Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
War against terrorism

War against terrorism

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.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements