Anchors and analysts at war

Side-effect

The writer is a poet and author based in Islamabad.

An oft-repeated and paraphrased line from a famous French statesman George Clemenceau from a hundred years back goes something like: ‘war is too serious a business to be left to military men’. I would say today that the way war is too serious a business to be left to military men, peace is too serious a business to be left to media presenters.

What we see in the wake of the Pathankot airbase terror attack in India earlier this week is a news media war waged against each other by a section of private media in the two countries. I reiterate ‘private media’ and not independent media or the state media. If sensationalising human suffering and commercial interests are paramount, the media cannot be termed independent.

After the attack, some of the arch anchors, presenters and analysts of the Indian media took moments to decipher that Pakistan had backstabbed India after their prime minister made a surprise visit to Lahore on Christmas Day less than two weeks ago to meet and greet his Pakistani counterpart. Also on regular media and social media, there was a hashtag ‘Pakbackstabs’ going viral. They single-mindedly blamed Pakistan as the perpetrator of the attack. And their counterpart hawks on our side reciprocated with equal fervour within no time.

The Indian media continued to project that Pathankot is comparable to the war in Kargil and the attacks on civilians in Mumbai. Kargil happened months after the then Indian prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, had visited Lahore in 1998. Mumbai happened when the then foreign minister of Pakistan, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, was on a visit to New Delhi and Dr Manmohan Singh was the prime minister of India. There are other incidents that took place in India and Pakistan during this period which are not being emphasised upon currently because they do not fit the narrative.

On our side, if not in clear terms always, the impression is being given by some that this is India’s own doing. Lacunae are being identified in the official and media description of events in Pathankot. Interestingly, questions are also being asked about why the Indian forces would take so much time to complete the clean-up operation. There are hints being made that there is something fishy in the whole affair, accusing India of sabotaging the peace process and blaming it on Pakistan. Both these narratives presented by sections of Indian and Pakistani media have deep-seated flaws. One cannot overlook the history of the conflict and the bitterness it continues to create but one must also acknowledge and recognise the changes being brought about in the thinking and action of the leadership in both these countries.

The narratives based on a ‘single enemy identification’ and imposing a monolith on each other by debasing political governments or state institutions are certain to lead to the peace process being stalled. There is a difference between the word ‘blame’ and the word ‘responsibility’. If Pakistan is blamed – as a state – to have masterminded Pathankot, it will be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction bringing us back to square one. Logic fails completely if someone powerful within the state institutions in Pakistan orchestrated an act of terror at the time when Pakistan has its hands full combating lethal terrorism within the country.

If that is found to be the case, then it is no less than a suicidal act in the current national and international scenario. Besides, after the rounds of meetings between the national security advisors in Bangkok, foreign and external affairs ministers in Islamabad and, finally, the two prime ministers at Jati Umra near Lahore, you would need someone completely out of their wits in our institutions to support an act of terrorism.

However, if evidence is found that the militants, or their handlers, had links within Pakistan we will have to take the responsibility to clear our ranks, and our territory, from any such elements that are detrimental to our own larger political, economic and geostrategic interests. There can and should be no compromise on moving forward in this direction at a swifter pace than ever.

If Indians are made to believe that everything untoward happening there is sponsored by an omnipotent Pakistani state or its military then are the Pakistani state and military also attacking and blowing up their own military installations and strategic arms and armaments? In Pakistan, as said before, a section of the media continues to whip up the emotions of its listeners and viewers against India – like their counterparts across the border. Trying to perpetually convince ourselves that we are never at fault when it comes to dealing with our neighbour is a futile exercise. It is untrue and no one else in the world believes us.

The two countries have fought wars and bled each other. We had proxies fighting for our interests, real and imaginary, and both of us see each other’s involvement in anti-state activities in our countries. Our narrative in Pakistan is also selective in nature. But that is what the two countries’ media industries are currently thriving on.

At this critical juncture, what we need from the leadership in the two countries is a demonstration of sagacity and statesmanship. They must not succumb to any media pressure, and continue with the resumption of a meaningful dialogue. One would expect that when the two parties met on a number of occasions recently, they had incorporated the possibility of such attacks and similar incidents carried out by saboteurs of the process leading to rapprochement. If they did not, they should do it now. No such threat can be removed overnight.

Pathankot confirms that there is all the more reason now to speed up the process of speaking to each other, take some immediate measures jointly to curb extremism and terrorism in the region and make certain decisions on issues that are relatively easy to deal with. If the outstanding problems of Sir Creek, Siachen, visa regimes for common people and fishermen crossing over into each other’s limits are resolved at the earliest, it will boost confidence between the two parties, build trust and strengthen the peace constituency which is continuously under threat.

Experts from both sides confirm that we were close to resolving the border issues at Sir Creek. The two sides must go ahead and agree to a settlement. Likewise, the border and demarcation of territory on the roof of the world, Siachen, is easier to resolve than issues around the Line of Control and Working Boundary in Kashmir. The plight of poor fishermen who are unable to recognise the lines drawn on the waters of the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean and end up languishing in each other’s prisons for years need a quick humanitarian settlement.

Kashmir need not be put on the back-burner but a complete clarity is needed to understand that there will be an out-of-the-box, negotiated settlement which is agreeable not just to the two countries but also to the Kashmiris. The visa regime between the two countries must be made flexible, encouraging not just robust people-to-people contact on an individual basis but also between institutions.

Alongside these measures, cooperation in the areas of energy trade, commerce and industry must be encouraged with definite timelines. If the two governments commit themselves to the process of peace and mutual cooperation, the detractors will be defeated.

The Indian media has to recognise that Pakistan will remain a formidable neighbour and needs to be dealt with differently from the smaller states within the region. Also, an unstable Pakistan will become a millstone around their necks. The Pakistani media has to understand that there are no options for any ideological or religious war with India. We have to deal with India as a state.

We have to ask ourselves that if it was about religion, why are we so close to Nepal and Sri Lanka when one is a Hindu-majority nation and the other Buddhist, and have such difficult relationships at the moment with Afghanistan and Bangladesh, both Muslim-majority countries?

The writer has resumed his reguler column after a sabbatical.

Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com