Jaw-jaw better than war-war

MUMBAI BOMB BLASTS: I am somewhat worried by the lack of out-of-box thinking within the Indian and Pakistani media. They are still bold and imaginative, yet strangely wedded to the same ideas of 'we' and 'they', the majority and the minority, action and response.

Neither has been able to overcome encrusted prejudice. On certain matters their reaction is similar, full of hate, distrust and mostly one-sided. The Mumbai bomb blasts are a case in point. When 186 people are killed in a matter of minutes the demand for someone's head is natural. The mangled bodies of the dead and the wounded make a grisly scene, giving the impression of a wronged, helpless state.

But this is the occasion when the media should rise above bias and show the way. The Pakistan media should have sought answers from their government to the questions raised on training camps for the terrorists and the headquarters of Laskhar and the likes. The Indian media should have assessed how far the Gujarat happenings have found resonance in Mumbai.

Pointing an accusing finger in one direction is easy, but the difficult part is to verify behind-the-scenes briefings. Both governments tend to cover up their own failures by pinning the blame on hostile foreign and banned elements they have not been able to control. There is probably something in the allegation about the complicity of the Pakistani military junta.

Looming election in a year's time means the army has to think long and hard about ways to divert the attention of the public to something else, such as heightening tensions with its perennial enemy. When the religious elements in Pakistan, by no standard limited, have different interpretations of jihad, a bleeding pluralistic India only whets their fundamentalism. Consequently, the interests of the army and of fanatics coincide.

The Pakistani media should have come down on them heavily. Before them is the example of Baluchistan where the army has used religious forces to curb a nationalistic expression for self governance.

Similarly, Islamabad has allied itself with the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a coalition of six religious parties, to encourage the remnants of the Taliban still resisting Kabul's authority along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Since Islamabad would like to convert Afghanistan into a satellite state for reasons of "strategic depth," the Pakistani media in general has gone along with this policy.

Nationalism drives liberalism into the background. Isn't this true of the Pakistani media as well as that of Indian? Terrorism is like a Frankenstein. Once unleashed, it cannot be controlled. Probably, the villain of the piece is America which first created Al-Qaida to fight the then Soviet Union.

Al-Qaida in turn gave birth to the Taliban which also enjoyed America's blessings until 9/11. Washington did not object to their infiltrating Kashmir and creating trouble, or carrying out acts of sabotage in India. What changed everything were the attacks on New York and Washington when America apparently began using the whip against Pakistan while at the same time depending on Islamabad to control the new Frankenstein.

The question before New Delhi is what options does it possess to face such an unholy alliance of mosque and cantonment? If TV networks were to be the guide _ they have 98 per cent of viewers saying "we must act" _ we should either take up hot pursuit or bomb Pakistan.

Obviously, Islamabad would retaliate. Event by event it might lead to a war _ both sides have nuclear weapons. Are we prepared for that? Even a limited war will definitely impede our development. We have taken our forces right up to the border and kept them there for months at huge expense, but had to withdraw them and today we realise the futility of the whole exercise.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has tried to mollify aroused sentiments by warning Pakistan that the peace process would have no future if "terror modules are instigated, inspired and supported by elements across the border without which they (terrorists in India) cannot act with such devastating effects." He claims to have "credible information" on this. I wish the peace process talks had not been deferred.

Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war. True, Islamabad has said that "allegations are altogether unsubstantiated," but the general impression in India is that the ISI is behind every act of terrorism which has taken place either at Varanasi, Bangalore, Delhi or now Mumbai. Islamabad has every time asked for concrete evidence. In such matters it is not always possible to comply.

There is a parallel here with the case of disgraced nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan. After he was caught red-handed selling nuclear material to Libya, Iran, North Korea and others, the Pakistan government disowned him, claiming that he had been acting on his own. As with the terrorists, who can prove to the contrary? Our problem is that the acts of terrorism aggravate Hindu-Muslim relations.

This may suit the RSS and their political bedfellows, but it weakens our secular fabric. I know there are certain fanatic elements in Pakistan who want to see India as a purely Hindu state, mirror imaging their own Islamic credentials. But the ethos of India _ and its independence movement _ is pluralism.

No acts of terrorism are going to divert us from our basic values of secularism and democracy. The Prime Minister has rightly said that the government will "crush" terror modules which exist in Mumbai and many other parts of the country but, if I may say so, the government needs a better intelligence system and closer coordination of the different intelligence agencies.

There are eight of them, each going its own way. Why can't they be combined? Except for a few human rights activists the civil society in Pakistan was disappointingly quiet. On the one side, it seems to be afraid of the mullah and on the other side the military. But it does not lack courage and I have followed its individual and collective struggles against the forces of oppression.

Why doesn't it speak out now and be counted? This is the moment in history which may turn the fate of Pakistan, provided they declare openly that they would not tolerate terrorism across the border. They must demand the dismantling of training camps and oppose the shelter which Pakistan provides to the terrorists after they have done their job in India or Afghanistan.

With the two governments standing apart and with little prospect of the peace process going further, it is necessary to accelerate people-to-people contact.

Unfortunately, the administrations on both sides have reduced the number of visas, although the busses are plying back and forth on ever new routes. In fact, the empty buses are a sad commentary on prevailing relations between India and Pakistan. The core problem remains lack of trust. Kashmir is only the fallout.