Whose War is it Anyway??

War on Mumbai...Cried the Newspaper headlines on 27/11.....The war of civilisaitons between muslims and the infidels has begun on indian territory. till now, our terror attacks were against the "policies that the indian governent" followd, and the cause were mainly kashmir or ayodhya... this is the first time that the jihadi cause for an attack took international cause and flavor targetting Westerners in star hotels and jews secluded in a 'Nariman's House'.

From a localised threat, the jihadi's terrorism has become a pan indian threat with a pan islamic ideology. The attack was also intended to club India together wiht the Crusades (read US and UK) and the Zionists (read Israelis). Now there are reports that indian muslims are goign to afganistan to fight withthe taliban against the us, and which also said that india is one of the main routes being used by foreign jihadis going to afganistan. It's not just india that is at war...but rather.. the whole idea of india.

The country has been at the mercy of the terrorists for almost two years now.. every now and then, every month, there has been an attack somewhere or other starting from UP, Rajastan, to Bangalore, to Ahmedabad to Surat to Assam and now mumbai. and with every attack, the magnitude depended on the infrastructure and the facilities of the attackers,and not on the pre-emptive or preventive measures of the Indian State.

For all his failures, George Bush has suceeded to pre-empt an attack on his country's soil for his entire tenure against and more violent, shape changing enemy. Can Indian Politicians keep aside their partisan politics and unite to fight this enemy and save the idea of india and its secular fabric?

Anyhow.. over the period that this incident has happend...many thoughts have passed thru this humble mind such as these and i consider it worthwhile penning it down :-

(a) We are the mercy of the terrorists! the magnitude of every attack only depended on the infrastructure of the terrorist and not on the response of the Govt and its agencies. what does it point to? is the state and the machinery so ineffective that it is at the mercy of its aggressors and is not in a position to negotiate the damage and loss that happens wiht every attack?

(b) Blaming Politicians have been something quite easy for the people! were they to be blamed? who made the costal patrolling vulnerable? who made the police patrol ineffective? we have a ready answer... the Politician - the corrupt one - at that! But is that politician to be blamed or are we to be blamed, who voted them to power? Ultimately, to underscore, the moral of the society is reflected by its citizens only. If a socieity is corrupt, then it is because each and every member of that society is corrupt.

(c) Another thought involved the forces...?? could NSG and the Marcos have tried something better than the exchange of fire encounter? Such gunfights in a small secluded house or a builduing is okay like they do in Jammu Valley. But is it justified in the middle of a metropolitian city like Mumbai? Could they have tried an out of the box situation like 'gas'ing the Taj through its centralised AC vents or water pipelines, and once they have neutralised the terrorists like this, they have spotted, picked and choose whom to be apprehended or killed! why was Taj and Nariman House Stormed? did it evoke any Collateral Damage other than the ones executed by the terrorists? For the terrorists, everyone except them was an enemy. Considering this, was the open fight a blunder?

(d) state actors or non state actors...terrorism has gone a sea change over the years. it is not relevant a strike was done by Al-Qaeda or LeT! The terror outfits like Al-Qaeda and LeT has over the time become more of a 'concept' than a militant organisation with proper command and control. This is the reason why a 'charitable' organisation like 'MuD' or JuD as is now know is able to thrive and doctrine people with Tafkirism**. these days, a video or an audio clip of a certain Zawahiri or a Hafeez Zayeed aired in a fundamental channel in some place like iraq or a part of afghan is enough to morph itself into a news clip aired in india or spain, and that in itself is enough to trigger a terror attack. so these news clips are more of a propaganda and a command for the tafkiri's irrespective of whether they belong to IM or DM or any other self styled jehadi groups. considering this, it is enough to say that terrorism has thrived in the sense that they have succeeded in their propaganda campaign to reach out to the people or group without even having a proper command and control structure. America's War on Terror has managed to kill people and terrorists, but not the concept. It grows and grows...

(e) The 24 Hr airing of the mumbai seige got me wear my thinking caps. Is the live television justified? Yes, the live television must have helped the terrorists to achieve what they must be calling now as 'bonus'.... The live television zeroed in on 'Taj Mahal' more than the attack on 'CST'. Was it because at Taj the 'rich' and 'creamy' got 'pricked'? why there are so

many arm chair critics this time running around TV studios than there were before when railway stations and flea markets got bombed? Is there a class divide that exists which is so morbid to think even at times of death and despair? or Pakistan succeeded in 'hitting' India where it 'hurts' most... its 'Rich' and 'Powerful'?

(f) And last but not the least....? whose war is it anyway? Army's?? The Police Forces'? or the Politicians? No clear cut answers!!!

****Takfiri's are ultra sunni's who view the non-muslim world as a battleground and all non-muslims as infidels. While Islam forbids suicide, Takfiri's believe that those who deliberately kill while attempting to kill enemies of Islam (are called as Shahids) who go straight to heaven. As such, all sin is absolved when one is martyred allowing this carte blanche for the indiscriminate killing of even non-combatants. Takfiri's condone acts of violence as a legitimate method of attaining religious and political goals and do not accept any deviation from islam in the strict sense. according to them even the shia's have deviated from it and this justifies the use of violence against them.