Guest Post - A Rejoinder to the Financial Times

Guest Post - A Rejoinder to the Financial Times

Dear Sir or Madam:

Thank you very much for writing an editorial ("Turning Mumbai’s trial to advantage", FT Nov. 30, 2008) in your newspaper on our country’s suffering in the hands of terrorists.

Since most of us are not “native” speakers of English, I had decided to translate your editorial into simple English so that our limited intelligence could comprehend the profound insights that you had generated, for our sake.

When you called for statesmanship of a high order, I was feeling despondent how my country’s leaders would be able to act any more statesmanlike than characterising Pakistan as the victim of terrorism. I was relieved by your kind-heartedness in demystifying it in the next paragraph.

On Pakistan’s part, they have to stop its soldiers and spies from dabbling in Jihad because it now undermines Pakistan. It would be stupid – and not statesmanlike - of them to stop its soldiers and spies if it was only undermining India, as before. My untrained mind wondered if it would not be more appropriate to call it an act of self-interest on the part of Pakistan to stop their soldiers and spies from dabbling in Jihad. I quickly banished all such doubts as, after all, descendants of Englishmen who colonised the world for centuries would know more than any one else in the world the distinction between self-interest and statesmanship.

My doubts turned to gratefulness at the absence of confusion in the suggestion for India to be statesmanlike. India must settle Kashmir issue. Since it is not possible for Jihadists to be satisfied if India settled the Kashmir issue in its own favour, it goes without saying, of course, that the Kashmir issue must be settled in their favour.

A fear rose in my heart: what if the Jihadists are not satisfied and continue to attack my country? My wife chided me for entertaining such silly doubts. It was unbecoming of a native to question the Englishman’s logic. She suggested that the FT editorial board would have received credible information that the Jihadists would end their campaign against India once Kashmir is settled in their favour.

Still, I wanted to be doubly sure that my country would behave statesmanlike to the fullest extent. I asked her what if the Jihadists were not satisfied with the handover of Kashmir? Of course, she replied, then it meant that India was inadequately statesmanlike and should hand over more territories to the Jihadists until there was no more of India left to be turned over to them.

With anxiety still lingering in my mind as to whether India would still be fully discharging its responsibilities, I continued to read. But, I need not have worried. You had thought of everything.

If our behaviour was not satisfactory, you have a new Sheriff in town to ensure that errant behaviour does not go unpunished. No longer will it possible for any country in the world – except the United States and the United Kingdom – to attach its regional conflicts to the wagon of global terror. Only attacks on these two countries would be deemed unprovoked and qualify for retaliation under the global war on terror. Further, authorities only in these two countries can institute intrusive safeguards and security, watch over their citizens 24*7 with cameras installed in every corner so that FT Editors could come up with pearls of wisdom undisturbed by fears over their personal safety and security.

When terrorists strike other countries – particularly the ones you had cared to name – those countries are simply asking for it. Their only task is to act statesmanlike, settle with the terrorists and wait for their benevolence. If they even whisper about taking action, they risk damaging fragile domestic communal amity, escalating conflicts internationally and would be scaring away Western journalists and capitalists.

If we still did not understand our roles and obligations, now that the FT editors have their man in the White House, he would de-recognise the governments of Israel, India, China and Russia, install jihadists in their place and declare war on these governments.

It is always the mark of thorough analysis and articulation that not only recommends a course of action to others but also spells out consequences should lesser mortals fail to comply.

That should have been enough lessons for one day. But, I had not reckoned with your large heart. You had taken the trouble to define terrorism.

I had a stupid question. I was not sure if Mumbai was a victim of terrorism. My 7-year old son chided me that FT editors would have told us if they thought so. He said that what happened in Mumbai was not random since the targets were very carefully chosen after systematic selection and screening. There was nothing random about it. It did not have a multiplying effect. Neither did the terrorists multiply nor did their acts of terrorism multiply beyond South Mumbai.

He asked me to take another look at the title of the leader. It was about Mumbai’s trial and not about terrorism in Mumbai. The jihadists were conducting a trial-run.

I concluded my reading of your leading article wondering how much I had understood and how much I had not.

Thanking you,

Sincerely,
Anantha Nageswaran