Errors While Writing on War on Terror

First,and as reporters are being forever told,get or at least try very hard to get both sides of the story. Kumar does some impressive reportage on the experiences of those he says were victims of state responses to terrorism. But whether hes talking of men picked up by Mumbai cops after the 1993 bomb blasts,or S.A.R. Geelani,or Muslims in post-9/11 America who were befriended by FBI informants,theres a startling absence of the other side. Geelani tells the author in vivid detail what happened to him. But no cop,no public prosecutor appears to tell his/her story. Why Kumar didnt try to seek out the other side is a mystery to this reviewer. Is the argument that the other side is rendered irrelevant in the reportage because the moral scale is so evidently and heavily tipped in favour of the victims? That can never be an argument. Kumar is not writing fiction. Hes reporting so that he can pose a big question. Sure,hes also protesting. But the difference between a good argument and a good placard is that in the former,theres some space for those who you think are wrong.

The books second problem is the transition,back and forth,between reporting and more ambitious authorial exercises. Theres nothing wrong with Kumars narrative structure segues from reportage to first-person reflections to broader issues,including politics and art. But this form places a big demand on not only content but also style. That is,its not easy to pull it off. Kumar,its sad to say,doesnt quite pull it off.

Some of the writerly bits are,frankly,strange. This moment brings the terrorist an inch closer to the near-nameless people he and his cohorts have killed…. Thats Kumars observation after watching a 26/11 documentary where CCTV footage shows a terrorist being in awe of the hotels opulence. Yes,we can understand the wonder of the displaced provincial at the grandness of a 5-star establishment. But,no,that doesnt bring him an inch closer to the nameless he has murdered. This is an utterly untenable argument made puzzling by the fact that Kumar felt the need to make it. His thesis,his protest,didnt need it.

Some other writerly bits dont work for other reasons. The major examples in this category are Kumars long reflections on protest art. These reflections are supposed to tie in with his reportage and analysis. But,mostly,they absolutely dont. The proof of this is this: read Kumars reportage,skip the art bit,go to the next bit of reportage,and now go back and read the art bit,you will find you have missed nothing. Thats what this reviewer did when he encountered a second installment of protest art review in the book.

The books third weakness is that while it argues rightly if not very well that what happens to those who the state calls terrorists is a complex story,it also argues wrongly that state actions can be understood in simple terms. The state is wrong in doing what it did to X,therefore the state stands pretty much condemned. The slow calm procedure of the law hides from our view the brutality of the state….

But consider this,as Kumars own research finds,a huge majority of post-9/11 investigations in America didnt result in the state bringing cases. Even in the fever of immediate post-9/11 times,the slow calm procedure of law worked in many instances.

Therefore,when Kumar ends his book by saying the states confrontation with terrorism is a distraction that hides from us the real crime,one is left with a question what is the real crime the book doesnt quite manage to answer.