The title of the book is a little misleading. The book is a compilation of 16 short articles on the Mumbai terror attack in November 2008. But whether these articles constitute an alternative perspective on independent India’s most daring act of terrorism is a moot point.
The editors of the book, Ram Puniyani and Shabnam Hashmi, are social and human rights activists. They have also earned a reputation for themselves as campaigners for promoting communal harmony in a country where one’s religious identity often becomes a critical factor for securing one’s rights as an individual citizen.
That may have also given rise to their belief that the mainstream view on terror has failed to grasp all the intricate aspects of terrorism that the state and the people should be prepared to deal with. Such a premise, unfortunately, is not entirely without flaws. The fact is the mainstream view on terror attacks, particularly in post-Ayodhya India, is largely similar to what the so-called alternative perspective suggests.
If there are differences, they arise mainly because of the political roots of the government in power and the beliefs of only a few political parties, including their members and followers. For millions of ordinary Indian citizens, there is only one unmistakable view on terror, which affects them all, irrespective of caste, creed, religion or economic status. The line anyone tries to draw between the mainstream perspective on terror and an alternative view has already become blurred amidst the socio-economic and political upheaval witnessed in the last couple of decades.
Therefore, to dub the views of most writers of the chapters (largely reprints of articles already published in some blogs, websites, magazines and newspapers) in the book as an alternative perspective would not be fair. If they differ, and they do in some articles, it is mainly in areas where terrorism has given rise to conspiracy theories.
Raveena Hansa, for instance, writes about the gaps in the different versions presented by the media and the government’s dossier on the Mumbai terror attack. The writer also wonders if there was more than one attack that fateful night and whether Hemant Karkare, the Anti-Terrorism Squad chief killed by the terrorists, was a victim of a larger conspiracy by right-wing fundamentalist groups.
More From This Section
These are interesting theories that can enliven any drawing-room discussion or a seminar on terrorism. But should theories such as the one propounded by Hansa (an independent journalist and columnist) guide public opinion without any public scrutiny of facts? The editors of the volume under review have played a useful role here. Stepping back a little, they point out that the authorities and our system have ignored and undermined many issues arising out of the Mumbai terror attack.
Indeed the broad message that the compiled articles send out is that there has been an attempt at hiding the truth and brushing aside those raising uncomfortable queries. And the editors have rightly suggested that “the best answer to such queries is an impartial and professionally-conducted investigation”.
Some articles have found place in this volume presumably because of the writers’ perceived proclivities towards a kind of “alternative” thinking that goes down well with the editors’ idea of an alternative perspective on the Mumbai terror attack. Certainly, Praful Bidwai and P Sainath fall in this category. Bidwai has two pieces and both of them make the right noises (counter-terrorism should not be allowed to kill democracy and war is no option in response to terror attacks). Sainath’s piece talks about the dangers of emulating the Americans in responding to terror attacks. All these once again underline how the gap between the alternative and the mainstream has shrunk when it comes to dealing with terrorism.
Tarun Tejpal’s piece on one of the victims of the Mumbai terror attack is rivetting. Ignore the sentimentalism or the romantic idea that the time has come for the Indian elite to dirty their hands so as to get a clean country. It is a good read. If you want a critique of what Tejpal has written, turn to the essay by Gnani Sankaran, who has rightly made fun of the response of the urban elite to terror, now that it appears to have reached its doors. Sankaran is also refreshing for his analysis of the reprehensible response of the electronic media to the Mumbai terror attack, though the print media was only marginally less guilty in the manner in which it covered the crisis.
You may disagree with many of the views and analyses put out by the writers here. But these are perspectives that are useful tools in any democracy to carry on the debate to find an improved and more comprehensive response to the challenges of terrorism.
MUMBAI POST 26/11
Edited by Ram Puniyani and Shabnam Hashmi
Sage; 154+XXXIV pgs; Rs 395
