Mumbai Terror Reaction: Don't equate Homeland Security with the Religious Right
For the last several days the eyes of the world have been watching what were perhaps the most audacious terrorist attacks anywhere. Several people have called it India's 9/11.
Despite having grown up in Delhi, I consider Mumbai to be my home now. My parents moved to the city a few years ago, a few years after I moved there for college. Between college (IIT Powai) and work (McKinsey), I spent a total of 8 years living in Mumbai before moving to the United States four years ago. I used to work in Express Towers, right opposite the Oberoi Hotel, one of the prime targets of the attack. I also remember the trip to India that I and a couple of fellow Indian students organized for almost 100 of our classmates from Harvard Business School. On the Mumbai leg of our trip, we'd stayed at the Taj Mahal, the other major target of the attack; I can't help thinking that if the attacks had happened then, many in my group would have been targeted for holding British or American passports.
Doubtless, many of you have similar close connections to these spots in Mumbai, or know friends who used to enjoy hanging out at Leopold. Many of the readers of this blog doubtless know people who were among the dead or the injured. And almost all of you have surely followed the stories from Mumbai over the last few days, watching the horror unfold, be it through Aaj Tak, CNN or twitter.
Unlike most other terror attacks in the past, we saw the militants openly engaging in combat over a prolonged period of tim. The only previous incidents that come to mind are terror attacks involving the siege of a religious shrine - e.g., the siege of the Akshardham temple in Gujarat in 2002. But the Akshardham siege was widely perceived as a victory for the NSG commandos who managed to diffuse the situation quickly. This time around, defying the expectations of all observers, the reign of terror lasted longer.
Hours after the end of the siege, as Mumbai limps back to normal, one of the big questions on everyone's minds is "what will be the aftermath?" or "how would India and Indians react?". The obvious answers are, well, obvious - some symbolic sacrifices would be made (Union Home Minster Shivraj Patil has already resigned, under presure; and just a few minutes ago Maharashtra's deputy Chief Minister R R Patil has also submitted his resignation); Pakistan would be accused of sponsoring terror; and politicians would engage in grandstanding in the wake of the upcoming elections.
What would be more interesting to see, however, would be the reaction of the common people. Irrational anger against Muslims has often been one of the reactions to such an episode in the past. While many have suggested that the reaction within India could be violent, so far, there have been few expressions of rage. Buses haven't been burnt and provocations for riots are missing. A similar sense of calm prevailed after the Akshardham attacks. Coming a year after the Godhra riots, it would have been natural to expect that violence would break out again. But as this Indian Express article points out, politicians like Narendra Modi did not provoke a similar reactions out of their own interest.
While it's admirable that India hasn't yet given in to irrational rage, what worries this author more is the tendency towards irrational fear. Even though the Akshardham siege did not provoke any violence in the streets, it might have subtly made the case that Hindu fundamentalists were making all along - that the Hindus are a besieged community and that they need to align behind political leaders with similar beliefs. Indeed, Narendra Modi rode to power two months later, with the BJP winning 126 of 182 seats. Irrational fear was as effective as irrational rage in promoting divisive politics.
While a political agenda based on security and anti-terrorism is admirable, too often the proponents of such an agenda have been religious hardliners whose real agenda is uniting one community against the other. General elections in India are due to be held before May 2009, leaving less than 6 months for the dust to settle on the Mumbai attacks. Will Indians repeat the history of Gujarat in 2002, and vote for a religious-right agenda in the guise of national security? Will the majority Hindus allow themselves to be tricked into believing once again that they're beseiged and that their only hope is to align with hardliners?
Such reactions are not unusual, and even the United States has succumbed to an extreme right wing agenda after the 9/11 attacks. Bush won his second term with sufficient popular support despite having taken measures to curb civil liberties (e.g., wire tappings) in the name of national security. "Muslim" became a bad word in America, and it took someone of the stature of Colin Powell to try and put tose ghosts to rest when he addressed the issue squarely in his endorsement of Obama. Fear created the climate in which this kind of politics could succeed and the administration granted itself sweeping powers in the name of ensuring security.
In India, a similar agenda would almost surely involve a reincarnation of the dreaded POTA. Indeed, LK Advani, the leader of the opposition has repeatedly called for the revival of POTA (note: Amnesty International reported in 2006 that even two years after the repeal of the act, the Indian Govt had continued to detain 265-400 suspects under PoTA without trial). It would involve turning a blind eye to the massacre of innocents, just like what happened in the post-Godhra riots.
Despite the precedents in India and abroad for voting on fear, I am optimistic that this time things would be different. One doesn't have to look further then the U.S. elections, where a message of hope triumphed over a message of fear. In India too, throughout the siege and since, I've heard people use their Facebook status or Twitter messages to express that this is no time for people like Modi. Are these people a majority? I don't know, but I sure see more signs of hope than ever before.
That said, India does need a more competent handling of national security. Intelligence and security would need to be beefed up, and law enforcement agencies would need to train themselves to react to similar situations more rapidly. India would have to use both the carrot and the stick with Pakistan to reduce the incidence of violence originating from across the border. And the Indian Government would need to engage more closely with other countries engaged in combating terrorism, in gathering intelligence and in choking the supply lines of terrorists.
All of this does require a more competent government. And the Indian voter should certainly go to polls with security as an issue on her mind. But it would be a grave mistake to let divisive politics succeed in the name of security.
--
P.S. This post isn't an endorsement for any political party.
