Arundhati Roy and the voices...redux

Read here an excellent rebuttal of Arundhati Roy's '9 is not 11' piece that I wrote about earlier. There have been other forceful denunciations of her writing about 11/26, by Salman Rushdie amongst others with good arguments made about Roy's willful disregard for geo-strategic realities etc. but this piece deserves its own post.

Abhinav Kumar, a serving IPS officer has written an open letter to Roy that brings into sharp relief for me many things that Roy's piece (and her other writing in general) lacks- balance, a willingness to think one's arguments through to their logical end, a avoidance of moral relativism and a sense of the bigger picture. And he writes pretty well too.

Kumar beings by acknowledging Roy's role as a voice that prickles our collective conscience, which I think is more generous that he needs to be but that's where the familiar sense of ambivalence ends. I think he nicely and much more succintly devastates Roy.

Kumar echoes one of my previous commentators (Jai) in the thought that Roy appears to be more interested in her own brand as the Indian voice of dissent than in formulating a genuine and original response to each issue that she wants to talk about. Thus, she has an Arundhati Roy agenda with its well establishes and predictable talking points (this is me, not Kumar). For Kumar, this means that Roy ignores the moral responsibility of a public intellectual. And he directs most of his essay at Roy's callous disregard for the human loss of the Bombay attacks and her petty at best tirade against the security forces. These parts struck a particularly sour note in her piece.

His comments on the stupidity of comparing Hindutva to radical Islam are more controversial and will not please everyone but on balance, I think he's right if you have a sense of perspective and are not excessively politically-correct.

If you're at all interested in this, you should really read the whole essay but I'll leave you with two points that impressed me particularly:

You seem to passionately believe in and defend the 'right' of the Kashmiris to ethnic, cultural, religious and geographical exclusivism. If this is correct than why should we vilify Raj Thackeray or any other chauvinist who seeks to preserve the purity (however defined) of his people (however defined) from outsiders (also however defined)?...I do hope you have taken the trouble to examine the fundamental assumptions underlying all such movements based on an assertion of a cultural identity. The creation of a hated outsider, in the case of Kashmir, the Indian; in the case of Raj Thackeray, the bhaiya of UP and Bihar; and in the case of the jihadists, anyone and everyone who does not subscribe to their virulent strain of Islam, including Muslims, is common to all these ideologies but you seem to pick and choose the bigotries you will demonize and the bigotries you will defend. Is it possible to freeze identity to a moment in time and on the basis of this demand recognition, retribution and rights for all time to come?

I wonder what Roy would say to that. Actually, I have a good idea of what she would say but indeed her defense would be hollow.

and this..

The liberties you have exercised in the past and continue to do today, however gratuitously and offensively, do not exist in a vacuum. I am not sure if any of these liberties would have a place in a Naxalite Utopia or a Jihadi Caliphate or even in a self-determined Kashmiri paradise that you eloquently espoused... In any case, the liberties that you have recently taken with the sensibilities of proud Indians too exist in a cultural, political and constitutional context, a context that is ultimately safeguarded by men such as Hemant Karkare and Major Unnikrishnan with disregard for their own life.

My anti-Arundhati voice to my pro-Arundhati voice: Take that!

Arundhati Roy and the voices in my head

It's hard to be neutral about Arundhati Roy.

I loved (in an unqualified way) 'The God of Small Things' (GOST). I was just out of high school when the book came out, to tremendous hype and I was determined to find it over-rated. Instead, the book blew me away - at this point it's almost a cliche to say how inventive the language is but I'll just say that it captured smells, sounds and textures in a way I have rarely seen since, though there are many bad imitations. The plot is beautifully paced, the narrative device felt utterly genuine and organic. I still feel tension and sadness as the book reaches its climax...and I still marvel at her small insights - this particular feeling of unease that I have always associated with her image of the fluttering moth in your chest since the book.

I don't think Roy could have topped GOST and so in a sense I'm glad she hasn't written more fiction.

Since GOST, Roy has become passionately committed to many causes, general and specific- the enviornment and anti-dam movement in India, taking on the neo-liberal order, anti-Indian nuclear tests, anti-Iraq war and American imperealism. Most of this is done via writing in a series of articles that have found wide circulation internationally, many of which are first found in Outlook India.

While I loved GOST, the articles - not so much. But still, I can't be ambivalent about them....

This is the internal dialogue I wrestle with when thinking about Arundhati Roy:

Pro-Arundhati voice: She really can write well- she just has a way with words.

Anti-Arundhati voice: 1. What's the point of writing well, if you're just ranting and raving. She has no sense of proportion or balance. Everything is really, really black and white for her. 2. So much of it is her marketability and persona- I get really annoyed by academics in the west who think she is the real voice of the 'Indian masses'. 3. Plus Ramachandra Guha says she's unoriginal and frequently gets things wrong (in much better words than I can muster) and I am inclined to trust his opinion.

Pro-Arundhati voice: But are you saying that because 1. she says some really uncomfortable, unflaterring things about India and 2. exposes deep rooted facets about your own privileged existence. At the end of the day, isn't she speaking truth to power? Isn't your vehemence born out of your own discomfort at being confronted by the ugly truths about the parts of of the neo-liberal world order that benefit you?

Anti-Arundhati Roy: Yes, she does make me uncomfortable for those reasons. In fact, I don't disagree with much of her agenda and where she's coming from. I want to be on her side but she's just annoyingly simplistic, quick to take umbrage and just a little smug. Not to mention a little rabid. She could make her argument so much more credibly and intelligently if she was just more balanced, nuanced and open to alternative perspectives. Also, she's intellectually lazy- by making the 'they're fascists/like Hitler' argument for anyone she doesn't agree with.

Pro-Arundhati: Why should she give more space and credence to already powerful players and voices? She has courage and she backs up her words with her deeds. You need voices like hers in the forums she has access to. We are kept honest by someone with her ability with language and her visibility to press our conscience and to give voice to people ...

Anti-Arundhati: I'll give her the courage part- but really, she is supported and lionized by the same systems and people she criticizes. I would just like to see her acknowledge that just once. I'd be more willing to listen to her if she would be willing to have a dialogue with people she disagrees with. You can't have a dialogue with Arundhati- she's an ideologue in the same way as G.W. and she is so convinced by her own stance that she is unwilling to question her own mistakes

And so it goes on....

Mostly, as I've read her work over the years (increasingly more incoherent and badly edited), the anti-Arundhati side of me has prevailed over the pro-Arundhati side...

So, after reading her latest article in Outlook entitled '9 is not 11', the debate has restarted and surprise...the pro-Arundhati voice is winning.

Yes, it needs an editing job and it lapses into her usual rant against America and also a somewhat inappropriate but understandable tirade against neo-liberalism when discussing (rightly) the excessive coverage of the Taj versus other, less glamorous targets. It's also way too rambly. But she does make some good points and in the language and style that she does like no one else.

Some interesting lines/points:
1. First, can we just agree that the '9 is not 11' title is vintage Roy- clever, simple, stark. On this desire to brand 11/26 'India's 9/11' she writes:

"We've forfeited the rights to our own tragedies. But November isn't September, 2008 isn't 2001, Pakistan isn't Afghanistan, and India isn't America. So perhaps we should reclaim our tragedy and pick through the debris with our own brains and our own broken hearts so that we can arrive at our own conclusions."

I agree. Calling 26/11 out 9/11 is easy and understandable but dangerous. Yes, the Bombay attacks were on an unprecedented scale symbolically but they were not a bolt from the blue in the same sense. It should not undermine the unacceptability of the series of attacks India has suffered. More importantly, we should be wary of equating responses to 11/26 with that of 9/11. The domestic and strategic context is different, India's identity is distinct and different and so we need to recognize and work with those differences.

2. A provocative but useful discussion on the politics of calling Muslim versus Hindu groups terrorists. This is a debate that is very much alive in India and she raises the important question - does discussing the context or root causes of terrorism amount to excusing it (Side A) or is it necessary to understand the deeper bases of violence (side B). She chooses side B. I've always struggled between Side A and Side B. I don't buy her reasoning getting to that point. or her simplistic and predictable linking of the Bombay attacks solely to domestic politics (though that no doubt fuels movements in Pakistan) but....she goes there and she juxtaposes the ugly side of 'context' with all that is 'magnificent' about the idea of the India. It is uncomfortable, perhaps too early to talk about but I think it is only by asking ourselves the questions about our own 'context' instead of just pointing the finger at Pakistan that we truly live up to all that we pride in ourselves as a secular, inclusive democracy.

Again, instead of constructing barriers to asking tough questions about our own legacy and place in the world, as happened in the US after 9/11, we would do well to have a discourse about these questions. Certainly in the non-inflammatory and less sensitive arenas that public intellectuals occupy.

3. Most of all I like the end:

The only way to contain – it would be naive to say end – terrorism is to look at the monster in the mirror. We're standing at a fork in the road. One sign says "Justice," the other "Civil War." There's no third sign and there's no going back. Choose.

Amen Sister. The choice is pretty clear to me.

Soon, no doubt you will write some crazy 50 page essay comparing Bill Gates to Pol Pot. And I'll feel vindicated in my irritation with you. But tonight, Arundhati, I'll give you half a thumbs up.

