NYT Columnist Hails UPA Govt's 'No Military Response' To Pakistan After Mumbai Attack As A Lesson For Israel Amid War Against Hamas

A New York Times columnist has stirred a controversy by hailing the erstwhile UPA government's decision to not retaliate militarily after the deadly 2008 Mumbai terror attack, in which over 160 people were killed.

In his column for the New York Times, Thomas L Friedman compared India's response to the 2008 terror attack with Israeli military offensive after Hamas terror attacks on 7 October killed over 1,400 people.

He lauded the then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s decision to not retaliate in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attack.

Friedman described himself as an admirer of Manmohan Singh and said that his response of not retaliating militarily against Pakistan or Lashkar camps for the 2008 Mumbai attack, which was akin to India's 9/11 moment, was a "remarkable act of restraint".

"What was Singh’s military response to India’s Sept. 11? He did nothing. Singh never retaliated militarily against the nation of Pakistan or Lashkar camps in Pakistan. It was a remarkable act of restraint," Friedman wrote in his opinion column dated 29 October.

To elaborate on the logic behind the decision, Friedman quoted then foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon’s book ‘Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy’. 

Menon had written that to retaliate for the attack by Lashkar-e-Taiba, that resulted in the death of over 160 people in Mumbai, would have been “emotionally satisfying” but concentrating on “diplomatic, covert and other means was the right one for that time and place”. 

The outrageousness of the terror attacks would have been lost had India retaliated, Menon had written in his book, adding that a retaliation would have just been seen by the world as another India-Pakistan dust-up.

India’s retaliation would have united Pakistanis, and an eventual war would have economic costs that would have set back the progress made by the Indian economy, according to Menon.

Friedman pointed out the differences in the reaction to the 26/11 attacks in India compared to the Hamas strikes on Israel, emphasising the need to “reflect on the contrast” in the aftermath of both events.

"I understand that Israel is not India — a country of 1.4 billion people, covering a massive territory. The loss of more than 160 people in Mumbai, some of them tourists, was not felt in every home and hamlet, as were Hamas’s killing of roughly 1,400 Israelis, the maiming of countless others and the kidnapping of more than 200 people. Pakistan also has nuclear weapons to deter retaliation," he said.

He observed that the initial reaction to Hamas’ “sheer barbarism” was soon eclipsed by the narrative focusing on the severity of Israel’s response against Gaza.

According to Friedman, the intensity of the Israeli retaliation not only cast a shadow over the actions of Hamas but also unexpectedly elevated their status to that of a “hero to some”. Furthermore, he noted that this forceful response has led to Arab allies withdrawing their support from Israel.

Friedman also highlighted that the Israeli economy will bear the brunt of the war if it continues for months, as predicted.

However, Friedman's praise of the former UPA government over not retaliating in response to 26/11 attack, did not go down well with social media users.

Author Hindol Sengupta slammed Friedman's column for hailing the UPA government response after Mumbai terror attack.

"Most Indians read this and think - this is the saddest thing that ever happened to us. And that Thomas Friedman - who has only ever been wrong about things - thinks this is admirable is even sadder. This is why support for Israel is so widespread in India today - Indians know what it feels like to have a government who will do nothing to protect its own citizens and will do nothing when scores of them are brutally murdered," he wrote on X.