FULL STORY OF THE 26/11 MUMBAI TERROR ATTACK.....

THE 26/11 MUMBAI TERROR ATTACK
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIAN AND
PAKISTANI PRINT MEDIA
The audacious attack in Mumbai, India on 26 November 2008 was the
worst the country had witnessed in a long time. For the first time, extremists
belonging to a Pakistan-based terror outfit engaged in active combat on
Indian soil for more than 60 hours after navigating entry through the sea
route using modern electronic gadgets. The subsequent media coverage,
fervent and relentless, yet again revealed an interesting character of media
in South Asia with divergent reportage of the same event by Indian and
Pakistani press. This article throws light on the behaviour of the media in
both countries when state and/or non-state actors are involved in a conflict
situation with each other.

A total of ten locations came under
This attack with the most prominent being Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, earlier
known as Victoria Terminus; the Leopold Café in Colaba Causeway in South
Mumbai, usually a crowded place frequented by tourists; the Oberoi–Trident
Hotel, Nariman House and a residential building in Colaba. The other targets
were Cama Hospital; the area around Metro Cinema; a petrol pump station near
Nariman House in Colaba and two taxis were exploded in Ville Parle and Wadi
Bunder.
This was not the first time that Mumbai had been struck by terror, but the
26/11 attack assumed an international character as it was carried out with the
deliberate intention of targeting a number of foreign nationals. Covertly crafted
and surreptitiously executed, the attack aimed at causing as much destruction of life and property as possible.

The casualties of foreign nationals might have been low but the psychological effect and panic created among the people was severe. The political fallout of the attack was far reaching as the
then Indian Home Minister Shivraj
Patil and National Security Advisor
MK Narayanan submitted their
resignations in its wake. The Indian
government claimed and substantially
proved that the attackers had their roots in Pakistan but the neighbour as usual
remained in denial mode. The attack drew widespread condemnation from
across the world as this time a number of foreign nationals lost their lives as
well.
THE INDIAN AND PAKISTANI PRINT MEDIA
This section examines the coverage of India’s The Times of India (online at https://
timesofindia.indiatimes.com), The Hindu (online at http://www.thehindu.com) and The Indian
Express (online at http://indianexpress.com) as well as Pakistan’s Dawn (online at https://www.dawn.
com), Daily Times (online at https://dailytimes.com.pk) and The Nation (online at http://nation.com.pk)
on the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack.

The mainstream Indian media
perceived the attack as an act of war against the country.

Newspapers carried banner headlines on the front page to
show and convey to the audience
the gravity of the attack. After
the initial reportage, the print
media shifted its role from
just reporting the incidents to
investigation.
THE 26/11 MUMBAI TERROR ATTACK
The dailies did not have much information on the morning of 27 November
2008, as the attack had started the previous night. The coverage and detailed
analyses were carried in the above-mentioned newspapers (both in India and
Pakistan) over the next few days after which the extent of news reduced. However,
some aspect or the other of the Mumbai attack kept appearing in the print media
for months to follow. The mainstream Indian media perceived the attack as an act
of war against the country. The Hindu on 27 November 2008 had the headline
“Rash of Terror Attacks in Mumbai”, while The Times of India wrote “It’s War on
Mumbai” and the Indian Express said “Mumbai’s Night of Terror without End”.
Newspapers carried banner headlines on the front page to show and convey to
the audience the gravity of the attack. After the initial reportage, the print media
shifted its role from just reporting the incidents to investigation.
In an editorial titled “An affront to the Indian state” on 28 November 2008,
The Hindu clearly called the terror attack the handiwork of the Lashkar-e-Taiba.
It stated that the terror group and its various offshoots were involved in the
Mumbai attack and targeted specific places to garner international attention.
“The sophisticated arms that they used and the manner of the attacks point to a
well-funded, well-trained group that bears the signature of the Lashkar-e-Taiba
and its several variants. Unlike in the case of many of the other terror attacks
where bombs were placed stealthily in crowded places, this was a fidayeen attack
like the one on Parliament in 2001. … To maximise international attention, the
terrorists have targeted Café Leopold and Nariman House, both frequented
by tourists, besides the hotels. Some reports speak of their seeking foreign
nationals, mainly American and British, for hostage taking. While some of the
terrorists were killed, some have been injured and are in custody while yet
others could have escaped after the shootings”.
