Stranger to History: A Son's Journey Through Islamic Lands by Aatish Taseer

Aatish Taseer’s debut book is perhaps the most difficult to describe; to call it an autobiography would be an understatement as he bravely tackles Islam’s complex facets. One may call it a travelogue but his own life story – born to an Indian mother and an estranged Pakistani father – is such that it cannot be ignored.

Born to veteran Indian journalist Tavleen Singh and the Lahore based businessman-turned-politician Salman Taseer, Aatish shared a complicated relationship with his father. Aatish never met Taseer until he turned 21. He tried to establish contact with him through letters and phone calls but in vain; Taseer senior simply did not want to talk to him. And when he did, Salman Taseer wrote a stinging letter to his son criticising him for lacking ‘even the superficial knowledge of Pakistani ethos.’

In a bid to understand his father’s religion Aatish undertakes a journey through the Middle East: the genesis of Islam and intersperses it with his own life story. As Aatish travels through Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan he encounters several worlds – and ‘world systems’ – sub-cultures and people in his effort to understand Islam. Fatih Carsamba in Turkey teems with Muslims who feel uncomfortable with the country’s secularism. Damascus erupts like a volcano after cartoons of Prophet Mohammed are published in a Danish newspaper. At Mecca, Aatish worries about the Lord Shiva tattoo on his shoulder and a kada, while in Iran, he’s surprised to find members of the Hare Krishna sect.

Attending political sermons in Syria and interrogations in Tehran, this poignantly written journey – using travel as its narrative – tool raises uncomfortable yet important questions. Can the State use religion as a weapon to probe into people’s lives? Can Islam co-exist with other ‘world systems’? Will it ever be able to understand the concept of freedom of speech? And, most importantly, will Muslims themselves – Wahhabis and Sufis – be able to accept each other’s identities?

And then, of course, is Aatish’s own life story.

Born at a time when both countries of his parentage were going through tumultuous times, Aatish discovers his Muslim identity at a tender age – thanks to his cousin. Urinating in his aunt’s lawn, the cousin screams Aatish ka susu nanga hai; referring to the missing foreskin. On another instance, Aatish, aged 17, tries to contact his father from boarding school. An argumentative discussion with his peer-counsellor – moving yet disturbing - precedes the phone call with Aatish debating whether to make the call or not. His trip to Pakistan – the first to meet his father – in 2002 starts on a cautious note. “Just remember, he may let you down” warned his mother before Aatish embarked on his journey. And that’s exactly what had happened. Upon reaching Pakistan, Aatish called his father requesting to meet him. Salman Taseer’s response was short and curt. So curt that during his second trip to the country, Aatish chose to land in Karachi, instead of Lahore; this time, he was not prepared to meet his father.

Like the father-son relationship, Stranger to History is a complicated and troubling novel. Yes, the writing is vivid and engaging but the subject is such that one may feel drained out after reading the first few chapters. Nevertheless, it is an important book; one that seeks to tackle the complexities of an often misunderstood religion and region. But if you’re one of those who enjoys reading juicy bits about a love affair, then I suggest you don’t buy this book as you’ll be highly disappointed. It is strictly meant for those who are seriously interested in an individual’s quest to understand his religion and his personal life story provides contextual reference.

Overall, this much-awaited release makes for a disturbing yet compelling read. A debut which will be remembered for a long time

(A shorter version of this review can be read in this week's BusinessWorld magazine)

In Conversation with Aatish Taseer

The author of Stranger To History: A Son's Journey Through Islamic Lands on his book, his travels, religion and identity.

Its tough categorizing your book as an autobiography or a travelogue since it’s a mix of travel, religion and your own personal journey. How would you like to describe Stranger to History?

Well it is part autobiography and there’s an element of travel in it. Also, things that seem religious, cultural or historical in the region I was traveling in, became part of the compass of the religion (Islam). So yes, there were these many strands. Obviously, I shy away from describing this book as one thing or the other and that’s because most of my writing – fiction or non-fiction – begins in a personal way. So it’s not a book which can be described easily.

When you were at this place, Fatih Carasamba, in Turkey you came across – what you describe – as a ‘sub-culture’. Did it remind you of any other ‘sub-culture’ which existed in any other city?

Funnily enough, I thought a little bit of punk cultures in Western cities. It had something of that quality because it was so enclosed and because there was an element of ‘fancy dress’. It may also be because of black cultures in American cities; because of the way they dress.

