Synchronized Bombs Kill Two in Bangalore

In a move “designed to create panic”, at least seven small bombs exploded in Bangalore, earlier today (thanks Janeofalltrades and smallpress):

Bangalore Police Commissioner Shankar Bidri said the seven blasts went off within several minutes of each other at different spots across the city. One woman was killed in an explosion at a bus stop in the city’s Madiwala neighborhood, he said.
Another person died later of his injuries, federal Home Minister Shivraj Patil said.
Bidri said each of the small bombs contained the amount of explosives equal to “one or two grenades” and appeared to have been set off by timers. [AP]

No one has owned the terrorist act, which took aim at the city’s neighborhoods (vs. its companies), as of yet.

The police took pains to say that the city’s famed technology sector did not seem to be targeted, and that the blasts were designed to create panic. The blasts took place in crowded, middle-class neighborhoods. The city has grown rapidly in recent years from a boom in technology outsourcing.
By Indian standards, where several cities have been hit in recent years by large-scale terror attacks, the explosions on Friday were relatively minor. In the last major attack, serial blasts in Jaipur, an historic city and a main tourist hub in western Rajasthan, killed more than 60 people in May. The authorities have said in the past that terror attacks were designed to sow hostility and fear among Indian Muslims and Hindus.

Bangalore city police said it was too early to speculate on who was responsible for the explosions, or the reasons for conducting the attacks. [nyt]

Bangalore was last attacked three years ago, when a professor was murdered at the prestigious IISc:

The December 2005 IISc shooting occurred on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in the Indian city of Bangalore, killing Prof. Munish Chandra Puri of IIT Delhi and injuring four, after two or more unidentified gunmen fired at Puri and others. The state government of Karnataka declared the shooting to be a terrorist attack, making it the first such attack in Bangalore. [viki]

My youngest first cousin, Sajan, called us at 3am to let us know that he was safe; his building had been evacuated and he was shuttled home. I hope you hear similar news from your relatives, as I keep the city, the two victims and the wounded in my thoughts and prayers.

110 thoughts on “Synchronized Bombs Kill Two in Bangalore

  1. I think anyone can be anti-imperialist without invoking jihad and the related fight against infidels. :-)

    I don’t really care about Hindu-Muslim unity. I’m bothered why they left out the Christians/Sikhs/atheists/agnostics out of the picture in the nationalist movement and are concerned only with Hindu-Muslim unity. Anyways that unity did not last long as we now know that we have two solid Muslim states in the neighborhood.

  2. 20 · Jeremiah said

    With the crushing population density of India’s cities, where people live packed cheek-by-jowl, it is ridiculously easy to commit almost “casual” atrocities

    It just struck me that it took less than 24 hours to show that this poster’s comments were devastatingly prescient.

    23 · Populist said

    What’s a few bombs here and there?

    I think after today’s heinous bombings and their likely destructive aftermath, you have your answer.

  3. 98 · RahulD said

    I don’t think that that is true, the concept of Akbar and Asghar Jihads has existed all through Islamic history if I’m not horribly mistaken and the concepts were used a lot. Even in India during Muslim Rule. The “Televageist” analogy is misplaced and most of their “fight back” tactics as illustrated in the “Bible Camp” movies involve using martial arts and sticks…all they need are short shorts and a khakhi Nehru hat and we will have yet another misplaced reactionary response.

    You’re right about the jihads being used throughout history; I should have said that “Military jihad was obsolete by the early twentieth century”. My analogy was with a hypothetical group of Bible thumpers; not the present day ones who focus on the homosexuals (even though they hire gay prostitutes of their own), but ones who urge Christians to kill any non-Christian occupying Christian lands. If said group were to call for a religious war, it would be as ridiculous as Bin Laden’s early comments were perceived.

    “Islam huwa el Hal” (Islam is the solution) was never taken seriously in the last century until Khomeini overthrow Mr. Pahlavi and his Immortals. Didn’t the RSS and VHP also become more prominent in the late 70s?

  4. 101 · Ponniyin Selvan said

    jihad

    There is only one ponniyin selvan sanctioned interpretation of the word ‘jihad,’ isn’t there? How kind of you to clarify, even when it’s patently clear that you aren’t concerned with Hindu-Muslim unity.

    The British policy of divide and rule (e.g. parochial education grants and separate electorates) led nationalist politicians to emphasize Hindu-Muslim unity as a matter of political relevance and survival( which was one of the thorniest issues during the freedom movement; cf. the partition of Bengal, separate electorates, the Muslim league & Hindu Mahasabha — loyalist organizations that wanted to win concessions by exploiting religious fears).

    And I don’t see how Hindu-Muslim unity necessarily implies the exclusion of Sikhs, Christians, and agnostics in the national agenda. Even though it’s pathetic when some Hindus clumsily subsume all other indigenous subcontinental religions within the Indic umbrella and then proceed to conflate them with Hinduism, despite their wildly divergent theologies.

    Anyways that unity did not last long as we now know that we have two solid Muslim states in the neighborhood.

    Which Azad is on the record for opposing.

