‘Don’t Hold My Hand Longer Than You Need To’

There is such a thing as an exhaustion of witnessing. Glued to the television for long snatches of time over the last forty eight hours, while I watched gun battles and firestorms in Bombay, the first thing that i found failing was reason, the second thing that failed was speech, the third thing that failed was the capacity to do anything meaninful in the face of such disproportionate horror. I did nothing. I was parched, I drank a lot of tea, and water. I nursed insomnia to fitful, erratic snatches of sleep, populated by lucid dreams that smelt of cordite.

Now, as the paramedics go in to retrieve bodies and body parts, as the calculus of loss and damage is ascertained, as the smoke lifts, as the ashes cool in crematoria and hotels, and  as the hoarse voices of the television impresarios of the carnage begins to lower an octave or two, can come the necessary task of making amends for silence. Let’s talk.

We can begin a conversation. Terror calls for speeches and statements, communiques and condemnations, the one thing it kills is conversation. We must mumble, if necessary, because even that is preferable to the ludicrous platitudes that emanate from the tube that pours news into my veins Today, I prefer a stammer to a statement. I dddddarrre nnnnnoooottt sssayy a thh-thh-thhousand things that run through my wakefulness, my dreaming.

In the video of a song that Aman posted here earlier, I see a woman driving a taxi in the city that they used to call Bombay. The song that runs through her silent head says ‘don’t hold my hand longer than you need to’. I want to stay with that line. I want to hear it again and again and again. I don’t want to commiserate or to condemn, more than is necessary. Yes, I condemn. But no, I won’t have the condemnation wrested out of me like a confession. The mathematics of tragedy does not follow the laws of simple arithmetic. A rising body count is neither more, nor less tragic than a single gratuitous, meaningless death. ‘Don’t look at me longer than you need to’.

You might say, commiseration is necessary. I’ll say “lets not hold hands longer than we need to”. Let’s not light candles tonight as we have been taught to do by television, lets not make a spectacle out of grief, let us not make mourning a telegenic, slow motion filler between the smug, loose talk of war and retribution on prime time where everyone gets to make a cameo grab at patriotic grandeur. Let us not disrespect the dead and the bereaved by even pretending that we can share in what they feel. I feel all sorts of things, I cannot say ‘martyr’, ‘coward’, ‘hero’, ‘villain’ as easily as many can. I feel that all these words are like the decorations on a coffin. I want to see the body. The naked, injured, dead, body that asks for no decoration, for nothing other than the dignity of a decent burial or the comfort of a well stoked pyre. I want to speak of and to that body. Those hundreds of bodies.

In the strange and paradoxical solidarity of death in conflict, the bodies of deceased assailants and their victims, become just that, bodies. They were terrorists or hostages or rescuers, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Indians, Americans, British, Turks or Israelis till they died, in death, their inertia brooks no name, no qualification, their distinctions, barely meaningful while alive, died with them. Now, they are gone. That is why, when someone dies, we say, “they are no more”.

But we are. We are still claiming for ourselves a piece of the action. Still bursting with pride and thirsting for grief. These are our worms and ashes. These are the signs of our rigour mortis, the stench of our daily, hourly decomposition. Some of us are calling for war. Some of us are saluting. Some of us are speculating on the realignments in international relations. Some of us are wondering what this means for the investment climate. Some of us are mulling which quotation from which scripture to hurl in which direction in order to prove which religion teaches you to kill with greater ferocity. I have no comforts to offer, none to hold on to. I have no war to fight, no stocks to worry about, no holy or unholy books to throw.

The truth is, all abstractions, all attempts to tell us that there is something more valuable than life itself in the end, demand their prices in blood. The difference between a terror attack and an act of war is ultimately a question of degree. A man who kills another is a murderer. A man who kills ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, hundred is a terrorist. A man who sends thousands or millions to their deaths is usually called a president or a prime minister or at least ‘great leader’. We hang one, shoot the second and build memorials to the third. “Terrorism” is actually only a name for the dull mediocrity of organized violence. In lesser or greater degrees it comes with less or more honourable appellations. Homicide, Terrorism, War, Genocide. No one sings songs to terrorism, but our brass bands do blare the music of war. In the end its just a question of how many bodies there are in the morgue.

