Upar Di Gur Gur

This article was originally written for Viewpoint Online, here

"Upar di gur gur di annexe di bedhiyana di moong di daal of di Pakistan and Hindustan of di durr phitey mun." A sentence whose incoherence is only rivalled by its meaning, for it sums up all the madness. Not the madness of Toba Tek Singh, but the madness of India, the madness of Pakistan, the madness of partition. It also sums up that madness of the so called saner ones, euphemistically called nationalism.

Much blood has passed under the bridge in the last sixty years. As a third generation descendant of a ‘partition’ family, I never saw the tragedy. I just heard about it. It’s more of a mental abstraction, as is erstwhile Punjab. When I was young, my grandfather would sing “Gaddi aayi Gaddi aayi narowaal di” at night. He never told me where Narowal was. But it nevertheless became a part of my identity. Just like India is, and just like Pakistan is. Fortunately, the human brain has not yet mastered the technique to compartmentalize the mind.

I read Manto for the first time when I was twenty one. The first story of his that I read was Toba Tek Singh. His stories stuck to me because they painted the missing gaps of the picture in my head. Although ethnically a Kashmiri, Manto’s stories were rooted in the secular ethos of Lahore and Amritsar. He captured the extraordinary lives of the ordinary men and women of Punjab, and thus brought to life those who otherwise figured as statistics on the pages of history. Sadly, Manto also narrates how the dream was shattered. The ugliness of that summer when rape and murder occupied the minds of those who, just months ago had sung Heer and had sworn by the message of Baba Bulleh Shah.

In Titwal ka kutta (The Dog of Titwal), I remember an incident when a soldier calls out to the dog, singing “Chan kitthe guzari aa ve raat”, a popular Punjabi folk song. I don’t quite remember whether the soldier was an Indian or a Pakistani. And that’s the beauty of it. The backdrop of the song serves as an effective backdrop to the futile nationalism displayed by the soldiers at the border between India and Pakistan. The song almost becomes a tragic irony, mocking the singer and his so called loyalties.

There are two ways to study history. There is a conventional top-down method. See what this or that leader did or did not do, and then spice it up with some theoretical framework based on one’s particular taste in ideology. Easy peasy. There is also an ugly way to study history, a gutter rat’s view if you will. That is to see history being made by unknown, unnamed actors, and study their individual ugliness. For one can’t really understand collective ugliness without taking into account individual ugliness.

This is the prime reason for Manto’s endearing popularity. He showed people what they don’t like to see. His stories showed the extent to which human perverseness could go, and he did so without any ideological bias. He was neither a taraqqi pasand nor a rujaat pasand, nor a leftist or a rightist. This is not to say that he didn’t espouse liberal/human values; he just loathed the politics of the various camps. In many of his essays, his bitterness towards the progressives is evident, not so much because of differences in values, but the way the progressives used the knife of takfir. All of a sudden, he became a kafir to their cause. Ironically, there has always been a glaring similarity in the modus operandi of the progressives and the religious fundamentalists.

There is yet another reason why Manto appeals to me. I have spent a good part of my life in Bombay (Mumbai in case the reader belongs to the Shiv Sena) and Pune. Manto too spent a lot of time in these cities. What he wrote about those cities still holds true today. Bollywood scripts are still far from reality, the producers run the show and there is no respect for the ‘art’ as such. The only difference is that nepotism is far more entrenched today than it probably was in those days…Oh and we managed to get Akon sing in Hindi…Sigh…

However, Manto, like me, fell in love with Bombay, despite, or rather because of the beauty of its ugliness. Maybe he saw a certain similarity between the city and his stories, for Bombay, like his stories, represents the best and the worst of humanity. Approximately sixty four years have passed since Manto’s abrupt departure. Bombay has grown since. It has become bigger, dirtier and uglier. But what holds the 15 million people wedded to the city is its soul which still remains unchanged.

