Video clips as a train station mob unleashes some old skool justice on the lone surviving terrorist

While this was one of the terrorists who was at the train station, this wasn't the train station mob. Those are cops beating up the terrorist after their Skoda had been stopped at a roadblock in Girgaum. The WSJ has an excellent, and chilling, account of the attacks here, and it describes how the terrorist was captured.

In the alley, the state of Maharashtra's antiterrorism chief, Hemant Karkare, sat in a police SUV packed with fellow officers, trying to coordinate a response to the mayhem engulfing the city. Creeping up, the two militants sprayed the vehicle with gunfire.

The officers appear to have died before any of them had a chance to fire back. The wall and metal blinds behind the van's spot are riddled with bullets. Not a single bullet mark could be seen by a reporter in the area from which the terrorists fired.

Dumping three of the officers' bodies on the ground and taking the others with them, the two militants jumped into the SUV and sped towards the Metro Big Cinemas multiplex. As they passed a crowd of journalists and onlookers, the SUV slowed down, a gun barrel emerged from the window, and bullets started to fly. Then, the vehicle sped on, with another police vehicle in hot pursuit. At one point, the gunmen ditched the SUV and hijacked a Skoda, police said, cruising through southern Mumbai -- possibly looking for an escape route. Two hours later, they ran into a large police roadblock erected on a key road leading out of south Mumbai, at Chowpatty Beach.

Skidding to a halt 30 feet away from the roadblock, the Skoda's driver blinded the police with high beams and, flipping wipers, began spraying fluid on the windshield so that officers couldn't see into the car, said sub-inspector Bhaskar Kadam, one of the officers manning the roadblock.

The three policemen armed with guns drew them. The nine others waved their bamboo sticks. Revving the engine, the car tried to U-turn but got stuck on the median. The man in the passenger seat rolled out and started shooting, killing one officer and wounding another. The surviving baton-wielding officers jumped on him, knocking him unconscious. Policemen with guns shot the driver dead.

This pair's killing spree was over. Police later identified the gunman taken alive as Mr. Qasab, from the Punjab region of Pakistan, who they say is providing details of the plot.

repeats his assertion that terminal cops didn’t intervene

First of all, I don't know how much credence I give this guy. The anecdote I read has him telling us how brave he was to take the photographs even as the terrorists might have seen him, how he saved lives by running to passengers in other trains and asking them to stay inside, and how he would have done things differently if he had had a gun. Even if it is all true (which is definitely possible), I am still sympathetic to the cops who are armed with WW1 era single shot Lee Enfields, if not just lathis, and are hardly paid enough to walk into certain death. Their training is at best good enough to preserve law and order in a gang fight.

this is nauseating. i don't want to watch someone get beaten down by a mob even if he has committed an atrocious act. that's not justice and it's not satisfying. it's voyeuristic and disgusting.

(the rest of the clip sounds like it might be interesting)

2 · yeti said

this is nauseating. i don't want to watch someone get beaten down by a mob even if he has committed an atrocious act.

As I said in my comment #1, this was not a mob. This was the cops having to subdue him after he shot at them, and they only had lathis.

In the wake of Mumbai attacks, an American friend asked "How can such a small country like Pakistan cause so much trouble for a big country like India?"

I replied we were divided among ourselves with different "tribes", religions, mutual suspicion between Hindus & Muslims, and the China factor. But these reasons sounded hollow given that India has far more population than Pakistan (even its Muslims outnumber Pakistan's population). To her, it looks as if India as a country is allowing these to happen on purpose instead of implementing security measures. She knows US has geographical advantage (two seas on either side) but is still wondering how a "strong" country can be bullied by a weaker country for so long.

Terrorism may have no country but if our leaders are pointing to Pakistan then why is this not being handled? I am puzzled now at why no concrete steps are being taken to protect the citizens. And even more puzzled at why some people are intent on blaming either Hindus or Muslims instead of catching the "bad" guys? Does it matter if the bad guys are Hindus or Muslims? I read about people being P-Sec or Fundamentalist, to me both seem to be birds of the same flock. Both value their ideology much more than simple common sense, truth, and human life.

But even America has its own internal divisions, so we again return to the question: Why is India unable to retaliate against threats from a small country like Pakistan? Why does it appear to be victimized by its much smaller neighbors? Why is it bought to a standstill by a small group repeatedly?

yeah, i read that just now. police beatings aren't much better than mob beatings. I'm not saying it wasn't bound to happen, but not something I dig watching in any case.

6 · yeti said

police beatings aren't much better than mob beatings

I agree that watching it is distasteful. However, the cops' behavior is mostly expected given that these guys had massacred so many people, and also had shot at the cops themselves, with some of the cops only having lathis to defend themselves (aside: which, in retrospect, meant that this guy was at least captured alive).

this is nauseating. i don't want to watch someone get beaten down by a mob even if he has committed an atrocious act. that's not justice and it's not satisfying. it's voyeuristic and disgusting.

I haven't seen the clip yet but I think it's the least he deserves...and I'm glad the rest of his life will be pure misery. Which unfortunately doesn't undo events or bring back the dead to their families.

"Even if it is all true (which is definitely possible), I am still sympathetic to the cops who are armed with WW1 era single shot Lee Enfields, if not just lathis, and are hardly paid enough to walk into certain death. Their training is at best good enough to preserve law and order in a gang fight."

on indian tv they said that some of the train station policemen ran away after their ancient guns jammed. saw a clip of at least one policeman trying to shoot back at the terrorists until his gun jammed and then he ran away. so perhaps not all the cops were apathetic. but they were certainly ill-equipped to deal with the attackers.

it's much better than what our napumsak PM will ever do. maybe he wil lose ome sleep over ISI chief's snub.

5 · Thamizhan said

Why is India unable to retaliate against threats from a small country like Pakistan? Why does it appear to be victimized by its much smaller neighbors? Why is it bought to a standstill by a small group repeatedly?

One important difference between India and the US that's missing from your analysis is the much more recently won independence from Britain. By no stretch am I claiming that colonialism is the sole cause of India's "inability to deal," but it is a factor and important distinction when comparing the first world to the third.

"How can such a small country like Pakistan cause so much trouble for a big country like India?"

I think it has more to do with democratic vs dictatorship than big vs small.

The notion that the terminal cops didn't intervene is incorrect. They tried to intervene, but they encountered heavy fire from the terrorists with AK-47s. I read somewhere that the ratio of policemen to citizens in India is 265:100,000. These guys are understaffed, underfunded and untrained. As sad as last week's incident was, I'm surprised that this doesn't happen more frequently, given the obvious lack of security preparedness and intelligence cover in India.

If you see the videos of Hemant Karkare, just an hour before he was shot dead, he was wearing a bulky, soft, bullet-proof armor (which does not defend against AK-47s) that left a large part of his chest exposed, and a clanky old helmet which did not even go over his ears, even as he was walking towards a scene of one of the incidents. If that was the equipment and preparation of the ATS chief, one can only imagine what the rank and file gets. I read an article somewhere that said that the average policeman fires his gun only 10 times during training, and that people pay to get posted out of some of the special ATS units because there is more money to be made under the table as a regular cop. I don't know the veracity of these stats, but they do paint a bleak picture of preparedness.

#11

What has independence have to do with the way we react to the bad guys?? I see Indian politicians react by either protecting or blaming the "bad guy's" co-religionists or blaming Pakistan.

#12

expand pls.

is #2 kayastha_lady?

this is nauseating. i don't want to watch someone get beaten down by a mob even if he has committed an atrocious act. that's not justice and it's not satisfying

Real justice would have been to talk to him and understand the "real" reason these guys were commiting these atrocious act. I bet that his moter did not hug him enough or the majority just oppressed him and his kind.

I have to confess that this neandarthal watched the clip multiple times and was told by my colleagues that I had a big smile when the clip was running.

no, i am definitely not kayastha_lady and I am definitely not trying to use this opportunity to rant. Hence the short comments. relax.

17 · Nara said

Real justice would have been to talk to him and understand the "real" reason these guys were commiting these atrocious act.

Apparently, the only alternatives available are lynching and counseling. Who knew?

Real justice would have been to talk to him and understand the "real" reason these guys were commiting these atrocious act. I bet that his mother did not hug him enough or the majority just oppressed him and his kind.

Yes, clearly what I was implying. Kudos.

I'm not a pacifist. I box and train in another full-contact martial art, and I come from a long line of batshit-crazy non-pacifist Marathis, and I have a healthy respect for martial cultures, combat, etcetera. I love Frantz Fanon and Bhagat Singh and all kinds of gun-toting types. I also drink beer and grunt whenever possible.

I'm the last guy who's going to claim that we all need to hug each other and get along in all situations.

So, with my obnoxious macho credentials established (because I know that's what gets the attention of some people), can a brother express his discomfort with the spectacle of violence? And that a beating doesn't make me feel any better about the attacks or about the people that died, or about the circumstances that caused it, or the pain people are feeling? Why do we revel in this stuff? Why do we salivate at the prospect of revenge and surround ourselves with images of carnage and violence to make ourselves feel better? It doesn't fix anything, just works us up into the kind of frenzy that leads to more killing, more innocent death, and more nihilism.

18 · yeti saidno, i am definitely not kayastha_lady and I am definitely not trying to use this opportunity to rant. Hence the short comments. relax.

In a strictly ethical, virtuous world I would be inclined to agree with you. Mob violence and police brutality does suck and a police office who holds the mob back and says "This man is entitled to a trial" would get heaps of praise from me.

But, this being the Kali Yuga, I must admit that I do derive some satisfaction out of watching the terrorist get his deserts and I cannot guarantee that I would not have done the same were I in the officer's position.

15 · Thamizhan said

What has independence have to do with the way we react to the bad guys?? I see Indian politicians react by either protecting or blaming the "bad guy's" co-religionists or blaming Pakistan.

"Independence," per se, has nothing to do with it, but colonialism and the political institutions left by the British have a lot to do with the relationship between India and Pakistan. Again, I'm not saying that this particular history has everything to do with the current conflict, but you can't compare the United States to India without factoring India's relatively recent colonial influences into your comparison.

22 · Harbeer said

15 · Thamizhan said

What has independence have to do with the way we react to the bad guys?? I see Indian politicians react by either protecting or blaming the "bad guy's" co-religionists or blaming Pakistan.

"Independence," per se, has nothing to do with it, but colonialism and the political institutions left by the British have a lot to do with the relationship between India and Pakistan. Again, I'm not saying that this particular history has everything to do with the current conflict, but you can't compare the United States to India without factoring India's relatively recent colonial influences into your comparison.

America had the good sense to replace its colonial institutions by drafting a new Constitution within a decade of independence.
India is still going with the same atrocious piece of crap they authored 60+ years ago that basically just managed to modify the British Raj to put brown people in charge.

If we had any sense we would have actually gone back to first principles and built a nation rather than spent 60 years squabbling over which groups deserve to right to fleece the Indian masses now that the British are gone?

I have no problem with the mofo getting tortured. While I am against torturing suspects, I have no problem with whatever they do with people caught in the act. I am just glad he is alive because of all the terrorists, he seems more likely to squeal with his criminal background. I doubt if he really found "religion". It seems more like a way to garner respect in his community.

It does show how pathetic Mumbai's law enforcement is despite the many attacks in the past. I do not know who is in power now. But all those Shiv Sena/BJP types like to talk tough against muslims when they do not have to risk their lives. But they have no problem using force of the mob against innocent Muslims or anti-traditional Hindus in their petty movements. But did you see a single Shiv Sena contingent try to enforce vigilante justice and run to one of the spots where terrorists were in action? I bet they were scared and were content to talk tough behind the scenes. We all know Congress is another gutless party in both word and action. That PM is scared of a freaking Sonia Gandhi. Can one expect him to be a man against terrorists?

I hope this doesn't mean India will start adopting ridiculously overdone security measures at airports and train stations when all that was needed was some common sense security measures to quell the violence. The freaking water/land border was unmanned despite many instances of the mob using it in the past for their illegal activities. Cops lack the courage and the weapons to control two measly gunmen in a train station. What if the mob decide to attack banks? What if a madman went superloco and started firing at crowds just because? Who will be there to stop him?

It is hilarious how the media makes it out to be some supersophisticated operation. What is sophisticated about basic scouting of a hotel? 3 of you join with me and give me a few months time, and I too can easily replicate this terror if I lose my conscience and sanity. Hell, I can do it here in the US itself. What will be different in the US is that law enforcement would limit the damage making it less exciting of an event for future terrorists.

But all those Shiv Sena/BJP types like to talk tough against muslims when they do not have to risk their lives.

Well, it was really nice of Bal and Raj Thackeray to be so generous as to let commandos from all over India, even Bihar and UP, into Mumbai to fight against terrorists.

This somehow looks relevant here.

5 · Thamizhan said

Terrorism may have no country but if our leaders are pointing to Pakistan then why is this not being handled? I am puzzled now at why no concrete steps are being taken to protect the citizens. And even more puzzled at why some people are intent on blaming either Hindus or Muslims instead of catching the "bad" guys? Does it matter if the bad guys are Hindus or Muslims? I read about people being P-Sec or Fundamentalist, to me both seem to be birds of the same flock. Both value their ideology much more than simple common sense, truth, and human life.

Some people are probably vindictive in singling out the religious component of this incident, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter if the "bad guys" are Hindus or Muslims. It does matter. It matters because it is a piece of the puzzle. Terrorism may not have a country, but there is a network of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that runs through several countries and it has been very adaptive and flexible, taking in adherents from all different economic, educational and ethnic backgrounds. A lot of trails do seem to lead back to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf and of course Pakistan, and a common thread seems to be a shared belief in expansionist, religious demagoguery. It would be naive to think Pakistan alone is the problem, or even that it's the ISI that is the problem. Take away the ISI today and you still have much of what enables the ISI today. The problem runs deep and it is both local and international, from madrasas to the imperial ambitions of their local and Gulf financiers. People are intent on blaming Muslims because they see a clear pattern has emerged over the years, but that blame may not help. The word "blame" doesn't seem right. Accountability is what's needed. The government does need to take concrete steps.

I'm a little confused with the information between all the media outlets. I've read two different names so far for the surviving terrorist and several accounts of how he was captured in a car with a gunshot wound. So who was this one in the station?

28 · Janeofalltrades said

several accounts of how he was captured in a car with a gunshot wound. So who was this one in the station?

Same guy. Two terrorists from VT -> Cama -> Commandeer police Qualis after shooting down top cops -> Commandeer Skoda after Qualis tires were shot out -> Stopped at Girgaum roadblock.

So who was this one in the station?

Also, this one was NOT in the station. Vinod should really change the title and text of the post.

I'm a little confused with the information between all the media outlets. I've read two different names so far for the surviving terrorist and several accounts of how he was captured in a car with a gunshot wound. So who was this one in the station?

Me too. I have got two different names and one report says one name was mistakenly reported. I'd wait for a few days to get a clearer picture. Sometimes, I think media just runs with whatever stories it has, not necessarily the truth.

25 · Rahul said

Well, it was really nice of Bal and Raj Thackeray to be so generous as to let commandos from all over India, even Bihar and UP, into Mumbai to fight against terrorists.

Heh, it does seem like a pattern with these loudmouthed bozos. When it is time to get tough with Islamic terrorists, they wilt. How embarrassing was that Kandahar hijacking incident? They let those two guys free without doing anything. What about injecting them with some slow acting poison when they were unaware? Or give them HIV via an injection before freeing them? Even the Gujarat riots were an example of Hindu fanatics going after defenseless Muslims. Why won't the Shiv Sena types use mob violence to go after a portion of Dawood Ibrahim's network? Because they are too freaking scared. They know that network will retaliate. They just like to talk and are just as gutless as the cops in the train station.

31 · Ponniyin Selvan said

I'd wait for a few days to get a clearer picture. Sometimes, I think media just runs with whatever stories it has, not necessarily the truth.

