That's the question I asked myself as I read
this piece from the New York Times. The article talks about how, despite the help Pakistan seems to be providing on the so-called war on terror, the perpetrators of a spate of recent terrorist incidents can all be linked, in one way or another, to Pakistan. And what's insular about that? Not one of the incidents noted have occurred in India. No, that doesn't mean either that India is free from terrorism or that Pakistani influence on terrorism happens only when it is directed towards the West. It only means all acts of terrorism in India are blithely explained away in the New York Times under the Kashmir conflict cliche (if you're interested in seeing how the American press follows these patterned coverage models in more local contexts, I highly recommend reading
the Daily Howler; the India-Pakistan coverage fits right into the same framework) and deliberately or otherwise, the New York Times in particular and the American press in general, seem to be unwilling to accept the larger pattern that emerges out of all this: that in the India-Pakistan conflict that the West has blithely ignored over the past few decades as some piffling internal quarrel (except for repeatedly playing up the nuclear angle and raising coverage levels when the nations seem to be close to war) lie the seeds for all this. It ignores that in India's repeated accusations over the years that Pakistan is harbouring terrorists and encouraging terrorism (if not by other means, by not cracking down on it with urgency and effectiveness) there has always been more than a kernel of truth which is not given its due. It ignores that by not covering and reporting on what were ominous signs that terrorism was flourishing unchecked in Pakistan they have let one very giant ball drop. (For example, when an
Indian Airlines plane was hijacked and flown over Pakistani airspace to Afghanistan, and Pakistan didn't so much as bat an eyelid when the terrorists who were let go in exchange for the passengers entered Pakistan and
blithely roamed Pakistani cities, there was no pressure from the US to crack down on these folks and to force Pakistan to re-arrest and send back these people.) It ignores the deep roots of the present grave terror threat in the US policy's insular focus over the decades on helping anyone that can help them (Pakistan in this case) achieve their next short-term goal no matter what the longer term consequences. For me, this insularity in media coverage in turn directs how informed the American people are, and in a vicious circle, crushes any hope for the populace to see the bigger picture and drive for changes in these flawed policies through the force of their vibrant democracy.
Another example of the heavy cost of this insularity can be found in
this article. Talking about a Mr. Rashid Rauf, who is said to be an important player in the recent plot to bomb airplanes from Britian to the US, the article says this:
According to Pakistani officials, Mr. Rauf is affiliated with Jaish-e-Mohammed, the militant Islamic group that is closely linked to Al Qaeda and that is battling Indian rule in the mountainous region of Kashmir. The group has been officially labeled a terrorist group by the United States government and is believed to be responsible for the kidnapping and murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Its precursor organization, Harkat ul-Mujahedeen, trained in Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. [emphasis mine]
See how the article mentions this in passing and how these terrorists who were just planning to blow up a whole bunch of planes are just "battling Indian rule in the mountainous region of Kashmir"? One presumes that these folks are following the methods of Mahatma Gandhi in that "battle", but somehow suddenly take to terrorism when the West is involved? Am I reading too much into this?
Also, someone should explain another aspect of the NY Times' coverage of terrorism to me. When the suspects in
Indian bombings turn out to be Indian Muslims and not directly members of some known terrorist organization,
the coverage immediately takes a tone of "this is an internal Indian problem" and that "India repeatedly accuses Pakistan" and the fact that the suspected perpetrators actually turned out to be Indian citizens means that India should instead be "looking inwards", with coverage of Indian Muslims and how India is struggling to keep up its image as a "secular democracy". (Some of these issues are true.) When similar incidents happen (repeatedly now) in Britian and the perpetrators are British-born-and-raised Muslims with Pakistani roots, the coverage quickly moves to the role of Pakistan and how that's a double-edged sword? What about Britian's credentials as a secular-democracy? I know that there have been articles that have begun to look at what's happening inside Britian. But I'm wondering why a jump to Pakistan as a source and building ground for terrorism is made so quickly here, but made with great reluctance, if at all, when equally brutal acts of terror occur (not mere planning) in India?
No comments:
Post a Comment