A tangled skein of lies

ONCE the lion makes his kill and has his fill, the hyenas feast on the remains. Should we be surprised at those who howl that the blame for the World Trade Center murders falls squarely on the United States itself? ‘‘The Americans are racists!’’ ‘‘The United States is suffering for fifty years of prejudice against the Palestinians!’’ ‘‘The western media are biased!’’ ‘‘There is a pogrom against Arabs, Muslims, and Asians in America!’’

Somewhere in Hell, Joseph Goebbels is applauding the children of his heart. He perfected the Nazi tactic of the ‘Big Lie’, of ‘throw enough mud, and some of it is sure to stick’. The pupils cannot better the master, but they can try to emulate him.

Where should we begin unravelling this tangled skein of lies? Could we begin by taking a closer look at our own moral credentials, our right to sit in judgement? On October 31, 1984, a murder was committed in Delhi. In the next week, three thousand innocent Sikhs paid with their lives in India’s capital. More died elsewhere.

On September 11, 2001, over six thousand people were murdered. The killers were Asians, and they slew in the name of Islam. Yet, not a single Muslim has been chased and hacked down by irate mobs. A single man, a Sikh, was slain, mistaken for one of bin Laden’s followers. Within hours, the president of the United States warned his fellow citizens not to take the law into their own hands. Compare this with the utterances of the then Indian prime minister on the massacres of 1984: ‘‘When a great tree falls, surely the earth beneath shall shake a little!’’

What of the alleged ‘bias’ in the American media? The ‘proof’ is the fact that they have been giving out the names, origins, and motivation of the assassins who hijacked the four passenger jets. Cub reporters are taught, or were in my day, that the essentials of our trade are summed up in six words: Who, what, where, when, why, how. The FBI released the names of nineteen hijackers — Khalid Al-Midhar, Mohamed Atta, and the others in the roll of infamy. These are Muslim names, and the men were using passports from various Arabic nations. It would have been contemptible journalism had the media not reported this.

If, however, you are looking for a genuine case of media ‘manipulation’, look no farther than Arafat. In the West Bank city of Nablus, an Associated Press Television News photographer who captured a macabre celebratory rally was threatened by the Tanzim, military arm of Arafat’s Al Fateh group. When informed, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, Arafat’s cabinet secretary, said the Palestinian Authority ‘‘cannot guarantee the life’’ of the cameraman if his film was broadcast.

How many Indian media channels gave this episode — one of many such Palestinian attacks on the media — the attention it deserved? It is so much easier, isn’t it, to flay Israel!

But why should I blame my brethren of the media? For half a century, even the professionals in the Indian Foreign Office have insisted on seeing West Asia through blinkers. We persist in thinking of ‘friends’ instead of of ‘interests’. (Individuals have friends and enemies; nations have interests, most of which do not change with every ministerial reshuffle — or military coup.)

Another myopic habit is to define ‘success’ or ’failure’ by using Pakistan as the sole measure. Anything that benefits Pakistan is seen as a setback for India, and vice-versa. Coming down to specifics, has General Musharraf really pulled off a coup by joining the American ‘war on terrorism’?

Pakistan’s CEO does not seem to think so. Speaking off the record to opinion-makers, he had complained, ‘‘India ne poora khel bigad diya! (India has spoilt the whole game)’’— presumably by offering to cooperate against militancy — leaving Pakistan no choice but to follow suit. Later, I was stunned to hear Musharraf publicly justify his decision by citing the Treaty of Hudaibiyah as well as an earlier pact with the Jews of Medina.

These events from the early years of Islam hold a special resonance for Muslims. They were covenants made with non-Muslims to get some breathing space for the new religion. By mentioning them, Musharraf was saying two things. One, he was indicating that any agreement is likely to be nothing but temporary. Two, he was implicitly identifying Americans as either Jews or pagans — both loaded terms today! Pakistan’s ‘cooperation’ with the US is, as Musharraf rudely expressed it, nothing better than ‘‘the lesser of two evils’’.

Far from discouraging American involvement in Pakistan, India should welcome it. The presence of American troops in Pakistan will give Islamic militants a different avenue to achieve ‘martyrdom’. It will cut off the terrorist highway from Afghanistan to India, or at least put a few stumbling blocks on the way.

What about financial aid to Pakistan? Musharraf wants US $30 billion. In the past decade, Pakistan’s elite stashed $35 billion in foreign banks — irrespective of how much the US gives, most of this money will end up in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, or some other tax haven. (Not that Pakistan is likely to get all it wants given the recession in the US.)

Writing off old debts, another of Musharraf’s demands, will do little to jump start the Pakistani economy. Here is an instance of the mess that country is in: scarcely 1 per cent of the people pay income-tax. Twice as many Pakistanis are drug-addicts as are tax payers.

Even the Pentagon’s insistence on secrecy could benefit India. Pakistan is giving visas by the bushel to journalists. With no battles to report, they will justify their expense-accounts by reporting on the internal conditions in Pakistan itself. More power to them!

In 1990, during ’Operation Desert Storm’, Saddam Hussein fired Scuds at Israeli cities in an attempt to draw the Jewish state into the conflict. Eleven years later, Musharraf lobs verbal missiles at India in a desperate bid to divert his furious compatriots. Israel wasn’t provoked, and nor should we be.

Understand Musharraf’s demand that India ‘‘lay off!’’ for what it is — a childish snarl. The poor man is being forced to strangle his Taliban brethren; the least we can do is to make some soothing sounds occasionally as ‘‘the accused turns approver’’.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 were epochal events. As the US president put it: ‘‘Now we will see who our friends really are.’’ Shouldn’t India’s Foreign Office, if not our professional America-baiters, make a similar calculation?

Earlier Columns