A month or so after I had reviewed `Firaaq` (see my last post), terrorists attacked Mumbai, on November 26, 2008, which inevitably led to much chatter in cyberspace. Today, The Times carries a report of the surprise admission of guilt by the chief perpetrator under the heading "Mumbai gunman Ajmal Amir Kasab changes plea to guilty". Its opening and closing paragraphs are as follows:
"The lone terrorist gunman to survive the Mumbai attacks confessed to his role in the atrocity yesterday, dramatically reversing months of denials — and possibly paving the way for a thaw in relations between India and Pakistan".
"Kasab’s confession could help to ease relations between India and its neighbour, analysts said. It came hours after the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, used a trip to Mumbai to defend the sincerity of Islamabad’s anti-terrorism policies. “We believe there is a commitment to fighting terrorism that permeates the entire (Pakistan) Government,” Mrs Clinton said".
Whether there will be an improvement in Indo-Pak relations remains to be seen; it may turn out to be a pious hope! But it is worth revisiting the arguments that were raging in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Here is what I wrote on December 3, 2008 in reply to a post under the title "India`s new `untouchables`":
Message #31874 > Wed Dec 3, 2008 8:59 pm > Ramnik Shah wrote:
I too had been forwarded this piece and had read it with interest. Taking on board all that you say, from a clearly enlightened and liberal stance (with which I can readily identify), the fact remains that there has been a growing anti-Muslim sentiment building up in India in the last two decades (`Ayodhya`, the 1993 Bombay riots, `Godhra` etc), leading to a sense of alienation, discrimination, disaffection and victimisation and a general feeling among Muslims that they are indeed the new pariah class, lower even than the Dalits, in the Indian hierarchy of privilege and social order. I have heard or read many first hand accounts of young (Muslim) people, men mostly, being denied job opportunities, admission to universities, harrassed and habitually treated as second class citizens. More particularly, whenever terrorist type incidents occur, they feel especially vulnerable because of finger pointing, often with crude invitations to go (or even `go back`) to Pakistan. Their plight was vividly portrayed in the film FIRAAQ, reviewed here by me on 16 October (Msg #30332). All this is bound to fuel resentment and cause insecurity and isolationist tendencies.
The fact that large sections of the Indian political leadership (from the PM downwards), media and public were so quick to blame Pakistan for the horrendous attack on Mumbai, without making a distinction between the Pakistani state and the terrorist groups operating from its territory cannot help but exacerbate this climate of suspicion and hostility towards the Muslims. Against this broad background, it is hardly surprising if some of their young folk were attracted or recruited to the terrorists` cause. But even if there was no local Muslim involvement in the Mumbai massacre, is the (majority of) Indians` myopia so short-sighted that they cannot see the utter folly of antagonising some 150 million Muslims in their midst to the point of open rebellion and even civil war? What could then happen is beyond contemplation. They chose to remain in India after partition and, after more than 60 years and two or three generations down the line, are as much an integral part of the body politic as everyone else. They are the largest and most significant single minority whose voices, aspirations and fears cannot be ignored or brushed aside lightly. This surely is a crucial turning point in India`s history when, if wiser counsels prevail, every effort should be made to win the `hearts and minds` of an important part of the population.
One or two other related points: the Pakistani government has been at pains to stress the need to fight terrorism as a common cause and has strenuously sought to distance itself from any terror groups located within its borders. Even if you take this with a pinch of salt, so to speak, can it be denied that there is a measure of genuine concern and willilngness to extend the hand of friendhship on their part? On the other hand, what the Mumbai massacre has shown, alas, is the incompetence, unpreparedness and inability of the Indian authorities to defend their country and in particular its commercial and financial capital. Their lack of resources in terms of equipment and training was exposed in their bungled rescue operation on the Jewish centre at Nariman Point, which was attacked by the commandos as if, as one Israeli commentator observed, there were no hostages there! So it suited the Indians to pour all their anger at the Pakistanis, thereby diverting criticism from their own failings.
I am sure at the more sophisticated intellectual and informed levels, Indians too are engaged in a process of soul-searching, and we know that there are already many voices demanding answers from the government, but in the immediate context of this thread, I wonder how the Muslim minority will be viewed and what their fate will be in the months leading up to the elections.
Finally, for the sake of some of our new members, let me reproduce the opening and concluding passages from my posting (Msg # 5784) of 28 January 2005 which I think neatly encapsulate where I, and I dare say many others on this forum, stand vis-a-vis India and the Indians:
"On Identity and Culture
Those familiar with my views know that I have always distanced myself from India on the basis that as East African Asians (EAAs) by birth (or by upbringing) we are not Indians but rather people with an Indian ancestry. In the current jargon, this translates as `P I Os` = persons of Indian origin, as distinct from NRIs (Non-Indian Residents) who, according to me, are strictly speaking Indian citizens resident abroad, though the Indians themselves include in this category those who may have been born in India but have since migrated elsewhere, irrespective of their current nationality. (It happened that the second `Pravasi` or Conference on Indians Overseas, had just ended as we arrived in Mumbai on 10 January). The distinction is important, not just in terms of legal niceties but because of fundamental cultural differences - `culture` here is used in the broader sense of a way of life in societal terms, not ethnic or religious heritage. Of course, our EAA identity has since morphed into an adopted and hyphenated British-Asian (or Indo-Canadian or Indo-American as the case may be) variety in the wake of our further migration to the West. And while paradoxically from a global perspective we may have thus become part of the vast Indian diaspora, in India itself we are seen as `foreigners`, which is fine with me, but taking a long view of prospective history, the `Indianness` of the `diaspora` must surely in fifty or hundred years be subsumed into another form of identity?
On Cultural / Ethnic Affinity
And finally, how do we relate to Indians? More like members of an extended clan where we left the common family home two or three generations ago. The distance is in terms of both time and space. One does not feel connected in any personal or immediate sense; only in terms of an ethnic dimension. Emotion does not enter into the equation; human empathy does. We wish the Indians well of course. Their dynamism has to be admired and their efforts have to be encouraged. We feel proud of their achievement and struggles, and to be of Indian stock - to share a common ancestry and past. But would we like to live, CAN we live there? Clearly not. This is true of even of most NRIs. Have we got India out of our system? Towards the end, we thought we had and that we would not be making a return visit again (even though we already are committed to another trip in October). Now I am not so sure. India in small doses is fine. So after a suitable interval of time, I am sure, (like the proverbial lover who does not admit to desire or the mother who thinks she has had enough of babies) the urge to go there again will return. Let us see".
RAMNIK SHAH
Surrey England
No comments:
Post a Comment