Op-Ed: The Real Threat of Terrorism in Wake of Mumbai Attacks

The Nov. 26 terrorist attack on the cultural and economic center of India has traumatised Indians and shocked citizens abroad. In the wake of the attacks, action is surely required, but conscientious management of this crisis is critical.

Since the first shot rang in Mumbai, media outlets throughout the world have focused their attention toward covering what has been described as India’s 9/11. From citizen journalists – whose outstanding and essential coverage has been cited by esteemed outlets including the New York Times – to professional news agencies, the terrorists attacks in the world’s largest democracy have gone unnoticed by a very scarce few. And while news outlets have provided citizens of the world with insightful and passionate stories, the common bond of nearly every article has been elevated, hostile language hinting toward renewed hostilities between nuclear powered rivals India and Pakistan. Perhaps my favourite news website for links to interesting, informative articles, Fark.com – which also offers a satirical tagline for each news story – had a link to a very useful article published by the LA Times which read: “while investigating Mumbai terror attack, India finds links to Pakistani extremists. Immediately begins gearing up for invasion of Iraq.” I point out this tagline for two reasons. First, it’s funny. Secondly, and more importantly, it subtly (and perhaps without meaning to) brings up a topic that must be considered: how should India react to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai? If media speculation as to India’s likely response is right, a war between India and Pakistan is likely around the corner; but for the sake of the future of democracy that better not be the case. Why? Well, let’s consider India and its neighbours for a moment. India is the world’s second largest nation (1.2 billion people) and the world’s fastest growing nation. India is, more than any other nation bordering it, tolerant of diversity and believes in religious freedom. India is tenth in the world in annual defense budget expenditures ($19 billion US). And as said before, the Indian government represents the world’s largest democracy. Pakistan is the world’s sixth largest nation (169 million people). Though not completely Muslim, the vast majority (90% or more) of the Pakistani citizenry practice some form of the Muslim faith. Pakistan is 26th in annual defense budget spending ($4.4 billion US). And as we all know, the government of Pakistan precariously maintains the semblance of control amid continual conflict between factions promoting rule based on either political or religious thought. Surrounding both nations are countries that, in appearance, look more like Pakistan than India, politically and demographically speaking. Of course to the north and east of India are two colossal nations that have a particularly nuances relationship with democratic life; Russia and China. Both neighbours to India, Russia and China are two non-democratic nations that have extensive relationships with most nations throughout the world. And this is particularly important because as the world heads into the financial abyss that is the future, second and third world nations will surely weigh the benefits of both democratic governments and other forms of governance. Therefore, pending on the influence of both democratic nations and nations that practice other forms of governance, the future political landscape of nations worldwide could be drastically effected by actions of both types of governments in the present. As a happy citizen of a democratic nation, I surely hope democratic thought based on toleration and sustainable economic development wins war of political ideology worldwide, but it is – to say the least – an fight on a level playing field. Demonstrated clearly in the brief tagline from the aforementioned Fark.com article, some of the greatest representatives of democratic governments haven’t exactly been shining examples in the past decade or so. The War in Iraq is a painful reminder that in the wake of traumatic disasters, even nations with governments principled on rights and freedoms can make poor decisions. Heck, if there is in fact a war of political thought being quietly fought throughout the world, it could be that democratic thought is losing. Russia appeared to be gaining political prominence early in 2008, but the battles waged in Georgia seemingly jeopardized all that had been gained through years of calculated diplomacy. Of course, where Russia follied, the United States failed. Instead of waging a costly, time- and life- consuming war aimed at who-knows-what, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin tactfully coerced French Prime Minister Nicholas Sarkozy into recognizing that unilateral military action is never justifiable. How did Sarkozy do it? Well, he reminded Putin that if Russia acted aggressively and hung Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili as planned, he (Putin) would be forever remembered in company with and alongside George W. Bush. That did it. War was averted. And it is precisely because the recent responses by democratic nations in instances of critical concern have been at best poor and at worst criminal, that the measures taken by the Indian government in reaction to the Mumbai attacks must be informed and pragmatic. Again, India is the world’s largest democracy. And as we saw comparatively, India is far stronger than Pakistan. If India attacks Pakistan, Pakistan stand about as great a chance of winning as Iraq did against America. So in that sense, there would be ‘victory’. But such an action just might cost democracy. Hypothetically speaking, if India waged a war on Pakistan, they would most likely have to do so unilaterally. The President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari recently called Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to state that the attacks on Mumbai – whether perpetrated by people born in Pakistan or not – were not due to Pakistan’s hate for India, but rather due to extreme sects of Islam’s hate for democratic ideals. To bring this point home Zardari reminded Singh that it was just a short few months ago that terrorists with similar beliefs murdered his wife, former Pakistan President Benazir Bhutto in the name of protecting traditional beliefs from democracy. As we can see, India’s response to the attacks on Mumbai are critical to the survival and spread of democracy worldwide. If the government of India collectively assesses the situation and comes to the conclusion that the root cause of this catastrophe was not the people of Pakistan, but the militant groups that provide shelter, food, and education to poor youth, the logical response would be to address the education system in neighbouring countries, not to attack Pakistan. Moreover, if India did decide to attack Pakistan unilaterally, western nations, which silently but surely are already struggling to maintain hegemony worldwide over China and Russia, would all but lose the most powerful second world ally in the war of political thought. In any event we, the citizens of the world, will not be able to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the Indian government’s response to the Mumbai attacks for some time – regardless of the response. However, one thing that should be clear to everyone is that a war between India and Pakistan is not the answer. All-out war wasn’t the answer for 9/11, it wasn’t the answer for Putin in Georgia, and it isn’t the answer for India in reaction to the Mumbai attacks. With the world on the brink of economic collapse, and thus too on the verge of a massive re-thinking of our political systems, demonstrating the pragmatic potential of democracy has never been more important; and that means that moving forward, the world’s largest democracy also must be the world’s smartest one.