Meaning of Mumbai
am an Indian and I am against going to war with Pakistan over these attacks,
but I have many reservations about your article.
Your theory seems
to be that the West (which, really, I suppose means America) wants to use India
as a tool to expand its war against terror into South Asia. The evidence flies
in the face of this theory, what with America sending down their secretary
of state to both countries to calm tensions down. Pakistan has been a longtime
ally of America (as we all know), and I really don't think America would like
an Indo-Pakistani war. In any case, India cannot be shoved into a war with
Pakistan by America.
of the BJP as chauvinistic nationalists is fairly accurate, but even they have
not been clamoring for war with Pakistan. From everything I have seen on TV
and read in the news, they have limited their criticism to the failures of
the Congress-Party-led government to control terrorism. Indeed, the usual post-terrorist-attack
political debate has been stifled by an outpouring of public anger and cynicism
against all political parties, who are accused of simply playing games. I do
not remember the last time the BJP advocated war with Pakistan. What they have
been clamoring for all along is what they call "tougher laws" against terrorism,
something like the PATRIOT Act in the USA. Look up "IOTA" if you have the time.
we have now is not very different from what we had following the attack on the
Indian parliament in December 2001. A BJP-led government was in power then,
and there was a buildup of troops on both sides of the Indo-Pakistan border
but no war. I would also like you to point out your sources when you said that
the BJP has built a temple on the site of the Babri mosque. I have not heard
of this anywhere, and I live in the damn country. From what I have heard, work
has begun on the ground floor, and that was carried out by the Vishwa Hindu
Parishad, not the BJP. The whole thing embarrassed the BJP.
This is not just
nitpicking. I have a point here. The BJP is certainly the more aggressive and
trigger-happy of the big political outfits in India. But even they have more
sense than to trigger a nuclear war with Pakistan. They did not even have the
courage to build the temple at the site of the Babri mosque. The BJP has diluted
its ideology for practical purposes when in power, and will do so again. In
any case, there is still some time left for the elections, and whatever action
must be taken will be taken by the present government, while there is still
considerable public anger over the issue. I do not claim to know what the Congress-led
government will do, but they are less likely than the BJP to wage war.
I had about your article is that you seem to doubt that the Lashkar-e-Taiba
is a terrorist organization, simply because they do some charity work. The
LeT has been a declared terrorist organization for a long time (and on the
terror list of many Western powers) and has claimed responsibility for terrorist
attacks in the past. I find it hard to doubt that they are terrorists. The
groups that were involved in the demolition of the Babri mosque also have a
fondness for charity. That does not make them peace-loving.
About your doubts
over the claims made by the investigative agencies: yes, some things do seem
fishy. But the terrorists seemed very well trained and organized this time.
India has, I admit, a knee-jerk tendency to blame Pakistan or Pakistan-based
organizations for all terrorist attacks, but these guys seemed too well trained,
and the whole attack seemed too well planned to be a wholly indigenous plan.
Also note that these guys targeted Westerners and Israelis, so their grievances
are not limited to India. On the whole, it seems reasonable that these guys
were trained by someone with experience, and it does not seem unreasonable
to suggest that there are folks in parts of Pakistan with plenty of experience.
I don't know
how India will react to these attacks, and the prospect of war (especially
nuclear war) makes me sick with worry. But you seem to exaggerate the risks
and mischaracterize the American role in this crisis. America is not looking
to take the war to South Asia. Not even George Bush is that stupid.
~ Phani V.K.
Arrogance Has Fomented a Muslim Revolution
article is an excellent summary of the government actions that are taking us
down the drain. And now we know who is behind it, for Obama's appointments indeed
illustrate the reality that we live in Israeli-occupied territory. It is indeed
sad that we cannot seem to elect an American to be president. Yet it is the
American people that are ultimately to blame, for if they had their heads out
where they could breathe, our next president would be Ron Paul. He did offer
to take the job.
~ Jack Dennon
prefer Malic when he sticks to Bosnian, Serbian, and Kosovar affairs. His comments
and analysis over the years, even with respect to American involvement – ever
since the breakup of Yugoslavia – have been convincingly appropriate and informative.
One might even hope that Washington sometimes pays attention.
current piece, which bemoans American "imperialism" characterized by both the
Clinton and Bush administrations, then snidely condemns Obama with the same
brush, is a bit premature. I would suggest that Malic at least wait until the
president-elect is in office.
~ Edmund A. Bator,
all due respect, the fact that Obama will keep the current defense secretary
and appoint Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state sure appears to vindicate
my misgivings about the professed "change" we're supposed to take on faith.
Seems more like continuity to me – from the Balkans to Baghdad. He didn't even
wait to get into office before breaking his campaign promises. Premature? I