The mass of stories during the attack was very confusing, and some were contradictory, but the comprehensive WSJ report that I linked to in #1 is pretty solid, and consistent with most reasonable reports of individual incidents.

In the wake of Mumbai attacks, an American friend asked "How can such a small country like Pakistan cause so much trouble for a big country like India?"

I replied we were divided among ourselves with different "tribes", religions, mutual suspicion between Hindus & Muslims, and the China factor.

Why didn't you reply that it more or less doesn't, though it does provide a very convenient excuse for many things like militarism and anti-Muslim violence and police abuses and not treating migrants well and not improving the lot of the 77% of people economically at the bottom (Hindu, dalit, Muslim, Christian, whoever, male, female, child, etc.)?

It also provides a diversion from the fact that it's India's alliance with the U.S. that is more a source of problems and its explicit and gradual embrace of neoliberal ideology since 1991 that accounts for it not being able to control @15-20% of the country's land because of Maoism and other uprisings. And by "not control" I mean, "no-go" for the army.

And finally, why talk about casteism or gender violence or homosexuality being illegal when you can just complain about Pakistan? Seem overly convenient no?

yeti:

So, with my obnoxious macho credentials established (because I know that's what gets the attention of some people), can a brother express his discomfort with the spectacle of violence? And that a beating doesn't make me feel any better about the attacks or about the people that died, or about the circumstances that caused it, or the pain people are feeling? Why do we revel in this stuff? Why do we salivate at the prospect of revenge and surround ourselves with images of carnage and violence to make ourselves feel better? It doesn't fix anything, just works us up into the kind of frenzy that leads to more killing, more innocent death, and more nihilism.

Please do, though I hope I don't have to embrace the masculinism to do so-- I would be happier wearing designer women's fashion and high heels and openly feeling angry at purposeless and useless violence than pretending that I had to act like a butch straight guy regardless of my feelings on the issue.

Anyway, I agree with you that the celebration of violence is exactly the problem, and this needs to stop now. Not tomorrow. Now. Where is the discussion of what physical force is and how it is used and, much more frequently, abused? i.e. where are the grown ups?

24 · Pravin said

Cops lack the courage and the weapons to control two measly gunmen in a train station. What if the mob decide to attack banks?

Aww, I think it's cute how you think the cops and robbers are distinct entities.

It also provides a diversion from the fact that it's India's alliance with the U.S. that is more a source of problems and its explicit and gradual embrace of neoliberal ideology since 1991 that accounts for it not being able to control @15-20% of the country's land because of Maoism and other uprisings. And by "not control" I mean, "no-go" for the army.

1) There was terrorism before 1991, so it has nothing to do with neo-liberal ideology.

2) There was Maoism before 1991 too.

3) The bottom 77% doesn't exist in the state of Kerala: there has been a comprehensive land-reform (of the Marxist/Zimbabwe kind), everyone is literate, 70% are graduates, there is gender equality, the infrastructure and health-care is good. But there are terrorists in Kerala.

There are terrorists in Saudi Arabia, where everyone is rich, and in China, which is not neo-liberal.

Would be useful if you could think a little before you write. Makes one wonder who gave you that doctorate, if you have one.

32 · Pravin said

Why won't the Shiv Sena types use mob violence to go after a portion of Dawood Ibrahim's network? Because they are too freaking scared.

No, because the two sides need each other.

is dr. amonymous kayastha_lady?

1) There was terrorism before 1991, so it has nothing to do with neo-liberal ideology.

Analogous argument: There was currency devaluation before 1991 (see: 1966), so it has nothing to do with neo-liberal ideology.

2) There was Maoism before 1991 too.

See above.

3) The bottom 77% doesn't exist in the state of Kerala: there has been a comprehensive land-reform (of the Marxist/Zimbabwe kind), everyone is literate, 70% are graduates, there is gender equality, the infrastructure and health-care is good. But there are terrorists in Kerala.

1. I'm not talking about "terrorism", I'm talking about non-state violence; and 2) I'm talking about what poses a threat to the security of the political order in India.

Would be useful if you could think a little before you write. Makes one wonder who gave you that doctorate, if you have one.

I gave it to myself, thanks for asking. Would be useful if you avoided unnecessary personal attacks.

If it was upto me, I would peel a square half an inch of skin everyday, and rub chili powder. I don't want to be like the terrorist...I want to be worse (in words of Chuckiee Norris). Of course I would never harm an innocent fly, but murderers I torture.

Some points to be noted:
1) When you capitalize first letters to denote "The Mob", methinks you were referring to the Dawood Ibrahim underworld or to Don Corleone's Mob :).
2) I think the reporter is not blaming the cops present at the station as such. He is perhaps blaming the state of the police/security system in India. An article in the Times of India about the NSG budget points this out. Money spent to secure Gandhi family: 180 crore Rs (Last yr 117 crore). Money budgeted for anti terror commando group (NSG): 158 crore (Last year 159 crore). So budget money spent to protect billions of people is down, whereas money spent on a few from the dynasty is upped by over 50%. It is not just the dynasty either, the article covers other details about all sorts of politicians, including those with criminal cases against them in court.

3) Another article mentions that most of the money allotted to Bombay police was spent on luxury sedans and less on equipping officers with weapons and safety equipment. Links to NDTV news
4) On top of all these frivoulous (sedan) purchases, there will always be corruption in most deals.

>Analogous argument: There was currency devaluation before 1991 (see: 1966), so it has nothing to do with neo-liberal ideology.

Bad analogy. Even if you can make the source-to-target mapping hold, you would be arguing against your first post.

>Would be useful if you avoided unnecessary personal attacks.

It was not a personal attack. I was just wondering where it was possible to get doctorates without logical skills, so it was an attack on a degree-granting institution. It becomes personal only if you think you and that institution are inseparable.

I will leave you alone in your little logic-less niche from now on. My regards to everyone in that (charming and entertaining) ecology.

34 · Dr Amonymous said

Why didn't you reply that it more or less doesn't, though it does provide a very convenient excuse for many things like militarism and anti-Muslim violence and police abuses and not treating migrants well and not improving the lot of the 77% of people economically at the bottom (Hindu, dalit, Muslim, Christian, whoever, male, female, child, etc.)?

Pakistan causes tremendous trouble for the world (selling stolen nuclear arms secrets to North Korea, Iran, Libya), so it is no surprise it causes trouble for India. It is wishful thinking to say it doesn't. One could compare the situation to sharing a border with North Korea, but North Korea controls all its territory and may not be as volatile or unstable as Pakistan. (It doesn't score as high on failed state indices.) It is true that India has its own internal problems to work out, but Pakistan is not just a convenient excuse for those problems.

Dr Amonymous:

and not improving the lot of the 77% of people economically at the bottom

OK, I'll bite. Why specifically only 77%? If you're going to help poor people, why not improve the lot of all 100% of people that are economically at the bottom?

It was not a personal attack. I was just wondering where it was possible to get doctorates without logical skills, so it was an attack on a degree-granting institution. It becomes personal only if you think you and that institution are inseparable.

he..he.. :-)

45 · pingpong said

Why specifically only 77%? If you're going to help poor people, why not improve the lot of all 100% of people that are economically at the bottom?

I think he's saying that "100% of people at the bottom" = "77% of the total population."

[Insert S&M joke here.]

47 · Harbeer said

[Insert S&M joke here.]

It's not a joke, and I will insert it wherever I please.

45 · pingpong said

OK, I'll bite. Why specifically only 77%? If you're going to help poor people, why not improve the lot of all 100% of people that are economically at the bottom?

Harbeer clarified it aptly in #47.
As for why i picked the number 77, see here.

I will leave you alone in your little logic-less niche from now on. My regards to everyone in that (charming and entertaining) ecology.

Yes, clearly anyone who argues that economic factors are important and that governments use nationalism and "Othering" to distract from them has no concept of logic. Moving on...

Why didn't you reply that it more or less doesn't

Pakistan causes tremendous trouble for the world (selling stolen nuclear arms secrets to North Korea, Iran, Libya),

Siut bring up a very serious point and think your're playing down the consequences of terrorism, dr. a.

its often noted that terrorism doesn't result in many deaths on an absolute scale, though this formulation is short-sighted given the obvious economic targeting going on here. the terrorists, and perhaps Pakistan, are trying to hurt us economically--perhaps partially out of resentment over india's economic gains--and while the upper classes get affected immediately by attacks on the taj and leopold cafe, pain trickles down as well, and a lot of people down the ladder will suffer from this potential economic blow, especially during these precarious times. in this sense, neo-liberalism has something to do with terrorism, in the same way our freedoms and lifestyle infuriates the terrorists. but these terrorists often come from a lands least affected by globalization, and often come from relatively privileged backgrounds themselves, for example the highly educated 911 hijackers or the dude in the versace shirt.

but back to absolute deaths. the big question of our age is how to prevent them from getting wmds, biological weapons in all likelihood though i suppose there's an outside chance of a dirty nuke. very scary connundrum thats odly rarely discussed in the media.

50 · Manju said

or the dude in the versace shirt.

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

but these terrorists often come from a lands least affected by globalization

7/7.

44 · Siut

Pakistan causes tremendous trouble for the world (selling stolen nuclear arms secrets to North Korea, Iran, Libya), so it is no surprise it causes trouble for India. It is wishful thinking to say it doesn't. One could compare the situation to sharing a border with North Korea, but North Korea controls all its territory and may not be as volatile or unstable as Pakistan. (It doesn't score as high on failed state indices.) It is true that India has its own internal problems to work out, but Pakistan is not just a convenient excuse for those problems.

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

7/7.

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?

Siut bring up a very serious point and think your're playing down the consequences of terrorism, dr. a.

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

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.

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.

I think he's saying that "100% of people at the bottom" = "77% of the total population."

As for why i picked the number 77, see here.

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

5 · Thamizhan said

Why is India unable to retaliate against threats from a small country like Pakistan? Why does it appear to be victimized by its much smaller neighbors? Why is it bought to a standstill by a small group repeatedly?

One important difference between India and the US that's missing from your analysis is the much more recently won independence from Britain. By no stretch am I claiming that colonialism is the sole cause of India's "inability to deal," but it is a factor and important distinction when comparing the first world to the third.

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?

hardly seems like his poverty can be attributed to the affects of neo-liberalism, globalization, etc.

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

but a Google search for "77 bottom economy" and related queries didn't give me relevant hits

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

It's not a joke, and I will insert it wherever I please.

I want to high-five you but you'll have to wipe that lube off your fingers first. Please.

the question is does neoliberalism result in terrorism, and in what way?

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.

And if we only talk aboutu that cycle, when do we talk about this or this or this?

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

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.

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

but a Google search for "77 bottom economy" and related queries didn't give me relevant hits

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 am still sympathetic to the cops who are armed with WW1 era single shot Lee Enfields, if not just lathis, and are hardly paid enough to walk into certain death. Their training is at best good enough to preserve law and order in a gang fight.

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

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.

Kurosawa goes to Bollywood, I like it!

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

1. the wmd scenario gives terrorism a unique power.
2. the economic chain reaction can be devastating.

some of which I mentioned above (like massive poverty or gender violence)?

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

Why is India unable to retaliate against threats from a small country like Pakistan? Why does it appear to be victimized by its much smaller neighbors? Why is it bought to a standstill by a small group repeatedly?

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

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).

Enter, stage left: Idiot comments.

Harbeer:

I want to high-five you but you'll have to wipe that lube off your fingers first. Please.

The term isn't "lube", it's "santorum".

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.

Kurosawa goes to Bollywood, I like it!

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

that 7 heroes would have required 7 songs, plus one or two group songs, plus multiple heroines

Done!

What you said:

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.

What I said:

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Done!

That was some frightening leg work - square dancing samurai. Is that bollywood's version of 7 brides for 7 brothers?

Rahul said:

Even if it is all true (which is definitely possible), I am still sympathetic to the cops who are armed with WW1 era single shot Lee Enfields, if not just lathis, and are hardly paid enough to walk into certain death.

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: 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.

It's not a joke

why are we talking about 'Islamic terrorism' as a major issue as opposed to any number of other things

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.

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.

i desperately hope this is a joke.

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.

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

i desperately hope this is a joke.

No, it's not. Vigilante justice isn't funny, ever.

No, it's not. Vigilante justice isn't funny, ever.

ha ha

Vigilante justice isn't funny, ever.

Unless you're beating up a clown, of course.

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

I'm a little confused with the information between all the media outlets. I've read two different names so far for the surviving terrorist and several accounts of how he was captured in a car with a gunshot wound. So who was this one in the station?

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."

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?

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

But even America has its own internal divisions, so we again return to the question: Why is India unable to retaliate against threats from a small country like Pakistan? Why does it appear to be victimized by its much smaller neighbors? Why is it bought to a standstill by a small group repeatedly?

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.

97 · Jheel said5 · Thamizhan said

But even America has its own internal divisions, so we again return to the question: Why is India unable to retaliate against threats from a small country like Pakistan? Why does it appear to be victimized by its much smaller neighbors? Why is it bought to a standstill by a small group repeatedly?

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.

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.

yeti, nice try with the misdirect, the lind. baby was male. you're kay_la arentcha?

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.

Surely a postmodernist such as yourself can understand that "universal" is a highly contested category, that all "opinions" and "fact" are debatable even if some are more in correlation with the world than others (I would obviously disagree with your characterizations but more vehemently with the idea that while you accuse me of taking my opinion of what is important and what is not as universal, you are doing the same, at least as much if not more, with yours, which others, according to you, agree with). Your characterization of the context of the conversation is also very off - in fact, what happened was there was and isa narrow conversation about "Islamic terrorism" and "Pakistan" and I have broadened it to ask - what are the major issues facing India's people (not the Indian state or government) and how do we determine those. Presumably this is not too narrow for you, and is, in fact, a conversation...at least if I talk to some people ;)

yeti on December 2, 2008 02:52 PM · Direct link · “Quote”(?)

this is nauseating. i don't want to watch someone get beaten down by a mob even if he has committed an atrocious act. that's not justice and it's not satisfying. it's voyeuristic and disgusting.

>> yeah. I would like to see how you will be reacting when your mom, dad, wife/husband and kids are killed by such mozzies.

yeti on December 2, 2008 04:04 PM · Direct link · “Quote�(?)

>> >> Real justice would have been to talk to him and understand the "real" reason these guys were commiting these atrocious act. I bet that his mother did not hug him enough or the majority just oppressed him and his kind.

>>Yes, clearly what I was implying. Kudos.

--- Yeti dude/dudette, you really cannot understand sarcasm, can you?

>> I'm not a pacifist. I box and train in another full-contact martial art, and I come from a long line of

yeah yeah yeah. all in madeup situations. these types, put them infront of the slightest aggression, and they will pee in your pants and cry mommy.

86 · dipanjan said

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.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. This is interesting, but I'm skeptical that this is a complete explanation for why we focus on Islamist jihadi violence. For example, do we have a better understanding of what goes on in the minds of people who are killing Christians in Orissa or who are rioting after the Pistons win the NBA championship? In my mind, the unfamiliar is what most obviously requires the most introspection and care, rather than opinionation (beyond this was f@#ked up), while the familiar narratives are the ones that probbaly require it more (Hindu vs. Muslim, some of the ones I'm presenting above, etc.). Anyway, you might want to take a look at Sageman's Undersatnding Terror Networks which razib has recommended a number of times - it might help.

94 · Pavan said

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?

Since when has the Indian government managed to walk, let alone chew gum as well? In any case, your argument only holds if there's no limitation on resources, which there obviously is in a territory in which something like a billion people are at the margins of survival, etc etc etc. When the necessity of difficult choices is there (scarcity), it becomes much more difficult.

Separate from this is the question of stories - why do we focus on the story about "Islamic terrorism" so frequently? I would argue it's because it's a U.S. government and media driven narrative, combined with the help of the terrorists themselves at making spectacles of mass murder. But, really, this is not happening elsewhere in South Asia? And why focus only on the spectacle - for example, in another context, an acid burning is horrific (I saw a NY Time scolumn on it the other day with the picture....don't really want to remember it) but in order to understand it, we have to understand a much broader context of gender relations and family in different parts of India.

