Mumbai
2008 Attacks
In
our textbook terrorism is defined as “the threatened or actual use of violence
for political purposes by non-state actors, particularly against civilian
targets” (Samuels, 276). This blog will discuss how well this definition
applies to a historical example of terrorism. In this case that historical
example will be the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India on November 26, 2008.
The
attack was carried out by ten men who were trained in Pakistan a year in
advance (The Telegraph). The attack involved terrorists armed with machine guns
and bombs targeting the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel, the Oberoi Hotel, and
the Nairman house Jewish center. At each of these locations the terrorists shot
civilians, exploded bombs which set the buildings on fire, and held onto
hostages while the buildings they occupied were under siege by Indian
authorities. By the 28th of November all of the terrorists had been
captured or killed with the final death toll being at least 150 with many more
injured (New York Times). The Pakistan
based group Lashkar-e-Taiba took responsibility
for the attacks (The Telegraph). This groups declared mission is to bring
regions in Kashmir that have Muslim majorities under the rule of an Islamic
state. Currently those areas are under the control of India, which is
predominantly Hindu. The attacks Lashkar-e-Taiba has been responsible for have
all been against India (New York Times).
According
to the definition given by Samuels the attack in Mumbai in 2008 fit very well
into the category of Terrorism. In accordance with Samuel’s definition the act
of violence was carried out by a non-state actor. The group Lashkar-e-Taiba is
not a state. Also in accordance to Samuel’s definition the act of violence
targeted civilians. The attackers targeted hotels full of civilians. Another
part of Samuel’s definition was that the violence be for a political purpose.
This was also fulfilled in the 2008 Mumbai attack. The perpetrating group Lashkar-e-Taiba
has the political goal to institute a Islamic state in certain Kashmir regions,
and by attacking the state currently controlling those regions they hoped to
further their political cause. According to Samuels, terrorism differs from
other forms of violence, especially civil war and revolutions, because it is
used against strong states, or hard targets (Samuels, 277). For India the
definition of terrorism to apply to this historical event in this context,
India would have to be a hard target. India receives a 13 in the state
fragility index, a relatively poor number (INSCR Data Page). This
could suggest that India is not a hard target as Samuel’s definition of
terrorism would predict, but India also has nuclear weapons, which puts them
back in the category of a hard target.
Samuels’s
definition of terrorism explains the attacks in Mumbai in 2008 in a
satisfactory way, as each aspect of the definition exists in the example. One
possible weakness of Samuel’s definition may be the indication that terrorism
is usually performed on hard targets. This problem however is not too
significant because even though India scores relatively low on the state
fragility index, that rates state strength, it has nuclear weapons which make
traditional warfare against it by insurgent groups largely ineffective.
According to the Mumbai attacks, Samuel’s has a satisfactory definition for
terrorism.
Works Cited
Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Upper
Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.
Your research matched the term very well. Good job!
ReplyDeleteWay to go right down the definition and show how your example fit it. Because of your blog post, I realize that there may be parts of the definition that are more important than others. For example, the fact that the Islamist group was trying to promote political goals by targeting civilians seems more important in your example than whether or not the target is a hard target or not. Good work!
ReplyDelete