Even in terms of attitude? Because with aggression comes a certain amount defensiveness.

Yes, there was something. I think when people have taken on a new kind of dress or a new kind of identification there can often be some kind of aggression about that.

The book starts off in Mecca which is the mid-point of your journey. Why did you choose the middle of your journey as the start to your book?

Mecca was more than a mid-point – it was a turning point. And that’s because it was the point in the journey when I could separate what part of the traveling had to do with faith, in the sense of what was articles of faith – the kind that I had known to make that journey. But it was also a moment when I understood that, for me to understand my father better or to understand what had happened between us better and to understand the division of India-Pakistan better, I wouldn’t need faith in the book sense of the word. I would need it in what was part of the larger compass of the faith. Therefore, I wanted to drop the reader in Mecca because he would need to remember it later; to know what had come before and to see what was the change in the direction


In your quest to understand your father’s religion better, did you ever feel that your identity as a Sikh was being lost or overshadowed?

No I didn’t and that’s because the Sikh identity – as a religious identity – has never been an active part. What I did find - in Pakistan - was that the larger Indian identity, cultural and civilisational, which was very close to me, was a pressure to step away from. It wasn’t something that Pakistanis could deal with easily. So it wasn’t a very religious thing. It was more to do with Pakistan’s troubles with India and with the fact that, in India, to include a kind of Pakistani identity is no problem. India has always had these kinds of hybrid identities. It was more of a problem in Pakistan where India was a country to be feared.

Did you ever try to dispel these notions from the minds of the Pakistanis?

Well it was never done in a conscious manner. It was done in subtler ways. For instance, when my brother is making fun of how ugly people in India are, or, there might be a joke in the family about how Hindus are cowardly or small. Or they might make fun of the Sanskritic influence on the language. So often, it was in the context of a joke

There’s a point in your book where you write about your name being neither Hindu nor Muslim. Did you ever try to find out what your name meant?

I did. I knew what Aatish meant from a very early age. And Taseer was my grandfather’s takhhallus - his pen name which I discovered as I grew older. So yes I always knew what it was.

In your book, Abdullah talks about this whole ‘world system’ and its clash with Islam. While you were in London after 9/11, did you come across any person or place which echoed Abdullah’s sentiments?

I had already left London when I was traveling in Turkey and I never traveled in England in that way. But, by the time I had met Abdullah, I was familiar with that reaction. What was interesting to me was that somebody like Abdullah, even in a Turkish context, was not in any way part of Turkey’s traditional Islam. He was as new as those people in Beeston were. And his faith was not very different from theirs. There was a rediscovery of faith in a streamlined, literal manner that made him much closer to somebody in Beeston. There were people like him cropping up in the Muslim world, except maybe for Iran, everywhere. Their outlook was similar and their reaction to this ‘world system’ was similar and their Islam was very radical, very new. It hadn’t grown out of the traditional Islam of a country but was an import. It followed a kind of a Saudi Islam but it was brought in in the last 20 or 30 years.

Your book highlights Syria and Turkey as juxtaposed with one another since the former is an Arab-nationalist country and the latter a very secular one. Was it difficult to adjust to both these countries during your travel?

Syria required adjustments since it was a policed State so it was a very different kind of country. What I was trying to show was that Abdullah is by no means representative of all of Turkey and that is clear in the book. He is a representative of a particular experience with religion at a certain time in the last century and of almost what a conspicuous absence it was. Turkey’s secularism was not secularism the way any of us would understand; it doesn’t mean that there is a separation between the Church and the State. It means that the State has co-opted the Mosque; they write Friday sermons and appoint the mullahs. So, in a sense, secularism has itself been a religion for Turkey.

So in a sense Turkey is also a policed State..

No it’s not a policed State. But it’s very aggressive in this secularism and the reason why it’s interesting is because Ataturk obviously perceived a threat from the Islamic identity and he dealt with it in a very strong way. So when you look at Turkey, it’s experience with religion has not been benign – it has been explosive in its own way. But in Syria religion was clamped down and has become an instrument in the hands of the regime – a way to excite people’s deepest affiliations. So what I was trying to show that the problem of the modern State and Islam in all of these countries, though in different incarnations, has been a real 20th century problem and no one has been able to bypass it entirely.