  5. 95 · Akut said

    Most of that pan-Arabism and nationalism you mention directly resulted from the influence of the rise of the Soviet Union, but religion was always there as a unifying political force.

    Nope, pan-Arabism was the idea of Christian Arabs who created it long before the Soviet Union even existed. They promoted this as a means to resist Ottoman rule, and also to be on equal terms with the Muslim majority. The Ba’ath Party was established by Michel Aflaq, a Christian. The early conflicts with Israel involved the clash of secular pan-Arabism vs. secular Zionism. Both the PLO and PFLP were secular and the latter was founded by a Christian (Dr. George Habash). Nasser and Assad may have been pro-Soviet, but that was for strategic reasons and not ideological. Marxism was never a strong force in the Arab world because even nominal Muslims and Christians wanted nothing to do with atheism. Religion only became prominent after pan-Arabism failed and Islamism succeded (in Iran and Afghanistan), which is why the Muslim Brotherhood was not too popular until the 80s.

    P.S. the above post should have said “Khomeini overthrew” and not “Khomeini overthrow”

  6. One blast was in Narendra Modi’s constituency… Wonder how he is going to respond to this? will be very interesting to see his reaction. I don’t think we have the infrastructure at this point for ensuring either a personalised i.d system or mass CCTV surveillance. What is the way out? I think (without being too P.C.)that the answer should come from the muslim community itself. And some questions need to be asked. A lot of varied groups have grievances in India, but if all of them (even if just a crazy/misguided/radical/all of the above fringe) start bombing public places randomly, there is going to be civil war. We may point accusatory fingers at the IB, CID and other intelligence agencies but truly, theirs is a thankless job. For every successful terrorist action, there must be many, many more which are averted without much publicity. Human int. comes from within the community. And for every terrorist that arises from the community there are 10 others who contribute actively and passively by either aiding and abetting or by simply closing their eyes and ears. Britain has recognised and partially contained this tendency, but our politicians are still too busy consolidating their vote banks. We need to actively encourage and empower modern,educated and secular leaders of the community to take charge. On a very short term, some of the operational bases of a friendly neighborhood agency need to be taken out.

  7. There is only one ponniyin selvan sanctioned interpretation of the word ‘jihad,’ isn’t there? How kind of you to clarify, even when it’s patently clear that you aren’t concerned with Hindu-Muslim unity.

    He-he.. It’s my interpretation of “jihad” that is the problem here. Somehow those who explode bombs are following my interpretation which is so sad compared to the true “meaning” of jihad.. :-)

  8. And it is wrong for me to assume that when Maulana Azad wanted jihad against the Brits, he meant some kind of a spiritual struggle, that is same as “satyagraha” and “non-violence” preached by Gandhi.. My bad.. :-)

  9. 105 · Johnny Valker said

    95 · Akut said
    Most of that pan-Arabism and nationalism you mention directly resulted from the influence of the rise of the Soviet Union, but religion was always there as a unifying political force.
    Nope, pan-Arabism was the idea of Christian Arabs who created it long before the Soviet Union even existed. They promoted this as a means to resist Ottoman rule, and also to be on equal terms with the Muslim majority. The Ba’ath Party was established by Michel Aflaq, a Christian. The early conflicts with Israel involved the clash of secular pan-Arabism vs. secular Zionism. Both the PLO and PFLP were secular and the latter was founded by a Christian (Dr. George Habash). Nasser and Assad may have been pro-Soviet, but that was for strategic reasons and not ideological. Marxism was never a strong force in the Arab world because even nominal Muslims and Christians wanted nothing to do with atheism. Religion only became prominent after pan-Arabism failed and Islamism succeded (in Iran and Afghanistan), which is why the Muslim Brotherhood was not too popular until the 80s. P.S. the above post should have said “Khomeini overthrew” and not “Khomeini overthrow”

    I was responding to this statement of yours: “Remember that secular pan-Arabism and nationalism were far more popular from the 1940s-1970s than any sort of religious movements were.” That is, I was addressing pan-Arabism in the 1940s-1970s, as you wrote. I’ll add that this statement is simply not true: pan-Arabism was popular, yes, but mostly among an elite and educated class. At that same time Islamist movements were in ascendancy as well and, as far as sheer numbers go, were far more popular among the people. The transnational Muslim Brotherhood quickly became the largest political party in Egypt and many other countries.

    As for Nasser and others being “pro-Soviet,” I did not say that and didn’t intend to imply it. My position is that such leaders were inspired by ideological liberation movements, the Bolshevik revolution being among the most prominent and successful at that time. The Islamic political world seems much closer to Fascism (hence my example of their alliance with the Nazis) and imperial colonialism than anything. The Arabization of the Maghreb and the southward Arabization in places like the Sudan, and the resulting slave trade and cultural genocide therein are attest to this.

  10. Are there any commenters who were born in or live in America anymore? The anti-Islam, anti-Pakistan brigade tends to be either DBD or abroad. The “debates” on this thread are barely interesting to this second-genner (but much thanks to Pagal Admi for Debauchery for holding it down. shout-out to Yeti, too).