Mumbai Attacks and Resilience of India’s Democracy

The 11/26 terror strikes in Mumbai, India is a reminder of the vulnerability of ’soft targets’ across the globe. 170 people, including 30 foreign nationals, lost their lives in the incident. The terror attacks  had raised several questions on the efficiency of the country’s intelligence apparatus and political structure to prevent and manage such brutal attacks on the population. The country is seething with public anger with the political establishment. In the midst of this hysteria and fears of a military confrontation between India and Pakistan, a positive development can be discerned. The democratic process, in principle and practice, has withstood the critical test of unforeseen and aggressive exigencies. It is inspiring and interesting to analyse the performance of democracy in India during this critical crisis.

[Photo Courtesy: NDTV]

On November 26, 2008 India witnessed one of the worst terror strikes in the country, when the financial capital, Mumbai, was targeted. A series of coordinated attacks lasting for three days, November 26-29, challenged the political and security establishment of India, anguished the common people and shocked the international community. 164 people, including 30 foreign nationals, were killed in the attack. Investigations reveal that the attackers entered Mumbai through the sea route and split into groups for conducting simultaneous attacks on several targets within the city. India alleges that the terrorists were trained by the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan and were members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist outfit ostensibly banned by Pakistan in January 2002.

Given the historical animosity between India and Pakistan, the Mumbai terror strikes have strained bilateral relations and the international community fears a military showdown between the two nuclear armed neighbors. While India is mounting a diplomatic offensive against Pakistan in the international fore, Pakistan refuses to accept any direct involvement while committing to target the outfits responsible for perpetuating terrorist activities. India is keen that Pakistan replaces its rhetoric with action and extradites the culprits of the Mumbai attacks. The international community is involved in emphasizing the utility of dialogue and diplomacy in resolving the crisis, with the objective of averting any military interaction between India and Pakistan. The Mumbai attack has led to a proliferation of theories on how, why and now what from statesmen, analysts and military personnel across the world. Nevertheless, one aspect of the entire episode has rarely, if ever, been highlighted - the resilience of India’s democratic system in the face of grave national crisis.

Recent developments show that a national crisis is accompanied with either the swelling of executive powers (U.S. Presidential authority after 9/11) or the dominance of the military ruler’s authority (President Pervez Musharraf’s role after the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament). A national crisis is portrayed and accepted as an occasion for compromising some democratic procedures with the objective of attending to national security and survival. Contrary to the prevalent trends the Mumbai attacks and subsequent heightening of tensions between India and Pakistan, has not caused any disruption to the essentials of democracy in India. The extra-ordinary resilience of the Indian democracy and its impact on the nation needs to be commended.

1. The first victim of a national crisis in Third World democracies is the electoral process. Capt. Moussa Camara, the leader of the recent coup in Guinea has announced to postpone elections for two years, after the initial promise to conduct elections in six months; the military backed Caretaker Government in Bangladesh postponed elections in 2006 by almost two years on the grounds of initiating political reforms; in wake of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, President Musharraf postponed the Parliamentary election in Pakistan by six weeks; there were discussions for the possible postponement of Presidential Elections in the U.S. in 2004 following the warning from Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge of a possible Al Qaeda attack weeks before polling.

The schedules for conducting State Assembly elections and Parliamentary elections in India have not witnessed any modification following the Mumbai attacks. The State of Jammu and Kashmir, the bone of contention between India and Pakistan, conducted peaceful elections after the Mumbai attacks. The election was conducted in phases beginning on November 14 and culminating after the Mumbai attacks on December 24, 2008. It needs to be emphasized that the jihad to ‘liberate’ Kashmir from India is the larger objective of the terrorist attacks across India. The elections in J&K have been criticized from some quarters, but the polling in the state fulfills the elementary qualifications of democratic governance in the country. Assembly elections took place in five states of India within a month after the Mumbai attacks. The National Capital Region went to polls on the day the National Security Guards (NSG) completed the counter-operation at Taj Hotel. The UPA Government has not sought to capitalize on the national crisis by extending its claim to political authority beyond the designated time-frame. The dates for Lok Sabha polls remain unchanged and are scheduled for April-May 2009.

