|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Sunday, October 07, 2001 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
Features
| Previous
| Next
No time for coffee in Copenhagen
TABISH KHAIR is not writing about the numerous lives lost in a
senseless and criminal act of violence on September 11. Instead,
he writes about the voices he has heard thereafter; a sound that
has a certain tone to it and which has set him wondering about
abstract hatred and prejudice.
THERE are moments that cleave Time into two. Everything that
happens afterwards happens in a different world. World War II was
one such moment for Europe. The suicide-hijack-crashing of four
passenger planes and the destruction of the World Trade Center is
such a moment for the world.
I will not write about the 5,000 lives lost in a senseless and
criminal act of violence. Such human loss escapes the limits of
language and representation. One can only stand silent in front
of the monuments of sorrow that tens of thousands - relatives,
friends, colleagues - will carry in their hearts for the rest of
their lives. It is a sorrow the rest of us can only share in
silence.
I cannot write about silence. And I should not for, in
Copenhagen, I have been deluged with sound: the opinions of
ordinary people, the film-like coverage of the tragedy by Cable
News Network (CNN), the voices of commentators and politicians.
Much of this sound had a certain tone to it and that tone set me
wondering. Is there much of a difference between the terrorists
who struck back at a group of politicians by targeting tens of
thousands of innocent people and those voices that seem to be
using the cruel act of a handful of presumed Islamic terrorists
to tarnish and blame entire populations of Muslims and Arabs? Do
not both the acts demonstrate the same type of abstract hatred
and prejudice?
But the questions never end. On the margins of time, in the split
space between worlds, one is always deluged with questions.
For example, the first Danish person who brought me news of the
tragedy said that he was against violence of any kind and added
that he would understand it if Americans decided to hit back. Why
is it that we always justify our own violence, while the violence
of the enemy is sheer sacrilege? Isn't that why there were
shocking pictures of some Palestinians celebrating: people who
have become so used to the idea of missiles being launched at
their own buildings by Israeli forces and the notion of
reciprocal violence that they could not feel the inhumanity of
their celebration?
But, then, is this what we can write about: this spiral of
violence and inhumanity? Is this immense tragedy going to remain
at such a general level of discourse?
The answer seems to be "yes" if various media discussions in the
West are to be believed. But it has to be "no" if we are to
salvage some sense from the wanton destruction.
It is easy for us to sit here in our cosy sitting rooms in
Copenhagen, holding a cup of coffee, munching a biscuit, watching
the tragedy unfold almost as fluently as a film on the idiot box,
and speak in general terms. What we are doing is celebrating our
own humanity, and all human beings - even terrorists - are
convinced of their own superior humanity. Many of the most
inhuman acts known to humanity have been the consequence of such
a conviction. We need to go beyond it. We owe it to the victims
of the tragedy to go beyond it.
The second person who called me with news of the tragedy was my
father: a devout Muslim doctor who has lived most of his life in
a small town in Bihar. He was shocked by the news. How could
anyone do this, he said again and again. The word he used was
"anyone". I went back to the TV and, in spite of the fact that no
one knew anything about the identities of the terrorists, I did
not hear too many people say "anyone". I heard "Muslim",
"Islamic", "Middle Eastern", "Arab".
These were people who had already decided to exclude entire
populations from the circumference of their definitions of
humanity. My father's "anyone" had been reduced by many of these
contributors to "Arab" or "Muslim", even to the very type of an
Arab or Muslim. I could feel the irreligious "Muslim" in me
cringe every time I heard such discussions. I could feel my
father being put in the dock.
It is so comfortable, this celebration of our own humanity. It
can be so inhuman, this celebration of our own humanity.
But what about violence?
Thomas Burnet, the late 17th century English divine, wrote that
the Roman Catholic Church persecuted prophets of Apocalyptic
violence (even though Apocalypse and the millennium were
prophesied in the Bible and, as such, should have been welcome to
the church), because it was in those days a church of privilege.
Apocalyptic violence, Burnet argued, was always the last resort
of the persecuted and would be disliked by those who "have lived
always in pomp and prosperity".