I don’t know what Manto would think of India if he came back. A lot has changed, but a lot hasn’t. The rich are richer, the poor are poorer, the mansions are bigger and the slum houses are smaller. People still fight over caste and religion, albeit now it has been legitimised as national politics and democracy. Chacha Sam is still there. Now he sells everything from hamburgers to nuclear technology. Probably Manto will just laugh because it evolved according to his script…or he might just get frustrated and say "Upar di gur gur di annexe di bedhiyana di moong di daal of di Pakistan and Hindustan of di durr phitey mun."

The MFN Debate in Pakistan’s Urdu Press: Sign of cracks?

Coauthored with Shamshad A Khan, and first published on IDSA website, here

Following Pakistan’s decision to grant MFN (Most Favoured Nation) status to India, the Pakistani media indulged in a heated debate over the issue. In line with their traditional stance, the English media took a progressive stance and supported the government’s decision. However there was a tangible division within the Urdu media on this issue.

The Pakistani Urdu press traditionally portrays India as an existential threat with which no compromise is possible until all outstanding disputes, prominently Kashmir, is resolved. This time too, many editorials opined that trade relations with India should not be pursued until India resolves the Kashmir issue. However, an alternate narrative has been adopted by some newspapers like Jang and Express - the two largest newspapers in circulation - as well as by the Peshawar based Mashriq daily.

Express, in its editorial1 of November 4, opined that “this decision is a proof of the fact that our leadership not only realizes the changing realities but also is taking practical steps to reflect the change.” On the same day, Jang took the stand that Pakistan has no option but to choose “trade over aid” and added that “pursuing deeper trade relations will create a congenial atmosphere for resolution of more serious disputes.”2 This stance is contradictory to the dominant discourse in the Pakistani Urdu media, which places conflict resolution over trade or other such issues.

However, Jang dialed down its initial euphoria subsequently by advising India to show more flexibility on the issue of Kashmir. >3 Interestingly, the latter editorial on November 12 did not criticize the Pakistan government’s decision on the MFN status. It is possible that the criticism of India could have been a rhetorical ploy and part of a balancing act to satiate the anti-India lobby and reaffirm Jang’scommitment to the Pakistani state.

In line with their traditional stance, a section of the Urdu press reacted negatively to the government’s decision. The anti-India rhetoric was formulated on two planks. Firstly, many editorials argued that increased trade with India would dilute Pakistan’s stand on the Kashmir issue. These arguments coincided with the line taken by Jamaet-e-Islami Chief Munawwar Hassan who termed the MFN status to India as “stabbing in the backs of Kashmiris” by the Pakistani authorities. Secondly, many viewed a liberal trade regime as being inherently disadvantageous to Pakistan and were concerned about the possibility of Indian goods flooding the Pakistani markets.

Newspapers like Ausaf were generally suspicious of India’s intentions and took a pro-military line. The following extract from Ausaf is particularly revealing in this regard: “We will call upon Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, President Zardari, ISI Chief Shuja Pasha and all the patriots to save Pakistan from this kind of agreement.”4 The sequence of ‘patriots’ reveals the inherent ideological bias of the newspaper. Similarly, an editorial in Nawa-i Waqtequated the government’s decision with the “Fall of Dhaka” 5 and criticized the civilian regime for following a policy which was antithetical to Pakistan’s national interest. Similar views were expressed by other regional newspapers in Pakistan like Khabrein, which enjoys considerable circulation in Punjab.

The difference in the stance taken by Khabrein and Mashriq, the former based in Punjab and the latter in Peshawar, is particularly striking. Mashriq has taken the view that providing MFN status to India would help rectify past mistakes. 6Although the association might appear tenuous, this difference in their stances is perhaps indicative of the public mood in the two provinces. The Punjabi middle class is traditionally seen as pro-military with a deeper anti-India bias as compared to their counterparts in Peshawar and the frontier areas, where the India factor is perhaps an issue with lesser significance compared to the ongoing conflict in that area.

