Obviously, as an Indian and a Hindu, I'm very sympathetic to feelings of betrayal and exploitation by the 80% Hindu population in India. I'm well aware of the cynical and growing belief amongst the citizenry that this exploitation comes from a desire by elected government officials in India to appease/retain the minority vote in order to stay in office. I'm sure that as a result of attacks such as the one this week, an increasing number of Hindus in India want to see India declared a Hindu state, open to people of all religious faiths but transparent in seeking as its primary objective to protect Hindus from what must appear to be increasingly dangerous external forces.
Despite these sympathies, I'm categorically against such a move. I would ask anyone trending towards such a view to first truly consider both the motives and the path to success for terrorists such as those organizing this most recent attack. So. Why do terrorists attack? Yes, ultimately, their goal is the establishment of some sort of religious state atop which they would presumably be perched, but in the short term, they are looking for capital, both monetary and human, with which to continue their agenda. And in seeking to gain such capital, they benefit from either promoting, or exploiting 1) financial disparity, and 2) religious extremism/isolationism. Financial disparities increase a class of poor and disenfranchised people, who are more susceptible to groups such as Al-Queda that offer them a sense of community and purpose in the absence of economic promise. Isolationism and religious fervor promote the cause for obvious reasons.
So how does this apply specifically to India and to Mumbai? India suffers from a tremendous amount of financial disparity, with a majority of its 13% Muslim population at the short end. Nevertheless, widespread belief among the Hindu majority is that the government has been too quick to coddle the Islamic minority for aforementioned vote-related reasons, including but not limited to a) permittance of Shari'a law in some circumstances for muslims and b) a presumed "soft" stance on terror. This has driven the majority increasingly towards Hindu nationalist parties such as the BJP, whose emphasis on domestic counterterrorism has a clear isolationist stance. The growth of parties such as this further marginalizes the already poor, underrepresented Muslim population in India, no doubt providing ample incentive for them to become more radical.
Now you add the attack on Mumbai. First, the attack is on a financial centerpiece of India. Disrupting economic growth is a surefire way to drive more people towards religious extremism, and remember: an increase of extremism of either Muslims or Hindus is an unequivocal win for terrorists because of a multiplier effect (extremism in one direction drives extremism amongst opposing constituents). It's an attack on a city with many Hindus and Muslims living in tenuous, but functional, cohabitation, and so the attack has tremendous symbolism. And finally, we have the potential of this attack to lend more weight to the voices of political parties promoting religious isolationism. And while i understand the tendency for that type of protectionism, I would say this: one of the most wonderful aspects of India is its secular embrace of all cultures (something it has in common with America). I mean, there is a professed Islamic state just next door, and yet there are more Muslims living in India that in Pakistan, and why? Partially, yes, because they were living in India before the partition, but at least partially because, especially for more secular Muslims, its probably much nicer to live in India than in Pakistan. For all its faults, India still has a functional democracy whose ability to maintain the rule of law is orders of magnitude better than Pakistan's. India is the one country in South Asia still offering hope for a religiously integrated hegemony of all people rather than a series of religiously isolated states privately stoking the fires of resentment , each progressing towards inevitable conflict.
Does this mean that I think there should be no response to a terrorist attack - of course not. But let me quote the awesome Fareed Zakaria:
I could not agree more. Let the response to this attack be strong, but properly directed - unflinchingly at terrorists, and terrorism of any and all kinds. Certainly, I think that India should strengthen their counterterrorism initiatives, including increased surveillance at ports, increased power to police in dealing with terrorism suspects, ability to prevent extradition of terrorists, etc. There is a great opportunity for the Indian government to work with Pakistan to seek out the perpatrators of this attack. But let their stance be against terror, and not against Islam. Don't give the terrorists what they want, and put a wall between Muslims and Hindus. Instead, seek to protect all citizens, and protect the cultural and religious diversity that is so great about Mumbai, and India.The problems of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are now bleeding into one another, and any purely national approach is not going to work. The best outcome of these attacks would be if they spurred cooperation and reform. If instead they feed rivalry, bitterness and finger-pointing, the victims will have died in vain, and there will be more victims and an insecure neighborhood.
The crucial point is to remember the common enemy. When discussing causes and cures, never forget who is to blame first and foremost: the terrorists, the evil men who chose to deliberately kill innocent men, women and children, to burn young families to death. They are the ones who did it.
And while Indians have many troubles, they have one great counterterrorism policy—resilience. The Mumbai stock exchange reopened last Friday and closed higher. The country will persevere, the city will bounce back, and all those who have reasons to go there should not be deterred.
No comments:
Post a Comment