Sunday, November 30, 2008


For hours, we were glued to the TV, watching the events unfolding open-mouthedly. It was all quite unbelievable. The reactions which followed it were typically aggressive, jingoistic. But is that how we should always react?

I think we need to look at this issue from a slightly different perspective. Terrorism is difficult to stop, however hard anyone tries, if the perpetrators are determined to do it. The only real way to stop terrorism is to ensure that the original causes are handled in a way that they don't exist, or at least, minimized. It is practically impossible to increase security to a level where it is impossible to smuggle unwanted stuff into our territory. Most countries tend to attempt to manage the symptoms. This might seem like an idealistic solution, but it looks like the only sensible and reliable long-term solution to me. We say we need tougher laws - but do you really think people who have been brainwashed so much into doing this would actually care about how tough the laws are? The current attackers are almost a suicide squad. And do we really want a state where security invades into every aspect of our life? Anti-terrorism laws can be misused - there are several examples of this across the world. Can utilitarianism justify anything and everything? And more importantly, is there any evidence that tougher laws reduce crime rates? Remember Freakonomics?

No comments: