Gotham Chopra: December 2008 Archives

Somewhere in Tel Aviv right now there are a couple of dozen Israelis excitedly preparing for a New Years' bash that sadly will be their last. Likewise in Gaza or the West Bank there are a couple hundred Palestinians that are huddling with their families, dodging Israeli missile attacks, but only temporarily because they are inevitable statistics destined to die.

How do I know?

Not because I am privy to any inside information or intelligence, but because I am simply a student of history and sadly confident that the failed leadership on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will do what they always do.

Let me guess: Hamas will react to Israel's vicious missile attacks that have already killed hundreds by ordering a string of suicide attacks that will rip apart dozens of Israeli families. In turn, Israel will respond with even more massive aerial attacks that we are seeing now, leveling entire sections of the occupied territories, further insuring that we are looking at at least another decade with no basic infrastructure in the Palestinian homeland. We know what that means - low employment, fertile recruiting grounds for Islamic militants, and a glorious shithole for the Arab world to point toward as they galvanize another generation of angry impressionable youth to terrorize the West.

Here's my take for what it's worth. Will President Obama radically shift US foreign policy toward Israel, threaten to hold back aid, and force Israel to soften its militancy? Don't count on it.

Should Israel be blamed for these attacks when they forewarned the Palestinians that they would come if Hamas did not cease the rocket attacks they have been launching (to no meaningful affect) for the last few weeks? Yes, they should. Not a single Israeli was seriously hurt by the irritating rocket attacks. Murdering a few hundred Arabs does not seem to be an equitable response. Just because you can does not mean you should. It is not okay to kill children that have no dog in this fight and then just shrug your collective shoulders and say it was not intended. It's disgusting. Alas, since when has the state of Israel really cared about garnering criticism from the rest of the world?

Meanwhile there is Hamas, who knew exactly what Israel's response would be to their quarrelsome rocket attacks and yet continued to goad Israel with them. In other words, Hamas - which continues to have unprecedented support amongst the Palestinian people - has no problems sacrificing those same innocent children they claim to be protecting. It's even more disgusting than the Israelis gutless attacks.

So while Israel and the Palestinians continue to indulge in the same violence and viciousness that they have aimed at each other for the last few decades, the rest of us will have to pay. Why? Because so much of the Arab world has become so skilled at exploiting the Palestinians and using their struggle against Israel to justify their disgusting and callous terrorist attacks around the world. Think of the unfathomable wealth in places like Saudi and the Emirates and Dubai. Been to any of the above recently? Seen the new nulti-billion dollar resorts that are creeping up and crowding the skylines in their respective cities? These same places where today so many are enraged by the murder and mayhem in Gaza, how come they have not pumped some of those billions into construction and economic growth in Gaza or the West Bank? The only real long-term solution to this conflict is a sustainable economy and self-sufficiency within the Palestinian lands such that there is an alternative to just joining the hate-fest against Israel. And that can only come about with investment in infrastructure and education. Of course, that would mean the Palestinians may actually improve their condition and in doing so not make for the perfect straw man they have come to represent for the militant Islamic world. Even more disgusting.

More than anything, it seems that the Arab world needs to produce it's version of Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi that can smartly and gracefully lead their people to a dignified future. They can't and shouldn't rely on Israel to back off, let alone concede. Alternatively if that means more Arafats and Osamas, more Hizbollas and Hamas, expect an endless war in pursuit of an elusive peace.

>

Let me start with this disclaimer: I loved the film SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE.

I'm not the only one. The indie film about a Muslim kid name Jamal Malik from the slums of Mumbai who earns his way through the popular TV show Who Wants to be Millionaire has garnered accolades from audiences and critics since it's first showing, culminating with this week's receipt of the prestigious National Board of Review Award which apparently, amongst those who know, is generally considered a solid prognosticator for the Oscars.

I already blogged a few days ago about Slumdog after I saw if for the first time. I've subsequently seen it two more times, dragging my wife and then another family member to insure that they too would see it. I'm that guy in the theater that leans over to the person sitting next to me whispering: "this scene is my favorite...check this out...wasn't that awesome...I love this song...etc."

