Mumbai, One Year Ago

On this day, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai (Bombay), India, I watched the excellent HBO documentary Terror in Mumbai.  The film pieces together the complete chronology of the 60-hour attack and includes much footage of the terrorists in action as captured by CCTV cameras.  Even more amazingly, the documentary presents much of the dialogue of the terrorists as they were carrying out their murders.

How?  As it turns out, months before the attack, Indian intelligence had planted SIM cards in Pakistan with known terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, who would be revealed as the masterminds of the attack.  When the attacks began, security officials realized that three of the attackers were using tagged SIM cards, and authorities were able to monitor their conversations in real-time!

Throughout, the terrorists were in contact with their Lashkar handlers, and Terror in Mumbai reveals the chilling details of these conversations.  The terrorists--all young, naive kids--are heartlessly urged to kill as many people as possible, informed that their mission must end in their own deaths (or they won't go to heaven), and fed assurances that God will reward them for their actions.

For me, there was an additional personal reaction to watching the attacks replayed.  My parents, sister, and I were in Mumbai, where my dad's family lives, only a few months before the attacks.  We stayed in the famous Taj Mahal Hotel, perhaps the city's most iconic landmark.  Watching footage of the attackers shoot up the lobby, throw grenades in the tower, and kick down doors to shoot terrified guests is still as surreal now as it was when I was glued to CNN last year watching it all unfold.

Terror in Mumbai, brief though it is (only about an hour long), is a revealing look at many things: the ambitious jihadi aspirations of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, their manipulation of impressionable youth into an ideology of hate and violence, the incompetence of the Mumbai police when the attacks started, the heartbreaking human toll of the attacks (including many Muslim victims), and a damning indication of how groups initally set-up by Pakistani intelligence (ISI) to serve as proxies against India in Kashmir have spiraled out of their handlers' control.

Given how simple it was for this type of terrorist act to be carried out (no hijacking of airliners, just gun-wielding young kids in t-shirts and jeans) it's scary to think how easily such a scenario could be replicated--in India, the U.S., or anywhere in the world.  Fareed Zakaria, who narrated Terror in Mumbai, importantly points out that combating this enemy is about more than just foreign policy or military action.  We also have to fight the conditions of hopelessness that allow our enemies to attract followers to nihilist acts.

The presence of a non-fundamentalist education to teach young people, and a society that provides gainful employment (and thus a viable future instead of a sense of failure) are as instrumental as anything else in the war on terrorism.

Would You Like a Curry Pan With That?

Check out "Brand Magic in India", a great article in BusinessWeek about how popular American consumer brands are adapting their products to appeal to the Indian market. Some have more success than others. Kellogg found that Corn Flakes didn't fly in a country where people just don't like to start their mornings off with cold milk. Due to that cultural quirk, the product was doomed. Pizza Hut struggled to sell pizza with what we think of as traditional toppings--then introduced a "Tandoori Pizza" tailored to the local palate, and saw store traffic quadruple.

"The best brands," author Brad Nemer says, "are confident enough to adapt without compromising their core strengths. When faced with a new technology or market, they can translate the value proposition in meaningful ways that are consistent with both their heritage and their potential."

Consider the case of McDonald's, whose beef-centric product line was rendered useless in a country where cows are sacred to the Hindu population. You won't find pork products in Indian McDonalds either, so as to not offend Muslim sensibilities. Not only that, but a good number of Indians don't eat meat at all. What to do? Offer a vegetarian line, and a non-veg line free of beef or pork, of course. Vikram Bakshi, McDonald's managing director of India North, says "Today 70 percent of our menu is 'Indianized.'"

Top seller is something called the McAloo Tikki, described on the McDonalds India website as "Fried breaded potato & peas patty that is flavoured with a special spice mix, fresh tomato slices, onion, and veg. tomato mayonnaise between toasted buns." Don't miss the Paneer Salsa Wrap, Veg McCurry Pan, and the Chicken Maharaja Mac, all of which are favorites on the menu.

And yes, you can still get fries with that.

Finish Your Homework!

The popularity of the "flat world" idea and the notion that China and India will be eating our lunches in the not-too-distant future rank among the reigning themes discussed over the past few years. During this time, Thomas Friedman's book, Bill Gates' analysis of the American brain drain, and worries about outsourcing have permeated the popular consciousness. On the flip-side, counter-arguments have emerged in recent months which claim that America's preeminent status is not in jeopardy. See, for example, David Brooks ["The Nation of the Future" ($), 2/2/06] and Robert Samuelson ["A Phony Science Gap?", 2/22/06].