When you value a book, a map, a flag, a code, a memory of an injury or a vision of heaven or hell more than you value the eating, drinking, sleeping, walking, working, dreaming, shitting, pissing, fucking, tired, old, young, wrinkled, bare, naked body of just another human being you will in the end, pick up, or genuflect to those who pick a gun, walk into a city, and begin a few days of mayhem.

Ask the little terrorist in your own head, the next time you curse one you see on TV, “what will it take for you to admit, that there is really nothing more important than the ungainly, misshapen bag of water that is a human body”. Now ask the same question to the little policeman in your head, and try and divine the difference between their answers. I have tried all my life and I have failed to understand the difference. Both say they shoot to avenge injustice, to fight wrongs, to bring hope and peace into the world. I understand the voice of the assassin, the bank robber, the psychopath and the injured lover, for they shoot for no reason other than to do with the concrete circumstances of their lives. They shoot for money, madness, love or revenge – all human reasons. I am not condoning the murderer and the assassin, but I can see that they take responsibility fo what they do, and there is a strange honour in that, a perverse, twisted honour perhaps, but honour nevertheless. But the terrorist and the counter-terrorist shoot for supposedly altruistic reasons. They shoot at you and me, for the sake of other yous and mes, sometimes even for just ourselves. The voice of the terrorist and the voice of the policeman sing the same song. “I will shoot you for a higher cause. A higher cause, a higher cause.” The cause varies, the bullets stay the same. And I am always told, ‘I am the cause, and that higher cause is you’. No terrorist ever says that they shoot to perpetuate injustice. In their eyes, they are the just. They say that they are the only ones who are. Such certitude is the privilege only of those who shoot in the name of things loftier than themselves, it could be a state or a wannabe state, it could be a dream or a nightmare. Something, I don’t know what, tells me that I could be better friends with the madman, the bank robber, the assasin and the jealous lover, push comes to shove, I could even share their prison cell. But the terrorist and his mirror leave me cold.

All flags are shrouds. Every holy book is a sheaf of death certificates. And the priest who sometimes wears the robes of a politician is the undertaker. The terrorist is only the shadow of the hangman.

Take your comforts while you can. Do not let the drought of the real make an arid desert out of your soul where the flags of many states and insurgencies can flutter their shadows. Switch off the television. Blow out the candles. Turn out the light. Pour yourself a cup of tea, a glass of wine, a beaker of water. Drink. Stay awake through the long night ahead. Squeezed as we are, between terrorists and hangmen, there is lots to do, and not much time. Or, as the song that Aman posted (the one that I talked about earlier said)  –  ‘Lets do the things that we normally do’.

8 thoughts on “‘Don’t Hold My Hand Longer Than You Need To’”

  1. From Suketu Mehta’s op-ed in today’s NYT:

    “In 1993, Hindu mobs burned people alive in the streets — for the crime of being Muslim in Mumbai. Now these young Muslim men murdered people in front of their families — for the crime of visiting Mumbai.”

    “But the best answer to the terrorists is to dream bigger, make even more money, and visit Mumbai more than ever. Dream of making a good
    home for all Mumbaikars, not just the denizens of $500-a-night hotel rooms. Dream not just of Bollywood stars like Aishwarya Rai or Shah Rukh Khan, but of clean running water, humane mass transit, better toilets, a responsive government. Make a killing not in God’s name but
    in the stock market, and then turn up the forbidden music and dance; work hard and party harder.

    Like

  2. This piece reminds me of Barkha Dutt, somehow.
    She comes to mind running circles around the Taj, whistle-tooting guards giving chase, huff-puffing as she describes the metaphors and hidden truths in a broken glass here or an intact vase there.

