Musharraf's Emissaries - There is a non-romantic agenda in equating India with Pakistan

George Orwell once observed that militarism didn't come naturally to the English. It was difficult to conceive, he wrote, British soldiers goose-stepping down the streets of England. They would invite ridicule. It may not be entirely far-fetched to extend Orwell's attribute of Englishness to the Indian citizenry. Intensely patriotic in times of war, Indians seem slightly ill at ease with routine displays of military pomp. So it was on the first anniversary of the Kargil war, an event marked by bewildering non-observance. It's not that the sacrifices of those who fell in those barren heights weren't appreciated. It's just that Indians don't have a collective appetite for remembering conflict. Not even those few occasions when Indian arms triumphed. The fall of Dacca in 1971 was one of those few occasions when Indian victory was conclusive. Yet, each December, the event is hardly observed. Likewise, the Kargil anniversary produced little soul-stirring stuff. Those who bothered seemed more intent on preaching the futility of war.

This honourable quality, however, prompts all the wrong conclusions. During the Kargil war, Pakistani propaganda put out the thesis that the endless "body bags" would be too much for Indians to stomach and would produce a capitulationist mood, masquerading as high philosophy. It didn't happen quite that way but one monumental miscalculation hasn't prevented the ruling elite of Islamabad from trying again.

Throughout the past week, the media has expended many column inches on a Pakistani women's delegation carrying the peace message to Delhi. Led by human rights activist Asma Jehangir, the delegation was feted by the usual suspects and received a very good press. In countless speeches and interviews, Jehangir drove home three points. First, that "ordinary" Indians and Pakistanis wanted peace but their governments preferred conflict. Secondly, that the common problems of both countries were aggravated by cynical governments. Finally, that the first step in the restoration of normality would be a positive Indian response to General Pervez Musharraf's offer of immediate talks. "Your government has talked to every dictator ...

So why be biased against this particular regime?" asked Jehangir. It all sounds reasonable until you detect the overriding theme of the peaceniks. Reduced to essentials, it nurtures the astonishing myth that there is no qualitative difference between both sides of the Radcliffe Line. That there is no difference between Indian democracy and Pakistani militarism, no difference between RAW's subversion and ISI-sponsored terrorism and no difference between Indian and Pakistani perfidy. Pakistan's Kargil misadventure is glossed over as a mere episodic detail of mutual treachery.

The moral equivalence thesis is amusing in its breathtaking audacity. As a nation, India is primarily concerned with making a mark in a competitive global economy. It is chaotic, iniquitous but open. Its constant reference point is not Pakistan but the West. Indeed, security concerns apart, Pakistan counts for zero in the Indian consciousness. Pakistan, on the other hand, defines itself in relation to India. Usually, in terms of hostility. Like when a hand of friendship in Lahore was met with a stab in the back in Kargil. Perhaps a trivial offence for a minuscule, cosmopolitan elite that -- not very surprisingly -- counts for more in Delhi than in Islamabad. Except when there is a convergence of interests between the beautiful people and their favourite general. And enough gullible people in India to swallow motivated piffle.
 

Back                          Top