Compare that to India, which has no terrorism strategy. All we have is crisis management, which is indeed the very antithesis of strategy, and thus meaningless. There are too many sources of this strategic confusion: our agencies, clueless as ever; various police forces, activated only when an incident occurs; Centre and states blaming each other, as security is a state subject; a political leadership focussed unwaveringly on the next elections; core officials easily reverting to their earlier dispensations and routine.

As someone who spent a life in the military, the most striking thing about the Mumbai standoff was the chaos visible outside all the venues. No one was apparently in command or co-ordinating the various operations. No communication arrangements were visible: everyone seemed to be communicating only by their mobiles! This is a major threat, akin to war: it is unthinkable that we can expect to succeed in our objective if we proceed in such a lackadaisical manner.

On this occasion the prime minister took the unprecedented step of speaking to the nation. Unfortunately, there was no discernible, concrete, plan revealed. Further strengthening laws is just one small aspect of the actions that need to be taken.

I propose a four-pronged approach. Firstly and most importantly, it is imperative to set up a unified command, fully autonomous and headed by only one person or entity. It must have full powers to act and must be given wherewithal to develop and then execute a comprehensive strategy. It should be allowed an independent chain of command to all states and further down to identified districts, regions and sub-regions. The excuse of security being a state subject must not come in the way; if necessary, the Constitution should be amended.

... contd.