link between Decentalisation and terrorism

There are straddlingly divergent views between economists and politicians when it comes to the question of decentralisation in the wake of terrorist attacks. While the later prefers a centrally united approach to fight terrorism, the economists prefer decentralisation. Mr. Bruno. S .Frey (Economics Professor, University of Zurich), for obvious reasons, prefers decentralization.
When the central government rules the roost of the entire nation, it becomes an ideal target for the berserk terrorists. A single terrorist attack at the nerve-centre can cause political imbroglio and leave the economy treading waters.
A market based economy is an extreme form of decentralisation of decision making and implementation. Even if a section of the system is obliterated, the situation, though deplorable, is not perilous. Other similar organisations can fill the departed member's space. The economy as a whole is not maimed. The resiliance of such economy is illustrated by 9/11. The decentralized US was hardly affected by the attack.
Political decentralization is achieved in 2 forms: One, the separation of power between executive, legislature and judiciary. Two, Federalism i.e division of power among various levels. India has gone a step ahead (in federalism) by providing decision making power to villages.
Indian history
During the pre- British period the population was quite scattered and villages were situated at greater distances. These conditions prodded political decentralisation in India. Consequently, the villages acted as a basic political unit in which the democratic tendencies of the rural community were expressed in the form of village panchayats or assembly.
Decentralisation prevented the system from being jilted in the wake of a foreign invasion. The system could even brazen out the recalciterant attitude of certain Maharajas.
article still not complete.