One of the mass offensive efforts of the analytical approach concerning the Mumbai attack was the formulation of the opinion that the perpetrators of this incident was none other than Pakistan’s government, most likely through unofficial means, but still in yet, blame could be laid under Pakistan’s belly regardless of its power, or the lack thereof, to suppress terrorist based movements from seeking out their objectives.
A respected figure whom we have come to understand somewhat with regard to political academics is Pro. Li Wei of the China Institute For Contemporary International Relations. He was the first, along with our reservations as well, to form the opinion that this attack, the probability of its execution, comes from within India itself. The accuracy of this theory becomes evident in the fact that India’s recent stipulation on Pakistan to release 20 individuals is not geared towards them being the perpetrators, but geared towards putting political pressure, and inevitably, destablization to Pakistans yield of power in the region.
Where the political bias comes in is when a certain journalists for Chennai Centre for China studies has claimed in this link http://www.c3sindia.org/terrorismandsecurity/434 that this opinions by its default state is “pro Pakistan” and uses as its basis for this slledged bias the fact that Chinese analyst who became convinced of Li Wei’s view did not take notice to India’s claim that “elements within Pakistan” were responsible for the attack.
We simply ask on what basis does this constitute bias on the part of Chinese nalysist considering that they are in a far better position to judge the situation perspectively as an almost neutral entity. However i we analysis the following facts, it is much more clearer to understand the motives that lead to Pakistan’s alledged conspiracy of the attack. Pro. Li Wei proposed that there are much internal political contradictions within the Indian government that lay the ground work for this to happen along with the fact that their perception of power has been increasing and to lay blame on someone else would transfer the perception of a “weakening” of India’s power to an entirely ne ordeal, that of a conflict with Pakistan.
In the view of Liberation Daily (Chinese, Shanghai, 29 November 2008), the Mumbai attack has exposed the internal weakness of India, a power that is otherwise rising in status both in the region and the world and proving its capacity to reach the moon and intervene in Somalia etc. It says that the root cause for terrorism lies in the country’s social contradictions. Quoting what scholars have said (Prof Shen Dingli of Fudan University and Professor Hu Shisheng of CICIR), it points out that only a small number of groups in India have benefited from economic development. Another analysis (Xinjing Bao, 29 November 2008 ) takes a dim view of the ‘home-grown terrorism’ in India and the ‘internal political struggles’ on issues like POTA. A signed article (CIISS, 29 November 2008 ) specifically focuses on the Muslim backwardness in India and remarks that the marginalized Muslim community is confronting the authorities in an effort to balance. While stating that the Mumbai attack has its domestic roots, it also acknowledges the help and guidance to the terrorists in India coming from international terrorist organizations.
In conclusion, we end with the fact that most media coverage is centered on the viewpoint that Pakistan is indeed the perpetrator and that this viewpoint is the middle ground of fair, balanced, and objective coverage while casting aside the other viewpoint that it is biased towards Pakistan.