Connect with us

Opinion

Within the ambit of humanity: on Kashmir issue

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

🕒

on

IST

By Radha Kumar

With tensions between India and Pakistan not easing, and the situation in Kashmir continuing to inflict terrible suffering on its people, is there an end in sight? In Paradise at War: A Political History of Kashmir, historian and policy analyst Radha Kumar argues that the challenge for both mainland Indians and Kashmiris is to get their conflicting internal actors on the same page. She looks forward to the day when the Central and State governments shoulder this challenge together, like they did from 2002 to 2007. An excerpt:

The largely free and fair 2002 election put in place a coalition led by a relatively new political party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). The PDP announced a ‘healing touch policy’ which combined human rights, such as the release of political prisoners, with efforts to jump-start the economy through reviving tourism. It came to power in coalition with the Congress party. With the Vajpayee-led BJP at the Centre, this was the first time the two national parties cooperated on Kashmir.

 

And the Indian government appointed a respected former Cabinet and Home Secretary, N.N. Vohra, as interlocutor for talks with Kashmiri dissidents. The stage appeared to be set for a new peace process to begin within the troubled State, but Pakistan remained sceptical and it took close on another year to achieve a breakthrough.

In April 2003, Vajpayee called again for peace with Pakistan (his third and last try, he said), from Kashmir’s capital Srinagar. When asked by a reporter whether his call for talks with the Hurriyat, made in the same breath, would be within “the ambit of the Indian Constitution”, he famously dismissed the question, saying talks would be within the ambit of humanity (“insaniyat ke daire mein”). Five days later, he told members of the Lok Sabha, “I assured the people of Jammu and Kashmir that we wish to resolve all issues, both domestic and external, through talks. I stressed that the gun can solve no problem, brotherhood can. Issues can be resolved if we move forward guided by the three principles of Insaniyat, Jamhooriyat aur Kashmiriyat (humanity, democracy and Kashmiri oneness)”.

The lyrical phrase “insaniyat ke daire mein” electrified Kashmir. It avoided the sour and contentious issue of the Constitution which had divided the Valley with electoral parties seeking autonomy within the Indian Constitution and independence groups arguing that Article 370, which bound Kashmir to the Indian union, was invalid. The divide was artificial and politically constructed; the Indian Constitution had been amended over a hundred times and any peace settlement would inevitably have required its amendment, even if it were to only change Article 370 from temporary to permanent. But the issue had caused conflict for five decades. By avoiding it, Vajpayee allowed for a sour history to be put aside. He also allowed a cover for the Hurriyat to enter talks.

Vajpayee’s offer was made possible, at least in part, by quiet feelers from Pakistan over the first three months of the year. A delegation of Pakistani MPs in March 2003 bore a message from Pervez Musharraf that his government would no longer aid cross-border infiltration, and would not attempt to prevent or impede Indian counter-insurgency efforts, including border fencing and surveillance. “The Indian Government can complete its border fencing,” the Pakistani MPs assured a small group of Indian diplomats and analysts that I was part of, at a closed-door meeting. “We will look the other way.”

In late April, following Vajpayee’s statement in Srinagar, Pakistani Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali called Vajpayee to discuss reopening talks. In July, R&AW director C. D. Sahay went to Pakistan on an under-the-radar mission to discuss Musharraf’s offer of a ceasefire. In November, Pakistan announced a ceasefire on the Line of Control, which India reciprocated, following which there was a decline in cross-border movement of guerrillas.

As before, the Pakistani government was subsequently ambiguous about its pledge. The Pakistan Army did not attempt to disrupt India’s border fencing militarily, but the Pakistani government protested it at the UN and tried unsuccessfully to draw a parallel between India’s fencing and the Israeli wall that was being constructed in the West Bank.