You were in Syria when the Prophet Mohammad cartoon controversy broke out and there were protests outside the Danish embassy turned ugly. Do you think this controversy provided people an excuse to vent their anger?

I think it was a form of release and probably a State-orchestrated form of release where this population - stamped down, given very little outlet – and then you have something like this. It becomes almost like a festival. Its encouraged by the State to redirect peoples’ passion and frustration. And to use something as harmless as cartoons to enflame them and target a faceless edifice like an embassy till the next thing comes along.

The one noticeable aspect about your book is that, although it is a travelogue, it’s a very dark account which, at times, can depress the reader. Were you going through any tough times during your travels which reflect in Stranger To History?

Yes, there hard moments. I think Syria was hard partly because to live under that kind of repression for many months can be difficult. And Iran was very painful. Very painful to see people who you though were full of possibilities but were beaten down by the regime. And Pakistan filled me with despair because I felt they’d fallen into a trap where religion was concerned and I couldn’t see how they’d get out of it. Also the commonality (with Pakistanis) is difficult for them to accept because it negates the idea of Pakistan. So every time this comes up, they can, at best, grudgingly accept it but they can hardly celebrate it.

And is this attitude prevalent only within a section of Pakistani society?

No, it runs throughout. But, obviously, people who are more educated are able to have more nuanced reactions. But the reactions are the same.

How was Pakistan similar to or different from Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran?

If you look at all these countries – as a result of a certain experience with the modern State – they have dealt with religion in particular ways. In that sense, Pakistan’s position has been the most final. That impulse to find a secular State for Indian Muslims was also part of what was happening in the 20th century with Islam across the world. However, Pakistan’s break in a sense was more extreme because Iran, for instance, would’ve still remained Iran even if the Iranian revolution were to end. But for Pakistan, if this bad idea were to end, it would be difficult to imagine a way forward.

Considering the nature of your parentage and the media hype surrounding this book, most people may buy it in the hope of reading some controversial gossip. Was that the reason why you chose travel as the narrative tool for Stranger To History?

No. The book has been many years in the making. I was trying to deal with the personal bits of it through fiction and parts of it have been almost four or five years old. But I came to the understanding that I couldn’t look at my father in a completely personal way. That the context of Pakistan’s relationship with Islam and what had happened to Pakistan in all these was also important to my understanding. And especially since it came up very directly between my father and I. There was this article which had brought us to this kind of impasse affecting the personal relationship. Once all these things came into my mind, I decided not to look at it in a personal way.

But that doesn’t mean that it can’t be looked at it in a personal way. Take, for instance, Madam Bovary, and her greed for personal issues or you can look at it as a description of France in a particular time in history. So once I realized that the book had to have other contexts, the personal was always a means to enter a bigger situation. And also, I wouldn’t have held back on the personal because I think that is also part of the life of the book.

Your father described himself as a “cultural Muslim”. How many cultural Muslims have you encountered in your travels or otherwise?

The term is deceptive because it gives a sense of feeling for festivals and religion in a very passive way. What I found with my father - and I find more and more with moderate Muslims with very few exceptions – is that this word includes historical and political attitudes with a religious quality. Some of their anger on political issues has almost the force of faith. And while I was growing up in Delhi I’ve known many cultural Muslims. But in the post 9/11-era this has become more noticeable. Muslims have felt a need to speak for their identity and its brought up a lot of confusion regarding where the religious identity stops and the political takes over.

But inside the Islamic world, how comfortable are Muslims – moderate and extreme – with their identity?

There seems to be a grinding down of the old Muslim world and due to this there is a kind of a reaction – a retreat – in the face of a feeling of attack. A feeling that your being robbed of your past…a sense of grievance. But walking alongside that is the fact that most people are drawn in by the appeal of a bigger world and its possibilities; in terms of government, the kind of laws you live under and economic possibilities. So, inside the Muslim world, they are aware of this phenomenon and that they have to make their peace with this situation.

And do you any similarities or differences between Indian Muslims and the people in the Muslim world?

I think that there’s a previous situation in which there were varied forms of Islam. The Islam that evolved in India was a world apart from the Islam of Arabia. It was a hybrid and I think these hybrids happened at different points when the Muslim world came into contact with different cultures. But this new Islam is more an attack on local forms of Islam than it is even on the West. That local kind of religion is failing everywhere in Pakistan or in India and the people that its throwing up are part of a global Muslim experience. There are attitude that do link them. So of course the Islamic world is not monolithic but the problem or this reaction has been happening in different ways.