While I'm not one to turn alarmist from a few anecdotes about Beijing or Bangalore entrepreneurs, I do think that there is something to be concerned about here. The most important lesson on this subject that I have taken away comes from a story that Friedman relates:

"When I was growing up, my parents would tell me 'Finish your food, people in China and India are starving.'

I tell my kids 'Finish your homework, people in China and India are starving for your job.'"

Innumerable factors currently stand in the way of either China or India outstripping us, but one thing is clear: there are a lot of people in both of those countries that are out-hustling us Americans. While for now they may only represent a minority of their population, more of them are springing up daily to take advantage of increased opportunities.

For a taste of the radically different work culture in those countries, check out this recent Fortune article on Infosys, the Indian software services company. The talent pool is staggering--1.3 million applicants for full-time positions last year, and only 1% of those were hired. The new hires receive rigorous training in state-of-the-art educational centers which house rooms like the "Gordon Moore Room" or "Jeff Bezos Room". Captains of industry, it appears, are to the outsourcing industry what Kelly Clarkson is to the American public--the real Idols.

For now, the lure of higher salaries and brand-name jobs in the U.S. may draw a lot of the immigrant talent pool, as it did with my parents 25 years ago. But with increased prosperity and the prospects of "boundless growth" back in their native countries, how much longer will those smart foreigners keep coming here?

I'm willing to believe that the American optimists are correct when they assure us that we still do produce enough engineers and scientists, that because our country is second to none at fostering an innovative and entrepreneurial environment, and because we are a service-oriented economy anyway, that we can remain successful in the New Economy. But does that mean we should nevertheless continue with business as usual, not worrying about the fact that the rest of the world is working night and day to whittle away at our lead? I don't think so.

Better finish that homework.

India Loves America

The results of a study released in June by the Pew Global Attitudes Project show that India is the most pro-American country in the world. While the attitudes of several major European powers as well as former staunchly pro-U.S. nations like Canada and Poland have soured, it appears that an astonishing 71% of Indians give a thumbs-up to Uncle Sam. Even taking into account that the Pew survey may have overrepresented urban (and presumably more pro-American) areas, the 27% increase in favor since 2002 is tremendous--and at odds with the rising tide of anti-Americanism around the world.

So why is India so solidly pro-American? Part of it comes from the fact that so many Indian immigrants have found success in America, especially in respectable fields like medicine, engineering, and computers. But whereas in past decades it was virtually a necessity that Indians come to the U.S. to succeed, that is no longer the case. Thanks to India's blossoming economy and the tech boom that Thomas Friedman and others have chronicled, bright Indians (at least in urban areas) are able to thrive in their own country. With increased affluence, they are better able to identify with the West, and America in particular. Hence a former Soviet-aligned country now sees the United States as a vastly preferable model.

It is interesting to note that in Pakistan, our dubious "ally", only 23% of the public feel kindly toward us. "With friends like that..." comes to mind; add "impediment to GWOT (Global War on Terrorism)" to the list of reasons why a shift is needed in our outdated Pakistan-over-India policy in South Asia. To his credit, President Bush has been quick to realize the value of cultivating strong ties with India. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is visiting the U.S. next week, and will be the guest of honor at the first state dinner of Bush's second term. While the pairing between two secular democracies and victims of terrorism may seem natural, it is long overdue. I'm glad to see them finally hooking up!

Selling Out on F-16s (Part II)

This post is a followup to Saturday's "Selling Out on F-16s"

Well folks, it may not have the allure of 50 Cent versus The Game, but there's beef afoot in the blogosphere!

This past weekend I was debating Mr. Adnan Gill of Owl's Tree, a journalist who "frequently writes articles in national and international news media." The latter raised a couple of points worth mentioning, but before I get to that I want to point to my readers to a post Mr. Gill subsequently made in which he resorted to ad hominem attacks implying that I was somehow disingenuous or less-than-forthcoming on this site about my identity.

I find the claim that I am hiding behind an Internet alias to be not only inaccurate, but humorous when considering that Mr. Gill got my email address from my profile on this site, where my full name and status as a student in Maryland is given. (An undergraduate at the University of Maryland, College Park for those who care to know.) While I am of Indian ethnicity, I was born and raised here to parents that are American citizens and have lived here for over twenty years. My pride in my heritage does not translate into a blind nationalism for a country that I do not really have any ties to. And I will be first in line to criticize India when their actions merit it, such as when religious strife is permitted or the rights of minorities are not protected. Had Mr. Gill chosen to question me on India's close ties to Iran as an energy source, I would admit that I find these actions in conflict with the U.S.'s attempt to isolate the "rogue state".