The print media also felt that the attack was not India-specific, as the
attackers deliberately chose different sites—a Jewish religious centre, luxury
hotels and a railway station—all with global implications. The Indian Express
on 29 November 2008 carried an article that stated the “Mumbai attack was
an attack on the world”. A similar report was carried by The Times of India on
28 November 2008. It stated that a conscious decision was made to focus on
American, British and Israeli nationals. Its editorial on 1 December 2008 said
that the terror attack on Mumbai was not just about India. The Hindu on 28
November 2008 interviewed an escapee, Alex Chamberlain, who said that the
attackers specifically asked for American and British citizens.
The dailies also criticised the Indian government for security lapses, which
they perceived as leading to the terror strike. Praveen Swami extensively covered
the attack for The Hindu and on 29 November 2008 in an article entitled “India’s
Strategic Deafness and the Massacre in Mumbai” wrote:
“Last month, the Lashkar-e-Taiba’s supreme religious and political head, Hafiz
Mohammad Saeed, made a signal speech to top functionaries. ‘(The only language
India understands is that of force and that is the language it must be talked to
in)’ … Had India’s strategic establishment listened, at least 127 people who made
the mistake of being in Mumbai on 26 November would still have been alive.
If more carnage is to be prevented, it is imperative to understand the culture
of strategic deafness that facilitated the murderous attacks. … Politicians have
been quick to agree, blaming India’s intelligence services for failing to predict the
Mumbai terror attack. In fact, the available evidence suggests that the boot is on
the other foot, despite credible intelligence that terrorists were planning attacks
in Mumbai and elsewhere, India’s political leadership failed to act”.
On 1 December 2008, The Times of India carried an article headlined
“Intelligence Lapse or Navy’s Failure to Act”. The paper reported accusations
and denials between the Research and Analysis Wing and the Indian Navy over
communicating terror intercepts in time. The paper said that the Intelligence
Bureau had told the National Security Council in September that the Taj Hotel
could be a terror target. On 12 November 2008, another intelligence advisory
had warned of terrorists planning to come via the sea. The Indian Express on 29
November 2008 reminded all that Defence Minister AK Antony had referred
to the possibility of a sea-borne attack at least six times. The Times of India also
carried an article on 30 November 2008 under the headline, “Why did the NSG
take 9 Hours to Reach There”. Thus, the media claimed that the 26/11 attack
could have been prevented if the warnings had been taken seriously.
The dailies also recommended ways in which India should act with its neighbouring
country Pakistan. An editorial of 2 December 2008 in The Hindu stated:
“First, it (New Delhi) must take up and test, President Asif Ali Zardari’s public
expression of solidarity with India and his offer of practical cooperation.
Minister of State Shriprakash Jaiswal, among others, has gone on record to
say that there is ‘no doubt’ that the terrorists came from Pakistan and that ‘we
have evidence of their nationalities’… With such evidence in hand, New Delhi
should make a reasonable demand on Islamabad to cooperate with the ongoing
criminal investigation in accordance with bilateral understandings and United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. Since all indications point to the
Lashkar-e-Taiba being the organisation behind the terror in Mumbai, a dossier
of evidence must be presented to Pakistan as soon as feasible. The investigators
have the testimony of Ajmal Amir Kamaal, the sole surviving terrorist, that he
acted on the orders of Lashkar-e-Taiba commander Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi
and an operations chief code-named ‘Muzammil’. What is more, the Research
and Analysis Wing says it has tapes of phone calls made by the terrorists from
the high seas to their commanders in Pakistan”.
The Indian Express wrote that to deal with Pakistan, the government must set
right its internal security regime and recommended certain measures for the
United Progressive Alliance government to look at. While reacting in a slightly
optimistic manner about Indo–Pak relations, Siddharth Varadarajan in his article
“India’s Pakistan Problem is Pakistan’s Problem too” (The Hindu, 3 December 2008) said
that Pakistan is also at war.
Pakistani Print Media
A day after the attack, the Pakistani press reported the carnage merely as
a matter of news. The Dawn newspaper’s headline of 27 November 2008 was
“Mayhem in Mumbai: Terrorist Attacks Claim at least 80 lives; Hundreds
taken Hostage” while the Daily Times said “Over 80 killed in Series of Gun
and Grenade Attacks in India’s Financial Hub: Mumbai under Attack” and a
similar trend was followed by The Nation. None of the newspapers had any
editorial content on the incident, which had the potential of triggering a conflict
between the two nation-states. However, from 28 November 2008 onwards, as
the Pakistani papers began understanding the magnitude of the terror tragedy,
they started critically analysing the situation and its implications for Pakistan
and Indo–Pak relations.
