The article on Pakistan being in a 'State of denial' (January 2009) by Subhash Chopra captures the essence of what that unfortunate land has become: a failed state. The leaders, army, jihadi elements and 'venom spewing Islamist madrassas' have all had their share in ruining the country. Whatever little was left was accomplished by American financial help, which instead of being used to fight Al Qaeda and Taliban was 'deployed against India in the low-intensity proxy war in Kashmir and several Indian cities'.

All countries of the world, including the United States and European Union, find fault with Pakistan and know for a fact that the country is sponsoring terror in India and sending terrorists to Indian cities, but nothing happens beyond that. After a while everyone forgets about terror attacks on India and it's back to square one.

Last year when President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani took reins of the country they had raised some hopes of making peace with India. But after the Mumbai terror attack of 26/11 they too seem to speaking the army's voice.

Even the future does not seem to hold much hope for Pakistan. A country where children are raised to, first and foremost, hate India, the U.S. and Israel, what else can one expect?
Miriam Ross
Mumbai

Misplaced focus

On a flight in Europe I happened to go through the January 2009 issue of your magazine. I notice it carries articles mostly on the Indian subcontinent, particularly Pakistan. I couldn't help think that these days Pakistan is in news world over, and always for wrong reasons. Even President Barack Obama says, and rightly so, that the war on terror has to be fought not in Iraq but in Afghanistan-Pakistan.

The problem with Pakistan is, and has been since it became an independent country, that it has got its focus all wrong and mixed up. And it is unfortunate that the country has not produced a single leader who could get that focus properly aligned. Pakistan says it wants all of Jammu and Kashmir to be part of its territory. But the point is Pakistan must first be able to govern the territory it holds before trying to acquire more. One look at the country's economy, institutions, infrastructure and you know it's out of shape. First, the house should be set right before embarking on any extension. Even the part of J&K that's under Pakistan's control is in shambles. More of it would mean more chaos and trouble.

On its western side Pakistan seeks to have a decisive say in Afghanistan, or even control the country. I'm told the reason for this is to have a strategic depth against any future Indian aggression. But does India have intent to invade Pakistan? I don't think so. Even after the bloody massacre in Mumbai, in which some of the killers who took part were from Pakistan, India did retaliate against the country, why would it during peace time? This 'India scare' is an excuse that Pakistani leaders have employed all these years to divert public attention from the mess at home.

Another concern I believe is that Afghanistan from the west and India from the east will be able to squeeze Pakistan effectively. But is there such a conspiracy between Kabul and New Delhi? Again, I don't think so. This is yet another excuse.

Once upon a time Bangladesh was part of Pakistan. But was Islamabad able to provide good governance to this separate, far off entity? Obviously no, this is why it seceded from Pakistan.

Instead of having its focus inwards, Pakistan has all along looked outside for acquiring strength and in the process made a mess of itself. In the process the powerful countries of the world have also exploited Pakistan to serve their own ends. Worst of all, because it could not get hold of entire Kashmir and Afghanistan, it took resort to terror and violence. This is what is eating into Pakistan now. Today the country has become a crucible of terror. The way things are going, one day this crucible will get overheated and explode; and of all countries and people, it's going to burn Pakistan and Pakistanis the most.

It's already late to set things right in the country. But even now if Pakistan can pull out a leader from somewhere who can align its focus correctly, it'll save the country and its people. But who's there? Zardari? Gilani? Kiyani? Musharraf? May be Pakistan needs a Barack Obama, who, while addressing the Muslim world, said in his inaugural speech: 'To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict…know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.'
Bipin Patel
London

Medium as message

When Marshall McLuhan posited famously in the 1960s that 'the medium was the message', he was reminding people that they often tend to focus on the obvious; missing out the more subtle changes wrought in society and culture by a new innovation. TV is certainly not new to India, but one of the unintended consequences of the traumatic events of 26/11 in Mumbai was that the 'medium' of television indeed became the 'message' itself, as it provided a handy vehicle for the public to vent its disappointment, anguish and outrage at the manner in which they felt the country's politicians had let them down.

Most of us remained glued to the idiot box for a better part of that unfortunate week, viewing the shrill follies and inanities of brash young TV anchors as they showed us the horrifying events unfolding in Mumbai. Compelling as the visuals of the actual terrorist strikes were, the coverage of the aftermath too held one spellbound as it showed an unprecedented and spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment.

The politicians themselves have helped boost an image of insensitivity and ineptitude by their thoughtless utterances. Our netas, habituated by jostling crowds and having media attention focused exclusively on them, were baffled and resentful of public displays like silent vigils and candlelight marches, which excluded them.

Arun Prakash
Dehradun

top