Mumbai vs Bombay

Andrew Sullivan quotes a Christopher Hitchens article in Slate that claims we should name Mumbai Bombay because Mumbai is a new name "forcibly" imposed by Hindu fundamentalists based on the name of a Hindu goddess. But as Larison remarks, the name Mumbai has been in use in the region for centuries by speakers of Marathi (and a slightly different prononciation in Gujarati, although the Hindi prononciation (Bambai) is closer to the former name). The prononciation Bombay comes from an anglicized version of the Portugese version of the name of the place; it is by no mean the "original" name of the place but merely an approximation made by eurocentric European merchants and soldiers.

But even if the name had been imposed by Hindu fundamentalists for religious reasons, I do not see why I should favor the colonial name over it. While I dislike religious fundamentalism as much as Hitchens, I have trouble seeing how a colonial name is inherently superior over a religious based name.

How to deal with Pakistan following Mumbai

It is slightly depressing, yet totally foreseeable, to see the reactions following the terrorist attacks on Mumbai. It seems that everyone follow the script: the BJP talks tough, the Congress tries to look tough with Pakistan, Pakistan tries to appease India while Indians put all the blame on Pakistan. Those reactions are normal given the history of the region, it seems things have not changed much since the debate between Jinnah and Gandhi.

But an interesting aspect is that the reactions have been fairly muted until now; there is no trouble in Kashmir, there have been no violent riots in India and Pakistan is trying to be helpful. While nationalist tendencies push both countries to follow the usual route, it seems both governments try to keep the lid on the boiling cauldron. I find this an encouraging sign. This event could end up being important for the region because it might make the civilian government and the army in Islamabad realize that they are once again losing control of their country and their foreign policy.

When I heard that Obama was planning to spend energy trying to solve the Kashmir crisis, I said it was a dangerous waste of time. It was not because I did not believe that settling the Kashmir issue was worthwhile, it was because I did not believe it was possible under the current circumstance; largely because there is no consensus that could be achieved which would have widespread support in both nations and that the governments (especially Pakistan) have no control over actors that could easily spoil negotiations. This is exactly what happened in Mumbai. While the specific of the attacks could not be predicted, anyone could have predicted that third parties would try something similar and what would be the reactions.

So what is the solution? Like I said before the attacks, Obama should drop his Kashmir plans. They were unrealistic before the attacks and they look like daydreaming now. But I think he should attempt to spin recent events in Islamabad in a way that could benefit the region and the US. The argument would be that those attacks, as well as the recent Islamabad Marriot bombing show that the strategy of using armed groups to achieve political objectives might be good in the short term but ultimately lead to a loss of control over the country. I agree with Juan Cole that the attacks are more than likely a splinter group of a Kashmiri mujaheddin organization. To the government this means that they have their hands tied, they can not move the country in a direction if the third party groups they funded in the past disagree.

Zardari would be obviously in agreement with this, but the goal would be to bring the army to agree. Zardari is took weak to take on the ISI and the now largely independent Islamists, but with the army on board he might be able to turn things around. The problem is that since General Zia's coup in 1977, the army has been packed with fundamentalists; but even if they might be sympathetic to the aims of Islamists, their interests lie with the state (they are the state's strongest institution after all).

So what is my solution? Drop the ridiculous attempts at peace with Kashmir and attempt to convince state actors that clamping down on non-state organizations is in their interests. No durable peace will be achieved unless the Pakistani state can regain the control it once had, and the attacks of the last years (Bhutto, Marriot, Mumbai) might begin to make people in power realize that they need to take action for their own good (and not to please some hated distant US).

The resilience of India

Here is Joshui Brustein quoting Suketu Mehta's book:

The writer Suketu Mehta captured brilliantly the dogged, resilient compassion of Mumbai in his book “Maximum City: Mumbai Lost and Found.”

In remarks he has given based on the book, he spoke of asking a man named Asad bin Saif, who worked at an institute for secularism, whether the chaos and slums and filth made him pessimistic about human beings. Here is how Mr. Mehta continued the story:

“Not at all,” he responded. “Look at the hands from the trains.”

