There are a lot of news clips out there about last week’s Mumbai atrocities but this particular Sky News segment manages to hit a couple of angles particularly well –
- A new-to-me video clip where the train station mob unleashes some old skool justice on the lone surviving terrorist
- Photographer Sebastian D’souza provides the frame-by-frame narrative for how he captured his now famous pictures of the terrorists & repeats his assertion that terminal cops didn’t intervene
- The correspondant recreates the sea-borne attack route used by the terrorists to gain frontdoor access to the hotels
<
p>
Update: Another video – taken from CCTV inside the station – shows the terrorists at work. It also, however, clearly show a couple of cops engaging them and shooting back with a single rifle between them –
50 · Manju said
I don’t think poverty alone is an explanation nor is hatred of freedom and lifestyles, but just to be clear, “dude in versace shirt” is from a family of petty laborers.
50 · Manju said
7/7.
44 · Siut
Fair enough, assuming you’re talking about people in power in Pakistan. Same problem with the U.S. So why a nuclear deal with the U.S. and mimicry of U.S. ideologies and strategic alliances with them, but vehement anti-Pakistani statement from the Indian elite?
The question was something like: “how can such a small country like Pakistan cause so many problems for a big country like India” and my answer was not that the relationship and Pakistan’s actions within that context don’t cause any issues for Indian people, but that it’s not the primary cause. Obviously India and Pakistan’s relationship causes problems for a lot of people in both India and Pakistan (see Kashmir or India-Pakistan arms race)- but really, is it “Pakistan” that is the major issue that is affecting the bulk of the Indian population today and to the extent that the India-Pakistan relationship causes issues for those people, is it Pakistan (whatever that means) that does so, or the relationship?
Further, the question is along the lines of “It’s a simple question – if the moon were made of barbecued spare ribs, would you eat it?”. You would have to look at why Pakistan’s politics and institutions are the way they are – for example, see Ayesha Jalal’s essay on the ways in which the British-American rivalry just after WWII conntributed to the militarization of the Pakistani state or take a look at any of the literature on colonial communal practices (both by the British and indigenous elites) or look at how the U.S. has heavily funded each and every Pakistani military ruler or …After all that, feel free to make a compelling argument that “Pakistan” is the source of the Indian population’s problems.
I’m outtie.
52 · except when they dont said
except i didn’t say they never do. sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. sometimes they’re rich, sometmes htey’re poor. the question is does neoliberalism result in terrorism, and in what way? i’m open to data that shows a correlation, and then we can figure out if its more than just a mere correlation.
and even than its problematic. the civil war and the civil rights movement resulted in an increase of terrorism by one particular us-based group. so what does that mean?
No, I’m arguing that global Islamist terrorism is a minor factor in affecting the material lives of most Indian people unless you look at it in the context of an ever increasing cycle of violence that’s promoted by a narrative that focuses on global Islamist terorrism. It had very little relevance to the Indian context and to the extent that it has increasingly acquired one this is partly (maybe largely) because the Indian government has chosen to place the country in the line of fire by allying with the wrong forces. If the forces are aligning for WWIII or whatever the great conflict is, why is “a large country” like India so actively choosing sides (as opposed to what China is doing). It’s almost as if the Indian elite forgot that 1947 ever happened.
But the first piece is more important. The events in Mumbai were obviously horrific, but did they, by themselves, have as great an effect as the anti-Sikh violence in 1984, the Indian intervention in Sri Lanka, the Gujarat pogroms, the Babri Masjid bombing? No. They’re part of a cycle of mind-numbing, needless, and useless violence that serves no one except people who are interested in, gain power from, or profit off of said cycle. And if we only talk aboutu that cycle, when do we talk about this or this or this?
“After all that, feel free to make a compelling argument that “Pakistan” is the source of the Indian population’s problems.”
i don’t think the american friend was referring to all of India’s problems when she said problems. “in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks” — and with evidence emerging that links those attackers to some elements in Pakistan — she is obviously referring to those periodic attacks on India that have been linked to an external country (whether its govt. or elements within the country) and is referring to those “problems” or attacks. she could hardly be thinking that Pakistan is responsible for India’s “homosexuality is illegal”, “casteism” or “gender inequality” problems.
51 · Rahul said
ok, but he appears to have grown up in pakistan. hardly seems like his poverty can be attributed to the affects of neo-liberalism, globalization, etc.
