For the moment, there are questions as to whether it is an al-Qaeda attack or a more Indian edition though al-Qaeda inspired. Western observers are saying that it is dominantly al-Qaeda driven because it was anti-western in nature and the attacks were on hotels and places where most westerners were. More tellingly, they attacked a Jewish synagogue which points to a wider jihadist agenda than a purely anti-Indian or pro-Kashmiri sentiment-based violence. However, most of the victims are Indian, and not western, so, in all probability, it is a mixture of targets that is shared by the jihadist extreme. It might even be a mixture of participants and, in this age of globalisation, local-level extremist violence may itself be an obsolete idea. One may not know the exact identity of the attackers but the brazen success of the attack points to some seriously disturbing future trends, for India and the rest. Even Bangladesh will not be free from such anxieties. Al-Qaeda has also become an idea rather than the name of an organisation.
Pakistan-India relations and terrorism
Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh has not only promised all action to hunt down the attackers and those responsible but also hinted that they came from 'external sources' which means Pakistan. Scattered reports say that police radio picked up Hindi and Punjabi conversations amongst the attackers pointing to the common languages of India and Pakistan.
A merchant vessel has already been apprehended which is presumed to have brought the attackers to Mumbai though it's not yet confirmed. Other facts will continue to surface and even though the Pakistani leadership has already denied any connection, this is hardly going to matter. A lot of minds and opinions are going to be made up as far as Pakistani links are concerned. Meanwhile, the Pakistan government (though initially decided to send the chief of Pakistan intelligence) has agreed to send a representative to visit India and help with the investigation.
Such hostilities already have a long history. In 2001, India accused Pakistan over the attack on its parliament and the incident almost led to a war. Although relationships have improved somewhat since then, the fragility of this warmth is obvious and the immediate future of bilateral relationship looks very grim for the moment.
The problem between India and Pakistan are historic but the extreme animosity between the two is kept alive by the Kashmir problem. The collective national rage over the issue on both sides is so high that no Indian or Pakistan leader can even dare to seek peace. Having used Kashmir as an internal heater of popular sentiments, both countries are now paying a steep price as it lights fires in each other's households. The future price may even be bigger.
Extremist movements in India have many strands and most are geographically located. The Indian north-east has the largest number of insurgencies going on and they are all turned towards the central government and its local supporters. Despite a heavy security presence and large-scale counterinsurgency actions these insurgencies have gone on for decades and show few signs of abating.
Sentiments in India are already strong for taking heavy-handed actions against elements that have attacked Indian cities so often, so recently. However, India has seen only one major successful example of its counterinsurgency which was in Punjab and it related to the Khalistan movement. It's recorded that a major cause for the insurgency lay in the manipulative politics from the centre which pushed local anger to a stage of confrontation. When the Sikh extremists took shelter in the Golden Temple, the holiest place of the Sikhs, it was stormed by federal Indian troops triggering a global insurgency that took many lives including that of Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi, triggered large-scale Hindu attacks on the Sikhs and provided a section of the Indian leadership with a dubious example to follow in the future in dealing with sub-national unrest.
Kashmir, however, is a different kettle of fish because it has led to several cross-border wars with Pakistan and the insurgency there have not been cowed down by military action. Insurgents and militants there do seek and get Pakistan's support in their battle with central/federal India. Kashmir is not only the source of India's maximum security headache at the border but is also the biggest internal security problem. It is also responsible for providing fuel to the general resentment and selective rage amongst a section of Indian Muslims which has led in part to the sense of 'legitimacy' in the mind of the insurgency supporters. It would be intelligent to assume that this sense of socioeconomic marginalisation that Indian Muslims in general feel also contributes to the creation of such platforms of violence.
Worse perhaps for India is the recent rise of terrorism by Indian Hindu extremists aimed at the Muslim population. It puts a new and violent spin to the whole issue. If these action-reaction trend increases, and sadly it may, India will be dealing with a national problem it has not faced before. One shudders to think if sophisticated and trained people on both sides of the communal divide decide to fight their own wars on a common battlefield.
Pakistan: terrorism generator and victim, both
That Pakistan is being blamed is only fair because this country has invested heavily in destabilising India and Afghanistan for its anti-Indian objective and taking Kashmir. Its nation-building project is a continuation of the siege mentality that powered its state-creation project in 1947. As an idea, it has proven to be fundamentally flawed as its majority part, East Pakistan, parted ways with Pakistan in 1971. The smaller Pakistan has continued to be ruled by those who believe in military manipulation and clandestine insurgencies as a method of advancing its national agenda. Although it is now in a state of acute distress, financially and militarily, there is no record that Pakistan has given up its old ways which are largely determined by its military elite who see governance as a military exercise and foreign policy objectives as battlefield targets.
Unfortunately for Pakistan, its biggest proxy-war gamble backfired and the Taliban which it sponsored to take over Afghanistan but who were then intended to turn towards Kashmir didn't do so. Instead they turned towards Pakistan and have brought it to near collapse. Apart from that almost all the extremist outfits in Kashmir enjoy Pakistan support.
The situation of the US is curious because it shares a common cause against 'terrorism' with both India and Pakistan, is the ally of both and is involved with its own global war. It is also concerned that the hostility between the two countries through accident or mishap may lead to a nuclear nightmare. The US is really stuck in the middle of its own wars and it is linked to other wars through its allies. Its allies are again linked to other wars and, as a result, the dominant mentality that prevails within India, Pakistan and the US is that of war managing and not peacemaking. It does seem that while the US has empowered the theology of military action globally, it is quite weak when it comes to the quest of peace. It probably doesn't know how to resolve conflicts without violence and historically has no evidence of being a believer in that as a way of achieving foreign policy objectives.
Yet today, it is struggling to make both ends meet as it funds two wars, both unwinnable and now admits its war on terror is going badly. In fact, while attacks on the US mainland have definitely vanished, terror attacks as a whole have intensified globally, especially for its allies. Although Osama bin Laden is supposed to be isolated, it has had little impact on the terror war which seems to get more sophisticated, dangerous and un-checkable.
What seems obvious is that in every place where terror and violence strikes, it rarely disappears because in today's world, asymmetric wars have become far more 'efficient and successful'. In the last 10 years, despite incredibly huge investment, this has proven to be the most difficult war to win of them all. George Bush's acts should be seen as the last futile attempt through conventional means and there is a need to explore the possibilities of peace, even if they demand a harsh price because wars don't seem to be winnable anymore. If wars can't be won, what option is there except to look for peace? Given the global economic scenario where patronage for military acts is severely in decline, the world may well have reached a phase where wars are just not economically and strategically possible.
It might be more inexpensive and functional to address the root causes of violence and terrorism. One must end the Kashmir, north-east, Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan and all other wars because wars have not only become almost impossible to win but too costly to run as well.
Times have changed and wars as a diplomatic management process appear fully dysfunctional. Whether world leaders have changed accordingly and see peace as an inevitable alternative remains to be seen.