If you are late for work in the morning in Bombay, and you reach the station just as the train is leaving the platform, you can run up to the packed compartments and you will find many hands stretching out to grab you on board, unfolding outwards from the train like petals. As you run alongside the train, you will be picked up and some tiny space will be made for your feet on the edge of the compartment. The rest is up to you; you will probably have to hang on with your fingertips on
the door frame, being careful not to lean out too far lest you get decapitated by a pole placed too close to the tracks. But consider what has happened: your fellow-passengers, already packed tighter than cattle are legally allowed to be, their shirts already drenched in sweat in the badly ventilated compartment, having stood like this for hours, retain an empathy for you, know that your boss might yell at you or cut your pay if you miss this train, and will make space where none exists to take one more person with them. And at the moment of contact, they do not know if the hand that is reaching for theirs belongs to a Hindu or Muslim or Christian or Brahmin or untouchable, or whether you were born in this city or arrived only this morning, or whether you live in Malabar Hill or Jogeshwari, whether you’re from Bombay or Mumbai or New York. All they know is that you’re trying to get to work in the city of gold, and that’s enough. Come on board, they say. We’ll adjust.

That quote comes from Suketu Mehta's amazing book on India called Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found. Incidentally, I bought my copy from a street merchant a few blocks away from the Taj Mahal hotel. It is an investigation of Mumbai full of insights on the city and its inhabitants; from the glamour of the Taj and Bollywood to the prostitution in the ghettos to poor Bihari migrants trying to make it big to Shiv sena leaders and much more. I suggest you read it if you want an insight in today's India.

I want to echo Ross's post on the incredible resilience of India's society, because it is an important point. India has been suffering from an incredible number of terrorist attacks in recent years. 2300 people were killed in 2007, making India the country most affected by terrorism in the world, and it was not an exceptional year by India's standards. There has been several attacks this year, including a few with more than 100 casualties. Mumbai itself has been attacked six times since 1993, the last time being a mere two years ago which ended up killing more than 200 people.

Today's attack is not an isolated incident, it could not even be accurately described as an escalation (at least not in human terms, maybe in symbolism). Yet India's society is still holding strong. They have a Sikh Prime Minister who was largely elected by Hindus, about two decades after rebel Sikhs attempted to carve an independent state out of Punjab and Indira Gandhi's murder at the hands of her Sikh bodyguard (when she was Prime Minister). There are some Hindu extremists trying to rouse anti-Muslim sentiments, and they have been successful in certain instances. But most of the time, even in Hindutva organizations, pragmatism and relative moderation rules. And during the past decades, in the environment I just described, India has thrived. Try imagining any western country under these circumstances. Do you think we would react as wisely as India? I think asking the question is answering it.

Quote of the day: The Taj Mahal hotel

But for one thing: The Four Seasons and the Waldorf-Astoria could never claim the pivotal role in New York life that the Taj could claim in Mumbai.

It is not another Hilton or Sheraton in another Asian city. Its cash cow may be foreign guests, but it is equally a fixture of local Mumbai life, the aorta through which anything glamorous, sentimental, confidential or profitable passes in the city.

(...)

Legend has it that Jamsetji Tata, a nineteenth-century industrialist, was once turned away from a hotel in British-era Mumbai because he happened to be Indian. He decided, in a strange kind of revenge, to
build the best hotel in the country, outfitted with German elevators, French bathtubs and other refinements from all around the world.

The hotel became, for many Indians, a symbol of the overthrow of the indignities of the colonial age. And it became a symbol of the best that could be had in a city paved with dreams. -Anand Giridharadas

Mumbai is simultaneously the Hollywood and the New York of India, and the Taj is the center of the glamour of Mumbai for many Indians. It might be popular with foreigners, but it is a deeply Indian institution; it is where every Indian dreams to eat when they have "made it", and it is a constant reminder that Indians can and will succeed. That explains why the attacks have such a deep resonance compared to, let's say, a bomb in Assam by separatists. It is an attack on a potent symbol of a proud and strong India.

I remember talking with some train employee in Uttar Pradesh and when I mentioned I was heading to Mumbai he told me all about the Taj Mahal hotel and how beautiful it was. He was proud of the hotel, even though he lived hundreds of kilometers away, he had never seen it and he probably could not afford even a meal there.

