Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

Terrorists indicated they would talk but there was no negotiator

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Mumbai terror attack
    NSG too felt need for men who could communicate with the terrorists

    The Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists who attacked Mumbai on November 26 may have been sent to the city on a suicide mission but there were several indications during the 60-hour siege that they were willing to consider using their hostages as bargaining pawns. But let alone have trained negotiators on hand to try and convince the attackers to surrender, the Mumbai police and Central security agencies involved in the counter-attack did not even consider using negotiations as a strategy to buy time.

    In fact, within the first few hours of the attack, Maharashtra Director General of Police A N Roy went public saying there would be “no negotiations”, indicating a tough posture and lack of a gameplan to seek a possible peaceful end. For a city with two IPS officers trained in the US to negotiate with hostage-takers, and with a similar unit available with security officials at the Mumbai airport, this was yet another instance of how the initial shock of the devastating attack hurt strategic coherence.

    Ads by Google

    The first indication that the Lashkar men were considering taking hostages and making demands became available in a phone conversation between the terrorists in the Taj Mahal Hotel and their handlers in Pakistan. According to transcripts of the conversation accessed by The Indian Express, the call was made at 3.10 am on November 27, less than six hours after the four attackers had stormed the hotel and occupied the heritage wing:

    Receiver: Greetings!

    Caller: Greetings! There are three ministers and one secretary of the cabinet in your hotel. We don't know in which room.

    ... contd.

    Next1234
    Media is culpable too.By: Subhabrata Pal | 08-Jun-2009 Reply | Forward Let us all see in media reports what are the losses the security forces took due to media coverage acting as an eye for the paki handler.why dont see that report as well ?accountability is not restricted to a select few.I agree with the no negotiations policy of the government.its a symbol of weakness and all these attacks are primarily symbolic attacks.thats why Taj and Oberoi and the jewish colony were chosen.
    Negotiatios with Terrorists----By: romesh.sharma | 08-Jun-2009 Reply | Forward I hate Terrorists and terrorism but let us not forget these guy,though brain-washed,are still human beings and some where there in them a slumbering conscience does exist.If possible and if they(or anyother terrorist) shows some inclination to talk/discuss that means the conscience is awakening and the person is no more pertinacious.Naturally there will be conditions put forward which lead to some kind of compromise.MrVirendraSharma is simply wrong because achieving NOTHING is presumptive.No NEGOTIATIONS is being presumptuous which gives no favourable results but fatalities which become a good reason of vindictiveness.Yes Terrorism must be eliminated but using power and shrewdness.Couldn't this be possible to save innocent lives?Govt like UPA which fail the strength of will,courage/the guts,tact and power of fast judgment one could hope for some kind of brainy move.If so,why India should negotiate with Pak or sepratists of K.Diplomacy and deception are chief means to win enemy.
    OK. NOTED FOR FUTURE GUIDANCEBy: R.Ramachandran | 08-Jun-2009 Reply | Forward SIR,There is an adage that the first casualty of a war would the war strategy.What matters is what one does in the spur of the moment in a given situation. It applies to all -whether it is security agencies, newspaper agencies etc. Your article a product of research taking more than 6 months is quite good and appreciated.THE GOVT. OF INDIA AND OTHER STATE GOVERNMENTS AND SECURITY AGENCIES WILL NOTE THE SAME FOR FUTURE GUIDANCE.There is no point of a spend thrift, who has been reduced to a beggar, analysing that had he not been spend thrift he would not have been a beggar today!
    What about the role of MediaBy: Prakash Krishnagiri | 08-Jun-2009 Reply | Forward Conveniently all the media reports have totally avoided the bad role the media played all through out the saga. How did the Handlers know about the ministers being in the Hotel? It is only the TV channels which aired such news. Also all channels including NDTV were telecasting live and even calling on top officials and talking them into disclosing the strategy. In the name of exclusivity, they telecast several tit bits..all of which really helped the handlers. It was pathetic to watch in TV, the location of the rocket launchers shown and the possible strategy described. The media were irresponsible and they only aggrevated the issue. Think for a moment, every officer would like to have his air space and importance. If the Journalist pester them with what action they are planning, the Officers would like to say something (irresponsibly) and steel the limelight. After doing enough damage, NDTV and others stopped live telecast before the Ministry gave directives. Why spare media
    Get to the pointBy: A | 08-Jun-2009 Reply | Forward They shd stop wasting time and istead find people responsible for security pases and punish them the same way as ajmal kasab...make examples of such irresponsible loosers...
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.