Old wine in a new bottle

That's what Pakistan's new Foreign Minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, is. Hailed as the new face of Pakistani democracy, she is, well, a new face, but a new face that's reciting the same lines of her predecessors. In no way is there any shift, visible or otherwise, in their stance over any of the contentious issues that dog our countries.

Image source: Wikipedia
Her first interview with one of the news channels brought out the old tirade. Calling our media reports on terrorist strikes and Pakistan's inability to reign in the terror groups as 'dated', she displayed a classic Pakistani tactic, an age old one, one that folks like I have grown up hearing countless times, of dismissing them as fairy tales. And as is with the current crop of Pakistani ministers, she stated that they (Pakistanis) are the ones who have to deal with the scourge of terrorism "every single day, every single hour". Well, ma'am, our sympathies, but wasn't it your country's policy to breed these maggots in the rotting core of your country, to use against our country? Now when the maggots decide to feast on the meat close by, you may be justified in crying, but all we can say is "we told you so." And please forgive us for not showing too much of sympathy - perhaps the tit for tat response isn't the best, but it certainly can be viewed as apt.

She chided the media for focusing only on the ISI's links with terror groups and not the problem Pakistan faces from these terror groups. Well hello, excuse us for not wanting to stick our fingers into your dirty little pot, but isn't it obvious that the only issues we would raise with you are issues that arise due to your direct actions? The terrorism that affects us as as a direct result of your patronage is what concerns us, because it's something you've done to us. If you have a dog and it's let lose on my children, I would take the matter up with you; however, if your dog bites you or your kids, why would I 'take the matter' up with you? Sure, I'd offer condolences and offer help, but I won't make it a point to question you about it.

Dear lady, it was your country's design of bringing India to its knees by 'making it bleed by a 1000 cuts' - the ISI's strategy of using small scale conflicts by using 'non-state actors' (the rest of the civilised world called them terrorists), to cause trouble in India. Now these very terrorists, who may hate India, have also envisaged grandiose plans of taking control of power in Pakistan and so have started to target your your government - the establishment. So you see, it really isn't our fault if the chickens have come home to roost, because when you had the opportunity to cook their goose, you didn't, hoping they'd lay golden eggs, but all they did was shit around the courtyard.

You and your countrymen still haven't been able to come to terms with the fact that although we were both created at about the same time, we have moved ahead leaps and bounds and you've been left behind. You've been fed stories about the two-nation theory ad nauseum, and yet India happens to have the second largest Muslim population in the world (behind Indonesia).

Your little minds aren't able to get around to the fact that the King of Kashmir (granted, a Hindu) decided to side with India and not Pakistan even though the majority of the people were Muslim. That, however, didn't mean they wanted to join Pakistan, you assumed they would, but they wanted to be independent. As part of your foreign policy, you aimed at 'freeing' Kashmir, but in reality, you wanted it to merge and become a part of Pakistan. By talking to only the Hurriyat and not the elected Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, you showed that you don't really care about democratic institutions and processes, much like leaders from your country have done in the past.

Dear lady, the media may have loved commenting on your handbag and your sense of fashion, not to mention your beauty, but when it comes down to business, I'm sorry, you can chant in front of the cameras that you'd like to have a new beginning, but by not doing or saying anything new, who are you trying to fool?

Much ado about Hafeez Saeed

After the fiasco at Sharm-al-shaik (or however you spell that place in Egypt), our government continues to make blunder after blunder, embarrassing not just itself, but also the people who voted them in. The Sardar in charge firstly agreed to sign a joint statement with the Pakis in which although the Kashmir word was for the first time omitted from an Indo-Pak statement, it had a mind-boggling sentence stating that the dialogue process would not be stalled even if Pakistan doesn't act on the terrorists who are 'bred' there. To this, the govt put forward a hasty explanation saying that "what it actually meant it is that the dialogue process will not go forward unless the Pakis act on terror first". Simple question: then why not frame the statement that way in the first place?

So leaving that bureaucratic-governmental bullshit aside, we had the Gujarat govt again send their new anti-terror bill to the central govt, and then to the 'lady-who-speaks-to-the-dead' President. Again, the bill was returned saying that some of the provisions in it were Draconian (this guy Draco wasn't very popular in his time where he lived, but is real popular in India, I must say!). One of the main objections is that the confessions made by a suspect to a senior officer is not admissible in court. Fair enough, but why do they seem to forget about that when it comes to Hafeez Saeed. So far whatever evidence that we have is what Kasab has said, and apart from that, there doesn't seem to be much else (if there is, then it isn't being made public for 'security reasons'). So if the govt doesn't want the clause of admission before an officer admissible in court, on what grounds are they asking the Pakis to prosecute Saeed? Like I said, if there are radio intercepts, or indisputable human evidence of some form which hasn't been made public because the security agencies feel it may compromise the source of the info, then won't it be compromised by letting the Pakis know about it? So if the Pakis can be shown the evidence, why not the public of India?

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that if Hafeez Saeed's role came out of the confessions of Kasab, how can Mr Chidambaram rattle out his usual lines that "...there is enough evidence in the dossier we have given to prosecute Hafeez Saeed."? I don't know about you, but I'm confused. This govt can't seem to talk straight, can't act straight, and yet they seem to be the ones in cahoots with the religious loonies who oppose people who aren't straight! Ladies and gentlemen, I give to you, the UPA part deux.