I am not very sure why Deccan Herald suddenly chose to include the Tavleen Singh column "On the Spot" in the Sunday edition. Probably because of its lucid reasoning and objective analysis.
Take the latest onein which she writes about the signs of peace descending on our 'benighted sub-continent'. In fact, peace and love have already broken out between the Indian and Pakistani halves of the Punjab. It's only a matter of time before the whole region is engulfed - she stops short of writing 'and they all lived happily ever after', but that is all one can say. Why now? I present the following as an example of her lucid reasoning, paraphrased from her article.
The very basis of her argument seems a bit flawed. When fifty years of living side by side in the same country has not driven away the bogeyman from a substantial swathe of Indian minds, it is difficult to imagine that a five-day (say) trip with the wife and kids will succeed in doing something similar. Simply put, when many Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus are still suspicious of each other after five decades, how can one hope that pure love will break out between the 'ordinary' people of the two countries? Or is it that excessive familiarity breeds only distrust, thus short acquaintances are better?
Even if complete love and understanding prevails - does it mean each side will force Kashmir on the other? Who will win then - when winning would mean actually losing Kashmir. Or probably the lady believes that Kashmir is just a minor side issue which does not matter in the bigger scheme of things.
The Pakistani Generals' general lack of information seems very surprising - theyseem to be really benighted, waiting for ordinary people who are on holiday (presumably) to get them news of the outside world. Has not General Musharraf updated them that India is better off economically and can sustain permanent hostilities better. He has been here - and now his family is here too. Is he secretive by nature? Don't these other Generals read the newspapers and international magazines or watch TV - all these media are calling India the next big thing on the world stage. Way behind China of course. The CIA has the straight stuff on both the countries - the Generals just need to read this and this for a simple comparison of the two economies.
Without belabouring the point further, one simply throws up one's hands and asks : when will our great columnists stop pushing such meaningless generalizations about 'ordinary' people realizing this and that and something else because the writer thinks some important watershed change occurred; and about these realizations having a profound impact on a country (or two)'s policies?
Now as an example of her objective analysis there is the following passage:
I'm amazed that the writer thinks this is how big policy changes are carried out. The Italian lady orders the PM to hand over Kashmir, and the latter obliges, and one fine day Kashmir is gone. The opposition, the 'powerful public opinion', the media - no one is taken into confidence, no discussion, nothing. For crying out loud!
Ms Singh may have laughed once, but she is bitter now. Very bitter. They took away the bone from her. Poor Tavleen indeed.
So that brings us to the question again - why did Deccan Herald do it?
I would have much preferred another Khushwant Singh column.
Take the latest onein which she writes about the signs of peace descending on our 'benighted sub-continent'. In fact, peace and love have already broken out between the Indian and Pakistani halves of the Punjab. It's only a matter of time before the whole region is engulfed - she stops short of writing 'and they all lived happily ever after', but that is all one can say. Why now? I present the following as an example of her lucid reasoning, paraphrased from her article.
It has become easier for people to travel to travel across the border due to a easy availability of visas for ordinary people. Since travel between the two contries is easier now, ordinary people in India and Pakistan will discover that 'the bogeymen they thought dwelt on the other side do not exist'. The newly enlightened public opinion in India, being more powerful here than in Pakistan, will somehow ensure permanent peace in our benighted s-c. The average Pakistani will realise that apart from North India, no one cares little for Kashmir or enmity with Pakistan. The average Pakistani will also realize that India is economically better able to afford permanent hostilities than their side. They will convey this to the Generals who will then realize that they can never hope for Kashmir to be handed over to them.How on earth does all this lead to harmony prevailing over our wretched (why not!) sub-continent? How many ordinary people will suddenly start travelling across the borders because of the easy visas and the many buses plying merrily? How many Pakistanis who travel thus will also visit south India and accurately gauge the lack of interest in Kashmir and enmity with our neighbour? Who are these 'ordinary' people anyway who are going to travel from Kanyakumari to Lahore because it is easy to get a visa? Can we hope for a re-unification of the two countries once these 'ordinary' people realize the bogeymen do not exist?
The very basis of her argument seems a bit flawed. When fifty years of living side by side in the same country has not driven away the bogeyman from a substantial swathe of Indian minds, it is difficult to imagine that a five-day (say) trip with the wife and kids will succeed in doing something similar. Simply put, when many Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus are still suspicious of each other after five decades, how can one hope that pure love will break out between the 'ordinary' people of the two countries? Or is it that excessive familiarity breeds only distrust, thus short acquaintances are better?
Even if complete love and understanding prevails - does it mean each side will force Kashmir on the other? Who will win then - when winning would mean actually losing Kashmir. Or probably the lady believes that Kashmir is just a minor side issue which does not matter in the bigger scheme of things.
The Pakistani Generals' general lack of information seems very surprising - theyseem to be really benighted, waiting for ordinary people who are on holiday (presumably) to get them news of the outside world. Has not General Musharraf updated them that India is better off economically and can sustain permanent hostilities better. He has been here - and now his family is here too. Is he secretive by nature? Don't these other Generals read the newspapers and international magazines or watch TV - all these media are calling India the next big thing on the world stage. Way behind China of course. The CIA has the straight stuff on both the countries - the Generals just need to read this and this for a simple comparison of the two economies.
Without belabouring the point further, one simply throws up one's hands and asks : when will our great columnists stop pushing such meaningless generalizations about 'ordinary' people realizing this and that and something else because the writer thinks some important watershed change occurred; and about these realizations having a profound impact on a country (or two)'s policies?
Now as an example of her objective analysis there is the following passage:
...since no Indian government, leave alone one controlled by a lady of Italian descent, can hand over Kashmir how can there be all this peace and love breaking out in Punjab? What has changed?Italics mine. What does she mean? Is this how things work? Forget the assumption about who controls the Indian government. Consider the hand over itself. Why cannot the government controlled by the lady of Italian descent (I'll refer to her as the Italian lady henceforth - much shorter and closer to what Ms Tavleen Singh thinks). Presumably since it would be branded as a treacherous deed done by the same Italian lady who does not care enough about Indian sentiments and the pride of place occupied by Kashmir therein, since she is, after all, Italian.
I'm amazed that the writer thinks this is how big policy changes are carried out. The Italian lady orders the PM to hand over Kashmir, and the latter obliges, and one fine day Kashmir is gone. The opposition, the 'powerful public opinion', the media - no one is taken into confidence, no discussion, nothing. For crying out loud!
Ms Singh may have laughed once, but she is bitter now. Very bitter. They took away the bone from her. Poor Tavleen indeed.
So that brings us to the question again - why did Deccan Herald do it?
I would have much preferred another Khushwant Singh column.
No comments:
Post a Comment