In its second editorial in as many days on the terrorist attack in the IISc campus, the Hindu argues, rightly, that converting academic institutions into 'armed fortresses' cannot be the response.
... Increasing security entails two kinds of costs. One is monetary, which can be considerable. The other is inconvenience: if security procedures become onerous, the institution's links with the larger community of scientists and society will be severely damaged. As the director of a leading national research laboratory remarked, an academic institute cannot — and should not — be secured like a military base. IISc will be increasing its security but will strive to do this in a non-intrusive way through a mix of technology and management, according to its director, P. Balaram.
Moreover, when the aim is to spread fear through mayhem and create a sense of vulnerability, there is no dearth of `soft' targets in Bangalore — or, for that matter, in any southern city — for determined terrorists. ...
Instead, it calls for 'systematic steps' to combat terror:
So putting in place city-wide measures against terrorism is an imperative. In London, for instance, a wide network of surveillance cameras proved invaluable in swiftly identifying the perpetrators of the July 2005 bombings. Likewise, it is important to make sure that the local police have the tools they need to cope with terrorist organisations and terror attacks, including the latest in technology and the training needed to wield it effectively. But even if all of this is done, the painful truth is that absolute security is going to be impossible.
Prof. Balaram, Director of IISc, addressed the presspersons yesterday. You can read the HIndu's report here.