The problem is not having a new law but improving counter-terrorist practice. There is immense laxity in how evidence is gathered and indeed broadcast. What Qasab said, what he ate, what he wrote to the Pakistan High Commission are not matters which British anti-terrorist police would reveal till they presented the suspect before a judge. The evidence gathered cannot be admissible in a court of law because it is obtained under duress. As it is Qasab can already argue that he will not have a fair trial given all the adverse publicity. Many Indians are ready to hang him without trial, but the Rule of Law has to be followed.

Counter-terrorism can be tough as long as the personnel are well-resourced and co-ordinated. There has to be a lot of preventative work which cannot be in the public domain. In the UK, when houses are raided to arrest suspects, even their names are not released till they are presented before a judge. It reduces the likelihood of other terrorists being warned off and strengthens the police case. The public also has to be trained to be aware of risky items like unattended baggage, as we have been in the UK during the last 40 years of terrorist attacks. Also, all political parties have to agree that fighting terrorism is a national priority and not a party political game.

Since 1989, if not the Emergency, every area of Indian public life has been politicised. Even worse, it is entirely subject to a vote bank calculus. The politician does not see India as such, but Hindus and Muslims, and OBCs and SC/ST and then Marathas and Gujjars and so on. The Nation does not matter, only the vote banks. Why otherwise should Antulay shoot off his mouth in a case which has not even come to court yet, and, should he not have been sacked on the spot for embarrassing the UPA, and 150 million Muslims, plus the rest of India, just at the time when it had a reasonable good complaint about Pakistan-sponsored terrorism? Could we swap him for Nawaz Sharif, please?