Another newspaper, which is generally viewed as conservative and pro-military, isUmmat. Thus, it was no surprise when it expressed strong reservations about the civilian government’s decision to grant India the MFN status. However, its editorial was of particular significance because it inadvertently gave an insight into the changing dynamic of civil-military relations in Pakistan. A report in Ummat quoting a “reliable” source stated that during a briefing on the MFN issue given by the Foreign Minister to ISI Chief Shuja Pasha and other leaders, the military was not particularly happy with the civilian government’s policy vis-à-vis India. The paper reported that the DG ISI wanted to know “why the government is so close to crossing the line on national security.” 7 The editorial added that the military leadership was not entirely convinced by the Foreign Minister’s explanations.

This report indicates that there is disagreement between the military leadership and the civilian establishment on the issue of granting MFN status to India. Based on the information given in the article, two possibilities can be hypothesized. The first possibility is that the army reluctantly tolerated the civilian government’s stance in spite of reservations. If this was indeed the case, then it is quite possible that the civilian government and possibly the trade lobbies were successful in over-riding the military’s opposition.

At the same time, it is also possible that the army itself exercised some restraint. In an interview to one of the authors, Muhammad Ziauddin, Managing Editor of the Express Tribune, 8 stated that there is in fact some rethink going on within the military. Although it would be far fetched to say that the anti-India lobby in the establishment has lost influence, it is possible that there is a difference of opinion within the military leadership leading to lack of consensus, which could have been exploited by the civilian government.

Whatever the case, it cannot be denied that the political class in Pakistan is being more assertive than usual. In a recent statement, the Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Chaudhary asserted that any attempt by the army to act without the orders of the federal government would be considered as unconstitutional. 9 Such statements indicate that although the military is going to remain dominant in the near future, it is no longer being treated as a holy cow.

Many observers have said that Pakistan’s fragile economic condition on one hand and India’s growing economy on the other have forced Pakistani policymakers to rethink their equation vis-à-vis India. However, it is still early and one needs to keep in mind that the anti-India lobby still exercises a lot of influence on the decision making process and the local media. Having said that, the approval from some sections of the Urdu media for the grant of MFN status to India is indeed a welcome sign and it cannot be ignored.

Some critics have argued that the MFN status is only a small step and not a giant leap as it is being portrayed. Be that as it may, the importance of the MFN status issue lies in the debate that the agreement has initiated in Pakistan, which could influence both the internal political structures of the country as well as the way it deals with its neighbours.

1. 1.‘Decision to accord India MFN status’, Express, November 4, 2011.
2. 2.‘Decision to grant India MFN status!’, Jang, November 4, 2011.
3. 3.‘Regional peace responsibility of both India and Pakistan’, Jang, November 12, 2011.
4. 4.‘We should remain cautious while signing agreements with India’, Ausaf, November 12, 2011.
5. 5.‘Another Mischief’, Nawa-I Waqt, November 11, 2011.
6. 6.Editorial, Khabrein, November 4, 2011.
7. 7.‘National Institutions ask for explanation on the MFN decision’, Ummat, November 6, 2011.
8. 8.Amit Julka’s Interview with Muhammad Ziauddin over Skype, November 1, 2011.
9. 9.“Interpreting Constitution SC’s job: Action by army without govt nod illegal: CJ”, Dawn, November 13, 2011.

India's mullahs rake up the Ahmadi issue

This article was published in Viewpoint Online, here
I often find the dichotomy of the oppressor and the oppressed baffling, for it underestimates a very key component of human nature, i.e. hypocrisy and double standards. People fail to understand that the tormented could easily turn into tormentors, given the context.

India’s Muslims are the country’s largest minority. Depending on your source, their numbers range between 160-200 million. However, the community has been subject to injustices of the state and society. Communal riots, encounter killings, poisonous Hindu right propaganda that tries to portray them as outsiders and cultural pollutants; they have seen it all. And if all this weren’t enough, they have to face an even bigger detriment to their progress; their self-appointed leaders. These include et al., mullahs, politicians, and the Urdu press that claims to be their spokesperson.