On 28 November 2008, a front page story for the Dawn read, “Commandos
Battle to Regain Mumbai: Blame Game Begins, Allegations Levelled against
Pakistan, Death Toll put at 119 with over 300 Injured”. The paper hinted at
a Deccan Mujahideen/Indian Mujahideen role in the Mumbai attack and on
28 November 2008 carried another story under the headline, “Is India Facing
Threat of Home-Grown Militancy”.
“The attacks were claimed by a previously unknown group calling itself the ‘Deccan
Mujahideen’ in an email to news organisations. The Deccan Mujahideen’s claim
has added to the growing belief that India is confronting home-grown militancy,
but it is not clear if the claim is genuine and analysts say the bombings are almost
certainly the work of a different group. The most likely perpetrators they say are
either the Indian Mujahideen or Lashkar-e-Taiba. The Lashkar-e-Taiba is one of
the largest Muslim militant groups in South Asia, but it has denied being behind
the Mumbai attacks and said it condemned them … Indian police say the Indian
Mujahideen is an offshoot of the banned Students’ Islamic Movement of India.
The group has been blamed by the police for almost every major bomb attack
in India, including explosions on commuter trains in Mumbai two years ago
that killed 187 people. In May, the Indian Mujahideen made a specific threat to
attack tourist sites in India unless the government stopped supporting the United
States of America in the international arena”.
The Dawn also mentioned President Asif Ali Zardari’s reaction to the terror
strike calling it a detestable act. In a message to the Indian leadership, he said,
“militancy and extremism in all forms and manifestations have to be eliminated
and all countries need to cooperate with each other in this regard”. (ibid) The
editorial for the same day discussed the ironic nature of the fact that the Mumbai
attack occurred in the wake of a two-day talk between the home secretaries of
India and Pakistan in Islamabad. The Daily Times also interviewed Zardari on
30 November 2008 in which he denied any Pakistani role in the Mumbai attack
and pledged action against any group found involved, while advising New Delhi
not to “over-react”. Pakistan’s dailies toed the line of their government and
collectively pinned the blame on the Deccan Mujahideen/Indian Mujahideen.
The Daily Times continuously published editorials that alleged and fostered the
rumour that home-grown terrorists were behind the Mumbai attack. On 29
November 2008, it wrote:
“Even as India was facing the unfolding saga of Hindu terrorism whose tentacles
seem to go into its armed forces, the country has been struck by another
terrorist attack in Mumbai. The Wednesday mayhem will change the political
paradigm in India and therefore also in South Asia. Heavily armed terrorists
calling themselves the Deccan Mujahideen, a group unknown thus far, stormed
luxury hotels, a popular tourist attraction and a crowded train station in at least
seven attacks in India’s financial capital, killing over 100 people by latest count
including the Mumbai Anti-Terror Squad chief”.
The Pakistani dailies also accused their Indian counterparts of raising tensions
between the two countries and discussed the future of the India–Pakistan
relationship post 26/11. The Dawn in an editorial of 29 November 2008, talked
about Indo–Pak relations.
“Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s thinly veiled reference to Pakistani
involvement in the attacks is quite worrying and the announcement that the
Inter Services Intelligence’s chief will visit New Delhi to discuss the issue should
assuage anxiety on this count. The prime minister, a skilful, suave diplomat is not
considered an especially hawkish figure on Pakistan, so the fact that he chose to
lash out against Islamabad is a sign of the troubled road ahead in Pakistan–India
relations. Spurred by the prime minister’s comments, segments of the Indian
media have indulged in a round of Pakistan-bashing, mixing facts with theories
to present ‘evidence’ of Pakistani malice and perfidy. There are however some
undeniable facts before us already. The attacks were coordinated, methodical
and executed with terrifying precision. … The Indian prime minister or any
other official should come forward with names, identities, phone records, bank
statements or any other proof that shows a Pakistani connection. After all, it is in
our interest to unearth and destroy sponsors of yet more terrorism in our midst,
but without a sensible approach from the Indian side, Pakistan is bound to bristle
and react defensively, sparking a new round of blame and counter-blame”.
An article in The Dawn on 30 November 2008 entitled “Mumbai Fallout
Tests Government–Military Ties”, was a clear message from Pakistan for drawing
world attention.
“Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, while briefing the media on the
cabinet meeting and other related developments, also offered cooperation to
investigate the matter. Although he did not sound alarming in his comments,
he did call upon the Indian side to take effective measures to lower the level
of tension. However, officials of the country’s security establishment smell a
rat in the Indian move and the way pressure is being built on Pakistan over
the Mumbai issue. A senior security official minced no words in declaring
that because of the rising tension, the next 24 to 48 hours were extremely
crucial. He squarely accused India of indulging in the blame game without
even investigating the matter and said that at this stage, Pakistan’s security
establishment was applying methods to avoid what he called an unwanted
war. At the same time the security officials said if tensions continued to rise,
Islamabad might be compelled to shift some of the troops deployed along the
border with Afghanistan to the eastern border with India”.
