Scanning the news channels during my trip home in the short vacation that we get at the end of January, I found this discussion on NDTV, with a group of Pakistani journalists and human rights workers.
Amidst all the other depressing news about Ram Sena and functionaries within the Indian judiciary publicly abjuring their duty to uphold the constitution by denying human rights to those accused of terrorism, this discussion affirmed my faith in the ability of people (as opposed to governments) to struggle for peace.
Many politicians and their disciples in the media nowadays seem to have the least interest in promoting positive peace. Why should they promote peace, when defending their countries to the last drop of someone else's blood pays such rich dividends for them - at least temporarily? The politicians are able to grandstand, and the media enjoy good circulation as their columns reverberate with the patriotic thunder of polarized opinion. Even though one can detect the influence of right-wing nationalist ideas on public opinion, it's clear from this discussion that the Indian government has not acted, as the US government did after 9/11, out of fear and rage. Indeed, it is constantly attacked in the press and media for showing restraint in the face of the gravest provocation. Perhaps this restraint is a virtue born out of necessity, as it comes from a sober assessment of our capacity to sustain a military confrontation with Pakistan. Army commanders in India apparently were wary of the battle readiness of the armies they command. But the restraint has actually allowed for a more successful and calibrated reaction to the Pakistani involvement in 26/11 than would have been possible if we had gone in for a precipitate military reaction.
The representatives of the right raise some sensible points as well. Chandan Mitra asks which Pakistan should the Indian government be negotiating with - the civilian government, or the military, or the ISI? It's clear from his reaction that if he were in power, he would assume that the Pakistani government is run by the Lashkar-e-Toiba, and act accordingly. And indeed, it's been clear at least since the Kargil confrontation that the Pakistani state does not speak with one voice, or even act as one agency, on matters concerning India.
Some of the most sensible and conciliatory comments in the discussion come from Air Marshal Tipnis, the former chief of the IAF at the time of Kargil. The spirit that prevails in the discussion, and that captures what I most remember about this discussion, is summarized by Mahesh Bhatt's declaration at the end. I was also impressed by the courage of the Pakistanis in speaking so critically of their own state in what their government, and much of Pakistani public opinion, still considers to be enemy territory.
View it, and hope that there are no more terrorist attacks from across the border.
Comments