Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: Afternoon Despatch
& Courier
Date: January 11, 2002
Ever since September 11, the Indian
media has been steadily looking at the triangular relations between India,
Pakistan and the United States - and, interestingly, with little reference
to Britain or its Prime Minister Tony Blair. A quick run-down on media
thought throws light on what India, presumably, thinks.
Take the Kolkata-based The Statesman,
for example. In its editorial on November 17, the paper asked what the
need was for "Atal Behari Vajpayee to rush to Washington, only to be humiliated
by American leaders and the media." The paper said that in its annual report
for 2001 the State Department referred to Vajpayee as "leader of the BJP
who is associated with the RSS which has affiliation with Hindu extremist
organisations which have been implicated in violence and discrimination
against Christians and Muslims." Commenting on this, the paper said: "In
a nutshell, Vajpayee is a fascist communalist... Vajpayee's steadfast refusal
to negotiate with
Musharraf has been attributed to
his being a prisoner of RSS ideology, as the U.S. State Department's Annual
Report reveals." Interesting that hardly any other paper had a story on
the State Department Annual Report.
Crystal-gazing
On 14 October, The Statesman had
some new thoughts. It suggested that New Delhi's glee at the American and
British banning of the Jaish-e-Mohammad "should be tempered by some strategic
crystal-gazing.' Vajpayee having proved himself "to be an imaginative foreign
policy-maker," the paper said, "he undoubtedly has the moral authority
to script a subtle but major change on Kashmir" which, it added, "should
ideally take the form of pre-empting mediation by offering a solution most
sane parties regards as the best - partition Kashmir along the LoC." "If
and when US involvement in Kashmir looks imminent, it will be time to make
the offer official," the paper added.
On 25 December, the paper said that
George Bush "is happy with any nonsense fed to him by Musharraf." As for
Bush's suggestion that India allow a "joint investigation with Pakistan
on the attack on Parliament," the paper said: "Did he allow a joint investigation
with Osama or Omar or Al Qaida of the September 11 attack? Why not?" Good
question. Two days later the paper said: "India's turning on the heat is
beginning to yield results... Only if India clearly labels Pakistan as
a state which exports terror and treats it as such, can we expect the rest
of the world to follow suit.
Pakistan's economy is in a parlous
state - this is the place to hit." On December 30, the paper advocated
"aggressive lobbying campaigns in world capitals" and suggested that "armed
forces ought to remain in a state of alert..."
The Kolkata-based The Telegraph
(Decem-ber 28) had similar advice to give. The paper thought that there
is "growing evidence that Pakistan's President may be willing to act against
terrorist organisations." If these early signs of a change translate into
a decisive policy shift, said the paper, "New Delhi must be willing to
give Mr. Musharraf the space to act against extremism without being burdened
by fear of a possible war against India." Conceding that "the battle against
terrorism may have to be fought alone," the paper added, "the international
community must be made constantly aware of India's concerns and compulsions."
The Goa-based Gomantak Times decried
Musharraf's insistence in giving "continued moral, diplomatic and political
support to Kashmiris" and suggested the best way out for him was to decide
"to fall back on the 1972 Shimla Agreement" which accord "saves even the
perceived honour of his country, as it shuns violence as the mode of settling
bilateral issues." By avoiding a blitzkrieg, the paper said, India has
given "enough time to Islamabad to decide on taming the terrorists." And
it ominously warned: "This is the first time that the Indian population
has prepared itself to face a war irrespective of the nuclear threats the
conviction being that peace has to be won whatever is the cost."
From India's north east, the Guwahati-based
The Sentinel (December 26) expressed disgust at "the velvet glove treatment
Washington continued to reserve" for Musharraf, described US reaction to
the attack on the Indian Parliament House as "an exercise in clever prevarication"
and damned America's support to Pakistan as "unabashed" aberration. The
next day the paper said that it must never be forgotten that "the Pakistani
state is an important and inalienable adjunct to global Islamic terrorism,"
the idea apparently being "to run over the strategic corridor in the sub-Himalayan
region and extent their suzerainty to entire South Asia and South East
Asia in the coming years." "There is no reason for India to feel complacent,"
said the paper, adding that "the Vajpayee government is taking the right
steps under the circumstances."
At the western Indian end, the Chandigarh-based
The Tribune (December 23) warned the US and other western powers of the
"need to appreciate the toughening Indian postures in the right spirit
and not selectively". Saying that Musharraf has been shedding "crocodile
tears" and his military regime has been "playing with India's secular sensitivities
through terrorism," the paper said that it is time for him to come clean
and prove his credentials.
In its latest editorial (January
2) the paper said that Prime Minister Vajpayee "deserves full marks for
setting a constructive tone for the evolution of futuristic relations between
the two neighbours," his talk probably reflecting "the feelings of the
silent majority even on the other side of the border."
And it added: "India is definitely
not interested in a war with Pakistan. It will, however, be foolhardly
on the part of the rulers in Islamabad to take this country for granted."
The paper said Musharraf should realise that "54 years of brinkmanship
have only brought misery and deprivation to the people of Pakistan."
Delhi's approach In contrast to
what The Tribune noted, the Chennai-based The Hindu (December 27) described
Delhi's approach as a "shrill and threatening campaign" and suggested that
it should end. Ever critical of the BJP-led administration the paper said
that "as a first step the Vajpayee administration must fully jettison its
historic baggage of backward-looking perceptions about Pakistan, its genesis
and evolution," and it would only be then that New Delhi "can capture the
clarity and creativity required to address the real issue, terrorism."
Apparently in the paper's thinking,
the BJP can never be right and Musharraf can never be wrong. Pontifically
the paper added: "The sooner the Vajpayee administration recognises that
neither Islamabad nor New Delhi can realistically force a decisive military
victory at this time, the better it will be for India's future that must
not be trifled with." But what, pray, happened in 1972-73? Didn't India
win then? According to The Hindu, "the planners and apologists of the Vajpayee
administration" are a blind lot. They don't know what they are advocating.
Obviously, only The Hindu knows.