Terrorism in Mumbai: Is It All Over for India?

There is a savage irony to the fact that the unfolding horror in Mumbai began with terrorists docking near the Gateway of India. The magnificent arch, built in 1911 to welcome the King-Emperor, has ever since stood as a symbol of the openness of the city. Crowds flock around it, made up of foreign tourists and local yokels; touts hawk their wares; boats bob in the waters, offering cruises out to the open sea. The teeming throngs around it daily reflect India's diversity, with Parsi gentlemen out for their evening constitutionals, Muslim women in burqas taking the sea air, Goan Catholic waiters enjoying a break from their duties at the stately Taj Mahal Hotel, Hindus from every corner of the country chatting in a multitude of tongues. Today, ringed by police barricades, the Gateway of India - the gateway to India, and to India's soul -- is barred, mute testimony to the latest assault on the country's pluralist democracy.

The terrorists who heaved their bags laden with weapons up the steps of the wharf to begin their assault on the Taj, like their cohorts at a dozen other locations around the city, knew exactly what they were doing. Theirs was an attack on India's financial nerve-centre and commercial capital, a city emblematic of the country's energetic thrust into the 21st century. They struck at symbols of the prosperity that was making the Indian model so attractive to the globalizing world -- luxury hotels, a swish café, an apartment house favoured by foreigners. The terrorists also sought to polarize Indian society by claiming to be acting to redress the grievances, real and imagined, of India's Muslims. And by singling out Britons, Americans and Israelis for special attention, they demonstrated that their brand of Islamist fanaticism is anchored less in the absolutism of pure faith than in the geopolitics of hate.

Today, the platitudes flow like blood. Terrorism is unacceptable; the terrorists are cowards; the world stands united in unreserved condemnation of this latest atrocity. Commentators in America trip over themselves to pronounce this night and day of carnage India's 9/11. But India has endured many attempted 9/11s, notably a ferocious assault on its national Parliament in December 2001 that nearly led to all-out war against the assailants' presumed sponsors, Pakistan. This year alone, terrorist bombs have taken lives in Jaipur, in Ahmedabad, in Delhi and (in an eerie dress-rehearsal for the effectiveness of synchronicity) several different places on one searing day in the state of Assam. Jaipur is the lodestar of Indian tourism to Rajasthan; Ahmedabad is the primary city of Gujarat, the state that is a poster child for India's development, with a local GDP growth rate of 14%; Delhi is the nation's political capital and India's window to the world; Assam was logistically convenient for terrorists from across a porous border. Mumbai combined all the four elements of its precursors: by attacking it, the terrorists hit India's economy, its tourism, and its internationalism, and they took advantage of the city's openness to the world. A grand slam.

Indians have learned to endure the unspeakable horrors of terrorist violence ever since malign men in Pakistan concluded it was cheaper and more effective to bleed India to death than to attempt to defeat it in conventional war. Attack after attack has been proven to have been financed, equipped and guided from across the border, the most recent being the suicide-bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, an action publicly traced by American intelligence to Islamabad's dreaded military special-ops agency, the ISI. The risible attempt to claim "credit" for the Mumbai killings in the name of the "Deccan Mujahideen" merely confirms that wherever the killers are from, it is not the Deccan. The Deccan lies inland from Mumbai; one does not need to sail the waters of the Arabian Sea to the Gateway of India to get to the city from there. In its meticulous planning, sophisticated co-ordination and military precision, as well as its choice of targets, the assault on Mumbai bore no trace of what its promoters tried to suggest it was -- a spontaneous eruption by angry young Indian Muslims. This horror was not homegrown.

The Islamist extremism nurtured by a succession of military rulers of Pakistan has now come to haunt its well-intentioned but lamentably weak elected civilian government. The bombing of Islamabad's Marriott Hotel proved that Frankenstein's monster is now well and truly out of that government's control. The militancy once sponsored by its predecessors now threatens to abort Pakistan's sputtering democracy and seeks to engulf India in its flames. There has never been a stronger case for firm and united action by the governments of both India and Pakistan to cauterize the cancer in their midst.

Inevitably, the questions have begun to be asked: "is it all over for India? Can the country ever recover from this?"