Lastly, what are you working on next? Will you be tackling another complex theme?

Well I haven’t started speaking about it yet. But it’s a novel set in Delhi and its part comedy which will be out next year. And I’ll write it in a manner which seems closer to non-fiction than fiction.

(A shorter version of this interview can be read here)

(Image courtesy: Aatish Taseer)

In Long Conversation: Daniel Lak

Former BBC correspondent, South Asia

(On his two books - Mantras of Change and India Expressed - and issues such as Pakistan, Obama's foreign policy and the war on terror)

This is the fully updated version of the conversation

How did you get the idea of writing a travelogue like Mantras of Change?

I had the good fortune of being the BBC South Asia correspondent during the 90’s – first in Pakistan between 1992 and 1995 – and then in New Delhi 1997 onwards. So when you travel for a big media organisation you’re very lucky because you get to see every corner of the country and the society you’re covering. But, in broadcasting, you don’t get to use all of the material – the encounters, the peoples’ tales you gather along the way. And at the end of the 1990’s, the pressure was too great to really start thinking about some of those stories and how to share them with people. Penguin India approached me after I had written a few columns in Outlook magazine while I was in New Delhi. And thus, Mantras of Change was the end result.

The book is a reporter’s notebook of sorts over 8-9 years of travelling within South Asia. I was mining stories which weren’t used as broadcast tales or even the newspaper work which I did. And I really wanted to tell these stories. But these aren’t incoherent stories and neither are they particularly bound together. Thus the sub-title – reporting India in times of flux.

Mantras of Change was written during the early 2000’s and you’ve written about the Bangalores and Gurgaons of India. How have these hubs changed over the last decade?

For starters, there was no Delhi Metro and there were no malls when I wrote that book. Also, Bangalore was just about beginning to suffer from the impact of its success. In those days, it was possible to get from central Bangalore to Electronic City quite easily on public transport or in a taxi. Now, it’s almost impossible and the traffic problems are immense. So the explosion of industrial capacity there has not been met and still isn’t being met by infrastructural capacity. Despite its new airport and new roads, the state of the city remains the same. In contrast, Delhi has chosen a car route and a metro route and, though a lot is left to be desired, progress is being made. In 10 years’ time I’d like to be able to compare Delhi to New York or London.

Things seem a little gloomy right now but that’s because people’s expectations have been dashed and there’s a global economic crisis to make it worse and an unresolved war on terror. In 10 years, we’ll have new challenges and new things to feel optimistic about.

Although the writing in your book is vivid and descriptive, there aren’t any photographs. Was this a conscious decision so as to make your writing get noticed or you just didn’t have the time to click any photos?

We (the publishers and I) didn’t really talk about it. And that’s my fault because this was my very first book. I wasn’t if could write 80,000 or 90,000 words as I was used to writing short pieces for radio and television and the occasional 1000 word piece for a newspaper. So, I was very stressed about whether or not I could accomplish the task of writing a book that I didn’t think about important things like photographs and cover design, which I left entirely to the publishers. My newest book India Expressed doesn’t have any photographs either although I had contemplated the India. And one of the reasons why people like me often don’t use photographs is because we don’t have the specific visual images of some of the stories we are using. For instance, if I go and sit with the Foreign Secretary of India, and out of that comes a chapter on how India thinks of itself in the world, what would I use for a photograph? Do I use a photo of the External Affairs ministry in South Block? So I don’t know. And if you’re going to use photographs, they have to be extremely good and they have to be relevant to the stories you’re telling.

So unless you do research or legwork, and keep photographs or illustrations in mind, only does it makes sense to use them. Otherwise, you’re just doing a disservice to the book. At least, that’s what I think.But, in future, I am going to keep that in mind and when I travel around doing my next book – on the Indian diaspora – I am going to carry a digital camera and record every visual image I possibly can.

Your second book, India Expressed, tackles the subject of India again. How different is this book from Mantras of Change?

It’s a more coherent argument. And it’s an argument aimed at the wider world. I wrote the book keeping North American and British audiences in mind because these issues – India’s poverty, political instabilities, population challenges, nuclear weapons etc - needed to be raised over there. Nonetheless, this is country which is thinking about ideas which will take it places in the world. My publisher wanted a title which would make the book jump off the shelves. My title was The Awakening Giant which was a little boring and neutral. So I’m glad we went with my publisher’s title.