    Maybe it’s the same breathless abstraction that moves me to smirks.

    Like

  3. I really liked the what Sudhabarata wrote. It echoes the confusion, helplessness and sometimes anger with what is going on. I would like to make just one comment. You equate the two larger causes of violence, one done by the terrorist and the other by the policeman. I think we need to distinguish between the two. Atleast in a democratic country governed by a secular and liberal constitution like india, the cop is using force to uphold these values while the terrorist is someone who want to destroy them. This is not to say that consitution is violated in everyday life all. Leave alone terrorists, pickpockets are tortured to death in police custody, large scale displacement in the name of development, gujarat riots etc etc. Yet constitution provides us an institution that we can refer to for redressal.

    Like

  4. Dear Fud,

    Thank you for the acute intelligence of your observation and comparison. In writing this text, I thought that I was arguing against abstractions – such as the inflated ideals of identity, security and nationhood that both terrorists and counter-terrorists lay claim to. It seems that you have read it as an abstraction itself. May I bother you to ask why, and what prompts you to say that a critique of the weight of abstractions on our lives is itself an abstraction. I ask, sincerely, because it might help me to write better the next time by being more ‘concrete’.

    I scanned the piece quite carefully in the wake of your comment in which you compare this text to Barkha Dutt “describing metaphors and hidden truths in a broken glass here or an intact vase there”. I regret to inform you that I did not find any ‘hidden truths’.

    I say “The truth is, all abstractions, all attempts to tell us that there is something more valuable than life itself in the end, demand their prices in blood.”

    This is not a ‘hidden’ truth. it seems pretty obvious to me. I see it every time people invoke martyrdom or the necessity of sacrifice for the sake of a faith or a nation. Since this happens with such monotonous regularity these days, iI thought that gesturing to it was only commonsensical. Does it seem very complicated, or inordinately opaque or oblique to you?

    And as for metaphors there are precisely four sets of linked metaphors in the fragment that says –

    “These are our worms and ashes. These are the signs of our rigour mortis, the stench of our daily, hourly decomposition.”

    I found no other metaphorical tropes in the text.

    Here, I am referring, not to the site of the attack but to another scene of crime, which unfolded (and is still unfolding) in television studios, as the commentators sculpt the event into a grotesque tableaux which makes all of us (as onlookers, witnesses, spectators) complicit into becoming details in the still unfolding design.

    The decorated journalist whose style you mention in passing by way of comparison is not absent in this process. She is a leading designer of this tableau, while, I, as a puzzled spectator am a mere unwilling detail.

    I try and take language and rhetoric very seriously, because I believe, that in times like this, too much is said too easily. I would urge you to do the same. The next time you say someone is ‘describing metaphors’ pause and ask yourself, which metaphor, how many metaphors, and which metaphors can be legitimately compared to which other metaphors. Then consider, whether, given that metaphors are indirect descriptions based on the transposition of the properties of one figure on to another, it makes sense to talk of ‘describing descriptions’. There are consequnces, and not only grammatical, to the needless courting of the embarrassment of syntactical lapses

    regards

    Shuddha

    Like

  5. It seems you have read my essentially flippant comment far too close.

    I can understand why comparison to Dutt would hurt. I admit it is an unfair comparison, but my larger point, if there was one, stands regardless.

    Maybe your language and the tone that you adopt does have something to do with it. You are evidently a better writer than I am, but the self-indulgence of the entire piece is kinda put-offing.

    You say that you are arguing against abstractions, but your post is replete with them. I am sure you would have found this out when you read through it again. I can only add that needless abstractions are needless in more than just the literal sense. A flag is a shroud only to the extent that a person going to work for his meals is resilient Mumbai.

    Finally, thanks for the grammar lesson. If i comment here again I will try and keep syntactical lapses and all in mind ;)

    Best regards
    fm

    Like

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.