Ah OK. I did briefly think that you meant what Harbeer said, but a Google search for “77 bottom economy” and related queries didn’t give me relevant hits, and also I didn’t think it was that high.
11 · Harbeer said
I don’t quite by this argument. I am from Kenya, which was also another colony of Britain and the cops in Nairobi are armed with fully loaded AK47’s. Granted, the crime rate in Mumbai may not be as high as Nairobi’s, but Kenya has managed to retaliate against former threats from it’s neighbors like Somalia and Kenya.
I must say, Indian policemen are very restrained. If that terrorist had been caught on the streets of Nairobi, he’d be dead in exactly 5 minutes (with or without guns).
Can someone tell me (a non-indian) what the shiv sena and bal thackeray are all about?
I wasn’t saying that it was. And I don’t want to speak for Dr. A, but I didn’t read his comment that way, either.
58 · pingpong said
The bottom economy really started picking up only in the 80s.
oops… I meant former threats from it’s neighbors like Somalia and Uganda (not Kenya!)
48 · top said
I want to high-five you but you’ll have to wipe that lube off your fingers first. Please.
Well, one argument that I’ve seen is that neolberalism means that elites in various countries have to construct a politics of mobilizing people to support the government in ways that appeal less to their bread and butter issues than to other things (i.e. “identity”). This means, as we have seen, that people will be mobilized to support Christian fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, etc. At the same time, you have massive cultural, psychological, and economic dislocation (at least partly related to this) combined with the basic fact that, separate from economic ideology, the ability of relatively small numbers of people to cause immense amounts of violence is possible now because smaller concentrations of wealth and people can now acquire and use more massive destructive capabilities. Add water, and stir.
But I think this has a lot of places where it can be challenged.
i don’t know what you’re talking about. the trade off between displaced workers and increasing wealth thru globalization, industrialization, modernization is talked about all the time. but i suppose the reason we don’t talk about it in connection to islamic terrorism is because those specific displaced people aren’t committing the terrorist acts in question.
though i suppose if they were it would make your argument more plausible.
60 · Rahul said
yeah, i agree on both points. what i was sying is this would be the best way to substantiate dr. a’s theory. but at this point there appears to be a vague correlation and best, or wishful thinking at worst…ie hoping ones own grievances with india turn out to lead to terrorism as well, thus giving us a bonus reason for addressing said grievances.
Could India implement what Israel has? That all citizens, male and female, must by law undergo two years of military training? Probably not. Israel is a much smaller country, both geographically and population-wise, than India. However, how about creating camps all over the country where men and women come to learn martial arts and gun use and every village, town and state will create their own security teams, properly trained and funded. Of course, come to think of it, this could actually exacberate the problem. Sigh. What IS the solution?
58 · pingpong said
I think the first serious recognition of the importance of the bottom economy to the world was in 1978 (by a desi!), and it naturally took a few years before activity really perked up.
In a South Asian diaspora context? Show me where, outside of academic literature and left writing, there’s discussion of the specifics and context of it that goes beyond the usual Thomas Friedman-India Shining-blah blah blah.
Which again raises the question – if we’re talking about India – why are we talking about ‘Islamic terrorism’ as a major issue as opposed to any number of other things, some of which I mentioned above (like massive poverty or gender violence)? What process decided this and why? Why is THIS particular attack the focus of so much attention? And who does it help and how to focus on it so much?
I would agree here. There are a couple of issues that revolve around resources provided to police forces to take on such threats –
1) How often do policemen that carry weapons train with their side arms/rifles? How often do they qualify? To what standards? 2) Are adequate resources devoted to maintainence of such weapons (if they aren’t being used as often, they’re probably not being cleaned as often). 3) Weaker caliber handguns/revolvers and .303 Enfield rifles aren’t really suitable to take on a gunmen armed with AK-47s and grenades. 4) Did they even have enough ammo to take on those guys?
67 · Mystic River said
Kurosawa goes to Bollywood, I like it!
neo-liberlism has been addresing this, not just friendman, but also sachs and krugman. how is the massive poverty india suffered due to colonialsm and socialism not a major issue? also, neo-liberalim has started to address gender equality and casteism. but i guess your real gripe is why aren’t these issues being addressed in terms comfortable to your left-leaning ideology. i guess b/c leftists had their day for about a half a century. so, time for new ideology.
you ask who this helps. i can only say maybe that’s why your frustrated. every debate gets reduced to motive so there’s no real debate, just meta-debate since the opposition is not really being genuine in your formulation. this is one of the reasons Marxism died. they never really debated. they phrased thing just to reinforce their own ideology.