Mumbai update

The death toll continues to rise with 101 death and over 300 injured. The hostages at the Taj Mahal appear to have been freed but there are still around 200 people stuck in their room at the Oberoi. There is also an Israeli rabbi and his family who are being held hostage at Nariman House, a Jewish centre.

India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that the attacks were perpetrated by groups outside the country and that they would not tolerate "neighboring countries" that give a safe haven to terrorists, a clear reference to Pakistan. He also said the attacks were "well-planned and well-orchestrated... intended to create a sense of panic by choosing high profile targets and indiscriminately killing foreigners". It seems the government will attempt to put the blame on Pakistan and the ISI. It does seem like it could be a possibility, given the targets and the style of the attack.

Franklin Foer over at The Plank has an interesting analysis by an Indian friend that goes in a similar direction:

An organization called the Deccan Mujahideen claims responsibility. No one has heard of them. In the multiple attacks in Ahmedabad and Delhi earlier this year, a group called the Indian Mujahideen claimed responsibility as revenge for the anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat in 2002. But these Bombay attacks are different. The targets are not obviously Hindu at all--they are the main tourist locations in the city, and they were after Americans, British and Israelis. They went after a building called Nariman House, where several Israeli and Jewish families live. It was international, not domestic considerations which seems to be have been driving them. Also they seem very well-resourced. Apparently they came into the city on boats, used hand grenades and automatic weapons. It suggest some sort of Al Qaeda connection. But the Indians have been pretty good at tracking them. So, it is puzzling.

Today in the World: Mumbai

I assume everyone has read about the attacks in Mumbai by now. This is an extremely sad day for India and I hope the death toll will not rise too much, as it is already awfully high. There are still hostages in the Taj Mahal and Oberoi hotels so we do not know yet how this will end.

Who did it? The Deccan Mujahideen, a previously unknown group, claimed the attacks but many thinks that it is probably the Indian Mujahideen who did it. They have already committed several attacks this year and had sent an email claiming Mumbai was its next target, out of revenge because of recent raids by the city's anti terrorism squad. It is the sixth time has been struck by a terrorist attack since 1993. Mumbai Blake Hounshell writes some interesting speculation on who might have done it:

Here's where it gets interesting -- and I stress here that I am just speculating. Lashkar-e-Taiba's main goal is to expel India from Kashmir. In the past, some have accused elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence services of having ties to the group. Pakistan's government has always hotly denied such accusations.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has in recent weeks moved closer to the United States, made some significant gestures toward India, and moved to shut down the political wing of the ISI, Pakisan's powerful intelligence service (that's the unit that tries to steal elections). How likely is it that some angry "rogue elements" of the ISI, aligned with Kashmiri jihadists and a team of Indian domestic extremists, sought to head off these moves? I have no idea, but it's definitely a theory worth exploring.

Worth exploring indeed, although I do not think it is that likely. It takes more than a few weeks, I'd think, to plan such an attack.

Another thing to keep an eye on in the next few days will be how Shiv sena and other hindutva groups will react. Let's hope things do not escalate. And let's hope that the Indian state manages to put a stop to the recent increase in attacks on civilians.

Hindu terror

India has arrested members of a Hindu terror cell that has been found responsible for several bomb attacks in Maharashtra and possibly the 2007 Samjhauta Express (Delhi-Lahore train) bombing. According to the report, this news has caused shock in India.

Hindu nationalist violence has a long history in India; Gandhi himself was killed by a member of a Hindu nationalist organization. Communal violence has been slowly on the rise in recent years, even though it never actually died down. A Hindu nationalist party, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), gained power in the late 1990s' until its 2004 loss against the Indian National Congress, but it is still a force to be reckoned as the official opposition. Some leaders from smaller Hindutva organisations (linked to BJP) are not shy about voicing their opinion:

Meanwhile, senior right-wing leaders have made no secret of their wish that Hindus should form suicide squads to protect themselves against Muslim extremists. Bal Thackeray, leader of a group called the Shiv Sena, which has been responsible for communal and regional violence in Mumbai, wrote recently in the party's magazine: "The threat of Islamic terror in India is rising. It is time to counter the same with Hindu terror. Hindu suicide squads should be readied to ensure the existence of Hindu society and to protect the nation." -Andrew Buncombe

What does this all mean? It is hard to tell. After all, India was engulfed in massive religious based massacres a mere 60 years ago, which makes today's problems look like small potatoes, yet things got better for a while after. So maybe it is just going through a "phase". The fact that the arrest was made at all is good news, suggesting that the government is not giving a free pass to Hindu nationalists as some have claimed; in fact it might be what caused the "shock" at the arrests.

