My sister's ire

My sister Suparna sent me this email below. I didn't watch much TV through the course of the weekend, relying mostly on the Internet for news updates. But this is clearly a subject that has angered many Indians.
--------
This is what I've been feeling about the press which I wanted to share. I've sent it to TOI as an opinion piece. Probably will get trashed as cyber junk being anti press but whatever.

The incident in Bombay is heart wrenching. But what is infuriating me today is overdramatised journalism. I am not trying to undermine the plight of the victims or the survivors or even a regular person on the street viewing every object with skepticism. But TV creates instant history and impacts more people than any other media. This is a strength and at the same time a great responsibility. In our urge to fill in 24/7 channels, we are doing what must not be done, intruding. Is it important for me sitting at home to know which window on which floor a person is getting evacuated from, or which door was used by a commado team to enter? Or is this information I want to keep as far away from the terrorists inside as possible?

We all enjoy the freedom of the press, it is something to feel proud about and I won't deny that it is good to know what is going on at every second but there has to be a line drawn. Why should a police man have to tell you to not go beyond a place, or say 'I cannot divulge that information". Are we not insightful enough to realise that without wasting their time??

The second thing I want to point out is that there is anger about politicians and some ministers specifically but is that really the only problem to be addressed. I saw 'We the People' with Barkha Dutt talking about the Mumbai Tragedy. I was extremely unimpressed with the choice of panelists. They consisted in majority of Bollywood celebrities who with all due respect may be great in their field but don't know squat about policy making or social studies, ethnic studies, intelligence or any of the other pertinent issues involved in this discussion on terrorism. Hearing them talk is like having a coffee room discussion with a bunch of friends who get all their information and knowledge from television and know practically nothing about the dirt and grime of the issue. At this moment I as a citizen don't want dramatic statements from Simi Garewal or Kunal Kohli but analytical break down of the problem by social scientists, researchers, policy advisors or people who have devoted their lives to understanding these issues. Please do not fool me with meaningless banter.

I have spent the aftermath of the tragedy waiting for an analysis that was not sensationalized. Vilasrao Deshmukh taking his celebrity son to the venue? Tell me is this an issue at all? Would anyone care if his son was not a Bollywood star? Has anyone asked about the other guy walking behind him? Why are we wasting our time hearing things like this?

I just want to say that a lot of the statements that are being made by people who are clearly not experts are very extreme "Don't pay taxes", "Eradicate camps…even in China", do these people know what they are talking about? A war kills in figures that will make the Mumbai tragedy look like a road accident. Please be careful in who you quote. A right to opinion is part of our democracy but a right to discretion is a right you must exercise for a healthy attitude in the public you influence so easily.

Ramblings

I heard about it from my friend Reto, just as we were setting out for Greenville, SC, to spend Thanksgiving break at my friend Meha’s home. From then till now, slowly, even painstakingly, but inexorably, layer by layer, my stoicism has been stripped away. It is a common refrain in India, that we know terrorism, that we are used to it. But what happened in Bombay has shaken me to the core; and this when, thankfully, no one I know personally was affected. Only once before have I felt so destitute of hope. And that was 7 years ago. That day it took a while to fully comprehend the nature of the attacks perpetrated. The planning, the preparation, the execution, and the outcome, each only became progressively clearer as the day unfolded. Bombay followed the same pattern, except the realization was even more laborious, the horror even more prolonged.

For 60 hours Bombay burned. For 60 hours Bombay lay hostage to people bent on total destruction. 60 hours during which men, women and children were mercilessly massacred, maimed, and scarred for life. 60 hours that exposed the glaring inadequacies in the way our State handles crises. 60 hours during which heroes were born, even as other heroes laid their lives on the line…and lost them. 60 hours that exposed our media’s opportunism and lack of ethical standards.

60 hours.

Bombs go off in a matter of seconds. They are terrible, but the moment of terror is fleeting. One is confronted by the aftermath almost immediately. But in Bombay, the terror itself was never-ending. What will the aftermath of such a terror be? We are entering uncharted territory.

Yes, there will be changes. Many are warranted—a federal counter-terrorism agency, increased emphasis on intelligence, debates on ethical journalism, debates on our political system and politicians, increased international cooperation, and so on. Other changes such as increased restrictions on urban life and movement have to be resisted on principle, and perhaps only applied after rigorous debate and out of absolute necessity. But when all is said and done, these responses only address the symptoms of a malaise that runs much deeper.

Those 60 hours did not just expose us; they also exposed an enemy that is desperate and utterly pathetic. Islamic fundamentalism, based and operating out of Pakistan/Afghanistan, and likely funded from elsewhere as well. But Islamic fundamentalism does not operate in a vacuum. There are other equally desperate, equally pathetic fundamentalisms. Every religion has a fundamentalist nut-job strand. These fundamentalisms feed off each other. Godhra cannot be separated from the recent spate of blasts, or from Bombay. But fundamentalism cannot defeat fundamentalism. And perhaps even more importantly, fundamentalism is not something that needs to be defeated. It needs to be repudiated, rejected. It has no place in the world we live in today. This is a struggle of the mind and it cannot be fought just with guns.

Bombay will hold its head up, it knows no other way. But when as human beings will we?