But I'm blogging again now because today I had a chance to talk to Danny Boyle the film-maker behind Slumdog about not just the film, but the deeper story and context behind it and why he does what he does. Click on the link to hear the whole interview which touches on a variety of things, but most notably the idea of story-telling and how it can change the world.

Without getting all heady on you, here's the jewel in the crown. We live in conflicted times. Economies and ecologies are crumbling. Wars are raging and Mavericks and Martyrs, sinners and saints, Jihadis and jingoists are all separated by a razor's edge. Still, some stories rise above the noise and make a difference, contribute in a way to a planetary dialogue about who we are, where we are going, and why we believe that no matter the dire circumstance we may find ourselves in, there is always the chance that we might endure it and succeed. Danny Boyle gets this. Slumdog is a courageous film, a "rags to Raja" tale that combines the best of Hollywood and Bollywood in a way that no other film I have ever seen does. It's a triumph in every sense of the word.

But more than that, Slumdog is part of an emerging mythology. Beyond the perfectly executed melodrama of Jamal Malik and his brother Salim is a tale that is raging all across our globe, in bustling metropolis' just like Mumbai where today even kids from the slums can dare to dream about winning it all. Right now, we need that dream more than ever.

Listen to the interview. Watch the movie. Become a Danny Boyle fan. You'll feel better about the world and feel better about yourself. Chances are I'll be sitting in the theater right next to you whispering: "I told you so..."

Listen to Gotham Chopra's interview podcast with Danny Boyle

"We didn't have much use for these, you know: Hindus, Muslims. You live there. I live there. We were kids, then, really just kids. And neighbors."

I could tell from the way that Prem uncle said this, with a tight frown on his face, his neck craned, and his old eyes gazing up toward the rood, that he meant it....at least once upon a time.

"We were twenty-two, twenty-three years old, like you, no?" He glanced at me, nodded, and went on without waiting for a reply. I was twenty-five at the time, about to travel to Pakistan to do a story on the ongoing conflict in Kashmir, laying over in Delhi where a lot of my family lives now, quizzing my great Prem uncle about events that took place fifty years ago

"We went to the bars and nightclubs and drank together, got drunk together - we all loved scotch in those days - the town, all of Lahore, it was ours. It belonged to us."

In 1947, India had just gained independence from Great Britain. Like may colonial outposts, until that time civil tensions had taken a backseat to resistance against the more immediate problem of imperialist rule. But the unrest and brewing animosity between Hindus and Muslims that had existed in India for hundreds of years was once more at the tipping point.

"It was a crazy time. All of a sudden 'freedom.' What did that mean? Things from the day before hadn't changed at all, and yet, everything - everything - was different.

"There were celebrations in the streets. People yelling, 'Freedom!' Really just as loud as they could, hoping it might teach them what it meant because no one really knew. But then the celebrations started to turn. They became riots."

There was a change in Prem uncle's tone. His eyes became downcast, perhaps a bit still perplexed how everything fell apart so suddenly. "Small disturbances, fights, and all of a sudden they became huge riots."

Throughout the independence movement in India, there had been factions urging for the separation of nations - the creation of two independent nations - one for Hindus and another for Muslims.

And so Pakistan was born. Granted independence in 1947, Pakistan secured official partition from India in August of 1948. Overnight, regions that for thousands of years had been a part of India's royal history had a new name, a new face, and an unknown future.

"We weren't sure what we were supposed to do, where we were supposed to go. How were we supposed to feel?" Prem uncle shrugged. "All of a sudden we were guests in our own home. It was all very strange."

"So we did what was most natural: we just carried on. We went to work."

But simply going to work proved to be life-threatening. Animosity fueled by weeks of national transformation spilled into violence. On both sides of the border, riots broke out each night. In Delhi, Muslims, residents of the city for centuries, were slaughtered at their doorsteps. The same gruesome fate was met by thousands of Hindus who likewise lived in Lahore.