What good PR looks like

Watching This Week with George Stephanopolous and they had the Ambassador of Pakistan Hussain Haqqani. Haqqani is a very intelligent scholar and diplomat and an excellent choice for Ambassador in my opinion. I heard him speak once at the Council of World Affairs in San Francisco a few years ago and came away extremely impressed.

He showed how such situations should be handled: hit all the Pakistan talking points (Pakistan is a democracy, also a victim of terrorism, we feel India's pain, acknowledges the Pakistani roots of the problem but blames it on non-state actors).

At the same time he acknowledged that there is a problem with Pakistan and Afghanistan being the locus of 'Jihad central'. He also did not make any pejorative claims or arguments against India.

He also made the very important point that these attacks should not be viewed in the usual India-Pakistan prism.

Throughout he was calm, progressive in thinking and articulate.

Good PR and diplomacy 101.

Immediate Thoughts on Bombay

It is still too early to say anything meaningful about Bombay, while the bodies are still being counted, but here a few thoughts:

Someone held up this placard on NDTV today:

Mr. Terrorist I am alive. What can you do?
Mr. Politician I am alive despite of you
I am a Mumbaikar

Yes, there is a real, palpable anger in Bombay right now. And it is directed not just at the terrorists responsible for what happened but against politicians of all hues and the political system in general. The reaction of Bombayites and Indians all over the world is one of anger- but mostly directed against the political class. Farookh Sheikh (one of my favorite actors of the 70's and 80's and now a respected public commentator) pointed out the stark contrast between the sense of duty displayed by people like Taj GM Kang who continued to direct operations at Taj even though his wife and children had been killed by the terrorists on the one hand and the absolutely self-serving attitude of politicians on the scene.

There is much to be angry about. From politicians like Modi who tried to garner political points even as the operations were continuing, to the growing accusation that the NSG, who were thoroughly professional in their operations, were unsupported and tied up in protecting security for politicians - the disgust with the political system is apparent.

Why? Lets just take 2 examples:
This from the Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister R R Patel who spoke of the attacks (translated from Hindi) in the following way: "such small incidents keep happening everywhere. It could have been much worse so there was no intelligence failure"

What do you even say to that?

Narendra Modi (about whom the less one can say the better) standing in front of the Trident as operations were still continuing, taking up valuable resources that were no doubt employed to ensure his security and announcing 1 crore rupees to the family of the slain ATS chief Hemant Karkare. This when Modi and his goons placed enormous political pressure and threatened Karkare for his investigation of possible Hindu militants involvement in the Malegoan attacks. And he had the gall to offer a crore to the Karkare family? How crass can you get? The widow of Karkare revealed her strong but dignified revulsion by refusing the money outright.

And the Thackrey's? They and the MNS who deserve whatever is coming to them - they actually blamed the attacks on 'overcrowding of the city' no doubt referring to N. Indian migrants. This when the core of the NSG, army and people who gave up their lives in Bombay were from all over India. Scum is too kind a word.

Scum is too kind a word.

Yes, there is anger. And I feel it only too strongly, sitting thousands of miles away.

Vir Sanghvi has an op-ed in todays Hindustan Times in which he notes that there are only three countries with repeated terrorist attacks today- Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. I could add iraq too but he has a point. For all their faults, the Bush administration has ensured that no major terrorist act has occurred in the US. Bali, London and Madrid were also all turning points for their countries which have not occurred again. In contrast India has suffered more attacks in the last month than Iraq, according to a startling statistic.

And yet nothing concrete changes. Something's got to give. It just did and it is time for big changes.

If that sounds vague, let me offer 6 concrete, doable things that can change:

1. Their must be a review and reform of the security of important public places. That terrorists walked into the VT station, the Taj and other such obvious symbols and centers of Mumbai is mind-boggling. Bags should be checked, metal detectors need to be places at the entrances of such areas, security personnel need to be present. At all entrances. Not just the front. This is a given - it feels stupid to even write this.

At the very minimum, politicians, celebrities etc. they should not be allowed access to such areas and in crisis situations like this unless absolutely necessary. They should definitely not be allowed to conduct mini-press conferences, touting their own party platforms when a situation like this in progress. Also free up resources be reviewing the 'z' level security provided to VIPs.

2. On a larger scale, this was obviously a colossal intelligence failure. How did 10-15 people create all this chaos? This has to have been planned for months at the very least. They came by boats, they brought bags of ammunition, they had booked hotel rooms at the Taj where they set up control rooms and stored ammunition, they knew the hotels inside out...
The most galling thing is that RAW had apparently received intercepts that talked about a possible attack on Bombay around Nov. 18 where the route would be via sea. We hear this and you wonder- and? What are we supposed to do with that?
Regardless, this is a huge wake up call for Indian intelligence-obviously there needs to be a massive investigation into the missed signals and intercepts, there needs to be greater coordination between the different agencies, more material support and infrastructure for core groups like the NSG ( a dedicated plane seems to be a minimal starting point, so is better equipment) and much more support for basic policing and law and order.
Unburden the NSG from being tied up in protecting VIP's- there must be cuts that can be made.