Your characterization of the context of the conversation is also very off - in fact, what happened was there was and isa narrow conversation about "Islamic terrorism" and "Pakistan" and I have broadened it to ask - what are the major issues facing India's people (not the Indian state or government) and how do we determine those.

Dude,

Read Indian newspapers and blogs. Read what people are talking about.

2008 has been the worst year for India (the people and not the State), in terms of having to face terror attacks.It is the cities that drive economic growth, and all major Indian cities faced Islamic terror attacks.

So, that is what people are talking about - the problem of terror and the inability of the State to make it safe for the citizens.

The people are also talking about hundreds of other issues.But right now, it is the effing right to live peacefully that we are bothered with.

_________

Look, I come here regularly to read the posts and comments, even though I don't agree with the political slant of most of the bloggers here.I get insights from many, if not all, of the commentors here.And I dig the wit displayed by some regular visitors.

But on this Mumbai terror attacks issue, sorry to say, the discussions here are mostly vapid.

Nothing wrong with that. But one can at least hope for readability, right?

Dr.A, just read your post@102. Why do you have to write such loooong sentences? And with bad punctuation too.Please can you keep it simple?

India...Grow some balls. I think its time you teach Pakistan a lesson. Screw gandhi's prinicpal of non violence.

78 · Siut 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....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.

I agree with your assessment that the Pakistani state faces an enormous number of challenges and that these can spillover to affect the interests of the governments of other states (though I would dispute whether or not the AQ Khan story is relevant) and in some cases even the people who live in those places- though first and foremost people who actually live in Pakistan. I think sometimes when people talk about India, they don't realize exactly how much more dependent Pakistan has been kept since Independence and have very little sympathy or knowledge about the details.

I don't agree that no one is arguing that Pakistan is THE major issue facing India. If there weren't such people, then why would there be such a knee-jerk response to such a horrific event. The headline in Asian Age read today - "Pranab tells Pakistan - turn over [blahblah]...or else." It's awfully convenient, if also connecteed to day to day events, to threaten to start a war a few months / a year before an election when you're in government after a decade of anti-incumbent voting. It's also doubtful that such a thing would in any way positively contribute to reducing violence against civilians - if any thing, it woudl seem to have the opposite effect of allowing the a$$holes who engaged in this in Mumbai to instigate a much larger confrontation with far greater material and political ramifications.

I would also ask whether a progressive government in Bangladesh in 1992 would have been justified in carrying out military strikes on RSS/VHP forces in India given that their actions at Babri Masjid contributed to massive communal violence against Hindus in Bangladesh.

In any case, thanks for the response - I appreciate it.

107 · Kumar_N said

Dude,

Read Indian newspapers and blogs. Read what people are talking about.

2008 has been the worst year for India (the people and not the State), in terms of having to face terror attacks.It is the cities that drive economic growth, and all major Indian cities faced Islamic terror attacks.

So, that is what people are talking about - the problem of terror and the inability of the State to make it safe for the citizens.

The people are also talking about hundreds of other issues.But right now, it is the effing right to live peacefully that we are bothered with.

I'm not talking about Indians. I'm aware of Jaipur and Hyderabad and Delhi (twice) and a lot of other events that have happened. What I am saying is that there is a larger context of social upheaval and violence (and I mean this as relative to Indian standards). The same as happened in the 1960s/1970s. So do we want it to end the same way or worse (i.e. Narendra Modi as prime minister for a decade and having subverted the constitution or other insittutions?)? The right to live peacefully is really important, but politically and morally it's wrong to keep it only for the 3-20% of India that has a voice that newspapers consider. The question I am asking is not that uncommon - why is it that only when the rich and their institutions are affected by violence (or outsourcing or other trends) do they become issues of significance, issues of importance, issues that 'everyone must care about.' What happened to paying attention to the lives of quiet desperation that almost everyone in India endures - and if those things don't get addressed in India by the political process, then in what meaningful sense is it a democracy?
________

But one can at least hope for readability, right?

Dr.A, just read your post@102. Why do you have to write such loooong sentences? And with bad punctuation too.Please can you keep it simple?

Sorry :) it's a bad habit. I'll try ot do a better job.

Dr.A,

1.Now is not the time to discuss the dozens of issues that are plaguing India. Right now, it is about avoiding future terror attacks.

2.Indians are at a stage where they don't expect the State to help them in any way.They don't expect the State to do any thing else other than 'protect the country from terrorists'. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

For all his defects, George Bush at least kept mainland US safe from terrorists after 9/11.So, even if Narendra Modi becomes the next Home Minister or PM of India, people across the country will forgive and forget his alleged misdeeds if all he and the BJP govt would do is to 'ensure a safe India'. We, the citizens of India, will take care of the infrastructure, social justice, inclusive growth and all other things on our own. The Govt need not help us at all.But we, the ordinary citizens, are powerless in stopping this evil of Islamic terror. So, we want the politicians to give us that. Even if that is the ONLY thing they can do, its fine.But they are counting the votes and money, and neglecting their duty.

May be NaMo and the BJP understand this sentiment better than the Sonia clan.The BJP's current election promise is:Less Government; Better Governance (or something similar to that).

If you still harp on all other issues, I can't help thinking: you would ONLY understand if your office gets bombed and you have no option but to go to work the next day.You would be shit scared while the world calls you resilient.

And then a day comes when it is one attack too many, and you find yourself, (and your friends, neighbors and colleagues) erupting in helpless rage, in a non-violent manner.THIS IS INDIA's MOOD NOW.In towns, cities and villages.Muslims, Hindus, and Xtians are all united on this RIGHT NOW.

Please read Indian newspapers.If you understand any vernacular language (Gujarati, Hindi, Telugu, Tamil) please read a vernacular newspaper.

For those who like conspiracy theories:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JL02Df05.html

A very plausible account of what could have led to the Mumbai attacks.And from a Pakistani journalist.

This kind of behavior by the armed gangs of the State is shameful if not unusual. Innocent until proven guilty is not part of their legal vocabulary.

111 · Kumar_N said

Dr.A,

1.Now is not the time to discuss the dozens of issues that are plaguing India. Right now, it is about avoiding future terror attacks.

2.Indians are at a stage where they don't expect the State to help them in any way.They don't expect the State to do any thing else other than 'protect the country from terrorists'. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

For all his defects, George Bush at least kept mainland US safe from terrorists after 9/11.So, even if Narendra Modi becomes the next Home Minister or PM of India, people across the country will forgive and forget his alleged misdeeds if all he and the BJP govt would do is to 'ensure a safe India'. We, the citizens of India, will take care of the infrastructure, social justice, inclusive growth and all other things on our own. The Govt need not help us at all.But we, the ordinary citizens, are powerless in stopping this evil of Islamic terror. So, we want the politicians to give us that. Even if that is the ONLY thing they can do, its fine.But they are counting the votes and money, and neglecting their duty.

May be NaMo and the BJP understand this sentiment better than the Sonia clan.The BJP's current election promise is:Less Government; Better Governance (or something similar to that).

If you still harp on all other issues, I can't help thinking: you would ONLY understand if your office gets bombed and you have no option but to go to work the next day.You would be shit scared while the world calls you resilient.

And then a day comes when it is one attack too many, and you find yourself, (and your friends, neighbors and colleagues) erupting in helpless rage, in a non-violent manner.THIS IS INDIA's MOOD NOW.In towns, cities and villages.Muslims, Hindus, and Xtians are all united on this RIGHT NOW.

Please read Indian newspapers.If you understand any vernacular language (Gujarati, Hindi, Telugu, Tamil) please read a vernacular newspaper.

Kumar,

I watched the World Trade Centers collapse from a window 2 miles from my office. I walked around New York that day. I smelt accrid smoke two days later. Everytime there was a plane that flew overhead I was nervous for a while. When t he war started, I was worried about both terrorist attacks and someone targeting me for being brown. kay?

I also watched what happened in the U.S. I watched how the government and people who echoed sentiments like yorus used a horrible spectacle of violence perpetrated by dickheads to create an even more horrible tragedy of violence perpetrated by dickheads. I watched them throw money down the tube. I watched them use their enormous power to support other things.

So if you want to tacitly sanction the killings of Muslims and Hindus in a false hope for security while neglecting every other issue that Indians face - most of which actually affect the daily lives of Inddians far more than "Islamic terorirsm" then by all means feel free to do so. Just know that that's what you're doing.

Good day, sir.

108 · Annie said

India...Grow some balls. I think its time you teach Pakistan a lesson. Screw gandhi's prinicpal of non violence.

Annie, for shame. At a time like this you are playing petty politics. I can't believe you are a lady. You are graceless and violent like Kali. And no amount of bloodletting will satiate your bloodlust. Even if Pakistan is handed over decimated to you, you will find new enemies within or without. Such is the nature of the fascist mind.

67 · Mystic River said

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?

And what has Israel achieved ? Its surrounded by Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaida, along with a nuclear Iran which seek nothing less than its total dissolution, by violent means if possible. Military conscription is not the solution as India has never had a martial culture and Indians have never needed to maintain peace through arms.

Whats the solution? Its controversial. Have you ever thought why Bengal never has terrorist attacks given its potential for collateral damage considering Kolkata's chaos and population density. Here's a cue - our culture is open, feminine and accommodating, and we do not have any pretense to or claim on a martial pseudohistory.

So if you want to tacitly sanction the killings of Muslims and Hindus in a false hope for security while neglecting every other issue that Indians face - most of which actually affect the daily lives of Inddians far more than "Islamic terorirsm" then by all means feel free to do so. Just know that that's what you're doing.

Actually Dr. A has a point. We have to see this in perspective. Just over the last year more people are killed in two temple stampedes than the current terrorist attacks on Mumbai. No Muslims were involved in those two stampedes (though I think both were due to the rumours of an explosion or bomb attack). Imagine the deaths it would cause if someone spreads a rumour in Tirupati that there is a shooting going on.

Having said that we should not brush Islamic terrorism under the carpet. If 10 people can hold a city to ransom, another 10 people could sneak into the nearby nuclear facilities and with a little bit of technical knowhow can bring hell to India. I don't know how easy or difficult it is to trigger a nuclear melt down.

For all his defects, George Bush at least kept mainland US safe from terrorists after 9/11.So, even if Narendra Modi becomes the next Home Minister or PM of India, people across the country will forgive and forget his alleged misdeeds if all he and the BJP govt would do is to 'ensure a safe India'. We, the citizens of India, will take care of the infrastructure, social justice, inclusive growth and all other things on our own. The Govt need not help us at all.But we, the ordinary citizens, are powerless in stopping this evil of Islamic terror. So, we want the politicians to give us that. Even if that is the ONLY thing they can do, its fine.But they are counting the votes and money, and neglecting their duty.

Now that the dust is settling in Mumbai, it's up to all Indians and South Asians who don't support the terrorists to ensure that this event is not quickly forgotten as yesterday's news. Does anyone know of any organized protest/awareness type event planned in the US?

Thanks for all the replies.

A few things that I don't understand even now:

1. Knee-jerk reaction to point the finger at Pakistan - to forestall a riot against Indian Muslims perhaps?
2. Interviews implying it was caused by Hindu behavior or terrorists were Hindus - Mahesh Bhatt, Shabna Azmi
3. Labeling Muslims & their beliefs as the the root cause of the terror - BJP, RSS...

I don't see how the above help in catching the terrorists? They are still escaping/terrorizing. Is not it more important to catch them and make the city safe rather than give theories/speeches on which group is to blame? Why was not an investigation done to pinpoint the culprits first? If Pakistan is blamed immediately without proof, the whole case looks very weak.

"I can't believe you are a lady. You are graceless and violent like Kali" ..... how did this post get through the moderators ??? i guess its fine as she is insulting a Hindu goddess right. :O

yeti, nice try with the misdirect, the lind. baby was male. you're kay_la arentcha?

for f&*#'s sake, no, I am not kayastha_lady.

Annie was actually being graceless and violent like Muhammad.

hehe ^-^ lets see how long b4 the thought police strike .

gesar, Kali has been discussed in a previous post, and a lot of posters excluding myself have alluded to the visibly violent aspects. Please remember this is an American blog and your holy cows are not untouchables here. If I have hurt your feelings, I apologize, but that does not mean I will change my views about your Kali Bhagwan. To my mind human Gods are the same as Pokemon.

P.S - I can't go back and delete my post. So lets leave it at that.

Two things.

1. India's harbor security was inadequate. They should have had around the clock patrols. The hotels should have their own private security. Finally, the train station needs surveillance cameras and security.

2. Stopping 10 motivated terrorists is very difficult. The only lasting way to end terrorism is political reconciliation. Rand came out with a recent study indicating most "terrorists" disputes are resolved by incorporating them into a political party. Kashmir needs to be split , or this low scale war will continue forever.

80 · bess said

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?

Good question, but you will not get a complete answer here, given only tangential knowledge of India among posters here. As SM Intern said "this is a primarily an american blog".

That said, I will try to give an incomplete answer, which you shd take with a liberal pinch of salt, given that I haven't worked or paid taxes in India.

Tax rates in India are actually quite high, even after liberalization. My understanding is that income tax is only imposed by the Central Government (equivalent of the American Federal Government). Mumbai, as a big city, would have a municipal government. The Bombay police would probably fall under that. (It does in Calcutta). Mumbai, as a city in Maharashtra state would have some access to the state police. The impression I got from reading the various accounts of this (as well as the earlier controversy involving it) is that ATS is probably a state police force, and hence would be under the state budget. Initial security at the hotels would probably be given by the Bombay Police. The municipal government would be the body responsible for sending for help from the state or the central forces.

As regards revenue, the state and the city governments primarily have to rely on sales taxes, octroi duties, and in the case of the municipal govenments, from property taxes. There is huge amount lost on the collection side by tax evasion. There are probably bigger losses thru corruption on the procurement side. There are recurring scandals of similar nature starting right from independence (Krishna Menon, a close associate of Nehru and the then defence minister, was embroiled in one right after independence, either the same time as the first Indo Pak war, or right after it; unless I have got my dates mixed up. In my living memory, Bofors was the big one; as well as one involving George Fernandez around the time of Kargil.)

There are other structural issues as well. For the longest time, government branches such as the police were essentially looked as means to provide employment for the masses. The Indian Armed Forces, which is actually considered quite professional by the standards of a government organization; has personnel costs (salaries) as the biggest component of their cost structure (somewhere north of 50% ) leaving very little for equipment and modernization etc. I would imagine that police forces would have a similar cost structure, probably more skewed toward salaries, if anything.

There is also quite a bit of politicization of police forces (transfers are the weapon of choice), which always affects morale and training.

2. Stopping 10 motivated terrorists is very difficult. The only lasting way to end terrorism is political reconciliation. Rand came out with a recent study indicating most "terrorists" disputes are resolved by incorporating them into a political party.

Political parties have been created quite often. The problem,-- when former terrorists lose in the political process, they just return to guns.

Also moderate parties become ant-nationalistic over time, just to get further votes. (this is a feature of Indian democracy. In the US during primaries, the candidates take extreme positions because they have to secure their vote banks and come back to the center in the general elections to get the votes of independents, etc. In India there is no incentive to go after independents -- the voter blocs pretty much determine whether they are elected or not.)

Kashmir needs to be split , or this low scale war will continue forever

India has been going for territory for peace, giving up parts that had been Indian before independence.

China has on the other hand took over parts it never had and used its population and size to incorporate them, and waged war to further its borders.

It's time for India to stop following advice that hasn't worked for 60 years and to start doing something that does work.

