I left work at 4am today. Why? Mumbai's been attacked. AGAIN. I mean, seriously, when will these people learn. U CANNOT keep a Mumbaiya down. Do what you want to them, they always bounce back.
Sadly, though, I think, think time, it may take the city a little longer to bounce back to normal.
News reports streaming in put the official toll at 90 people dead and as many as 900 injured. Then, came the distressing bit about 60 more bodies being found at the Taj, where a number (no one was sure how many exactly) of people had been taken hostage. Which makes me ask, for what? The group that "claimed responsibility" (why do these loonies think this a big deal? U want publicity, take out a freaking ad! Not like they can't afford to...) — the Deccan Mujahideen — sent major newspapers and (I'm assuming) TV channels an email that was psychotic at best, and totally brainless at worst (or should that be the other way around?)
Sure, the name indicates Islamic extremist forces, but does that mean the people behind last night's massacre were Muslims? If I were to start a militant group tomorrow (yea rt!), called my "group" the Saints Herded Into Training as Heroes Effectively Against Depressed Sisters (or, SHITHEADS), and sent out an email saying I was planning on killing all the men to make up for all the years women have been persecuted, who'd take me seriously? At the same time, if I called it Ulibaki Jihad... think that'd make a difference? (apart from the fact that I'd still be a lunatic of the worst kind, I mean) Who'd know the difference?
I know there's a lot of anti Muslim rhetoric doing the rounds... heck, a colleague of mine — senior colleague — no less, thinks as a group, they cause too much havoc and need to be eradicated (for want of a better term) but it really doesn't matter who plans these "terror" attacks, does it? Its innocent (even if they aren't all that innocent, who are we to decide who lives and who doesn't?) civilians. Which is why I called it a massacre. It was planned, and executed to (at least) near perfection, against a group of people who never knew what hit them.
Watching a recap of the whole thing earlier, it struck me that, starting with Leopold's and going on to the Taj, and the other fancy hotels, and the Gateway of India (let's not forget the 2 boats found moored there carrying explosives...), this was beginning to sound like Shantaram gone bad. Does anyone else think that?
Anyway, despite how completely brainless the violence was, one image is stuck in my head, revolting me. (And at one point, every news channel was running this footage in what seemed like a never-ending loop!) Just as reports of two terrorists being killed in an "encounter" — another word I hate, btw — came in, the TV-watching world was shown footage of a corpse being lugged around by a couple of camera-toting guys, obviously from the media... I mean, come on people, is that what we've come down to? Dragging a dead guy around so we can reposition him for a better shot (no pun intended, morons)?
It's not clear if that even was what remained of an alleged terrorist. For all anyone knows, it could have been one of the first hostages to go. Even if it was a terrorist (and maybe I'm weird here), I believe in dignity in death. Especially if there's been no dignity in life.
And, I know, as a country, we're still to get over our colonial mindframe where we love or hate the gora to extremes. Still, was there any logic to looking for folks with an American or a British passport? Or was there a converse logic at play here, which dictated that those with, I dunno, French, Portuguese or even Australian passports should be let off easily? Like I said before, it doesn't make any sense...
Which brings me to an important question: Most of those 'terrorists' were between the ages of 25-30. What makes anyone roughly my age want to go out and slaughter a few dozen people they've probably never met, or were ever likely to meet? Then again, what would make anyone, of any age, want to do that? Maybe I'm a little slow, but I just don't get it.
Of course, as expected, this event has led to a lot of discussion. Especially the fact that two senior anti-terrorism cops were killed. So far, the authorities have been picking up the small fry, the poor, those who are — in all likelihood — the modern equivalents of gun fodder, and patted themselves on the back. This attack wasn't random. It was well-thought out, showing that apart from the obvious — finances — those behind it also had a fair amount of intellectual ability. Where did that come from? Pretty big debut for a group no one's heard of, don't you think?
I mean, its so big a debut, 200 members of the National Security Guard — that's a euphemism for trained killing machines, btw — had to be called in, apart from the Army, the Navy, and a tonne of other people in fancy uniforms. I shudder to think of the bloodbath that's gonna be in tomorrow's news, as a victorious ( and you can bet on that!) team of folks in uniform (nevermind which one, the NSG's involved now...) announce that they absolutely trounced the enemy who will never show their faces in public again. Wanna bet there'll be more dead than taken prisoner?
Think about it. The dead are easier to handle than live prisoners who keep trying to a) escape b) get bail or c) get traded as part of some ransom deal or the other. Don't believe me? Think carefully about who the police arrested... 9 random 'suspects'.
Did I mention, as of 4am, 2 militants had been killed and only 1 hostage 'rescued'? This, when the 'official' death toll had already climbed past 80!
Sure, the elections are still a few months away, but do need to I remind you nice folks that its the same party in power at the Centre and in Maharashtra? And what do you think this gonna do for the party's rep? Not like we don't already know all politicians are hounds baying for each others' blood, is it? Hmm...I can already see the Gujarat chief minister "strongly criticising" the event tomorrow. Bet his speech-writers had a loong nite at work yesterday... and hey, Shush about 2002, okay? HE brought the Nano to the state!!