3. Fire/ get rid of incompetent leaders and officers. Start with Shivraj Patil who is an unmitigated disaster.
ETA 11/30/08 He quit. And P Chidamabaram is the new home minister. Good

4. We must identify and be clear about what we mean by 'elements in Pakistan'. Does this mean the government? the ISI? non-state groups? Surely not the common people? By repeating age-old rhetoric about the 'foreign hand' we fail to acknowledge the paradigm shift of events such as the Mumbai acts, we hamper cooperation between the two countries on counter-terrorism which is imperative, we create more anger among diverse groups and we fail to focus on the groups and targets we need to combat. Words and concepts matter- they should be used widely.

5. Linked to this: Reassess political rhetoric. Be more circumspect and cautious when giving public and official statements. The entire Indian political class needs a lesson in PR - words are crucially important and this entire episode has seen irresponsible, self-aggrandizing and age-old tropes in the official reactions to the crisis.

Contrast this to the simple, effective and professional conduct of the people actually in the midst of the situation with the most to lose- the NSG commandos, policemen, fire fighters, hostages, tourists, Taj staff and ordinary civilians. They were quiet, matter of fact and humane. There is a lesson there.

6. The media needs to seriously introspect about their own ethics and professionalism. I've posted about this before so I won't belabor the point but if the Indian blogosphere is any indication, they will hear the disdain of many people and should think about it.

These 6 things are not small things but they are doable - they would go a considerable way in what is to follow.

I end this post feeling what so many Bombayites must feel right now- deeply sad, angry and disgusted at the way our politicians have responded to this crisis and immensely proud heartened and touched by the stories of bravery, kindness and (lets say it) heroism (trite as that may sound) from so many nameless people.

Day 3

And still this nightmare goes on...
There has been nothing like this- total urban warfare. I can't wrap my head around the idea that this is now 3 days in and Bombay is still bleeding.

And what can one do but keep a virtual vigil?

And hope and pray for everyone there, and for all.

The Taj as I will remember it

The Taj of Mumbai
Originally uploaded by betta design

Taj Mahal Hotel
Originally uploaded by reidmix

I remember how stunning the Taj looked on a bright day in 2002 when I wandered around the Marine drive.
The sheer scale combined with the intricacy of carving on the facade is just beautiful. The Heritage Wing, which was just gorgeous has been destroyed in the last few days. Pictures can be found here
Pictures courtesy Flickr

Watching Bombay Unfold

It's way too early but from what I see there are a few outright stories of bravery already emerging from the mayhem in Mumbai/Bombay:

First, the Taj Hotel Staff has come in for unified praise by guests who were trapped inside the hotel and made it outside. By all accounts, they appear to have been calm, clear in instructions and with a clear plan for what the guests should do. I can't imagine how people can stay professional and calm in such terrifying circumstances. Amazing.

Second, the NSG, Army, police and firemen who despite crumbling infrastructure and rampant chaos have persevered for more than 34 hours now, despite losing some very important figureheads.

Third, stories of heroism from Bombayites and from foreign visitors who focused on the task at hand and displayed an unnatural calm. This is the least surprising given what one knows about Mumbai/Bombay but remarkable nonetheless.

I will not single anyone out for criticism but I'll just say how appalled I am by the Indian news media's coverage of this whole situation- initially they were hysterical and breathless which is perhaps understandable but as time has gone by two things have really disgusted me 1. the insensitivity towards waiting relatives and 2. the absolute lack of restraint and respect for the requests of security personnel not to reveal details of the operations that are going on. They keep parroting how they've been asked not to reveal anything but then happily reveal all sorts of information that even to my untrained eye are patently sensitive.

There is a lot of growing up that clearly needs to occur but perhaps this is the turning point for how the media handles situations such as these. This reminds me of a conversation I recently had with a Professor of PR at the Newhouse school about the lessons the US media leaned from the terrible mistakes made during covering the Lockerbie bombings. There must be a lot of introspection later about the language, tactics and thrust of the way the media has covered this event.

Can someone please shut Barkha Dutt up? She might as well be directing the terrorists with a GPS system and don't even get me started on her interrogation (there is no other word) of relatives and victims.

Bombay

What can one possibly say? This is just sad beyond belief. 

Be strong Bombay...

NDTV
Fox news has a live stream from NDTV