Back to Gideon RachmanIt’s been clear for some time that India has a serious and growing problem with terrorism. There were terror attacks in Delhi when I was there last September. At the time, the Indian reaction - both from the public and the government - seemed commendably calm. I wonder whether the calm will survive the latest horrors in Mumbai?
We still don’t know the full death toll - but it looks like it will run into the hundreds. The police are reported to be preparing to storm the Oberoi Hotel and there are hostages being held at the Taj Palace. (I stayed there in September, too.)
One always has to be careful with comparisons to 9/11. That was so spectacular, and so many people died. But this attack does have a ring of 9/11 - the terrorists have attacked some of the iconic buildings in the commercial capital of India. The fact that there were multiple attacks and that the gunmen in the Taj were reportedly trying to separate Americans and Brits, also makes it sound like an al-Qaeda style operation.
Indians will be watching anxiously to see if the terrorists were Indian-born or foreigners. Either would be bad news, but for different reasons. One of the alarming aspects of some recent terror attacks in India is that Indian-born Muslims were involved. The development of a terror campaign with truly domestic roots would be a really ominous development. On the other hand, if the terror attacks originated on Pakistani soil, then regional tensions would spiral. How unpleasantly ironic that all this should happen, just days after the Pakistani prime minister, issued a bold appeal for peace between his country and India. One might almost believe that these attacks were designed to scupper the Zardari peace initiative - were it not for the fact that it must take longer than a couple of days to put something like this into action,
This blog covers a variety of topics from US foreign policy to European politics and the Middle East - and whatever else happens to be in the news or catch my attention. I joined the FT as chief foreign affairs commentator in 2006, after a 15-year career at The Economist which included stints as a correspondent in Brussels, Bangkok and Washington. I write a weekly column on foreign affairs, which appears in the paper on Tuesdays. Occasionally my FT colleagues contribute posts to this blog.
Geoff Dyer is the FT's China bureau chief. He has been a correspondent in Shanghai and in Brazil and has also covered the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries from London.
Roula Khalaf is the FT's Middle East editor. She has worked for the FT since 1995, first as North Africa correspondent, then Middle East correspondent and most recently as Middle East editor. Before joining the FT, she was a staff writer for Forbes magazine in New York. 
James Blitz is the FT's defence and diplomatic editor. He has been the FT's political editor, based in London, and Rome bureau chief. James is a former Moscow bureau chief for the Sunday Times.
Alan Beattie is the FT's world trade editor. He has previously been economics leader writer and spent two years in Washington DC as chief US economics correspondent. Before joining the FT, Alan was an economist at the Bank of England. 
Victor Mallet is the FT's Madrid correspondent. He is a former Asia editor of the FT, and, in more than 20 years at the organisation, has also worked in Africa, Europe and the Middle East. In 1990 he escaped from Kuwait after being one of the few foreign correspondents there when Iraq invaded. 
Stefan Wagstyl is the FT's eastern Europe editor, co-ordinating coverage of the region. He has also been the FT's bureau chief in Tokyo and New Delhi.