unrest, Manipur ethnic violence, and the attacks in Pulwama, Pahalgam, and now Delhi. The Trinamool Congress has called Shah an “incompetent home minister” and accused him of negligence, alluding to past security breaches and terrorist incidents. The BJP’s answer to all such critics is to accuse them of ‘politicising a tragedy’, and of interfering with ongoing investigations.

The Red Fort attack is likely to damage Modi’s strongman posture, especially as strategic hesitation on his part becomes more and more apparent to the public. His critics will be emboldened to accuse him of selective muscularity, trading off national security for gains in economic diplomacy with the US. It remains to be seen whether Modi could change the narrative surrounding the government’s response to the Red Fort attack in a way that would keep him in control of the public discourse.

(Bharat Bhushan is a New Delhi-based journalist.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.