As I glanced through today’s (24 September) Roznama Sahara, a popular Urdu daily in India, a news article on the front page caught my attention. The article, titled “Qadianon ki ‘Qurani taleemat numaish’ ke khilaf ihtejaaj”. The story described how Muslim organizations protested outside an exhibition organized by the Ahmadi community (described using the pejorative term ‘Qadiani’) because they claimed that Ahmadis were attempting to mislead the public by posing as Muslims (Surprise, Surprise!). The opening sentence said it all:

“Leading Muslim personalities in Delhi held a peaceful protest against an exhibition ‘Teachings of Holy Quran’, arranged by the Ahmadiya Jamaat India, an organization belonging to the Ahmadi sect, which have been declared as non Muslims every where in the world…”

The tone of the article betrays the prejudice on part of the newspaper against a minority sect, followed by no more than 100,000 people in India. I would like to question the editors of the paper behind their rationale. It has no right to brand people as Muslims or Non Muslims. It is high time that these self appointed leaders of the community stopped indulging in the politics of takfir and leave it to the people to determine whether they are true Muslims or not.

This is not the first time that India’s Muslim leaders have tried to rake up the Ahmadi issue. In April this year, C M Naim discussed this issue at length in his article ‘Learn From Pakistan’, published in the magazine Outlook. Apparently, the clerical class has tried to flog this dead horse from time to time. These actions betray both, the frustration of the clerical class, and their ineptitude. Have the Muslims of India run out of problems that they need to focus their anxieties on a miniscule community, which is now being branded as a ‘Threat to Islam’. Have these people learnt nothing from the mistakes of their Pakistani counterparts, and their baloney of branding everyone as Non Muslim?

In 1953, after the anti-Ahmadi violence in Pakistan, the government constituted the Munir Commission to investigate the violence. While conducting his investigations, Justice Munir interviewed several prominent Ulema and asked them to define who is a Muslim. Predictably, all ulema had different ideas about the matter and Justice Munir observed that

“Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim but kafirs according to the definition of every one else.”

But those were the golden pre-Zia days, when Pakistan was still a Muslim country and not an Islamic state. Since then, the country has witnessed the growth of sectarian organizations that seek to outdo each other in Takfir politics. The Sunni will call the Shia an infidel, the Shia will protest against the Sunni. Then, the Shia will call an Ahmadi an infidel and the Ahmadi will protest. Tomorrow, I will not be surprised if some dimwit from the Ahmadi community starts calling for the expulsion of atheists or agnostics. It is a bit like a classroom. The bigger bully attacks the smaller bully. The smaller bully, instead of uniting with his class against the bigger bully will pick out the puniest guy in the class in order to vent his frustration.

Anyway, I digress. The Ahmadi problem in India is inherently different from that in Pakistan. First of all, constitutionally, India is still a secular country. Secondly, our courts have been wise enough to let the people decide their faiths instead of indulging in sectarian politics. Thus, by and large, minority sects in India are safe. However, the growing radicalization within religious communities cannot be taken lightly. The rise of neo-fundamentalist preachers like Zakir Naik, with their cleverly disguised supremacist views and their urban middle class fan following could exacerbate societal tensions in the future.

India’s historical strength has been the accommodation of multiple, and often conflicting views. Surely, we cannot stop people from disagreeing with beliefs of others. However, it is when the disagreement turns into demands to de-legitimize those set of beliefs and people begin to indulge in insidious propaganda, which is when the problem starts. Perhaps it is time that we remind ourselves what Bulleh Shah once wrote,

Bulleya aashaq hoyo rabb da, hoi malaamat lakh

Tainu kaafar kaafar kainde, tu aaho!, aaho! Aakh

(Bulla, the lover of God, a thousand curses are heaped on you

They cry “infidel! infidel! ” - you say “so it is, so it is!”)

Let a thousand flowers bloom

This article was published in Himal South Asian, here

Years ago, when I was staying in Kolkata, I used to enjoy having long conversations with my driver Khan. I was learning Urdu at that time, and Khan would often help me out on this regard. As time passed, the nature of our conversations went beyond the confines of Urdu, and we would talk about politics, religion and everything else under the sun. One day, as our discussion veered towards India’s Muslim community and all of a sudden, Khan’s expression became more serious, and he said “Problem yeh hai ke hum musalmaan apne bacchon ko padhaate nahin, sirf khilaate rehte hain” (The problem is that we focus not on educating our children, but on feeding them).

