The argument that there is plenty of slack in the present public expenditure system and efficiency can be improved without diverting resources away from, say, social infrastructure, doesn’t get us very far. Cross-country estimates suggest anti-terrorist deterrence requires expenditure of 2 per cent of GDP. Such calculations require valiant assumptions and simplifications. If this expenditure switching is half as efficient as present expenditure, with a capital/output ratio of 3.5, diversion to deterrence leads to annual GDP loss of around 0.3 per cent. Sticking to the domain of individual terrorist acts, do we want such losses or do we live with one-shot reductions of 0.5 per cent every once in a while? Even if 0.5 per cent is an over-estimate and even if everything cannot be reduced to money values, the choice should be obvious. This brings one back to the hard state/soft state dichotomy. Hard states are those where the trade-off is recognised and the choice is made. In the political freedom spectrum, advanced democracies absorb some characteristics of primitive democracies (dictatorial states), but preserve their democratic character by building in legal safeguards. Soft states like India don’t accept the trade-off and don’t make the choice.

Take the Hyderabad instance. The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) has 1 Lok Sabha seat and 4 assembly seats. It supports the UPA at the Centre and the Congress government in Andhra and has distinguished itself by opposing a motion in the Andhra assembly condemning 9/11 and attacking Taslima Nasreen in August 2007. A few days before the Hyderabad blasts, AIMIM criticised Hyderabad’s anti-terrorist squad for adopting a hard-line approach to terror and this is reportedly the reason why investigations have been handed over to CBI. Has anyone from the central or state government uttered a word against AIMIM? Not that I know of.

... contd.