Subscribe
How I met Dr. Shreekant Gupta
That the conservative and often skin-deep Economist published the story - “The world’s most dangerous place” - was not surprising. The publication sings an imperial tune, praises occupations and invasions in the name of free markets and democracy; and sells the commodification of the poor. And, above all, it can be shamelessly biased when it comes to countries such as Pakistan.
However, what truly surprised me was a letter to the editor that appeared a few weeks later. By chance I read it and was amazed by its sheer empathy and directness. The writer was one Dr. Shreekant Gupta, a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies in Singapore.
SIR — The title of your leader on Pakistan (”The world’s most dangerous place”, January 5th) confirms the old adage in journalism: when it bleeds it leads. Yes, Pakistan is going through trying times, but it is far from being the world’s most dangerous country. Having just returned from Pakistan, which I traversed without let or hindrance with my Indian passport and Hindu name, I can say emphatically that its people are warm and friendly and passionate about democracy and the forthcoming elections.
Parts of my own country (and Nepal and Sri Lanka) are racked by Maoist guerrilla warfare and violent separatist movements. I do not recall you designating India as the world’s most dangerous place when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated during electioneering, or Indira Gandhi for that matter. The latter’s killing was followed by a brutal and murderous pogrom against Sikhs and Delhi burned for days. The truth always contains shades of grey.
I made a note of it but never remembered to follow up. And, what a delight it was when I found out that Dr Gupta had visited Jahane Rumi and left a comment. We corresponded and developed the cyber-friendship that now constitutes regular communication and exchange of ideas, stories and anecdotes.
It is such a pleasure to have met Dr Gupta through the cyberspace and with little effort. My email to him, after he sent the above letter, stated: “What a small world … I had read your letter in the Economist. And, wanted to write to you how impressed I was not just as a Pakistani but as a South Asian. That was a proud challenge to the Western media and a testament to your intellectual honesty… strange are the ways of this world… My stars are well-aligned these days!!”
Dr Gupta has sent the full text of the letter (reproduced below) that he had mailed to the Economist. For a change, the cynical, vulnerable to the soft brainwashing of the international media, should read it. This is what a genuine scholarly mindset is: an application of logic, reason and knowledge without pre-conceived notions and personal biases.
In Dr Gupta, I have found a friend but more importantly my country has another well wisher in the neighbourhood.
~~~~~~~~
By Shreekant Gupta,
The perils of generalizing
SIR – The sensational title of your leader (“The world’s most dangerous place†January 3rd) confirms the old adage in journalism “when it bleeds it leadsâ€. While this may make for good copy, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the articles on Pakistan inside the newspaper are measured and offer a reasoned and nuanced view. Why then the need to caption the situation so starkly tabloid style, and to generalize thus about a vibrant country of 160 million? Yes, Pakistan is going through trying times but so are many other countries, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan to name a few. What then qualifies Pakistan to be vilified as the most dangerous place in the world? Having just returned from there after three weeks and having traversed the country without let or hindrance (I have a Hindu name and carry an Indian passport) I can say emphatically the people of Pakistan are warm and friendly and passionate about democracy and the forthcoming elections. The institutions of civil society, lawyers, judiciary, press and human rights groups have and will acquit themselves honorably, facts that you do not mention. Pakistan has been unlucky to have been thrust into the role of a frontline state by Western powers for decades and its hapless people are paying the price for that but heroically, and with stoicism and hope.
Parts of my own country (and Sri Lanka and Nepal) are wracked by violent separatist movements and Maoist guerilla warfare. I do not recall your newspaper dubbing India as the world’s most dangerous place when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated during electioneering or Indira Gandhi for that matter. The latter’s killing was followed by a brutal and murderous pogrom against Sikhs and the capital city Delhi burnt for days. Thousands of Muslims were slaughtered in ‘progressive’ Gujarat, the rioters aided and abetted by state machinery. In neither instance were the perpetrators ever brought to justice. The truth always has shades of gray and I would have hoped for a more restrained title from a reputed newspaper in describing our beleaguered neighbor.
March 10th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Raza, how amazing it must be to make friends like the good Dr. Gupta thanks to the internet
March 10th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Naveed S, You are right. It is quite amazing..
cheers
Raza
March 11th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Today there were two blasts in Lahore killing many including some innocent children.My sister barely escaped by driving past the blast spot exactly two minutes before they happened.