Mr. Gill, as he mentions on the home page of his site, is a political commentator whose work has been seen in many publications. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I think it is worth mentioning that he also happens to be a writer for the Pak Tribune, an Islamabad-based online news service. I believe it's only fair that this bit of information serve as a disclaimer to a site which posts entries with titles like "Come India, the myth is busted", "Indians behind masks" and "Indians, eat your hearts out!"

He said of me, "If I didn't know any better, I would say you are Indian." Whereupon I might speculate that he is from Pakistan or some other Muslim country. This point is actually irrelevant. Mr. Gill's affiliation does not detract from the value of his argument; it is, however, a reminder not to throw around claims of disingenuity or bias when they are unwarranted.

As to the actual matter at hand, I'll say this. India, situated in a dangerous "neighborhood", must have the means to protect itself. As a peaceful democracy, I would argue that it has earned that right. In my opinion, it is in the U.S.'s interest to promote India's economic expansion and military strength because they are a free country in South Asia whose growth as a world power is needed to balance the region. (An unstable dictatorship in Pakistan, India's other struggling small country neighbors, and the burgeoning power of communist China.) Nick commented on my previous post that Musharraf in charge of Pakistan is better than the fundamentalists, and with that I obviously agree. Still, we must not forget that democracy has intermittently existed in Pakistan in years past. With elements of democracy now coming to such unlikely places as Palestine, Ukraine, and Saudi Arabia, perhaps it's not too much to hope for a healthy democracy in Pakistan's future. That, I think, is the key to a lasting positive future for Indo-Pakistani relations.

I opposed the release of the F-16s to Pakistan because I do not want anything to escalate tensions between India and Pakistan right now. Recently, constructive measures have been taken to reduce hostilities, such as the creation of a bus line linking divided Kashmir. Why then, when such progress is being made, introduce a new point of contention into the equation?

All can agree, I think, that the one element of rivalry worth preserving between the two nations is in cricket. I understand that Pakistan apparently won a thrilling victory today--Mr. Gill, I surmise, should be pleased. As for me, I suppose it's a betrayal of my Indian roots that I've never seen a cricket match in my entire life--and the big sports event I'm eagerly awaiting is baseball's Opening Day! The only "mask" this Indian has ever put on is a catcher's mask.

The purpose of Citizens Band is not to provide political "spin" or to be a source of one-sided commentary. I try my best to adhere to the oft-quoted Daniel Patrick Moynihan maxim "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." On that note, I thank Mr. Gill for providing an opposing perspective to my stated thoughts, and for prodding me to illustrate in greater detail my rationale for my position. These kinds of exchanges, I hope, are beneficial to both parties and to the readers of our blogs. The more said, the better, as long as what's being said is about the issue itself and not who is saying it.

Selling Out on F-16s

The troubling news on Friday that the U.S. is finally agreeing to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan caught everyone by surprise, and with good reason. Apparently, the reversal of a fifteen-year ban is a reward to Pakistan for being an ally in the war on terrorism. This is President Bush's way of "scratching the back" of Pakistan's autocratic ruler, Gen. Perves Musharraf, after being on the receiving end of favors in the past few years.

I strongly question Bush's decision for numerous reasons. The first would be to counter the principle rationale for this deal--that Pakistan has been very helpful in anti-terrorism operations after September 11, 2001. While this may be true, Bush is too easily discounting Pakistan's contributions to the other side. A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network aided some of the worst enemies of our country--Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea. Yet his actions, and their potentially serious consequences, have not factored it into Bush's assesment of Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan continues to do nothing to rein in terrorists in its portion of the disputed region of Kashmir, leaving those groups unmolested and free to attack India.

Which raises my second argument against Bush's staunch support of Pakistan. Obviously, Pakistan's neighbor and rival, India, is displeased with the decision. The largest secular democracy in the world appears to be the Rodney Dangerfield of Asia in that it "don't get no respect." As my dad pointed out, it appeared earlier this week that this was finally about to change. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former ambassador Robert Blackwill argued for "A New Deal for New Delhi", to recognize the "congruent vital national interests" of the U.S. and India. Blackwill readily proposed that Pakistan be sidelined.

On the same day, the New York Times featured an argument by former senator Larry Pressler entitled "Dissing Democracy in Asia". Pressler proved the need for a "fundamental policy shift" to a "robust pro-India stance" by constrasting, as Blackwill did, India's free, open, peaceful nature with Pakistan's opposite characteristics. Part of Bush's "expansion of freedom and liberty" should include choosing "free" India over "dictatorship" Pakistan, said Pressler. He even went so far as to suggest that the U.S. strengthen its alliance with India so as to offset a rising China, a move I heartily endorse.

