For a dispensation that is hoping to turn genuinely big-ticket and transformative ideas like the NREGA, the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission and the nuclear deal into a New Deal for the excluded so far, it is puzzling why no one is in a position to exert the moral authority to make a serious and human case for handling law and order, and tie it in with their politics.

As the BJP bays for the UPA’s blood and talks of incompetence, is it not good politics for the government to denounce all types of terror haunting Indian citizens? Whether it is ball-bearings planted by the criminal Indian Mujahideen that kills, or murderous Bajrang Dal crowds, must not both be unequivocally and simply denounced and gone after? Why is even getting a statement about preserving Indian lives as a priority so difficult to come by?

If the UPA was planning to sell dreams of a grand India, a more equitable and prosperous India, it is a good idea; but it would be hopelessly incomplete if Indian citizens don’t think they will even be alive to catch the flight to sit at the global high table, or cannot commute to work or shop for vegetables without having limbs blown off.

It would not have taken much to understand the importance of denouncing hate politics and acts of terror and demonstrate that this position flowed seamlessly from the politics of peace dividend that this government claims as its foundation.

The irony is that with its “secular” credentials not in doubt (the UPA chairperson, the PM, Lalu Prasad, Mulayam Singh and Paswan on board), the UPA could strongly assert the necessity of keeping the peace, insist on fair and competent investigations, and go for all who threaten peace and order, irrespective of what “type” of terror.

... contd.