In an editorial titled “Times of Terror” of 2 December 2008, the Dawn said
that the crisis might not escalate, as troop movement along the border had not
been detected. However, the attack had struck a serious blow to the Indo–Pak
peace process. The paper further alleged that for hampering bilateral relations
between the two sides, New Delhi and the Indian media must shoulder most of
the blame.
“Within hours of the attack and without giving concrete evidence, New Delhi
was announcing a Pakistani link. No doubt, the ongoing state elections and its
own intelligence lapse were responsible for its haste in passing the buck, but
what cannot be condoned is the behaviour of the Indian media. Taking its cue
from politicians—and from a culture of nationalism that is especially apparent
where Islamabad is concerned—it came down hard on Pakistan, often conjuring
up fantastical descriptions of the way the siege of Mumbai was laid. Not only
does this put pressure on the Indian government to keep up its accusations and
resist moves for a cooperative stance, it also damages people-to-people ties, for
after all, the media is meant to speak for the common man”.
On the role of the United States of America (US), the paper in another
editorial wrote that no American president had ever encouraged any aggression on
India’s part towards Pakistan. It added that the US however was fanning hostilities
between the two neighbours instead of trying to mediate as an honest broker.
Over the next few days, the Dawn carried news articles with headlines such as
“Pakistan proposes Joint Probe”, “Gilani seeks Mumbai Evidence” and “Nothing
New in India’s List of Wanted Persons: Pakistan seeks Credible Evidence”. Tariq
Fatemi (“Challenge and Opportunity”, Dawn, 4 December 2008, online at http://archives.dawn.com) a former
Pakistani ambassador to the US, writing about Islamabad’s initial response to
the attack said that the reaction was appropriate, with expressions of sympathy
coupled with strong condemnation of the terrorist action. He added that as soon
as the accusations of their (Pakistan’s) involvement in the Mumbai attack began
to emanate, instead of maintaining a cool-headed stance, the Indian government
began to send conflicting signals. Rasul Bakhsh Rais, in an analytical article on
the Mumbai attack, published in the Daily Times on 2 December 2008, blamed
the Indian media and said that unfortunately, Indian leaders had followed
the tone set by the media without giving much thought to the implications
of their statements. Even the apparently careful and intelligent Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh did not speak in his usual measured language.
“Since the terrorist attacks on the Indian parliament seven years ago, there has
been a familiar pattern in India–Pakistan relations—after each terrorist attack
in India, Indian politicians and the more hawkish elements in the Indian media
point fingers at Pakistan. Threats of war are exchanged as normal diplomacy
is suspended and talks on bilateral issues frozen”. (“Stoking the Fires”, Daily Times, 1
December 2008)
On the other hand, Asma Jahangir (“A Turning Point”, Daily Times, 3 December 2008) advised:
“The recent Mumbai terror attacks should be the turning point. Governments
of the region are challenged to support an open and transparent investigation
in order to identify and prosecute the masterminds behind such carnage. They
must have the moral courage to face the truth … The media on both sides is full
of jingoistic messages. Some Indians want revenge and even went so far as to
urge their government to bomb Pakistan. A few voices in India have cautioned
against a call for revenge and have suggested looking deeper into the failure of
the security system in India itself”.
On 7 December 2008, Hasan-Askari Rizvi wrote in the Daily Times, “India
could not secure itself against terrorism simply by projecting Pakistan as the
culprit and threatening military action against it. Any military adventurism—
limited war or surgical airstrikes—in the present context would be a formula
for disaster. The major beneficiaries of any military or diplomatic confrontation
would be the extremists based in both countries”. The Nation’s editorial on 29
November 2008, stated that the attack had initiated a debate among security
experts around the world about the possible origins of the plan and identities of
the attackers, with none categorically pointing fingers in a single direction.
“According to one claim, one of the terrorists arrested from the scene is of
Pakistani origin. After a string of bombings that shook India this year, the
government was being advised to put its act together. What it did was arrest
dozens of young Muslims, which added to a feeling of alienation that already
persists among Indian Muslims”.
