Open Mumbai thread

Its failure to either charm or cow its Islamist-friendly neighbors... They might've tried to pork them.

Dan,

I have been a reader for years, discovering your blog while I was a political science graduate student at the University of Mumbai in 2003. I am an Army Infantry officer who was the first Olmsted Scholar to India. I lived in Mumbai with my family from May 2003 to June 2005, including three months in the Taj Mahal hotel while I searched for a suitable apartment. Two of my children were born at Breach Candy Hospital in Bombay. My Masters degree is from the University of Mumbai. Neither my wife nor I are of South Asian extract, but we love India (warts and all) and it is in many ways our second country.

I dispute your notion that this event has received a low-level of attention. The news channels were full of coverage. However, we are, as a nation, so unaware of India as it really is. We think because we have seen CITY OF JOY and MONSOON WEDDING and enjoy curry and samosas that we "know" India. We have ceded interest to the very important, and economically influential, diaspora here. If we are smart, India could be an ally to us in the years to come akin to the British of the 20th Century. As to the attacks, they were executed with precision and the targets were well-chosen. That this is till ongoing, over 48 hours after the initial attacks, shows that the mujahideen who executed this were well-prepared and not amateurs. Imagine this type of attack taking place simultaneously in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. That is what Mumbai is to India.

As my subject of interest is Indo- Pakistan nuclear standoff I cannot but compare the current events with 1998 and 2001. Of course the trick is: is Pakistan somehow involved in this? If this should truly be the case, then we'll need to prepare for some retaliation. India cannot just let this pass. Also the U.S. will have to put more pressure on Pakistan especially the military to stop funding and training Islamists. If India reacts as it did in 2001 then we'll soon see troops marching up at the border, and we'll see another confrontation between those long time adversaries that holds nuclear potential.

But again: If Pakistan is involved...

If I may make some advertisement here, I went into a little more detail at my own blog.

Chris: There's no question that the attacks have received wall-to-wall media coverage on the cable nets. And from an Indian perspective, of course these attacks are significant.

However, if the attacks were intended to capture American attention, then they failede. This is not necessarily because Americans or American media outlets are oblivious to India. Rather, by having the attacks take place on Thanksgiving, the attackers chose a rare day during which a large majority of Americans were either not watching television or watching only football. Given the alleged media-savviness of Al Qaeda, I presume that they would have known this.

Dan,

May be the attacks are not meant to capture American attention? Maybe it is about destabilizing Indo-Paki relations? Maybe creating further tensions in Pakistan? Maybe just terrorizing the Indian people like the train bombings few years ago? Maybe it is time to stop thinking that everything that goes in the world is about the U.S. or Americans or that everybody tries to influence Americans when they act?

Just a thought...

Dan,

The attacks were not necessarily designed to capture the attention of the average American public. But it has definitely garnered the attention (or should do so) of the American strategic and foreign policy community, the Indian government and is also aimed at destabalizing a number of things: Hindu-Muslim relations, Indo-U.S. economic ties and the Indian economy in general. These are serious long term ramifications that extend beyond the period of turkey-induced stupor you seem to be talking about.

So I completely agree with the commenter above me that your post smacks of an unhelpful and all too familiar American centric perspective. Also, there are 150 (and counting) casualties from these events, out of which American citizens are thankfully a minority. You wouldn't know that from the focus of your post.

I'm surprised at that, being a long-term reader of your blog.

So here are the updates:

- After around 3 days, all terrorists have been either killed or captured. All hostages are freed or have unfortunately died. So it is over now.
- If it was only one day, one can understand Dan's point of view of low viewership in USA. But continuous 3 days, that should be hard on common Americans to miss it even amidst the frenzy of deal chasing after Thanksgiving.
- The captured terrorist is Pakistani citizen and some complicity of Pakistan is beyond doubt now.
- Dhume's article in WSJ is indeed 'mild' compared to real failures of political parties (Secular and Leftist parties in particular) in India. Structurally and politically culture wise India is incapable of addressing such terrorism; as things stand. The question is will this carnage and international uproar finally wake up Indian rulers or not.
- As a way to hide their incompetence, no doubt India's rulers point to Pakistan. But the issue is how would war solve India's Terrorism problem when domestically India fails to take care and rise above politics when it comes to terrorism? As usual the danger in Indo-Pak war is nukes.
- Look at Bangladesh. Changing those borders was Indian triumph. But with infiltration and rising Jihadi forces in Bangladesh; in the end it did not solve India's problem.
- So the final question is; if Indian political parties continue to fail in addressing challenge of terrorism; what happens? What does it mean to USA and world at large? At what point that involvement needs to be explicit? Would it matter or are we eventually looking at withering of Indian State?