Of course the answers are no and yes, but outsiders cannot be blamed for asking existential questions about a nation that so recently had been seen as poised for take-off. India can recover from the physical assaults against it. It is a land of great resilience that has learned, over arduous millennia, to cope with tragedy. Within 24 hours of an earlier Islamist assault on Mumbai, the Stock Exchange bombing in 1993, Bombay's traders were back on the floor, their burned-out computers forgotten, doing what they used to before technology had changed their trading styles. Bombs and bullets alone cannot destroy India, because Indians will pick their way through the rubble and carry on as they have done throughout history.

But what can destroy India is a change in the spirit of its people, away from the pluralism and co-existence that has been our greatest strength. The Prime Minister's call for calm and restraint in the face of this murderous rampage is vital. If these tragic events lead to the demonization of the Muslims of India, the terrorists will have won. For India to be India, its gateway -- to the multiple Indias within, and the heaving seas without -- must always remain open.

Comments

[deepachilaka]

I loved your article on the Politics of Division in India, specifically relating to the Christian conversions and Hindus massacring Christians in Orissa. Being a Hindu myself, I totally agree with you when you say Hinduism is a religion of tolerance. We applaud our faith for advocating freethinking but are we really practising what we propogate? Another reader said that Hindus are told that they should not worship any other god except Christ when they convert to Christianity but well, thats their religion and they have every right to say whatever they want to, obviously it then becomes the choice of the person converting to follow that advice or not. Why should a Hindu take offense to that? One should take offense only if he/she is being FORCED to accept another religion and I don't think thats what any of the Christian leaders are trying to do in India. Whether it is because of poverty, illiteracy or just plain old choice, it's up to the individual to choose what he wants to do in a democracy. No religion accepts human destruction and wouldn't it be so nice if we all understood that...Alas!

(Sorry I am posting here but the other article page "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shashi-tharoor/stop-the-politics-of-divi_b_135221.html" is closed and I wanted to let you know that you are doing great work)

[agg75]

Excellent article by Mr. Tharoor. What is needed is strong international action from a body like the U.N. or a coalition of governments to address terrorist training camps in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistani government is clearly unable and/or unwilling to take action against the monster in their midst. It is not only the people of India who are suffering, the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan will continue to see little progress in their society as long as these groups are allowed to operate freely. International pressure and action is needed NOW.

[terramartom]

The best thing that the USA can do for India and Pakistan is to leave Irac and Afghanistan a.s.a.p.
We are accomplishing nothing in either country. These two fiascos come from a failed Bush policy of ignorane and arrogance. I would much prefer all American troops from around the World return to American soil. If Islam were the peaceful religion that it preaches than every Mullah on Earth would be pointing fingers at any terrorist group defying it's name. Sadly enough the very nature of religion is about segregation. Them against us!
Only when there is no religion will people stop killing in the name of God!

[Pejeal]

Terramarton, it is "Radical Universalism" that teaches that all religions are the same. They are not. Notwithstanding the many faults of organized religions, and the many atrocities committed by the Christian Religion in the past, Christianity has evolved out of the middle ages.

So I ask you: In which Christian country a homosexual is put to death like they do in Iran, by hanging or beheading in Saudi Arabia, or execute children like Iran, or stone women or men to death for adultery like Iran and Saudi Arabia, or throw acid in girls eyes as it happened in Afghanistan recently to prevent school attendance, or do contract-honor-killings in the hundreds like in Basra where a young woman was killed by her father for talking to an English soldier, then released from prison 2 hours later?

I suspect you are confused, sir. As for leaving Afghanistan now and allowing the radicals to return, do it at your own peril.

[functor]

those christian countries are not really christian. The are secular and religion is more like a cultural symbole. And by "..Christianity has evolved ...." yeu mean new edition of bible every year?....lol

[Stirner]

The childish and cruel assurances of religious doctrines ("Heaven for us, Hell for you) insures human misery. Can religion grow up and surrender its childhood for the maturity of "toleration"? Yes, and such pervasive and universal communication technologies as cell phones, iPod and T.V. will do it. The ideological and geographical isolation of religious communities has been the basis of their mind-control. Three cheers for Steve Jobs!

[Pejeal]

No, I am afraid it is not over. As Mahatma Gandhi said: "The Muslim is a bully, the Hindu is a coward".
A peaceful Islam is an oxymoron. Every time an incident like this happens, there is some outrage from the "Muslim community", many Muslims condemn the terrorist acts. However, we do not see the big ones, the Ayatollahs and Mullahs doing so, nor they go to the Madrassas or the centers where this message of hate is preached to say so, or pronounce a definite Fatwa against it.

