Mumbai Rocked by Seven Bomb Blasts

Mumbai blasts and the peace process


The tragic bomb attacks on Mumbai on July 11, and to a lesser degree the targeted killings of tourists in Srinagar the same day, seem to have pushed the ongoing peace process between India and Pakistan dangerously close to the precipice. Indications from New Delhi following the attacks seem to indicate that the talks between the foreign secretaries of both countries scheduled for July 21, whose objective is to review the composite dialogue, may be postponed. Islamabad has already said that it is willing to go along with a postponement, if it comes, because of domestic complications in India arising out of the tragedy. Pakistan`s offer of help to India in its investigation of the attacks is a welcome step toward pre-empting any heightening of tensions but given the mood in Delhi it is unlikely to be really appreciated let alone taken up.

The fact of the matter is that certain sections of the Indian media and the security establishment seem bent on blaming Pakistan for what has happened. This is the sense one gets from the statements emanating from across the border. Take the case of the complete misreading of Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri`s remarks, made in an interview to Reuters in Washington, following the attacks. Mr Kasuri had called the attacks on Mumbai`s crowded commuter trains ``absolutely horrendous`` and said further: ``I think the Mumbai incident -- however tragic it may be and it is undoubtedly very tragic -- underlines the need for the two countries to work together to control this environment, but they can only do so if they resolve their dispute``. A meaning and interpretation for the worse were taken from these comments by the spokesman of India`s Ministry for External Affairs, who often speaks with more hawkishness than his superiors, who responded by saying: ``His [Mr Kasuri`s] remarks appear to suggest that Pakistan will cooperate with India against the scourge of terrorist violence only if the so-called disputes are resolved… We find it appalling that [Mr] Kasuri should seek to link this blatant and inhuman act of terrorism against men, women and children to the so-called lack of resolution of disputes between India and Pakistan.``

As far as the Indian media is concerned, the usual unnamed `official sources` got into action – this while the investigators were still going through the wreckage of the trains -- by laying the blame on to Pakistan. Fingers were pointed, citing these anonymous `official sources`, as Lashkar-e-Taiba (it and Hizbul Mujahideen have both denied any involvement and have also condemned the bombings). One official gave an explanation that the Lashkar was the only organisation capable of carrying out such an attack -- the logic seems strange given that the probe is still underway. The Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) has also been blamed but Indian authorities should know that this is a mostly home-grown organisation concentrated in Maharashtra, fuelled, some say, by the overtly anti-Muslim communal politics of that province. Even here, media reports suggest that the official view seems to link SIMI with the Lashkar, the latter apparently playing the role of guide and overseer.

In addition to this, inflammatory articles have appeared in mainstream Indian newspapers and on various websites, all pointing to Pakistan`s complicity in the attacks -- one even suggested that the ``second phase of Pakistan`s proxy war`` with India had begun. A lot of this balderdash is written by retired bureaucrats and military officials, and this happens, admittedly on this side of the border too. However, much of this seems to be shared by the government as well. In the space of three days, New Delhi has said that the existence of jihadi training camps in Pakistan meant that militants had bases in Pakistan and that this was a cause of major concern. But the LoC is now fenced with barbed wire (if not mined as well), and several hundred thousand Indian soldiers patrol it. Also, the Pakistan government has said repeatedly that it is not behind any cross-border movement and that militants from the Pakistani side are not crossing the LoC. This has been somewhat, albeit very reluctantly, admitted by Indian officials who have said several times that cross-border infiltration has come down considerably. Besides, India has several indigenous groups of its own as well, many of whom would have much to gain from communal fallout of the Mumbai attacks. And there are many groups and elements -- on both sides -- that are also opposed to the peace dialogue between India and Pakistan. Some of these elements may be found in the respective governments and security apparatuses (and some have a very strong base in Maharashtra), which is why the Indian government should be absolutely sure of the identity of the attackers before heaping blame on Pakistan.




Editorial, The News, July 15, 2006

#435 by shishapa
....... You said that it is the army that hates India...Why is that? What will make them stop hating India? Anything India that will do that will stop this hate?...