Yet, the ceasefire held and paved the way for dramatic breakthroughs at the SAARC summit at Islamabad in early January 2004. These included a pledge by the seven member states to implement a South Asian Free Trade Agreement by January 2006, alongside a Social Charter to share expertise on development goals. All seven leaders also pledged to work together to end support for terrorist groups and/or activities.

Out of the public glare, there was considerable behind-the-scenes work to achieve the results in Islamabad. Starting in spring 2003, Brajesh Mishra, then India’s NSA and Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, and Pakistan’s special secretary to the president, Tariq Aziz, opened backchannel talks. The two countries began to move simultaneously on a number of confidence-building measures. On Kashmir, Musharraf declared his willingness to “leave the UN resolutions [on a plebiscite] behind” if India agreed to talks. His formula for talks was to (a) consider the range of solutions on offer; (b) weed through the ones that were unacceptable to India or Pakistan or the Kashmiris (though who would represent the people of Jammu and Kashmir was left ambiguous); and (c) begin to work on solutions that might be acceptable.
(The Hindu)


The Kashmir Monitor is the fastest growing newspaper as well as digitial platform covering news from all angles.

Advertisement
Loading...
Comments

Opinion

THE COMPLEX MR BHUTTO

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Ammar Ali Qureshi

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, at the country’s helm for more than six and a half years, was a transformative figure in Pakistan’s history. Romanticised and demonised in equal measure, even decades after his death, he remains — with the sole exception of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah — arguably the most popular and charismatic, albeit also the most controversial and divisive, politician in the country. His dramatic rise and tragic fall, according to Shamim Ahmad’s balanced and thought-provoking book Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: The Psychodynamics of His Rise and Fall, can be explained best by his complex psychological personality.

Ahmad is a retired senior civil servant with a degree in psychology and interest in literature and is the author of the interesting and informative book Torment and Creativity: A Psychoanalytic Study of Literature and Literati that profiles famous literary figures from the East and West.

 

Analyst Eqbal Ahmad explained the paradox of Bhutto and his enduring mystique quite well: “Z.A. Bhutto, the dynasty’s founder, was a feudal chief from Sindh, where serfs are still incarcerated in their lords’ private prisons. Yet millions of disinherited peasants and workers saw him as a defender of their rights. He was an authoritarian figure whose formative years in politics were spent in the service of a military dictator. Yet he rose to power as a champion of democracy. He moved the multitude with an extraordinary repertoire of patriotic gestures and populist rhetoric. Yet he contributed significantly to Pakistan’s defeat and dismemberment. He moulded the army and bureaucracy to serve as instruments of his personal power, but fell victim to his creations. His failure to fulfil his promises turned large numbers against him. But from his incarceration, trial and execution by a hated military dictator rose the legend of a hero and martyr. When Benazir inherited his mantle, an unlikely dynasty was born.”

Brilliant, erudite, articulate, indefatigable and charismatic, Bhutto had a razor-sharp mind, photographic memory, sense of history and a wonderful political antenna. He studied at Berkeley and Oxford before training as a barrister in London. Along with his political rival Mumtaz Daultana, he possessed the best personal library in the country and was very well-read. He wrote 18 books or monographs during his life — he was hanged at the age of 51— more than any politician in Pakistan’s history.

Bhutto was extremely energetic and worked 18 hours a day in office as he told the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci. Polygamous — he had three wives — and known for his love affairs, in his interview with Fallaci he defended himself against the charge of philandering by saying that a politician has to be a romantic.

Although Gen Yahya Khan and the military junta were mainly responsible for the military operation in East Pakistan and the 1971 war with India that led to the breaking up of Pakistan, Bhutto’s role in the East Pakistan crisis, by refusing to accept the results of the 1970 elections, was highly discreditable. Once sworn into power, in his inaugural speech he resolved to pick up the pieces and build a new Pakistan.

