Passive-aggressive in Pakistan: Tharoor’s Day Out

Pakistan must have been in an “Aa bail mujhe maar” mood, except that the bull was in a china shop where there were broken pieces already. Former minister of state for external affairs Shashi Tharoor was invited by the Jinnah Institute to deliver a lecture on “India and Pakistan: Cooperation or conflict”. Now, there is nothing new that you can say on this subject, except to try low angle or fish-eye shots; aerial view has been taken over by the United States.

He obviously meant to make an impassioned argument for India, but in times when everyone likes a bit of dazzle his reference to the Pakistani army being one of the most “lavishly funded” in the world with a “stranglehold over policy” would have given even his think tank hosts a bit of an ego boost. They know that a civilian government has never completed its term, but even the most liberal Pakistani would not want to stinge on defence. They are in dire straits, despite the minister whacking them for expenditure that was a “grossly disproportionate share” of the GDP. If we can get an assurance from Pakistan, will we stop spending crores on just Siachen? There is a defensive and an offensive aspect, and when one will transform into the other is a matter of real politick.

He linked the military with the jihadi. I have issues with that. It was the army that went into the Lal Masjid; the army fights the Taliban. And the traditional bias of Punjab-heavy forces against the Pashtuns – Taliban or even the small percentage within the army – does not need reiteration. One can only say that the army does not prevent the militants, and they may use them. The army’s motives are a bit different from the ‘jihadi’ motive though, and Pakistan is getting a taste of it almost every few days, which Mr. Tharoor himself pointed out.

Here are a few more of his ideas that need to be analysed. They are sourced from his website, so I cannot be accused of choosing selectively:

“The army lays down the red lines that political leaders dare not cross,” he said. The army also preserves the “myth of an Indian threat”.

Again, everyone knows that the army looms over Pakistan; we do diplomacy with its military governments, so does that change our yardstick for détente? It is often the political class that is in charge of myths. And it creates this soap opera of paranoia, for which the army is only too happy to play saviour/aggressor.

Addressing Pakistan’s concerns about India, Tharoor said the people of India were “totally reconciled to Pakistan’s existence as an independent state” and no one believes that the events of 1971 – which led to the creation of Bangladesh – can be replicated. He noted that the 1971 war was a “special case” precipitated by a Pakistani crackdown on the people of erstwhile East Pakistan.

So, we the people of India have finally reconciled ourselves to the idea that Pakistan is an independent state after 64 years. Had he been discussing this at a psychology seminar, one would have understood the implications. Rather, it came across as an admission that ‘we’ created Bangladesh, and it was a ‘special case’. So special that Bangladesh will not give us the time of day now. It was a quasi-pugnacious gesture and seemed particularly ironic when you place it in tandem with the elements within the country that let terrorists “bleed India”. This was real passive-aggressive stuff.

He also said that India had neither the intention nor capability to foment unrest in Balochistan. I think we are a capable nation; it is just that Baluchistan is none of our business, just as Mumbai is none of Pakistan’s business.

A strong and stable Pakistan was in India’s interest, he said. India was essentially a “status quoist” country and there could be peace between the two sides if they agreed on “mutually acceptable parameters”, Tharoor said.

Why do we go on with this tired argument about ‘agreeing’? What does he mean by status quoist? We have thought out of the box in several instances, and if he meant that our position on Kashmir has remained unchanged, then he is alluding to the ruling establishment as hardliner. Seriously, one cannot have mutually acceptable parameters with a status quo. Simple logic.

While terrorist groups have a momentum of their own and cannot be turned off like a tap, Pakistan and India can focus on softer issues like a free trade pact and educational exchanges to improve relations.

Just a minute. He just said that Pakistan was sponsoring terrorism, so how do these groups have a momentum of their own? Why not talk about cutting the water supply, instead of discussing taps when there could well be underground wells? This business about peace through exchange of trade, designers, actors, singers is not going to make a difference to the conflict. Not one bit.

When people are fighting over water, do you talk about trading in bottled water?

(c) Farzana Versey