Author: G S Bhargava
Publication: Deccan
Herald
Date: August 12, 2000
If it is not herd mentality,
I don`t know what it is. Suddenly, word spread in the Lok Sabha press
gallery recently that Union Home Minister L K Advani had resigned.
The reason: Pahalgam massacre. As one tried to track down the news,
the version changed to Advani offering to resign, owning moral responsibility.
Ultimately, a correspondent who had either been tutored by the Congress
party`s Kapil Sibal or had tutored him (the latter more likely, perhaps)
was found arguing in favour of Advani`s resignation. It seemed he
set the ball rolling; and instead of scoring with the scoop was generously
sharing it with whoever was prepared to benefit from it. Simultaneously,
there was spotting of straws in the wind, such as Advani being conspicuously
not among the ministers who accompanied the Prime Minister to Pahalgam.
Very soon, the veracity of the report was drowned in a raging argument,
pro and contra, resignation. I don`t know how much of all this inspired
the Hindu story gingerly broaching the theory and the Hindustan Times boldly
speaking for the Congress party`s campaign for judicial inquiry into the
incident.
Most interestingly, the
Pahalgam tragedy was treated in isolation from the moves for talks with
the Hizbul Mujahideen and Pakistan`s panicky reaction to it. There
was a furore when Government, theoretically, banned viewing of Pakistan
television during the Kargil operations but one would wonder how many journalists
view its current affairs programmes now available without let or hindrance.
If they had, they would have noted the Pakistani demand for an impartial
inquiry into the Pahalgam killings which, it said, were the handiwork of
Indian security agencies to implicate Pakistan! The situation was no different
after the Islamabad announcement of termination of the cease-fire on the
ground that India would not agree to tripartite talks with Pakistan also
included. Syed Salahuddin`s statement was given in toto, even by
the Times of India, which is normally loath to let readers access documents.
The only additional insight, from Srinagar, was that Abdul Majid Dar, who
announced the unilateral three-month cease-fire on July 24, was not available
for comment. The Indian Express said he had gone underground.
Even then, his original statement could have been juxtaposed with Salahuddin`s
announcement.
It was not done, even
by the Telegraph which has a senior editor stationed in Srinagar for some
time. He attributed the breakdown of the cease-fire offer to mistrust.
Dar was then quoted as saying that the offer was unconditional, ''the only
condition (being) that the security forces would not kill any more militants
nor would they harass citizens.`` The August 8 deadline and the demand
for Pakistan`s inclusion were riders added by Salahuddin subsequently.
The Government statement
issued after the Cabinet Committee on Security reviewed Salahuddin`s announcement,
was, however, subjected to paraphrasing and analysis by political editors.
They would not let us have the text of the document, even in the Hindu,
usually long on details. For instance, when the statement reiterates
India`s commitment to peace process, we have the bonus of the omniscient
correspondent`s two-penny wisdom that the Government has ''few options
left unless the Hizbul does another somersault with a little help from
Washington.``
Another bright correspondent
saw the Hurriyat Conference replacing the Hizbul in any future negotiations!
The Hurriyat was critical of the Hizbul offer and said there could be no
negotiations without Pakistan being a party. When one is keen to
know what either party is saying to judge for oneself one would like to
do without gratuitous annotation. The interpolations are sometimes
very irritating also. In fact, the text of the statement is shorter
than the verbose outburst of instant wisdom.
For days on end after
the first Hizbul announcement, we were told that it was all the work of
the US. Then there are red herrings. The Indian Express deployed
its political editor to enlighten us about Pervez Musharraf`s offer of
a six-month cease-fire to Kuldip Nayar. The lead story recalled Nayar`s
meeting with the Pakistan military ruler a few weeks ago. That was
during the recent South Asian journalists` conference held in Islamabad.
Pakistan TV had shown Kuldip sharing the high table with General Musharraf
at dinner. But what does the cease-fire mean? Will Pakistan suspend
cross-border terrorism which, it claims, it is not fostering? The political
editor is silent. Technically, cease-fire is between open combatants.
In a proxy war or clandestine operations by insurgents, the security forces
have to go on unearthing and destroying them unless they surrender and
lay down arms. The security forces are not expected to disarm in
return. The only quid pro quo can be that terrorists signalling truce
are not attacked, which will be militarily counterproductive any way.
Meanwhile, last months
killing of 11 farm labourers, almost in cold blood, at Suchpur in Birbhum
District of West Bengal remained local news until the CPI (M) gave a diplomatic
twist to it. Taking umbrage at the visit to the site of two Indian
officials of the US Consulate in Calcutta, the CPI (M) has raised the hackneyed
bogey of the Consular-General being a CIA operative. Overnight the
outrage shed its provincial colour and became national news. According
to a Statesman report, the owner of the plot of land where the victims
were working had changed his allegiance from the CPI(M) to the Trinamool
Congress. And the punishment was visited on the farmers. Recalling
a reverse shift of political loyalty from the Congress to the CPI(M) in
the 1960s, a Telegraph editorial says the hold and influence of the CPI(M)
is under threat from the Trinamool Congress not only in Midnapore District
but in neighbouring areas of Bankura and Arambagh also. The newspaper
puts the CPI(M) in the dock for (i) eroding the strength and authority
of the law and order machinery; and (ii) for using muscle power for political
purpose.