His monumental achievements include promulgating the 1973 Constitution, the signing of the Simla Accord with India, hosting the Islamic Summit in Lahore in 1974, starting the nuclear program, re-orienting Pakistan’s foreign policy towards China and the Muslim world, introducing land and labour reforms and implementing civil service reforms. He also facilitated the export of Pakistani labour to the Gulf countries after the 1973 oil boom, changed the consciousness of the working class and promoted art, literature and culture by setting up institutions such as the Pakistan National Council of Arts and the Academy of Letters etc.

His mistakes and missteps, both deleterious and costly, were nationalising the economy, banning the National Awami Party and incarcerating opposition leaders, dismissing the elected government in Balochistan and launching military operations, amending the Constitution repeatedly and whimsically with the help of a rubber-stamp parliament, appeasing the religious right by accepting their demands such as declaring Ahmadis non-Muslim etc, forming the Federal Security Force (which acted like a goon-squad, roughing up Bhutto’s senior colleagues and was also accused of carrying out assassinations of political opponents), neglecting the party machine and mistreating old comrades and holding early elections in 1977 which were not considered free and fair.

French scholar Christophe Jaffrelot aptly summed up Bhutto’s contradictions and their consequences: “Less a democrat than a populist, more an authoritarian than a parliamentarian, more a centraliser than a federalist, and as much a socialist as a product of his social background, he turned his back on parts of his platform — and thus on the middle and working classes that supplied much of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leadership — to co-opt the landowning elite. Most of all, having little respect for basic freedoms, including that of the press, he denied Pakistan free elections in 1977, giving the army, already reinvigorated by military operations in Balochistan, the arguments it was waiting for.”

Bhutto, the author argues, developed a sense of insecurity, anxiety and even inferiority because of the déclassé status conferred on his beloved mother by the feudal milieu … it inculcated in him hubris, megalomania and arrogance, which resulted in paranoia, persecution mania and a compulsion to humiliate others.

Bhutto was the most powerful civilian ruler, initially as president and later as prime minister, in Pakistan’s history. Within months of assuming power, he dismissed Gul Hassan Khan and Rahim Khan — the army and air chiefs respectively. Gen Tikka Khan, known for his ruthless crackdown in East Pakistan, was selected as the next army chief and is now remembered as the most subservient of all army chiefs in Pakistan’s history.

Disregarding all advice, after Gen Tikka’s retirement Bhutto promoted Ziaul Haq, a junior general of fawning behaviour, as the next army chief. Gen Zia had all the disqualifications for that senior appointment except one: flattery and sycophancy. It turned out to be a fatal mistake as Gen Zia launched a coup against Bhutto in July 1977, following disputed elections and protests by the opposition. After the coup, Gen Zia jailed Bhutto, who was subsequently hanged in 1979 following a guilty verdict by the court in a murder case, but the verdict is generally regarded as judicial murder.

Bhutto, according to Ahmad, exhibited a classic split personality which can be ascribed to his parents’ marriage: his father was a landed Sindhi aristocrat who fell in love with a Hindu dancing girl. After converting to Islam, she became his second wife, but was not accepted by his family. The humiliation and rejection his mother faced in the Bhutto household left deep scars on young Bhutto’s psyche. He imbibed egalitarianism and empathy for the downtrodden from his mother and inherited the arrogance of a feudal from his father.

Bhutto, the author argues, developed a sense of insecurity, anxiety and even inferiority because of the déclassé status conferred on his beloved mother by the feudal milieu. (A flaw in Ahmad’s book is the scant information about Bhutto’s mother whose tribulations were the source of Bhutto’s own fatal flaws.) On the one hand, these attributes spurred him to work harder and strive for perfection and superiority as he tried to redress the deficiency of his birth. On the other hand, it inculcated in him hubris, megalomania and arrogance, which resulted in paranoia, persecution mania and a compulsion to humiliate others — especially those who were well-born — when he was in power. Both his brilliant and stellar achievements and his weaknesses should be viewed in the light of his psychological make-up.

Ahmad also finds signs of Bhutto suffering from the Phaeton Complex — emotional pain from a lack of attention from a parent, in this case his father — and maniac depression/bipolar disorder. His Phaeton Complex explains his mercurial temperament, his sense of insecurity and an urge to succeed and prove himself. His refusal to accept the second position in a united Pakistan under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman after the 1970 elections can also be attributed to this complex. A number of highly successful and great leaders in world history — such as Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln etc — are known to have suffered from bipolar disorder, exhibiting qualities of empathy, resilience, realism and creativity in addition to many symptoms contrary to these values.

In a provocative chapter, Ahmad, a former chairman of the Central Board of Revenue, also posits that, contrary to popular opinion, economic performance under Bhutto (growth rate of 4.8 per cent) was not that poor and was close to the average growth rate of five per cent in Pakistan’s 70 years’ history. Bhutto achieved this despite the loss of East Pakistan (both market and essential foreign exchange earnings), the nationalisation of the economy, quadrupling of international oil prices, bad crops and floods during his tenure. More importantly, he laid the foundations of heavy industry in Pakistan and his facilitation of manpower export to the Gulf countries benefited the economy in subsequent decades.

Using psychoanalytical theories and tools to explain the contributions and contradictions of his subject, Ahmad pens a balanced and psychologically plausible portrait of Bhutto. He notes that Napoleon Bonaparte was Bhutto’s all-time favourite hero and, in an insightful chapter, the author analyses Bonaparte and Bhutto’s other heroes such as Mao Zedong, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Giuseppe Mazzini, Count di Cavour, Chou En Lai, Jean Jacque Rousseau, Joseph Stalin, Alexander, Hannibal and Genghis Khan, examining how, like his heroes, Bhutto craved conquest and absolute power and demanded docility from everyone around him, brooking no criticism or disobedience.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: The Psychodynamics of
His Rise and Fall
By Shamim Ahmad
Paramount, Karachi
ISBN: 978-9696375432
284pp.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The growing religious divide:

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By George Abraham

As the election season is winding down and the nation is anxiously looking forward to the results, one cannot escape but witnessing India’s slide towards complete polarization based on the politics of religion. Prime Minister Modi’s ascension to power has resulted in growing Hindu intolerance of Christianity and Islam. Radical elements within his party are pushing an agenda to marginalize these two groups whom they consider ‘foreign’ and would like to see them disappear!

Although Indian constitution guarantees the freedom of religion to all its citizens, the political dogma of RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), the parent organization of BJP, enunciated by its erstwhile leader and theoretician M S Golwalker is still mostly the guideline for many of its loyal adherents. In fact, he argued in the book ‘our nationhood defined’ that as long as the Muslims and the Christians failed to abandon their own religion and culture they cannot but be only foreigners in this country and if they stayed here without losing their “separate existence” they might be treated as “enemies”, at best as “idiots”. His arguments tilt more favorably towards treating all Christians as “hostiles” who are agents of International movement for the spread of Christianity.

 

It is important to note that RSS gurus have been inculcating the idea of bigotry and hate to the mindset of many generations for the last 95 years. It is no surprise then that Modi’s rise to power has now led to an explosion of anti-Christian attitudes and fiery speeches creating an environment conducive to even physical attacks on Christian Institutions and its leaders. Prejudice against the minorities, especially Christians and Muslims, are a growing trend in the Indian society and for the BJP, it means electoral gains and seats of power! They couldn’t care less about the political instability, whether it wreaks havoc across the country or the negative impact it may have on the economic health of the nation.

According to news reports in the National Review magazine, during the 2017 Christmas season alone, there were 23 incidents. Most dramatic was the arrest of 30 priests and seminarians singing Christmas carols in Madhya Pradesh state. They were accused of violating the State’s anti-conversion law, which has been on the books since 2013. Similar legislation is in force in seven other states. Eight priests who came to the carolers’ aid were physically assaulted, and their vehicles were set on fire. Police officers reportedly stood by without intervening. That scenario is all too common. By some accounts, hundreds of anti-Christian incidents have occurred in the past year.

“We are losing confidence in our government,” said Cardinal Baselios Cleemis of Thiruvananthapuram, former President of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of India (CBCI). He added that “the country is being divided on the basis of religious belief” which he labeled a threat to the “democratic credentials of our country.” The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recently released an annual report and its key findings include the observation by the Supreme Court of “deteriorating conditions for religious freedom in some states in 2018, stating that “certain state governments were not only not doing anything to stop violence against religious minorities, and in extreme cases, impunity was being granted to criminals engaging in violence.

The report also highlights Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s silence on these issues, saying he “seldom made statements decrying mob violence,” and noting that “certain members of his political party have affiliations with Hind extremist groups and used inflammatory language about religious minorities publicly.” The report notes that in 2018, Minister of State at the Ministry of Home Affairs Hansraj Ahir told Parliament that 111 people were killed and 2,384 people were wounded in 822 communal clashes in 2017. By contrast, in 2016, 86 people were killed, and 2,321 were injured in 703 clashes, the report offers, later adding that independent organizations that monitor hate crimes found that 2018 saw more than 90 religion-based hate crimes that resulted in 30 deaths and many more injuries.

There is also a secret war being waged against Christian NGOs (Non-Governmental Organization) that are engaged in welfare work for the very poor in rural India. By throwing out the ‘Compassion International USA’ that housed and educated 145,000 destitute children and shutting down of the work of the ‘Caritas International’ that works with 360 NGOs across India that boasted about a force of 25,000 volunteers are good examples of Government’s authoritarian agenda that works in concert with whims of the Hindutva militants to marginalize the Christian Community and remove them from being a visible and positive force from the public’s eye.

In Modi’s India, Christian Institutions are being strangled by denial of FCRAs, freezing of the bank accounts, unending investigations, frequent auditing and harassment of principals who are in charge. These moves appear to be consistent with the Hindutva philosophy that the Modi government has embraced to advance the saffron agenda that challenges the very idea of India as a multi-cultural and pluralistic society. Modi appears to pay lip service to Gandhiji’s concept of India upon his visits abroad but remains silent when Institutions that are supposed to promote those principles come under attack back home. It should also be noted that Christianity came to India in A.D. 52, long before Ireland or England have embraced that religion. To judge the Indianness of its nationals only through the prism of one’s faith is not only just unfair but preposterous!

While the BJP Government is hard at work restricting Christian NGOs from receiving funds from abroad, no such limitations are placed on the Sangh Parivar organizations that collect millions of dollars from western democracies. Another report from USCIRF states that “while the Indian Government continues to use the FCRA to limit foreign funding for some NGOs, Hindutva supported organizations have never come under the scrutiny of FCRA. With the amendment championed by the Modi government, the foreign-based radical Hindu organizations will be able to send funds to India, without restriction, to support hate campaigns. Under the revised definition of FCRA, so long as the foreign company’s ownership of an Indian entity is within the foreign investment limits prescribed by the Government for that sector, the company will be treated as “Indian” for the purpose of FCRA.”

It is also common knowledge that Christian church leaders from the United States have a harder time obtaining visas to visit their fellow faithful in India or attend a conference while no such restrictions are placed on Indians based on religious affiliations. It is hypocritical for India to deny a religious conference visa to an American citizen while shedding crocodile tears for a reduction in the number of available H1B visas that could take jobs away from American citizens. The recent cancellation and court-ordered restoration of OCI card of an Indian American Christian who was accused of proselytizing while working as a physician volunteer in India during summer months have sent shock waves to the community. It once again shows the wanton disregard for fairness and due process by the bureaucrats who are so eager to please the current policy makers!