It was quite heartening to see that here was this average Javed, hardly educated himself, but who seemed to possess more common sense than the community’s self appointed leaders. And Khan is not the only enlightened soul out there. About a year ago, I met an auto-rickshaw driver Waseem who told me how he wanted his daughters to pursue graduation, in spite of family pressure to do otherwise. It is common practice amongst many to point to the success of Khans in Bollywood and Sania Mirza in tennis to prove India’s success in accommodating its minorities. Their achievements notwithstanding, I think it is the average Muslim on the street, like Wasim and Khan who will prove to be the catalysts for change in India’s Muslim community.

Tired of BJP’s propaganda, and Congress’s hollow proclamations of secularism, it is reassuring that India’s Muslims have finally begun to take matters into their own hands. For instance, in Bihar, organisations such as Bihar Anjuman have decided to take matters into their own hands by spurring the community onto a path of constructive action. On its homepage , it urges community to take responsibility into their own hands and strive to use their talents to the fullest. Another such initiative is the Rahmani 30, an institute set up to train poor but talented Muslim students for the prestigious IIT JEE (the entrance examination for securing admission to India’s premier engineering institutes, the IITs). A brainchild of Maulana Wali Rahmani and Abhyanand, a senior police officer in Bihar, it is one of the many subterranean changes which are taking place in the community.

However, much needs to be done, and there is still a long way to go. As pointed out by the Sachar report, India’s Muslims, and especially those belonging to the Indo Gangetic plain still face a variety of obstacles, which hampers their integration with the country’s mainstream. To give a small example, there is no state-sponsored Urdu medium school in Uttar Pradesh, a province home to about 40 million Urdu-speaking Muslims. Not only is this a gross injustice, but it is also against the Constitution. Although much hue and cry is raised about the issue of reservation, it is much easier, and certainly less controversial to make small incremental changes which can go a long way in ensuring that the community feels that it too has a stake, and a role to play in building the country’s future.

All said and done, it still baffles me that how we can ignore a community 170 million strong, larger than most nations. Surely, the ground is ripe for a million more Rahmani 30s and Anjumans. After all, the canvas that is India can’t be painted without all its constituent colours; Saffron, Blue, White and Green.

Afghan drawdown: The vultures descend

This article was published in Viewpoint Online and Express Tribune, Pakistan: here and here

Sometimes I go crazy. And in my craziness, I conjure ideas, which on second thought seem so foolish and naïve that I begin to laugh at myself.

Now that the die is cast and the United States is finally stepping up the process of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, the vultures are finally swooping down to ensure that they get a piece of the carcass. Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia; all seem to have a stake in Afghanistan’s future. Out of these, Pakistan and India are arch rivals and have conflicting interests in Afghanistan. Pakistan, which often views Afghanistan as an extension of its own backyard seeks to play out the game of strategic depth in the country.

India, on the other hand is taking a more indirect route. Contrary to conspiracy theories, India is not likely to convert Afghanistan as a second front against Pakistan. Most of its work is focussed towards infrastructure production, development aid etc. However, it would be naïve to think that India’s role is only that of a Good Samaritan. Previously, India had provided indirect support to the Northern Alliance to counter Taliban, which was supported by Pakistan. Furthermore, it is reported that the Indian Air Force has a presence at the Farkhor Air Base in Tajikistan, just a few kilometers from the border with Afghanistan.

Now that America has begun its withdrawal, it would be interesting to see how the Afghan endgame shapes out. Naturally India would like to depend on its allies like the Tajiks to maintain its influence. Pakistan on the other hand, has a natural advantage and can play the Pashtun card to its advantage. It has previously enjoyed close relations with the Taliban, and now that America seems to be in a mood to talk with them, it seems likely that Pakistan is bound to play a pivotal role in the ensuing negotiations.

