Twitter
RSS
Author, Delhi: Adventures In A Megacity (Penguin India, Rs 499) and Former Managing Editor, BBC, South Asia
(On the Delhi of today and the yesteryears. And the current stalemate in India-Pakistan relations)
How and why did you start writing this book? What was the inspiration behind it?
I lived in Delhi in the early nineties and, to be honest, I hated it. I really didn’t like it in the city and I was posted back by my employers, the BBC, by the end of 2002. And to my surprise, it was a different city from the one I knew. It was a much more interesting city and I set out to try and find why and what had happened. I love walking and I don’t believe in researching about a city by reading books or talking to experts. I believe in walking, talking and meeting people.
It was also a very good way of improving my Hindi. But, basically, I walk the city streets in a route which I describe in the book, trying to explore what has happened to this extraordinary city and the most important thing was that, in many ways, it had become a world city. Before, it was quite a parochial place; rather small and dominated by an elite and, to a large extent, by a single community. Even now, it is still dominated by the rich and the elite but there are lots of different groups and elites. It is a very interesting place. It’s a place which feels it is moving ahead. It is not dominated by a single community any longer. Unlike other Indian cities, it has the right to decide its own fate because it has its government. I think all of these are positive signs. It’s far from perfect but that’s what interests me about it.
But the government in Delhi doesn’t have real powers. For instance, the Delhi Police comes under the Union Home Ministry, the DDA (Delhi Development Authority), which is responsible for the city’s urban development also comes under the Union government. Wouldn’t you say, then, that the government is a bit toothless?
Yes, its powers are not complete and they are not total. But they never are within a country. I would say look around in Bangalore, Calcutta, Bombay and look at how many of their problems are caused by the fact that they can’t make decisions the kind that Delhi can for itself – and make them quickly. And I think that’s been unfortunate for most of those cities. I think Bombay knows very well why it’s unfortunate. But, I think it is also very important for other reasons.
I think it’s important for the identity of the city. It is all about beginning to feel a loyalty towards the city. If they have a loyalty towards the city – and I don’t mean nationalism by that –then they will care about it. And unless a city’s citizens care about it, it will be a terrible place. And that is fundamental which people forget at their peril.
After the Bombay attacks, we saw citizens of the city actively protesting against the establishment. In contrast, after the September 2008 blasts in Delhi, nothing of the sort happened. In that sense, do you think Delhiites are laidback and just like to go with the flow?
I think there’s a real problem in Delhi that there is much less of a civic sense in the city and that has been damaging. I think it has improved a bit but still, people tend to care about their particular local area. So these RWAs (Resident Welfare Associations) have become a lot more active over the years. But, the attitude is ‘This is my turf and I’m trying to make it nice’. In comparison, Bombay has a much longer history of being a big city and of concerned citizens taking to the streets when they think there is something important to argue and demonstrate about. But, what they were also expressing were their powers to do anything and their discontent with the situation. So, the comparison to Delhi is interesting but not on a level playing field.
One of India’s veteran advertising professionals, Prahlad Kakkar, described Delhi as a city of jugaad (in local dialect, this is interpreted as fixing). Would you agree?
I think there are still a lot of fixers around but, no, it’s much more than that. Any of the old definitions of the city are wrong now only because they are incomplete. Delhi used to be described as a set of villages or as a retirement home for bureaucrats or just a sort of a ‘babudom’ place. Obviously, there’s something in all of that but there’s so much more. It’s a city of more than 15 million people; probably more than 20 million if you include Gurgaon and other suburbs. Now, no one is suggesting that there 20 million fixers. Remember, that more than half the population are children or recent migrants. And that dramatically affects the complexion of the city. And yes, there are a lot of fixers around. There are companies in Bombay that have their fixers in Delhi to get permissions. But, more and more companies have set up offices in Delhi because it’s an important city in its own right.