The million dollar question is what is the response of Indian govt. going to be? Pakistan has started its usual spiel about "Give us proof and we will take action"..Indian govt. has got probably 100 days to election time...There's really no time to "act tough"..The tough part is going to be left to the next govt.! And by that time things would have cooled down enough to let "voice of reasons" to come up?

yeti said:

this is nauseating. i don't want to watch someone get beaten down by a mob even if he has committed an atrocious act

Umm - maybe you shouldn't speculate on how the Mumbai cops are getting this dude to spill the beans - (certainly not over a cup of hot chai!!)

"Kashmir needs to be split , or this low scale war will continue forever."

I agree, similarly Britain should be divided into a Sharia and non-Sharia state to accomodate muslims like Anjum Chaudhary, otherwise BNP and muslim conflict will continue. Russia should give the Chechens the right to self-determination, the Chinese to the Uighurs, the Thai to the southern muslims. A confrontationalist approach towards muslims has proved to be counterproductive to world peace so far. The Americans have tried to force peace in Aghanistan for 4 years now. What has come of it? The world is far more unsafe than it used to be.

"Rand came out with a recent study indicating most "terrorists" disputes are resolved by incorporating them into a political party"

Is Rand, Ayn Rand? I used to have rape fantasies about Howard Roark has a child. Ayn Rand Objectivist philosophy rocks and is without parallel and exactly what the world needs.

Kayastha_Lady is Pardesi Gori, folks...I know she seems to have changed a bit since her earlier incarnation, but if you look closely and read between the lines, it's very clear...maybe her latest boyfriend is an Islamist and hence we have her new cause.

I give her credit for using the same handle lately (kayastha lady) despite being banned more than once..but she's an extreme troll. Britain should be divided into a Sharia and non-Sharia state to accomodate muslims like Anjum Chaudhary??

SM Intern, please please please ban her for good.

Umm - maybe you shouldn't speculate on how the Mumbai cops are getting this dude to spill the beans - (certainly not over a cup of hot chai!!)

Actually, I wasn't speculating, nor was I commenting on whether I supported or disapproved of any interrogation methods. All I said was I FIND IT DISTASTEFUL TO WATCH AND I DON'T GET ANY JOY OUT IT. Fairly simple statement, mate.

Kayastha_Lady is Pardesi Gori, folks.

Doubt it. Sounds like she was parodying Pardesi Gori more than aligning. Judging by the straight-faced parody skills K_L has displayed, I'd say that he/she is the same person behind SpoorLam.

Enough speculation about K_L's identity. Let's just all recognize her trolling skills and be entertained.

A couple of you are not seeing the bigger picture as it relates to Kashmir. No problem, I have the same argument with my dad. India should employ the albino alligator diplomatic strategy. Make a sacrifice for the greater good.

I think it is generational thing. Old timers dont get it.

Thank you, Corporate Serf for taking the time to answer me.

There is huge amount lost on the collection side by tax evasion. There are probably bigger losses thru corruption on the procurement side.

Actually, I wasn't speculating, nor was I commenting on whether I supported or disapproved of any interrogation methods. All I said was I FIND IT DISTASTEFUL TO WATCH AND I DON'T GET ANY JOY OUT IT. Fairly simple statement, mate.

#126

1. India's harbor security was inadequate. They should have had around the clock patrols. The hotels should have their own private security. Finally, the train station needs surveillance cameras and security.

2. Stopping 10 motivated terrorists is very difficult. The only lasting way to end terrorism is political reconciliation. Rand came out with a recent study indicating most "terrorists" disputes are resolved by incorporating them into a political party. Kashmir needs to be split , or this low scale war will continue forever.

Well the Indian Coastguard and Navy patrol the west coast of India, but to monitor every single ship, boat and dinghy that enters India's territorial waters without actionable intelligence is impossible. What good will private security offers do when their pitted against terrorists armed with enough weaponry to start a small war? CST already had CCTVs - whether or not they are actually reviewed is a different question.

Political reconciliation in Kashmir is not the answer to terrorism in mainland India. The terrorists weren't Kashmiri. They were Pakistani and had no interest in being incorporated into Kashmir's political mainstream. When one of Lashkar's primary objectives is to establish a pan-Islamic South Asia (or basically wipe out Hinduism from the region), it doesn't matter if Kashmir does or doesn't gain independence. This isn't about India's fight for Kashmir, it's about India's fight to survive.

A couple of you are not seeing the bigger picture as it relates to Kashmir. No problem, I have the same argument with my dad. India should employ the albino alligator diplomatic strategy. Make a sacrifice for the greater good.

I think it is generational thing. Old timers dont get it.

No, actually, I think it is a matter of having a spine and standing up to terrorists. I'm a young person by all means, but maybe it's the Indian younguns that don't 'get it,' and only care about traffic slowing them down on their way to meet their friends for drinks. I am seeing the 'bigger picture'--I believe that you're the one who isn't.

Go back to reading the intellectually dishonest and despicable Pankaj Mishra, who in his recent piece in the NYT quotes Ratan Tata--the man who owns the Taj and received several warnings about terrorist attacks but did NOTHING to beef up security--in support of his sentiment that 'India can't do anything about terrorism so it should just give up Kashmir.' Spineless, despicable, lacking in sense, lacking in dignity. What is wrong with so many people that they want to work AGAINST their interests??

I find it curious that Chidambaram is the new home minister. Now that Pakistan is on IMF dole, maybe India's response strategy has a finance element to it. Not sure whether India would be able to block aid to Pakistan though.

Spiegel on the attacks.

2. Stopping 10 motivated terrorists is very difficult. The only lasting way to end terrorism is political reconciliation. Rand came out with a recent study indicating most "terrorists" disputes are resolved by incorporating them into a political party. Kashmir needs to be split , or this low scale war will continue forever.

I don't understand how you went from the Rand Institute's conclusion that most ""terrorists"" (and why exactly is that in quotations, btw?) disputes' are resolved by incorporating them into a political party, to India needs to give up Kashmir. The boys that carried out this recent attack in Mumbai could've joined a political party in Pakistan, but they didn't get along with their families and joined LeT instead because they wanted money to buy weapons so they could rob banks, and were eventually brainwashed (after which their family started respecting them apparently) and agreed to this mission so that their families would get large sums of money.

And you want the Indian government to accede to the demands (the one terrorist on the phone didn't even know what their demands were! He had to turn to his friend and ask him!) of these "people"? (Note that I put people in quotation marks)

...intellectually dishonest and despicable Pankaj Mishra, who in his recent piece in the NYT...

Every time I think Pankaj Mushra has hit his lowest point he surprises me and calls in from even lower. He's now way past mud, slick, and slime and wallowing in filth. Biggest non-violent protests in Kashmir? My foot! This was a mob that having ethnically cleansed the Kashmir Valley of its Hindus in 1989 was now baying for their blood demanding that an ancient mandir in the Valley be demolished. Mishra is incomparable, even the worst appeasers in history would squirm to be compared to this piece of waste.

Doubt it. Sounds like she was parodying Pardesi Gori more than aligning. Judging by the straight-faced parody skills K_L has displayed, I'd say that he/she is the same person behind SpoorLam.

No way is it the same person behind SpoorLam. kayastha_lady is parodying the left (but not over-the-top enough for everyone to get it); SpoorLam was parodying the right. I wonder if it's because everyone hasn't understood that it's a parody that k_l has been banned once already, or if it's for ideological reasons, now that you bring up the similarity to SpoorLam (who was never banned despite pleas from moderate respected posters like Amitabh who found him to be over-the-top offensive on numerous occasions).

I am puzzled by the inconsistency of the terrorists. On the one hand they wanted to portray themselves as home grown terrorists ("Deccan Mujahideen", the gunman in CST wearing Hindu arm band etc) and on the other hand they attack a Jewish center (in India: where persecution of Jews is unknown.) The latter event is like an Indian man watching western porn on cable TV and going out and making a move on every woman he sees: doesn't work that way in India (or anywhere for that matter - but delusions created by the media are believed by a lot of people). Similarly, the terrorists have seen Israeli attacks on Palestinians on cable TV/videos provided by their Wahabi Imams in rural Punjab and seethed in anger against Jews. Feels weird! Like Islamic terrorism is like McDonalds. Homogenized products everywhere. Where a atrocity in Bosnia provokes anger in Indonesia where terrorists respond by killing westerners (with a few Israelis thrown in - for the heck of it)

...Rand Institute's conclusion that most ""terrorists"" (and why exactly is that in quotations, btw?) disputes' are resolved by incorporating them into a political party, to India needs to give up Kashmir.

Very irony challenged (and definitely displaying IQ in the medium double digits) RAND folks seem to forget that they live in a country that fought secession.

Enough speculation about K_L's identity. Let's just all recognize her trolling skills and be entertained.

Could she be Prema/Valmiki/Doordarshan/ etc? Or maybe just a new troll.

kayastha_lady is parodying the left (but not over-the-top enough for everyone to get it); SpoorLam was parodying the right.

That's exactly why I believe they are the same person -- good parody skills are rare, and a parodist's target ideologies are always malleable. The last person who would be suspected of being a left-baiting parodist is a right-baiting parodist. Also, has anyone seen SpoorLam and Kayastha_Lady on the same thread?

====

AK:

I am puzzled by the inconsistency of the terrorists. On the one hand they wanted to portray themselves as home grown terrorists ("Deccan Mujahideen", the gunman in CST wearing Hindu arm band etc) and on the other hand they attack a Jewish center (in India: where persecution of Jews is unknown.)

The Deccan thing is a blind -- nobody in India says "I'm from the Deccan". As far as India goes, Deccan is only a geographic identifier, not a cultural one. It's not like all self-identified Deccanis are banding together and fighting for equal access to the coast or something.

It's always cherchez la femme with you cats! Maybe she is a he in heels and sequins, a breastplate and wings. Let's talk more about happy molecules polycarbonate-free.

Kayastha Lady is Prema.

Mumbaikar is Chapekar.

Maybe she is a he in heels and sequins, a breastplate and wings.

That's what you get when you remix the Lumberjack Song with Ride of the Valkyries.

Bzuh, I am all for standing up to "terrorists" (whatever that means). Mumbai security should have killed /detained these "terrorists" upon landing. But, I don't agree with your point about working against interests. Do you want the next 50 years to look like the last 50? It is not impossible to kill/capture every "terrorists"/future "terrorist". Allowing Kashmir to linger/fester is working against India's interests. India would be better served spending the Kashmir resources on building 10 new medical schools, teaching sex ed, modern electrical grid, clean water, investing in Olympic training etc. I don't think this viewpoint is undignified or spineless.
*********
"I think it is a matter of having a spine and standing up to terrorists. ...just give up Kashmir.' Spineless, despicable, lacking in sense, lacking in dignity. What is wrong with so many people that they want to work AGAINST their interests?? "

79 · bess said

Is that bollywood's version of 7 brides for 7 brothers?

Yes! That movie clearly was asking for a Bollywood remake.

You might be interested in hearing this.

Wow, that is a very cool site! Thanks for the pointer.

There was actionable intelligence. Private security can we well armed also.

I encounter more security while exiting Costco.

********
Well the Indian Coastguard and Navy patrol the west coast of India, but to monitor every single ship, boat and dinghy that enters India's territorial waters without actionable intelligence is impossible. What good will private security offers do when their pitted against terrorists armed with enough weaponry to start a small war? CST already had CCTVs - whether or not they are actually reviewed is a different question.

That's what you get when you remix the Lumberjack Song with Ride of the Valkyries.

Yes! That movie clearly was asking for a Bollywood remake.

There was actionable intelligence.

Actionable intelligence like what? The western coastline from north-western Gujarat to the southern tip of Maharashtra is about 1,500 miles. The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India's external intelligence and spy agency was defanged about a decade ago and is shambles. There are frequent reports that their top performers are either quitting to take up lucrative positions in private companies or are emigrating to other countries. The US warned the Indian government of possible maritime attacks on Mumbai. There's no indication that the Navy or Coast Guard were ever informed of this possibility by the civilian leadership.

Private security can we well armed also.

Armed well enough to counter terrorists on a suicidal mission armed with AK-47s and hand granades?

155 · RJ said

Armed well enough to counter terrorists on a suicidal mission armed with AK-47s and hand granades?

If this isn't well enough armed, I don't know what is.

I think increasing security within India is imperative for practical reasons, but the most important form of security is penalize those responsible for crimes. If the evidence is clear that Pakistani territory was used for the planning and execution of this attack, Pakistan should have no choice but to extradite all suspects for trial in India. The crimes have been committed against India, and they must be held accountable to the Indian people. This is a law and order problem, and though there may be pragmatic arguments against military action, if Pakistan fails to provide complete cooperation it must be penalized regardless of the costs. I think modern 'liberals' often forget that the main goal of Liberalism is to ensure human freedoms and rights. Sometimes the only way to do this is through war. Check out this piece on why India should really consider the military option..

http://www.pseudonyx.com/2008/12/the-liberal-case-for-retaliation

Bzuh, I am all for standing up to "terrorists" (whatever that means). Mumbai security should have killed /detained these "terrorists" upon landing. But, I don't agree with your point about working against interests. Do you want the next 50 years to look like the last 50? It is not impossible to kill/capture every "terrorists"/future "terrorist". Allowing Kashmir to linger/fester is working against India's interests. India would be better served spending the Kashmir resources on building 10 new medical schools, teaching sex ed, modern electrical grid, clean water, investing in Olympic training etc. I don't think this viewpoint is undignified or spineless.

No, I don't want the next 50 years to look like the last 50 years. I want India to stand up for itself and, in the process (much in the way that roger23 outlined above), show terror groups and the people that support them that they will eventually have to pay.

Yes, the Indian government should be focused on improving the welfare of its people not just by guarding against further terrorist attacks, but also by improving access to education, clean water, etc. This is why there are different ministers; they look after things. Any government is multi-faceted, and just because it wants to protect people from random attacks doesn't mean that it shouldn't also look after other pressing causes.

The fact that you are not even willing to write 'terrorists' without quotation marks in it basically marks you a spineless lefty whose opinion I will no longer consider responding to. It is this that makes you spineless.

If this isn't well enough armed, I don't know what is.

Very impressive. Even the dude's family jewels weren't spared.

Actionable intelligence like what?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/02/world/main4642083.shtml

Armed well enough to counter terrorists on a suicidal mission armed with AK-47s and hand granades?

There were only 10 "terrorists" . Some private security organizations are extremely well armed. Have you ever heard of Blackwater. Hopefully they learned a tragic lesson

Kayastha_lady -

I used to have rape fantasies about Howard Roark as a child

No need to be "unpleasant".

********

The fact that you are not even willing to write 'terrorists' without quotation marks in it basically marks you a spineless lefty whose opinion I will no longer consider responding to. It is this that makes you spineless.

143 · AK said

Similarly, the terrorists have seen Israeli attacks on Palestinians on cable TV/videos provided by their Wahabi Imams in rural Punjab and seethed in anger against Jews. Feels weird! Like Islamic terrorism is like McDonalds. Homogenized products everywhere. Where a atrocity in Bosnia provokes anger in Indonesia where terrorists respond by killing westerners (with a few Israelis thrown in - for the heck of it)

It's a sad reality but TV, Videos, and the existence of Israel, are not necessary to incite anger or hatred when the Koran alone and accompanying hadith offer countless passages against Jewish people and other kaffir. Reading the Koran somebody might be fooled into believing that Jews are "the son of apes and pigs" (Sura 2 Verse 65 and Verse 5: 60) who killed their own prophets and lie, cheat and steal. That's just one of countless examples. There's also the fact that Muhammed ordered the torture and killing of a prominent Jew, Kinana, of the Kheibar, and then rewarded himself with the man's 17 year old wife; and later in person Muhammed ordered and watched the beheading of an entire Jewish tribe, the Bani Qurayza. A fundamentalist who reads this stuff literally or aspires to model himself accordingly will take some bad lessons away from it.

"Well make them pay, Stand up to the "terrorists"" are great cliches. But we have been down the road of trite slogans with Bush: Lets fight over there so we dont fight them here - get the evil doers - dead or alive .

How do you want to make the "terrorists" pay.