The Bush administration announced that it is willing to sell lots of fighter planes to India as well, if India desires. Small comfort. Has he forgotten that India and Pakistan--nuclear powers, both--came to the brink of war in 2002? Having already sold out to Pakistan, the quick fix for the U.S. is to up the ante in India's favor. Yet the only real winner from all of this is Lockheed Martin. For the future, Bush would do well to choose his friends wisely, and always err on the side of freedom.

The World in 2020

On Friday, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) presented "Mapping the Global Future" (full text), its latest report offering predictions for the state of the world in 2020. Among the highlights:

- Asian Ascension

In the same way that commentators refer to the 1900s as the “American Century,” the 21'st century may be seen as the time when Asia, led by China and India, comes into its own. A combination of sustained high economic growth, expanding military capabilities, and large populations will be at the root of the expected rapid rise in economic and political power for both countries.

• China and India become major economic powers
• Japan challenged to reevaluate its role
• North Korean crisis has come to a head
• Russian influence important but limited

- The Global Economy

Asia looks set to displace Western countries as the focus for international economic dynamism—provided Asia’s rapid economic growth continues.

• World economy 80% larger than in 2000
• Average per capita income 50% higher
• The U.S., though still the single most important power, will lose ground to China and India
• China's GDP will exceed every Western country except the U.S.; India's GDP will equal or exceed all European countries

- New World Order

Informal networks of charitable foundations, madrassas, hawalas, and other mechanisms will continue to proliferate and be exploited by radical elements; alienation among unemployed youths will swell the ranks of those vulnerable to terrorist recruitment.

• Political Islam has significant global impact
• Democracy in former Soviet Union and Southeast Asian republics could be undone
• China/Taiwan or India/Pakistan issues could lead to one side taking preemptive military action and resulting in all-out war
• Al-Qaeda has been replaced by a numer of equally dangerous splinter groups
• Bioterrorism is the biggest security concern

The NIC considered four possible "futures", each having the potential to be realized:

• "Davos World" - globalization and the growth of China and India lead to a world not dominated by the West
• "Pax Americana" - the U.S. weathers global changes and maintains its hegemony
• "A New Caliphate" - a political organization of Islam challenges the West
• "Cycle of Fear" - concerns over security cause "large-scale intrusive security measures...possibly introducing an Orwellian world."

* * *

What does this all mean? Well, despite it being easy to get lost in gloomy speculation, the good news is that the rise to prominence of Bollywood will inundate the globe with sappy, melodramatic love stories full of song and dance. ("An expanded Asian-centric cultural identity may be the most profound effect of a rising Asia.")

Seriously though, the growing importance of Asia is hardly a surprise to anyone. I don't doubt that U.S. unipolarity will diminish as nations on the rise like China and India tap into the well of world power. Still, the U.S. will be at the forefront of all the major movements to come, helping to shape world affairs. Says Jessica Matthews (in the von Drehle article I link to below), "We're still best in the world at adapting to rapidly changing circumstances. No other nation takes disruption in stride the way we do." Phew!

Of the four scenarios presented by the NIC, I see the first and second as most viable--the most likely outcome may be a mix of the two. I have enough faith--for now at least--in common sense and an American's dedication to liberty that I don't see 1984 becoming a reality for us. The U.S., in my opinion, can and will win the war against Islamist extremism. We will do so not just through military force, but by demonstrating with the help of moderate Muslims that democracy offers people a better future.

The biggest threat to all this, of course, is what the NIC described in its third scenario--the formation of an Islamic caliphate that, through its religious and political authority, could mobilize Muslims across the globe into religious extremism. Bad news for us: the report warns that "[a] Caliphate would not have to be entirely successful for it to present a serious challenge to the international order." Furthermore, "[t]he proclamation of a Caliphate would not lessen the likelihood of terrorism and, in fomenting more conflict, could fuel a new generation of terrorists intent on attacking those opposed to the Caliphate, whether inside or outside the Muslim world."

We have our work cut out for us so that we can head off such a political organization, however unlikely its formation now seems. The entire mindset and cultural views of a generation of Muslims must be confronted. Radical elements of Islam are the 21st century equivalent of the Communist threat to the West. The task we are facing is difficult, but doable if we make the right policy decisions. Leading by example, we must show the people of the Middle East and elsewhere the benefits of rejecting extremism. It can be done, and I have every confidence that it will be done. I'm looking forward to the next fifteen years--it'll be one helluva ride!

Further Reading:
"The Yikes Years" - David von Drehle, (Washington Post Magazine, November 2004)
"World War IV" - Norman Podhoretz (Commentary, September 2004)