The Daniel Pearl mystery

OH, what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive!’’ General Pervez Musharraf is trying his best to portray himself as a knight in shining armour, but he is no Lochinvar. He might, however, occasionally remind his underlings of Walter Scott’s lines. And a case in point is the kidnapping of the American journalist Daniel Pearl.

Abdus Sattar, Pakistan’s foreign minister, that exponent of open-mouth-insert-foot diplomacy, started by hinting there was an Indian hand in the kidnapping. Less than 24 hours later, his Cabinet colleague, Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider, blamed militants in Pakistan itself for the crime. And before the mind stopped boggling, up rose General Musharraf’s official spokesman, General Rashid, blaming India again. This is not a policy, my dear neighbours, it is schizophrenia!

One can, I suppose, understand what is going on. Interior Minister Haider has been charged with the responsibility of reining in the militants. His brother was gunned down by them, which adds a tinge of personal vengeance to official duty. Messrs Sattar and Rashid, in contrast, have been asked to improve Pakistan’s image abroad, specifically in the United States. There are two ways of doing this: to stress one’s own virtues, or to magnify the faults in another. Lacking the tools for the first, the Pakistani foreign minister and the official spokesman have adopted the second recourse. But let us come to specifics: the missing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. The simple fact, as the Pakistanis know perfectly well, is that India had nothing to fear, and much to gain, from the American journalist doing his job. But doing one’s job honestly can be tantamount to signing one’s own death-warrant when working in as sick a society as that of Pakistan. Especially, when one virtually accuses the Pakistani government of lying...

On January 1, 2002, a story filed from Bahawalpur featured prominently on the front page of the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal. The headline read: ‘Militant Groups In Pakistan Thrive Despite Crackdown’. The sub-head read: ‘Jaish-e-Mohammad Says It Is Still Operating After Police Detained Some Staff’. The report made highly damaging accusations. Jaish-e-Mohammad representatives said the police ‘‘left behind enough people to keep the office running’’. When Pearl visited Bahawalpur, a ‘‘nearby Jaish-e-Mohammad regional center was still operating Thursday, its traditional recruiting day. The group’s name has been painted over, but posters praising holy war are still hung inside. And a bank account that Jaish-e-Mohammad uses to solicit contributions remains open, despite a November order by Pakistan’s central bank freezing the group’s account.’’ In other words, Daniel Pearl wrote that the Pakistani authorities were either liars or fools. This, mind you, was not an Indian speaking, but an experienced American reporter writing for one of the most respected media outlets in the US. Small wonder if his work provoked anger, and not a little worry, in Pakistan.

Pakistan could scarcely deny the facts. First, that Pearl was abducted while he was in Pakistan. Second, that this followed articles condemning Pakistani policy. As the American media made a cause celebre of their colleague, Sattar reached out in panic to press the ‘India’ button. And, presumably on the ground that you can never have too much of a good thing, this was followed by an impressive flurry of shabby allegations. Indian agents apparently weren’t responsible for just the Pearl kidnapping, they had also carried out the attack on Parliament House. And if that were not enough, it turned that there was a case accusing L.K. Advani of attempted assassination dating from his Karachi days 55 years ago. This last accusation, incidentally, is perfectly hilarious. M.A. Jinnah, supposedly the target of this attack, died of tuberculosis, not terrorism. And it is really a bit rich of Pakistan to raise bogey-men when the actual assassination of its first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, remains an unsolved mystery! Or is Islamabad waiting to accuse, say, Murli Manohar Joshi since both he and the Quaid-e-Millat belonged to the erstwhile United Provinces?

I had thought General Musharraf himself would be too sensible to indulge in these idiocies but obviously this was an overestimation of the man. During his current trip to the United States, General Musharraf accused India of conducting more nuclear tests — something that certainly could not have been hidden, least of all from the Pentagon’s sensitive monitoring systems. Ah well, Vasant Panchami is on Sunday and kite-flying is in season! It would be easy to accuse the general of being two-faced, but let us be charitable and put it down to the Post-September 11 Syndrome. He has, under American pressure, been forced to make Pakistan the first country to be colonised in the 21st century. He has surrendered control of his country’s economy and has been forced to put his divisions on the Afghan borders. As a gift to Washington, his police have been made to arrest Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. What respect will Pakistanis have for him if he doesn’t make the occasional anti-India noises?

The general has an undoubted flair for propaganda, and I am sure he will play to the gallery in Washington. But he has committed a cardinal error: he forgot that the attempt to cover up a crime is often more detrimental than the actual crime itself.

The Bible tells us that the warmest welcome is reserved for the prodigal son. Let us, therefore, be charitable and forgive the general his foolishness. But there is a difference between ‘forgive’ and ‘forget’. Pakistan cannot be allowed to deny its past. If it genuinely seeks reconciliation — and that is a pretty big ‘if’ — it must admit its errors in full. How can India believe that there has been a change of heart when Islamabad’s panicky gut reaction is to try to smear India? Every saint, it is said, has a past. St Pervez would do better if he confessed to his own sins rather than fabricating fairytales.

Earlier Columns