When I do interviews in America, Britain or Canada, they ask all the details about the book and the challenges that you raise. In India, they say ‘How can you we’re a superpower! We’re not a superpower!’ So it’s here that I experience a more negative imaging about India than I do abroad. And it comes from the very members of middle classes who often take exception to the image of India.

Since you worked in Pakistan in the mid 90’s, can you give us a sense of what Pakistan was like back then and what it is now – in terms of politics, civil society and its perspective towards the world?

To start with, I’m glad that Pakistan has democracy of sorts, back again. The great disease in the political life of that country has always been the army, which has ruled it for more than half of its independent existence. If there are problems in Pakistan right now, I’d put them down to the army. They needed to take the responsibility and the blame for that and, somehow, suffer for it. When I went to Pakistan in 1992, it was ruled by Nawaz Sharif. But, I also got to know the late Benazir Bhutto and her husband Asif Ali Zardari who is now President. Benazir Bhutto was campaigning very hard against Nawaz Sharif; doing something called a ‘long march’. Initially, I thought it was something heroic – like what Mao had done in China – but basically, it was roaming around Lahore and courting arrest in the Gandhian tradition. I quickly got immersed in the democratic politics of the place. The army, though powerful, had stepped aside to the let the politicians have their go. There was an election forced by the removal of Nawaz Sharif from power by the establishment. It was a legal move under the Constitution but was overturned by the Supreme Court.

I got a sense of Pakistan when I spent my first full year there in 1993. What a crazy place it was! But in those days crazy meant something different. There were five changes of government in one year. There were four different Prime Ministers, three Presidents and two army chiefs – in one single year. But through all of that it was non-violent. It was rowdy, crazy and rhetorically pointed. There was no television back then but interviews with international media were really pointed. People were throwing accusations around. The violence was the kind you’d see in India during an election; a bit of coercion and clashes between supporters but nothing widespread. I felt perfectly safe to travel all over the country. I interviewed everyone, from Islamists of the most virulent variety – who, incidentally, were running in the election – to communists, human rights activists and everybody in between, including Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

Those were innocent times back then. Even though it was rowdy and there were tensions with India, there was a sense that democracy had arrived. And through democracy, Pakistan’s problems might be worked out. But then, every couple of years, the army would step in and, through the establishment and using the Constitution, would dismiss the Prime Minister. That was part of Pakistan’s Constitution which the army had insisted upon when it allowed Benazir Bhutto to come to power in 1988. As a result, to this day, Pakistanis have never voted a government out of office. Governments have always been removed via Constitutional or extra-Constitutional means. So when Gen. Musharraf launched a coup in 1999, I was alone amongst the very few correspondents in saying that this was not a good thing. Yes, Nawaz Sharif’s government was a disaster – there was corruption, there were economic problems, nuclear confrontation (with India), the Kargil war – but I still thought, if the Pakistani people were disgusted with the Sharif government, they should have had an opportunity to throw him out, as it happens in India. It never happened and that’s why democracy is so unhealthy in Pakistan.

Musharraf’s rule was an unmitigated disaster. I have nothing good to say about it. I have nothing but contempt for the army, Musharraf and the way they handled Pakistan during their years in power. The war on terror gave him a new lease on life thanks to former President Bush, which he shouldn’t have had. Because I think he was deeply unpopular before 9/11; his government had not managed to create the jobs that Pakistanis needed, to address the real problems of economic and agricultural decline. The fact that they didn’t invest in the irrigation system bequeathed to them by the British and relations with India were never repaired. And this is because the Pakistan army exists – solely – because of hostilities with India which it then, artificially, helps maintain. I think everybody, including my Pakistani colleagues, would talk about that. And I don’t absolve India of blame in the relationship either. But, I’d blame the Pakistan Army more than anything else.

