The government of Mumbai should have the authority and resources to protect itself from terrorism by recruiting more police and paying them higher wages. Yet due to the structure of India's democracy, city leaders must sit on their hands and hope that ineffective national and state bureaucracies solve their problems for them.
SUNIL DASGUPTA teaches political science at the University of Maryland Baltimore County and is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
The three bomb blasts that hit Mumbai during rush hour on July 13 highlighted both India's endemic vulnerability to terrorist violence and the serious deficiencies in its security infrastructure that must be addressed to keep the country safe.
Since 2003, Mumbai has suffered four major terrorist attacks, including one in November 2008, during which terrorists killed 164 and injured 308. Although Mumbai seemed to return to normal the day after the most recent bombings (they were relatively small, killing 24 and injuring 131 more), it is hard to live in the city, or have friends and family living there, without feeling that the country's national and state governments are simply unable to fulfill India's security needs. To be sure, defending a city in India from terrorism is a task more Herculean than defending London or New York City. Mumbai is an endless sprawl of millions; the state can hardly provide basic services, let alone protect its citizens. And most astonishingly, Mumbai, like other major Indian cities, does not even have a mayor with the authority and resources to try.
The biggest problem regarding security is the structural division between the national and local governments. The official report on the 2008 attacks criticized them both for failing to maintain ready and capable police forces. It also highlighted the lack of coordination among the police, intelligence agencies, and government once the attacks were under way. Nearly three years later, the Mumbai security forces appeared to have been no better prepared to prevent terrorist attacks.
Within hours of the blasts, Prithviraj Chavan, the chief minister of Maharashtra, the state in which Mumbai is located, claimed that the national government had never cleared a 2008 request from the Mumbai police (which he supervises as the chief executive authority of the state) for 5,000 closed-circuit cameras. The televisions may not have prevented the July 13 attacks but would have aided the investigation of them. He also claimed that he was in the state government offices during the explosions along with other senior officials and "felt so helpless when I could not get across to the police chief, as all lines were jammed. We need to upgrade the communication system."
Related
India and Pakistan remain caught in a dangerous deadlock over Kashmir. Pakistan-backed terrorists continue daily provocations against India, and an increasingly frustrated Indian government feels that it has no recourse short of full-scale war. The only way out is for both sides to accept that their current strategies are not working and to start talking. And only the United States can help them do that.
India's growing economic and diplomatic prominence is unlikely to be derailed by its territorial dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. But given the risk that the Kashmir issue could spark a nuclear war, it is in India's best interest that it be resolved. Washington should use its influence with Islamabad to broker an agreement and thereby cement its growing strategic partnership with New Delhi.
In the aftermath of September 11, the Indian government under Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has acted decisively to support the U.S. war on terrorism and put pressure on archrival Pakistan. But these are not the only items on Vajpayee's post-911 agenda: to hold on to power, his government must also handle domestic political crises, defuse Hindu-Muslim tension, and recharge a faltering economy.
