The Mumbai attacks were a series of terrorist attacks that occurred between the Wednesday 26th and the Saturday 29th 2008. They involved attacks that by end of them all 164 people were killed and 308 injured (Corbett & Secker). The attacks were pinned on the Indian Muslims in Pakistan, which was confirmed by the only terrorist captured alive who was a Muslim from Pakistan nationality.
The magnitude of terror exuded by these attacks has brought many questions to many people and views have been given as to the reason why these attacks happened. After the Mumbai attacks the response of many people was divided in lines of political power and religion. The political affiliates saw it was time for India to take a stronger political stance against Pakistan or a repeat of the attacks would be seen (Singh 149). The fact that these attacks were referred to the 9/11 of India, was a clear indication that it was expected of India’s to put all its resources to combat the terrorists’ sympathisers and show them who is boss just like it happened with the Americans response to the 9/11 attacks. It was expected of India to declare war on Pakistan and make sure it was getting rid of the terrorism aids from their country (Corbett & Secker).
The religious affiliates on the other hand gave a totally different approach depending on the religious beliefs. The non-Muslim community condemned these attacks and also referred to the attack as an example of Jihad, which was an extremism that should be shunned completely from the society. They also took the stand that taking revenge was also an act to provoke a never ending war since not all Muslims believed in such extremism but if provoked, would probably turn to it as way to get back on the people who had hurt them. The Muslim community responded by saying that these acts of violence were not of the Muslim faith and such extremism was not to be associated with their faith which advocated for love to all humanity (Corbett & Secker).
Evidenly, the acts of violence depicted by Muslim extremists around the world are usually a way of avenging injustices done to their fellow Muslims. If every time an act of violence is depicted and all we respond with is by more violence, we will never get a plausible solution to the issue of terrorism. Like the response to the 9/11 attacks, which resulted to the war in Afghanistan has claimed many more lives of both Americans and the Afghanistan’s people. So many American soldiers have died resulting on the ‘war on terror,’ which has done more harm than good. So much has been used in the war that would have helped to cushion the Americans from the effects of the global economic recession that has been going on. The idea that the attacks would serve as a lesson to other Muslim extremists has not worked but has just sparked more violence like the attacks in Mumbai (Corbett & Secker).
The Jihadists are not as powerful as they seem to the majority, but the fact that they feel they have to stop Muslim repression has contributed to the sparks of terrorism. The expected response on the Mumbai incidence to attack Pakistan was an order for India, for they could not sustain a war like America had. The lack of resources might have just spared people in the world from more attacks from the extremists groups. Advocacy of peace talks between Pakistan and India as one of the solutions to the Mumbai attacks is just another reason to make the Jihadists’ conviction make their point known and felt stronger. They thus became more powerful bearing in mind that they can make an impact. Similarly, they were sure that it could lead changing of other nations’ policies.
The response with violence to Jihad attacks is in a way suicide in itself. This is because Jihadists when going out for an attack have no cause to live again and are prepared to die when fulfilling ‘the will of God’. This will mean that when they are countered with violence, they will be ready to die in the execution of the violence. In the end, no lessons are learned; just making a group see the nneed to carry out their evil deeds in the name of God.
The attacks have also made the Muslims to be prejudiced in their day-to-day life. This has made life for Muslims all over the world tedious since they will be subjected to security checks in all public points like airports. Notably, being cautious is good since preventing a tragedy like the one in Mumbai is better than dealing with the aftermath. However, this kind of treatment sparked the violent attacks in countries since the jihadist take it upon themselves to protect their Muslim brother from such ill treatment.
In Roy’s article, we see her view on the response given to the Mumbai attacks. She puts across the idea of owning up to the attacks in reference to the 9/11 attacks in India. Meaning, if they owned up to the tragedy, they would find the best solution to it since if they took it as the 9/11, they would respond in the same way and in the real sense India could not afford (Corbett & Secker).
In Roy’s opinion, the terrorist attacks had not started in Mumbai and the police were constantly arresting suspects yet these attacks had moved from bad to worse in regards to the Mumbai situation. She reflected on the politicking of the whole terrorism affair instead of finding a solution to the problem once and for all. Roy had seen the Mumbai attacks as a war being propagated across the border lines of Pakistan and India and the religious affiliates of Muslims and Hindus.
Consequently, it is very important to learn as Roy tries to say in her article, that all situations cannot have the same solution and every country has its unique problems and this should be learned. By using violence to counter violence, we are just reflecting the same image of terror to the other people and thus the title ‘Monster in the mirror’. One will be causing the same kind of pain, which will also create another vengeful attack and the cycle of violence, will never end until we try and talk peace instead of resulting to fire to put out the fire.