"In the morning, going to work, we'd see corpses - just strewn alongside the road. Our city, our home, had turned into a warzone."

Determined however, not to turn their homes over to such anarchy, young men like Prem uncle insisted on the normalcy of going to work. But they did take certain precautions - like wearing Muslim clothing to conceal the fact that they were Hindus.

"No one could tell," he smiled as he recalled. "Our friends at the office knew, and we all just laughed about it. It was a joke. Inside the office, no one really cared which God we all believed in. Out on the street, no one could tell the better. We all looked the same - we all were the same."

The same, but different. It's like a riddle of wording in Nabokov novel or Shakespeare play. Appearance vs. reality, right?

"I think I knew the day that it was over," Prem uncle said sadly. "I knew it but didn't want to admit it.

"Indir, my brother-in-law, he was a police inspector, he came to the office that day and told me that his neighborhood had been attacked. All the Hindus were being assaulted and he was going to leave - leave that very day for the border and head to India.

"I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. My neighborhood seemed safe. I was young, of course, and stubborn. I was going to leave my home? And go where? Just like that? No - I was going to stay and I told Indir so.

"That was that. Indir nodded and said okay. He understood. He was married to my sister. I was still a bachelor - I could afford to stay. He said they intended to leave that night and that his wife - my sister - Bimla had already left for Delhi, and that he was returning to the house to pack some things and then he, his mother and sister would immediately head for the border." It became clear to me then that this was not a story that Prem uncle had often told. There was a break in his voice every so often. Today, Prem uncle is well into his eighties I think. He's a small man, like his other sister, my grandmother who we call Nani. Within the family, he's always been our favorite. Not because he's good with kids - he's not. He has none of his own and never really remembered our names when we were small. Still, we all knew growing up that he was the family patriarch. He was the one the elders always went to when help was required. Just like Indir did.

"I told him not to go, just to leave, because things were very unpredictable at the time and going back to the neighborhood just felt risky." Prem uncle laughed. "Even though he was married, he was young and stubborn just like me. And that badge he toted, I think it made him even more so.

"So I said 'fine, I'll go with you then.' He was my sister's husband after all. It was my duty to look after him.

"We climbed into the car - the four of us - Indir, me, his mother, and sister. We drove to his neighborhood. It wasn't very far. When we did get close, you could see that there was some trouble just in front of the house. So Indir parked the car down the road and told his mother and sister not to move, that we would be right back.

"We went to the house, and just in front there were groups of young Muslim men shouting slogans and all of that. They were a pretty intimidating lot the way they were going. The both of us were a little nervous, I think.

"We went into the house, and collected a few things, then decided it was time to go. The crowd outside was getting bigger and louder. We left and reached the car, but just then, Indir remembered something he had left behind and he insisted that he had to go back to the house to retrieve it." Prem uncle shook his head. "I can't even recall what it was...

"Now when we went back the second time, the crowd was much bigger. When we came from the house this time, there were these boys everywhere

"Indir saw it first, a group of them had gathered around the car. They were pushing it and banging it from the outside. Indir yelled at them and ordered them to stop, flashing his police badge. But when they saw that and his uniform, they became even angrier. But so was Indir, seeing how fearful they had made his mother and sister. He shouted something at them and then they knew he was Hindu. That he was a Hindu plus a police inspector made for a deadly combination. All of a sudden, there was fighting and shouting, and before you knew it a group of them were all over him, beating him badly."

Silence.

"I tried to do something, but there was so much confusion and so many people that no one knew what I was doing. And no one knew I was a Hindu - I had on the Muslim dress that I had worn to office. They assumed I was one of them. So there I was, helpless, unable to do anything as they beat my brother-in-law who I was supposed to protect to death. They dragged his mother and sister from the car as well and beat them, too."

Irony is a strange thing - it bends in so many ways. Prem uncles knew both sides of the equation - had he not been wearing those clothes, most likely he too would have been killed. But the young man in him still thought that had he been dressed differently, maybe he could have stopped them. But it's futile to twist history in any other way than it is.Eventually police officers appeared on the scene. Seeing on of their own had been slain, the officers unleashed, brutally taking out their rage on any and all Muslims in the area. Besieged on all sides in the madness was Prem uncle - now he appeared Muslim to the police seeking retribution.