Someone I spoke to was praising elements of contemporary Delhi, such as the Delhi Metro. Do you fear that due to the development of contemporary Delhi, the city’s rich heritage and culture maybe forgotten?
I think such a fear does exist. There was a mosque – or half-a-mosque – that I used to visit on my walks which was demolished or razed forever 15 months ago. I tried to get people interested in it, but they weren’t. Delhi is so rich in history that there’s a kind of blaazeness about it – people just think ‘how does it matter if some old building goes?’ I think that’s very sad because these things can never be brought back.
That said, it is the richest megacity in world in terms of historical monuments and that shouldn’t be forgotten. No other city, which has a population of over 10 million people (except, maybe, for Cairo), has such a range. So it is an important subject. But I think there’s a kind of maturity, which means that they are recognising that as an issue. And, not just sentimentally. But, I do despair for the minor monuments. I think more will disappear.
What is your opinion about the political nature of Delhi?
In some ways, it has become less political. When I was there in the nineties, the political elite and the bureaucrats were dominant figures on the social scene. Some high-profile secretary would always be attending some high-profile party. Now, who cares! It’s not a big deal anymore! There are all types of people. There’s a much bigger international community. There’s a much bigger elite community from the rest of India; not just the old Delhi families or people directly connected with politics. Of course, it’s the national center for politics and will remain so and that colours it. But it has outgrown it. It’s sort of sold one of its few descriptions.
So would it be fair to describe your book as a travelogue or as a wanderer’s findings about the city?
I would describe it as an attempt to describe a modern city. That I did it by way of wandering is my way doing it. Others do it in different ways. But, the key is to try and understand what makes our modern cities change and try and think how we can make them better in future. I’ve raised a few questions and got a few amusing stories to tell about what is an extraordinary city – with still a lot of wrong with it.
On a different note, after the Mumbai attacks, India-Pakistan relations hit a stalemate. This time, war is not an option; diplomacy doesn’t seem to be effective. How do you think this stalemate will end in a manner which is satisfactory to both countries?
I don’t think it will end in the kind of resolution you’d like. Key constituencies in both countries don’t want this stalemate to end. I think there is a lack of sophistication and knowledge in India about Pakistan. I wish more people would travel there and meet people. This festival (Jaipur Literature Festival) is a great opportunity to meet people from Pakistan.
My old friend from the BBC, Mohammad Hanif, has written an exceptional novel about modern Pakistan, (A Case of Exploding Mangoes) which shows that the country is just as vast and complex as India and we should stop thinking about it in binary terms. It has a range of people and ideas that you would expect from any country of a 170 million people. There are people there who hate India. I don’t think they are huge in number though they’ve caused a great deal of damage over the years. But, we can’t blame all of Pakistan and say that all people in government and civil society were directly involved in what happened in Bombay. It is very clear that some Pakistanis were involved, and that needs to be dealt with. But trying to tar everyone with the same brush will only make the brush useless.
Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardari, described these terrorists as ‘non-state actors’. Do you really believe that they were just non-state actors?
I don’t know enough about it. But, according to my instinct, I think the people who trained these terrorists were, at some point, associated with the State directly or indirectly. However, I think it is very unlikely that a senior person, who is now part of Pakistani bureaucracy, gave an order for this to happen or organised this happening. I can’t swear it’s not the case. But that’s what my instinct and sense of knowledge about Pakistan tells me. Strangely enough, the confession that was printed of the one terrorist who was arrested rang true. He described how he became a terrorist and how he did what he did. It was a slightly banal story.
I haven’t read Tarun Tejpal’s book (The Story of My Assassins) but I think it’s important to understand what makes people into killers. And that every killer was once a sweet, smiling kid and what happens in between. If we don’t understand that we’ll have them haunting us wherever we go, as we have done for centuries.
President Obama has taken over from President Bush and, already, he’s reprimanded Pakistan. How do you see Obama’s foreign policy shaping up vis-à-vis Pakistan, India and the war on terror?
