Book Review – 26/11 Unforgiven

It’s a story of rage, retribution, justice and more than that, the torment of a common man who yearns for vengeance for his personal loss – it’s a chance for every Indian to live that vicarious dream he would have fantasized at some point or the other when the government, its elected representatives, a few fellow Indians, and all other possible institutions fail him.

The story is a fictionalized account of what happened during and after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The overall facts like Pakistan’s involvement in the attacks, Hafeez Saeed, Kasab issue, India’s reaction, etc. have all been kept intact but a fictionalized story is woven around the narrative that all of us know of. 

Vikram Maheshwari, the protagonist is a successful entrepreneur and a son of a military veteran of 1971 war, happens to be with his wife and their only daughter in the famous Taj hotel on the fateful night of 26th November 2008. A handful of terrorists from Pakistan launch attacks at multiple places of Mumbai and take the city hostage. They kill Vikram’s wife and daughter and while Vikram himself escapes very narrowly. 

Vikram’s whole world comes crashing down – the only two people he loved the most in the world have been killed mercilessly in cold blood for no mistake of theirs. He hopes the government would take avenge the loss of 170+ of its people – any strong and proud nation would wreak revenge, not seek justice – as per Vikram. But the lily-livered actions of the government of the day boggles him, bothers him. The candle marches by the peace brigade, the ‘spirit of Mumbai’, the romanticizing of being victims, and the whole city going about its business as usual, makes his blood boil. 

He refuses to be the victim and decides to take things into his own hands. He is doubly convinced that trusting the government to pay back Pakistan in its own coin is futile. He teams up with his ex-employee Farzana and her terrorist brother Zakir who has links with a prominent Islamic terrorist organization of India. Through Zakir, he learns the masterminds behind the 26/11 attacks and makes a detailed plan to kill them.

ACP Ajay Dixit comes to know of Vikram’s plans to kill the mastermind of 26/11 attacks who also happens to be the high commissioner of Pakistan! This ensures a cat and mouse game between ACP Dixit and Vikram. Whether or not Vikram becomes successful in his mission, what happens to Farzana, and Zakir forms the next part of the story. 

Manish Jaitly who also happens to be an ex-military officer has produced a gripping story in the form of 26/11 unforgiven. His contempt for the campaigns like “Aman ki Aasha”, the bizarre theory and the government’s tacit support of linking of the Mumbai attacks with RSS, an overall laxity in the government's response have been pronounced in the attitude of the protagonist, Vikram Maheshwari.

The book excels in weaving a gripping tale with a fast pace but may lack in the in-depth character development of important characters of the narrative. But as mentioned before, the reader gets the vicarious sense of justice which seems so elusive in the real world, where the state is filled with a multitude of pusillanimous men masquerading as pacifists.

The curious case of Arun Shourie

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." This is a quote of Harvey Dent in the popular DC comics superhero movie Batman. It describes the questionable nature of heroism through time, the fall from grace of a celebrity or a well-known public figure. I never thought there will come a time when a person like Arun Shourie would fit the description. 

Arun Shourie is a very well known name in Indian intellectual circles for a long time. He has donned various hats - as an economist, a journalist, a public intellectual. In my assessment, he's an intellectual giant in his own right. There are many people like me who have hero-worshipped him for his intellectual clarity and prowess, elephantine memory, assiduousness, depth of thinking and above all the fortitude to take on any opposition single-handedly. 

The so-called "right-wing" in India is hijacked or seems to be hijacked by the RSS types of intellectuals (with all due respect to selfless social work it does). These RSS types don't have ideological clarity or moral courage to carry on their mission. Worse, they don't even know what their mission is. At the drop of the hat, they dabble and babble on fancy ideas like Akhand Bharat, or Hindu Rastra, but they don't have a roadmap or conviction to carry on.