5 · Thamizhan said
It’s probably a matter of Islam vs. Hinduism. On one hand, you have a religion that rewards its followers with heavenly delights for killing infidels. On the other hand is a religion that says you will get reincarnated as a lower life form if you’re a bad person.
If you examine the Islamic invasions of India, you’ll find that the only thing that took down the various Islamic kingdoms was invasion by other Islamic kingdoms (and the British, of course).
73 · AryanMonkey said
Enter, stage left: Idiot comments.
Harbeer:
The term isn’t “lube”, it’s “santorum”.
Meh, been there, done that. Seven Samurai ==> Sholay. The only reason why seven was reduced to two is that 7 heroes would have required 7 songs, plus one or two group songs, plus multiple heroines dancing in Gabbar Singh’s den, and 3 hours is not enough for all that.
75 · pingpong said
Done!
What you said:
What I said:
Most of the time when I say in response to you that you’re not being genuine, it’s because I think you’re not. I don’t say that to everyone – really just to you, because it’s a pattern. I think you deliberately misunderstood my two separate arguments – 1) that neoliberalism (among other things) is more a root cause of the issues affecting ordinary indians today than Islamic terrorism or “Pakistan” and 2) that there’s a politics (anbd economics) to why the 2nd question is focused on but not the first. On the other hand, I might be wrong and it wasn’t deliberate, in which case, I’m not really sure what to say. You enjoy sophistry more than I do? Anyway, I’m not having much fun anymore so I’m going to take my toys and go home. Bye!
53 · Dr Amonymous said
Nobody is trying to argue that Pakistan is the major issue “that is affecting the bulk of the Indian population today” or that it “is the source of the Indian population’s problems.” Not even these elites you speak of can get away with that (except when it is an issue like now) and to even pose the question as such seems to be a red herring. But Pakistan is a major issue, not just in the context of its relationship with India. Pakistan itself is a major issue, and India is not Pakistan’s only neighbor that would claim that.
The AQ Khan network illustrates this perfectly. They had branch offices in Dubai, Malaysia, Germany, US, UK, Tripoli, Tehran, Baghdad and Pyongyang. Billions in foreign aid disappeared. Government wrongdoings up to the very highest levels can be seen in this case, and then after all that, why is this man considered a national hero? To even the most clueless of the outside world, that points to awfully big internal problems, on both an elite and more common level. Other examples that outsiders wonder about is why Dawood Ibrahim is sheltered or why they see thousands protesting reform of the Hudood Ordinance or why somebody like Mufti Munib ur Rehman is allowed a prominent podium. Colonial grievances cannot justify all of this in perpetuum.
Pakistan is not the problem, but it has problems. Every country has them. For obvious reasons, India is particularly concerned with Pakistan’s right now.
That was some frightening leg work – square dancing samurai. Is that bollywood’s version of 7 brides for 7 brothers?
Rahul said:
Please excuse the diversion here – Your comment about the poorly paid police in Mumbai rings similar to the story told in the Radio Diaries documentary about the ’68 Student Demonstrations in Mexico. When the students were being advanced upon by the armed police force, the only weapon the students had were large coins so they threw them. All the policemen stopped to pick up the coins. You might be interested in hearing this.
For a city like Mumbai not to have a well-equipped/decently-paid police force is surprising. Forgive this woefully ignorant question – what is the taxation system like in Mumbai? All that industry and wealth and none of it is making its way down to the people who are charged with protecting the city and its citizens?
I agree with what Siut says in #78, as a response to Dr. A. The bigger issue is “Why does Pakistan always keep comparing itself to India, on so many fronts. If they just look at fixing their own internal problems and trying to make themselves a great nation, things would be fine. But ever since the time of Jinnah, they have always forced themselves in a race with India – which no one asked them to. This is the classic case (imo) where the saying “Keeping up with the Joneses” fits so well.
And let on not forget about their oppression of majority of their own people (I am talking pre-1971 West Pak control on East Pakistan).
