     
|
|
 |
|
Info War: Counterview on the Kargil situation
16th June 1999 Frederick Noronha @goa1.dot.net.in
From: The Daily Star (Dhaka), Editorial Page Volume 2 Number 292 Tue. June 15, 1999 NOW, THE INFORMATION WAR Praful Bidwai* writes from New Delhi Truth is the first casualty of war. Even though the Kargil conflict is not war, it is proving this. The government is moving towards censorship. On June 4, it banned journalists from going to Kargil. Now it says it would "escort" them selectively. The decision has no logistical rationale. Consider the government's record. First, it refused to disclose pertinent details about the "infiltrators". The vantage-points they occupied were variously reported at five, eight, and 21. Mysteriously, 10 days into the air-strikes, the number had increased! Second, the [Indian] government banned Pakistan TV. Third, it rejected the reasonable demand for a Rajya Sabha [Upper house of India's Parliament] session. Fourth, it gave out conflicting numbers on the "infiltrators" killed: first 100, later 589, then 500. On May 8, it claimed to have killed 227 Pakistani soldiers, but only produced three bodies. Mr George Fernandes's [Indian Defence Minister] record of contradictory statements is disgraceful. Mr Vajpayee [Indian Prime Minister] has joined him in denial mode, undermining official credibility. On May 5, Mr Vajpayee exhorted the media to consider "the impact" of what it writes on the armed forces' "morale"... "before publishing" it. This was an appeal for self-censorship. Ministers are not censorship's sole advocates. Eleven former generals and bureaucrats have demanded "suspension" of independent analyses of Kargil. They include, unsurprisingly, the hawk K. Subrahmanyam, and, disturbingly, two former foreign secretaries. They say Kargil "is a test of [the] national will". Hence any "post-mortem by analysts should be suspended". We must not talk about "any inadequacies and failures that have led to the crisis". At stake is "our credibility as a nation." This is a plea for suppressing truth and suspending rationality. Unless we have independent analyses, how will citizens know whether the right policies are being pursued? Or must we think our leaders always act competently? Is there no alternative to analyses by sarkari [governmental] "experts"? The signatories' plea to ban non-sarkari analysts is gross. Whom is the goverment trying to fool? Mr Fernandes has done more damage to the army's morale than our enemies. He helped arms- smugglers in the Andamans, sacked Admiral Bhagwat [former Chief of the Indian Navy], offered "safe passage" to infiltrators. This is compounded by diplomatic failure and Mr Vajpayee's poor leadership. The plain truth is, the Right has proved incapable of defending the nation; it has compromised our security. It is trying to cover up its failures through media censorship. There are two larger issues here. We have reason to be proud of our media. But it has regrettably spread ignorance and prejudice on issues of security by towing the official line. In 1962, it reported that our army was fully prepared to meet the Chinese, when it wasn't. The media was partly to blame for public shock and disbelief at the outcome of the China war. Then the media exaggerated India's defeat and the "Yellow Peril's villainy". As independent scholars have shown, the war had its origins in India's impatience with China's attempt to settle its borders in the post-colonial era according to consistent principles. New Delhi followed an arrogantly unilateral approach, citing Imperial claims, and refusing negotiation. Yet, the war was less bitter than believed. Indian casualties were less than during the IPKF operation. The Chinese even oiled Indian firearms before returning them. They did not take prisoners. However, the picture from our media is different and foments chauvinism. Take the Pakistan 1965 war. It ended not in a decisive defeat for Pakistan, as the media portrayed, but in a stalemate. In 1986-89 too, the media was not objective on India's Sri Lanka intervention and the IPKF's [Indian Peace Keeping Force] poor performance. By being manipulated for "national honour", the press added to the poverty of public debate. The media's litmus-test is not loyalty to officialdom, even arbitrarily defined "patriotism", but to truth and critical analysis. It must question and verify official claims and be prepared to cross swords with power. This is doubly important in a crisis. It is profoundly wrong to suspend or abridge the role of the media as mirror of the truth. The second larger issue is the link between Kargil and Kashmir. It is futile to pretend that Kashmir is not a dispute. Numerous UN resolutions and even the Simla agreement recognise this, although this does not mean Pakistan should alter the LoC. The present crisis partly stems from the festering of the Kashmir dispute and periodic border skirmishes. It shows how civilians have become victims of India-Pakistan rivalry. Kargil's Shias have never been part of the Valley's azadi movement. But they have been turned into refugees. This is not inevitable. The Kashmir problem is amenable to solution. This can come about through changed Indian and Pakistani mindsets and involvement of the Kashmiri people in the determination of their fate. Kashmir is not just about Partition and the maharajah's refusal to accede to India until October 1947. Nor is it about Muslim identity. It is about giving Kashmiris a voice in a just solution to the problem, which enhances everyone's security. Kashmir's relationship to India and Pakistan must be settled on a modern, secular, pluralist basis. The Kashmiri people's involvement in the conciliation process will transform its complexion. All concerned will then have to confront the issues of democracy and plurality in culture and society--outside the straitjacket of rivalry. This is just what is needed. Fortunately, an intra-Kashmiri dialogue across ethnic and political divides has started. Around the Hague Peace Conference last month, a large number of Kashmiris, from Pannun Kashmir to pro-Mujahideen, groups met for the first time. They called for an end to all violence, for free dialogue between Kashmiris, and return to Kashmir's traditions of peaceful co-existence. This is a positive step. Real progress will come through such moves, not military conflict with its horrific potential for nuclear devastation.--end-- (* The writer is eminent Indian journalist) -----------------------------------------------------
