Six years and a half years ago, another piece of India went up in flames from violence, and no one in the States blinked. No one discussed it. Very few were even aware anything had happened. Despite the fact nearly 2000 people then died in what, for a time, was suspected to be the work of Pakistani nationalists, President Bush didn't call the Indian prime minister to express sympathies. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice didn't fly in, as she will this Wednesday, in the aftermath of the violence in Mumbai. The difference in reactions partly has to due with the differing circumstances surrounding the two events, but it also represents a shift in the times and in us. A nation's reactions to the outside world becomes the shape of the nation, and as we head into a new era in America, it may be time to take stock of who are and how we've changed.
Six and a half years ago, the state of Gujarat was swept by sectarian riots after a train carrying Hindus caught fire and some 59 died. Indian Muslims were blamed, suspicions fell on Pakistani infiltration, though later, forensic evidence suggested the flames were sparked by a cook stove. In the cities and villages, Hindu mobs with cans of gasoline fell on cowering Muslim families and burned them to death. The stories of barbarity, then as now, were legion. Three people, then, trying to flee a mob made it to what they thought was the safety of a hospital, but were hunted down and thrown to their deaths from a window.
The violence continued for months, in a thin, steady drip. One hundred seventy five thousand were made homeless and had to live in refugee camps. Cries of outrage went up around the world as reports began to surface that the extreme right-wing government had seized on anti-Muslim sentiments that were inflamed six months earlier, by 9/11, to engineer the slaughter. The United States's voice was noticably absent, a fact that made me wince, for a number of reasons. One being that I was living in India, near Gujarat, then, and had watched as, in the months following September 11th, the initial outpouring of sympathy for America had slowed, then curdled.
"In India, this terrorism is a temporary situation," the poet Nand Chaturvedi said to me, in November. "Old cultures retain so many events in the collective memory, they develop a psychology of rationalization. They tell themselves, 'All right, but we will have good days, too.' In Sanskrit, they say chakravat--'it's like a wheel.' Younger nations are afraid of evil situations," he added, "especially if they have seen only prosperous times. America is very much afraid of facing evil days."
He was expressing more politely the pointed observations I'd begun to hear, about how America was in a fog of self absorption. Americans think they are the only ones who have known terrorism, people would complain, and it was hard to argue. "How does it feel to be living in a country without terrorism?" an aquaintance emailed, tone laced with the forbearance of her suffering, the day after 35 more were killed in Kashmir.
From this distant place, it was jarring to watch as compassion for America burned off. Two days after 9/11, I'd attended a rag tag protest march that employees at the palace staged. "Anyone who commits a terrorist act cannot call himself a terrorist!" a hand-lettered sign scolded. "America, India is with you!" the banner they shuffled behind declared.
Three months later, by the time the Indian parliament was attacked, by the time five men broached the parliament's gate and shotgunned nine employees to death, U.S. self-interest and -absorption was galling people. "America has done nothing," a professor of political science cried in telling me about the attack. It was around then that I began getting punched in the street. It happened three times, in the months leading up to the Gujarat riots--I'd be walking along, then find myself sprawled on the ground, palms turned to waffles by stones. Most other Westerners had fled for home by then. I'd become a walking symbol.
On February 28, I was at a dinner in Varanasi when the door to the apartment flew open. "Gujarat is burning!" an Indian professor, a friend of the American hostess, exclaimed. He stopped to catch his breath. In Gandhi's home state, he continued, mobs were smashing their way into stores, people were being killed. The streets there were piles of glinting shards, he said. Later, people would compare that night to Krystalnacht.
At the party, a silence descended. The guests, American grad students, stared at him. Some murmurred, a few of them nodded. Then one by one, they returned to discussing Srinathji temples, dystopia in modern India--the subjects of their theses, what he'd interrupted.
I thought of those grad students last week over the long Thanksgiving holiday--when at the dinners I went to, people argued about what had happened in Mumbai: whether India was blaming Pakistan and if so, was Pakistan to blame. I thought about them when a friend called to say she couldn't tear herself away from the scenes on CNN, the windows of hotels blazing orange, the small red pools on the station floor that was empty except for small piles of belongings. They came to mind when a woman spat out, "We only care because Americans are involved," and in my head, I debated to what extent this was so. But the grad students had been Americans living in India and they'd turned away as if it was their god-given birthrate, by virtue of their motherland's geography, to set themselves apart.
Six and half years later, we seem more aware that geographical divisions are mostly illusion. That borders can be breached through cyber space, that a crash of finances can spread throughout the world and the implications and guilt, the spurring causes, redound back. We've had an understanding of unity forced on us. When Bombay burned, the clumsy global forces of citizen journalism kicked in, even on the dopey precincts of Facebook. Throughout the Thanksgiving weekend, denizens there were "horrified about Bombay," were "thinking about Mumbai," were having a hard time "enjoying the holiday because of what's happening in India," in between being "stuffed" and "watching The Unforgiven." The messages weren't hand-lettered, but they had the same fumbling sweetness from the protest march I'd seen. "India, America cares."
And it's true that the Mumbai attacks drew attention attention because U.S. citizens were involved, and because the attackers targeted rich gathering spots, but with luck, so is this: That as the long flow of only prosperity we've known is staunched, as the horror we experienced in our own attack condenses to collective history and makes it harder to look away, chakravad, we lose innocence and become less afraid.