Thanks for posting this. I put a link on this to my website: http://www.phillygrrl.wordpress.com
So what is the long-term impact on Mumbaites and Indians in general. In the last 10 years, Indians have come out of their shell, gained confidence and gotten more worldly. Will this incident make them more agressive or less? Will they take their lives less seriously, unafraid of failures and risks or will they get scared at the first sight of a versace wearing urdu speaking young one?
I just hope the people on this website realize the biggest impact they can make is by making political contributons to US Congress or US-India Pacs.
What interesting times we live in.
This brings back memories of a train trip a undertook with a few friends when we thrashed a pickpocket at a railway station before handling him to the railway police.
well, i’ll just have to see for myself, won’t i?
One of the reasons could be the difference between horror and terror.
“It is far more difficult to tell a story of terror – that which excites dread and awe – than a story of horror – that which merely causes alarm and loathing … Horror is always aware of its cause; terror never is. That is precisely what makes terror terrifying”. (Isherwood introducing Robert Graves’s ‘The shout’ – Great English Short Stories – Page 267)
Any number of other things that we hate – casteism, gender violence, displacement, neo-liberalism, socialism, wealth concentration, communism, free markets – are primarily horrifying, even at their worst. We are mostly aware of their causes. There are frameworks and tools to navigate through them, however imperfect and incomplete.
If we admit – I personally do – that one of the primary motivations of jihadi terrorists is their version of a religious faith that glorifies butchering infidel strangers either for the cause of expanding Dar al-Islam or for a fantastic afterlife, I don’t think I have any awareness of that cause, or any idea about how to deal with the suffering such a belief can cause.
i desperately hope this is a joke.
you have to be in an ideological shell to ask such a question. isn’t the answer obvious? terrorism is focused on as a problem because its universally recognized as one, whereas neo-liberalism as a problem is at a minimum a highly debatable construction. you have a habit of treating debatable opinioons as fact, then attempt to construct a conversation only possible if one accepts your premises as truth.
reverse it. after oklahoma city bill bennett asks why we focus on that act, when big government and social welfarism do so much more harm. can you see the ideological cacoon here? then he wonders if the liberal media does this deliberately and who gains from focusing on timmmy mcveigh.
its a very narrow conversation, isn’t it? in fact, its not really a conversation at all.
87 · yeti said
No, it’s not. Vigilante justice isn’t funny, ever.
ha ha
Unless you’re beating up a clown, of course.
I dont see the issue with vigilante justice – much better than waiting for ages for a conviction that never comes. Quick and dirty method. Not needed in the West but certainly in India a very good idea.
Jane, I saw someone on CNN International ask that question, and I have an answer. Look here to see how many names Dawood Ibrahim has. It’s part of how they operate.
“The United Nations maintains the following file on Dawood as an ‘associate’ of Al Qaeda:
QI.K.135.03. *Name: 1: DAWOOD 2: IBRAHIM 3: KASKAR 4: na
Title: a) Sheikh b) Shaikh Designation: na DOB: 26 Dec. 1955 POB: a) Bombai b) Ratnagiri, India *Good quality a.k.a.: a) Dawood Ebrahim b) Sheikh Dawood Hassan c) Abdul Hamid Abdul Aziz d) Anis Ibrahim e) Aziz Dilip f) Daud Hasan Shaikh Ibrahim Kaskar g) Daud Ibrahim Memon Kaskar h) Dawood Hasan Ibrahim Kaskar i) Dawood Ibrahim Memon j) Dawood Sabri k) Kaskar Dawood Hasan1) Shaikh Mohd Ismail Abdul Rehman m) Dowood Hassan Shaikh Ibrahim Low quality a.k.a.: a) Ibrahim Shaikh Mohd Anis, b) Shaikh Ismail Abdul c) Hizrat *Nationality: Indian Passport no.: a) Indian passport number A-333602 issued on 4 Jun. 1985 in Bombay, India (passport subsequently revoked by the Government of India) b) Indian passport number M110522 issued on 13 Nov. 1978 in Bombay c) Indian passport number R841697 issued on 26 Nov. 1981 in Bombay d) Indian passport number F823692 (JEDDAH) issued by CGI in Jeddah on 2 Sep. 1989 e) Indian passport number A501801 (BOMBAY) issued on 26 Jul. 1985 f) Indian passport number K560098 (BOMBAY) issued on 30 Jul. 1975 g) passport number V57865 (BOMBAY) issued on 3 Oct. 1983 h) passport number P537849 (BOMBAY) issued on 30 Jul. 1979 i) passport number A717288 (MISUSE) issued on 18 Aug. 1985 in Dubai j) Pakistani passport number G866537 (MISUSE) issued on 12 Aug. 1991 in Rawalpindi National identification no.: na Address: a) Karachi / Pakistan, White House, Near Saudi Mosque, Clifton b) House Nu 37 – 30th Street – defence, Housing Authority Karachi Pakistan *Listed on: 3 Nov. 2003 (amended on 21 Mar. 2006, 25 Jul. 2006 and 2 Jul. 2007) *Other information: International arrest warrant issued by the Government of India.”