I think he will be driven by a much wider picture than the previous president and his team and not by what India and Pakistan want. India and Pakistan want people to agree with them and they’d win a moral victory. I think Obama is committed to trying to find ways of making the world a safer place. And if the means of doing that offend or delight India, is not really the point. India is a major world player and will be listened to by many other other countries. But the task that Obama has set himself is to make the world a safer place. And he needs to find a way of doing that.
In the current mess that Pakistan is in right now, do you think that there will be a coup and the army will assume direct control of the country? Or will the civilian government remain in power for a while?
I’ve got no reason to see a coup happening immediately. I think it would be very unpopular in America. I see no particular reason why it should happen now, but, there will be a coup sometime. We’ve had so many of them in the past. There’s no reason to think that the army is permanently out of politics.
The reason I ask is because India doesn’t know who is in control there. The President makes a statement one day only to be contradicted by the Prime Minister the next day. At least when Pervez Musharraf was in power, India knew who it was dealing with.
(Laughs) The only people in the world who are missing Musharraf are the Indians! There is this bizarre irony! Of course, when you have a dictator there is clarity in the command structure. Zardari is not a natural politician or a natural diplomat as anyone who’s seen his appearance will know. He admits that there are parts of the country which he doesn’t control. And he may not have a very good handle on making sure that everyone in the government speaks in one voice. But that’s not a reason to want a coup! I think democracy is again proving itself as not the very best of alternative options of government in Pakistan. And it forces the political community to take responsibility for what they’re doing. But, he (Zardari) is not in control of his country, he knows it and he says it. India has got to understand that he may not speak the truth about everything but he’s being very frank about it – he does not totally control the whole country.
Let’s just remind ourselves of what the Indian Prime Minister said some time ago. He talked about Naxalites in India who are playing a major role in a quarter of the country. So, it’s important not to become too high and mighty about this issue (of internal control). There are lots of serious problems here and in Western countries. And it’s very rare that a government or a Prime Minister feels in total control.
India will soon witness a general election in the next few months. What sort of government does the West expect from us? Would they like Manmohan Singh back as Prime Minister?
I don’t think the West has thought terribly deeply about this. I think most governments – if they’ve got existing good relations with the country – are happy to continue it. I don’t think there are major problems. India is seen as a bit prickly at international fora but much much better than it used to be in both, Congress and BJP times. In American and in Britain, it onside in the battle against terrorism. Whether that’s a good thing or not is another matter. But, obviously, there has been a closening of relations with America which is important. But, I don’t think there are preferences in terms of BJP or the Congress. I think what they want is a degree of stability. I think the idea of instability – political and economic - in India would worry them a lot.
The one issue that has defined this government has been the Indo-US nuclear deal. Do you think it has overshadowed or, in a sense, affected India’s bilateral relations with other countries such as Russia or China?
I don’t actually think it’s a major worrying issue for other countries. I think it was being made a bigger fuss of in India than anywhere else. It didn’t attract the kind of attention in America as it did here. I don’t think it was that kind of an issue. I think a lot of it here was about people dealing with old business and to which side you were on – stuff related to the cold war times. The debate here was about how close you get to your own enemies. The Left, in some ways, couldn’t stand it in their guts even if they saw some logic in it (the deal).
I think the Indo-US nuclear deal is a bit of a mistake to see it in global strategic terms. I don’t think it’s hugely significant. It is significant in terms of India’s attitude towards the rest of the world and its relations with the greatest powers of the world. Also, what this deal has also done is that it has de-hyphenated India-Pakistan as one subject. And it is India which has done it; not the rest of the world. And India should have done this a long time ago. Compared to India, Pakistan is a small country. India always behaved as if Pakistan was its equal and lowered itself to have an archaic battle at international fora about the wording on Kashmir which most people don’t understand. It’s just too complicated for even professional diplomats. For instance, the British Foreign Secretary (David Miliband) was unwise to say what he said. But, overall, there’s a sort of maturity about Pakistan and let’s see if it goes away again.
