Kanishk Tharoor: This is an Indian atrocity – not the West's
Outrages regularly afflict the country's poor, so don't rush to conclusions just because the wealthy are the target for once
Sunday, 30 November 2008
Even in a country that has endured more than its fair share of terrorist atrocities, last week's events in Mumbai came as a vicious shock to India's system. The attack that began on Wednesday evening will long be remembered for its chilling mix of indiscriminate butchery and meticulous organisation. Well-armed Islamist gunmen – most likely linked to the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, backed by elements of Pakistan's intelligence services – tore through the heart of the metropolis, storming Mumbai's main station, a children's hospital, a high-rise complex, two hotels and a tourist restaurant. The militants reaped a terrible toll that spared no segment of this world city: Indian and foreigner; rich and poor; Hindu, Muslim, Jew and Christian all numbered among Mumbai's dead.
Just as they were calculated to do, the terrorists' unforgivable deeds drew unprecedented media attention to Mumbai. No attack in recent memory has so transfixed the entire nation or so catapulted India into the glare of the international spotlight. Unlike the boom and vanish of bomb blasts, the unfolding drama of the run-and-gun rampage left Indians glued to their TVs, surfing the country's multitude of 24-hour news networks.
As frantic reporters reminded us minute by minute of what they did not know, millions watched with helpless fascination. The terrorists achieved that very modern success of a 21st-century media spectacle. In the eyes of the world – and in those of many Indians – India had finally materialised on the map of the global "war on terrorism", closing ranks with London, Madrid and New York. The attack on Mumbai was supposedly "India's 9/11 moment".
But in my opinion this is definitively not a "9/11" for India, and it cannot be slotted comfortably into the larger puzzle of the "war on terrorism". From a Western perspective, the events in Mumbai acquired real international significance only after it became clear that the militants targeted British and American citizens in the Taj and Oberoi hotels, as well as Jewish families in the Nariman House high-rise. There were echoes, to be sure, of Bali in 2002 and the US embassy bombings Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in 1998. But I found it almost surreal to comb the front pages of many British newspapers on Thursday morning. It was as if India was merely another faceless arena for the clash between the West and radical Islam.
Mumbai does not belong in the same continuum of Islamist attacks on Western targets abroad such as that in Bali. Make no mistake, this was a blow aimed at India as much, if not more, than at the West. The terrorists singled out iconic landmarks in downtown Mumbai, including the Taj Hotel, which sits next to the majestic Gateway of India, a symbol of India's historical openness to the world. South Mumbai is the hub of business and cultural activity in India's cosmopolitan financial capital. To bring death and destruction here is to strike at the country's image of itself as an aspiring world power.
At the same time, the carnage in Mumbai doesn't share the implications of the attacks in Madrid, London and New York. India hardly needs to be woken up to the threat posed by Islamist militancy.
Ever since the 1993 blasts at the Mumbai Stock Exchange, India has weathered a rising tide of attacks. Two years ago, serial bomb blasts on Mumbai's commuter rail system killed about 200 people (a similar body count to last week's atrocities). More recently, Islamist-linked attacks have targeted public spaces in the west, south and far east of the country. Were any one of these outrages to occur in the West, it would be seen as cataclysmic. In India, this sort of terrorism has acquired the resigned air of routine.
This is what makes much of the Indian reception of the attacks in Mumbai so noteworthy and, in its own way, depressing. As the drama unfolded, Indian TV commentators veered towards the sensational, frequently invoking "9/11". Whereas attacks in the past mostly hit the marketplaces and trains of the lower middle class and poor – the "overcrowded parts" of the country, as one news anchor indelicately put it – never before have the more genteel climes of Indian society been so brutally assaulted. Prominent Mumbaikars cluttered the 24-hour news channels, recalling their visits to the famous Taj and expressing concern for loved ones and friends currently trapped in the hotel. For an elite that almost always emerges unscathed from violence in the country, the attack cut close to the bone.
But it reflects poorly on the world's largest democracy that the Indian press suddenly placed the country at a "9/11"-style crossroads.
India has suffered devastating attacks of this kind before. The murder of Indian citizens – no matter what their breeding – should have jolted government and civil society from their slumber long ago.
