Mumbai Attacks Geopolitical Implications

Geopolitical Analysis of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai on 26 - 27 Nov, and my comments on them

Summary

If the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai were carried out by Islamist militants as it appears, the Indian government will have little choice, politically speaking, but to blame them on Pakistan. That will in turn spark a crisis between the two nuclear rivals that will draw the United States into the fray.

Analysis

At this point the situation on the ground in Mumbai remains unclear following the militant attacks of Nov. 26. But in order to understand the geopolitical significance of what is going on, it is necessary to begin looking beyond this event at what will follow. Though the situation is still in motion, the likely consequences of the attack are less murky.

We will begin by assuming that the attackers are Islamist militant groups operating in India, possibly with some level of outside support from Pakistan. We can also see quite clearly that this was a carefully planned, well-executed attack.

Given this, the Indian government has two choices. First, it can simply say that the perpetrators are a domestic group. In that case, it will be held accountable for a failure of enormous proportions in security and law enforcement. It will be charged with being unable to protect the public. On the other hand, it can link the attack to an outside power: Pakistan. In that case it can hold a nation-state responsible for the attack, and can use the crisis atmosphere to strengthen the government's internal position by invoking nationalism. Politically this is a much preferable outcome for the Indian government, and so it is the most likely course of action. This is not to say that there are no outside powers involved — simply that, regardless of the ground truth, the Indian government will claim there were.

That, in turn, will plunge India and Pakistan into the worst crisis they have had since 2002. If the Pakistanis are understood to be responsible for the attack, then the Indians must hold them responsible, and that means they will have to take action in retaliation — otherwise, the Indian government's domestic credibility will plunge. The shape of the crisis, then, will consist of demands that the Pakistanis take immediate steps to suppress Islamist radicals across the board, but particularly in Kashmir. New Delhi will demand that this action be immediate and public. This demand will come parallel to U.S. demands for the same actions, and threats by incoming U.S. President Barack Obama to force greater cooperation from Pakistan.

If that happens, Pakistan will find itself in a nutcracker. On the one side, the Indians will be threatening action — deliberately vague but menacing — along with the Americans. This will be even more intense if it turns out, as currently seems likely, that Americans and Europeans were being held hostage (or worse) in the two hotels that were attacked. If the attacks are traced to Pakistan, American demands will escalate well in advance of inauguration day.

There is a precedent for this. In 2002 there was an attack on the Indian parliament in Mumbai by Islamist militants linked to Pakistan. A near-nuclear confrontation took place between India and Pakistan, in which the United States brokered a stand-down in return for intensified Pakistani pressure on the Islamists. The crisis helped redefine the Pakistani position on Islamist radicals in Pakistan.

In the current iteration, the demands will be even more intense. The Indians and Americans will have a joint interest in forcing the Pakistani government to act decisively and immediately. The Pakistani government has warned that such pressure could destabilize Pakistan. The Indians will not be in a position to moderate their position, and the Americans will see the situation as an opportunity to extract major concessions. Thus the crisis will directly intersect U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan.

It is not clear the degree to which the Pakistani government can control the situation. But the Indians will have no choice but to be assertive, and the United States will move along the same line. Whether it is the current government in India that reacts, or one that succeeds doesn't matter. Either way, India is under enormous pressure to respond. Therefore the events point to a serious crisis not simply between Pakistan and India, but within Pakistan as well, with the government caught between foreign powers and domestic realities.. Given the circumstances, massive destabilization is possible — never a good thing with a nuclear power.

This is thinking far ahead of the curve, and is based on an assumption of the truth of something we don't know for certain yet, which is that the attackers were Muslims and that the Pakistanis will not be able to demonstrate categorically that they weren't involved. Since we suspect they were Muslims, and since we doubt the Pakistanis can be categorical and convincing enough to thwart Indian demands, we suspect that we will be deep into a crisis within the next few days, very shortly after the situation on the ground clarifies itself.



My Comments:-


Well, theoretically all this sounds quite plausible. But when viewed in the perspective of precedence, the possible scenario that emerges is quite different from the doomsday predictions of this analyst.

Firstly, this is one more in an unending series of such attacks, which have been escalating in scale and audacity. One more media tamasha, accompanied by the usual platitudes mouthed by politicians of all hues, as has already been witnessed. Given the size of this one, and the fact that it is still going on, they have so far restrained from finger pointing and scoring political brownie points. But once it is over, the blame game will start. Both the major political alignments will spew venom at each other, while claiming to be the sole saviours of civilization as we know it. And yes, collectively Pakistan will be blamed (and as I am sure all of us are convinced, not without reason or substance). It is another matter that WHICH ENTITY in Pakistan is actually to blame is anybody's guess. In all probability, their government is as helpless and clueless, or maybe just a degree less so, than ours. The genie is out of the bottle, and having granted three wishes, refuses to go back. It is now tormenting its masters and everyone else.