(On the Delhi of today and the yesteryears. And the current stalemate in India-Pakistan relations)
How and why did you start writing this book? What was the inspiration behind it?
I lived in Delhi in the early nineties and, to be honest, I hated it. I really didn’t like it in the city and I was posted back by my employers, the BBC, by the end of 2002. And to my surprise, it was a different city from the one I knew. It was a much more interesting city and I set out to try and find why and what had happened. I love walking and I don’t believe in researching about a city by reading books or talking to experts. I believe in walking, talking and meeting people.
It was also a very good way of improving my Hindi. But, basically, I walk the city streets in a route which I describe in the book, trying to explore what has happened to this extraordinary city and the most important thing was that, in many ways, it had become a world city. Before, it was quite a parochial place; rather small and dominated by an elite and, to a large extent, by a single community. Even now, it is still dominated by the rich and the elite but there are lots of different groups and elites. It is a very interesting place. It’s a place which feels it is moving ahead. It is not dominated by a single community any longer. Unlike other Indian cities, it has the right to decide its own fate because it has its government. I think all of these are positive signs. It’s far from perfect but that’s what interests me about it.
But the government in Delhi doesn’t have real powers. For instance, the Delhi Police comes under the Union Home Ministry, the DDA (Delhi Development Authority), which is responsible for the city’s urban development also comes under the Union government. Wouldn’t you say, then, that the government is a bit toothless?
Yes, its powers are not complete and they are not total. But they never are within a country. I would say look around in Bangalore, Calcutta, Bombay and look at how many of their problems are caused by the fact that they can’t make decisions the kind that Delhi can for itself – and make them quickly. And I think that’s been unfortunate for most of those cities. I think Bombay knows very well why it’s unfortunate. But, I think it is also very important for other reasons.
I think it’s important for the identity of the city. It is all about beginning to feel a loyalty towards the city. If they have a loyalty towards the city – and I don’t mean nationalism by that –then they will care about it. And unless a city’s citizens care about it, it will be a terrible place. And that is fundamental which people forget at their peril.
After the Bombay attacks, we saw citizens of the city actively protesting against the establishment. In contrast, after the September 2008 blasts in Delhi, nothing of the sort happened. In that sense, do you think Delhiites are laidback and just like to go with the flow?
I think there’s a real problem in Delhi that there is much less of a civic sense in the city and that has been damaging. I think it has improved a bit but still, people tend to care about their particular local area. So these RWAs (Resident Welfare Associations) have become a lot more active over the years. But, the attitude is ‘This is my turf and I’m trying to make it nice’. In comparison, Bombay has a much longer history of being a big city and of concerned citizens taking to the streets when they think there is something important to argue and demonstrate about. But, what they were also expressing were their powers to do anything and their discontent with the situation. So, the comparison to Delhi is interesting but not on a level playing field.
One of India’s veteran advertising professionals, Prahlad Kakkar, described Delhi as a city of jugaad (in local dialect, this is interpreted as fixing). Would you agree?
I think there are still a lot of fixers around but, no, it’s much more than that. Any of the old definitions of the city are wrong now only because they are incomplete. Delhi used to be described as a set of villages or as a retirement home for bureaucrats or just a sort of a ‘babudom’ place. Obviously, there’s something in all of that but there’s so much more. It’s a city of more than 15 million people; probably more than 20 million if you include Gurgaon and other suburbs. Now, no one is suggesting that there 20 million fixers. Remember, that more than half the population are children or recent migrants. And that dramatically affects the complexion of the city. And yes, there are a lot of fixers around. There are companies in Bombay that have their fixers in Delhi to get permissions. But, more and more companies have set up offices in Delhi because it’s an important city in its own right.
Someone I spoke to was praising elements of contemporary Delhi, such as the Delhi Metro. Do you fear that due to the development of contemporary Delhi, the city’s rich heritage and culture maybe forgotten?
