Talking Terrorism In Mumbai

By Fatima Bhutto

When I was invited to speak on my book, 8:50 am, at the Kitab Literary Festival in Mumbai, I was pleasantly surprised. When I received notice that I would also be speaking as part of a panel discussion on terrorism I was caught between being confused and enthused. There were many writers I read and respect coming to speak at Kitab -- including our own Kamila Shamsie, Hanif Kureshi, and Germaine Greer -- and I felt an odd mix of insecurity and delight at the prospect of being included on such a panel. "Don't be mad," cautioned friends, "you're on the terrorism panel because you're a Pakistani. In India, you're going to get eaten alive". Others insisted it was my decidedly pro-'axis of evil' slant that secured my place (all that's left is North Korea…they whistled under their breath). Regardless, I was more than willing to talk about terrorism and flew off to Mumbai and the festival armed and ready, mentally of course.

Government sponsored massacres and murders are aimed at 'fighting terror' or 'defending freedom' while the terrorists kill just for the fun of it. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which slaughtered a combined total of an estimated 214,000 innocent civilians, are justified under this moral axiom. The Japanese government surrendered and so America's violence was perfectly legitimised as it fell under the 'historically important' category. The earlier Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbour, which killed some 2,500 military personnel, would probably not fit under 'historically important'. It was an act of terror and President Roosevelt declared the day of the bombings, December 7, 1941, a "date which will live in infamy". We could debate infamous vs. important forever, but it bears noting that only certain kinds of states are allowed to engage in acceptable terror.

The moderator at our panel discussion, an editorial writer at The Times of India who will go nameless (Indrani Bagchi), was the only one of our panel -- which included besides Brock, the editor of the New Statesmen, and novelist Philip Hensher -- to be attacked. Choosing the one Pakistani on the stage, she asked me whether I thought counter terrorism had become an excuse for Islamophobia in places like "Britain which has a large population of potential terrorists owing to their sizable Muslim population". I pointed out to the nameless moderator (Indrani Bagchi), who was unqualified to make such a bigoted and racist statement, that her statement in itself was an example of rampant Islamophobia.

Bless her, she didn't seem to think so. I then asked if it would be acceptable for me to come out and say that since the state of Maharashtra had a majority Hindu population it would make sense for me to label it a potentially Hindu terrorist location. She clutched her mike and insisted she would never say that about Maharashtra, missing the point entirely but making her bias patently obvious. Religions do not make terrorists, arbitrary violence does. After the entire panel had a go at the moderator, I was pleased to see that the audience -- overwhelmingly Hindu I add, only to prove what a thoughtless and unrepresentative minority the moderator (I.B) was -- took her to task for her statement.

They ate her, not me, alive this time. As our discussion came to an end and we made our way out of the auditorium, so many Indians approached me and insisted they shared none of the moderator's views. "We don't feel that way", one woman told me as she clasped her hand over mine. "We don't believe that about Muslims and we certainly don't believe it about Pakistanis. We're brothers and sisters after all".