P.P.S. Yes, I know, this blog isn't supposed to be about more fun stuff. But I hope you don't mind if I make an occasional exception:) Save to Del.Icio.us Digg This Submit to Reddit Stumble this
Despite having grown up in Delhi, I consider Mumbai to be my home now. My parents moved to the city a few years ago, a few years after I moved there for college. Between college (IIT Powai) and work (McKinsey), I spent a total of 8 years living in Mumbai before moving to the United States four years ago. I used to work in Express Towers, right opposite the Oberoi Hotel, one of the prime targets of the attack. I also remember the trip to India that I and a couple of fellow Indian students organized for almost 100 of our classmates from Harvard Business School. On the Mumbai leg of our trip, we'd stayed at the Taj Mahal, the other major target of the attack; I can't help thinking that if the attacks had happened then, many in my group would have been targeted for holding British or American passports.
Doubtless, many of you have similar close connections to these spots in Mumbai, or know friends who used to enjoy hanging out at Leopold. Many of the readers of this blog doubtless know people who were among the dead or the injured. And almost all of you have surely followed the stories from Mumbai over the last few days, watching the horror unfold, be it through Aaj Tak, CNN or twitter.
Unlike most other terror attacks in the past, we saw the militants openly engaging in combat over a prolonged period of tim. The only previous incidents that come to mind are terror attacks involving the siege of a religious shrine - e.g., the siege of the Akshardham temple in Gujarat in 2002. But the Akshardham siege was widely perceived as a victory for the NSG commandos who managed to diffuse the situation quickly. This time around, defying the expectations of all observers, the reign of terror lasted longer.
Hours after the end of the siege, as Mumbai limps back to normal, one of the big questions on everyone's minds is "what will be the aftermath?" or "how would India and Indians react?". The obvious answers are, well, obvious - some symbolic sacrifices would be made (Union Home Minster Shivraj Patil has already resigned, under presure; and just a few minutes ago Maharashtra's deputy Chief Minister R R Patil has also submitted his resignation); Pakistan would be accused of sponsoring terror; and politicians would engage in grandstanding in the wake of the upcoming elections.
What would be more interesting to see, however, would be the reaction of the common people. Irrational anger against Muslims has often been one of the reactions to such an episode in the past. While many have suggested that the reaction within India could be violent, so far, there have been few expressions of rage. Buses haven't been burnt and provocations for riots are missing. A similar sense of calm prevailed after the Akshardham attacks. Coming a year after the Godhra riots, it would have been natural to expect that violence would break out again. But as this Indian Express article points out, politicians like Narendra Modi did not provoke a similar reactions out of their own interest.
While it's admirable that India hasn't yet given in to irrational rage, what worries this author more is the tendency towards irrational fear. Even though the Akshardham siege did not provoke any violence in the streets, it might have subtly made the case that Hindu fundamentalists were making all along - that the Hindus are a besieged community and that they need to align behind political leaders with similar beliefs. Indeed, Narendra Modi rode to power two months later, with the BJP winning 126 of 182 seats. Irrational fear was as effective as irrational rage in promoting divisive politics.
While a political agenda based on security and anti-terrorism is admirable, too often the proponents of such an agenda have been religious hardliners whose real agenda is uniting one community against the other. General elections in India are due to be held before May 2009, leaving less than 6 months for the dust to settle on the Mumbai attacks. Will Indians repeat the history of Gujarat in 2002, and vote for a religious-right agenda in the guise of national security? Will the majority Hindus allow themselves to be tricked into believing once again that they're beseiged and that their only hope is to align with hardliners?
Such reactions are not unusual, and even the United States has succumbed to an extreme right wing agenda after the 9/11 attacks. Bush won his second term with sufficient popular support despite having taken measures to curb civil liberties (e.g., wire tappings) in the name of national security. "Muslim" became a bad word in America, and it took someone of the stature of Colin Powell to try and put tose ghosts to rest when he addressed the issue squarely in his endorsement of Obama. Fear created the climate in which this kind of politics could succeed and the administration granted itself sweeping powers in the name of ensuring security.
In India, a similar agenda would almost surely involve a reincarnation of the dreaded POTA. Indeed, LK Advani, the leader of the opposition has repeatedly called for the revival of POTA (note: Amnesty International reported in 2006 that even two years after the repeal of the act, the Indian Govt had continued to detain 265-400 suspects under PoTA without trial). It would involve turning a blind eye to the massacre of innocents, just like what happened in the post-Godhra riots.
Despite the precedents in India and abroad for voting on fear, I am optimistic that this time things would be different. One doesn't have to look further then the U.S. elections, where a message of hope triumphed over a message of fear. In India too, throughout the siege and since, I've heard people use their Facebook status or Twitter messages to express that this is no time for people like Modi. Are these people a majority? I don't know, but I sure see more signs of hope than ever before.
That said, India does need a more competent handling of national security. Intelligence and security would need to be beefed up, and law enforcement agencies would need to train themselves to react to similar situations more rapidly. India would have to use both the carrot and the stick with Pakistan to reduce the incidence of violence originating from across the border. And the Indian Government would need to engage more closely with other countries engaged in combating terrorism, in gathering intelligence and in choking the supply lines of terrorists.
All of this does require a more competent government. And the Indian voter should certainly go to polls with security as an issue on her mind. But it would be a grave mistake to let divisive politics succeed in the name of security.
--
P.S. This post isn't an endorsement for any political party.
P.P.S. Yes, I know, this blog isn't supposed to be about more fun stuff. But I hope you don't mind if I make an occasional exception:) Save to Del.Icio.us Digg This Submit to Reddit Stumble this
Mumbai Terror Reaction: Don't equate Homeland Security with the Religious Right: posted by Vijay at 8:52 PM
1 Comments:
thanks. that was very well written.
Post a Comment
<< Home