*********************

show terror groups and the people that support them that they will eventually have to pay.

The fact that you are not even willing to write 'terrorists' without quotation marks in it basically marks you a spineless lefty whose opinion I will no longer consider responding to. It is this that makes you spineless.

164 · ASinha said

How do you want to make the "terrorists" pay.

By beating them at their own "game," i.e. becoming a "terrorist" him/herself.

158 · bzuh said

The fact that you are not even willing to write 'terrorists' without quotation marks in it basically marks you a spineless lefty whose opinion I will no longer consider responding to.

So, what it takes to show my spine is to write bold comments on a blog about making the terrorists pay regardless of consequences or without examining the pragmatic reasons for not attacking? Goddamit man, you make me go weak in my knees for you.

How do we make the terrorists pay?
Well,if your house is repeatedly being invaded by poisonous cobras, you don't sit down and ponder why cobras are so venomous. It is their nature to be so.
You first find and kill any snakes hiding in your house. Then you secure your house by blocking the cracks from which the serpents can enter. Then you find the cobra's nest and destroy it.
The flaw in this analogy being that snakes usually don't attack you unless provoked

167 · Howard Rourk said

The flaw in this analogy being that snakes usually don't attack you unless provoked

Are snakes born (hatched) as snakes? Are certain people born as "terrorists?" There's a few flaws in this analogy.

Harbeer

67 · Howard Rourk said

The flaw in this analogy being that snakes usually don't attack you unless provoked

Are snakes born (hatched) as snakes? Are certain people born as "terrorists?" There's a few flaws in this analogy.

The analogy is of terrorists as snakes, not people as snakes. It doesn't matter what they were born as. Their second birth/hatching is when they are turned into terrorists/snakes. The nest that I mention are the camps where they are trained and indoctrinated.

There were only 10 "terrorists" . Some private security organizations are extremely well armed. Have you ever heard of Blackwater. Hopefully they learned a tragic lesson

How do we know there were only 10? I've seen numbers ranging from 10-40 and it's not inconceivable that several of them have made good their escape to Pakistan and the Indian government is trying to cover this up. What about Blackwater? Even if India decides to deploy a Blackwater-like force at international hotels does it make the rest of the country secure? What about temples, shopping malls, public markets, railway stations, commercial districts, etc...who pays for all this? India spends $20.11 billion on national security (armed forces, air force, etc.), about $18 million on internal security (FY 2004-05), and $80 million on internal intelligence. Internal security forces and intelligence agencies are completely underfunded and poorly equipped. It's no wonder then that this sort of thing continues to happen in India.

The analogy is of terrorists as snakes, not people as snakes. It doesn't matter what they were born as. Their second birth/hatching is when they are turned into terrorists/snakes. The nest that I mention are the camps where they are trained and indoctrinated.

But how do you account for their leathery eggs? What about their secondary eyelid?

Also there are those snakes that have the jaw that comes unhinged, and then they eat a pig. That is so awesome.

But how do you account for their leathery eggs? What about their secondary eyelid?

Also there are those snakes that have the jaw that comes unhinged, and then they eat a pig. That is so awesome.

Crikey! Terrorists Snykes are awesome, myte!

BOMB BOMB BOMB Pakistan....That should be the mantra of the Indian government.I would rather take a chance in a "Nuclear" war where i can kill some enemies over being passive victims the leftist peaceniks wants the Indian populace to be.I did my part in the army and if we all do it than Pakistan is toast .Nuclear power or not .

Pakistan is simply not serious about fighting terrorists. They have refused to hand over the 20 suspects that India had asked for.

And if I see that Pakistani ambassador to the u.s. on tv again, I'll just about puke. He says absolutely nothing and is gasping for straws trying to defend what is essentially a failed state. The idea that zardari is a reformer or a democrat is completely laughable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122828321558275457.html

The only way I see this playing out (if you are willing to believe that Indian leaders are rational and self-interested) is India needing to make the US expend political capital on Pakistan forking over the suspects by upping the belligerence and threatening war, something the US does not want at all as it will move troops from the Afghanistan border. Not a good situation.

Bess,
State and municipal govts in India are mostly bankrupt. This is because their tax base is not very large
(it has increased substantially in recent years) and govts have huge salary and pension obligations/burdens.
The police organization in India is complicated. There is an all India "officer" service (the Indian police
service) who constitute the upper ranks of the police forces. This service is under the joint control of the
state and central govts, to the best of my understanding. In addition to this, states have a police service,
including the constabulary. The regular police forces in India are supplemented often by various central
organizations, like the CRPF, BSF (border security force), and more recent groups like the RAF (rapid action
force, specifically set up for internal security duties that ordinary police are unable to handle, e.g riots)
and the like. Typically, police in India are not well armed, and rarely, if ever use guns and the like in
their ordinary duties. They also generally need permission from the local administrative authority to use
lethal force (as in police firing on crowds).
-----

The discussion on the terrorist problem is vapid, and sometimes very troubling. Taking action, military or
otherwise, is not equivalent to going after Indian muslims as many seem to be implying. Secondly, blaming
Pakistan is *not* a response to "deflect blame/attention" so that there is no rioting against muslims in
India. Both these are canards. Terrorist attacks of this kind rarely cause riots in India rarely. Finally,
blaming the Indian state for being mean to its citizens, as being the cause of such attacks is again disingenuous,
and more than a little disgusting (I know this is a favorite sport of many American "experts", like
Mr. Juan Cole), for terrorism of this kind is fundamentally unacceptable, and criminal and attempting to
deflect attention from this basic fact is just plain wrong.

Monty Python and Wagner. pingpong goes low and high (boing)

I actually go more from side to side.

165 · Harbeer said

By beating them at their own "game," i.e. becoming a "terrorist" him/herself.

"Terrorists holed up inside Mumbai's Taj and Trident-Oberoi hotels allowed 17 Russian hostages, including nine defence contractors, to leave after checking their passports."

Were the masterminds in Pakistan afraid of embroiling a country that tries to beat terrorists at their own game? See below:

http://www.artofficial-intelligence.com/images/grozny-city.bmp

(stepping in where angels fear to tread: since SM Intern has declared had the audacity that SM is for desis in Amreeka, not us Indians who have always lived in India, and never ditched her. So - the Internet is for desis in Amreeka only or what. Indians are not good enough for a India-related website?! Ludicrous)

re. this bit of proofless sensationalism - http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/nov/28mumterror-terrorists-let-go-17-russian-hostages.htm

It reeks of the same "Oh, old boy, don't you know, they were asking for British and American passports" by a drama-queen who was, supposedly, a released hostage from one of the hotels. NO-one else has made this claim, he ( british accent, hah) made this claim into a CNN / BBC camera ( strange) and has a face full of soot - which none of the other hostages did.

So - I am of the firm opinion that it was a staged bit of attention-seeking naansense.

Alot like the rediff drama stories.

How do you want to make the "terrorists" pay.

And 'gruntin' ball scratcher'...

I am not advocating war without thinking about all the repercussions or other methods of action. I'm just saying that the Indian government actually has to DO something this time. I think what it's done so far, which is demand the extradition of several known terrorists (e.g. Dawood Ibrahim, although I'm not sure if he's one of the specific ones they requested) who live safely in Pakistan, is a good step.

I apologize if I sounded too harsh, but I am honestly lost as to why you continue to put 'terrorist' in quotation marks. Are you denying that they committed acts of terror?

By beating them at their own "game," i.e. becoming a "terrorist" him/herself.

Yeah, because a nation-state or state authority are just illegitimate (if not fictional) constructs, and there's NEVER a difference between cops and robbers and the army and a group that's been banned in the country that it presides in.

Aaage bhee jaane na tuuu....
Peeche bhee jaane na tuuu...
Jo bhee hae, bas yahi ek pal he....

There were certain reasons that I stopped reading comments on this website, but still keep coming back for the excellent blog entries...This thread is a splending example of why I should've stuck to that standard.

The Indian government isn't blaming Pakistan because it is convenient...If I believed that at least 1% of you would read the links for the multiple papers, testimonies, research projects that time and again prove beyond any doubt the existence of monetary networks, terrorist camps, military training and other cogs in the Jihadist Insurgency in every strata of Pakistani society, I will provide them...If you really want to be educated about it and since Indian sources aren't good enough; go to an Academic Search Premier and search from peer-reviewed journals, European/Australian sources, from the United States Supreme Court Publications. Why look at the latest news, and read the stories of networks like the Holy Land Foundation that have offices in Rawalpindi in full view of the entire world.

Most Indian politicians might be scoundrels of the worst kind, but there everyone carries a certain modicum of humanity; I think it is disgusting to say that the only reason they are blaming Pakistan is because they have a political agenda. Talking about how India is a tribal state, bringing up the colonial hangover or talking about how this might bring an idiot like Modi to power ...is morally reprehensive at a time when they should be mere afterthoughts. f you want to be a spokesman for the Indian point of view, please do it in a way where you don't undermine India's identity.

The necessity to assert the differences of perception and values between oneself and "Indians" is atrocious at times. I totally agree with what one of the people with the Intern handle said, sometimes it is the whole "damned if we do and damned if we don't scenario". But some sitting in a cozy room in Arizona amongst many leatherbound books made neither Ron Burgundy nor Alan Bloom credible.

If you want to tell your American friend "oh its coz all these Hindu thugs killed defenseless Muslims a coupla years ago" please go ahead...it is a leitmotif of the Indian culture here. Its easy to make fun of Hindu Gods, its easy and required to make fun of Indian politicians...we all get a few yuks out of it...and then there are times that requires an inherent respect. But instead of that I'm sure Harbeer and his mental ilk will find some other wannabe-Foucaultian wonderment like "what sociolinguistic concerns led to the devolution of the psyche of these individuals"...rather than stop for a second and say, "man, a lot of Indians just died for no reason..."

But acting like an onanist while sitting in a cozy room in Arizona amongst many leatherbound books made neither Ron Burgundy nor Alan Bloom credible.

180 · Indian in India said

(stepping in where angels fear to tread: since SM Intern has declared had the audacity that SM is for desis in Amreeka, not us Indians who have always lived in India, and never ditched her.

Thats gotta be one of the most idiotic ways of going about asserting supposed moral superiority...Even Fabio from Top Chef talking about Rocco Di Sprito had better credibility...

Thank you, Kris.
It certainly is complicated so I appreciate your time in explaining it.
I can't help but feel certain optimism for the country in spite of its obstacles. There are so many great minds in/from India and with India coming of age at a time when technologies allow for a more efficient, greener and effective way of doing business and government, the country has the potential to really set the standard for other nations. (and the music rises, reaching unbound crescendos)

Chill, man. If you need to comment, read what I've written rather than sermonizing.

It reeks of the same "Oh, old boy, don't you know, they were asking for British and American passports" by a drama-queen who was, supposedly, a released hostage from one of the hotels. NO-one else has made this claim, he ( british accent, hah) made this claim into a CNN / BBC camera ( strange) and has a face full of soot - which none of the other hostages did.

So - I am of the firm opinion that it was a staged bit of attention-seeking naansense.

"Thats gotta be one of the most idiotic ways of going about asserting supposed moral superiority..."

The Indian government isn't blaming Pakistan because it is convenient...If I believed that at least 1% of you would read the links for the multiple papers, testimonies, research projects that time and again prove beyond any doubt the existence of monetary networks, terrorist camps, military training and other cogs in the Jihadist Insurgency in every strata of Pakistani society, I will provide them..

Right - I really don't think it can compare with Bush policy of conveniently blaming it on Saddam - the twisted, manipulated intelligence that was used to go to war in Iraq. Thanks RahulD for saying this.

I think it is disgusting to say that the only reason they are blaming Pakistan is because they have a political agenda. Talking about how India is a tribal state, bringing up the colonial hangover or talking about how this might bring an idiot like Modi to power ...is morally reprehensive at a time when they should be mere afterthoughts. f you want to be a spokesman for the Indian point of view, please do it in a way where you don't undermine India's identity.

Well-said.

If you want to tell your American friend "oh its coz all these Hindu thugs killed defenseless Muslims a coupla years ago" please go ahead...it is a leitmotif of the Indian culture here. Its easy to make fun of Hindu Gods, its easy and required to make fun of Indian politicians...we all get a few yuks out of it...and then there are times that requires an inherent respect.

Again well-said.

Talking about how India is a tribal state, bringing up the colonial hangover or talking about how this might bring an idiot like Modi to power ...is morally reprehensive at a time when they should be mere afterthoughts.

I understand that this is a time for a massive amount of empathy and that different people have different timing for that, and so, I am sorry and sad and I can see that like countless other Indians you are angry and upset. However, for those of us who lived through 11 September in the U.S. and its aftermath, the idea that we should turn our thinking off and sit quietly while other people ram through an agenda (which they will - see: Modi showing up in Bombay while it was still going on) is something I have to reject wholly, having taken my own time to grieve and still living in worry that without knowing it, some of the people I have known in my life in Mumbai might be dead right now. It doesn't have to do with mocking India.

I also understand that people in Indian civil society are going to react differently to this than people outside, all else equal - but I am outside, and I can't do anything about that other than try to understand what's going on and try to call a halt to a lot of the crap that I see coming from both inside and outside India. I mean, does Conndoleeza Rice really need to inject the Bush Administration's opinion into what is already a tense situation? Couldn't they have stayed home for once?

as mentioned above the "mob" was the police.. n what else do u except when u capture a terrorist who had just killed so many.. also the photographer dosent know much bout the TAJ incident it seems.. they never came thruogh the front door of TAJ n definately not through the steps besides the Gateway of India.. they landed near colaba a small distance away from TAJ .... not exactly in front of it

its not a mob, its the police. And even if it was a mob, I dont see anything wrong with a bunch of people with sticks beating up a madman with AK-47.

183 · RahulD said

I'm sure Harbeer and his mental ilk will find some other wannabe-Foucaultian wonderment like "what sociolinguistic concerns led to the devolution of the psyche of these individuals"...rather than stop for a second and say, "man, a lot of Indians just died for no reason..."

Whatever dude. I said nothing of the kind. Thamizhan wanted to compare the US to India and I pointed out that her/his analysis was incomplete without considering India's more recent colonial history. Then I made some jokes and tried to temper Bozo's blood lust. What is this, beat up on Harbeer week?

Man, a lot of Indians just died for no reason.

Thanks for the awesome band name!

However, for those of us who lived through 11 September in the U.S. and its aftermath, the idea that we should turn our thinking off and sit quietly while other people ram through an agenda (which they will - see: Modi showing up in Bombay while it was still going on) is something I have to reject wholly, having taken my own time to grieve and still living in worry that without knowing it, some of the people I have known in my life in Mumbai might be dead right now. It doesn't have to do with mocking India.

This is what has happened since 1993 in Bombay alone (excluding the recent carnage):
Date Place Killed Injured
11-Jul-06 7 blasts at 7 locations in
local trains across the city 200+ 890
25-Aug-03 Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar 50 150
29-Jul-03 Ghatkopar 3 34
14-Apr-03 Bandra 1 0
13-Mar-03 Mulund Railway Station 11 80
27-Jan-03 Vile Parle 1 25
6-Dec-02 Mumbai Central railway station 0 25
2-Dec-02 Ghatokpar 3 31
27-Feb-98 Virar 9 0
24-Jan-98 Malad 0 1
28-Aug-97 Near Jama Masjid 0 3
12-Mar-93 13 blasts across the city 257 713

It is extremely conceding to imply that Bombayites / Mumbaikars who support the agenda of TADA/ Strikes against Pakistan and Modi, are unthinking.

As a Mumbaikar who moved to NY, I saw each city's reaction in 1993 (where I was just a few blocks from the BSE -- the Bombay Stock Exchange, at the time the bombs went of and actually walked past it while it was burning) and 2001 (where I was in mid-town). There was less panic in Bombay than in NY. The BSE lost a measly 1/2 hr of work -- and I was back writing my exams on Monday.)