"So I just started to run, but one of the officers caught up to me. He recognized me as Indir's bhai - or brother. He knew I was in danger because of the way I was dressed. He grabbed me and put me in the back of his car. And then we just drove away, leaving everything behind. He drove me to my own car and told me to get out of Lahore, not to stay even another hour. Just go to the border and leave.

"So I did. I drove there just then and never even went back home. I never saw it again - didn't retrieve a single thing. Just went to the border, left the car behind, and fled. Just like that."

That same night the riots in Lahore reached a climax. Half the city was torched. Hundreds of Hindus and Muslims were slaughtered in the streets, and the lines of partition and hostility were firmly etched between the two countries that days before were one.

"We were friends and neighbors and then we were enemies - all in a few days, a few hours. If those men had known who I really was, maybe I could have stopped them - Indir would not have been alone," he said, perhaps not noting the double entendre. "But because of those clothes, everyone was confused that day. I guess it was my karma..." It's not clear to me after hearing Prem uncle tell his story whether or not he even believes in karma.

"Those clothes - they saved me that day," he finally admits, "even as I watched them beat my bhai. They saved me, but they took something bigger away."

A sharp-witted and intellect, Prem uncle wasted little time establishing a new life in his landing spot - Delhi. He didn't marry until he was fifty, to a woman twenty-five years his younger. They never had children of their own. Instead, they looked after the rest of the family who had also mostly settled in Delhi - especially his sister Bimla, widowed at the age of twenty-five with two young sons from her late husband Indir.

My own grandmother tells me that Bimla auntie never healed from losing her husband. I never met her because she died at the age of 65 from Lou Gehrig's disease (it wasn't called that then!) As she lay in the hospital bed for close to a year, her young niece sat by her bedside religiously. A young physician still in his final year of medical school - was assigned as the attending doctor, and when he was done with all his rounds, he'd stop by one last time in Bimla auntie's room. Even in her dying days, Bimla auntie knew why.

My mother says my father would look over the charts mechanically - for he had seen them just hours before when he made his normal rounds. Then he'd loiter around, chatting with her about silly things like the Beatles and that silly think taking the west by storm - rock and roll. And Bimla auntie, on a respirator (imported especially from England by Prem uncle) and too weak near the end to really speak, would squeeze her hand happily as the clock ticked and the young doctor never left!

My parents got married in the spring of 1971 - two weeks after Bimla auntie passed. Unlike most Punjabi weddings, which are loud celebratory affairs full of debauchery, my parents' wedding was in the morning, small and soft - the way Bimla auntie was.

In my own way, out of all of this, I suppose I have fashioned a sort of fantasy to qualify myself as one of Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children (my favorite book in college). If Prem uncle had not endured his karma, perhaps I would never have seen mine. If India and Pakistan had not split, Indir uncle, might not have been killed. Bimla auntie would likely not have moved to Delhi. She would not have died in a New Delhi hospital wing assigned to a young physician, and a karmic encounter between my parents would never had come to pass. Life itself is mountain of ifs. One man's scar can be another's womb.

Here's for a lasting peace between India and Pakistan during this messy time.

As many already know, my father Deepak Chopra (along with thousands of others) has taken a vow of non-violence in all his actions and words. As a result, he's unable to respond that aggressively to an article written by Dorothy Rabinowitz in Monday's Wall Street Journal critical of his response on CNN and elsewhere to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Fortunately, I haven't taken the vow.

In her opinion piece, Ms. Rabinowitz charges that Deepak has over-simplified the issue of global terrorism. How ironic considering the profound over-simplification of her article (not to mention the recklessness of it) entitled DEEPAK BLAMES AMERICA.

