In a first, India refuses to negotiate for hostages

Probably marking a first in its reaction to hostage situations, India has refused to negotiate with terrorists, even though almost 40 foreigners were held captive by jihadis in Mumbai. India seems to have joined countries like the US, Israel, Russia and some from Europe in refusing to negotiate with terrorists on hostages. Sources said there was no question of negotiating with the Mumbai terrorists—but it was important to “talk” to them. There are two aims being considered: to buy time for an eventual armed encounter, and to get the hostages released in small batches, starting with women and children.India has a bad record on hostages—starting with the 1989 abduction of Rubaiyya Sayeed when her father Mufti Sayeed was home minister. During the 1999 IC-814 hijack, India gave in to demands of Pakistani terrorists. It released three top terrorists—Masood Azhar, who went on to create Jaish-e-Mohammed, Mushtaq Zargar and Omar Sheikh who is convicted of killing US journalist Daniel Pearl.In the years that followed, India learnt some things about hostage negotiations and its new resilience was tested on Thursday. In recent years, there have been attacks on Akshardham temple, and Raghunath and Shiva temples in Jammu in 2006, but they did not evolve into hostage situations. There had been no occasion until Mumbai to test the new Indian policy. But all accounts are that Indian security personnel did not negotiate with terrorists for ransom or for the hostages but precisely as a tactic to gain time. In Russia, the best example recently was the Beslan massacre, where children died but the Chechen terrorists were killed. In another incident, Russian forces pumped gas into a Moscow theatre to neutralise terrorists and though the reagent was intended to knock out the hostage takers, it ended up killing civilians as well. Such harsh measures might not be possible in the Indian context but Indian agencies seem to have evolved more sophisticated strategies to engage terrorists.