Yes, together we can
Pakistan launched anti-Taliban offensive in NWFP.
MANY years ago, there was an earthquake in Mexico. Hundreds of people died and a large number of houses were destroyed. It was a somber scenario. Yet, one peddler was shouting: "Buy anti-earthquake pill." Overwhelmed by the tragedy, some people began beating him up. In his defence he asked: "Tell me what was the alternative?" Such was the feeling when peace-seekers from Pakistan met their counterparts in New Delhi a few days ago. When relations between India and Pakistan lay in ruins and when the talks between the two countries were not even in the horizon, it was indeed a brave effort to pick up the thread from where they had left it before the terrorist attack on Mumbai. Peace makers had made substantial progress. People-to-people contact was increasing despite the rigours of visa restriction. The contact for the last two decades had developed enough strength not to evaporate with the carnage, although the Mumbai attack caused the maximum damage. The Pakistani team was a bit jolted by the anger it found in India. They heard critics who said that Pakistan was merely going over the exercise and doing little to bring to justice the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage. It was mistrust because India is not sure whether the steps taken were genuine. The critics said that the Pakistan government was converting the issue of terrorism into yet another dispute between the two countries. The team justified India's rage and condemned unequivocally the terrorist attack. But it also said that the two countries must not allow the terrorists to hijack the peace agenda and must resume the peace process. The peace-seekers wanted to impress on India that Pakistan civil society, however limited, was fighting for the same values: free society and good neighbourliness. That they undertook the visit when the wounds of Mumbai were raw spoke volumes about their determination and doggedness. They heard harsh words but presented their case without rancour. What surprised them was that the people's understanding and affection had not been exhausted. Probably, left to themselves, unencumbered by bureaucratic machinations, the people will find that the destiny of the two is intertwined. Yet the army will not allow normalisation because the people in Pakistan can demand a reduction in the force. There is, however, a possibility that the army will control the jihadis now that there is an outcry against them all over the world. It is former President Musharraf who gave a bad name to Pakistan. He encouraged terrorists on one side and staged "action" against them on the other. Now he has admitted in Washington that terrorists operated from Pakistan. But his plea is that their camps were located in difficult terrain, which handicapped their dismantling. A person who could use all methods to curb the nationalists in Baluchistan should not be surprised if his word is not trusted. The team promised to convey the feelings to the top. But does the civilian top have the clout? People in India do not generally buy the argument that the weak democracy in Pakistan should be helped at any cost. My firm belief after following events for years is that the establishment on both sides has developed a vested interest in keeping the people apart. Islamabad does it because the anti-India sentiment keeps the country united. As far as New Delhi is concerned, it has developed an enemy phobia. China is too big and powerful to be challenged. Hapless Pakistan comes in handy to feed the phobia. I do not condone what Islamabad has done, from teaching hatred through textbooks to training and arming terrorists. But this is what happens in a country which loses the ballot box. Pakistan has had no democracy for nearly five decades. Most of the leaders who came on the plank of democracy built up their own assets and personal following, not the environment that would protect the people's right to say or the right to differ. The army cashed in on the lack of unity in the country. How do we move forward in an atmosphere of mistrust that goes back to before the days of partition? But, first things first: Pakistan has to make sure that its soil is not used by terrorists. Therefore, their elimination is a must. America cannot preach on the subject and threaten to bomb the interior of Pakistan if need be. It is America which is responsible for the birth of terrorism. It constituted a force of fanatics and armed it to bleed the Soviet Union. True, America won the cold war but it lost most of Afghanistan to the fanatics called the Taliban. They are now a menace for the entire world. They cannot be defeated only by bombing. In fact, the indiscriminate bombing is evoking more sympathy for the Taliban in Pakistan. India is having the worst fallout. A new tribe of Hindu Taliban has appeared on the scene. It attacked girls at a pub in Mangalore. It calls itself the Sri Ram Sena, a brigade to enforce standards of morality, as the Taliban are doing in the western parts of Pakistan. Another terrifying revelation is that of Hindu extremists who blasted bombs outside a mosque at Malegaon. They want to take over the country and establish a "Hindu Rashtra." This is also a goal of the Sangh Parivar, including the BJP. Terrorism is hard to fight. But if liberals in India and Pakistan were to join hands, they might be able to roll back the Talibanisation and religious bias spreading in both the countries. Pakistan has a bigger problem because part of its territory is already under the Taliban, who are using it to chastise women particularly. Ultimately, it is the liberals who will have to strive harder than before. Timid souls do not know anything like victory or defeat. Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments