On self-deception

On another post about the death of Osama, I got a comment which is excerpted here:

Drawing false equivalences between India and Pakistan to appease them is part of the routine. If you are bad, we are also bad. If you have extremists we also have extremists. If you kill people we also kill people. If you have Shahid Afridi, we have Gautam Gambhir. Nothing wrong with your Islam at all, our Hinduism is worse. And so on the charade goes. The point of the game is not to talk blunt and deliver a reality check to our darling estranged brothers and sisters but to force the idea that they are just "people like us" down *our* throats. D'Souza deserves to be commended for not yet scaling the heights of of discussing "shared" cultural attributes like butter naan and sufi music, but he cannot be accused of not trying to push the envelope.

Pakistan is so far down the road of self-deception that this make-believe is superfluous. They don't need our assurance that their state and society are not particularly evil. Join the game if it makes you feel virtuous to claim that we are the ones who are equally evil.

I wrote a response as a comment there, but on some reflection it seemed to me this little exchange deserved to be a post by itself. So here we are. My response is in the following paragraphs.

The self-deception, it seems to me, is in those who are content in trying to show that India is superior to Pakistan, and who bristle at anything that frays that effort.

That bristling alone tells its tale.

I couldn't care less who is "superior". But I know some truths about Indians and India, some offered at random below:

* Gambhir's remark, off-the-cuff as it might have been, was offensive by itself.

* There are people I have visited in this country, without any huge effort to go to especially remote areas, who cannot buy rice at the government programme's price of Rs 3/kg; this has prompted the government to institute a sub-programme to sell them rice at Rs 1/kg.

* Pretty much the same number of people were slaughtered in Delhi in November 1984 as were slaughtered in NYC in September 2011. Ten years later, a measure of justice caught up with Osama. 27 years later, no measure of justice has caught up with any of those who led the Delhi slaughter.

* There are news reports of dishonour (forgive me, I will not use the word "honour") killings in different parts of India all the time (about three every day according to this report).

* The amount of money mentioned in our 2G corruption scam (Rs 60000 crore) is pretty much the GDP of Iceland ($12bn).

To those who draw conclusions about the state of Pakistan's "state and society" and their "self-deception" from various truths from Pakistan, I'd like to ask: what conclusions do you draw about India's "state and society" and our "self-deception" from truths like the ones listed here?

Soothing the pain

So Shahid Afridi's got on a lot of people's nerves, after he returned home? Yes, mine too; in that sense rather reminiscent of Shoaib Malik apologizing to Muslims across the globe after losing the T20 World Cup final to India in '07.

But let's make a shortlist of things Afridi may have had in mind, why not?

* "Once he gives the aadesh, who can flout it?" -- a Shiv Sena leader tells us last February that his leader will "decide" whether Pakistan can play in Mumbai if they reach the final.

* "randee key bachay u give full toss to javed" and other choice abuse directed at Chetan Sharma. Part of one of the comments on this clip, of an event that happened a quarter century (!) ago. (i.e. it's even odds that the commenter wasn't even born when the event happened).

* That same event from a quarter century ago described as a "collective traumatic wound".

* The Indians who buzzed around my neighbourhood late into the night after India beat Pakistan in the semifinals, shouting "Pakistan ke maa ki chut!"

* Remarks such as "you fuck afridi have biggest heart for terrorist extremist rapist", besides plenty more.

* Gautam Gambhir being asked if beating Pakistan "will soothe the pain" of the victims of 26/11, and replying "I am sure the win against Pakistan would have helped."

* Gambhir is told: "whatever we do, whoever we play, we should never lose to Pakistan".

Some of this is just the usual paranoia about Pakistan too many Indians seem unable to shake.

I wonder though, about cricket "fans" who seem uninterested in who else the Indian team loses to, so long as we "never lose to Pakistan". My hope is that someday we will tell Gambhir: go play your heart out and win every time, whether your opponent is Australia or Pakistan or Zimbabwe or Fiji. We're not obsessed merely with beating Pakistan.

I also wonder how beating Pakistan helps "soothe the pain" of the 26/11 victims. Leave aside the "it's just a game" (it never is) rhetoric. What is the connection between the murderous scum who came ashore to kill Indians in November 2008 and Afridi's team?

The scum and the team are all Pakistani, you say?

Then consider this: what is the connection between the murderous scum who killed 3000 Indians in Delhi in 1984 and Dhoni's team? Those scum and the team are all Indian, right? So how would you react if someone said that beating the Indian team will help "soothe the pain" of the 3000 victims of the 1984 massacre? How would you react if someone said our loss to South Africa in the league stage of the World Cup had helped "soothe the pain" of the victims of the 1984 massacre?

I know how I'd react: with revulsion and nausea. The absurdity of such a suggestion is matched only by the absurdity of Gambhir's suggestion about 26/11. Yet not only was Gambhir not asked questions about this absurdity, the headline on that news item is "I play for India, I play for people of my country."

I've seen some baffled comment about Afridi, saying that since he was applauded for his remarks in Pakistan, the middle class there must agree with him, they must have similar attitudes towards India. Well, what should we make of the reaction in India to Gambhir's remark, as also to the other remarks I've quoted above? Do we agree with Gambhir's remark?

Be outraged over Afridi, sure. (I am). But there may be something to be learned from the friendly neighbourhood mirror.

The manjutis, maybe

It's just a match after all. Therefore, here's a shortlist of things to do during the afternoon/evening today, while Pakistan plays India in a World Cup semifinal, because it's just another cricket match.

* Visit the lady in the neighbourhood who owns a Rhodesian Ridgeback, because you once had one of those and he was a handsome, spirited member of the family for years and you have fond memories of him.

* Hold a "Numbers are fun" session for the kids and their friends, aimed at ridding them of their wariness of mathematics, getting them excited about the joy of numbers.

* Go see a film, secure in the knowledge that tickets for pretty much any film will be available by the bucketful today.

* Take a walk on the seaside promenade; if it's low tide, walk out to sea on the rocks. It's a good bet that even the lovelorn couples usually found cooing on those rocks will be home today, convinced that cricket comes before kisses.

* Bike through the local fishing villages, where you can sometimes still catch glimpses of Bombay as it once must have been.

* Get out on the tennis court and hit some balls. By yourself if there's nobody else to hit with (as is likely) -- after all, your serve can always use some practice. Plenty of practice.

* Take the kids on a trip collecting manjutis, the small round red seeds.

* Get down to that practice session that you've been postponing for days, with the harmonica or piano or sitar or other musical instrument of your choice.

* Watch the parrots. And the crows. And the kites. And the sparrows. And the barbets. And the stints above the waves. Maybe the flamingos. And the mynahs. And the innumerable other feathered charmers out there.

It's just another match. Believe it.

Salman Taseer

Blasphemy? Are you kidding me? What on earth is blasphemy? That a person has opinions is turned into a crime? To me, the fact that a country in this 21st Century has on its books a law to punish what it calls blasphemers, that it seeks to invoke that law to put a woman to death, is itself something approaching blasphemy. Though since I cannot bring myself to ascribe meaning and substance to this thing called "blasphemy", I'll call this what it really is, an abomination. A blot. A monstrosity.

More than that. A warning.

For this abomination is rooted in just one thing: the creation of Pakistan on religious lines. As much as there are the claims that Jinnah had a vision of a secular Pakistan (and I think he did), the very idea of a country founded on a faith -- whatever the faith, in this case Islam -- carries at its core the seeds of today's blasphemy laws. That founding itself makes it inevitable that there will come a day when a man -- whoever the man, in this case Salman Taseer -- who questions the perversity of blasphemy will be targeted and killed. It also carries the seeds of the ultimate destruction of the country.

Because that's the nature of religion. When you follow a faith, any faith, it enjoins you to hold its precepts higher, somehow more esteemed, than every other religion's precepts. Too easily, that extends to holding every other faith's precepts in contempt, and, by extension, its adherents in contempt too. And a further extension leads to hatred for those of your own faith -- like Taseer -- who question such depraved conceit. Vacuous superciliousness like this is a feature of every religion I've run into, and is manifested in varied words I've also run into, such as "kaffir", "tolerance", "blasphemy", "sentiments", "dirty [outsiders]" and more.

All of which is why the real blasphemy in connection with Salman Taseer is of life and humanity itself. Because anyone who thinks taking a human life has religious sanction -- and the killer of Taseer and his cheerleaders clearly think Islam gave them that sanction -- disgraces humanity.

If blasphemy has any meaning, it's right there, in that disgrace. All I can say is, may a thousand Salman Taseers bloom from his grave.

Maybe then

A few minutes watching CNN-IBN tis evening reminded me of one reason I am so glad I don't possess a TV. The reduction of complex issues to simplicity, even simple-mindedness, is hard to swallow. And add on top of that the way panelists sometimes shout each other down -- indeed I am glad I don't have a TV and almost never watch this stuff.

This was a session discussing the fallout of President Obama's visit, and in particular the question of whether US-India relations were now "better" or "stronger" or some such than US-Pakistani relations. Rajdeep Sardesai repeated that Obama had said something about the US-India relationship "defining" the 21st Century and wanted the Pakistani guest to react to that. Didn't that itself show that the US was more interested in India than in Pakistan? One guest, a G Parthasarathy, said to the Pakistani guest that India has self-respect and does not go about with a begging bowl the way Pakistan does, and therefore he could not understand why this Pakistani was on the show, there should instead have been a Chinese man on.

I find this all nearly infantile. What does "defining the 21st Century" mean anyway, apart from just sounding nice? What else would we expect a visiting US President to say in public except mostly ego-stroking non-sequiturs like that? What does it say about us that we take it so seriously? (Consider, will we take just as seriously Obama's suggestion that "India has often avoided" speaking out about rights abuses in Myanmar and other countries?)

As for begging bowls and self-respect, this report from just a few months ago tells us about new World Bank financing for building transport infrastructure in Bombay. Why did we take this money? In fact, the World Bank and other foreign agencies have poured money into India for years for development projects. Does Parthasarathy so easily forget that?

Besides, what does it say about a nation's self-respect when we hold up innocuous pronouncements by US Presidents? (Remember Bush's I Do?)

What does it say about a nation's, and a man's, self-respect when we (and he) yearn only to be compared to what we ourselves perceive as the big boys -- China for example -- and not to Pakistan? It says the Pakistani guest was right: what Parthasarathy said only showed his own obsession with Pakistan.

The day we stop caring who compares or equates us to which country is the day we'll find self-respect. Maybe then I'll get a TV.

Out of disaster, hope

Amid all the tragic news about floods across Pakistan, Ladakh and China, here's one kind of silver lining: Leh disaster unites India and Pakistan.

All right, so it took a tragedy. Can we hope, through the flood, that both countries will build on this?

Find our own Shiloh

Last week, I was in Bangalore to speak at TEDxGardenCity. It was an interesting day, listening to some thought-provoking lectures and meeting stimulating people. Add a short chat about things tennis with Rohan Bopanna, and what else could a tennis nut like me ask for? (This: later in the week I played some doubles, dragging my respective partners to set losses of 6-0 and 6-4).

Anyway, below is the text of my talk. Some of this may be familiar to all two of you who have read my Roadrunner, it's adapted from a section in there.

Comments welcome.

***
Here's a picture to hold in your mind for a few minutes. I'm up in the hills somewhere in Jammu and Kashmir. There are flowers and birds all around me. It's a beautiful July day, the sun is out but is isn't too warm. In front of me, mounted on elegant stands, are several panels of black granite.

Keep that image, as I said, in your mind.

Three years ago, I visited the Shiloh Military Park in Tennessee in the USA. This is a peaceful, pretty spot on the banks of the Tennessee River, so peaceful and quiet that I found it hard to imagine what had once happened here. Had I been in the same spot a century-and-a-half earlier, one day in April 1862, all around me would have been guns firing and smoke, blood and death.

The idea, in 2007 when I visit, seems almost mad.

There was a battle fought here during the American Civil War, when the states of the South tried to secede from the Union and form what they called the "Confederacy". Thousands of young men fought here, the Southern Armies came close to defeating the Northern or Union Army but were finally defeated, and 24000 men were lost on both sides. It was an important and venerated battle, but only because of the bloodshed. Nothing of any strategic importance was won or lost. All it was, was the bloodiest battle in American history, but only until later battles in the same Civil War.

And the Shiloh Park remembers those fallen men.

There's a monument to the men who came from the state of Iowa to fight on the Union side. It has an elegant lady writing words to commemorate the "loyalty, patriotism and bravery of Iowa's sons who fought to perpetuate the sacred Union of the United States."

Scattered across these fields are several more monuments like this, one for each sate that sent men here. Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania -- every state that fought in this battle, whether for the North or the South.

So here's where I begin to feel just slightly uneasy. In this Park, in this memorial, are monuments from States on *both* sides of this war, North and South. In one memorial Park, remembrances of patriotism of both sides.

The South lost the war, and so there's a melancholy monument representing a "Defeated Victory", the phrase itself a puzzle. It carries these words: "The States of the South sent to Shiloh 79 organizations of infantry and 10 organizations of cavalry. How bravely and how well they fought, let the tablets on this field tell. Let us remember those whose sacrifices hallow this field. Let us stand for patriotism, principle and conviction as they did even unto death."

Who do these words refer to? The South? Well, there are tablets on this field that tell how bravely the Northerners fought too (example: Iowa). They remember patriotism and sacrifice too. And if Iowa's men fought to "perpetuate the sacred Union", why, these men of the South were fighting to secede, to destroy that sacred Union: the very antithesis of patriotism. Yet if the Southerners stood for patriotism, the North must have stamped on it. So I've heard about patriotism.

