The Reluctant Fundamentalist

 Book: The Reluctant Fundamentalist
Author: Mohsin Hamid

The Reluctant Fundamentalist has been one of my overdue reads. I finally spotted it in the Carnegie Mellon Bookstore on a visit to my husband's office, and picked it up encouraged by the significant discounts offered on textbooks. I find I am still reeling under the effect of the three hours I devoted reading it in one-shot.

It is actually an easy one to finish soon --- partly due to its modest length shy of 200 pages; But mostly due to its vastly identifiable narrative, which gets even too close for comfort, repeatedly!Written in first person, it charts the life of a Pakistani immigrant named Changez in New York City, and the irrevocable changes the 9/11 attacks bring for him. Starting out as a princeton-graduated successful financier in New York City, he narrates the extinguishing of his American dream both professionally and personally, and his almost inescapable plummet into something the world would/can only identify as fundamentalism. His initial denial that anything can go wrong, the ensuing tension, doubt, self-reproach and final transition into a dark world outside neon lights of Times Square is described with heart-rending simplicity. It is the inevitability of this evolution, which Hamid conveys so masterfully to his readers, that makes the book so alarming yet so un-put-downable.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist is a chilling reminder that the emotional debris of WTC attacks extends far beyond ground zero; a poignant message that the fault-lines it created in hearts and minds will take much longer than 12 years to be healed. But it must be done before the fundamentalism takes over the reluctance...

War on terror turns a corner

It is quite risky to write anything about Mr. Laden in general. Not least because he was the biggest goon of the world and the organization he spearheaded still lurks in some murky hole. More importantly, in view of recent developments the number of new snippets on his death far outnumber his alleged sightings while he was still alive (which is really saying something) running the bigger risk of sounding stale or redundant (or both)!

But I am ready to take this huge personal risk on this momentous occasion in the history of modern world. This is because it is so important to believe and record this event. Even though Al-Qaeda still survives, maybe as a mere shadow of its former powerful self, and the terror it perpetrated has metamorphosed into a faceless form defying boundaries - impossible to be contained within the 18 feet high walls of the triangular compound in which its head was captured; the capture and assassination of its head had become far too important to assert the 'don't mess with us' attitude of any human being who despises the dangerous world it wanted to bequeath our generations to come. This war has come a long way from being a struggle between good and evil and attained the status of a battle for survival. It has become the fight for the right to live, the right to choose and the right to progress.

The circumstances and details of his capture also underscore a significant shift in the way we perceive international diplomacy. The fact that he was sniffed out on Pakistan soil by USA does not undermine the tenet of sovereignty, rather adds a corollary to the idea of a free nation. The right to existence and independence as a nation or an individual is not absolute but comes riddled with responsibility, in absence of which it becomes obsolete. If you harbor a terrorist in your house, it can be bombed without issuing you a memo on a on a paper carrying official stamp and duly signed by the local municipal authorities. The fact or fiction about Pakistan's establishment being oblivious from start (= osama being right under their nose) to finish ( = US choppers, how and when ??? ) does not really stand its ground as a counter-argument for more than one reasons. It, in fact, gives us a cause for even greater worry and calls for more stringent international vigilance for Pakistan. A nuclear-capable state full of incompetent oblivious authorities, with "helpful" agencies like ISI at close call can be an inviting haven for any terrorist seeking refuge.

Pakistan will do well to learn from the recent uprisings in the middle east which have ushered the Islamic world into an era of International liberalism after a long winter. The extremist organizations like Al-Qaeda were conspicuous in the recent Arab spring by their absence. Its opportune coincidence with the killing of global mascot of intolerance has thrown us a rare opportunity to uproot the diffuse, yet weakening, global network of terror from its very roots.

Terrorists or humanitarians...

I guess the title must be absurd to anyone who knows the meaning of the two words in question... alas such "anyone's" will qualify for the status of endangered species in today's world, as two recent incidents prove. So driven by the need for elevating my intellectual status and desire to belong to the gifted cult, I thought that maybe it is not a bad idea after all to get my facts right and straight and see if I can come to a consensus with your help...

The first incident which has clouded my mind with respect to the distinction is the Israeli commando raid on a flotilla of ships heading for Gaza, carrying humanitarian aid. The raid on flotilla bearing the Turkish flag left nine activists dead, fueling international anger at the incident. However, internet has been flooded with videos claiming that the raiding soldiers acted on self defense, with some showing an activist pushing a soldier off the vessel Mavi Marmara (see youtbe for instance). The Israeli defense forces have also been quick to release snaps of the "weapons" found on the ship. International media has lapped up the story from both sides with many condemning the incident, esp. in the wake of deteriorating conditions in Gaza due to Israeli and Egyptian embargoes which has led to a staggering 80% of the population depend on international aid. A sizable majority seems to be on the other side of the line, however, as this article in the New York Times indicates (living up to its reputation once again!). I quote a statement from it here:

What is missing so far from the flotilla clips on both sides is context: it is difficult to establish the sequence of events or, more simply, to determine who attacked first. The videos have made it all the more murky.

I don't feel capable enough to answer the 'deep' question raised above and many more that follow - Was flotilla on its way to capture Gaza with kitchen knives and metal rods (please refer to the pics of the WMD's on the link given above ) ? Were the peace-loving Israeli soldiers, out on a pleasure air-trip, caught unawares and instinctively shot down the 'armed' activists who were attacking them ?? Were these aid-carrying humanitarians actually terrorists leading charge against the state of Israel and its soldiers? ....murky indeed.