On 30 November 2008, The Nation carried an interview with Mutahir Ahmed,
a professor in the Department of International Relations, Karachi University,
regarding the Mumbai attack. He echoed a similar refrain and criticised India’s
United Progressive Alliance government. Ahmed said that state elections were
to be held in Maharashtra and later in March 2009 national elections were to
be held in India. He claimed that the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Shiv Sena,
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other rightwing religious parties would benefit
from this act in the forthcoming elections and consolidate their Hindu votes
by defaming Pakistan and holding it responsible for the Mumbai tragedy. They
would sideline the ruling Congress in the forthcoming polls by placing the
responsibility of the attack on Pakistan and its Inter Services Intelligence Agency.
Ahmed added, “Before any thorough probe, putting blame on any country is a
morally wrong act”. The Daily Times carried an opinion piece by Hasan-Askari
Rizvi, which stated:
“The blame game between India and Pakistan serves the political agendas
of both hard-line Hindus and hard-line Muslims, who have always opposed
normalisation of India–Pakistan relations … If India is genuinely committed to
eliminating terrorism, it needs to work together with Pakistan and adopt joint
strategies rather than engage in a blame game”.
AN ANALYSIS OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI PRINT MEDIA
In a nutshell, the Indian print media perceived the Mumbai attack as a war
against the country. All the dailies took a nationalistic position while reporting
and analysing the terrorism. The Indian political arena too came under the
influence of critical media reporting resulting in an upheaval at the top level
with a few prominent heads rolling. The media in India, both electronic and
print, gave a vivid description of the modus operandi of the perpetrators while
covering the 26/11 attack, hence, drawing intense criticism from several quarters
for going ahead with the coverage ignoring all norms and security concerns as
well as the repercussions of such reportage. The television coverage by Indian
news channels drew widespread wrath including that of the Supreme Court.
Coming down heavily on the nature of coverage of 26/11, the court pulled up
the media for its irresponsible approach and exhorted it to follow certain self imposed regulatory norms while covering such incidents. It said that that way
the operations were aired on TV channels made the task of the security agencies
exceedingly dangerous, difficult and risky. The apex court observed that the
conduct of the channels could not be justified on the pretext of right to freedom
of speech and expression at any cost especially in such a situation. The visuals
of the ongoing operations could have been shown after all the terrorists were
neutralised even if this would have taken away the “sensational” element and the
“chilling” effect of the news item, thereby costing the channels their television
rating points. The Supreme Court observed:
“It must therefore be held that by covering live the terrorist attack on Mumbai
in the way it was done, the Indian TV channels were not serving any national
interest or social cause. On the contrary they were acting in their own commercial
interests, putting national security in jeopardy”. (“Rarest of Rare Punishment”, Outlook, 29
August 2012, online at https://www.outlookindia.com)
An evaluation of the contents of newspapers shows that The Hindu’s coverage
was comparatively more sober than that of The Indian Express and The Times
of India, which sensationalised the issue to a large extent. All the dailies took
a strong anti-terror and pro-security stand and published a number of articles
presenting divergent viewpoints on the issue. Almost all the newspapers across
the country made a sincere effort to give different opinions, adding more value
and substance to the coverage of the dastardly attack. However, to some extent
the Indian media overall was found to be jingoistic and often indulging in war
mongering. Even while the events were unfolding and nobody knew what was
happening, the media—both electronic and print—started raising fingers of
suspicion at Islamabad.
On the other hand, after analysing the Dawn, the Daily Times and The
Nation, it is interesting to note that the Pakistani dailies were not ready to accept
their country’s role in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack in any way. Toeing the
official line, the dailies kept demanding credible evidence proving Pakistan’s role
and instead sought to blame the attack on India’s home-grown militancy—the
Indian Mujahideen/Deccan Mujahideen. Attacking the Indian government, the
Pakistani media rejected New Delhi’s
claims as unfounded. The dailies started
reporting the events from the second
day onwards followed by numerous
editorials and opinions. Launching an
attack on the Indian media, the Dawn
went as far as to claim that the nadir
of Indo–Pak ties was mainly due to the
kind of reportage in India. Accusing
the Indian media of presenting half truths, the Pakistani media termed it as
too nationalistic in nature. It claimed
that the Indian media had mastered the
art of finger pointing and projecting
Pakistan as an enemy nation vis-à-vis the 26/11 terror strikes.
All the newspapers, irrespective of their nationalities, shared the grief and
shock of the victims, both foreign and Indian. The attack was condemned from
all corners of the media but conflict arose because of the initial ambiguity about
the nationalities and motives of the ten terrorists who carried out the inhumane
carnage. Retrospectively, when it was established that Pakistani nationals with
active support from the deep state of Pakistan had carried out the attack, the
media there did follow up stories by going as far as the alleged residence of
Ajmal Kasab. However objectivity, the cornerstone of good journalism, was a
clear victim in the conduct of the media of both countries as the 26/11 attack