Imagine you are from a state with a bitter history of secessionist violence, a state in which many terrorist outfits operate. You participate, however, in that most visible sign of “national integration” — playing cricket with a team from another Indian state. And imagine now that on arrival at that state’s capital you are arrested for terrorism, only to be later declared innocent and released. What will anyone think of benign India’s secularism, of its federal and plural claims?

The arrest of 20-year-old Parvez Rasool and the interrogation of his room-mate Mehrajuddin by the Bangalore police may have been a genuine mistake. Rasool and Mehrajuddin were in Bangalore as part of the J&K under-22 cricket team.

Reports suggest that the new mechanised explosive detection system at Bangalore’s Chinnaswamy Stadium led the police astray. Detailed tests revealed that the device had picked up a wrong scent, and so had the police; the bag-owner was promptly released from custody. Adding to the chance of error is Union Minister (and President of the J&K Cricket Association) Farooq Abdullah’s theory that a crank call by disgruntled state cricketers could have put the police off-track. Whatever be the initial provocation, the rectification seems to have been quick. The young cricketer was promptly released, and the Karnataka State Cricket Association has apologised to its J&K counterpart. In a sign that the controversy is perhaps past us, the cricket match has not been abandoned. Parvez will be back on the field.

The larger issue is one of terror management. With security becoming such a major concern, the police are right in taking any threat seriously. Whether from physical screening or telephonic leads, it is the police’s job not to leave anything to chance. But the police must be sensitive in following these leads: arrest need not be the first step, it is the last. And if the technology turns out to be faulty and the calls hoaxes, the authorities must come clean to prevent any slur on the individual’s character and as a meaningful way of apologising. For the political message must be loud and clear: when it comes to terrorism, being cautious and being callous are not the same thing — and that the Indian state does not, will not, condone acts of profiling.