In most cities of South Asia, hidden beneath the grime and neglect of extreme poverty, there exists a little Somalia waiting to burst out and infect the body politic. This netherworld, patrolled and nourished by criminals who operate a vast black-market economy, has bred in Mumbai a community that has utter contempt for the state, because it knows that its survival depends on corrupting the police. Like underground magma, that underworld has now burst into the streets of Mumbai.
Because the denizens of this netherworld know neither patriotism nor morality, they are easily lured into partnership with terrorists, particularly when they have reason to feel aggrieved. In Mumbai, a large proportion of them are Muslims who were denied space in the formal economy and have developed strong vested interests over the past 50 years.
Details about the Mumbai outrage, where terrorists killed over 100 people, are still unfolding. But we do know that at least 30 men armed with AK-47 rifles and grenades held India’s business and financial center hostage, targeting both Indians and foreigners, particularly Americans and British. It is likely that this operation was propelled from Pakistan through the Lashkar-e-Tauba, a terrorist organization sustained by hatred of secular India and backed by shadowy Pakistani agencies and street support.
In the blood and drama of the events, however, we might miss a significant element of the story. The attacks were an operation that must have required months of planning: serious weapons were deployed, a small army was mobilized, targets were studied, transport was organized, and weak points identified. A plan of attack that involved hundreds of people was put in motion, and yet the massive infrastructure of India’s government discovered nothing.
The chief of India’s Anti-Terrorist Squad, Hemant Karkare (who lost his life in the battles that raged through the night), received a death threat from the nearby city of Pune, but his own unit did not bother to investigate it, since it was busy playing games on behalf of its political masters. Complacency and politics gave the terrorists more protection than silence or camouflage ever could.
Indeed, the attacks represent more than a failure of police work. They represent a collapse of governance; these are the wages of the sins of administrative incompetence and political malfeasance.
India is a tough nation. No one should have illusions about that. It has fought off Muslim terrorists in Kashmir, Sikh terrorists in Punjab, Christian terrorists in Nagaland, and Hindu terrorists in Assam and across the country. It understands that you cannot blame the whole community for the sins of a few.
But under ineffectual governance, particularly during the last three years, India is in danger of degenerating into a soft state. Instead of being an international leader in the worldwide war against terrorism, it is sinking into the despair of a perpetual victim. Indeed, India stands only behind Iraq in the number of people killed each year in terrorist attacks.
Three years ago, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rather smugly told US President George W. Bush in Delhi that Indian Muslims were not involved in any act of terrorism. The implication was that the integration of Muslims in Indian society constituted a success story. Muslims, Singh implied, also benefit from the virtues of democracy, a conclusion that Bush happily repeated. But Singh certainly did not fool any of the terrorists, some of whom may have read his self-congratulation as a challenge for them to act.
I am an Indian and a Muslim and proud to be both. Like any Indian, today I am angry, frustrated, and depressed. I am angry at the manic dogs of war who have invaded Mumbai. I am frustrated by the impotence of my government in Mumbai and Delhi, tone-deaf to the anguish of my fellow citizens. And I am depressed at the damage being done to the idea of India.
M.J. Akbar, a former member of India’s parliament and adviser to former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, was the founding editor of the Asian Age and is an Asia Society associate fellow.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS