EDITS | Wednesday, February 10, 2010 | Email | Print | 
Shahrukh isn’t the real enemy
Shobori Ganguli
Certain developments in recent days have compelled one to wonder whether we as a nation are not going horribly wrong somewhere. For starters there was Shahrukh Khan’s suggestion that the Indian Premier League ought to have considered bidding for Pakistani cricket players. Admittedly, this is his personal view to which many of us do not subscribe. And, going by the manner in which the bidders at the IPL collectively boycotted the Pakistani players, one concluded that perhaps the country’s political leadership had obliquely told them not to touch those players. This was followed by the Shiv Sena’s preposterous allegations against Khan, the party’s mouthpiece Saamna terming him anti-national and a traitor. Such insane diatribe found few takers but everyone was nevertheless force-fed the distasteful spectacle. While all this was under way came India’s stunning decision to resume dialogue with Pakistan, a door which had been rightly shut following Mumbai 26/11. From the Shahrukh Khan incident to the resumption of dialogue with Pakistan, one gets the distinct impression that while certain sections of the political class here are busy conjuring up enemies within, the Government itself is clueless about dealing with the real enemy, Pakistan.
To address the first issue, Shahrukh Khan may feel otherwise but we, a nation maimed and bled by Pakistan for decades, simply cannot develop selective amnesia and play with its players on the cricket field. Soft diplomacy has clearly not worked with Pakistan all these years and one cannot imagine a phenomenal change of heart across the border for such tactics to create the magic India may ideally wish for. We are suffering from terrorism and we know where that is emanating from; let us not pretend otherwise, on the cricket field, in concert halls, in seminar rooms. In fact, amid speculation that the Government may have orchestrated the IPL boycott, one assumed enough sense had prevailed on the Manmohan Singh Government to talk and act tough with Pakistan. That assumption was rudely shattered last week with India’s decision to resume dialogue. Anyway, there is a section of Indian civil society which feels sports diplomacy is not working with Pakistan and that section duly registered its difference of opinion with Shahrukh Khan.
Coming to the second issue, admittedly, there is a civil way of opposing what Khan said — through a reasoned debate on whether playing cricket, or any other sport, with an enemy state is indeed desirable. Then there is the Shiv Sena brand of opposition which goes to the absolutely ridiculous extent of terming one of India’s most successful and internationally recognised cultural ambassadors an enemy. It is one thing to disagree with the film star’s proposal on Pakistan and quite another to send him to the gallows for working against national interest! He should go to Pakistan if he wants to speak in favour of Pakistan, the Shiv Sainiks screamed, and demanded a ban on the actor’s forthcoming film My Name is Khan. Some quarters went on to suggest that in favouring Pakistani cricketers, Khan had proved he was a Muslim first and that in supporting Pakistan he had compromised our “national interest”. Understandably, given the utter nuisance value of the Sainiks, the Mumbai film industry could only provide muted support to its leading icon and brand ambassador. However, the Shiv Sena soon realised that its insane attack on Khan had no public support whatsoever. Reluctantly, therefore, it said, “Traitors, with the blessings of the Congress, go ahead” — that is, release My Name is Khan in Mumbai. Indeed, in this utterly unwholesome controversy it is the Shiv Sena’s regressive politics, and not Shahrukh Khan’s patriotic credentials, that came to be questioned.
Just when the Shiv Sena was being poked in the eye and told that it should not be conjuring up enemies, that Shahrukh Khan is indeed a patriotic Indian, came the Manmohan Singh Government’s inexplicable decision, clearly under sustained US pressure, to resume dialogue with Pakistan, the real enemy responsible for attacking the very heart of Mumbai — the Shiv Sena’s and Shahrukh Khan’s Mumbai — barely 14 months ago.
This brings us to the third issue: Does India really know how to deal with an enemy that responds to an offer of peace with a stinging slap of aggression? Clearly, Pakistan has made no moves on the ground to justify resumption of dialogue. Sample this: A year and two months later, India is planning to give a “list of actions” for Pakistan to take on 26/11; it should complete the trial against the seven accused “in a transparent manner”, the Ministry of External Affairs says; it should reveal the “larger conspiracy behind the attacks”; and then, it should take action against terror masterminds Hafiz Saeed and Syed Salahuddin. This is exactly what New Delhi had demanded of Islamabad following 26/11 when it suspended talks with Pakistan. What then has so dramatically altered that the Government has sought to restart dialogue on the same grounds on which it suspended communication in the first place? Simple. The United States, engaged in an enervating battle in Afghanistan, is growing weary of the India-Pakistan strain which is diverting the latter’s attention greatly. Hence, the need for India to deprioritise its security concerns and allow American interests in the region to be promptly addressed.
That India’s position has been irreparably compromised owing to this servile offer of talks was apparent instantly. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani claimed, and rightly so, that world pressure had forced India to get back to the negotiating table. He belligerently asserted, “Pakistan stands by the Kashmiri people and will never compromise on its principled stance on the Kashmir issue.” Kashmir, not Mumbai, is the talking point, the Pakistanis instantly claimed. Then came another deafening slap. Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi gleefully gloated that, “India, which talked about breaking their relationship with us, which talked about turning their back on us … has approached us and said that we want to sit and talk to you, we want to resume our relationship with you. Pakistan did not kneel. Pakistan held its ground.” Indeed, Pakistan held its ground. It is India’s abject submission that will restart this utterly self-defeating dialogue process, a negotiation which will rivet on Pakistan’s sole term of reference, Kashmir.
Why have we been compelled to do business with this Pakistan? Clearly, we as a nation seem to have lost sight of our ‘real’ enemies; and worse, even when we can identify them, we do not know how to deal with them.
Email | Print | Rate:
|