Sure, I was disconcerted and when I found that the terrorists landed in Sassoon docks, which borders the apartment complex that I grew up in. It sure hurt to see them rampage through places dear to my high school memories. But my support for the ideas you hate are not based on blind anger or fear.

I want TADA, because I know that the Indian police does not have the resources or skills or the sort of control over information that the US police/intelligence has.

I am for actions against Pakistan, because they have been intensifying their low intensity war against India, partly because they do not expect a firm response from India, and to not respond will have dire consequences for Mumbai's aspirations to be a premier financial center.

I am for Modi because the other parties are anti-hindu, more corrupt than the BJP, and I feel that their governments have proved to be anti-national and dangerously incompetent.

Two militants killed in New Delhi shooting
Published: Sept. 19, 2008 at 6:35 AM
Order reprints
NEW DELHI, Sept. 19 (UPI) -- Two suspected militants were killed Friday in a gun battle with police in New Delhi, where a series of bombings last week killed 24 people, police said.

Two policemen were injured in the shooting in Jamia Nagar near the upscale southern part of the Indian capital, local television channels reported.

The incident comes in the wake of recent bombings in several Indian cities, the latest being in New Delhi last week. A group calling itself Indian Mujahedin had claimed responsibility for the blasts, vowing to do more damage.

The Friday gun battle, which lasted more than one hour, began after police rushed to a house where the militants were holed up, the Press Trust of India, quoting a police official.

One of those killed was identified only as Atiq, wanted in the serial blasts both in New Delhi and in the western city of Ahmedabad earlier.

Police said a third suspected militant was arrested and two others escaped.

The PTI report said police were tipped off by Abu Basher, the prime suspect in the Ahmedabad blasts now in custody, who identified the four-story house near a mosque as the location where he and the alleged Delhi serial blast mastermind Mohammed Sibhan Qureshi had taken shelter in July.

The Times of India quoted police sources as saying the five involved in the Friday shooting were members of Indian Mujahedin.

© 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

193 · DizzyDesi said

It is extremely conceding to imply that Bombayites / Mumbaikars who support the agenda of TADA/ Strikes against Pakistan and Modi, are unthinking.
As a Mumbaikar who moved to NY, I saw each city's reaction in 1993 (where I was just a few blocks from the BSE -- the Bombay Stock Exchange, at the time the bombs went of and actually walked past it while it was burning) and 2001 (where I was in mid-town). There was less panic in Bombay than in NY. The BSE lost a measly 1/2 hr of work -- and I was back writing my exams on Monday.)
Sure, I was disconcerted and when I found that the terrorists landed in Sassoon docks, which borders the apartment complex that I grew up in. It sure hurt to see them rampage through places dear to my high school memories. But my support for the ideas you hate are not based on blind anger or fear.
I want TADA, because I know that the Indian police does not have the resources or skills or the sort of control over information that the US police/intelligence has.
I am for actions against Pakistan, because they have been intensifying their low intensity war against India, partly because they do not expect a firm response from India, and to not respond will have dire consequences for Mumbai's aspirations to be a premier financial center.
I am for Modi because the other parties are anti-hindu, more corrupt than the BJP, and I feel that their governments have proved to be anti-national and dangerously incompetent.

You make some good points. What about the economic improvements of the past 15 years? Do you want to let the hard work of millions of people for more than decade be wasted in a war with these elements. Can we afford it. If we go to a war we will be back in square one with millions going back to poverty, as if the current economic crisis isnt enough to deal with a war will take too much resources not to mention innocent lives.

Gunfire reported from Delhi intl airport.

193 · DizzyDesi said

I want TADA, because I know that the Indian police does not have the resources or skills or the sort of control over information that the US police/intelligence has.
I am for actions against Pakistan, because they have been intensifying their low intensity war against India, partly because they do not expect a firm response from India, and to not respond will have dire consequences for Mumbai's aspirations to be a premier financial center.
I am for Modi because the other parties are anti-hindu, more corrupt than the BJP, and I feel that their governments have proved to be anti-national and dangerously incompetent.

Wah! Kya logic!

Panic spread at the Indira Gandhi [Images] International Airport in New Delhi [Images] in the wee hours of Friday after two 'sharp sounds' were reported from Gate Number 4 of the airport.

Given the number of supporters of the one percent doctrine in all its hydra headed manifestations, why settle for second best? I suggest that Dick Cheney be appointed the prime minister of India.

Con: He's absolutely amoral.
Pro: He will be available very soon, starting Jan 20.

Con: He's unpopular with every section of the world.
Pro: He will tell Arjun Singh, Rajnath Singh, Sharad Pawar et. al to go f___ themselves. Of course, L. K. Advani is likely to be collateral damage due to facial similarity with Patrick Leahy. There is also a prospect that he might "accidentally" shoot Vajpayee in the face.

DizzyDesi's comment 193
I want TADA, because I know that the Indian police does not have the resources or skills .....
I am for actions against Pakistan, ......intensifying their low intensity war against India, ... because the other parties are anti-hindu, more corrupt than the BJP (NOT SURE ABOUT THAT), ...

gruntin' ball scratcher's comment 197 Wah! Kya logic!

Have you bothered reading Arun Shourie's opinion piece and the cited document on Pak's education system?

The direct link to the Pak education system article he cites in his op-ed is here (large 154 page pdf download - warning).

Excerpt about that article from here (granted, this is not the most unbiased source, but then who else is?) :

...textbooks construct India and Hindus as enemies and how they incite permanent enmity, hatred and alienation with India. The author's contention was that these books promote militarism and violence and indirectly justify a heavy defense expenditure (for pakistan).

200 · T.I Cycle said

Wah! Kya logic!

I didn't say "Wah! Kya facts!", I said "Wah! Kya logic!". Logic usually refers to a set of statements of the form A -> B. Even granting A, which I don't necessarily do for all the cases mentioned, I can dispute the statement A -> B.

199 · Rahul said

. Of course, L. K. Advani is likely to be collateral damage due to facial similarity with Patrick Leahy.

Methinks LK has direct facial similarity to Cheney.

192 · Harbeer and His Mental Ilk:

Whatever dude. I said nothing of the kind. Thamizhan wanted to compare the US to India and I pointed out that her/his analysis was incomplete without considering India's more recent colonial history. Then I made some jokes and tried to temper Bozo's blood lust. What is this, beat up on Harbeer week?

I think one of the very very few intelligent things Carlos Mencia ever said was that we should never lose our ability to laugh at most situations...But sometimes, some some some times - be more empathetic.

Man, a lot of Indians just died for no reason.

Thanks for the awesome band name!

There are many things I would like to say, that would be mediated by the moderator, but I guess someone as intelligent as you can analyze my metalanguage to get what I think of you :)

...Oh and Dr. Am, I wasn't referring to you, sorry if it seemed so.

You make some good points. What about the economic improvements of the past 15 years? Do you want to let the hard work of millions of people for more than decade be wasted in a war with these elements. Can we afford it. If we go to a war we will be back in square one with millions going back to poverty, as if the current economic crisis isnt enough to deal with a war will take too much resources not to mention innocent lives.

The Guns Vs Bread and butter has always been a major factor in all our wars against Pakistan from 1947-Kargil. India has traditionally preferred short wars, because of of their impact on the economy.

The result has been mixed. We see this when we notice that Pakistan despite all its mismanagement and a frightening population explosion has a per capita income almost the same as India's (some $830 Vs $770 PPP). My take on the reason is below:

On the pro side we have had long periods of relatively peaceful growth. On the Con side, the effect of wars launched on other's terms has been costly. The 1962 war had a big impact on the economy. We have also lost a lot of influence and the economic clout that comes with it. In contrast China has been brilliant on exploiting military power for long term economic. Also a substantial part of the unrest in India depends on outside -- and India spends far too much resources on this front. The Risk perception also increases, with the effect on the economy.

Due to their proximity and size Pakistan, Bangladesh, and China will always have many interests that go against Indian interests. Since low intensity warfare is a cheap way of tying India up, they will continue unless there is some sort of a disincentive. A stepping up of military such as limited strikes) or covert action provides this disincentive.

There are risks, the neighboring countries are also current and future partners, but continued inaction will only make things worse slowly until we are caught in a situation with few options.

I am not suggesting abandoning the bread and butter part of the equation, but I feel there is a need to pay more attention to the other side.

P.S. Thanks for the Shourie article. (Although it saddens me to think that when he joined politics, India lost its best journalist.)

200 · T.I Cycle said

...textbooks construct India and Hindus as enemies and how they incite permanent enmity, hatred and alienation with India. The author's contention was that these books promote militarism and violence and indirectly justify a heavy defense expenditure (for pakistan).

I have not read the source article referenced above but I have first hand experience of Pak education system (of 70s and 80s) and I can, sadly, confirm that certain aspects of "history" taught in Pak education system at that time indeed promoted anti-india sentiments. The picture painted of pre-partition Hindu-Muslim and post partition Pak-India relationship in Pak text books was indeed biased. Having said that, I will also assert that what was being taught was NEITHER FALSE NOR LIES. Historical circumstances and events which lead to partition of India and Pak were very nuanced, with many religious, social and political agendas playing their part. And can very easily be interpreted in many different ways. Post partition riots and violence had perpetrators from ALL sides. In short, it is not difficult at all to paint a NEGATIVE picture without resorting to outright lies.

193 · DizzyDesi said

I am for actions against Pakistan, because they have been intensifying their low intensity war against India, partly because they do not expect a firm response from India, and to not respond will have dire consequences for Mumbai's aspirations to be a premier financial center.

I am for Modi because the other parties are anti-hindu, more corrupt than the BJP, and I feel that their governments have proved to be anti-national and dangerously incompetent.

Got fascism? You must actually be really dizzy, because basically, your argument is that the only way to stop murder is to support politics that will produce far more murders, while ignoring the myriad things in India and Pakistan which kill or maim or otherwise harm far more people than bombings connected to "Islamic terrorism." It is you and Modi and Al Qaeda and Bush on one side, and the remainder of us on the other. Have fun!

203 · RahulD said

I guess someone as intelligent as you can analyze my metalanguage to get what I think of you :)

Um, the only reason I'm responding to your meta cuss-out is because I think you misunderstood me. My new band name is "Harbeer and His Mental Ilk" not "A lot of Indians just died for no reason." I'm crass and irreverent but I'm not that obnoxious.

Metta Thumbing My Metta Nose at Metta You

Can someone explain the politics behind people like Modi and Thackeray?

Dr Amonymous

Got fascism?

ignoring the myriad things in India and Pakistan which kill or maim or otherwise harm far more people

while india's 9-11 is an odd formulation, there does appear to be a different reaction to this terrorist act than what we've been accustomed to. in the past, the establishment, the national govt, even the bjp despite thier rhetoric, really just wanted to treat these acts as crimes, appease the terrorists and reap the short-term gains of acquiescing to their demands, and simply move on...arguably creating a vacuum for demagogues.

but there appears to be a epiphany moment here. whether it lasts or not i don't know but whatever it was--perhaps the sheer spectacularity of the event--the magnitude of islamic terrorism appears to be dawning on everyone. the most serious issue of course is the doomsday scenario: they acquire biological or nuclear weapons, something president obama is thankfully keenly aware of. there's also the destruction a low level war could do to india's economy. as she emerges from decades of mindnumbing poverty, the last thing we need to do is scare off foreign investment.

but i think the increased globalization of islamic terrorism, as symbolized by the targeting of the jewish center, has woken a lot of people up. islamists are acquiring the grievances of far away muslims, adding to their already exaggerated sense of victimization. a similar thing happened to various white supremacist movements, but the islamists are far larger and more importantly find sympathetic figures within right-wing authoritarian islamic regimes.

i think even on the american side, this, along with the obvious ethnocentrism of seeing westerners targeted, led to the overwhelming coverage, one that we didn't see with the mumbai blasts. what was once thought off as merely a regional conflict is now being viewed for what it has been for some time: part of an international fascist movement.

210 · Howard Rourk said

Dr Amonymous

Got fascism?

ignoring the myriad things in India and Pakistan which kill or maim or otherwise harm far more people

Wasn't this "got democracy" a.k.a "rule of majority" is/was the theory behind partition of India and Pakistan, that India will be a Hindu majority nation where the majority (Hindus) will prevail over its minority (Muslims) hence Muslims need their own nation etc etc. ?

I am not too familiar with internal politics of India or what BJP is all about, but from the superficial awareness via blogosphere, if the objectives of BJP types are to assert and establish India as a Hindu nation rather then continue to evolve as a secular republic then it fits in very very well with what the jihadis of yesterday and today present India as to their followers.

Got "Clash of Civilizations" ?

209 · nm said

Can someone explain the politics behind people like Modi and Thackeray?

In a nutshell, mainstream Pakistanis accept the Two Nation theory but are still allowed in polite company. Modi & Thakeray also vigorously support the two nation theory but are "not cool" and can actually be taken to task by Pakistanis without any sense of irony. For the record I hate Modi & Thackeray but I feel it is necessary to put them in context.

>mainstream Pakistanis accept the Two Nation theory

The word is "promote", not "accept". They are the people who wanted, and carved out, the two nations. Now the Hindu extremist fringe wants two nations, and as you point out, that is not considered kosher. The idea is not appealing to me either, but I am also not sure why that is the case. I suspect most people who feel it is not kosher really don't know why that is so, but some cook up reasons (like "fascism") to justify the non-kosher-ness. The Pakistani state, on the other hand, try to take political advantage of this general Indian sense of discomfort about two nations.

BTW, historical context is lost on most people who write on this blog. As has been pointed out numerous times, this is an American blog. That also means the standard American treatment of things non-American, which is glance-and-move-on. Most people here know more about the context of the American Civil Rights movement than the Partition. Which is as it should be. But they also passionately argue about events that flow from the Partition. Which mostly sounds a bit, um, idiotic. But hey, it is an American blog! :)

So, those who accept that history cannot be rolled back should also support fascism/theocracies? Interesting logic. I personally was always fond of inquisitions, witch burnings, and heads on stakes. Bring 'em back, I say!

212 · s harpasand said

I am not too familiar with internal politics of India or what BJP is all about, but from the superficial awareness via blogosphere, if the objectives of BJP types are to assert and establish India as a Hindu nation rather then continue to evolve as a secular republic then it fits in very very well with what the jihadis of yesterday and today present India as to their followers.

Your logic is that, if anyone votes for the BJP it is because they are a Hindu fascist who wants his/her fellow Hindu fascists to come to power? Is everyone who votes Republican is a racist redneck and everyone who votes Democrat is an America hating Hippie? Rule of the majority? 2% Of Indians are Sikhs...

India was never a Hindu Country in its entire history, and it will never be. South India as a block will never vote for Modi or a Single Party, so the whole fear-mongering about him being a national leader is bogus. How is the BJP's agenda anywhere near those of everyone from the Imam of the Macca Masjid to the LeT is to make India a Muslim nation. And as much as I hate to be in agreement with the guy earlier who was tooting the BJP secular-credential horn, it is very true in a case like the "Uniform Civil Code" which is a huge part of the BJP agenda...both on the surface and its criterion the UCC is more secular and egalitarian than the prevailing law.

Since you said that your political knowledge is limited...try this out for expanding it http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/

And if you are bringing in Huntington's cliches lets explore the logical extensions of his theory like the fact that...if you are prepared to equate the BJP and its loud mouth to Jihadists and their bombs and guns...then you should follow that logic of Huntington and use the extrapolation of Jihadists to ALL Muslims. Otherwise, try a better way to make your point...

Now lets let the other people discuss the problem in question.

For the record I hate Modi & Thackeray but I feel it is necessary to put them in context.