Rajan P. Parrikar: Varanasi - India's Holy City (PHOTOS)
In this holy place beats the heart of an ancient civilization.
First, On 9/11 America realized that what happens elsewhere can affect us here.
Second: the internet. The story is no longer dominating the MSM.
P.S: The train carrying hindu pilgrims did not "catch fire"...it was burned by a muslim mob. And it was hardly the case that the news story went unreported...Most indian politicians and journalists hate narendra modi with a passion and would take him down given half a chance. American telling them to do the same would not change things except make people angry for meddling in internal affairs of a democracy.
The Vatican and American and British Christian organizations dump hundreds of millions of dollars in conversion to Christianity in India. They target the poor and the tribal areas, creating havoc in their culture, cavorting, using ruses like asking for a "miracle", then providing the material thing, a bicycle, a little boat, as prove that God exist and with the condition of converting to Christianity first.
Imagine what would happen if some Hindu priest or organization would come into West Virginia and try this approach.
There are two points to raise in response to your analysis. First, a six year frame is even more limiting in the context of communal relations in India that it would be in Northern Ireland, Bosnia or Palestine: this cauldron has been bubbling for centuries, back through Partition to the Mogul invasions. The chakra has been turning a while, and sensibilities within India have been molded for far longer than America has been a nation. Hindu-Muslim relations in India can only be understood in this full context, in the manner of any long and dysfunctional relationship.
Second, it is only natural for people to sit up and take more notice when they feel a personal connection to an event -- when they have skin in the game or when their ox is gored, to use a couple of hackneyed phrases. We would have paid a great deal more attention to Darfur if a dozen rich white American celebrities had been brutally slaughtered at some point along with the million or so non-Muslim Africans. Ye hai duniya.
We are Indian Christians we mourn every loss of life ...including any Muslims too .
Pls do not divide my country ...we have just had an election here where change meant living in harmony .not division .we have elected Obama to give hope & peace a chance ....
Hopefully Mumbai will learn from this incident .I have suggested to my sis how we have worked in US to bring about change ...hope it works for them too but it will take time
I have seen very little reporting of 1993 serial blast & it was devasting in Mumbai I worked a block from Air India bldg ...do you know it may have been a training before 9/11 .it was similar on so many counts
A stock exchange high rise ,national carrier bldg ..lots of casualities .series of attacks at diff locations .Chaos in commercial areas ..bringing the finanacial district to a halt ...planned attacks ...maximum impact ...if maybe MSM reported in well ,maybe we would be more alert ...all I saw was the NYSE bombing that happened same yr got coverage ...
Whose fault...
It is not final that a cook stove caused the Godhra train burning in Gujarat where 58 Hindu pilgrims died, including 20 children. Actually, it is very improbable.
There were several reports written. Experts claim a cook stove could not have caused such rapid fire. In looking at the charred wagon, how could a fire spread so rapidly and trap people in the train? Or is it that people feared to leave the train? Is that what happened as there was a crowd of around 500 Muslims armed with swords, knives, and sticks outside, or the fire was so rapid that was started in several places at a time? Check what the newspapers wrote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_Train_Burning
US, Bush did not intervene because this became and internal India affair; besides, there were too many fingers pointing at different directions.
Of course this does not justify the horrible Gujarat riots nor the terrible crimes committed by a mob of Hindus later.
Also, the violent history of the Moguls and other Muslim invasions in India has affected the Indian psyche and there is a tendency to cry wolf. Besides, there is constant genocide against Hindus in Bangladesh and other places that does not make much news.
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust/
The article is not incorrect. Many reputable sources cited the cook stove of a Hindu passenger as a possible cause. See Pankaj Mishra in the "New York Review of Books": http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20339. By the way, Wikipidea is not considered a reputable source in journalistic circles. Anyone can, and does post anything up there. Note I emphasize "possible" (here and in the essay)--no one to this day knows precisely what caused the fire.
I'm not sure why you believe Bush dismissed the matter solely as an internal Indian concern--your implication being, I assume, that it was and Mumbai wasn't, and therefore Mumbai was worthy of our attention. Right after the Gujarat riots, many other countries and human rights organizations in representatives to tour the camps and sound alarm.
Shame on you for the cry wolf comment.
Yes sure, Wikipedia is not considered reliable, it is like the polygraph test, right? Anyone can post things not only in Wikipedia, as you are doing in this post.
The dismissal by the Bush administration obeyed to the matter becoming an internal Indian affair, and the many, and opposite, findings. You would probably agree with me that India does not meddle in internal American affairs like the one caused by Tymothy McVeigh. The Mumbai affair and others, yes, implicate foreign terrorism, Gujarat, Godhra train and riots did not.
Finally, what do you mean shame on me on the cry wolf comment? Read twice. This is a fact. Instead of assigning easy blame, research a little as your journalist position may entitle.
I know absolutely no Indians whose "psyche" has been affected by what the Moguls did a couple hundred years ago. In fact, the British colonial legacy seems much more apparent and obvious - in legislation, education, as well as the spreading of the Indian diaspora around the world. The "divide and rule" policy followed by the British probably has more to do with these current tensions between Hindus, Muslims, and Christians in India than the Mogul rule.
What is singular about the Mumbai siege is its international character. The additional - and highly unusual - targeting of foreigners seems deliberate and symbolic, as was the decision to target institutions popular among the Mumbai elite. These decisions helped gain international media coverage and produce international diplomatic reactions.
More at http://ilpodesta.org.