The same way she questions Deepak's authority on the subject, I have no idea what qualifies Ms. Rabinowitz as an expert in this regard but she clearly appears to be no student of history. If she was, she would understand the context in which this latest terrorist attack appears to have occurred. To summarize: in the 80's the CIA financed the militarization of Afghan rebels to resist Soviet expansion in the region. At the same time, the US also subsidized Pakistan's intelligence agency the ISI to train and provide tactical support to those same Islamic militants.

Fast forward to the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Soviet's pulling out of Afghanistan, and the United State's subsequent withdrawal of support from the region as well. The result: a vacuum filled with a lot of guns and rage. After 9/11, in an effort to once again re-establish control of the wild proliferation of fundamentalism in the region, the US returned to the Indian subcontinent with a bit of sound and fury only to find the mess they left behind and the deep ties between the ISI and the Mujahadeen turned Taliban. In other words, there is a distinct link between the rise of Islamic militancy in the Indian Subcontinent and the US activities there over the last few decades. Allegations that the group of terrorists that perpetrated the Mumbai attack has links to a Pakistani-based terror group and that they actually launched the attack from Karachi seems pretty solid. Is it too much to ask for a WSJ journalist to tie this all together?

Let's get to the heart of the matter, though, which is about constructing a solution for global terrorism, not just assigning blame for it. To hypothesize that this is simply a problem restricted to Arab and/or Islamic parts of the world is plainly naïve and reckless. To deny the inherent tangled hierarchy of ongoing conflicts in Israel, Iraq, and Kashmir that pit opposing ideals against one another with the supply of billions of dollars into the oil industry, ground zero for which is the American ally Saudi Arabia, and the even more profitable arms trade that subsidizes all sides of these wars showcases Ms. Rabinowitz's unprofessional lack of understanding.

Our collective inability to construct a well thought out creative solution that goes beyond declaring a "war on terrorism" or insanely cheering on continued "shock and awe" campaigns in Arab regions around the world is a complicit part of the ongoing problems we face. Yes - America for all the democratic ideals for freedom and liberty it declares to the rest of the world - does indeed have a fundamental responsibility to stay true to them and be held accountable when we fail to even give the appearance that we care for them, as unfortunately the Bush regime has shown the last 8 years. We can no longer afford the delusion that we have no part in a global community plagued by the sickness that is Islamic fundamentalism largely brought on by economic disparity and ideological hypocrisy, not to mention myopic policies, oil money, and arms sales that nurture it. To pretend otherwise is to perpetuate and encourage more brazen attacks. To think that this creative solution should not appeal in some way to the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, the vast majority of whom are not terrorists, is plain negligence.

The goal here is not to demonize the US and pin all of the world's problems - and certainly terrorism specifically - on the US and/or its foreign policy. But clearly as we enter a new era and Presidency, we have an opportunity to contemplate a new cohesive strategy for dealing with the plague of the 21st century - Islamic fundamentalism. Part of that is to examine our own recent political history. We need to look at CIA activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq specifically in the 70's and 80's to prop up the Mujahadeen who would become the Taliban and in Iraq. Let us recall that the CIA brought Saddam Hussein, who at the time was a thug in exile, back to Iraq and installed him as President. This was done to combat Soviet expansion in Asia and to guard against Iran's growing Ayatollah Khomeini steered fanaticism. Debate all you want the merit of these operations and what they would eventually lead to,... in fact that is what we must do.

Now let's get personal. In her piece, Ms. Rabinowitz cites Deepak's lack of compassion and empathy for the victims of the attacks in Mumbai. That's funny - I didn't notice her sitting at our Thanksgiving dinner table last week, a decidedly somber event that coincided with the attacks in the country where our family is from and many still live. We were downcast not only because of our cultural connection to India but our personal connections to several friends who were literally in the Taj, the Oberoi and some of the other sites when the attacks took place. For 48 hours straight, my mother, father, sister, brother-in-law, and wife reached out to countless family members, friends, and colleagues, fearful each time that we were not able to connect with someone, assuming the worst. Fortunately for us, no one we know closely so far is amongst the dead.