Since you said that your political knowledge is limited...try this out for expanding it http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/

I am not sure why you brought up this particular article in reference to BJP and Jihadis. But since you have brought it up, lets make it relevant to this thread and the recent attacks on Mumbai :)

The referenced paper states that Mukti Bahni was using India as the base for its operations in Bangladesh (east pak at that time) and this (fact?) was 1 of the main reasons Indo-Pak went to war in 1971. It also states that Mukti Bahni was considered a terrorist organization by Pak but India considered them Freedom Fighters. Now compare this to the (fact?) that Indians call orgs like Lashker terrorist organizations and Paks consider them Kashmiri freedom fighters.

There was genocide of Bengalis at the hands of Pak forces which, according to the referenced paper, fueled the fire of insurgency by Mukti Bahni WHICH India supported. If I am not wrong, 1 of the 10 gunmen who last week carried out the terrorist attacks on Mumbai called some TV or radio station in the middle of the attack, and apparently there are first hand accounts by hostages, that the gunmen claimed their act was in retaliation to destruction of Babri Masjid and mass murders in Gujrat and Kashmir by Hindus.

So am I reading you correctly, you consider PAK SUPPORT for these effing Jihadis and their insurgent brethren carrying out the Jihad in Kashmir as legit and kosher ?

Wasn't this "got democracy" a.k.a "rule of majority" is/was the theory behind partition of India and Pakistan, that India will be a Hindu majority nation where the majority (Hindus) will prevail over its minority (Muslims) hence Muslims need their own nation etc etc. ?

A lot of that depends on how you view the world and what commonalities (and on what basis you want to want find those commonalities) you perceive. For example the Two Nation Theory...that's valid only if you see things as black/white and Muslims/NonMuslims as two discrete, separate entities. But that's just one perspective. I think the case could be made that Punjabi Muslims had much more in common pre-1947 (and even today) with Punjabi NonMuslims than either had with Sindhi Muslims (or Sindhi NonMuslims for that matter). Certainly the Urdu-speaking migrants to Pakistan (the Mohajirs), who left Delhi, U.P., Hyderabad, etc, and settled in Karachi, are quite different culturally and temperamentally from people who are indigenous to the geography of the regions which became Pakistan (i.e. the Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtos, et al). Pakistan (and the Two Nation) theory make no sense when you factor in the cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity within Pakistan, and the fact that NonMuslims native to that region had much more in common with their Muslim co-regionalists than any of them had with outsiders. I don't think it made sense that NonMuslim Punjabis had to leave Pakistan for example (despite being identical in most respects to Muslim Punjabis) while the Muslim Punjabis decided to form a nation (based on Islam) with Muslim Sindhis, Pashtos, Baloch, and Urdu migrants. But then again I've met Punjabi Muslims who amazingly (and appallingly) have claimed they would feel more comfortable in an Indonesian or Nigerian Muslim village than in an Indian Punjabi (NonMuslim) village. So what do I know.

Basically, these young Jihadis from rural Punjab should have been allowed to focus more on beautiful stuff like this , which is part of their culture, instead of on mindless violence and hatred which was imported in.

Well, well..I don't think using the two nation theory is the correct way to define Modi's or Thackeray's politics.

Hindutva ideology is that Bharat (not India or Hindustan)has been from the ancient times, a predominantly Sanaatan Dharmic society (Sanaatan Dharma was later christened as Hinduism by invaders and traders, and the country got its name India/Hindustan by external sources). Dharma is the bed rock of Bharatiya society.And this Dharma makes the people tolerant to other faiths. So, all those who live in this country have to abide by this Dharma, which means all religions must be treated equally, with the country coming first (which again is Dharma).

Got it?

If at all Modi& Thackeray have a theory about the sub-continent, they subscribe to the idea of a unified Indian sub-continent, and not 2 nation or 10 nation theory.

Pakistan is living proof of the 2-nation theory being accepted by Muslim elite and Congress leaders of pre-Partition India.There were no elections, no referendum on this question.Just a handful of rich Muslims led by Jinnah, and Congress led by Nehru (MK Gandhi's ideals were exploited cynically).And of course, the Brits played their role.

Millions of Muslims did not buy the 2 nation theory.They don't buy it now as well (in both India and Paksitan).But the elite still rules Pakistan, and they may have successfully indoctrinated large sections of Pakistani society through Islamisation.

However, even rabid Jihadists like LeT do not believe in the 2 nation theory. They feel that the Brits and Congress have cheated the Muslims of the sub-continent.According to them, Indian subcontinet was an Islamic monarchy before the Brits arrived, and should have become an Islamic Republic when the Brits left.LeT and its ilk are convinced about the 'legal right' of Muslims to be the rulers of the sub-continent.

One could say that both the Jihadists and the Hindu right believe that the sub-continent should be a single political entity.The difference is that Jihadists want rule of Sharia where as Hindu rightists want 'Sarva Dharma Samabhava'.Common sense tells me that true secularism as per the Dharmic way is the best bet for India and the sub-continent moving forward.The % of Muslims and other minorities has increased in India since 1947, whereas in Pakistan and Bangladesh, minority population has come down in terms of % drastically.Even in Kashmir valley.

Take your pick as to what appeals to your sensibilities.Inclusive 'Dharma' OR Taliban-style rule.

"So am I reading you correctly, you consider PAK SUPPORT for these effing Jihadis and their insurgent brethren carrying out the Jihad in Kashmir as legit and kosher ?"

Good job, that was quite a stretch too and you pulled it off...Now lets talk about the American revolution...

To put it another way, Hindutva folks feel: India is tolerant and secular because of the tolerant and secular nature of its Hindu majority.For India to regain its glory and become a global power, India needs to stick to Hindu Dharma.Which means, freedom of religion without appeasement of any group.And a Uniform Civil Code.And a my country comes first attitude. And a balance between globalisation and swadeshi, with the single criterion for any decision being the 'Indian National Interest' as a whole.

Bal Thackeray is essentially a Hindutva vadi.However, he and his ilk have resorted to 'Maharashtra first' as a technique to claim political space.It is not a constructive approach, but then India is a federation with antiquated taxation laws.Some people see the 'Marathas first' or 'Kannadigas first' kind of movements as a democratic response to the strongly unitary taxation and 'grants' structure in India.Nothing wrong as long as innocents are not victimised.But then Indians have been ill-served by its politicians since pre-independence times (there are some exceptions of course), and one can only hope that this generation and the next ones, succeed in establishing a more meaningful and constructive political culture in India.

223 · Kumar_N said

India is tolerant and secular because of the tolerant and secular nature of its Hindu majority.For India to regain its glory and become a global power, India needs to stick to Hindu Dharma.

That sure does sound tolerant, secular, and most of all non-contradictory. I do hope they get an early start on their outrage for next year's "War on Diwali" being fought in your neighborhood grocery store.

@ gruntin ball scratcher,

I have explained (in my words) the perspective of the Hindu right.And in the earlier post, I have also explained what is meant by 'Dharma' - Sarva Dharma Samabhava means 'ability to treat all faiths equally'.

Do you still have a problem with that idea?

The one good thing that seems to have come out of these Mumbai massacres is that Indian Muslims have come out in lareg numbers castigating Pakistan, and shouting 'Bharat Mata ki Jai'.In Patna, the Muslim crowds have burnt Pakistani flags and asked Pakistan to just lay off.

I predict the BJP coming back to power next time around.And even Muslims voting for BJP at several places.

The one good thing that seems to have come out of these Mumbai massacres is that Indian Muslims have come out in lareg numbers castigating Pakistan, and shouting 'Bharat Mata ki Jai'.In Patna, the Muslim crowds have burnt Pakistani flags and asked Pakistan to just lay off.

225 · Kumar_N said

Sarva Dharma Samabhava means 'ability to treat all faiths equally'.

@Naravara:

This was shown on TV this morning. These protests happened in Mumbai, Patna and a few other places.

I found a link on the Net (Rediff) showing the Patna incident. We need to highlight such shows of Indian unity.Please do fwd the link to as many as you can.

http://ishare.rediff.com/filevideo-Indian-muslims-protest-against-Mumbai-at-id-522203.php

Just read this.

I am quitting posting on this site. It is entertaining, but just pointless yakking.

The time of opinion is past, the world is moving too fast for opinions to matter.

Better to try and do something to keep your head above water. And if you can, help others do that.

Bye!

One more link:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/04mumterror-muslims-denounce-terror.htm

Excerpts (emphasis mine):

The appeal has been endorsed by a number of Muslim clerics including those from All India Organisation of Imams of Mosques, Dar-ul-uloom Wariseya, Lucknow, and the Ameen-i-Shariat Education Trust, Gujarat.

'As a mark of protest, we the Muslims of India call our community to come together to mark a symbolic protest on Eid ul Zoha on Tuesday (December 8). This is a day that celebrates sacrifice. This year, let us turn this celebration into a commemoration,' a joint press release issued by them said.

'Let all Indian Muslims wear a small black arm band while going to pray in the morning, let this be a silent protest against the mercenaries who spread terror in our janmabhoomi,' the appeal said.

227 · gruntin' ball scratcher said

225 · Kumar_N said

Sarva Dharma Samabhava means 'ability to treat all faiths equally'.

bjp and fellow travelers certainly do not have this ability.

Oh look! It's almost like the politicians in India are all hypocrites and crooks. Weird!

231 · Naravara said

It's almost like the politicians in India are all hypocrites and crooks

I don't think the BJP are hypocrites. They practice what they preach. Often to chilling effect.

Well I do prefer my villains to be of the moustachio twirling, maniacally laughing variety. It's just a great deal more honest than saying "Hey. We're going to take your land and leave you destitute. If you complain we'll kill you. But it's for your own good!"
And wither the mention of the Congress party's thuggery? You've got sitting MPs on the hook for everything from extortion, racketeering, and blackmail, to murder. So no shortage of thugs and rapists in there either.

At the end of the day if all you have to choose from is one type of bastard or another, you vote for the bastard who looks out for you.

233 · NaraVara said

At the end of the day if all you have to choose from is one type of bastard or another, you vote for the bastard who looks out for you.

First of all, it depends on what you mean by "you". And second, whether you believe that this strategy actually will play out beneficially in the long term, even if you are willing to ignore all the damage, violence and death wreaked on innocent bystanders making a Quentin Tarantino movie look like a Disney matinee.

So what was the death count during the BJP regime versus the current UPA regime? It seems to me like with the exception of Godhra BJP governments usually are better at keeping a lid on communal strife. This is partially because they tend to have coalition partners at the national level that don't put up with that sort of crap and also just because actually being in power means you have responsibilities to adhere to.

It does depend on the "you." But the more a government insists on drawing lines between people and meting out patronage based on this communal membership or that you're going to get a proliferation of "you's" duking it out. Emphasis on the principle of having one nation undercuts all the emphasis on identity politics and communalism. The "one nation" tendencies can go too far at times, but India is far far faaaaar away from even being in sight of that line, let alone crossing it.

It's just delusional to claim that if you could just wish the BJP away communalism would disappear with it. Hindutva is, at its core, a reactionary movement. That implies that its outlook is defensive, not offensive. It's motivated by a sense of feeling threatened or besieged. The BJP taps into that for electoral advantage just as the Congress and its UPA partners try to paint their adversaries as fascists who are out to kill you and take away all your rights, but that doesn't make the emotions and concerns of the people any less real or legitimate.

Riots aren't terrorism. They're not organized or planned. They're spontaneous outpourings of rage and frustration. In the short term dealing with them is a law and order issue. In the long term it's an issue of having a political system that can effectively let off some of the pressure before it all goes BOOM.
If you want to stop communal riots the right way to do it is to actually address the concerns of these voiceless people who are taking to the streets. Dismissing their concerns by calling them fascists or painting them with whatever broad brush you care to pick up does nobody any good.

Address those concerns and you will find the BJP will magically find itself a much more moderate party as will the Congress. It's simply Duverger's law in action.

235 · NaraVara said

Hindutva is, at its core, a reactionary movement. That implies that its outlook is defensive, not offensiv

Ok.

Riots aren't terrorism. They're not organized or planned.

Ok.

I will now go and leave those cookies for Santa.

236 · gruntin' ball scratcher said

235 · NaraVara said

Hindutva is, at its core, a reactionary movement. That implies that its outlook is defensive, not offensiv

Ok.

Riots aren't terrorism. They're not organized or planned.

Ok.

I will now go and leave those cookies for Santa.

Hey! There's an example of blithely dismissing legitimate concerns and how it's liable to provoke anger and resentment right there!
Well done.

237 · NaraVara said

Hey! There's an example of blithely dismissing legitimate concerns

babri masjid? gujarat riots? either you're not smart or you think that i am not very smart. i just chose the latter, so as to not provoke anger and resentment in you. if you'd prefer the former...

my previous comment was in response to "Riots aren't terrorism. They're not organized or planned. "

also, i don't see why i can't, in this sentence say:

If you want to stop communal riots the right way to do it is to actually address the concerns of these voiceless people who are taking to the streets.

If you want to stop communal terrorism the right way to do it is to actually address the concerns of these voiceless people who are forced to resort to such extreme measures and willing to lose their lives in the process.

(don't worry, i think that is a shitty idea too).

babri masjid? gujarat riots? either you're not smart or you think that i am not very smart.

If any of the communal riots were adequately planned I guarantee you they wouldn't be using machetes and stones. There are no organizations designed to train people in the art of rioting and whipping mobs of villagers into frenzies. There actually needs to be some sort of spark to instigate that outpouring of rage. After that all you need is someone to step over the line or an agent provocateur of some kind to instigate the already furious mob into going over the edge.

There is nothing strategic or planned about that.

Terrorism, however, is an entirely different animal. Rather than just creating havoc for havoc's sake terrorism actually aims at achieving political objectives. That's actually how terrorism is defined.

Ok, I needed some appropriate-for-the-times humor and luckily found one here.

I read the post, laughed a bit because I thought the author was joking about the Fatwa.Then I realized that the joke was on me.What the author says is true.The Ulema is still investigating the matter. I hope they take the right decision and do not ban yoga.

There are no organizations designed to train people in the art of rioting and whipping mobs of villagers into frenzies.

So, you don't know about Indian National Congress and their record in Hyderabad communal riots during the early 90s?

It went like this: Congress wins the Assembly elections and 3 leaders (MCR, NJR and YSR) vie for the CM's post. MCR is the oldest and becomes the CM.NJR and YSR are unable to stomach this.YSR transports criminals from his hoem district to Hyderabad to start a riot.400 dead and another 400 injured.Congress high command dismisses the CM as he was ineffective in law&oder management.YSR hopes to be made CM.But Congress high command now makes NJR the CM.YSR is incensed now.But he patiently waits for the Ganesh Utsav next year, and brings his goons to Hyderabad again.Riots on a massive scale - around 300 die.NJR is asked to resign.YSR hopes to be made CM, at least now.But Congress high command goes for KVBR :-)

Moral of the story: India's politicians, are perfectly capable of instigating riots when they need.Not all of them stoop to that level, but some do.And they end up becoming CMs and Union Cabinet Ministers.

Ok..I have deliberately not mentioned another incident engineered by a political party's followers in the country's capital city, targeting a specific minority and causing endless grief.The perpetrators have walked free.

It is you and Modi and Al Qaeda and Bush on one side, and the remainder of us on the other.

That's mostly right with a small change. I think I am on the side of Modi and Bush in regards to Islamic terrorism and you are on the side of Al-qaeda. But Generally I agree with the concept you have introduced "Us and Them". :-)

In a nutshell, mainstream Pakistanis accept the Two Nation theory but are still allowed in polite company. Modi & Thakeray also vigorously support the two nation theory but are "not cool" and can actually be taken to task by Pakistanis without any sense of irony. For the record I hate Modi & Thackeray but I feel it is necessary to put them in context.

he..he.. That's right. Come on. Even you want to be "cool" by dismissing Modi and Thackeray. For the record, I support Modi and Thackeray.

B.Raman (ex-RAW director) says -'Make them Pay'. He raises a lot of questions relevant to USA's war on terror.