The second incident, compounding this eternal confusion, occurred back home. Author-activist Arundhati Roy recently stated that she would happily embrace imprisonment but would not give up backing the Maoist struggle. She further stressed that the Naxal movement could not have been anything but an armed struggle because other options are infeasible in the present scenario.

I wasn't aware of the perverse power of democracy until the enlightenment I received from Ms. Roy's comments, esp. since the platform was a lecture organized by the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/arundhati-roy-backs-maoists-29642.php?u=1833&cp

in Mumbai. Her sympathy towards Naxal movement and 'right-to-defend -the-right-to-kill' for Naxals is especially surprising after the killing of 76 CRPF soldiers in Dantewada at the hands of Maoists in April, followed by Naxalite landmine blowing up a bus killing 44 people including several Special Police Officers (SPOs) and civilians [Ms. Roy opined that police should not have used the public bus in first place] and derailment of a Kolkata–Mumbai night train by a bomb blast initiated by Maoists killing at least 150 persons in May. Terrorists?... not if you ask Ms. Roy. Not so long ago, she had described the maoists as 'Gandhians with the guns'.

So maybe next time I feel threatened by someone, which won't be unusual for a girl in Indian society, should I be ready to join the ranks of an armed struggle and wipe off all the eve teasers from the face of the planet! Cringe as much as you may, ... I am sure Mr. Netanyahu and Ms. Roy will approve.

Pen is Mightier than the sword *...

..* and SHOE IS MIGHTIER THAN THE PEN. The next time you step out of the house, have a closer look at your shoes. Apparently innocuous accessories for our feet have transformed into a new weapon in the hands of the media to deal with love-to-hate politicians.

This unusual trend, acting as the harbinger of dirty shoes in dirty politics, started when an angry Iraqi journalist became the pioneer of this novel mode of freedom of expression by throwing a shoe at U.S. President George Bush at a press conference in Baghdad. People who think that it was just a strange and maybe unacceptable way of expressing one's anger should take a chill pill and continue reading this piece by the end of which I will try to convince the cynics of the power of this new revolution. Besides giving some good practice to both Mr. Bush and Iraqi Prime minister Nouri Maliki in 'grenade-catching' (yes, he threw the second shoe too - of course it would have been useless anyways without its partner whose chances of recovery were..er.. slim!!), it also inspired some restless minds in search of a breakthrough in communication revolution -- at last they found their calling! The importance of the former advantage can not be undermined though, esp. given the usual games two countries have indulged in the past few years but that deserves to be a topic for a separate article. Let us concentrate on the mini-revolution of shoe hurling here.

As always, Indians are fast on catching up with the western trends, or at least in this case what happens to people out there. And for all his dropping popularity ratings, President Bush remains a westerner, that too reasonably well known. So fast forward to April 2009. The venue is again a press conference, though summoned by Indian Finance Minister P. Chidambram..and whalloa! Whoever said history repeats itself, forgot to add, very often!! A shoe again flew through the air and missed the target. The launchpad was again a journo, aggrieved by the pronouncements of a politician. Funny ..?? Outrageous... maybe!

But let us not forget the strategic issues which the above two incidents bring to light, in our haste to condemn them or be bemused. First and foremost, being a politician is no longer as safe as it used to be. The recent overhaul of military equipment for our security forces in the wake of Mumbai terror attacks is urgently required to cater to our politicians too. They should be provided with ballistic helmets and headgear before attending any press conference or public event. The helmets should, of course, be proven resistant to bullets, grenades and SHOES. Also all that paunchy fat won't do sir... remember that it was the agility of the target after all (at least in Baghdad case) which saved it from the surface-to-surface shoe missile. So any elected Member of Parliament should be elected on interim basis. The interns should then be required to run at least a mile every morning to keep in shape. In fact, they can use this opportunity to manage a look into their respective constituencies, a rare feat which they otherwise undertake only during elections. This may be followed by a training where the security personnel can throw shoes on them for 30 minutes to test their proficiency on dodging them. Only those who are able to maintain a high 'duck-rate', averaged over a period of month or so can qualify to take up the dangerous job of being a parliamentarian. (Have I given myself way - yes I am an experimentalist! 8-).

Besides this, to ensure the safety of our shoo-able political bosses, some measures are recommended at other end of spectrum too. All the public visitors should be profiled, at least their shoes most definitely, and anyone sporting footwear hevaier than a kilogram should be booked under S-POTA = Shoes on Politician Obstruction and Termination Act. As an added precaution, sale of such footwear can be banned altogether. Of course, this would halve the business of brands like Woodland.. but nothing is more important than national security! And ladies, heels are an absolute no-no. Try to find less hazardous and head-splitting avenues to display the woman-power.

Also, a legislation may be considered which requires that in rallies which are attended by a large number of people, all the attendees should come bare-footed (else imagine a single slip in the speech and what a zoo of shoes can end up being on the stage..... scary man). On second thoughts, it might have been sheer farsightedness on part of our leaders, to ensure that most of their humble subjects remain humble... deprived of food, shelter and shoes!

So while our media schools are busy including a shoe-hurling class in their curriculum and the scribes are honing their skills at shooting and targeting (I would keep a tab on all the shoe sales to journos if I was a M.P., seriously), let us continue to keep a watch on this amazing new trend in our politics. And all you budding journalists out there, stop blogging and go buy yourself a pair of shoes.... shoo shoo!