Some Kind Of Logic …Posted: December 20, 2008
In this world, there is logic, and then … well, let me write about some things i was watching on the net, to complete this! On a group on facebook, i came across links to recording of a show discussing the recent Mumbai attacks, and the larger canvas of India-Pakistan relations. This was a program aired on Kal-Tak! Talk about being one step behind … nevertheless, i must say Javed Chaudhary seems to have conducted this discussion quite well. And this is saying a lot … given the current state of tension in India-Pakistan relations in the backdrop of the Mumbai terror attacks, and the kind of public anger there seems to be out there for each other in the public mind (one just has to read some of the comments to these videos, or on facebook, or on any other platform). I must commend Mr. Chaudhary for conducting this extremely well, except for one question which he raised, and which i am pointing to.
This has been uploaded on youtube in three parts … click here for part 3. You will also find parts 1 and 2 here. Because i am not privileged enough to discuss “defence analysis”, i must here speak purely out of common sense … something which, at times, seemed to be in short supply, at least from one of the two participants.
I would just like to put in a few points here …
1. Javed Chaudhary says the Jamat-ud-Daawa is a welfare trust. Might be … or then, might not be. When he says that no investigation has been done into the background of these trusts, how can he make a claim that they are purely welfare trusts, and have no linkage to any terrorist organizations?
There … thats the only question i have of Mr. Chaudhary. Now, to Mr. Hamid …
1. Mr. Hamid says that India is suffering from an inferiority complex vis vis Pakistan, given that “Pakistani” Muslims have ruled over India for a 1000 years. How then does Mr. Hamid explain the fact that since Independance, why is it that India has always been considered the more matured, and more powerful country in this part of the world? To the extent that this part of the world is the Indian sub-continent!
2. Mr. Hamid says that if India had the guts, India would have overrun Pakistan in 1947 only. To begin with, it must be said thatthe equating of non-violence and peaceful coexistence to cowardice is something which can happen only in a fanatical mind. Of course, the fact that Pakistan had more than its required share of blessings of the British Empire helped their cause, but having said that, if it was a question of guts, why is it that the ultimate Pakistan was a whittled down version of what was originally envisaged? Why did, for example, Assam, or Hyderabad, or Junagadh accede to India, or for that matter, why is it that Calcutta eluded them?
3. Mr. Hamid says that “Khalistan aur Sikh inse alag hone ko taiyyaar baithe hain” … that Sikhs are ready to secede from India. Maybe Mr. Hamid might want to realize that we are in a millenium which is more than a decade removed from the era of militancy in Punjab. Suffice it to say that this reminded me, sort of, of Rip Van Winkle.
4. Naxalites in Tamil Nadu? wow … if Mr. Hamid has met any, its interesting that none in the Indian media have. or, for that matter, how come Tamil Nadu has not reported Naxalite violence? Even in Orissa, and in Andhra Pradesh, Naxalites are a marginal presence, but Mr. Hamid is convinced that they hold centrestage in all parts of India, from Naxalbari to Tamil Nadu! Not many people in Naxalbari would agree with that, i guess!
5. There has been lot of speculation that the terrorists spoke Marathi. But does Mr. Hamid believe that it is impossible for someone from Pakistan to learn Marathi? One blog, in fact, mentions that a number of Jews come from Maharashtra, and hence speak fluent Marathi, and then goes on to suggest that these Marathi Jews have been recruited in large numbers by Mossad, and hence the Israeli hand behind the Mumbai terror attacks. This is the same genre of creative-writing which also claims that the Americans did 9/11 to themselves. Maybe someday they might actually go on to claim that the PLO is a creation of the Mossad?
6. Mr. hameed goes on to talk about agents being caught in FATA carrying Indian ID cards … quick question … why would an undercover agent be carrying ID cards? On the one hand the claim seems to be that R&AW is capable of fomenting all the trouble Pakistan is facing today, from FATA to Balochistan, to Karachi, and on the other hand, the same R&AW is incapable of hiding its complicity in these activities? Come on … it has to be one way or the other.
7. Mukti Bahini ke gunde or dehshatgard … the goons and terrorists of Mukti Bahini … well … how come nobody apart from Pakistan believe that they were terrorists?
8. Mr. Hameed goes on to say that India doesnt have either the guts, or the power to hit out at Pakistan. Interestingly, in the same breath he goes on to blame India for breaking up Pakistan. So, is it the former, or the latter?
9. Mr. Hameed goes on to say that when India can send the Army across international border, Kashmir is not even an international border. There are two implications that follow from here … especially when the talk is about “agar hum is karz ko aaj chukaayen” … if we repay the debt of 1971 today … first, if India just wanted a reason to break Pakistan into two parts, as Capt. Verma implies, probably this could have been done from any time from 1947, buit it didnt happen, and second, if, as Mr. Hameed implies, any country can cross and change the Line of Control, and that the day is not far, the fact remains that any country also includes India. On the question of sending Muhajideens … on the one hand, Mr. Hameed says it was the India Army which crossed the international border, on the other hand, he says that “agar hum Fauj ya Muhajideen bhejen to royaa na karen aap …” … “if we send the Army or Muhajideen then you shouldnt be crying” … where do Muhajideen come into the equation, Mr. Hameed failed to mention. And if the Muhajideen are non-state actors, then where does the question of “hum bhejen”, or ” if we (Pakistan) send” … where does the question of Pakistan sending Muhajideen come into the picture? Or, is this a tacit acceptance of the fact that the Muhajideen are not necessarily non-state players? And that, at one level, the term Muhajideen, according to Mr. Hameed’s statement, is analogous to Army?
10. Mr. Hameed believes that it wont take them any time to reduce India to the size ofSri Lanka, if they want. And, he wants the world to believe that they dont want it … he himself, in the same breath, said that the day when Pakistan will repay the debt of 1971 is not far. This means they believe they have to repay the debt of 1971 … now, either they are already trying to repay the debt (which means they havent been successful for more than three decades), or they are not repaying the debt … which would obviously be because they are unable to … after all, what other reason could be there for not repaying, when the urge seems to be there.
11. Mr. Hameed says that if they want they will do a hundred more Kargils … two things emerge from there … first, this seems to be a tacit admission that Pakistan did do Kargil, and second, that people like Mr. Hameed dont seem to have learnt their lessons from the Kargil drubbing. In the same breath, Mr. Hamid goes on to say that a LOC can be changed anytime one wants to … while this is true in terms of international politics, this possibility is open to all countries which have access to a line of control … that India has every bit of possibility to change the LOC as Pakistan might want to … just that India has no inclination to use military force … while, as Mr. Hamid himself admits that they have already done a Kargil … a futile exercise in trying to change the LOC.
12. Mr. Hameed believes that India runs to America and Israel because we dont have the power to hit out at Pakistan … this doesnt seem to go well with known facts … that during the cold-war era, NAM notwithstanding, India did lean towards the USSR, while Pakistan was the American ally in the Indian sub-continent … and also the fact that India, for a long time, did not have diplomatic ties with Israel.
Finally, i would agree with Capt. Verma … that somewhere, Pakistan must introspect. That its a little difficult to believe that the entire international community is in the wrong, and that either India wields so much clout at the UN that at India’s insistence, some organizations have been banned, or that the international community is so gullible that they dont really need proof to do this? Also, if the international community wants to disintegrate the ISI, why would they want to do that? Why is it that the international community doesnt want to disintegrate the R&AW, or Mossad, for that matter? Taking this one step further, i would say that both Pakistan and India must look at ways to live together in peace, and not in this atmosphere of mutual hatred … for this is the only sure way to mutual destruction.