Now we have a troubled sort of Pakistan – very unstable with lots of power outside of State hands. Even outside of the hands of the army. These are the beasts that the army has created from the Afghan war onward and, basically, stepped up during the 90’s during the so-called ‘war on terror’ with Al-Qaeda affiliated and other militant groups, about whom – let’s face it - the Indians feel rightfully angry about their existence. They do a lot of damage in India and in Pakistan too. Minorities in Pakistan – Shia Muslims, Hindus, Christians – and people who chose to stay back during Partition and are loyal Pakistanis, are often attacked by Wahaabi organisations. These groups are often very corrupt and make money through their connections within the Pakistan Army and because of heroin smuggling along the Afghan border. So, today’s Pakistan is an utter mess. And it’s the result of the army meddling in civilian politics and civilians not being allowed to be good at their job. India, from time-to-time, takes a mature approach to Pakistan where it realises that it has to put up with a bit. Not just with outrages like Mumbai, but a bit more than that. People like I K Gujral and Manmohan realised that a lot has to be tolerated in Pakistan to encourage the development of democracy.

But it’s hard to be hopeful about today’s Pakistan; the economy is in a mess more than we can ever imagine, people are poorer, there are no prospects for the young men who are being born, the birth rate is extremely high, agriculture is in a steep decline and nobody’s putting foreign investment in there to open factories. There are still call centers and IT businesses there. Frankly, I think Pakistan could be a lot like India if only its people could be free from this horrible spectre of Islamism and the army, corruption, and all of the things that have plagued them till date. There could be Bangalores and Gurgaons in Pakistan, for better or for worse, but it would be a welcome change from what’s going on now.

So would it be fair to say that the messy Pakistan of 1992 was similar to what India was in 1996-97?

Exactly. It was messy in 1992, but it was a mess that came out of democracy. During that period, it was a coming-of-age for democracy in India. And you have to go through this mess to get to somewhere. And let’s face it, democracy is messy and we journalists, broadcasters, bloggers and analysts like it that way. We don’t want to live in Singapore. We want to live in India and Pakistan where people are free to speak their mind. Politicians are free to split up from their parties – it can annoy us – but if the alternative is authoritarianism like China or Pakistan, we don’t want it. So I don’t like the Pakistan of today. Although, I’m hopeful that there is a semblance of democracy trying to take hold there.

As you pointed out, Musharraf got a lease on life thanks to President Bush and the war on terror. But now, President Obama has taken charge and has already told Pakistan to ‘behave’ itself. How do you see the Obama administration’s foreign policy shaping up vis-à-vis India and Pakistan?

It’s a complicated relationship and it’s not just the President who sets the tone. America has had a long-standing military relationship with Pakistan dating back to the 50’s. And this was a time when America was close the Ayub Khan regime and India was seen as being on the other side of the Cold War, even though it wasn’t. The American military still has important links in the Pakistan Army and still hopes that it can transform the army into a proper civilian military. And it’s not a lost hope. So those links are important. But, I think Obama realises that Pakistan’s instability and its inability to control (or lack of desire) the tribal areas. Many Americans, Canadians, Dutch, NATO and Afghan people because of what’s happening in the border areas. Many people are dying around world because of drugs produced in that area; because of lawlessness and all directly sourced back to the fact that Pakistan is unstable and its Army is cynical in its exploitation of that instability. So, I think Obama has crossed that idea. He has an excellent South Asia team which includes Bruce Riedel and Susan (although she’s a Middle East specialist) who have South Asia credentials. There’s talk of Richard Holbrooke being appointed to a South Asia brief in the State Department. India is going to have a problem with that since traditional Indian mantras are ‘Don’t touch Kashmir. It’s a bilateral issue.’ Well, the world doesn’t accept that. But, apart from this, Obama has a lot on his plate which includes Iran, the Middle East, South Asia and Afghanistan. Besides, his own country is in an economic mess. But I think he does have an opportunity to affect real change – in Pakistan and in South Asia.

And Obama’s Defense Secretary is Robert Gates, who continues from the previous administration. How do you think Obama’s defense policy will shape with respect to the war on terror.

Gates came in after Donald Rumsfeld had made an absolute mess of everything. In fact, he was the worst Defense Secretary in living memory – at least in response to the massive crisis of 9/11 and, subsequently, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But, Gates came in as a pragmatist and a member of the old defence establishment that tried to maintain America’s multi-lateral links. So, I think Obama kept him on because, as I said, the Pentagon is an organisation that doesn’t change readily. Militaries don’t change readily – be it in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan or even Germany for that matter! Robert Gates is a loyal American who knows that Obama has a huge mandate in which change plays a major role. And Obama’s made it clear throughout his campaign about his intentions for Iraq, Afghanistan and South Asia. We’ll have to see what he does about the Middle East. But I think Gates will follow suit and will be an implementer of the change Obama talked about.