Meanwhile, India’s 180 million Muslims are affected as well by mob violence on suspicion of having eaten beef or slaughtered a cow, animals sacred to Hinduism nationwide. The recent election campaign by all parties show the reluctance of the leadership across the board to overtly court Muslims or seek their votes in public forums. Modi’s rule also emboldened Hindu extremist elements to translate their religiously ordained contempt and hatred for Dalits into systematic violence against that community as well often lynching them on suspicions of transporting cows for slaughter. According to a report in the New York Times, Indian courts have consistently acquitted most perpetrators of massacres of Dalits. Conviction rates in violent crimes against Dalits and indigenous tribes are a mere 28.3 percent and 16.4 % compared with 40.2 percent in general criminal cases.

India has a religion problem, and it should be given careful attention by policymakers in Washington as it can have long term repercussions towards the future. It appears that the sectarian line-up of political conflict is going to dominate the political landscape of India as long as BJP retains power. History has taught us that if the salience of the State is undefendable, regionalism or tribalism may become rampant and weaken a nation-state. Religious oppression is a clear sign of instability for any nation, and as the US is eyeing India as a strategic partner against the rising threat of China, an increasing level of communal tensions or sectarian conflicts in the sub-continent may not bode well for that relationship.

Continue Reading

Opinion

No questions please

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Sunanda K. Datta-Ray

Watching Narendra Modi’s television ‘interviews’ confirmed my suspicion that this is not a medium for our part of the world. Perhaps it isn’t Modi’s fault that the organizers handed him the platform on a platter, but, obviously, he was delighted. Whether or not the Election Commission chooses to take note, each interview meant a blaze of publicity; each question provided a peg on which to hang a long speech while the silent interviewer smiled ingratiatingly and nodded acquiescence.

In the absence of meaningful follow-up questions, Modi set the agenda. There was little pretence of the cut and thrust of interrogation. It’s impossible to imagine any Asian country tolerating something like the historic encounter in 1969 between David Frost and the British Conservative politician, Enoch Powell, who had notoriously warned that unchecked Afro-Asian immigration would mean “rivers of blood” in Britain’s streets. It was a sizzling session with the two men standing up face-to-face at one point, straining at the leash. In an unprecedented move, the channel extended the programme to double its length. Television rating points here can only go up if the fare is similarly packed with exciting action. But would either subject or questioner allow such irreverent candour?

 

Since the former is by definition a public personality of consequence, it goes without saying that he/she is also arrogant. The latter’s diffidence (his livelihood depends on the media institution that employs him) is compounded by the self-interest that recognizes in the stellar subject a means of rising to greater heights. Unpalatable questions might blight that prospect. People are probably right about the private sector’s corrupting influence but government institutions have much more patronage at their disposal and are better placed to strike a deal with a complaisant media. The journalist who seems bravely to fly the independent media’s colours but is really an influential politician’s fifth column is common enough in our catch-as-catch-can society.

My first experience of a senior politician’s refusal to hold himself publicly answerable for his actions was with the legendary K. Kamaraj who was also the first Indian politician of consequence I met. Kamaraj had just resigned as chief minister of what was still Madras. The famous Kamaraj Plan had yet to be unveiled. Sitting immobile like the Buddha in an armchair in his austere room, Kamaraj received me cordially enough and indicated a chair next to his. Why had he resigned, I asked. To do village work, he said, and revitalize the Congress party’s grassroots support. Quoting from memory after 56 years, I then asked with the brashness of youth if this regeneration was necessary because the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam — not yet quite a household word — was boasting of taking over. “All bluff!” was his curt dismissal. When I persisted with the question, Kamaraj refused to continue the interview. Instead of the famous “Parkalam … Let’s see,” there was a blunt “I no talk” before I was shown the door.

As it happened, the rumours I had picked up weren’t far-fetched. Kamaraj’s successor, M. Bhaktavatsalam, was the last Congressman. The charismatic C.N. Annadurai, already waiting in the wings, replaced him in 1967. Lee Kuan Yew once heard Annadurai at a public rally in Singapore, and not understanding a word of the DMK leader’s chaste Tamil, was nevertheless entranced by the crowd’s delirium and the knowledge that 40 million people in India (and more in Ceylon) were similarly captivated. Annadurai had cast his spell over both Sparta and Athens, Lee exclaimed in wonder. Tamil Nadu hasn’t looked back since then. As the DMK and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam played Cox and Box, with the Congress nowhere in sight, I wondered if it ever occurred to Kamaraj before he died in his sleep on the 12th anniversary of his resignation that my question which he spurned wasn’t so remote after all.

My more spectacular failure was with Zia-ur Rahman, president of Bangladesh, whom I had met briefly at the 1976 non-aligned nations summit in Colombo, when he was still technically No 2. The formal interview several years later got off to a bad start from the moment Daud Khan Majlis, his affable press adviser, took me into his chamber in Dhaka’s Banga Bhaban. Back from a busy round of canal-digging — his current fetish — Zia was gazing with narcissistic delight at a video of himself as the centrepiece of the day’s doings. Absorbed in the film, he didn’t even realize I was watching him watch himself until he suddenly noticed me, barked an order to Majlis to shut off the video, and turned to me. Barely had I opened my mouth than he snapped a question that had no bearing on India-Bangladesh relations but revealed the cultural complex that might impede them. “Have you been only to convent schools?” he demanded. In Colombo, he had referred enigmatically to “Calcutta Bengalis”.

Expanding on the theme, Zia turned to Majlis to mock visiting Indian Bengali diplomats who — so he said — couldn’t speak Bengali.

Irritated, I tried to steer the conversation from the personal to the political, and mentioned infiltrators in Assam. That enraged him even more. Delivering a stern oration about Bangladesh’s booming economy, Zia told me there could be no question of migration to any neighbouring country with a lower standard of living. But he was concerned about occurrences like the Assam disturbances because they imperilled his prosperous nation’s social and political stability. No sooner had he finished lecturing than the door burst open to reveal a young man in military uniform who shot off a stiff memorized spiel in execrable English. I barely followed what he said but realized Zia was being summoned. I am convinced he had pressed a hidden bell to signal the end of that fiasco of an interview. As I scrambled out, Zia loudly ordered Majlis in Bengali to treat me to “a very good cup of coffee”.

Those meetings failed because neither Kamaraj nor Zia would suffer examination. In their culture, politicians ordain and journalists broadcast their wisdom. Tom Wicker, a New York Times reporter, noted that whatever the American president says is news and must be reported. It’s the same with South Asia’s leaders. But if Modi comes across as monarchical, his interlocutors are at least as much to blame. No one told him when he thundered about the heresy of “two prime ministers in Hindustan” that he may not know but every province had a prime minister until 1950. No one forced him to confront his 2014 promises regarding job creation, farmers’ incomes and black money repatriation. Or asked why demonetization hadn’t snuffed out terrorism. Nor was any interviewer courageous enough to mention his bizarre theories regarding genetics and human transplants.

Any political leader who seeks public office in a democracy must face uncomfortable questions. If an adversarial role is not mandatory for the media, neither is the role of courtier. There’s a respectable third position where events and not emotions determine a responsible response. When a veteran Communist Party of India parliamentarian accused me of “inconsistency”, I tried to explain that barring considerations like national security or communal harmony, my consistency lay in trying to deal fairly with the situation in hand, not in serving some person or interest that the situation might affect. That is probably what makes me an uncomfortable participant in discussions with committed panelists and subservient anchors.

Journalists who mobbed the prime minister for a selfie didn’t care about compromising their integrity since they knew they were courting power. It would be more useful if, instead, we could watch people who matter being grilled by incisive interlocutors on matters of public concern. Precise and informed interrogation can bring unsuspected facts to light. Meanwhile, passing off command performances as interviews blurs the distinction between editorial and “advertorial” and should count as campaigning. Many interviewers deserve to be bracketed with election agents.

Continue Reading