Google has posted some interesting pictures from LIFE magazine. I particularly like the shots of Nehru dressed in Western suits.

Why do I like these photos?

I guess it is because these photos blur the categorical dichotomy whereby India is constructed as part of the "Orient." I try to teach my students that India's elite have been "modern" (i.e. willing to discretely categorize and compartmentalize the life world) for centuries and share many elements (for good or ill) of a "western" outlook on the world.

I would not argue that Nehru depicted as a Westerner is a more authentic representation, but it does seem that this aspect of Nehru had to exist under erasure as the nationalist movement demanded that he embody the nation. In other words, later images of Nehru adorned in his "native" attire are unconvincing; his "Western" self was never erased, only crossed out (a la Heidegger) or covered over. Perhaps this erasure of the Western self is a metaphor for India's elite writ large. Their "idea of India" eludes the Orientalist cyclops.

Labels: india, south asia, web technology

"The event on which the interest of the story depends is exempt from the disadvantages of a mere tale of spectres or enchantment. It was recommended by the novelty of the situations which it develops; and, however impossible as a physical fact, affords a point of view to the imagination for the delineating of human passions more comprehensive and commanding than any which the ordinary relations of existing events can yield."

-Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley

The most popular trope in contemporary Pakistan is that the state has created a Frankenstinian monster which it may no longer be able to control or put down. In fact, there are over a thousand articles in the Lexis-Nexis database which used both keywords monster and Pakistan in the last ten years. This monster is, of course, Islamic radicalism which the dominant organs of the state (i.e. the military and intelligence services) have been fostering on and off for decades as a mechanism to subvert democracy and project power into neighboring territories.

Unfortunately, this narrative of an uncontrollable monster is somewhat of a myth. The Pakistani government has not made any serious effort to dismantle key terrorist organizations (e.g. Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed) operating on its soil, to execute their leadership, or to seize and liquidate their property. In fact, the government has been willing to permit terrorist organizations to simply change their names as a response to foreign pressure to ban these organizations. The Pakistani civilian government, military, and intelligence services are all well aware of the headquarters and leadership structures of organizations like Lashkar-e-Toiba, which renamed itself Jamat-ud-Dawa, after being banned in 2002. Far from declaring war on all extremist groups, the Pakistani state has achieved a modus vivendi with some of the most notorious ones.

In public, the Pakistani state seeks to convince critics that its externally mandated war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda also includes a full scale assault against all cross-border terrorist organizations operating on Pakistani soil. Foreign journalists, who are not well schooled in the differences between militant groups, are easily confused. But it is not that difficult to see through the deception. As a rational actor, the Pakistani state has no interest in eliminating all terrorist organizations operating within its territory. The Pakistani military and intelligence services selectively benefit from the presence of some of these organizations. These radical groups may be used to foment instability (in Kashmir and Afghanistan) and discipline democracy. Their presence and occasional street protests can also be used as a means of securing resources from the United States by conjuring media images of an emerging anarchy or Islamic revolution. Although the presence of many of these organizations is currently a liability, they will undoubtedly be useful again when the US retreats from the region. Hence, it is in Pakistan's interest to keep radical groups around but encourage them to maintain a low profile.

But even if the Pakistani story is akin to a myth, perhaps the story tells us something about Pakistani society. In other words, I am interested to understand what work this complex allusion does for the Pakistani elite.

First, the narrative shows a desire by the story tellers to claim the mantle of victimhood. Pakistan's elite are eager to negate charges of criminal neglect and conspiracy by pointing to its own victimization by extremist organizations. And while Pakistani civilians are increasingly victims of extremist violence, the state is still not quite able to convince the world of its innocence, perhaps because the metaphor itself implies a measure of guilt on the creator of the monster. The status of innocent victim is somewhat easier to accord when the story is recounted by Pakistani elites who are not associated with the state, as these elites often use the story as a criticism of both the monster and its creator(s).

Second, the myth reveals deep disgust toward the religious fundamentalists brought to life by elements within the state of Pakistan. One will recall that the horror of Dr. Frankenstein's monster stems from his fabrication of a living being from several dead bodies. The monster is monstrous because it exists in a nether region between death and life, and because it is the product of mingling parts from separate wholes. In essence the monster represents a fundamental categorical confusion and contradiction. One wonders if the repetitive allusion to the Frankenstein myth does not reflect a similar belief that the members of extremist groups themselves merely pre-figure death, i.e. that they are not quite living human beings. As Jasbir K. Puar and Amit S. Rai have argued, paraphrasing Judith Butler in a different context, the terrorist is "always already dying." Their desires are structured by death; they are technologies of death.

Third, and quite predictably, the monster while clearly loathed by the elite is also occasionally portrayed as a moral, misunderstood, generous, noble savage. Of course, this slippage between a romantic creature and an object of disgust is a contradiction. But perhaps this is why the monster metaphor is so apt: the allusion to Frankenstein's creature helps to hold together this tense contradiction of sentiments.