The indefatigable Abhas Chatterjee described RSS thus - It is like a lifeless monster of enormous proportions rather than a throbbing little bee with a sting. By its sheer size, it is huge. But when it comes to achieving its stated goals, RSS scores low. When it 's about developing the intellectual ecosystem, the so-called representative of the Right-wing does next to nothing. Contrast this with the left and how it has captured the Indian intellectual climate. The left has had a grip over intelligentsia much before Indian independence from the British. This has continued after independence to this very day.

The left ideology and its derision for native culture have continued to this day through various branches of its ecosystem - academics, institutions, media and the likes. The leftist ideology has infiltrated everywhere, its torchbearers are ubiquitous under different cloaks which suit different scenarios and situations. There is a huge gulf created thus, where leftists are everywhere and no one to respond or call out their lies. This is where individuals like Arun Shourie stand out. It's individuals like this who have contributed to the almost non-existent right-wing discourse in this country and challenged the leftist hegemony wherever they could. Sita Ram Goel, Ram Swarup, Koenraad Elst are some of the prominent names on top of my head. Arun Shourie belongs to the same league (He's done some outstanding work as a journalist, a minister and an economist which is beyond the scope of this write-up).

My first book of Arun Shourie was Eminent Historians (I've read more than 4 of his books since) - He had dismantled lies brick by brick in an unabashed way. It is a treat to read any of his work where polemics is laced with scholarly brilliance and filled with a large number of citations and anecdotes. Enough of the Shourie I loved. Let's come to his recent statements and press conferences.

Ever since the run-up to the general elections started in 2013, Shourie passively supported Modi and shown his inclination to join the government in whatever capacity he could. But it seems Modi had other plans. After his stupendous win of 2014, Shourie was not offered any positions befitting his stature. Although in many people's opinion, Modi govt. could have utilized a person like Shourie, I personally think Shourie could have been an asset for a ministry like HRD or finance, but that's the way it was. It looks Shourie had nurtured ambitions and Modi's actions might have embittered Shourie.

This bitterness has warranted some of his recent statements - the government is managing headlines, its economic policies are directionless, falsehood is the hallmark of this government etc. Also, he was repeating the bunkum of the opposition which couldn't hold any water like minorities are unsafe in India in the current political dispensation etc. 

Naturally, these positions have endeared him to the "secular" media and politicians (He has already met dangerous and treacherous politicians like Kejriwal and Mamta) He has given interviews to NDTV more than a couple of times. The "seculars" will use him as canon to take a shot at Modi, nothing more than that.

In his most recent statement, he calls opposition to come together & quotes Lenin "to give history a helping hand" to defeat Modi government. O tempora o mores! A lifelong critic of communists and their modus operandi quoting, of all the people Lenin! Per se, there is no harm in objective criticism. But criticism which is engendered by grouse and pettiness is harmful and it is also unbecoming of a towering intellectual like Shourie.

Mother Teresa – Hollowed be thy name

Mohan Bhagavat, the RSS supremo while speaking in a conference made a reference to Mother Teresa (now Saint Teresa after the beatification). He said mother Teresa’s supposed service to the poor; the destitute was not without any motive. Her motive was conversion to ‘one true faith’. That was enough to ruffle many secular feathers. Many seculars, liberals came in unison against Bhagavat for commenting against a ‘noble’ soul. Many well-meaning people who are fed with the hallowed imagery of Teresa and of the missionary of charity came against Bhagavat strongly. [I remember studying a chapter on Mother Teresa in my middle school titled ‘Nirmala Hrudaya’ which translates into ‘Noble or Pure Heart’] Among others, the statement of Bhagavat did one good thing – It initiated a debate and more people got to know the real truth behind the supposed saint. But, did Bhagavat say anything wrong? Was he off the mark? When you try to investigate, you know the answer is no.

You may have your own misgivings on the RSS on various issues. But its service across the nation without motive can be seldom faulted. But can you say the same with respect to the Christian Missionaries? Not for a second, not once in a millennium. Charity is one of the important tools for proselytizing. They are pretty much open about it. Recently, the pope made the point amply clear. If the experience with the aftermath of the Tsunami disaster in South India is anything to go by, conversion is the pre-condition to get any kind of help from the missionaries. How low can these missionary hawks plumb? Nevermind. Now, coming to the issue on hand – Did Mother Teresa do the same? Yes, she did. It’s all well-documented by the first-hand accounts. It’s just that the Indian media is too lethargic and dishonest to dig out the truth.