Violence, in other words, is seldom a free choice. It is
predicated upon most individuals by circumstances. These
individuals are usually those who labour under an overpowering
feeling of injustice and deprivation. However senseless it might
be, behind all violence lies the rubble of shattered hopes, of
real and imagined injustices, of human desperation and,
consequently, inhuman hatred. Let us not take refuge in the easy
excuse that we are against violence. For all of us, given certain
circumstances, are capable of violence or sympathy with violence.
While a thousand candles have been lit in Copenhagen for those
who died in the United States, let us also light a candle or two
for those who die - and thousands do every day, with or without
"Western" complicity - in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda ....
Let us not traffic in the worth of human lives.
No, large descriptions like "violence" do not help if we stay
confined to that general level. Neither does the kind of cry for
vengeance that one heard in the voice of many Americans and
Europeans. It is true that we have to take a stand against
violence. Not just violence of one kind, we have to take a stand
against all kinds of violence - the violence of terrorists as
well as the violence of State agencies, physical violence that
leads to the death of bystanders as well as economic violence
that leads to the starvation of millions in a world that has
enough to go around. More than enough.
It is time we in the West think a bit before we bite into the
cake of our affluence and drink the coffee of our civilised
condemnation.
If general sentiments will not do, what, then, about the specific
lessons that we can draw from this tragedy?
One of the things that this outrage has demonstrated is the
ineffectiveness of any kind of military shield. The only shield
that can be effective is the shield of a more just world. And for
the world to be made just and equal, it not only needs some of
the resources of the affluent, it also has to be made democratic.
Unfortunately, the U.S. has made itself into the target of
extremist groups largely because it has tried to go solo or exert
undue influence in certain international quarters. The internal
democracy of the U.S. seldom gets translated into international
democracy. Had certain decisions been taken through the channels
of the United Nations (not a military alliance of the privileged,
like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)), the U.S.
would have been only one nation among many. The burden, the
"blame" and the risks would have been shared. There are
advantages to democracy at the international level, but it has to
be true democracy. And the final lesson is that of the dangers of
abstract hatred and prejudice. The act of one leader or a group
cannot be blamed in a generalised way on an entire people or
country, as the terrorists seem to have done. But this is a
lesson that we should also remember every time someone uses the
dastardly act of a handful of presumed Islamic terrorists to
implicitly or explicitly blame entire populations of Muslims and
Arabs.
The crashes that reduced the World Trade Center to rubble and the
two terror-inducing plane crashes elsewhere have cleft our age
into two. On the other side of this smoking chasm of blood and
bitterness, lies another world. It can be a world in which all
the mistakes of the past - global inequality, socio-economic
exploitation, lack of international democracy, lack of national
democracy and literacy in some nations, prejudice, hatred - all
these mistakes are consolidated into a world of greater violence
and suffering. Or we may, finally, learn to work towards a world,
a very different world, where we will tackle not the consequences
of senseless tragedies but the reasons for them. A world in which
we will condemn not only a certain kind of violence, but all
violence; a world in which we will love not only our humanity,
but all humanity.
In order to make this choice we have to look deep into our own
hearts before we tidy away the tea things and swap the channel in
places like Copenhagen.
* * *
People who commit hate crimes against Americans with Middle
Eastern backgrounds in the wake of the terrorist attacks will be
prosecuted "to the fullest extent of the law", according to a top
Justice Department official.
According to new federal hate crime statistics released recently:
* Hate crimes accounted for nearly 3,000 of the roughly 5.4
million victim-related crimes examined in a study which looked at
cases reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by
local police in more than a dozen states from 1997 to 1999.
* Among the racially motivated incidents, 60 per cent targeted
Blacks, 30 per cent targeted Whites and the rest targeted Asians
and American Indians. Forty-one per cent of the incidents
involving religious bias targeted Jewish people.
* Violent crime was the most serious offence in 60 per cent of
the hate crimes, typically involving intimidation or simple
assault.
* More than half of the violent hate crime victims were 24 years
old or younger. Among the offenders, 31 per cent of violent
offenders and 46 per cent of property offenders were under age
18.
Source: Internet
* * *
(The writer is Assistant Professor, Department of English,
Copenhagen University, Denmark.)
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : Features Previous : Eliminating hunger: a challenge Next : Reactions from Down Under | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyright © 2001 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|