India has always been wary of negotiating with the Taliban, and unless it shows some ideological flexibility, it might see its role diminished in face of waning US presence. On the other hand, in spite of its obvious edge over India in this regard, would be foolish for Pakistan to pursue an India-centric policy. Much to the disappointment of its Generals neither is India willing, nor does it have the resources or the desire to turn Afghanistan into a proxy front against Pakistan. However, in case Pakistan does decide to revert to its earlier policy (the one practised in 90s), I don’t think India will just sit on the fence like a passive observer. The biggest loser in this power struggle would be the Afghan. Once again, he’d fall prey to feuds that aren’t his own.

So, this leaves us with a brilliant, but quixotic choice; and that is the crazy dream that I am talking about. Instead of competing over Afghanistan, isn’t it possible for us to co-operate? It has advantages for both countries. First of all, the amelioration of the situation in Afghanistan would have a direct impact on the problem of extremism that seems to have engulfed Pakistan. Conversely, any strategic adventurism can lead to another blowback. And I need not emphasize that Pakistan does not need another wave of unholy warriors lashing at its borders. The cooling of tensions would also be advantageous for India, which also faces the scourge of terrorism. Also, a pact with Pakistan could also provide Indian industry with a direct land route to Afghanistan. This can bolster trade and commerce in the region.

The past few weeks have seen frantic diplomatic negotiations. High level dialogue has resumed between India and Pakistan. On 24^th June, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan jointly agreed to fight terrorism. It is not entirely unrealistic to enlarge the scope of such co-operation to countries like India, China and Russia. After all, a peaceful Afghanistan is in everyone’s interest.

Last but by no means the least, this deal would be good for the Afghan. Sick of his nation being used as a geo-political whorehouse, the ending of all games (whether great or not so great) gives him a glimmer of hope against the backdrop of a dark present.

Baloch encounters

This article was originally published in Viewpoint Online, here

There are times when life seems a bit too co-incidental. It makes you run into the same thing over and over again. Yesterday, while I was going through my daily newspaper routine, I chanced upon a photograph of a Baloch village. Scrawled across one of the walls were the words ‘Pakistan Murdabad’. The graffiti did not stand out; in fact, the words seemed to merge in with the rest of the photograph. Anyway, soon enough, my fickle brain moved on to other things and the photograph, like the graffiti in it, receded somewhere deep down in my cerebellum.

Today, as I was sitting on a bench at the station waiting for my train, deeply engrossed in my newspaper, this Asian looking guy approached me, and asked me in Urdu“Hello, Aap mujhe bata sakte hain key eh train kab aayegi”. I told him what he about the train and resumed reading the newspaper. However, the guy wasn’t finished. He interrupted me again: “Aap Kahaan se hain?”. Realizing that he was in a mood to talk, I put down my newspaper, and replied “Mein Dilli se hoon, aur aap?”. Realizing that I was from India, he smiled and told me that he was from Balochistan. Before I could ask him anything, he proceeded to tell me about his affection for India. I politely replied that I was quite fond of Pakistan too. At this point, his expression changed and he tersely replied “Mein Pakistani nahin hoon!”.

I was a bit startled by his rather forceful response, but at the same time, I wanted to probe further. At the same time, I was a bit wary of the possibility of him breaking off into a Sunny Deol-esque anti-Pakistan rant in front of dozens of Londoners, who might misconstrue what he was saying. Very cautiously, I asked him “lekin zulm to markazi hukoomat kar rahi hai na”. He replied that it was indeed the army and the central government who were responsible for the mess. He then went on to describe, in uncomfortably explicit details, the alleged crimes committed by the Pakistani state. This was followed by praises of India. I nodded along, the thoughts of Nagaland and Kashmir lurking eerily in my head.

I enquired whether his anger was against Pakistan as a country or Pakistan as a state. His response was rather puzzling. Although his anger was primarily directed against the army, he said that he resented Punjabi domination. That was understandable, I thought. Being a Punjabi myself, I know that as a group we are quite used to regional chauvinism. While he was talking, I was thinking about the level of frustration that this fellow possessed; so much resentment that it propelled him to talk about his anger and resentment to an unknown stranger in a train. As the train chugged along, he was getting more and more vocal, and a few co passengers were eyeing us suspiciously. Interrupting him, I asked “To kya aap Pakistan se alehdgee chaahte hain?”. He replied in the affirmative. He then went on to praise the ‘support’ India had given to the Balochs, while I nodded uncomfortably.

