I have always been of the view that, civil police is better equipped mentally and culturally to deal with terrorists, and even terrorism, than the military. Regrettably, the idea has taken firm roots in the police minds that, fighting terrorists is well beyond their competency. Many policemen also say it is not their role.

There is a subtle difference between a soldier and a policeman, and we need to take this into serious consideration. For a soldier it is straight forward: it is to kill the enemy. Personally I do not agree with this mission because I feel that killing can never be an objective of any military force. "War-winning" cannot be the aim of war at least in the 21^st century. The higher purpose of the military must be to "prevent wars."

In the context of terrorism especially, the role of the police is to prevent killing, to prevent crime.

To deal effectively with terrorists, the police need the support of the people. That will be forthcoming provided three conditions are met:

• First; the crime rate must be brought under control. Fighting terrorism cannot be at the cost of crime getting out of control. Moreover, effective crime management reinforces the confidence and trust of the citizens in their police force.
• Second; you need adequate manpower. In metros, the ratio must be a minimum of 250 policemen for every 1,00,000 people. Currently, it is 142 and this is grossly inadequate.
• Third; you need leadership. This is a vast area and will require a lot of discussion and understanding.