Kanishk Tharoor is associate editor of openDemocracy.net
Post a comment
Limit: 1000 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by Independent.co.uk's Terms of Use
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
how can you call them islamists. do you know anything about islam.
these could have been easily hindus.
everyone is jumping to conclusions.
these terrorists knew inside out of a huge hotel. all internal routes of hotel taj. how can some foreigner or even outside of city person know that.
also in another article on independent. the report souza says that police with guns were not shooting at these criminals I ask why?
was there a collaboration between police/gunman. that is a good possibility considering the elections are going on is several places in india.
the oppostion BJP could well be responsible for this.
the ANTI TERRORIST CHIEF has recently arrested a HINDU TERRORIST responsible for blasts in malegaon.
BJP was mad at this chief. this anti terrorist chief and some of his colleagues were killed in cold blood during these attacks.
now this HINDU terrorist will for sure be released as the ATS chief who was doing a fair investigation is killed.
Posted by muhamad | 30.11.08, 05:47 GMT
It is a sad event but it is the duty of honest journalism to refrain from 9/11 press style... We need enlightened analysis and discussions on the context of the attacks: recent nuclear deals between India and Western countries, interference of Israel in Indian affairs, the US election and potential change of US policy towards India...Was it mere retaliation? Could an expert attempt to answer the most obvious question: to whom the crime profits?
Posted by Gabriel | 30.11.08, 05:36 GMT
Finally, a sensitive person. This aspect of the tragedy is quite sad. I was actually angry the last time, when after a carnage, the first thing on our PM's mind was 'the resilience of the aam aadmi'. This was the meme floated earlier by the English media itself. The idea was to calm the markets, avoid an angry populace, and avoid the spotlight for having allowed the carnage to happen. I mean, does the common man/woman in Mumbai have a choice? Can they do anything to hold anyone accountable? Their powerlessness is being presented as resilience. God forbid that they stop commuting to work, hawking their wares and helping the tycoons & slum lords with their daily profits! It is not resilience, stupid, it is the lack of alternatives to their life in Mumbai!
Posted by FeelTheSame | 30.11.08, 05:23 GMT
Looks like Kanishk Tharoor feels that the terrorist attack in mumbai was something different from the one which happened in UK in 2005 and in USA in 2001. May be it would have been better if he were present in the Taj when all this was happening to get a feel of whether these attacks were different from the ones which happened in the west.Instead of talking nonsense about two different kinds of terrorism he should try to write something more sensible.India is definitely an emerging power and the people of India are going through a harrowing time with these kind of attacks targeting its economy and boom.So kanish tharoor if you dont have something better to write i think you should take a long walk and stop passing such racist comments.
Posted by sudha | 30.11.08, 04:54 GMT
Poorly written but correct in one aspect. Terrorism in India is more often than not home-grown. What happened here is that in order to sensationalise the matter foreign tourists were involved and paid a heavy price for the ineptitude of the Indian authorities. It is easy to blame Pakistan however they should look more closely at their own faces.
The ineptitude is best summed up by losing the head of anti-terrorism in the midst of the sieges. Lions led by donkeys springs to mind and whilst the nation continues to be misled - is this not characterised by most nations at the present time when we see a dearth of quality leadership globally other than in the corporations who subvert the nation states.
Intereseting thought
Posted by chalky26@yahoo.com | 30.11.08, 04:45 GMT
Islamist?
Most likely back by Lashkar-e-Taiba?
Where do you get these from? Islam and Islamist, like your article, does not make any sense.
Do you just make stuff up to mislead people or what.
Posted by Mumin | 30.11.08, 01:09 GMT
Does it matter whether this was an attack against India or the West? At least 200 people have met a violent death because of those who were taught to hate by their religion.
Wherever these attacks are, there seem to be two common denominators - Americans or Muslims. Both groups think they are justified by God.
I recommend readers pick up a copy of James Hogg's "The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner" it's quite illuminating.
Posted by Paul | 30.11.08, 01:01 GMT
This is a stupid opinion which should not have been published.
Posted by SD Sharma | 30.11.08, 00:53 GMT