The Differences Between The Mumbai Attacks & Terrorism In Pakistan

Most of us in the west will inextricably link the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack to whatever terrorist activities are happening in neighbouring Pakistan, but that attack was of a completely different nature. It seems the objective of Mumbai was to send a message as to what such a strike could achieve. And they were successful in sending their message loud and clear that terrorists still hold the advantage of choosing their time and targets. Our India correspondent also looks at the broader question that was raised by the terrorist strike in Mumbai; Are developing liberal societies more vulnerable to terrorism?

July.01.2009 - PJ Paul, Independent Writer

TERRORISM IN INDIA & PAKISTAN SHOULD NOT BE LINKED
Whatever is the cause for the start and rise of terrorism in the world, no two states or nations inflicted by this low intensity conflict share any common symptoms. The rise and growth of terrorism in India - a liberal and developing democracy - has nothing in common with the terrorism that has been wreaking havoc in neighbouring Pakistan. The Taliban have set their agenda. Attaining political power through jihad. Is it not? Now Pakistan has been set in its task of clearing its territory of gun-wielding Taliban spilling over from across the Afghan border. And India being the immediate neighbour is facing the heat just as it had its worst-ever terrorist strike – 26/11 in Mumbai. If Pakistan had earlier been identified as a terrorist state – for supporting or harbouring terrorism – India remained its worst victim, suffering the pangs of unpardonable violence against innocent humanity. The major area of concern for India after 26/11 terrorist attack in Mumbai has been how a secular and vibrating democracy can protect itself from the pangs of unsolicited war on its state, and its innocent people, unleashed by aliens – chosen, trained and funded by a once hostile, but now pretending to be a friendly, state.

HISTORICAL PROBLEMS IN PUNJAB, JAMMU & KASHMIR
The biggest rebuff a democracy could give to “sponsored terrorism” has been the peaceful conduct of the just concluded parliament elections, within a few months of the assembly elections in strife and terrorism-torn Jammu & Kashmir, a state that has remained a bone of contention between India and Pakistan ever since the British left this South Asian nation partitioned. Whatever be the political, religious and fundamentalist compulsions, the populace of this hill state has suffered silently, losing not only hundreds of its men, women and children but also suffering mammoth loses, both emotionally and materialistically. Before it started in Jammu & Kashmir, it was Punjab that witnessed bloodshed for over two decades. Terrorism that rocked Punjab in the guise of a movement for an independent Khalistan not only left more than 20,000 dead but also wreaked havoc with the economy, infrastructure and even the psyche of the once sword-arm and most affluent state of independent India.

MUMBAI DIFFERS: THE ELITE WERE TARGETED
Social researchers and scientists who have studied the start, rise and control of terrorism, both in Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir, find little or no commonalities except for their unanimity on support base for the armed conflict imposed upon people of two separate states of a liberal democratic nation. And this new type of terrorism unleashed across the world has also seen the emergence of a new concept of group suiciders or human bombers striking pre-determined targets, but the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks were different from terrorist attacks elsewhere in India or the world, including the 7/7 London bombings, because for the first time, targets were the rich or the elite, the CEOs. These attacks were a step up from the 9/11 terrorist strikes in the United States where not only twin World towers were demolished but attacks targeted White House and the Pentagon. Three five-star hotels and a busy central railway station were the target of the perpetrators of 26/11, suspected to have come in a boat from across the border. Presumably they had done a recce of the area they were going to strike. They not only held Indian security forces at bay for 96 hours but also killed several business celebrities of different nationalities besides keeping hundreds as captives.

RISKS CONNECTED WITH THIS NEW BRAND OF TERRORISM
The Mumbai attacks also exposed how helpless security and commando forces can become in situations where saving innocents, including captives, becomes their prime task. In Mumbai, seven of eight suspected terrorists were killed in the long drawn battle of bullet and brains and only one, Kasab, could be captured alive. Kasab, now accepted by court to be an adult and from Faridkot village in West Punjab, Pakistan, is facing trial. An inquiry by Indian government into the attacks saw many heads rolling, including those of the police commissioner of Mumbai as well as the Maharashtra police chief. Mumbai is a part of the Maharashtra state. It also exposed how vulnerable the policemen were, who had unsafe bullet jackets or vests and little or no intelligence of the unchallenged movement of the terrorists into their territory.

IS TERRORISM MORE PRONOUNCED IN LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES?
The problem of terrorism appears more pronounced in developing liberal democracies, than in the States that are developed or have limited or restrictive democracies, socialist or communistic governance, or are advanced democracies. True, advanced nations like the US and the UK, have also witnessed severe terrorist attacks, including the bombing of the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, or the 9/11 terrorist attack on the US, or the 7/7 bombings in London. But the motive behind those terror attacks was different than those on liberal developing democracies. I had been an eyewitness not only to terrorist strike in Atlanta Olympic Games but also to the rise and control of terrorism in many parts of India, including Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and the North East.

THE REAL REASON BEHIND MUMBAI
The 26/11 terrorist strikes have been an altogether different type. Here, there were neither any local issues nor demands nor any locals were involved. The objective was to send a message as to what such a strike could achieve. And they were successful in sending their message loud and clear that terrorists still hold the advantage of choosing their time and targets. India had its share of unprovoked attacks earlier also. But the worst had been 26/11. The problem of terrorism or internal conflict in some central Asian and European – mostly ex-East Bloc nations – is more on the side of ethnic or tribal wars for capture of political power than that witnessed in the South Asia where the primary aim of suicide bombers or terrorist strikes is to create terror in an indelible attempt to force liberal democracies into submission. Is this because of the various conflicts – religious, ethnic, social, economic or regional – that face these democracies or because of external factors that these societies are unable to foresee? And can these developing liberal democracies be adequately prepared and made resourceful enough to tackle such low-intensity and non-ending conflicts that disturb peace and make the victim nations unstable?

Copyright © 2009 BlatantNews.com. Get re-publishing info here.