Two events of major significance occurred in the last one month that may have considerable significance to India. One is the resounding victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, in the Gujarat Legislature Assembly elections. The other is the assassination of Benazir Bhutto at the gates of Rawalpindi'sLiaqat Bagh?the very location where a gunman shot dead Pakistan'searliest Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan in 1951.
A hostile English media made it appear that Modi may win, but with a sharply reduced majority. It was pure wishful thinking. And it did not work out the way the secularists projected the future. The comments of one set of newspapers have already been published. Now we have the Nagpur-based The Hitavada (December 25, 2007) to add to the list.
According to the paper, the BJP'svictory is ?a vindication of whatever Modi has been pursuing in the previous two terms?. The paper said that ?the fact that Shri Modi missed a two-thirds majority just by a whisker also speaks volumes about his hold on the popular mind?. Pointing out that the Congress party ?was running its campaign more through the media and perhaps did not see the ground reality in Gujarat? the paper said the reality was Modi?s? general grip of administration, his steps to curb corruption, his fast clearance of files and his decision on the power front. Added the paper: ?There is no doubt that in this third successive electoral victory, Shri Narendra Modi and the BJP have vindicated themselves in a big way, the like of which may not come their way easily.?
The Tribune, usually hostile towards Modi said that the Congress ?has failed to dislodge the man it hated most?. ?Had the BJP lost the Gujarat elections the entire blame would have gone to Shri Narendra Modi and his Moditva. Now that he has won it in a big way he will also have to be given the credit for victory even by his critics?, the paper said. The Congress said the paper, failed miserably and Sonia Gandhi'sremark maut ke saudagar did not help her match Shri Modi'sinteractive rhetoric.
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto invited poster-type front -page headlines but The Hindu excelled everybody because it had its own correspondent Nirupama Subramaniam reporting on the event right from the spot. The Hindu must be the only Indian paper which has a full-time correspondent in Pakistan, a point that is intriguing. Why shouldn'tPakistan let as many Indian correspondents in as the Indian media cares to send? On December 28, Nirupama hogged the entire front page with three major stories relating to Benazir's assassination, which must be something of a media record. Actually the second lead heading of the front-paged story said: ?A first-person account by The Hindu'sPakistan Correspondent who was close at hand.? That is some scoop Nirupama was hardly 30 feet away from the blast in a crowd of people waiting to leave the PPP rally when she heard two rounds of automatic gunfire. Lucky she didn't get caught in the disaster; she retained her presence of mind and has given an excellent account of the event. All congratulations to her and her courage.
In its editorial (December 28, 2007) the paper praised Benazir for showing ?in word and deed, that she possessed the raw courage needed to set past wrongs right.? ?With this body blow to democracy in Pakistan, what is clear is that epic struggles lie ahead for its hard-pressed people? said the paper. It quoted Benazir as saying that people were just being butchered in Pakistan and it had to stop and somebody had to find a solution and her own solution was trying to restore democracy. ?It was this combination of extraordinary courage and well-reasoned commitment to democracy that made Benazir stand out among Pakistan'spolitical leaders?, the paper pointed out.
The Times of India (December 29) said it is surprising that though the threat to Benazir'slife had been known for some time, the Pakistani authorities still failed to protect her. If the past is any guide, the paper said, they will also fail to find those who plotted the assassination. If Musharraf is tempted to hit out with blind repression, the paper warned it will ?push Pakistan closer to the edge of chaos, even possibly disintegration?. Actually, the paper pointed out, ?a disintegrating Pakistan would be a defeat for the US and affect Indian interests vitally.? So what needed to be done? The paper said that ?to tackle terror, Pakistan needs a legitimate and popular government and the focus has to shift from personalities to institutions and processes.? While it accepted the unlikelihood of holding ?credible elections? under present conditions it added that ?there has to be at least a medium-term plan, in which the international community should be involved to bridge this dived?. Importantly, said the paper, ?whatever the plan now, it needs to be put in place now, before Pakistan slips further into perilous anarchy?.
The Indian Express (December 29) wondered what the United States would do, knowing that its best efforts to confront the threat of terrorism have simply not been good enough. ?US analysts are deliberating on whether the American aid, $ 750 million five-year plan to counter militancy in Pakistan'stribal areas would succeed or not. Can there be debate on this? the paper asked. Actually there have been some media reports that this time the assassination was not the handiwork of al Qaeda but the dirty job was carried out by someone within the much-hated Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and that there is ?an ISI within the ISI?. That suggestion cannot be dismissed as guesswork, considering that within the ISI are many fanatic Muslims with close connections with terrorists. As the paper itself noted: ?The death of Benazir will put the country in limbo and push it deeper into the unshakeable arms of the fundamentalists. For the foreseeable future, expect only bad news from Pakistan?.
Interestingly, except The Hindu no other paper has given any sustained thought to the likely future of Pakistan. The Hindu carried two scholarly articles, one from Tariq Ali which was reproduced from The Guardian and another by Ramesh Thakur, a professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo. Don'twe have experts in our own country on political developments in our neighbouring country? That sounds very strange. We seem to know more about what'shappening in the United States than in next door Pakistan or Bangladesh. What sort of journalism is this?
Comments