We suspect that in their heart of hearts, they know that these Mullahs would be able to quote from their holy book those excerpts that justify their actions, thus shutting them up. At that is the core of the problem.

After 9/11 in US, president Bush repeatedly said that "Islam is a religion of peace". But Mr. President, it is not, and that statement does not pass the smell test, not again and again, nor it passes the test of history, especially in India, Mr. President you need read history more.

[pardesi]

Very well said. My sentiments exactly.

[MagisterLudi]

Islam will cease to be a threat when so called Muslim countries are no longer " Muslim." When the citizens will identify themselves by their race or ethnic group or country: Egyptians, Arabs, Afghanis etc. And form civil governments not in fear of the various rabble rousing mullahs and ayatollahs. Just like the rest of the world. Now THAT would be thing to celebrate.

[cherry33]

Ah, I see what quote you have been able to pick. I could go toe to toe with you on your argument that Islam is a violent religion. Would you like to start? Hadiths are not "the book" and are infamously inaccurate. Hadiths are not genuine documentation of Muhammed's words. Do you really want to slum it and start comparing religions? This is childish. Ghandi did not lack respect for ANY religion.

Pajeal, Muslims don't have a pope, so no there is no big Mullah in a bubble who will say he condemns the terrorists. I have seen mullahs in the media condemn terrorists, believe it or not, on Glenn Beck's show.

The Ayatollah of Iran is a terrorist, that's known. There are many muslims who complain that they try to get the media to cover their efforts to work against terrorism, but that they don't get the attention.

[cherry33]

calbear24-

As for every Islamic scholar longing for the days of Mughal rule, don't you think every demographic wants to rule? Is it so unusual? Of course not. I don't care who rules, as long as there is peace, and as I have stated in another discussion thread, my fantasy is that India and Pakistan someday unite again. However, many, yes namely Muslims in South Asia feel that because the British dismantled the Mughal Empire and then gave it to Hindus, that really it rightfully belongs to the muslims. That's not my opinion, but it has some bearing. The Mughal Empire was responsible for much of India's high culture. Most of the emporers were very tolerant of other religions and encouraged diversity in the kingdom, except for the last one, Aurangzeb.
I'm pretty sure that most Muslims are pissed off at these terrorists for what they did to these people and how they're dragging Muslims in the mud with them. This is also an assault on muslims. Remember, Al Qaeda is an organization, and it cares only for its own survival, not for those it is supposed to "serve". Anytime a group feels marginalized, you see ugliness. If there were more acceptance, Al Qaeda would be even more nervous than it already is with Obama winning. I hope South Asia doesn't satisfy Al Qaeda's hateful appetite.

[Pejeal]

Cherry33 wrote: "The Mughal Empire was responsible for much of India's high culture. Most of the emporers were very tolerant of other religions and encouraged diversity in the kingdom, except for the last one, Aurangzeb"

This is simply incorrect, it was the norm nor the exception that the Mughal Empire and other Muslim conquerors exterminated Hindus right and left on purpose with ethnic cleansing aims, pillaged, raped, and forced conversions. Why there are practically no Hindu temples in northern India? Because they destroyed all. Nor they were responsible for any cultural gains, on the contrary.

What you engage here is what is defined an "negationism", the result of years of distortion in the press and the school curriculum in India, or of "history books" like Penguin History of India by Marxist professor Romila Thapar.

Check this free book by Francois Gautier.
http://www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/gautier.html

[cherry33]

Pejeal-

You're simply wrong, and you always make statements that need to be backed by actual facts and yet they are only full of emotion. There were Mughal emporers who did exterminate Hindus, but many did not. And the last emporer was definitely VERY tolerant and accepting of other religions. You simply have your history wrong. What is that link you put up supposed to prove? That one guy doesn't like how another guy wrote a history book? So all history books are wrong? I suppose I can only trust an Indian nationalistic book then, huh? I was not able to find that quote you cited by Ghandi about Muslims being cowards. I doubt it's true since I know a lot about Ghandi. What part of India are you from, if I may ask?

[msjimmied]

The Mughals had their day in the sun, but the fire died out. The left things of wonder and splendor but it's over. Read "The Last Emperor" William Dalrymple.

[TLV]

I think all Bush was told to do was to act as if he was doing something about Islamic terrorists but not to do much. The real reason behind 9/11 was to direct the world's attention to Afghanistan so that when the oil and gas pipelines were installed, as they certainly have been, it would not raise any suspicions. Now that the Afghanistan leg is nearly finished, it is time to turn toward the final leg of the pipelines running through Pakistan and on to the ports. With our soldiers fighting the militants there, perhaps the "bad guys" will not have much chance to prevent the pipelines from being installed.