The same can't be said for many of the devoted people and hotel staff who made our stays, business meetings, late night drinks and kebabs extravaganzas at the Taj and Oberoi so memorable and meaningful. Many of those that survived the attacks, even after they have lost so much - their colleagues and even families in some cases - are the same resilient people that are today pledging to rebuild these cultural and business epicenters to be stronger than ever. That, Ms. Rabinowitz, is also part of the re-construction and diplomacy plan, and my family plans to be there as soon as the doors open once more. Will you?

Or is it less troublesome for you to remain ensconced in your a priori knowingness and dispense judgment on those who bother to travel the world and engage in dialogue with people of all different perspectives?

As an entrepreneur with a business that employs several dozen in India, I travel to India at least once a quarter and feel like I have a pretty firm grasp of what's on the minds of the citizens of Mumbai right now. My father travels to India just as regularly, not to mention the over two-dozen other countries that he visited last year alone. As a journalist, I also happen to have spent considerable time in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Chechnya, Israel/Palestine, Egypt, Kashmir, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia, sometimes sitting across from some of these terrorists and engaging them in dialogue and debate. That's not to say that I empathize with them or their cause: I don't. But I do bother to acknowledge them, which may be the first step in trying to understand the warped psychology of their minds. Only then can one presumably start to refine a real plan for eliminating it, if even that requires deployment of precise military means to excise the cancer that are terrorist sleeper cells. But to think the solution ends there is naive.

Then again, that clearly is not Ms. Rabinowitz's intent because there is another complicit part to all of this - the media. Dorothy Rabinowitz, for example is an incredibly accomplished journalist and certainly someone with the intellectual capacity to understand the complexity of the issues if she wanted to. And yet instead of writing a thoughtful piece on the Mumbai attacks, she and the WSJ choose to publish a salacious article under the heading of DEEPAK BLAMES AMERICA which clearly is all about generating controversy and news. They were successful in creating publicity over this imaginary story-considering all the subsequent coverage, including my father's appearance Monday night on the Fox News show Hannity and Colmes in which the article was cited (both Fox News and the WSJ, of course, are owned by News Corp/Rupert Murdoch...another story for another day). Of course, ultimately the real goal of the media, news networks included, is more viewers, more readers, and more buzz. The consequence is that it fuels a public that wants simple three-word headlines and analysis that doesn't rely on understanding the history or context in which events occur. It's a brave new world for media everywhere because someone is always watching and blogging.

That's where the "Marshall Plan for the Muslim world," that Ms. Rabinowitz sarcastically cites in her article, comes in. That, by the way, was my idea that I lent my dad for his appearance on Larry King! I happen to think a long-term holistic and strategic plan that helps rebuild the blasted ghettos of the Arab world, where so much of this hatred festers, is the only reasonable solution to the militant trend that we see proliferating around globe now.

Here's the thing - and the final point - I'm a first generation American and proud to be so. I believe the US needs to take a strong leadership role in eradicating the planet of terrorism. I certainly don't think I have the knowledge or experience to shape that policy and never claimed to. But as concerned and proud citizens it's our responsibility to challenge our leaders to come up with new ideas, learn from the mistakes of our past, and be very conscious of the world they are shaping for our children.

It's not at all an easy solution and there will likely be mistakes in the future but it would behoove us as a nation to not learn from some of the ones we have made in the past. The war in Iraq comes to mind. It's a worthy debate whether or not the war can be qualified as a success. But part of the discussion has to be an acknowledgment of the facts - that somewhere between 400 thousand to 1 million Iraqi civilians have perished. Some may argue that that is the price of war and long-term peace and security in the region. Others will say that beyond the immediate cost of those lives is how that has galvanized another generation of Islamic militants.

It's a good and important debate to have as it will ultimately fuel new policy. Gitmo and Abu Ghraib also have to be part of that same discussion. As does the fact that Saddam Hussein, the late dictator we love to hate so much, as noted above, was originally a prop of the US after an American sponsored coup. For years, the US was well aware of his brutal tactics with his own people including the infamous torture chambers and rape rooms and yet tolerated them because of the so-called broader strategic security interests in the region. To pretend that that was the reason the US decided to "liberate the Iraqi" people is revisionist at best, but really just flat out wrong. That one's for you Sean Hannity - another accomplished and intelligent journalist who knows better than to lean on that false crutch for his ongoing cheerleading of the war.

