The web series ‘IC-184: The Kandahar Hijack’ has reignited debate over the moral and strategic dilemmas faced during hostage crises
Web series IC-184: The Kandahar Hijack, has triggered debate on the complexities and ‘greys’ that accompany such incidents. Beyond obvious things like the lack of coordination, responsiveness or even allowing the flight to take off from Amritsar – one important query is if India did wrong in negotiating with terrorists. Given the handiwork of these released terrorists in the subsequent terror attacks, the question acquires even gravity. However, beyond the simplistic and binary ‘yes’ or ‘no’ position that is often postulated in the argument, lies the necessity of nuance in attempting to answer the same. It is universally agreed that negotiations with terrorists are a bad idea, however, sometimes, the consequences of not negotiating can have far more debilitating and costly consequences.
Sifting the wheat from the chaff of the supposed ‘no-negotiation’ stance of some countries (as often bandied) is important. It is frequently argued that countries like Israel or the United States of America do not negotiate with terrorists. It is further claimed that because of such an unbending posture, the Israelis and Americans avoided being taken as hostages. But such beliefs are untrue, misplaced, and belie the wheels-within-wheels of the American or Israeli reality, beyond the publicly stated position of ‘no-negotiation’.