Tags:
Journalism of Courage
This could have been a better book. This should have been a better book. The question Amitava Kumar asks,and asks us to ask,is important in any liberal democracy confronting terrorism. If the state-versus-terrorist battle is not just tactical but moral,as the state claims,how moral is the state? Even those inclined to give a liberal democratic state more leeway than Kumar is prepared to cannot,must not,ignore the question.
That Kumar asks this question via some serious reportage,in India and in America,and some serious research makes this potentially a very valuable contribution to what can be called post-/ writing / can be 9/11,26/11,7/7,13/12,according to your preference,or your politics. So,why is the potential unrealised? Three reasons.
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.