Why are we talking about Islamic terrorism? Maybe because they are actively trying to kill people and threatening the territorial integrity of the nation? Sticking one’s head in the sand never really makes problems go away. And in your world people don’t talk about India’s poverty or gender norms or communal violence? checks ever huge Sepia Mutiny thread ever Yea. . . I really don’t get what you’re talking about.
A national government needs to be able to chew gum and walk at the same time. You can develop your economy, reform your culture, AND guarantee the physical security of your citizenry all at the same time! In fact, those things usually go together. It’s amazing innit?
This being a comments-based discussion, I find that many posters are forced to sound a bit simplistic about the problem.
Here’s another attempt to understand what has been going wrong:
1.Partition was a mistake.And the people responsible are the Brits, Gandhi-Nehru, and Jinna in that order. 2.The Kashmir issue – Nehru made a few blunders. 3.India’s alignment with USSR and consequent US support to Pakistan – Again, Nehru and some of his left-leaning cabinet members 4.Pakistan alternating between democracy and military dictatorship – Thanks to US and China who are more comfortable dealing with a single dictator than with the will of people of Pakistan. 5.Setting up of Taliban (and other Jihadi groups) in Pakistan to counter the Russian-occupation of Afghanistan – the US, and the tin-pot dictators of Pakistan; funded by Saudi Arabia.
The rest is recent history.”The chicken are coming to roost now” (Mushahid Hussain, Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Pakistan)
Why has India failed to counter the problems created by Pakistan?
1.Congress (Nehru) ineptitude in the early years; lack of clarity, and integrity in dealing with Kashmir. 2.Too much of analysis about conventional war and failure to understand the nature of ‘war of thousand cuts’. 3.A political, administrative and civic culture that encourages corruption at all levels of the society 4.A constitution that encourages VOTE BANK politics – resulting in a despicable and disgusting political class which is in a nexus with the criminals and forcing the Police and Intelligence agencies to do their bidding. 5.Total apathy of the middle class towards the political process
Ok..there are other reasons as well, but I think these are the important ones.
Inspite of all these, India has still managed to stay together, largely stable, free media (though they misuse it a lot!), reasonable economic success, and has sent millions of its educated citizens to the West, who are among the more successful diaspora out there.
Not an utter failure like Pakistan or Bangladesh; a middling success, may be? But sadly, the most important duty of the Indian Govt (as seen by Indian citizens at least) is to ensure law and order so that people can go about their lives peacefully, and survive and grow.
Successive Indian Govts (especially the NDA and UPA regimes) have failed miserably on this account. The Nation is desperate for a change in the political culture and is looking to the middle class to rise up and clean the mess. The middle class is blogging away to glory 🙂
Link to Arun Shourie’s article – a must read.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/surprised/392625/1
5 · Thamizhan said
Victimised by its much smaller neighbours? Please do go and learn about how India armed, trained and financed the LTTE. In other words, India is responsible for many bomb attacks, bus bombs, assasinations and massacres of civilians in Sri Lanka but keeps pointing fingers at Pakistan. Karunanidhi, a politicians from Tamil Nadu, is part of the current Indian government and continues to openly support the LTTE. India may be a victim, certainly, but she is also a perpetrator of violence and cross border terrorism. It’s pretty deceptive to paint India in lily white tones.
Is kayastha_lady the Lindbergh baby?
manju, your zen-fu is masterful. dr. marxism-barbie, i haven’t read more than a sentence in any of your commments, nary a sufficient lack of contempt nor the zen-fu, so try to learn while you can from zen masters as Manju.
Tamil Nadu =/= India.
In fact, the government of India would face some serious problems in the long-term if the LTTE’s Tamil Nationalism came to Indian shores any more than it already has. Like India doesn’t have enough secessionists and insurrections running around.