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)

Interview: Siddharth Varadarajan

Associate Editor, The Hindu

(On how to become a political writer, state of the Indian media, relations between India and Pakistan and Obama's foreign policy for the next for four years)

A lot of young people today are interested in political commentary and analysis but don't know how to do it. As someone who reports and writes on these matters, what insight can you offer?

In the old days, anybody aspiring to be a commentator or writer on politics or international affairs was, by and large, constrained by the lack of a platform other than that of a daily newspaper or a weekly magazine or, if you're an academic, you had academic journals. Invariably, for most of these forms, politics and foreign policy were fields that journalists got to write on after putting in years of hard labour doing crime or city reporting. 

But most people don't want to do that these days..

Exactly. Now, one of the beauties of modern technology is through the internet - via blogs and news sites - it is entirely possible for any aspiring writer to present his/her views and analysis on politics and foreign policy to as wide an audience as exists out there. This is something I would tell all frustrated and aspiring writers to do. It is much better to have an article published in The Times of India or The Hindu or any mass circulation newspaper or to appear on a TV channel. But, until you build up a profile which would then give you access to those kinds of platforms, nothing prevents you from opening your own blog site focusing on politics or international affairs and writing and giving your own analysis. I think that's what people should do. 

It is said that one must specialise in these subjects to make an impact or to be taken seriously. Is it true?

I think it is essential to have, as part of one's educational background, some training - ideally a degree - but some training in an academic discipline. But, not necessarily because some of the best writers on foreign policy are those who studied english literature in college or even physics. But, what a rigorous undergraduate or postgraduate degree does is that it gets you accustomed to reading and doing research and I think you cannot be a good analyst of contemporary affairs unless you have a good knowledge of history, a good grasp of current affairs and unless you're reading, not just newspapers and magazines, but books. One should also take part in seminars and talks. As a writer, my tentacles are always up and I'm constantly receiving material, whether it is through TV, books, seminars and journals. And it is only when you feed on a wide variety of sources that your own ability to analyse and think will get developed. So, it doesn't matter if you don't have a degree in political science or economics; you can still aspire to analyse the world. But what that needs is a certain humility, certain application of mind, a willingness to read and to not be arrogant with the belief that you have the right answers.

On a different note, the media has come under increasing criticism especially after the November 26 terrorist attacks in Mumbai about the manner it projects issues. Your take on the state of the Indian media today.

Your question is quite vast so I'll break it down. The Indian media's handling of the Mumbai terror attacks between November 26 and 29 left a lot to be desired. The electronic media was too breathless and the amount of competition led them to make too many mistakes of fact, interpretation and judgment which, in a sense, worsened the situation. And I'm not talking about the three days. A lot of tension and war hysteria was also the product of a media that totally got out of control and lost its own bearings as media which reports what's going on. Everybody became an activist. I think no matter how intimately a journalist feels or is involved in an event that's happening, you have to resist the urge to become an activist. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have passion or commitment. But, above all, you should have fidelity to the truth and report what's happening in as dispassionate a manner as you can. So some sense of detachment is necesary. I think the Indian media did not display a sufficient degree of detachment during these attacks and the aftermath. It keeps happening all the time and this was an egregious example.

People these days interpret activism as taking a stance. Is there a difference between the two or is the line blurred?

Good question. I think journalists have views and should take a stance. But you should know where to take a stance and what's the platform. As a writer and somebody in print, I should respect the boundary between a news report and an opinion column. When I'm reporting  an event, there's no reason why any stance taking is necessary. But, when I analyse or write a commentary, obviously it is my view and the medium/platform requires you to take a stance. And people should take stances which lead to democratic solutions and oppose violence. The two things shouldn't be confused. If I allow my own personal opposition to the politics of the BJP to colour the way in which I report on an event involving the BJP, then that will be a big mistake for journalist. So, the boundaries between news and views should be respected.

I asked you this question because after the Jessica Lal case verdict was declared, the media started this 'Justice for Jessica' campaign. The argument given was that at times the media has no choice but to take stance. Who decides which issue the media should take a stance on?

I think under all circumstances, events should be reported objectively. There are no two ways about it. The problem arises in the electronic media because in print, we have a neat separation between news and editorial columns. So, I am reporting facts and loopholes of the Jessica Lal case on the news pages and I do so without inserting my opinion as a writer that 'I think XYZ is guilty' or 'I think ABC is guilty'. In an editorial column, I have a platform to criticise the judge or judgment and register my opinion that the guilty were let off. In TV, such a neat separation is not possible. An anchor is, at one and the same time, somebody who's reporting an event but who also, in a sense, giving his/her opinion. That's why in the Jessica Lal case, the boundaries got blurred. Having said that, those same TV channels, which asked for justice for Jessica, didn't cover the trial or the facts surrounding the case in a wrong way. There was no distortion of fact. So, yes, everybody is entitled to a view and a channel can have an editorial stance which gets blurred because you can't separate the two (news and editorial stance) physically. But, if you were to allow your 'Justice for Jessica' campaign to get converted into a witchhunt where reporters suppress evidence or distort facts, then there's a problem. Otherwise, I don't see it as a major issue.

It is often argued that with the advent of internet and blogs, the print media will become extinct. a) Do you agree? and b) What is your opinion about the web journalism market in India.

I think the print media in India still has a long way to go before it plateaus. Growth in print will continue as long as literacy and levels of education keep increasing in our society. Also, as long as the ordinary citizen lacks access to computers and the internet, for the next 20 or 30 years we will see an increase in print circulation. Even after internet density in India catches up with other countries, newspapers will play a major role. That's because, although internet allows people to access information from all over the world, it lacks credibility as there is no editor. And, in a modern world where people don't have much time, the reader is expected to sift the good from the bad. So, the benefit of a newspaper or a magazine is that it goes through an editorial mill. That benefit of a newspaper will always remain. Nowadays, every newspaper has a web edition and you will find that The Hindu's website will always remain popular than a blog that you and I may start simply because it reflects the editorial control which you respect. Beyond 20-30 years how things evolve I don't know but I don't see a major shift in terms of importance of print media. 

On a different note, media reports suggest that President Obama may appoint Bill Clinton as a special envoy for Kashmir. Do you think this is a good step or should the issue be resolved between India and Pakistan.

Firstly, I don't think Obama will be so foolish to appoint an envoy for Kashmir as the Indian government will never accept such an envoy. Appointing such an envoy when a principal party to the dispute does not want it, will destroy the goodwill which has been built up between India and the United States over the last 10 years. Secondly, prior to the last year, year-and-a-half of terrorist attacks, fact is that India and Pakistan have made considerable progress in the peace process and they've done so within a bilateral framework. Either this framework has run its course or no more confidence building measures are possible and, if that's the case, then there would be a case for outside mediation. But I don't think the bilateral process has run its course. I think the fact that Pakistani territory is used to stage terrorist attacks is an obstacle for normalisation of relations and I think it is incumbent on the Government of Pakistan to act against the perpetrators of these attacks, not just for the benefit of India-Pakistan relations but also for ensuring Pakistan's own stability. These groups (perpetrators), no matter what their origin, have ended up staging violence within Pakistan itself. So if the US, as it says, wants a better Pakistan, then it should be firm with Pakistan to to act against these groups. Hence, there is a role which the US can play and that's where it should focus, rather than trying to get India and Pakistan to start talking when the atmosphere is so sullied due to Pakistan's refusal to act against terror groups. 

So how do you think the US can put pressure on Pakistan and how long will it take for this India-Pakistan stalemate to end?

It is an uphill battle as India has little leverage over Pakistan. War is not an option. Cutting off diplomatic and people-to-people ties is not an option. Cutting off cultural exchange is not an option. These are decisions India can take but it won't help in achieving the ultimate goal i.e. to end terrorism once and for all. So India needs to lean on countries like America to apply requisite pressure on Islamabad and that's the direction in which Indian diplomacy has been going in the last six to eight weeks. And that will continue because, by itself, India has limited options and after initial rhetoric, things have improved as Pakistan says it has appointed a high-level investigative team to look into the information India has given it. It is possible that Pakistan may take some action. India needs to give it space for the process to work rather than issuing rhetorical statements. I think it is important to tone down the rhetoric and not make accusations through the media everyday. And this is true for both, India and Pakistan

Finally, Barack Obama is now in office with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. How do you see US foreign policy shaping up over the four years?

Unfortunately, I don't see a major shift in America's foreign policy because Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, the Defense Secretary, are people who stand for continuity in foreign policy. Now, Obama has spoken a lot about a dialogue with Iran and a more consensual approach but in his inaugural speech he kept talking about America's leadership role. The world is a bit sick and tired of America being the world's leader and the debate is not whether you lead us in a unilateral or multilateral way but the fact that the world doesn't want your leadership. It wants to you realise that there a lot of unsolved issues and conflicts should be resolved using democratic means. Such as respecting the Palestinians' right to self-determination rather than supporting Israel all the time. These are the kind of tough decisions America needs to take but I don't see any sign of that happening under Obama. When he was President-elect and Israel was unleashing the most brutal kind of violence on the people of Gaza, I don't remember a single statement he made condemning this. Israel committed terrible war crimes against Palestinians, but Obama remained silent. I think that's not a good sign from the Obama administration in bringing any fundamental change in foreign policy.

Book Review: Descent Into Chaos

(A short and tweaked book review of Ahmed Rashid's brilliant book which first appeared in What's Hot, the Times of India's friday tabloid.)

After Taliban, veteran journalist Ahmed Rashid writes a comprehensive tome on the war on terror and its impact on South and Central Asian countries.  Descent into Chaos analyses every aspect of the war in totality; the circumstances, the individuals involved, the impact it would have and most importantly, its failure to curb Islamic extremism. To say that the book is an eye-opener is a mere understatement. Rashid provides a blow-by-blow account of how America used the war to buy and bully its way into Afghanistan. Central Asian countries were granted billions of dollars in aid in exchange for their air bases. Pakistan was threatened with international isolation. NATO, the United Nations and the European Union were completely sidelined. And the 'neocons' and CIA sidelined their own State Department to dictate foreign policy. The message was clear; America was going it alone. So obsessed were Bush and his men about the war, that they weren't even interested in restoring democracy in the country (Apparently, nation building was not on Defense Secy. Rumsfeld's "agenda"). And when they realised that bin Laden was out of their reach, they looked towards Iraq. Ultimately, it was a lost cause and the only people who benefitted were the original targets; the Taliban and bin Laden. Overall, Descent into Chaos is a rivetting tome, which questions the need for such a war and provides an in-indepth perspective on the 'black hole' of the world: Afghanistan