[Reader-list] Better Mush than traitors - Chandan Mitra

[Aditya Raj Kaul]

  Better Mush than traitors

By Chandan Mitra, Editor-in-Chief, The Pioneer

Link -
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=mitra%2Fmitra323.txt&writer=mitra

 The exit of Pervez Musharraf from authority brings to an anti-climatic end
an entire epoch in the sub-continent's contemporary history. The flamboyant
General may have become an object of hate and derision in his own country of
late, but at the turn of the century he seemed almost poised to make
history.

 Sadly for him, Musharraf failed to leave behind anything memorable about
his uninterrupted nine-year reign. Which is why his rambling farewell
speech, listing all his mundane achievements on the economic and political
fronts did not generate any kind of sentiment or remorse among Pakistanis,
many of whom burst into celebrations with unseemly haste the moment he
announced his resignation.

 History will probably judge Musharraf more sympathetically for it is true
that he tried his best to prevent Pakistan's degeneration into chaos and
anarchy, often resorting to rank duplicity by presenting one face to the
Americans and another to his own people.

 At home, he tried to be a crusader for Kashmir, using the backdrop of the
Kargil operation he masterminded without then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's
knowledge. Having seized power in Kargil's aftermath from a defeated,
demoralised civilian administration, Musharraf promptly attempted to turn
peacemaker, while remaining fixated on Kashmir. The July 2000 Agra Summit
collapsed due to his haste and intransigence, matched in equal measure by
the NDA Government's fully justified rigidity.

 It was at Agra that Musharraf first described insurgency in the Kashmir
Valley as "freedom struggle" comparable to Palestine. I cannot forget his
terminology since it was used in response to my question at the
ill-conceived, secretly televised breakfast meeting with 20 Indian Editors
at Oberoi Amarvilas where Musharraf, who had proclaimed himself President of
Pakistan a few days earlier, was staying.

 I got to ask the first question at the meeting and innocuously queried him
about cross-border terrorism. He gave a detailed, obviously well-prepared
reply in which he outlined a four-stage solution to Kashmir, which shorn of
verbiage amounted to seeking a division of the State with the Valley being
annexed by Pakistan or, as a long shot, being granted "*Azadi*", guaranteed
by both protagonists. It was in this context that he emphasised the need for
out-of-the-box thinking, using phrases not usually heard from straitlaced
army brass or convention-bound politicians. Ironically these very ideas and
terms have been recycled by self-styled opinion-makers and newspaper tigers
of India during the last fortnight to plead for the Valley's *Azadi*!

 In retrospect I feel Musharraf always spoke from his gut especially on
India-Pakistan relations. His Agra gamble may have backfired miserably for
he had to return empty-handed without even paying obeisance at the dargah of
the *Garib Nawaz* at Ajmer. But he managed to alter international
perceptions of the separatist agitation in the Valley by insisting on
calling it a freedom struggle, much to New Delhi's discomfiture.

 Interestingly, however, hardline secessionists of Kashmir never regarded
him with respect. In fact, many doubted his loyalty to the faith because of
his unorthodox lifestyle. I recall a Press Conference addressed by his
Foreign Minister Mahmud Kasoori during which he made an impassioned plea to
the Indian media to empathise with his President who was far from being a
rabid Islamist: "He smokes, drinks whisky and even keeps dogs, all of which
are *haraam* in our religion. He is like you and me. So, stop vilifying him
as a sponsor of *jihad*," Kasoori implored. But the failure to make progress
on Kashmir, particularly after 9/11 and US pressure, cooked Musharraf's
goose.

 Never loved by a Punjabi-dominated Pakistani Establishment on account of
his *Mohajir* origins, the President progressively lost support among the
people who concluded his rhetoric was not only empty but also repetitive.

 Where Musharraf failed, the hardliners have succeeded. First, they managed
to destabilise Pakistan. The storming of the Lal Masjid in Islamabad marked
the beginning of *jihadi* resurgence, which he was unable to control. The
turbulent frontier regions bordering Afghanistan virtually seceded and every
attempt by Pakistani forces to regain authority over the rebellious,
pro-Taliban tribes met increasingly fierce reaction. So much so that a big
city like Peshawar seems to have slipped out of Islamabad's control over the
last few weeks.

 The murder of two alleged sex workers, one of whose face was brutally
mutilated with rifle butts, by the Taliban in lawless Peshawar earlier this
week, shows the extent of the Pakistani regime's steady retreat. With
Pakistan itself hurtling towards anarchy and *jihadi* terror making further
inroads each passing day, it is no surprise that Kashmiri separatists have
become more emboldened than ever before.

 Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Jamaat leader, is reported to have openly declared
his loyalty to Pakistan. Even Omar Abdullah, toasted by the secularist
Indian media for his fraudulent double-speak in Parliament during the Trust
vote last month, has begun talking of the *Azadi* option.

 And why not? Reinforcing the well-known fact that many Hindus have no
stomach for a fight and would rather live in subjugation than valiantly
defend their honour, celebrity writers and publicity-seeking showgirls have
been harping on the Kashmiris' right to *Azadi*. Last weekend two prominent
newspaper columnists wrote about the need to think out-of-the-box (a
Musharraf copyright in this context) urging us to seriously consider if it
is morally right to hold "unwilling" Kashmiris back in this country. I agree
with them. As a matter of policy, the Government must encourage all those
who have no loyalty to this country to leave, migrating across the Line of
Control to the country of their dreams.

 Once they step over the de facto border, possessions they leave behind
should be declared Enemy Property, reviving the provisions that existed on
the statute books at least till after the 1965 Indo-Pak war. But under no
circumstances can Indian citizens be allowed to promote secession.
Advocating the right of Kashmiris to secede, as a professional female
agitator (who believes the Vajpayee Government staged the December 13, 2001
attack on Parliament) reportedly did in Srinagar, is tantamount to treason
and must invite provisions contained in the law relating to waging war
against the State. Personally, I feel that even publicising such treasonable
views, leave alone using dedicated columns to indulge in secessionist
propaganda, should invite the charge of promoting terrorism and
anti-national activity.

 No true Indian can forget the way 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits were turfed out
of the Valley by secessionists in a horrific instance of ethnic cleansing.

 The secularists bay for Radovan Milosevic's blood, but not a word is
uttered against the butchers who masterminded the elimination of Pandits and
the systematic targeting of thousands of patriotic security personnel who
laid down their lives so that the tricolour could continue to flutter atop
Government buildings in Srinagar. Traitors are cowards by choice. Like all
cowards, they will die many times before their death. But the average Indian
-- people like you and me -- will die but once, defending the nation's
integrity and honour. *Jai Hind*!