Check Mate: The Mumbai Massacre and the Geopolitics of Terror

I was twelve when the Babri Masjid was destroyed in Ayodhya. My only memory of the riots that followed in my city of Bombay was the game of chess I played by myself. I had no one to play with. School was closed and we couldn't go out. That was before satellite news, and what seems like an eternity before the internet. I taught myself to play chess, but it is only now, sixteen years later, that the metaphorical significance of my childish playing really resonates with me.

It has taken almost two decades, if not more, for the players to move across the chessboard of my country, taking their positions, readying themselves for the final assault. The king is finally vulnerable and all the pawns have been laid waste.

The massacre last Wednesday raises a number of pertinent questions. Supreme among these, in my opinion, is - Who benefits from this act? To me, it is clearly an act of provocation. As any chess player can testify, one doesn't make a move without thinking through the various computations of the action. You may choose to sacrifice your Bishop to get to their Rook, but it's only because you see a path to their Queen. Who benefits by provoking the Indian military to take action against Pakistan? Pakistan? Why would Pakistan want to invite a military standoff when they're already aiding with one war in their NWFP region?

The Indian government has blamed the attacks on the infamous Lashkar-e-Taiba, but the LeT has not come forward and claimed responsibility. What would be the purpose of a terror strike if the people behind it had no intention of coming forward and making demands? During the hijacking of IC814, the militants on board the aircraft made a clear and direct demand for the release of prisoners, but in this case no one has come forward and made any statements. Why not? Terrorists commit acts of terror, not to be anonymous, but to make a point and to make a demand or a declaration of intent.

2009 is an election year in India. The UPA government has already come under strong criticism by the opposition parties for being "soft" on terror. The day after the attacks, the BJP took out an ad in the Hindustan Times, the exact transcript of which read, "Brutal Terror Strikes at Will. Weak Government, Unwilling and Incapable. Vote BJP."

Does one need any more evidence than this of the chess pieces moving across this blood-stained chess board? The Hindutva sentiment has been steadily on the rise since the time of the destruction of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, and the sentiment is perhaps stronger now than ever before. The Godhra riots of 2002 and the subsequent failure of any judicial body to try Narendra Modi for human rights violations just goes to show that when terrorism is state-sponsored, it goes untried. There is another word for this - fascism. The anti-muslim, pro-war sentiment of the Bharatiya Janata Party is fascist, to say the least, and in their rhetoric over the past several years, they have made no bones about wanting to nuke the pants of the Paks. Former Defence Secretary, George Fernandez, in a 2001 interview with the Hindustan Times said, "We could take a (nuclear) strike, survive and then hit back. Pakistan would be finished."

But let's get back to the current events. The tragic death of Hemant Karkare is being covered by the media only in the capacity of his heroic efforts related to 26/11. What they are not talking about is his investigation of the Malegaon blasts, and the slowly unraveling web that was linking the incident to members of the Indian army and to several right-wing hindutva elements. Was his death a coincidence or a convenience? These are questions we must ask ourselves, no matter how inconceivable the answers.

I have been reading a lot of conspiracy theory debunking - that the BJP is just not sophisticated enough to pull off something like this. Sure, but who said they didn't have allies? There are other people and places that benefit from an Indo-Pak war.

The US and India are still going through some sort of honeymoon period after the signing of the nuclear deal. We know President Bush's stand on any military action, but President-elect Obama, too, made no bones about military strikes against Pakistan, even during the very early days of his Primary campaign. The US would benefit from India taking a military stand against Pakistan because then the entire area of the Middle East would be either under direct military control or allied military control. Look at a map of the region and it looks surprisingly like a chess board where the black squares are oil wells. Remember how the Iraqi oil reserves were just recently privatized and handed over to the major oil companies? Note the size of Iran and it's location smack dab in the middle, right between Pakistan/Afghanistan and Iraq. Note also how the US has been on an upsurge with its anti-Iranian rhetoric over the past year.

Not to mention Israel. The Mumbai terror attacks are singular in their targetting of Jews and Israelis, making Israel a notable player in this chess game. Whatever the outcome, the Mumbai attacks have a global significance, and the aftershocks are going to be felt over the world, for years to come.

I know I sound like a conspiracy theory nut, but if we don't ask questions, who will?