Culture, history, and the lack thereof (or, random musings at dawn)


I'd like to discover India. Does that sound strange? I know I've lived here all of my life.. but how much do i know about it? I sometimes think I'd like to see the world... the people, the cultures, the history... then I ask myself how I could ever hope for something that big, when I haven't seen my own back yard.. It's so easy to believe in, and slot people into, stereotypes.. (Don't we all?) but can human nature, much less mother nature be slotted that easily?

I want to travel. and by that I mean truly travel. I want to live among the locals. I want to BE a local. that's someone I've never been. I want a culture to call my own. I hear you laughing.. "you're Indian," you say... "you have culture.." sure my country has a rich and varied history, and since you can't have history without acquiring some culture, you must be right, rt?

Except than I am not my country. I do not "belong" anywhere or any when.. I want to know the history behind a place... not the kind they taught in school. I want to know about the men and women behind the legends... the people who became the heroes. those who built the monuments to time... and not just the ones who commissioned them.. I want to know those who toiled in the summer and in the monsoons.. those who, possibly, did not want the monuments built, but were forced to anyway... those who, discovered and loved these relics before the Archaeological Survey of India began to charge an entry fee... Those who lived and loved among the monuments to others dead, but not forgotten... the other places they saw... the grounds they walked.. the thoughts they thought.

I want to know what the ghoonghat-clad women of ancient Rajasthan would have thought of their bare-breasted sisters in the territories that became Kerala... What the Mughal men with their courtesans thought of the Dravidian priests and their devdasis... What the French in India thought of the English in India? More importantly, what the Europeans thought of the Indians... did they ever get beyond the "hmm..these guys could make us rich" phase...? How did palates accustomed to pièces montèes, and potato and meat stew react when they met dum aloo, sambhar and the aptly named gun powder? Did everyone get a round what we so euphemistically call Delhi belly today?

We've all heard stories about how the invaders — "they" ruined the lives of the locals "the us" and ransacked our culture? How come I've never heard of an Indian version of Pochahontas? I refuse to believe it never happened.. Maybe there was.. and maybe, the anonymous Pocahontas from the sub-continent (I'd like to think she was dravidian) refused to move to England, to be paraded as a "tamable native".. insisting, instead, that her John Rolfe take over the responsibilities of gruhasthashrama and, thereby, of her extended family! Maybe that killed him... imagine having to plan (and fund) weddings for all those younger siblings and cousins....and having to remember who's who among your wife's cousin's cousin's in-laws... (most definitely not for the faint-hearted!) And may be she then married some wealthy old man her father approved of, (of course no self respecting pop would've approved of some "Firang" back in the 18th century.. or that's what I've been told... doesn't help that the same people who tell me this are the ones who insist all Anglo-Indians are of Royal blood — more or less, anyway..) had a ton of sons (of course she didn't have daughters.. no self-respecting mother-of-sons ever does, does she? in any history... in any country and in any culture? Pardon my ignorance, but did Achilles have a sister? and would Thetis have dunked her in the Styx to make her invulnerable??) and died of old age, syphilis, boredom or child birth... and basically faded into the non-existence that seems to mark the lives of women in this part of the ancient world.

I've always found it strange that, in India, some courtesans are remembered better than queens... (Kinda ironic that a system that insists that women behave in a particular manner rewards the few who don't... but that's a topic for another day)... yet it's fascinating. The country is such a kaleidescope of cultures and of people, And when you haven't been born into one of the many available options, that choosing is hard. And not knowing your own, or your neighbor's, history makes it that much harder.. I hear u laughing again... "What idiot has to choose cultures?" All I can say is having a culture seems important to me... It gives you a norm.. and if you don't have a clear cut idea of what is acceptable and what isn't... It gets that much harder to decide if you are a conformist or a rebel... And maybe it's because I have stayed as far away as I could from my own...

(Lord knows well-intentioned folks have driven me nuts with their "OhmyGawdourcrapdoesn'tstink! We'renotthesedirtyIndians" brand of BS, and I'm proud to say I've returned the favour — "Youstinkmorecozyou'reneitherherenorthere" or "Howcanyoucallsomeplaceneitheryounoryourgrandparentshaveeverbeen,'home'?" doesn't make you very popular in the community, trust me)

So I want to learn. I want to know the history of the land. From before some of my ancestors left their potato farms in the land of clovers to wander among the sugarcane fields in the land of the idli... I want to hear the songs in the rocks... of the coal that once was a forest... I want to hear the stories of centuries past... I want sepia-toned memories awash with colour... I don't want to study culture and history... I want to live it..