Mayhem in Bodhgaya
It has been a lethal cocktail of suspected terrorism, religious persecution and geo-politics. Rakhine in Myanmar has had a devastating echo in Bodhgaya in Bihar. There is an element of pregnant symbolism in what, prima facie, appears to have been a terrorist strike in the world&’s citadel of Buddhism, seemingly a reprisal for the relentless persecution of Rohingya Muslims ~ a stateless community on the Myanmar-Bangladesh border. Neither country can evade the charge of flagrant violation of international law.
 That persecution has been the handiwork of Myanmar&’s Buddhist-dominated military junta. The reprisal has been as tragic as it is shameful; the credibility of the Centre and Bihar, indeed their ability to protect the shrines, must be at stake in the perception of the Buddhist bloc of nations. More than 72 hours after the serial explosions in Bodhgaya&’s Mahabodhi temple ~ the world&’s bastion of Buddhism ~ the plot and scenario are still fogbound. The suspected involvement of the India Mujahideen is at best a tentative conclusion; from Nitish Kumar to Sushil Kumar Shinde, the authorities are remarkably clueless. As the CCTV&’s grained images are splashed across the media, it is fervently to be hoped that truth will be unravelled in course of the probe being conducted by the National Investigation Agency. Well and truly has the State, as an entity of governance, been caught with all defences down.
It would be redundant to harp on the very obvious ~ the failure of Intelligence, the common strand that binds terrorist outrages. No less crucially, Bodhgaya showcases the pathetic response of the Bihar government, whose head has of late been more obsessed with politics in the Delhi  darbar than with his home turf&’s underbelly. The security lapse in Bodhgaya has been disastrous even at the mildest estimation as governance lies rather thin on the ground across the state. A deceptive sense of smugness alone explains why the Union home ministry&’s successive alerts about a possible Indian Mujahideen strike were ignored.
The timeline of the alerts is critical ~ October 2012, followed by two warnings in January and June. As it turns out, Sunday&’s mayhem follows the latest alert a few weeks ago. Altogether, the incident signifies an appalling failure of Bihar&’s security network, such as it is.
The putrid inter-party shadow-boxing is the worst development that could have happened. It is almost as if the Congress general secretary, Digvijay Singh, and the BJP are engaged in a competitive exercise to politicise the outrage. And  Mamata  Banerjee  makes  the  waters murkier by pulling up a chair to insinuate that “the blasts are a gameplan of the Centre to finish the regional parties”. This isn’t the moment for sniper attacks. A responsible political class would have acted in concert to assist the security agencies.

Still ‘chicken’?
Disconcerting but not surprising was the “gun salute” from a Chinese military leader that welcomed AK Antony to Beijing. It was in keeping with the People&’s Liberation Army&’s assertiveness that counters any seemingly conciliatory moves by the political leadership. Equally unsurprising was the attempt by the Indian defence minister, and others, to underplay the belligerence and divert attention towards the essentially cosmetic “positives” (at best a re-rail job) that emerged from Antony&’s interaction with the Chinese leadership.
 It was convenient for India to buy the line that Maj-Gen Luo Yan of the PLA Academy of Military Science was not articulating the official line, but it would be naive to accept that the Chinese system allows loudmouths and loose cannon to flourish ~ as ex-generals do on Indian TV.
Gen Luo&’s contention that India was claiming 90,000 sq.kms of Chinese territory, was the only country that raised a China-bogey to justify military upgrades, and his cautioning New Delhi against provocation cannot be wished away. Analysed in the context of the incursion in the Depsang Valley, repeated objections to India developing roads near the “disputed boundary, tricky incidents at sea, the bottom line remains clear ~ Beijing will have its own way during any negotiations on the boundary, even maintaining peace and tranquility along it.
All the planned boost of military-level exchanges and diplomatic syrup will not alter the equation. Despite several rounds of talks and a few moves on the ground the Chinese have not moved an inch back from the position taken 50 years ago: “let those who committed aggression vacate it first.” Consistent.
Consistent too has been New Delhi&’s acquiescence. It is apparent that despite the military&’s claims that there can be no repeat of 1962, the mindset on Raisina Hill remains fixated on that drubbing. Evidence was available at Depsang, as well as from the regurgitation of the alibi that repeated incursions are the result of “varying perceptions” of the Line of Actual Control. To stretch a point: so haunted by the ghost of 1962 is the establishment that the Henderson-Brooks report remains “secret”. All the reopening of airfields, raising new Mountain Divisions, deploying SU-30s at Tezpur is merely a bid at boosting domestic morale. Among the first terms used during Antony&’s trip was the need for “strategic communication”: Gen Luo&’s presentation was precisely that.