Rushdie vs Arundhati

Arundhati Roy recently wrote an article (published in Outlook Magazine in India and the Guardian in Britain) which Salman Rushdie, a self-described Bombay Boy, has since taken exception to.

The article in question can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/12/mumbai-arundhati-roy . Rushdie's response (at least one of them) can be found at http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=I7uhNYu78MY

The primary bone that Rushdie wants to pick with Arundhati is her using the concept of justice to analyse the cause behind the Mumbai attacks.

Rushdie makes the point that treating injustice as the cause of the attacks implies that the objective of the perpetrators of the attacks is justice. He goes on to say that the planners of these attacks are looking for power, and not justice. He sees it as a calculated power grab to destabilize India and derail Pakistan's road to democracy. (Imran Khan defines this as the president giving up the extra-judicial powers assumed by the office during Musharraf's reign, the prime minister's office being restored as the highest executive office in the country, and formation/restoration of the independent judiciary).

I believe that Rushdie and Arundhati fundamentally differ in their approach to the Mumbai attacks. While Rushdie sees the attacks as one of many terrorist attacks carried out by violent organizations worldwide, Arundhati sees them as one of the many episodes of violence that India has suffered in the recent past. Additionally, Arundhati is largely discussing the motivation behind a 'recruit' joining a violent organization, and Rushdie is addressing the 'planners' and 'handlers' who run these organizations.

Arundhati believes injustice is the primary cause for 20 something youths all over the world (particularly the developing world) joining various violent groups that use terror as a tactic to make their point. In her opinion, addressing and eradicating what she believes is the central motivation for the 'recruits' joining these organisations i.e. injustice (and the lack of opportunity and purpose that stems from it), will deprive the fanatical godmen and the scheming Dawoods of the cannon fodder for their operations - the disaffected youth.

Rushdie believes that the root cause of the Mumbai attacks (and others like it) is the existence and influence of the dawoods and the fanatics in the corridors of power. Even if the injustice were to magically evaporate, these ' terrorist handlers' would still be able to find people to serve their evil ends. If not disaffected youth, then perhaps mercenaries. Unless these men are removed from the corridors of power, and the structure that feeds them money and power from military and civil sources is dismantled, there will never be peace.

In my opinion, Arundhati's approach is to look at the Mumbai attacks as a terrorist atrocity part of a larger web of tragedies that have plagued India in the recent past. She does not approach the problem in search of a solution that will prevent attacks like Mumbai (with their degree of planning and alleged cross-border participation) in particular, but terrorist attacks on Indian soil in general. In any case, only a higher degree of vigilance can prevent cross-border attacks of this nature. Hence, her solution is for us as a nation to introspect ("look ourselves in the mirror.") In her opinion, the failure of the nation to provide its youth, especially in tribal belts and among minorities, with equal and adequate opportunities is making them disaffected, disillusioned, and leading some of them to vent their frustration by resorting to violent outbursts of hatred.

In contrast, Rushdie is addressing the Mumbai attacks in particular and believes the solution is in persecuting the people who plan operations like Mumbai. From all the evidence that has been amassed thus far, it seems that at least some, if not all, of the 'recruits' and the 'handlers' were based in Pakistan and obtained their training in Pakistan. Rushdie simply does not see injustice as the motivation of the 'elements within Pakistan' responsible for planning and executing the Mumbai attacks. He also believes that attacks of this scale could not have been carried out without the knowledge of elements within Pakistan's establishment, particularly the ISI. Unless Pakistan takes firm steps towards dissociating the ISI and its military from organizations such as the LeT, it can never take legitimate steps towards a lasting peace with India.

In conlcusion: Although Rushdie takes exception to Arundhati's article, what he and Arundhati are saying are not as much contradictory, as the approach that each adopts to addressing the problem is radically different.