A thing for sure, those who claim that India's rise is inevitable need to tone down their optimism a bit. Even if chances are good that the violence will not get out of control, unfortunately it still remains a possibility; and it might be Hindus that start the conflict.

Via Cernig

India: land of opportunity?

Anand Giridharadas wrote an article in the NY Times in which he explains how his parents felt stifled in post-independence India where you had to be connected to be able to realize your ambitions and how they ended up immigrating to America. But Anand feels that the U. S. has lost its optimism after 9/11 and it is no longer the land of possibilities, whereas India has opened up.

So he decided to move back to India, along with a growing number of Indians. It is undoubtedly true that India has opened up compared to the post-independence period, but there is a key element that Anand forgets to mention: as an "American", he is at the top of the hierarchy in the job market in India. I did not realize this before I travelled and talked with several returnees in different developing countries, but after coming back from the West, their identities are often not defined by the "class" of their parents (as before) but rather by the fact that they are western educated and westernized. This gives them an enormous edge compared to others who never left the country.

Whereas his father was stuck in a business where advancement depended on age rather than talent, he is an America educated professional with a network of fellow American-Indian immigrants; which is more than enough to land him very interesting and challenging jobs. India might have changed, but what changed most for Anand is his social status. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, it means the hard work of his parents paid off, but it should be mentioned. It explains quite a bit of the temptation to return; whereas in America he is an average Joe, in India he is almost automatically a member of the upper class. I have not met a single returnee in my travels, from Philippines to Kenya (including India), who was not very rich compared to the median of the population.

But there is a very interesting quote in the article:

Countries like India once fretted about a “brain drain.” We are learning now that “brain circulation,” as some call it, may be more apt.

India did not export brains; it invested them. -Anand Giridharadas

Brain circulation. Very fitting. It'd be interesting to see an economic analysis from this perspective, to try to see which country has benefitted most of its "brain investment" and which sent immigrants who integrated in the west and never came back or sent money back.

Obama's first blunder?

According to M.K. Bhadukumar from the Asia Times, Obama has insulted the Indian government by discussing the Kashmir issue with the Pakistani president Asif Zardari while not calling the Indian government at all since he was inaugurated. This is a faux-pas because according to the 1972 Simla accord, no third party is supposed to mediate over Kashmir's dispute. I agree with Daniel Larison that is probably a blunder on Obama's part and is probbly not a calculated snob.

If true, all of these moves by Obama would be as clumsy and stupid as his handling of the Russian government was sensible and intelligent. The Indian relationship is probably the one major foreign relationship that Mr. Bush has managed to improve over the last eight years, and the nascent alliance with Delhi has been one of the few that has become noticeably stronger despite foreign policy blunders everywhere else. Embarrassing the government that negotiated and is trying to pass the nuclear deal over strenuous objections from the Indian left and criticism from the BJP hardly seems the right way to develop that relationship. -Daniel Larison

It will be interesting to watch if this develops into a more pro-Pakistani tilt in Indian-US and Pakistan-US relations but I doubt it. Zardari's mind is probably focused on the northwest and the people who are trying to topple him than to the east in a desperate struggle that he will never win against a much stronger enemy.

Edit: Well I should have read more before posting. Apparently, Obama serisouly wants to tackle Kashmir according to an interview with Joe Klein (via Larison). This is pure madness. Pakistan will never be happy unless they have all of Kashmir (maybe with the exception of Ladakh) and India will never give up Srinagar, especially since they have the upper hand and see no reason to back off. If Pakistan is made happy, it will anger India and if Obama gives Pakistani hopes that he'll mediate the dispute, they will be angry when they realize he is powerless. Hopefully Obama will realize this soon.