They hate India because if they don`t noone will call them `mera mahi chael chabila ... karnail nee jernail nee`. I grew up with the very popular slogan `Crush India` introduced by Ayub Khan after the 1965 fiasco and even then I used to wonder why the hell do they want to do that, i.e. even if they could. That slogan used to be plastered on every wall. That`s the mindset they wanted to create amongst the school children of the time.

As for what India should do, they should openly support the return of democracy in Pakistan and follow it up with close relations with whoever emerges as the leader, even if it means interfering in internal affairs ... But then again, isn`t India on the receiving end of Pakistan`s `internal affairs`?

#436 by avkrishna

Let`s
1) Remove the scourge of Casteism from our society
2) Establish Gender equality
3) Extend political support only to political parties supportive of Hindus
4) Direct all monetary and non-monetary donations to Hindu organizations

You can add a number `5` ``...and break India into a thousand ethnic pieces.``

#454 by stuka

The 1993 blasts happened in Bombay when Nwaz was in power. The true ruler in Pak is not the army but the ISI...

Nawaz was not even kept informed of Kargill so it would be wrong to fault the civvy government. As for ISI, they are largely overstimated. ISI does what it is told to do by the top army brass. As you know, ISI is composed of serving army personnell and the head of ISI is always a serving general so how can it be more powerful than the army? It is however a popular whipping boy of politicians/public to avoid having to directly target the army, which is huge `no no` and considered treasonous/unpatriotic. It may also come as a surprise to you that personnel who are transferred to ISI service are those who are considered too dumb, unmanageable, and with attitude problems in order to sideline them from the military mainstream.

...point is that even when there is democracy, it will still be ISI-Military nexus in power.

In the past yes. In the future no if the charter of democracy initiated by the major political parties reaches its logical conclusion and not tripped up with major powers support as soysauce has reasoned in his #455. That must not happen and will be a tragedy of monumental proportions and consequences.

The charter of democracy has a single clear and essential purpose ... to bring the military under the control of the executive branch, just as it says in the constitution. You will recall that on the 12 October 1999, there was no crisis or emergency warranting a military takeover. However, the prime minister had exercised his legitimate constitutional power to dismiss the army chief which he had done before as well in the case of Jehangir Keramat. The difference was that this army chief was too contemptuous of civilians to have been retired by one, so NS was overthrown and would have actually been executed like ZAB if the Saudis had not come to his rescue upon intervention of Clinton. NS is on record having said that Clinton had saved his life. Then Musharraf went on to tear up the constitution and marginalise politics and rest is history repeating itself. But for how long?

The Pakistan army is indeed a monster, but not one that cannot be leashed.

Historically, Religion and violence are intertwined.

Around the world, most violence occurs in areas which have `faith`.
A recent study showed that while 92% of Indians believed in God, Britain had a third less believers. Religion thrives on insecurity, poverty, illiteracy, ignorance and ill-health.

Many may argue that terrorism is due to politics, no matter what the religion, age or sex. While a major part of Indian politics is based on religion, Pakistani extremists want a religious solution to an essentially political Kashmir problem.

One outstanding example of a purely religious strife is Gujarat. Whose architect, the BJP, is a major political party in India.

The Kashmir issue, like the Palestine or Sri Lankan one, is a vexed issue avoiding a political solution. The Kashmiris have been marauded for generations now and the Indian subcontinent has limped along economically, compared to atheist China, for eg. This issue, that Indira Gandhi and Bhutto played marbles with, and is now at our doorsteps, needs urgent attention from the governments involved. Otherwise, the subcontinent is bound to spiral into further instability.

Let us remember the example of the EU - our most important friends are our neighbours.

#452 by HisExcellency


[We cannot fight this scourge with bombs and berets. We can only fight this monster by resolving conflicts, abiding by international laws and respecting human rights for everyone, regardless of religion and nationality. To fight a monster, we have to become human(e)... instead of becoming a monster ourselves.]


Ah, so you are saying that we should NOT emulate Mo who chopped off the heads of 700 unarmed civilians and sold their innocent and helpless women and children into slavery? And fought countless bloody wars?

Is that what you are saying?