A fundamental principle of humanitarian law, non-combatant immunity, has been virtually consigned to history during the Bush years. To a large extent this can be considered a ‘success’ for terrorists. That terrorists do not respect the principle of non-combatant immunity is central to the definition of terrorism. The aim of terrorists is substantially achieved when states also adopt their language and grammar. This has been done to an extent by the US in its militarily aggressive response to 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It has been widely noted that the US has not suffered a terrorist attack since 9/11. This is because it undertook major reform of its homeland security structures following the 9/11 attacks. India could learn from the wide ranging CT reform in the US after 9/11 and adopt measures suitable in the Indian context.

In a recent poll for the newspaper Le Parisien, 55 per cent of the French public expressed their disagreement with the presence of the French military in Afghanistan. A number of political and strategic mistakes contributed to this difficult situation being faced by Sarkozy’s government regarding the war in Afghanistan. The situation is also exacerbated by the fact that 10 soldiers of the 8th RPIMA lost their lives in the Uzbin sector in late August after a brilliantly orchestrated ambush by elements of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e-Islami which shocked the country.

An article by the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in The Guardian (January 15) in which he suggested, “resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders” evoked swift responses in the media, political and foreign policy establishments in Delhi. The Ministry of External Affairs was quick in its response that, ”Mr. Miliband is entitled to his views, which are clearly his own and are evolving”.

On January 1, 2009 the National Investigative Agency Bill became a law. It provides for setting up a special agency at the national level “to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of State, friendly relations with foreign States and offences under Acts enacted to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of the United Nations, its agencies and other international organisations and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.

If it can be established that Pakistan had supported terrorist groups, this may represent a breach of international obligations and may be held accountable.

Undoubtedly, the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks was an international tragedy. It was a crime under international law and as the serious concerns expressed by the UN Security Council demonstrates, it had the potential to threaten international peace and security. Accordingly, it had provoked outright and vehement condemnation by the international community.