Like everybody else, I read about the terror attacks in Mumbai. It’s fascinating how much this has become a global story; partly because of the terror elements, partly because of the new technology. To a large extent, however, these attacks matter because India matters. On the one hand this gladdens me – because India does matter – but it also saddens me, because other parts of the world matter just as much.
The other aspect of these events that stand out is the way in which each observer – however intelligent, however well-informed – is unable to escape their own perspective. Thus Butterflies and Wheels sees “horrible horrible horrible people who like hurting and killing people”, the Long War Journal sees “Foreign assault teams that likely trained and originated from outside the country infiltrated a major city to conduct multiple attacks on carefully chosen targets”, a contributor on Wikipedia states with confidence that he has”both Pakistani and Indian friends here in Toronto, they is a difference of NIGHT and DAY. All the Indians in our company are dark skinned and of short stature. The Pakistanis are always the opposite in physcial looks.”
The internet is no cure for a lack of imagination, which appears to be the single biggest stumbling block in combating terrorism. We all want the enemy to be clearly visible, to be clearly distinguishable, although most of all we want the enemy not to be us.1 Yet for most outsiders, ignorant of the history of Kashmir, blind to the intersection of crime and communalism (so brilliantly sketched in Suketu Mehta‘s Maximum City), unconcerned by the legacy of partition in all its forms, these attacks are an opportunity mainly to entertain their own prescriptions. It’s understandable; but it’s not enough.
My thoughts are with the victims of these attacks, rich and poor; but my concern is for the future victims. India has a terrible track record of communal violence triggered by key events, and these attacks are likely to have the opposite effect that the terrorists wanted – (Hindu) mob vengeance against innocent (Muslim) citizens. The question is not whether India can combat terrorism, but whether it can combat the communal tensions that provide continual fuel for that terrorism.
- Most interesting blog post so far: a transcript of India TV’s interview with one of the terrorists at How I Learned to Stop Worrying. [↩]
I am not getting how to differenciate what matters and what doesn’t. Neither I see clearly priorities for globally grave issues. Nor I can think of truthful subdivisions of excess mortality as suggested in one of your earlier posts. There, probably, will be as many reactions as many people pondering, prompted by various factors – political, ideological, emotional…
Speaking of excess mortality, when secret archives were made available to relatives of “enemies of the people” allegedly, who, during Stalinist repressions, “were taken away one night from home” and never seen or heard about again, I did not hear many, at least in my social circle, rushing reading files for a very simple reason – they did not wish to re-experience the pain of now documented suffering of a family member. I understand that this is a specific case (are not all in a way?), but still, how would one know what has (is) really happened (happening) and how, how to categorize, when those who are involved would either avoid in this case even getting hold of, or revealing, even possibly subjectively interpreted information, and outsiders, thus supposedly less biased source of judgement, have limited or no access? Even on globally spoken cases, how much of what is made public is corresponding to reality due to very same factors? Or, what is the moral basis for outsiders to interfere in any way? Are lessons really learnt through ‘association’ or all just gets even more complicated and deteoriorated?
What is reality after all?
Bewildered, I am…