Fourth, the idea of a monster conjures a shifting internal balance of power or perhaps a sense of disempowerment. At another level, perhaps the discourse also reveals a fear of foreign intervention in the face of an incompetent and impotent state apparatus which "cannot control" what it created. I do not think this is a plea for help ... far from it. It is a plea for sympathy, patience, and a demand to obtain resources to improve state capacity.

Finally, I would argue that the reference to Frankenstein's monster is a means of pointing to the inherent pathological potential of religion. Whereas Shelley's text was intended as a critique of the science and technology associated with the Industrial Revolution, the Pakenstein myth is a critique of the inability of fundamentalist religious ideology to generate well rounded human beings. In other words, religious ideology is the alchemical "science" of the Pakistani state. The supplanting of the indigenous, mystical Sufi religious tradition in favor of more conservative interpretations of Islam, particularly since the Zia regime, have produced perverse individuals. These monsters could not have been created without this perverse "science" and it is perhaps not surprising that many Pakistanis now agree the only way to permanently prevent new monsters from emerging is to fix the content of religious ideology as it is imparted to new generations of school children.

Labels: failed states, pakistan, terrorism

I am already getting tired of reading and hearing that the terrorist attack on Mumbai was "India's 9/11." While I have no doubt that Indians have been traumatized, I think the comparison is overblown and it is dangerous.

The comparison is overblown because of the orders of magnitude in difference when one compares the level of casualties, particularly relative to total population. Of course quantities do not necessarily measure qualities, and I do not want to cater to American exceptionalism, but it is important to compare apples to apples.

The term "9/11" is also dangerous as it is increasingly a mechanism to justify a form of emergency rule in democratic societies. To say that an event is a country's 9/11 is to say that it is the final straw, the gloves are coming off, cliche, cliche, cliche... The phrase helps to justify all manner of unconstitutional and belligerent behavior. While I firmly believe that India should act with determination in brining the criminals who helped to organize the terror atattack to justice, it should also continue to act with restraint.

From a more sober perspective, the horrific attacks in Mumbai are closer on the sliding scale of horror to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres in the United States than to the multi-city attack carried out on 9/11. The perpetrators in Mumbai used assault rifles and grenades, not hijacked airplanes. The solution to protecting against this form of terrorism is actually far more challenging than the type of terrorism perpetrated on 9/11, because the targets used such low-tech weapons and basic strategies.

In other words, equating the Mumbai terrorist attacks with Columbine or Virginia Tech should not be viewed as a "demotion" of the relative scale of horror but an elevation of the challenge that India now faces. Guarding a metropolis against another Columbine is much more daunting than focusing in on guarding major airports.

Labels: india, terrorism

The full text of Secretary Rice's comments is available at the State Department's website.

Labels: failed states, india, pakistan, south asia, terrorism, us

Indian news source (Rediff.com, Times of India) are reporting that President-elect Obama agrees that India has the right to pursue terrorists across international boundaries.

Here is an excerpt from the Rediff.com article:

Obama, when reminded that during the campaign he had said if there was irrefutable evidence of Al Qaeda leaders and training camps in Pakistan he would go after them with or without Pakistan's permission and asked if India has that same right, replied, "Sovereign nations obviously have a right to protect themselves."

"Beyond that, I don't want to comment on the specific situation that is taking place in South Asia right now," he said, adding, "I think it is important for us to let the investigators do their job in making a determination in terms of who was responsible for carrying out these heinous acts."

Obama said, however, that: "I can tell you, my Administration will remain steadfast in support of India's efforts to catch the perpetrators of this terrible act and bring them to justice, and I will expect that the world community will feel the same way."

This is an interesting statement which could be read to show firm solidarity with India and general support for an expansive understanding of the right of self-defense. However, personally, I would not read this as a US "green light" for India to go ahead and dismatle LeT training camps and capture/kill ISI agents inside Pakistani territory for many reasons, not the least of which is that this is an off-hand statement by the President-elect rather than the sitting President. I think Mr. Obama is merely trying to avoid being drawn into the "tar pit" of South Asian politics (without sounding too hypocritical) while expressing moral solidarity for the victims of a heinous act of terrorism. The naive and ahistorical hope expressed by the President-elect that the investigation will point to other sources or that Pakistan will finally dismantle the terrorist networks on its soil, should also be carefully interpreted by the Indian press.

My hunch is that the US will continue to interpret any conflict between India and Pakistan as harmful to its own War on Terror. Pakistan has clearly intimated that any conflict with India will require pulling troops off of the Western frontier regions. This is both true and strategic blackmail of the US. Notably, the US is willing to be blackmailed by Pakistan as America still believes that it can dismantle terrorist networks only through a cooperative relationship with Pakistan's military.

I think the US approach is misguided/short-sighted and the US needs to exert far more direct leverage against Pakistan in conjunction with India and Afghanistan.

Labels: failed states, india, obama, pakistan, south asia, terrorism, us