The strangest thing about these attacks has been the targeting of the Jews.

India has a long history of Jews living in peace - even in areas with significant Muslim population (Kerala).

I think Anne Applebaum was spot-on with her WP editorial - it's not just the shock of the attacks, but the anonymity of the attackers. I agree with Chris in that there's been a lot of coverage ... but the attackers seemed to lack any supporting communications strategy that was characteristic of a lot of terrorist actions pre-9/11. As far as American attention - isn't the proliferation of media channels as much a factor in attention on any day, much less holidays?

I think it best that we reserve judgement as to exactly who and what was behind the terrorism in Mumbai until we know more than we do now. There are, of course, implications for a variety of Indian domestic and regional problems depending on exactly what is discovered through interrogation of captured terrorists and other means in the coming days, but jumping to conclusions now would be unwise.

There are contradictory indications in what we have heard so far. Foreigners, and British and American nationals particularly, were said early on to have been special targets of this group of attacks, yet the number of foreign dead appears to have been rather low. The targets chosen in Mumbai do attract foreign tourists and business travelers, but would be little known to other non-Indians, suggesting that what symbolic impact attacks on these targets would make was intended to have been made in India only. The name of the (apparently fictitious) group claiming responsibility for the attacks -- the Deccan Mujahedeen -- points to a links to grievances of Muslims in south and central India, but reports that at least one captured terrorist was a Pakistani national suggests the possibility that groups outside India sought to exploit such grievances, as opposed to Indian Muslims acting on their own.

The terrorist tactics chosen -- gunmen striking first by shooting into crowds and taking hostages, but evidently setting off explosives later, causing structural damage to buildings but only after most occupants would have evacuated -- is not consistent with al Qaeda tactics, or with most terrorist attacks within India, especially in Mumbai, which have sought to maximize fatalities by combining explosives with surprise. The targeting of Jews is more like Islamist terrorism outside India than it is of earlier terrorist actions within India. The latest reports are of a total of ten terrorists, of whom one was captured and nine killed; whether they had local help and whether planners and/or participants escaped Indian security forces is unknown. Finally, no statement has yet emerged detailing the specific reasons for this assault.

News stories from Indian and foreign media have already raised questions as to why Indian security was evidently taken so completely by surprise, given the nature of this terrorist action and the size of the group involved. It is possible that these questions may eventually circle round to the fact that terrorism inside India is not exclusively a Muslim phenomenon. Attacks against Muslim civilians by groups acting in the name of the Hindu majority, and evidently commanding local political support, have not been uncommon in modern India, and it may be worth considering whether this fact has inhibited the central government's efforts to detect terrorist group activity and prevent atrocities like the ones in Mumbai this week.

None of the above represents a conclusion on my part. These are only somewhat random observations as to what appear at this early point to be significant facts and potential issues.

Finally, India’s inability to modernize its 150-million strong Muslim population, the second largest after Indonesia’s, has spawned a community that is ill-equipped to seize new economic opportunities and susceptible to militant Islam’s faith-based appeal

Not one of the smarter things I've read, given that India has scores of communities 'ill equiped to seize new economic opportunities' and that certain groups of Muslims

There is a pretty good case to be made that Islam + modernisation = militancy , or lets do it the 'R' way, Islam + modernisation --> militancy. Then again, we might want to reverse that, militant Islam --> modernisation (a road to it, at least). The Islamic party in Turkey (whatever their name this week is) has gained its base by organising , modernising, the flotsam and jetsam kicked up by Turkey's industrialization. Hezbollah, whatever its faults, performs a similar function for Shi'ites in Sunni dominant countries.

Dan,
This was a very early response to the attack w/o the information we have now. I wonder what you think of the whole scenario unwinding now that the terrorists have been flushed out in India.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on the implications for NATO and Americans in Afghanistan if Pakistan decides to move its forces to the Indian border (as alluded to by http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/world/asia/30diplo.html?_r=1&hp).

So whether this attack involved Al Qaeda or not, it still has a lot of implications for everyone. So Thanksgiving, Hanukah, Diwali, or Ramadan, a terror attack will keep not only Americans, but also many other nations awake at night.

Dan,

if you don't have a lot to add, are there any other blogs you would recommend? Yours is one of my top foreign policy blogs because you are close to my long ago undergrad interests (political economy, IR theory), but I don't know enough well-respected/not left-or-right wing driven geopolitical blogs.

thanks

@ AP

Jews may have been living in peace in India, do not forget that the terrorist here did not come from India but Pakistan instead, and call themselves Mujahedeen, or Islamic warriors. If there's one thing shared among many Middle Eastern or Islamic countries it's hatred against the jews.

http://globalookout.blogspot.com