I think such a fear does exist. There was a mosque – or half-a-mosque – that I used to visit on my walks which was demolished or razed forever 15 months ago. I tried to get people interested in it, but they weren’t. Delhi is so rich in history that there’s a kind of blaazeness about it – people just think ‘how does it matter if some old building goes?’ I think that’s very sad because these things can never be brought back.
That said, it is the richest megacity in world in terms of historical monuments and that shouldn’t be forgotten. No other city, which has a population of over 10 million people (except, maybe, for Cairo), has such a range. So it is an important subject. But I think there’s a kind of maturity, which means that they are recognising that as an issue. And, not just sentimentally. But, I do despair for the minor monuments. I think more will disappear.
What is your opinion about the political nature of Delhi?
In some ways, it has become less political. When I was there in the nineties, the political elite and the bureaucrats were dominant figures on the social scene. Some high-profile secretary would always be attending some high-profile party. Now, who cares! It’s not a big deal anymore! There are all types of people. There’s a much bigger international community. There’s a much bigger elite community from the rest of India; not just the old Delhi families or people directly connected with politics. Of course, it’s the national center for politics and will remain so and that colours it. But it has outgrown it. It’s sort of sold one of its few descriptions.
So would it be fair to describe your book as a travelogue or as a wanderer’s findings about the city?
I would describe it as an attempt to describe a modern city. That I did it by way of wandering is my way doing it. Others do it in different ways. But, the key is to try and understand what makes our modern cities change and try and think how we can make them better in future. I’ve raised a few questions and got a few amusing stories to tell about what is an extraordinary city – with still a lot of wrong with it.
On a different note, after the Mumbai attacks, India-Pakistan relations hit a stalemate. This time, war is not an option; diplomacy doesn’t seem to be effective. How do you think this stalemate will end in a manner which is satisfactory to both countries?
I don’t think it will end in the kind of resolution you’d like. Key constituencies in both countries don’t want this stalemate to end. I think there is a lack of sophistication and knowledge in India about Pakistan. I wish more people would travel there and meet people. This festival (Jaipur Literature Festival) is a great opportunity to meet people from Pakistan.
My old friend from the BBC, Mohammad Hanif, has written an exceptional novel about modern Pakistan, (A Case of Exploding Mangoes) which shows that the country is just as vast and complex as India and we should stop thinking about it in binary terms. It has a range of people and ideas that you would expect from any country of a 170 million people. There are people there who hate India. I don’t think they are huge in number though they’ve caused a great deal of damage over the years. But, we can’t blame all of Pakistan and say that all people in government and civil society were directly involved in what happened in Bombay. It is very clear that some Pakistanis were involved, and that needs to be dealt with. But trying to tar everyone with the same brush will only make the brush useless.
Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardari, described these terrorists as ‘non-state actors’. Do you really believe that they were just non-state actors?
I don’t know enough about it. But, according to my instinct, I think the people who trained these terrorists were, at some point, associated with the State directly or indirectly. However, I think it is very unlikely that a senior person, who is now part of Pakistani bureaucracy, gave an order for this to happen or organised this happening. I can’t swear it’s not the case. But that’s what my instinct and sense of knowledge about Pakistan tells me. Strangely enough, the confession that was printed of the one terrorist who was arrested rang true. He described how he became a terrorist and how he did what he did. It was a slightly banal story.
I haven’t read Tarun Tejpal’s book (The Story of My Assassins) but I think it’s important to understand what makes people into killers. And that every killer was once a sweet, smiling kid and what happens in between. If we don’t understand that we’ll have them haunting us wherever we go, as we have done for centuries.
President Obama has taken over from President Bush and, already, he’s reprimanded Pakistan. How do you see Obama’s foreign policy shaping up vis-à-vis Pakistan, India and the war on terror?