2. Controversial legislations curtailing the civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism is the most common outcome a major terrorist attacks on any country. Whether it is the series of counter-terrorism legislations by the Howard Government in Australia or the US Patriot Act in the post 9/11 days, these laws are widely criticized as severely compromising the civil liberties of the common people. The Parliament in India has issued new legislation to fight terrorism, but these do not seek to substantially infringe on the civil liberties of the common people. The new legislation seeks to establish a National Investigation Agency entrusted with responsibilities for counter-terrorism and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act (UAPA) to deal with suspected terrorists. Some features of UAPA, like detention of suspects for 180 days before filling charges, have been criticized as denying the suspects of the usual legal rights. Provisions of UAPA are designed to deal with individuals suspected of involvement of in terrorist activities and are much less stringent than similar laws around the globe. The fact that even suspects would be provided the right to defend themselves before the court of law is evident from the case of Ajmal Mair Iman Kasab. Kasab is the only terrorist captured alive in the Mumbai counter-terror operation and faced a legal hurdle as several lawyers in India refused to defend his case. M. Shanwar Khan, a Delhi lawyer, referred to as the ‘terrorist lawyer’ has opted to represent Kasab’s case. Asserting that the right to defense was constitutional, the lawyer argued that “If people like Dara Singh (convicted for the murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines), Lt Col Purohit, Sadhvi Pragnya (accused in Sep 29 Malegaon blast) and Nalini (serving life imprisonment for involvement in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination) can all be given legal aid, then why not Kasab?” The fact that a terrorist, not merely a suspect, is being offered to access the national legal process rather than being subjected to different forms of torture reflects the efficacy of India’s constitutional system.

3. A democratically elected government is expected to be responsible and responsive to the common people and their demands. In response to the public outrage and respecting the sentiment of public accountability several political functionaries were removed from office following the Mumbai attacks. A day after the terrorist siege ended, Home minister Shivraj Patil resigned. The minister had come under attack for not acting on intelligence reports of a possible attack on Mumbai. Union Minister A R Antulay and Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh also resigned following public anger towards irresponsible comments and actions of the two politicians. C.M. Deshmukh resigned accepting moral responsibility for the Mumbai attacks, but he had attracted public antagonism after taking Bollywood filmmaker Ram Goal Verma to the Taj Hotel, the worst hit site of the terror attack. The inability of some political office-holders to discharge their duties and insensitivity to public sentiment created pressures for their resignation. The continued application of this simple democratic principle in times of a grave a national crisis was phenomenal.

4. National security, which implies defense of territory and citizens, is the prime responsibility of any democratically elected government. Mumbai was an attack on national security and the Government is exploring all diplomatic and strategic avenues for setting the record right. Despite high tempers, the Indian Government has not irresponsibly responded with immediate military strikes on Pakistan. The government has been criticized for inaction from some quarters, but it continues to strategize a policy that ensures long term national security with pay-offs that can be managed. A logical pay-off the military option would be increased economic strain without any tangible solution to the problem of terrorism. India has adopted a calculated and inclusive response mechanism. The national elements of the counter-terror strategy are being strengthened. The Government has decided to create NSG hubs across the country and better equip the commandos; measures are being implemented to improve coastal surveillance; a National Investigation Agency is created to prevent similar attacks in future; the UAPA represents another attempt to resolutely deal with the perpetrators of terrorism. In attending to the external dimension of terrorism India is providing several nations with evidence establishing the involvement of Pakistan in the Mumbai attacks and creating diplomatic pressure on Pakistan. India has been engaged in pressuring Pakistan through the latter’s allies like Saudi Arabia, Iran and China. Investigations into the attacks are being shared with the FBI and leverage of U.S. influence on Pakistan is being optimally utilized. While the diplomatic pressure is being generated, India continues to keep all options open for ensuring that Pakistan takes ‘demonstrative’ action against terrorists. This judicious mix of multilateral and coercive diplomacy would allow India to crave an appropriate strategy.

The terror attacks on Mumbai had raised several questions on the efficiency of the country’s intelligence apparatus and political structure to prevent and manage such brutal attacks on the population. The incident also exposed several shortcomings of the nations’ maritime security and strategic response mechanism. Though the government policies and security mechanisms are open to criticism and require major over-hauling, the salience of India’s democracy stands untarnished. Lessons from the events of November 26, 2008 and subsequent revelations need to be imbibed by the politico-strategic establishment of India and will require concerted time and effort. In the midst of this struggle for survival and growth, democracy - procedural and structural, will continue steer India’s journey ahead. Unlike most nations, India’s democracy has survived the terrorist onslaught.