Mother Teresa was a fundamentalist Christian. Like any fundamentalist of any religion, she minced no words about it and was pretty straightforward on the issue. In many of the interviews she stated her position as such. In one of her interviews, she was quoted saying "We are not nurses, we are not doctors, we are not teachers, we are not social workers. We are religious, we are religious, we are religious". She was against the use of contraception, against abortion and in fact in her Nobel Prize ceremony she proclaimed the greatest threat to world peace was abortion! Viola! Everyone was struggling to figure out the factor which was detrimental to world peace – This lady had an answer – abortion. Abrahamic religions especially Christianity exalts suffering as virtue. It springs from a fundamentalist belief – Man is a sinner. God sent his only son Jesus to earth to save us from sin and he suffered enormous pains in the process – all for us. So, if anyone is suffering, he is being closer to Jesus. This is one of the many other beliefs which shaped Mother Teresa’s psyche.

Money was never an issue for missionaries for charity as its PR machinery was very strong and millions of dollars kept pouring in. But, testimonies allude to the worst living conditions of the patients that were living there. Proper medication was not given even to the patients who were suffering from chronic diseases like cancer where pain was immense. Basic painkiller like morphine was also not given to many. When questioned, all was pushed under the carpet saying ‘love’ will substitute for all including necessary medications. It was a living hell. Christopher Hitchens called her ‘Hell’s angel’. Baptism was performed for the dying without anyone’s consent – as the process was altruistic because the motive was to ‘save’ the soul from eternal damnation.

No discussion on Mother Teresa would conclude without mentioning Christopher Hitchens’ name. He wrote a complete book on her with a provocative title – The missionary position. He along with Tariq Ali made a documentary for channel 4 – Hell’s Angel. Even before Hitchens, Dr. Aroup Chatterjee wrote a book on her - Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict, which challenged the popular perception of Teresa which we all had. In these works lists all the misdemeanors of Mother Teresa and her institution - misappropriation of money given for charity, hobnobbing with the worst of criminals and dictators and so on. Hitchens called her 'fraud, fanatic and a fundamentalist'.These are all very well documented. But the pusillanimous liberal media never dared a debate on it.

The fallen façade of the media – again!

Indian media as a rule treats the issues related to Christianity and Islam with kid gloves. This issue was no different. Forget getting deeper into the issue, the media did not have the guts to even take up the issue for the debate. Bhagavat had disturbed the hornet’s nest. Media treated Bhagavat like a man who had committed blasphemy for insulting their holy god. An honest or a neutral media would have ensured a debate in which there was a say for all the parties involved. But, that never happened. Only social media, blogs and a few online portals discussed the matter in depth. This is one of the outcomes of deification of any person. He becomes insulated from any criticisms or questions. The very act of questioning becomes a kind of blasphemous act. The way some media guys behaved as if it’s a crime to even question a revered figure like Teresa testifies the point. This just proves they lack two important qualities that are required for journalism – Intellectual rigor and honesty.

Mother Teresa was beatified in 2003. Beatification is the third step in the four-step canonization process. The main condition for a person to be beatified is that the person should have performed some miracles in others’ life which they should testify. This looks like classic case of superstition and sham. But as it is practiced by Christians, this will go unquestioned in most intellectual circles. The same media which doesn’t question this goes hammer and tongs whenever the issue is of Hindus. They question the authenticity of the Makar Jyoti in Sabarimala, they question the authenticity of Hindu gurus, and they question the rationale behind Hindu beliefs. Fair enough – As long as they question other faiths with same tenacity. That, they would never do. All in all, this entire incident was yet another naked display of pusillanimity and double-standards of our liberals and seculars.