[Reader-list] MUBAI ATTACK: Violence, publicity, and sovereignty

[Swadhin Sen]

Swadhin Sen Archaeologist - Assistant Professor   Dept.of Archaeology            Tel:       +88 02 779 10 45-51 Ext. 1326 Jahangirnagar University      Mobile:  +88 0172 019 61 76   Savar,Dhaka. Bangladesh    Fax:      +88 02 779 10 52    swadhin_sen at yahoo.com; swadhinsen at hotmail.com www.juniv.edu

Dear Rakesh

Thanks for ur post...especially in the context where I have been the object of extremely vulgar remarks on the same issue by another member of the reader list. I am also shocked for the utter silences of the members of this virtual 'community'

First thing- I would like to request you to follow the link to get to the blog where the write up was posted. There is space there for the responses. You may post ur observations there. Because I am not the writer of the piece I had sent. U should recognize that.

If I want to comment on your observations, then I must tell u that u and me are inhabiting different conceptual universe. Both of us, I guess, belong to Hindu families, although I am an agonist. But u belong to a 'majority' and I am to a 'minority'. I am completely aware of construction of minority as a category and their response. Additionally, we also shouldn't forget that India and Bangladesh are two different nation-state with different historicity of subjugation and repression of minority.

I think the central emphasis of blog that we are discussing about is on locating the entire issue of Mumbai attack from a different perspective. The blog, as I have understood it, is not about supporting Pakistan. Nor it was about supporting terrorizing acts perpetrated by 'non-state' actors/states as actors. The analyses is about the invisible and multiple causalities which condition the actions which are identified by dominant ideals as 'terrorism' or as 'as to protect sovereignty'.

As a student of social science, I am aware of the ambivalences in the notion of 'terrorism' and violence. The post is also about looking at the violence and subjectivity from a perspective which is different than the dominant 'patriotic' Indo-centric views. I would ask u to go through some write-ups by Veena Das to understand the multifaceted denotation and connotation of violence as a liberal and modern idea and practice.

As a Bangladeshi, I was also subject for three days to the media spectacle on the attack on Mumbai. You must know that we in Bangladesh are obliged  to be the subject of Hindi centric media of India, but u are not a subject of the media from Bangladesh. [I am just pointing at one aspect of the inequalities between U (an Indian) and I (a Bangladeshi)] The dominant representations in the media, I want to argue as a consumer, prohibited any 'different' versions of the story. That was a terrorized experience of me. I couldn't think of anything except the things media was showing and telling us to think. Again, any body with a critical understanding of the media industry and its hegemony can understand and evaluate the terror state I am talking about.

I sent the piece to reader list because I found it interesting and intellectually stimulating. U may differ with me. But that doesn't give u any right to write derogatory remarks like someone did. We may talk about why I found the piece the way I pointed at. But I can't talk about why the write of the blog have written the way he did.

If you want to proceed, u are most welcome.

With best regards,

Swadhin  

--- On Fri, 1/9/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] MUBAI ATTACK: Violence, publicity, and sovereignty
> To: swadhin_sen at yahoo.com
> Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 9:31 PM
> Sir
> 
> I am Rakesh Iyer, a student in 3rd year, doing B.Tech
> (Metallurgical &
> Materials Engg.) in IIT-Madras. Recently, we had a pan-IIT
> conference last
> month, where Stephen Cohen, a defence expert of US on
> Indo-Pak issues was
> also invited. He had made a suggestion of going to war with
> Pakistan after
> the Mumbai attacks, and after reading your article, I
> thought I should ask
> you and get your comments on certain points. I hope you
> would be kind enough
> to respond to them. They are as follows:
> 
> 1) As you have mentioned, the people who attacked the
> different places in
> Mumbai were shown vids of Gujarat riots. We all can agree
> to the fact that
> riots are wrong, and infact the Gujarat riots were actually
> a pogrom or
> state-sponsored genocide. Inspite of that, doesn't that
> point out to the
> fact that either the ISI, or at least some jihadi
> organizations in Pakistan
> are using certain events in India to achieve their own
> ends? And if so, why
> should we only blame India for it? Isn't Pakistan also
> responsible for not
> ensuring that it's citizens are not incited in the name
> of violence (India
> is definitely responsible for not ensuring it.)? And so,
> why shouldn't
> Pakistan take the blame of these attacks?
> 
> Who gave them the right to fight for Indian Muslims? I
> agree that Indian
> Muslims have faced persecution, but then they didn't go
> to Pakistan seeking
> help from them. They have decided by and large to fight it
> either through
> the judiciary, or unfortunately became resigned to their
> fate. So, why do
> jihadis have to help them? And if the jihadis are being
> taught malicious
> propaganda in the name of protecting Indian Muslims (48
> Muslims were killed
> in the Mumbai attacks), then doesn't Pakistan share the
> blame for this?
> 
> 2) You have always mentioned the sense of alienation within
> Muslims. First
> of all, I believe that this sense is only among a few.
> Among the majority of
> the Muslims, this sense has not penetrated, although they
> do realize the
> secretarian and communal nature of right-wing parties like
> the BJP and
> organizations associated with them like the VHP and the
> RSS. But a sense of
> alienation is very different from saying that they
> don't vote for the BJP.
> 
> Having said that, there is a section of them who are
> alienated. But can you
> tell me the steps to stop this? 1992 was almost 16-17 years
> back, and still
> you say people feel alienated because of that. Strange. I
> can understand if
> somebody takes up arms because his/her relative were
> killed. But what I
> can't understand is when somebody decides to fight for
> his/her religion,
> because of the so-called atrocities being committed upon
> them. Even if there
> was a Gujarat in 2002, the Muslims showed the BJP the door,
> particularly
> influencing Uttar Pradesh elections in 2004, thereby
> ensuring its defeat.
> Isn't that the way which should be propagated, to
> ensure such things never
> happen at all.
> 
> 3) We all agree that the cycle of violence must end. But
> does that buck
> always stop with Hindus. It's strange. After 2002
> Gujarat, there have been
> many blasts. So for one Gujarat, it's all right for a
> section of Indian
> Muslims to have 20 blasts. And probably, as you suggest,
> it's all right that
> such things continue. Why can't this lecture also be
> given to those who
> carry out such blasts as well? You talk with Palestinians,
> you also talk
> with those Muslims who suffer. Great. Why not carry out
> this exercise with
> those whose relatives were killed in the blasts? That would
> also be great.
> 
> I agree sir, that Indian Muslims haven't been treated
> well. And I don't
> necessarily require the Sachar committee report for that. I
> am a resident of
> Bhopal, and have seen Muslims by and large living in
> ghettos. I understand
> they do sometimes feel alienated in their own country. But
> does that ever
> give a justification of violence?
> 
> Liberal communities thrive only they are there across all
> religions. Instead
> of promoting liberalism in each religion, it seems you wish
> to warn that if
> there is one Gujarat, there will be 100 and more blasts
> across the nation,
> and so we should stop it. For me that is not the case
> 
> Gujarat 2002 was wrong. 1992 riots were wrong. But so were
> the Mumbai
> blasts. And so is 2008 Mumbai attacks. Nobody can justify
> such things. I can
> agree that the victims of 2002 must get justice. And I also
> believe those of
> 2008 should also get it. That should be the strategy.
> Whereas with you sir,
> I am sorry to say it, but I feel that terror attacks by
> terrorists are
> nothing compared to those by the state, as you say the
> state created them.
> 
> I don't sympathize with either the terrorists or the
> state. I sympathize
> with the oppressed. And once anybody uses violence, I
> can't sympathize with
> him. That is not possible for me. And that is also not
> possible by most of
> India. So we hate Pakistan for using its organizations to
> spread terror. So
> we hate the mullahs of India who in their madrassas incite
> people to fight
> against their very own nation and own people. And we hate
> those misguide
> them.
> 
> Hope I would get a reply from you on this.
> 
> Thanking you
> 
> Yours faithfully
> Rakesh Iyer