I'm open to debate on all of the above but prefer to do so with those that are actually serious and solution-oriented, not just in search of more readers or a higher rating. Today, in the face of great danger around the world and more looming terrorist attacks, we all have to be willing to ask ourselves how we can actually contribute in a meaningful way to constructing a long term sustainable and peaceful planet. Maybe I am the naive one because I still believe in our spiritual patriarch Mahatma Gandhi who said if you want to see change in the world, start with yourself.

Maybe I will take that vow after all.

All through Thanksgiving at the Chopra house, we discussed vigorously the terrifying situation in Mumbai.

All intelligence so far points to the fact that the perpetrators of these attacks belong to Islamic militant sects. How shocking. Keep in mind that no specific organization (save for some fringe group that no one seems to have heard of) has claimed responsibility as yet. Nor have they made any demands. That suggests that the terrorists' intention were really to maximize attention, gain the notice of the world, and visibly strike at the heart of India's most populous city. In that case, mission accomplished.

And of course, there is the brewing suspicion that India's neighbor Pakistan is involved in some way, if nothing else than serving as a launching ground and base of operations for the attackers. The sophistication and complexity of the well-coordinated attack -- akin to the 9/11 attacks -- suggest that whomever was behind these brazen assaults had tremendous resources and infrastructure to plan it over a significant amount of time. It's not just money that is required to do something this large, but considerable intelligence gathering skills, tactical strategic planning, and organizational layering so that word of an assault doesn't leak out beforehand by mistake and tip off the target.

For those that know, all of the above points to Pakistan's intelligence organizations the ISI who for decades has been deeply integrated into various Islamic organizations that lurk in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and have been rumored to get financial and moral support from wealthy Islamic nations in the Gulf, notably Saudi Arabia. The rumor that they are now going to be involved in the investigation of these attacks is both ironic and obliquely irreverent. Are we seriously supposed to trust that the ISI has India's interests at heart?

Alas the real debate that's been raging in our household is whether "fanaticism" is the real source of this sort of terrorist menace or "Islamic fanaticism?" Surely there are MANY terror organizations around the world not associated with Islam -- the FARC, LTTE, IRA, ETA, not to mention the brutal regimes that operate all over the African continent. But for every non-Muslim based terror organization (which by the way are mostly secular), I can find you ten Islamic ones that pose a great global menace. It's far too politically incorrect to single out Islamic fanaticism from the rest, but in truth there clearly is a vastly disproportionate amount of rage brewing within Islam than within other major faiths. And certainly as it relates to the amount of resources the world has to devote to deal with these problem places, there is NO comparison. Is it racist to say so or just a statement of fact?

Frankly, the more we talk about "religious fanaticism" as opposed to "Islamic fundamentalism", the more time we waste in my opinion and the more this all becomes a debate in theory rather than one with practical and useful applications. That does not mean that we condemn the entire faith (nor the 1.65 billion that subscribe to it) which would be unreasonable and impractical, but that we - and more importantly Muslims themselves -- ask the hard questions as to why the Islamic faith has distinguished itself so. Increasingly nations like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran find themselves out of the "mainstream" of the world, their economies marginalized and increasingly irrelevant to the world.

Other Islamic nations like Saudi and Gulf states seem only to be of relevance to the rest of the world because of their oil richness. But increasingly the rest of the planet is realizing oil a limited resource and our addiction to it clearly has enormous security consequences. So both from the outside of Islam and the inside as well, now is the time to do a deep examination of where we are headed. The vociferous Imams and Islamic clerics that recruit young boys to be the agents of all this terror preach from Mosques from North London to Tehran to Peshawar to Quetta about the increasing divergence of interests between the orthodox Islamic world and everyone else. Sadly, it appears they may not be so far off.