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20081203&fname=indiapak&sid=2

Have a good day, folks !

naravara, i think my reality has a "pseudosecular" bias, so i guess we will just have to degree on the notion of riots as organically generated.

modi and thackeray deserve the same kind of justice that the isi and army goons in pakistan do, and the same goes for their footsoldiers on either side. i do not see common ground with anybody who thinks that what either side does is acceptable. they and organizations that are supportive of their ideas are all culpable in mass murder or apologists for it, and must be treated with the respect due to such morality.

210 · Howard Rourk said

Dr Amonymous

Got fascism?

Got Democracy

So because the electorate of Gujarat was willing to vote for Modi, I have to pretend that I don't think that his politics are fascist? It's not like fascism doesn't have mass appeal - if it didn't it wouldn't work, like any other political ideology not based exclusively on force.

ignoring the myriad things in India and Pakistan which kill or maim or otherwise harm far more people

Hmmm...

Thanks for bringing this up. These two things are linked - in order to industrialize, as I noted above, you need to find a way to accumulate and direct vast resources while at the same retaining enough popular support to prevent political claims from bringing down the economic regime. This incarnation of Hindutva might be described as such, but in a particularly virulent and anti-Other form - just like the U.S. had/has anti-Black policies and anti-poor country policies so that the people at the top can direct the resources where they need to go to maintain stability for their economic and political agenda. So you can see why overfocusing on an attack like this might be useful for him/other murderers / manipulators.

But there are other ways of going about it - I would also describe Nehruvian state capitalism along the same lines (as it operated, not as it always presented itself). I personally don't think any of them are "good," but they are certainnly preferable this kind of bs and other people have strong affinities to more moderate forms of popular mobilization where they're possible.

btw, it's cute--and dangerous--that he now talks about inclusive growth. Presumably, it doesn't include Muslims or dalits who reject Hinduism or leftists.

243 · Ponniyin Selvan said

It is you and Modi and Al Qaeda and Bush on one side, and the remainder of us on the other.

That's mostly right with a small change. I think I am on the side of Modi and Bush in regards to Islamic terrorism and you are on the side of Al-qaeda. But Generally I agree with the concept you have introduced "Us and Them". :-)

Yes, I agree with "us" and "them" but it's not based on ideology - it's based on decency. Anyone who wants to kill mass numbers of people without any need for it and with no ostensibly good or decent results for anyone is a dick (and there are times when force is inevtiable and there are uses of it that are helpful - but almost never when it's said to be). So regardless of whether you want to paint me as such, I am NOT on the side of Al Qaeda - I am on the side of the victims of Al Qaeda, just as I am on the side of the victims of Bush. This is because I am on the side of people who like to look at things in reality and not in preestablished (false) discourses based on false constructions of eternal enmity that are MADE real and intractable by people like Modi - and you in this case.

Hence we form a residual category - the people who think you're dipshits. Thankfully, someone has given us a voice. Enjoy your bankrupt ideology.

118 · dizi izle said

For all his defects, George Bush at least kept mainland US safe from terrorists after 9/11.

Yeah, tell that to the people who used to live in the 9th ward in New Orleans and see what they say ;)

214 · Feathers said

The word is "promote", not "accept". They are the people who wanted, and carved out, the two nations. Now the Hindu extremist fringe wants two nations, and as you point out, that is not considered kosher.

This is utterly oversimplifying issues. Some examples: 1) Jinnah and others understood Muslims as a socio-cultural group rather than a religious group, though obviously there was overlap among the broader Pakistan movement. On the other hand, RSS/VHP are religious fundamentalists and have always been so, though the sangh as a whole traverses the range from "moderate" Hindutva politics to complete and total assholes - the real battle is probably between whether you support Modi as the leader of the Sangh or someone who is still problematic from my vantage point but would potentially do far less harm. 2) Jinnah was ready to tear up the partition, but Nehru was not. 3) There was no consensus in Pakistan before or after 1947 that there would be 1, 2, or 7 Muslim states - though there were competing ideas. 4) The partition in the East - which never gets discussed - was voted for by the mostly Hindu elite but opposed by the mostly Muslim elite.

This was all about grappling for power and different elites and groups mobilizing popular sentiment on the basis of preexisting religious identities / sentiments to try to secure their place as the British left. If the Cabinet mission plan had been adopted, you would see a very different South Asia today - not geographically as much (though perhaps West Bengal would be part of what is now Bangladesh) but in terms of the dynamics of religion and violence.

Today, the difference is that there is no question of whether or not there will be separate Muslim-majority states - unless you advocate for "Greater India" which some Indian nationalist chauvinists might - that power battle is (hopefully) over. The real question that is at play in Modi's and BJP's and Rahul Gandhi's and other politician's politics is - what will be the nature of Indian politics. And it has and always will vacillate on this question of religious identity from soft Hindu (like the U.S. is soft Christian) to Hindutva (like the U.S. has Hagee and Ann Coulter and whatnot). As a resullt, aside form the material issues that Pakistan presents - which are of relevance for those who care about the Indian state, especially but not only in Kashmir and not only in terms of security but in other respects as well - it is frequently used as a bogeyman, the same way that India is used as a bogey man in Pakistan. In the process - a lot of other issues, regardless of your ideological predilections and whether you're interested in political stability or social justice or other issues - are sidelined - and I can only assume that this is because India still hasn't escaped the dynamics that were initiated during colonialism, the Cold War, and most recently after 9-11 - albeit in different forms in all three.

modi and thackeray deserve the same kind of justice that the isi and army goons in pakistan do, and the same goes for their footsoldiers on either side.

Modi/Thackeray/Advani ask for votes in India. Who is going to bell the cat on the Pakistani side of the border?

Jinnah and others understood Muslims as a socio-cultural group rather than a religious group, though obviously there was overlap among the broader Pakistan movement. On the other hand, RSS/VHP are religious fundamentalists and have always been so, though the sangh as a whole traverses the range from "moderate" Hindutva politics to complete and total assholes - the real battle is probably between whether you support Modi as the leader of the Sangh or someone who is still problematic from my vantage point but would potentially do far less harm.

All those words and you are still utterly simplying issues.
Jinnah and others were mainstream politicians in the 40s. You would be hard-pressed to find their thought process in present day Pakistan. Pakistan is now a hardcore Sharia/military state. RSS was a fringe group in the 40s and in fact remained so until the 70s. RSS/BJP fought in the marketplace of ideas and in present day India can be considered a national alternative to the Congress party. Equating the (BJP to the pakistani army/RSS to Lashkar-e-Toiba) does a great disservice to the Indian democractic process.

251 · amaun said

Modi/Thackeray/Advani ask for votes in India. Who is going to bell the cat on the Pakistani side of the border?

Wow, you hit upon a brilliant solution! It should satisfy you then if we just let the LeT/ISI folks run for office in India then!

213 · louiecypher said

In a nutshell, mainstream Pakistanis accept the Two Nation theory but are still allowed in polite company.

I don't know what this means. What does "not accepting the Two nation theory" mean? Going back to pre-partition idyll? Living in perennial guilt over the original sin perpetrated by the birth of the only country they knew? There are a large number of Indians who subscribe to the "at least, he made the trains run on time" philosophy, and are willing to permit and abet incredible damage over events they can avert, who are certainly part of "polite company", whatever that means in this context.

252 · amaun said

RSS/BJP fought in the marketplace of ideas and in present day India can be considered a national alternative to the Congress party.

I really don't want to go all Godwin but...

So regardless of whether you want to paint me as such, I am NOT on the side of Al Qaeda -

That's good to know. :-)

256 · Ponniyin Selvan said

That's good to know. :-)

I guess that's what people who are not Modi/Thackeray enablers are doing wrong! Smileys are such an important, and so often neglected, PR tool for terrorist sympathizers.

I guess that's what people who are not Modi/Thackeray enablers are doing wrong! Smileys are such an important, and so often neglected, PR tool for terrorist sympathizers.

Right, I guess no one is preventing you though from using those tools. :-)

258 · Ponniyin Selvan said

Right, I guess no one is preventing you though from using those tools. :-)

Cheerfulness is always a redeeming, and often uplifting quality, in supporters of mass murder.

221 · Kumar_N said

Hindutva ideology is that Bharat (not India or Hindustan)has been from the ancient times, a predominantly Sanaatan Dharmic society (Sanaatan Dharma was later christened as Hinduism by invaders and traders, and the country got its name India/Hindustan by external sources). Dharma is the bed rock of Bharatiya society.And this Dharma makes the people tolerant to other faiths. So, all those who live in this country have to abide by this Dharma, which means all religions must be treated equally, with the country coming first (which again is Dharma).

Hindutva as articulated by Veer Savarkar follows from the Garibaldi-Mazzini nationalism line (details beyond the scope of this post) whom he greatly admired. Savarkar was not a religious person in most senses of the term, and formulated Hindutva as a a binding principle for the entire land or what could be had of it then. Although the man was well read there is nothing substantial in his writings or speeches (isolated quotes won't do) that suggests that he spent any amount of time trying to sketch the outlines of a Hindu state. Difficult as this task may be (because there is no tradition of such philosophising in the Hindu traditon) Savarkar's national ideal overlapped with the aggressive self-explanatory nationalism of Ambedkar (yes, read his Thoughts on Pakistan for that) and Patel, the economic liberalism of Rajaji, and to some extent the individual liberty centered structure envisioned by Ambedkar. Savarkar was a social reformer around the same time Ambedkar moved away from reform and the two remained life-long friends. Savarkar is criticised by some know nothing idiots for having hatched the 2-nation idea before Rahmat Ali and Jinnah, a totally bogus and disingenuous charge made by those who imagine that their readers and listeners lack the ability to study up on their own. Savarar advocated a Hindu nation because at that time when the freedom struggle was fluid and the Congress seemed ready for anything - multiple-linguistic states, confederacy of priniciplities, religious enclaves etc., Savarkar tried ot draw a line in the sand and demand a Hindu state as a minimum. Remember that in those days national entities were recent innovations, while the idea of a religious entity inspired Caliphatism (and the Khilafat movement) was still fresh, and the Muslim League had already been formed (in 1906) to work towards creating a successor to the mythical "Mughal/Muslim India". The RSS then way behind on the thinking curve, saw Golwalkar produce his by now infamous tract "We or Our Nationhood Defined" which in its foreword itself (from a more knowledgable critic) bears heavy criticism of the bizarre consequences of Golwalkar's ideas! Even today if you were to ask an RSS apparatchik what his definition of Hindu Rashtra is and then to ask a Jihadi apparatchik what his idea of an Islamic nation is, you will be struck by the remarkable clarity of the latter and confusion of the former. There are a few lost in the past folks in India who still entertain notions of an Akhand Bharat (Godse and his collaborator's descendants) but political parties have long since accepted that the Partition happened and is a done deal >50 years ago. What no Indian political party will accept is further partition of India on any grounds - because all such reasons are bound to be cultural, broadly, and that runs against the idea of India. So it doesn't matter if a small part of Jammu & Kashmir (the 10,000 sq.km. Valley) consists of a majority of Muslims, Hindus, Martians, or Klingons; it shall not be partitioned on those grounds. FIN. And so too with Junagadh and the Nizam State. India is not a creation of the colonial powers, it is a modern form of an ancient nation (Ambedkar again). The Partition of Bengal and west Punjab and beyond is all India is willing to accept and the line in the sand. The rest is undivided India. So runs the argument, and that I agree to.

Secularism (keeping aside the crystal clear analysis if this much abused term by the Baalu/Ghent Group) in India is a different kind of struggle. The late Girilal Jain proposed that secularism in India is a struggle within the Hindu community on how to carry its tradition forward. Building upon that I would say that Indian Secularism is a struggle within the larger mass of people who call themselves Hindus and also have been touched by it (which is everyone until they turn themselves against it) either for good or bad. And in this I will include also the Southern Pakistani Muslim who utters "satyanash", the Bangladeshi Muslims with their penchant for Sanskritic daak naam, and the many Indians of every faith who have chosen to view their own 1st preference tradition through what they see around them. Sorry if I left anyone out. There was a time when in some parts of India a chance meeting between strangers would begin with Ram, Ram and end with a khuda haafiz. I had one such encounter with a very old Sikh at a gas station in Full Service New Jersey a few years ago. As he filled my tank and took my signed charge slip I folded my hands (as my parents taught me) and said "Sat Sri Akal" to which uncle responded with a wave of his hand as if to bless me and my family "Jai Shri Krishna".

And can we please stop picking on the "Muslim psyche/angst/etc." in India? There are >150 million Muslims in India and they have nice things and bad things to say about the Goverment, Modi, and everything else like everyone else. It is preposterously obscene to even hint that their discontent fuels terrorism in India. The much lasciviously looked forward to "retaliation" this time failed to turn up post-Mumbai-26/11 as many times before. And to all my Muslim Indian brothers and sisters please do not wear a black armband on Id this year. Let us not mix our symbols please. You may wish to tone down your observances and that is your prerogative.

Cheerfulness is always a redeeming, and often uplifting quality, in supporters of mass murder.

Looks like at least they have one admirable quality.

rahul @ 259 and jyotsana @ 260, thank you. you both have, indeed, uplifted and redeemed this thread.
:-)
(smiley sponsored by mutineers against terrorist sympathizers).

Jyotsana@260,

That was a readable, and insightful post. Thanks.

How about we close comments now?

>secularism in India is a struggle within the Hindu community on how to carry its tradition forward

Similarly, Communism in India is a Hindu reformist movement, not that different from the Raja Ram Mohan Roy's Brahmo Samaj, but with parliamentary ambitions. The Communists have not addressed the social problems (such as polygamy, gender equality, dowry, casteism etc.) in any other community, they only want Hindus to be accepting, inclusive and secular. The land reforms in Kerala also focused entirely on the Hindus. The Communist national leadership is also dominated by Hindus, particularly Brahmins.

The late EMS (former CPM General Secretary, Prakash Karat was his personal assistant), who was both cunning and insightful, pointed out that Kerala's politics today is India's politics tomorrow. And that has come true, right from coalition politics to the politics of caste and religion. So watch that pretty space in the southwest.

Now, back to lurking, seriously.

265 · Feathers said

>secularism in India is a struggle within the Hindu community on how to carry its tradition forward
Similarly, Communism in India is a Hindu reformist movement, not that different from the Raja Ram Mohan Roy's Brahmo Samaj, but with parliamentary ambitions. The Communists have not addressed the social problems (such as polygamy, gender equality, dowry, casteism etc.) in any other community, they only want Hindus to be accepting, inclusive and secular. The land reforms in Kerala also focused entirely on the Hindus. The Communist national leadership is also dominated by Hindus, particularly Brahmins.
The late EMS (former CPM General Secretary, Prakash Karat was his personal assistant), who was both cunning and insightful, pointed out that Kerala's politics today is India's politics tomorrow. And that has come true, right from coalition politics to the politics of caste and religion. So watch that pretty space in the southwest.
Now, back to lurking, seriously.

There is some warrant to conclude so. TVR Shenoy the most perspicacious commentator on Kerala since OV Vijayan wrote as much recently when the CPI(M) decided to out-appease the Congress in N.Kerala and capture the jihadophilic vote. There was that shameful episode when the Kerala Assembly passed a unanimous resolution demanding the release of an indicted but acquitted for want of evidence Islamicist radical and then hosted him at State expense. The "land reforms" have also left the plantations in S.Kerala untouched and have obviously never done anything about the trading monopolies of N.Kerala. But that's all for another day.

261 · Ponniyin Selvan said

Looks like at least they have one admirable quality.

The word for you is "us", ponniyin, "us".

The word for you is "us", ponniyin, "us".

he..he .. :-)

The story behind the video. This is what it cost to capture one terrorist alive.

Ombale rushed to secure him when the terrorist started pumping away with the AK-47. Call it guts or instinct but Tukaram Gopal Ombale refused to let go of his assailant. I am told that something like 30 bullets were recovered from his body.

His colleagues took advantage of Ombale's last act as they rushed at the terrorist with their lathis. The plainclothesmen were later identified as a 'mob' in grainy footage shot by someone on a mobile phone!