Columnist
|
|
|
| | Some pot-pourri--spicy too | | | “Civilisation? It is a good idea. Someone should try it.” That is George Bernard Shaw; who else it could be?
“India and Pakistan”, says Pakistan foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, backed by President Asif Ali Zardari, “require to build their relationship on trust.”
“Trust?” Good idea indeed, someone should try it. Who will? India, perhaps, provided both sides decide to walk the extra mile. But Pakistan has been lately busy, digging a tunnel, right up to Samba district in Jammu, perhaps to bring in a surprise consignment of “trust” for India. But India discovered the tunnel before the gift could be delivered, and all surprise was lost.
Should Pakistan try the idea? Certainly not, because the powerful lobbies and pressure groups there are said to be ignorant of the word “trust”.
US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, says Islamabad cannot “keep snakes in its backyard to strike its neighbours.” Prime minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, promises, “we are willing to discuss all outstanding issues with Pakistan, but it should ensure that its soil is not used for terrorism against India.”
But Pakistan is adamant and snakes continue to stay in the backyard, or shall we say, in the “safe havens”. To strike who else other than its neighbour, India? Is that its way of trust building? At least so far it has been.
Ms Clinton further says, “You can’t expect them (snakes) only to bite your neighbours. Eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard.”
Actually the snakes have already turned on “whoever has them in the backyard. Who should know it better than Ms Clinton who has long been watching the Frankenstein’s monster venomously turning on its creator all over the region?
As a well-wisher, President Barak Obama, intervenes in a conciliatory tone to tell Pakistan not to see India as its “mortal enemy, shed its Afghan-India paranoia and realise that a peaceful approach towards New Delhi would be in everybody’s interest.”
But there in the backyard, from its safe haven, the pampered king cobra emits an ear-splitting hiss, that reverberates in Lahore, telling a cheering rally that “Pakistan needs to aggressively pursue jihad against India for the liberation of Kashmir, even if it results in a nuclear war.” The king has many snakes at its command, in and outside safe havens, whose job is to spit venom, while many of them still go about raising funds for jihad against India.
Barak Obama again comes out with a mollifying balm. “Pakistan’s obsession with India, “he says, “that makes it look at its neighbour as an existential threat is a mistake. Pakistan would do well to shed the contest mentality. US wants Pakistan to realise that biggest threat to it doesn’t come from outside, but is homegrown.”
Farther away, in his humble bid to convey the same sensible “homegrown” view to Pakistan, noted journalist and analyst, Adnan Rehmat, pleads that the “only way to protect Pakistan against the threats, perceived and unperceived, is to build trust, peace, trade and interdependence with India”, and other neighbours and global allies.”
But there in the wings, Gen. Hamid Gul, is waiting to strike back. He fumes that he “strongly believes” that the “sole purpose of Pakistan army is to liberate Kashmir from India occupation. India is in a miserable state and deep down afraid of Pakistan.”
One is reminded of Herman Goering, a right hand man of Adolf Hitler and founder of Gestapo, who said once, “When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun.” In a broader sence “trust” and “culture” have identical implication, and Gen. Gul’s hand also must have reached for the gun.
However, Gen. Gul’s fulmination does not deter Gen. Talat Masood from saying that there should be “normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan, and not the fighting between them.”
Over the past six decades we have hardly ever heard of the word “trust” figure anywhere in India-Pakistan relationship. For India, ISI actually has been the face of its relations with Pakistan and India has always looked at this face as a mix of intrigue, double-dealing, underhandedness and machinations.
Pakistan army’s “face” has not been any different either, in the words of Stephen Cohen (The idea of Pakistan) “Pakistan army is supreme because of Pakistan nationalism, especially with its anti-India foundation, a political leader may run against Pakistan nationalism ‘by being seen as pro-India. Curiously a military dictator too may be overthrown if perceived as being soft to India”.
“When a soldier joins Pakistan army,” says noted” Pakistani journalist, Mariana Babar, he is taught that India is an enemy and Kashmir is to be liberated. If you have abandoned Kashmir, you might as well abandon the army.
Hina Rabbani’s exhortations on trust building are received well by foreign minister, S.M. Krishna, who say India and Pakistan gained nothing from “acrimonious debates and slanging matches”, while everything is to be gained by being “realistic and appreciative of each other’s intent.”
These days there is much emphasis on trust-building. Should be, because it is the cornerstone without which it is not possible to build a mutually beneficial relationship, that is productive and lasting. What is needed now is a strong foundation for the concept and practice of trust, to enable it to fully establish itself and then grow rapidly as the governing force of India-Pakistan relations.
An old friend walks in. “I can see you are entangled in trust-distrust see saw. Here is something for you to add to it”. He hands over a folded sheet of paper and walks away.
The writing on the sheet reads : “What can I do to make you happy?” I once asked a senior -Pakistani diplomat who had come to foreign office with some complaint.
He smiled and pointing to the map of India, hanging on the wall, said, “You take off that red cap from your head and give it to us. We will be happy.”
Noticing that the region given in the red was Kashmir, I said, “You are mistaken. It is not a cap. It is our head.”
This conversation took place in 1966. It could have been I.P. Singh former diplomat yesterday today, the ailment remains. This is not the age of messiahs.
One wonders what can or what will emerge, if at all, from the existing welter of snakes in backyards and peace talks in foyers, bonhomie here, infiltration there, friendly dialogues and underground tunnels, GBMS, cross-border cordiality, urge for trust, safe terrorist havens, backstabbing terror assaults, royal treatment of masterminds and perpetrators of terrorism, impunity for anti-India terror groups, et al.
The overview that will emerge, if it hopefully does, from the present pot-pourri, will it be a repeat of incertitude, a rehash of what we have seen and heard for decades, a stand-off with no visible opening anywhere, or will it mark a new beginning, a pragmatic, realistic, rational and viable forward movement, leaving behind all fixations, unachievables, and unfeasibles? |
|
|
|
|
Comment on this Story |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|