India's reaction to the mumbai attacks

For the past three weeks, the American media has analyzed and interpreted the Mumbai attacks in the context of global war on terror. While this approach is valid and important, it misses some interesting and potentially important regional perspectives.

Unlike Americans on 9/10/2001, Indians on 11/25/2008 were well-familiar with terrorism on their soil. This year alone, there have been attacks in four major cities. This is the fourth time that Mumbai has been attacked in the past 15 years, and each time the casualties have been as high (or almost) as this time. Indians are so used to terrorism that they distinguish between a variety of different forms of this phenomenon: there is terrorism driven by Naxalites (Maoist rebels), terrorism associated with separatist movements in the Northeast of the country, terrorism by right-wing Hindu groups, terrorism by Muslim groups, terrorism by Kashmiri groups, and then cross-border terrorism attributed to not only Pakistan, but also Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Even when viewed in this context however, the attacks of Mumbai were perceived as highly unusual. As others have already pointed out, they were extraordinarily well-planned, and this was the first time that terrorists had actively sought out foreigners on Indian soil in a high-profile attack. From the Indian standpoint however, the uniqueness of this attack also stems from the fact that it targeted upper-middle-class and affluent Indians. These citizens have seen incomes increase dramatically in the past 20 years and have typically tolerated government inefficiencies by relying on the growing private sector to meet almost every need. In secure homes, air-conditioned cars and new office buildings they successfully separated themselves from the realities of the majority and carved out a protected existence. This event was an awakening of sorts. This group was reminded that it only depends on the government for its security, but inadequate security could threaten its high-growth trajectory by wiping out the world’s confidence in India’s private markets.

This aspect of the attack shaped the events that followed in very interesting ways. Indians of all religions and socio-economic backgrounds have come together in a very public way to voice their frustration with a polarized political system and inadequate security systems. They have also demanded action against Pakistan. Cell-phones, social networking sites, newspaper advertisements, and networks of neighbors and relatives have all been tapped to mobilize people. The rich have heeded the call to action, stepped out of their cars, and marched on the streets with those who take public transportation. Indian Muslims have also participated in this process and vociferously condemned the attacks. Leaders from Muslim groups have refused to allow the bodies of the nine terrorists to be buried in Islamic cemeteries and made it clear that they do not see any religious convictions at the root of these attacks. They too are demanding tougher anti-terrorism laws. This, I believe, has gone against all predictions about the eruptions of Hindu-Muslim violence as was seen in 1993. It has strengthened the conviction that Pakistan is a failed state. The consensus seems to be that it is a failed political system, and not a religion, that may cause this form of terrorism.

The Indian public’s reaction has also shaken up domestic politics. There have been numerous political resignations. Leadership positions have been shuffled to ensure a strong foundation for a new security agency. The so-called right-wing national opposition party – the BJP --- used the few days between the attacks and the state elections to sharpen criticism against the government and tap into the prevailing mood of fear and insecurity. Unfortunately, they probably went too far. The use of scare-tactics and divisive propaganda to tap middle-class vote appears to have back-fired. They lost three out of five states. As a result of these developments it is likely that the left-leaning Congress government will need to act quickly to placate public demand for tighter security systems, but will do this without compromising civil liberties or taking extreme action against Pakistan.

There is much to be learned from this example. The strength of India’s internal diversity and democracy, together with its unique form of religious secularism, appear to not only be fending off a crisis in South Asia but are also proving important insights into alternative ways of dealing with security threats in a democratic society. The American media should not ignore the internal dynamics of Indian democracy. The lessons are relevant in modern-day America as well as the democracy that America is trying to establish in other parts of the world.