This conversation was arbitrarily cut short by the sudden arrival of my destination. As our ways parted, we smiled and I went my way. On the way to my college, I thought about what he said. I was also ashamed of myself. Here I was, a member of the privileged section of our society, where the coercive power of the state remains largely unseen and a mere phone call is enough to keep troubles at bay. On the other hand was him, possibly a victim, or at the very least a direct observer of state brutality. The difference between us was the difference between him and what he called ‘Pakistan’; it was the difference between haves and have-nots.

A few hours later, as I was sitting on my computer reading an Urdu daily, I noticed the headlines; it read “Altaf Hussain warns Punjab, Balochistan is slipping away”. Unfunny coincidence, I thought.

Indo-Pak relations: Back to normal

This article was originally published in the Express Tribune, here

After the recent brouhaha over cricket diplomacy, it looks like India-Pakistan relations have again slipped into their comfort zone of allegations and counter allegations.

Last month, as I saw Manmohan Singh and Yousaf Raza Gilani in Mohali, I was reminded of David Grey’s song “This year’s love had better last.” But then, in typical Ross and Rachel-esque fashion, statements by our diplomats have begun to resemble “We were on a break” and “No, we weren’t”.

The fact that Osama Bin Laden died only complicated matters. Soon after the news of Bin Laden’s death spread, Indian news channels went into overdrive. Predictably enough, Indian media contemplatedconducting similar operations in Karachi to capture Dawood Ibrahim. The common explanation given was “if America could do it, so can we”. May be its just me, but it’s amazing that how insane levels of stupidity can pass off as ‘analysis’ these days. Firstly, even if India had the capability to conduct such an operation, the loss of secrecy due to the media coverage would render it ineffectual.

Secondly, it amazes me how India’s middle classes can be so dismissive about Pakistan. Surely, a country with a 5,00,000 strong army, a relatively advanced air force and most importantly, a sizeable nuclear arsenal is not going to make hay while Indian helicopters hover around Clifton and Defence. America still had the foreign aid card with which it could afford to carry out such an audacious operation. But what do we have? Diddly squat!

It really amazes me how we take the concept of war so lightly. Maybe it’s because the present yuppie generation has never seen a war. Sitting in their air conditioned houses, war seems more like an issue of testosterone rather than blood.

What the Indian media has forgotten in this whole fracas is that the operation to kill Osama was itself illegal and in violation of international laws. Not only did it undermine the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan, there was no trial against Osama. I could go on about the inconsistencies of America’s blundering foreign policy, but I shall leave that to the real experts like Noam Chomsky who had an excellent take on the whole issue.

Anyway, coming back to India, the media circus was soon followed by India’s foreign ministry when it sent the list of the alleged ‘50 Most Wanted’ criminals. The list included the predictable choices like Dawood Ibrahim and Hafiz Saeed, along with several officers of the Pakistani army. Now I am not absolving any of these gentlemen of their alleged crimes. Naturally they should be brought to justice. However, what irks me is the in-your-face crudity with which the demands were made. It seems that the list was not made with the intention of its stated objectives; it was rather an attempt to pre-empt the jingoists at their own game. The government probably wanted to allay fears that it was not a ‘soft state,’ and it was prepared to deal firmly with terrorism.

Real diplomacy is seldom carried out by making grand announcements; instead, it is a result of careful and secretive planning at the lower levels. By all means, India should ask Pakistan to properly investigate into this matter. But, it should use more tact. We should get out of our self-righteous shells and realise that our ‘Big Brother’ approach is generally not well received by any of our neighbours. It is our inconsistent approach which nullifies any goodwill that we might have earned due to the much hyped cricket diplomacy. The sooner we learn this, the better.