What's a visitor like me to think? What does this do for my ideas of patriotism?

But then I walked up to the Missouri monument. Listed on it are the Missouri regiments that fought on the Union side. Listed below those are the Missouri regiments that fought on the Confederate side. The same monument. In fact, there's even a "1st Missouri" regiment that fought for the Union, and another "1st Missouri" regiment that fought for the Confederate side.

What happened here? Was Missouri hedging its bets? Being equivocal in its loyalties? Did one 1st Missouri fight the other 1st Missouri?

I mean, here's one monument, one stone face with words on it, that celebrates the patriotism of both sides, of mutual enemies, in this war.

Again, what's a visitor like me to think? What does this do for my ideas of patriotism?

It eventually made sense to me this way: this memorial to these two sides in a brutal fratricidal war may have been the only way a country could rebuild and move on. That could not have happened if the North had refused to pay attention to the emotions of the defeated South. There had to be a rethinking of the idea of the *United* States, to treat vanquished and victor alike.

And yet, wars are for demonizing the enemy, and that must have happened in this war as it does in wars closer to our homes. During the Kargil war in 1999, an AM Sethna wrote this in an article in the Times of India: "We are dealing with a country capable of extreme cruelty. In such hands officers and men may be skinned alive or horribly mutilated before being killed."

I have no doubt Pakistani writers were equally effusive and eloquent about India and Indians. It's what happens during wars. It's as if patriotism demands such rhetoric.

And yet there's Shiloh.

Still, the US reunited and reconstructed after the Civil War, while India and Pakistan remained partitioned after 1947. That's a big difference, right?

Yet you know, there's this similarity: we have war memorials too.

Some years ago, I travelled a long way to see one, somewhere near the Line of Control in J&K. It's called the "Hall of Fame", and there are plenty of monuments there too.

One tower is called "Padinale Po Munnale" (Tamil for "Go Forward, Fourteenth"). It remembers S Shabiyullah and K Balaiah. Another remembers Surjit Singh, Gurprit Singh and Badridan Bharat. I'm telling you their names because I believe all of us should know of these countrymen of ours, from all over India, who die in J&K. There are plenty of these monuments at the Hall of Fame, remembering soldiers killed in our wars of 1999, 1965, 1971 and more.

And there are flowers and birds and -- remember what I asked you to keep in mind? -- several large black granite panels. Each has a year chiselled at the top. Below it, rows of neatly carved names -- the soldiers from this area who were killed in that year. Panels like that for every year till the year before I visited, each with a few dozen names.

And there are several more panels. Empty panels, with no names chiselled on them. Empty panels, waiting to be filled. Waiting for death.

I ask you to think about the implications of that.

As I stood there comprehending it myself, my soldier escort said to me in Tamil: "My name's not there." I could find nothing to say.

We must have been only a few km from the border with Pakistan. I wondered, is there a Hall of Fame on that side, with similar monuments, similar granite panels, similar blank granite panels? It's possible, but being Indian, think of how hard it would be to get there to find out for myself.

But Shiloh made me wonder about something I had never before even imagined. What if there was a joint India-Pakistan memorial here where India remembers Shabiyullah and Surjit and the 14th? What would it mean to our countries that have fought and killed for so long?

Especially in our early wars, it's certain that many soldiers on both sides came from the same roots, likely the same villages. What would it do to us to build a memorial that reminds us that in these parts, neighbour has fought neighbour, maybe even brother has fought brother?

What would it do, to find our own Shiloh?

Perceptions, hurt and anger

Another round of India-Pakistan talks, another road that apparently has led nowhere. Me, I'm a believer in the mantra that the road itself is the point. If the alternative is hostility and killing, better to talk, even if the talks only lead to more talks that, it seems to us on the outside, lead to yet more talks that, I'm getting somewhere I think, apparently lead nowhere.

I'm not being facetious. Any talking must take into account the concerns of both sides, or it leads nowhere. I can't tell if that happened or didn't, at this most recent meeting of foreign ministers on both sides. (Probably it didn't, or it might have led somewhere).

Part of the reason for not being able to tell is how the event gets reported.

Today's Times of India has a front page report whose headline reads: "Qureshi Kills Peace Talks".

The Economic Times says: "Failure of talks exposes Pak’s evil designs".

The Hindustan Times accuses Pakistan of "ambush diplomacy": "Pakistan's 'all or nothing' timeline trap broke talks".

Then I looked at some other papers.

The Daily Times says "India remained stuck in modalities".

Dawn says "Deadlock blamed on selective Indian approach".

Kashmir Watch says "India has been using delaying tactics".

As always, what happened is a function of who tells you what happened. Also as always, what you choose to believe about what happened is likely a function of which country you live in. Few of us seem able to consider: by their nature, these failures cannot be the fault only of one or the other side. Possibly lost in all that is a non-partisan account of what happened, that will give us a better understanding of it all.

Overall, an object lesson in how perceptions differ.

Also in the use of words like "kill", "evil", "delaying" and "selective".

***
A less one-sided account is in the Wall Street Journal: "Tempers Flare in India-Pakistan Talks".

***
As an aside, the same Times of India report I mention above refers to "India's hurt and anger at the fact that 26/11 masterminds are ... roaming free in Pakistan ... There can't be any closure on 26/11 until there is justice."

I fully agree.

But all over again, I cannot help wondering: is there "hurt and anger" in India that the masterminds of Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93 and more are roaming free in India? (I know plenty of people who are hurt and angry over that). Can there be closure on any of those episodes without justice?

Why won't we deliver justice in those massacres of Indians, if we want it for the 26/11 massacre of Indians? And if we won't or can't deliver justice for those, why do we expect it of Pakistan for 26/11?

Conversations, #15 (and last)

Yet again, I forgot to post the latest instalment of the email conversation Beena Sarwar and I have had over the last few months. This one is #15, and it is our last (for now): The dialogue goes on.

I'm not sure how to tell how many people read our exchange, but judging from some of the reactions I've had here alone, it has been a worthwhile exercise. I urge those of you who have offered your thoughtful comments to attempt your own conversations with someone in Pakistan.

Your thoughts welcome, as always.

Earlier instalments: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14.

Conversations, #14

As usual, my scatter-brained state means I didn't pout up a post about the 14th instalment of the conversation between the Pakistani journalist Beena Sarwar and myself. Here it is: Joint narratives, common ground.

Your thoughts welcome. I'll post the 15th and final instalment soon.

Earlier instalments: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13.

Conversations, #13

One measure of the effect of this conversation with Beena Sarwar over the last few months is the anger in some who react to it. (There are other measures, but this is one). Lesson: there should be more of this stuff, not less.

Here's the 13th installment (we're going to 15 and stopping): Meeting point.

Comments welcome. Measures may be taken.

Earlier instalments: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12.

Conversations, #12

We're winding down, Beena and I. Just a few more of these and we'll call a halt. Please take a look at the 12th installment in our conversation: A grounding for reconciliation.

Thoughts welcome.

Earlier episodes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11.

Conversations, #11

Still struggling to cope with the absence of my computer that's being repaired. Under warranty, luckily, but it's taking frustratingly forever. Behind on work and a whole lot else, I'm cadging time on another machine to do a little catching up. (Never enough, as always).

One item: my ongoing conversation with Beena Sarwar in Pakistan. The 11th installment went on air a while ago, and here it is: There is more than one truth.

Previous: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10.

Conversations, #10

I'm falling behind in posting these! Put it down to the driving trip through the south I'm still on -- nearly 3000 km, and counting. Another 3-4 days before we're done.

Here's the tenth installment of the conversation between Beena Sarwar and me over the last few months: The trust deficit.

Previous: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9.

Conversations, #9

Been on the road driving for four days, as always plenty to catch up on here. Don't know if I'll get to it all, but let me try.

The ninth installment of the conversation Beena and I have been conducting went on air some days ago: Perceptions, perceptions.

Previous: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8.

Conversations, #8

We took a week's break, Beena and I. Then the eighth installment of our ongoing conversation went up: Clap with both hands.

Please do give us your thoughts. I mean it. That's an order.

For various reasons, unfortunately there will be another week's break before the next installment.

Our previous efforts: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7.

Conversations, #7

Seventh installment of Beena Sarwar's ongoing conversation with me, here: Frankly, my dear, let's give a damn.

Please ply me, or this page, with comments.

Previous installments are: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6.

Conversations, #6

The sixth installment of the ongoing conversation Beena Sarwar and I are having by email, here: Push for peace parks.

As always, comments welcome. May I take a moment to say thank you to all of you who have commented on previous installments; I hope they have given each of you things to think about. (I know your comments have given me things to think about).

Speaking of previous installments, here they are: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5.

Conversations, #5

The fifth installment in my ongoing email conversation with Beena Sarwar: Dream on.

Please offer us your thoughts.

Previous episodes: #1, #2, #3, #4.

Conversations, #4

Here's the 4th installment in my ongoing email exchange with the Pakistani journalist Beena Sarwar: It's about time.

Your thoughts welcome.

Earlier installments: #1, #2, #3.