So, while Pakistan will be blamed, and the usual statements and denials will follow, each side pandering to its domestic audience. But it will remain at a slanging match, as both sides know they can not afford to escalate the situation. A very optimistic view is that it might even prompt the Pakistani government to overtly or covertly attempt to tighten the screws on the forces of terrorism (to what effect is anybody's guess).

USA will also make all the right noises, and do everything short of acting against Pakistan. After all, Mumbai is not New York, and the Taj is not the WTC.

Both India and USA are heading for a change of government in the near future, with the same preceded by elections in the case of India. Under such circumstances, it would be foolish to expect decisive, precipitative action by either of them. So, we will declare war on terrorism (yet again!), vow to hunt down the perpetrators (they are dead) and the one's behind them (you have a hope coming!) 'irrespective of their religion'. We will call endless meetings, probably initiate actions to raise new agencies or forces (thereby providing more avenues for babus and policemen to rise in life). That the existing agencies are numerous enough to cause considerable confusion and afford leeway for blame shifting doesn't matter.

Then, life will go on. Till the next time there is another attack and we once again dedicate ourselves to eradicating terrorism from its roots, no matter what the cost.

Sorry for sounding so cynical – maybe optimism will return with normalcy in Mumbai.

The Last Straw?

Involvement of a serving officer in terrorist activities has generated a lot of consteration within the services as well as amongst the people at large. Is it the begining of the end? The last straw? Crumbling of the citadel? While these are extreme views, the fact is that there is need for introspection.

The British had a policy, right or wrong, of keeping the armed forces insulated from the populace, at the same time treating them well enough in terms of emolutments and 'izzat'. Over the years, the insulation has vanished, and the armed forces no longer enjoy the pre-eminence in the society it once did. These, I feel are the two major contributing factors to the radical changes that are coming about in the thinking. Of course, the present incident is very obviously an aberration - a one in a lakh case I would put it. But I would also view is as a magnification of the changes that are coming about microscopically.

Management of change is a key command responsibility, which I am afraid has not got due credence as of now. When change is a fact of life, there is a need to firstly acknowledge that it is occuring, secondly to analyse it in all its dimensions, and lastly to take appropriate steps to mould the system and organisation to ensure that it continues to function optimally after due corrections to cater for the change. Change may be good or bad - either ways, the system has to make allowances to either benefit from it, or to restrict its impact. Our approach to either deny that a change is taking place at all, or to castigate it and persist with a rigid system promoting status quoism, is self defeating.

The Story of Four Wives

There was a rich merchant who had 4 wives. He loved the 4th wife the most and adorned her with rich robes and treated her to delicacies. He took great care of her and gave her nothing but the best.

He also loved the 3rd wife very much. He's very proud of her and always wanted to show off her to his friends. However, the merchant is always in great fear that she might run away with some other men.

He too, loved his 2nd wife. She is a very considerate person, always patient and in fact is the merchant's confidante. Whenever the merchant faced some problems, he always turned to his 2nd wife and she would always help him out and tide him through difficult times.

Now, the merchant's 1st wife is a very loyal partner and has made great contributions in maintaining his wealth and business as well as taking care of the household. However, the merchant did not love the first wife and although she loved him deeply, he hardly took notice of her.

One day, the merchant fell ill. Before long, he knew that he was going to die soon. He thought of his luxurious life and told himself, "Now I have 4 wives with me. But when I die, I'll be alone. How lonely I'll be!"

Thus, he asked the 4th wife, "I loved you most, endowed you with the finest clothing and showered great care over you. Now that I'm dying, will you follow me and keep me company?" "No way!" replied the 4th wife and she walked away without another word.

The answer cut like a sharp knife right into the merchant's heart. The sad merchant then asked the 3rd wife, "I have loved you so much for all my life. Now that I'm dying, will you follow me and keep me company?" "No!" replied the 3rd wife. "Life is so good over here! I'm going to remarry when you die!" The merchant's heart sank and turned cold.

He then asked the 2nd wife, "I always turned to you for help and you've always helped me out. Now I need your help again. When I die, will you follow me and keep me company?" "I'm sorry, I can't help you out this time!" replied the 2nd wife. "At the very most, I can only send you to your grave." The answer came like a bolt of thunder and the merchant was devastated.

Then a voice called out : "I'll leave with you. I'll follow you no matter where you go." The merchant looked up and there was his first wife. She was so skinny, almost like she suffered from malnutrition. Greatly grieved, the merchant said, "I should have taken much better care of you while I could have !"

Moral :

Actually, we all have 4 wives in our lives

A. The 4th wife is our body. No matter how much time and effort we lavish in making it look good, it'll leave us when we die.

B. Our 3rd wife ? Our possessions, status and wealth. When we die, they all go to others.

C. The 2nd wife is our family and friends. No matter how close they had been there for us when we're alive, the furthest they can stay by us is up to the grave.

D. The 1st wife is in fact our soul, often neglected in our pursuit of material, wealth and sensual pleasure.

Guess what? It is actually the only thing that follows us wherever we go. Perhaps it's a good idea to cultivate and strengthen it now rather than to wait until we're on our deathbed to lament