General elections in India are due in a few months now so what are America and the world’s expectations from India’s next government?

It’s now widely expected that India is a major player in the world. In my last book (India Expressed) I talked about India and super-powerdom and took alot of stick for that. But I still maintain that India is a global player of huge influence. It has to be involved in every multi-lateral issue – be it climate change or disarmament. So I think the Obama administration is looking for an Indian government which is aware of this. The Americans, Europeans and other major partners of India are very aware of what the political parties here stand for. And they are also aware of their limitations, given India’s coalition governments and India’s pressing demands globally for development and stability.

The world has a very sophisticated take on India now. It’s learning a lot more now in the last 10 or 15 years that I’ve covered this part of the world. Earlier, it was just about snake-charmers, famines and instability and now it’s a much more sophisticated take. So, in the next Indian government people will look for continuity of policy at a multi-lateral level and, I think, they’ll get it. Whether it was a Congress or a BJP-led coalition, there’s not much difference in their economic policy from 2003 to 2004, post-election. I don’t think the world has a horse in this race. Everyone knows Manmohan Singh because of his international experience. But governments don’t cheer for political parties in other countries because it s a losing game. I think the world is already making its plan for whoever emerges victor in the next election.

In India, the opposition has been quite critical about the Manmohan Singh’s government’s soft approach towards terrorism. Do you think the criticism is fair? Or is a mountain being made out of a molehill?

What emerged after the Mumbai attacks was that there was a lack of response by the security agencies. And we saw the same thing in the run-up to 9/11. I don’t know if modern democratic governments are really able to respond effectively to the horror that is terror. There was a great line written after the September 11 attacks by Robert Fisk which said ‘We thought it was nuclear weapons were our enemy. It turns out that it’s a box-cutter!’ That’s all it took to bring about that horrible attack. Similarly, in Mumbai, all it took was some people who were willing to take extreme risks and murder everyone inside (the hotels sic). I don’t know what government can be ready for that. You have to persist with doing what all governments are good at doing and i.e. intelligence-sharing, intelligence gathering and working to improve internal communications. And not many governments are good at that. It also means reaching out to communities – in this case, Muslims – and asking them ‘What can we do to help you isolate this phenomenon within your community?’ And I think that’s happening. I am very encouraged by the response of the Indian government to Pakistan and Islamic terror.

So far, there has been no backlash against Indian Muslims and, hopefully, there will be none. Manmohan Singh has spoken sternly and involved the world. He hasn’t sent any bombers on a fruitless mission to camps that would be inactive and result in a disaster that nobody would ever win from.

On a different note, the Indian media has come under scathing criticism for its coverage of the Mumbai attacks and other issues as well. Do you think that the criticism is fair and what is your opinion about the state of the Indian media today?

I’ve been a massive admirer of the Indian press. Many of the Indian newspapers and magazine – Outlook, India Today, The Indian Express, The Week, Frontline – are world class. However, television has taken a while. You don’t develop live television overnight. I am not a big fan of CNN or some of the BBC’s output on live TV either. What I know from the Indian media – and I know this because I have spoken to some colleagues who work for it – is that they too are aware to develop the instant analytical skills that are required for live TV reporting. And the curiosity about the country that anticipates challenges, problems and disasters ahead. So what I don’t see on Indian television today is the thing I see on the BBC and that is the considered report; you spend a week traveling somewhere, searching out information and talking to people who are affected by the situation and putting it together with craft and devotion. It is only after you’ve done this that you should have a live debate with talking heads, rather than just inviting a bunch of opinionated blowhards on air which, frankly, is not exclusive to India.

It happens to television around the world. But here, I don’t see enough of the conversation being setup first for the audience. I see opinions coming thick and fast; but it’s a stage and it’ll pass. Every TV journalist I know in this country wants to get out and get the stories and then hear from politicians or opinionators. That’s what I think will happen. What I would also to say to people who run TV stations is: pay your reporters well, have good travel budgets, keep your newsrooms lively and pay attention to your responsibility towards the country and keep the debate going

Interview: Sam Miller

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.

(There's also a facebook group for Delhi: Adventures In A Mega City. Click here to get re-directed)