Author: Kaushik Kapisthalam
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: May 5, 2005
It was unseemly to look at the Indian
media frenzy over Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf when he visited
New Delhi. Our journalists were tripping over themselves trying to laud
the General during his breakfast press conference on April 18th. The press
build-up and the follow on coverage were no less flattering of the General,
who was dubbed a "changed man" as compared to his imperious performance
at the Agra fiasco in 2001.
In fact, a few of the supposedly
neutral Indian journalists behaved more like Gen Musharraf's spokespersons
by tilting their reporting to portray him as a master strategist while
South Block was run by bumbling ignoramuses. One prominent reporter came
to an incredible conclusion that world leaders believe Gen Musharraf on
the issue of Pakistan's culpability in cross-border terrorism in Kashmir
simply because he gets more public encomia as opposed to Indian leaders.
The journalist made another observation that "time is running out" for
India to "resolve" Kashmir to Gen Musharraf's satisfaction
The reality is that Western leaders
lavishly praise Gen Musharraf because that is what he wants and it is a
low cost way to keep him happy. But even a casual glance at analyses from
Western think-tanks, often populated by people who are just retired from
Government service or are on their way towards it, reveals the reality.
One should read statements made by recently retired State Department officials
like Marvin Weinbaum, currently with the Middle East Institute and Richard
Haass, President of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, to understand
how American officials really feel about Gen Musharraf.
As opposed to this, India is in
the news mostly for positive reasons and there is little need felt in Western
think-tanks to highlight topics like state collapse and radical coups when
discussing India. In addition, Indian leaders don't seek Western flattery
to maintain their legitimacy. That is why India celebrates August 15 every
year. This is also why Gen Musharraf, accountable only to those outside
his country, can essentially say what he wants to the media, while our
leaders have to be circumspect because they have more than a billion Indian
citizens to answer to.
It is also not true that the public
praise of Gen Musharraf reflects the true Western views. This author spoke
to numerous former and serving officials in the US State and Defence Departments
and can confirm that there is a widespread feeling of unease about the
current US policy towards Pakistan. One expert with contacts in top policymaking
circles noted that US President George W Bush has essentially made a policy
of blindly supporting Musharraf and does not want to be bothered with the
details. Therefore, those who try to officially highlight unsavoury aspects
of US-Pakistan ties may end up with early retirement, sans the usual benefits.
But behind the scenes, even the
US Government has started making plans to deal with Pakistan. The US Quadrennial
Defence Review for 2005, which is supposed to lay out American military
plans for the next four years, is slated to include a report prepared by
a team of top generals on "(ways to) secure, render safe, or destroy WMD
in a collapsing state that is cooperative but faces internal threats to
its security". One can be reasonably sure that they are not referring to
Zimbabwe or Cuba.
One can understand a Western academic's
need to rationalise Pakistan's actions, for being openly critical means
missing out on lucrative academic grants and paid trips to Islamabad, with
a chance to discuss geopolitical issues at the Aiwan-e-Sadr while white
gloved waiters serve cucumber sandwiches and chicken tikka. But what compulsions
do supposedly independent Indian observers have to ask the GoI to give
Gen Musharraf what he wants, lest he should to reopen the jihadi tap? Do
they feel that the murders of innocent Indians at Akshardham, Nadimarg,
Kaluchak and other places can be swept under the carpet for the sake of
having omelets and tea with the General?
After 9/11, Western nations could
no longer pretend that suicide bombings and beheading of civilians were
part of a legitimate "freedom struggle." However, one should have no illusions
that Musharraf would hesitate to restart the "moral and diplomatic" support
to the "freedom fighters" should the geopolitical circumstances change.
Neutrality is an essential part
of journalism. But it is hard to believe that being neutral requires one
to denigrate one's own leaders, who are trying to do their best under difficult
circumstances, while singing paeans to a dictator who had no compunctions
to employ throat-slitters and bus bombers as an instrument of his foreign
policy.
(The writer is a freelance strategic
analyst based in the US)