I don’t know how far can we stretch the limit to which our well wishers’ words keep soothing us!
March 11th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Raza.. bear with me.. i hate repitition.. you are bored with me, by now (who wouldn’t ?). But what to do. Those who cant do, talk / write ! When the pitch of fundamentalism is raised.. moderates like Shreekant Gupta and Raza Rumi get marginalised. In the NWFP (circa 1946/47), Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, The Frontier Gandhi… had to withdraw from the political scene. Who can forget the 1947 Congress Session wherein Partition Plan was proposed and approved (55:45 ratio). If 55% were for it., 45% were against it too. Read the speeches of Maulana Azad and Sardar Patel. 2 diametrically opposite perspectives. When moderates (be they muslim or hindu) are marginalised, the field is left open for fundamentalists… criminals… goons… killers… etc. They enter politics and grab levers of power. The common man is peaceful… but dont expect him to come out and die. Not every soul is revolutionary. Fascists have also won elections. Democracy is not elections… but a MINDSET. Tolerance.. Mutual Respect.. that is the key. It is idealistic but so be it.
There are 2 ways to achieve such a state of mind : The practical approach is that the STATE per se has no religion. That religion is parked in the personal domain of its citizens. Pandit Nehru believed in this practical/pragmatic SCHOOL of Thought. Whatever India is TODAY… is due to Pandit Nehru’s vision. He resisted great pressures and right-wing torture.. to stand his ground.
The other viewpoint is to have a religious-state (pre-dominantly Hindu) yet promote a culture of TOLERANCE with other religions… within the parameters of the dominant religion. i.e. do not detach state and religion. Keep the bond.. but encourage tolerance WITHIN the confines of the religion of the majority…
Huntington’s clash is basically not civilisational (not in the least religious). Its basically about man’s EGO..
People professing the same religion have fought wars. Man looks for excuses to fight. It is inherent in his nature.
Coming back to the likes of Shreekant Gupta and Raza Rumi… well… this is the moderate path… wherein you recognise the diversity and respect it (not just tolerate… cuz that sounds under pressured…).
It is crucial to keep the Taliban (both Hindu and Muslim) within check, lest they will destroy SE Asia under the FAKE banners of green and safforn flag.
Partition weakened the secular… vote-plank… among both Hindus and Muslim. That was a real tragedy. The winner of partition is the fundamentalist (both the Mullah and the RSS had a field day !). In Pakistan, atleast the mullah is electorally wiped off… but in India., RSS is ruling 5-6 majot provinces. That is a civilisational scar.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:31 am
It’s nothing but easy journalism. Economist has a delicious writing style but it is too lazy to draw out finer nuances that lurk beneath the surface. That is why it called Pakistan the most dangerous place in the planet. This blogger—a clichéd political thinker as lazy as Economist writers—should therefore be excused when he says that it is not Pakistan but Oval Office which must be the most dangerous place in the planet.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I am truly grateful to Mr. Raza Rumi to have featured me on his blog and to have carried my full letter to The Economist. The version they printed was very truncated. The only point I would like to make is that the truth is always nuanced and that there are shades of grey. Who can say that Pakistan does not face very serious problems. But the stark terms in which the country is portrayed in the print and electronic media is also very unfair. Those who do not live in Pakistan are heavily conditioned by what they read and hear in the media. Therefore, it disappointed me greatly to read an influential magazine like The Economist dub Pakistan as the worl’d most dangerous place. And surprisingly the articles inside did not fully bear out its sensational cover and header. Hence I decided to write to the editor. It was gratifying to find out that this small letter reverberated across the world and innumerable people read it and commented on it (not always favourably!)
All I would say to Dastagir sb., is that the act of ‘writing’ is also ‘doing’, because this is a battle for the hearts and minds of the world at large. Please allow me to be cliched and argue that often the pen is mightier than the sword.
In a different but related context, the British economist John Maynard Keynes had said:
“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood . . . Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
- J.M. Keynes, General Theory, ch. 24.
I leave it for all of you decide whether Keynes was right or not.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Praise the internet, for helping bring hearts and minds together!