I think he will be driven by a much wider picture than the previous president and his team and not by what India and Pakistan want. India and Pakistan want people to agree with them and they’d win a moral victory. I think Obama is committed to trying to find ways of making the world a safer place. And if the means of doing that offend or delight India, is not really the point. India is a major world player and will be listened to by many other other countries. But the task that Obama has set himself is to make the world a safer place. And he needs to find a way of doing that.
In the current mess that Pakistan is in right now, do you think that there will be a coup and the army will assume direct control of the country? Or will the civilian government remain in power for a while?
I’ve got no reason to see a coup happening immediately. I think it would be very unpopular in America. I see no particular reason why it should happen now, but, there will be a coup sometime. We’ve had so many of them in the past. There’s no reason to think that the army is permanently out of politics.
The reason I ask is because India doesn’t know who is in control there. The President makes a statement one day only to be contradicted by the Prime Minister the next day. At least when Pervez Musharraf was in power, India knew who it was dealing with.
(Laughs) The only people in the world who are missing Musharraf are the Indians! There is this bizarre irony! Of course, when you have a dictator there is clarity in the command structure. Zardari is not a natural politician or a natural diplomat as anyone who’s seen his appearance will know. He admits that there are parts of the country which he doesn’t control. And he may not have a very good handle on making sure that everyone in the government speaks in one voice. But that’s not a reason to want a coup! I think democracy is again proving itself as not the very best of alternative options of government in Pakistan. And it forces the political community to take responsibility for what they’re doing. But, he (Zardari) is not in control of his country, he knows it and he says it. India has got to understand that he may not speak the truth about everything but he’s being very frank about it – he does not totally control the whole country.
Let’s just remind ourselves of what the Indian Prime Minister said some time ago. He talked about Naxalites in India who are playing a major role in a quarter of the country. So, it’s important not to become too high and mighty about this issue (of internal control). There are lots of serious problems here and in Western countries. And it’s very rare that a government or a Prime Minister feels in total control.
India will soon witness a general election in the next few months. What sort of government does the West expect from us? Would they like Manmohan Singh back as Prime Minister?
I don’t think the West has thought terribly deeply about this. I think most governments – if they’ve got existing good relations with the country – are happy to continue it. I don’t think there are major problems. India is seen as a bit prickly at international fora but much much better than it used to be in both, Congress and BJP times. In American and in Britain, it onside in the battle against terrorism. Whether that’s a good thing or not is another matter. But, obviously, there has been a closening of relations with America which is important. But, I don’t think there are preferences in terms of BJP or the Congress. I think what they want is a degree of stability. I think the idea of instability – political and economic - in India would worry them a lot.
The one issue that has defined this government has been the Indo-US nuclear deal. Do you think it has overshadowed or, in a sense, affected India’s bilateral relations with other countries such as Russia or China?
I don’t actually think it’s a major worrying issue for other countries. I think it was being made a bigger fuss of in India than anywhere else. It didn’t attract the kind of attention in America as it did here. I don’t think it was that kind of an issue. I think a lot of it here was about people dealing with old business and to which side you were on – stuff related to the cold war times. The debate here was about how close you get to your own enemies. The Left, in some ways, couldn’t stand it in their guts even if they saw some logic in it (the deal).
I think the Indo-US nuclear deal is a bit of a mistake to see it in global strategic terms. I don’t think it’s hugely significant. It is significant in terms of India’s attitude towards the rest of the world and its relations with the greatest powers of the world. Also, what this deal has also done is that it has de-hyphenated India-Pakistan as one subject. And it is India which has done it; not the rest of the world. And India should have done this a long time ago. Compared to India, Pakistan is a small country. India always behaved as if Pakistan was its equal and lowered itself to have an archaic battle at international fora about the wording on Kashmir which most people don’t understand. It’s just too complicated for even professional diplomats. For instance, the British Foreign Secretary (David Miliband) was unwise to say what he said. But, overall, there’s a sort of maturity about Pakistan and let’s see if it goes away again.
0 comments: (+add yours?)
Post a Comment