All this death and destruction for oil. How tragic.

[Craig Calvin Jones]

There is a comment in the article here regarding the "¦well-intentioned but lamentably weak elected civilian government" of Pakistan. It was only in August that General Pervez Musharraf stepped down (or was forced out). It might be presumptuous to assume a link between the attackers and Pakistan based groups at this time, at least before official inquiries are finished, but I have heard no speculation on that coincidence. I am not implying a direct link, but it seems obvious that there may be more freedom for nefarious groups to operate more under a "weak elected civilian government." That is not forth as excuse to impose a dictatorship, it is only an observation.

[Nikevich]

I could be quite wrong this, but I think it needs to be said.

Before stating it, though, I do send my condolences to the families of the dead and wounded, as well as the nation of India (I don't want to seem pretentious). The duration of the siege, as well as its nature, was amazing and horrible.

To the point, though: I do wonder whether this horror was essentially spawned to some degree by deep-seated resentment against countless misdeeds and attitudes by the nearly-thoughtless and -heartless well-to-do, and the same by those in power, over a considerable time period right up to the present. I'm surely not condemning all such people, however!

Nevertheless, I do hold a lot of hope for the future, in that eventually, many who would do harm to many others will come to realize that there are much better ways to spend their lives and energy. This applies to the "rich and heartless" as well as potential terrorists. I expect that it will take decades (one hopes not centuries) for matters to be sorted out.

Those who understand the roots of terrorism better than I (try Prof. Juan Cole, for one) can shed more light on this.

Terrorists are not born, they become that way.

Lest anyone have any doubts, I totally condemn terrorism, but I also am open to consideration of its roots.

[srikantm]

you have just given an excuse to the terrorists. have a heartburn pick up a gun and slaughter some people. There is injustice in many parts of India. There are nazals and maoists who kill people on a regular basis. We call them by the euphemism 'extremists' as if dilutes their crime.

Pakistan and its army sponsors terrorism. Now the ever eloquent leadership of that nation always denies that their land has nothing to do with terrorism of any kind. In fact, they are victims of it.

India too was plagued by its own frankenstein with the Punjab problem. it was dealt with in time although it also meant the death of Indira Gandhi. Similarly Rajiv Gandhi and the Lanka problem.

The leadership of Pakistan has a moral responsibility to its own people and to the rest of the world - that Islamic radicalism having a field day in their unregulated madrassas is eroding civil society in their own nation (that it controls as JMr. Zardari says) and also the the entire world.

The current US election had the result it had because the Americans realized that the world had a horrible impression of the nation - as an aggressor and 8 years of Bush had pushed the nation into a corner.

Pakistan is still turning a blind eye to organizations that live and breathe in its region and spread terror worldwide. Will we always use this excuse or have it in our hearts to sit across and talk and

[SergBen]

Anyone with half brain can figure out real target was to start war between India and Pakistan. Now Indians has really inflated ego and fascist nationalistic feelings these days like German and Japan last century when they were becoming players in international scene so it will be real hard for them to restrain themselves. I hope cool heads prevail.

[the steamer]

So far, India has shown far more restraint than the US in responding to terrorism within their borders. One can hope level heads prevail today, too.

[srikantm]

Nothing much has changed - witness the politicians RR Patil (NCP) 'these small things happen in big cities like Mumbai'; the Kerala Chief Minister (CPI M)'not even a dog would have visited Sandeep's (NSG Commando) house if he was not a commando and died'; Mukhtar Abbs Naqvi (BJP) 'of what use is the burning of candle by women who wear lipstick and are western in their attitude'

India will go nowhere till it roots out corruption; addresses its systemic failures; gives complete autonomy to the cops and modernizes it; call a spade a spade in ALL kinds of terrorism; if necessary engage in taking out the camps in Pakistan.

[calbear24]

Indians certainly are resilient but I fear if the current climate continues, Islamic extremists may achieve their dream of "bleeding" India to death. Indian Hindus have every reason to fear their viability as heads of a secular democracy, as history has watched "India" fall prey to many conquerers in the past. In fact, Muslim "scholars" are currently quoted as longing for the days of Moghul rule. Without unwavering international support, India will find it difficult to survive the threat of communist China and Islamist Pakistan as these attacks go unchallenged.