Dear ministers, Pak aggression more than just ‘inhuman’

Time top cabinet leaders like the defence and foreign ministers learnt that you can’t fight overt and covert wars with stock phrases and hamming brave responses

shantanu

Shantanu Datta | January 9, 2013



"A group of their (Pakistan’s) regular soldiers intruded across the Line of Control in Mendhar Sector on January 8. Pakistan army troops, having taken advantage of thick fog and mist in the forested area, were moving towards our posts when an alert area domination patrol spotted and engaged the intruders... The fire fight between Pakistan and our troops continued for approximately half an hour after which the intruders retreated towards their side of LoC. Two soldiers — Lance Naik Hemraj and Lance Naik Sudhakar Singh — laid down their lives while fighting the Pakistani troops.”

That’s no hawkish TV anchor, baying for blood and a rise in television ratings at nine o’clock primetime news. It’s a statement issued by the Indian army's northern command, based in Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir, following the beheading and killing of two Indian soldiers and injuring of two others in Poonch on Tuesday morning.

Nearly 24 hours on, India came out with a series of stock responses, with ministers using that cliché: highly provocative. "Pakistan Army's action is highly provocative. The way they treated the dead bodies of Indian soldiers is inhuman,” defence minister AK Antony said, according to PTI.
Like a brave general marshalling his troops for a forward march, he went on, for more special effect: “We will convey our protest to Pakistan government and our DGMO (director general of military operations) will talk to his counterpart. We are closely following the situation.”
Provocative is an extremely interesting adjective. It could either mean “causing anger or another strong reaction, especially deliberately”, according to Oxford dictionary, or “issuing strong statement under duress”, to believe the UPA government parlance.

Antony’s statement itself proves the inelegance with which Indian ministers treat the word. So what did “Pakistan army’s action” provoke (or incite, to use a better verb) our defence minister to do? Come up with some pretty interesting observations: that the act is “inhuman”. Really, Mr Antony? That’s the only adjective you could come up with. I thought the police action on the anti-rape protesters at India Gate was inhuman/heartless/ruthless. I am sure you could hunt up better phrases to describe a ghastly and barbaric slaughter and unprovoked aggression (and this isn’t even half as vitriolic as some TV anchors).

Next, the good defence minister says India will “covey protests” to Pakistan. Oh, come on, sir. As if they care!

Lastly, that pat solution for everything: “closely following the situation”. Aye, aye; as if that observations had helped the situation earlier.

Antony’s cabinet colleague, foreign minister Salman Khurshid, was sounded equally shocked: “This is inhuman. Extremely myopic, shortsighted. Has caused us tremendous hurt... It is not something of light nature, public opinion does not accept it... We want proportionate response… (will take) a collective view in the government.”

Inhuman? Aren’t all murders supposed to be inhuman any way? What’s extra special about this attack, then, that the external affairs minister is forced to say that it has caused the country “tremendous hurt”?

And what, pray, is that “proportionate response”? Never mind, the moment the Manmohan Singh-led government goes into a huddle, as Khurshid’s subsequent phrase “collective view in the government” indicates, Indians do not expect much more than some inane peacenik statement and quasi-anxious, pseudo-concerned and fully eager-not-too-sound-hawkish plea for public apology.

One is not asking for drone attacks across the LoC, like the US response to Pakistan’s muted response to Taliban elements on its soil is, or Israel’s attack on Gaza late last year. One is only looking at our tallest leaders to make appropriate response and gestures in retaliation to what even an editorial in Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper called “the most serious incident of recent times” since the bilateral “ceasefire along the disputed border since November 2003”.

Those things, and the right noise matter in all overt and covert wars, respected sirs, despite the feigned ignorance with which the prime minister treats all needs to talk up, out and loud in his love for “khamoshi”, or silence.

Comments

 

Other News

Ram Nath Kovind to be India’s next president

 India’s 14th president is going to be former Bihar governor Ram Nath Kovind, a dalit. He triumphed over former Lok Sabha speaker Meira Kumar in the vote count that took place on Thursday.   Kovind succeeds Pranab Mukherjee, who demits office on July 25. He becomes the

At JNU, all that is beautiful and “solid has melted into the air”…

Dear “Professor” Vice Chancellor,    When the clamour is made all around us, and rightly so, about the condition of growing degeneration of quality education in the higher institutions of learning in our country, you have justly – for which you must be

Making words count

In 2016, 38 bills were enacted in parliament. During that year, on average, the time spent on legislative debate (without interruptions) was 23 percent in the Lok Sabha and 16 percent in the Rajya Sabha (calculated from the PRS Legislative Research data).  Time is, however, just one measure

Business goes north

Tyre manufacturer MRF (originally Madras Rubber Factory), which enjoys instant brand recall thanks to the presence of its logo on cricket superstar Virat Kohli’s bat, figures among the most prominent industries in Tamil Nadu. But the state does not figure in its future plans. Like another TN industry

Do you think the Central Water Commission needs to take on the responsibility of irrigation governance?

Do you think the Central Water Commission needs to take on the responsibility of irrigation governance?

Debating the idea of privacy

Is right to privacy a fundamental right? The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments on the contentious issue linked to the Aadhaar debate. Here`s how the issue has been addressed by different countries, with the first reference dating to 1890.   The Supreme Court on Tuesday s





Video

Current Issue

Opinion

Facebook    Twitter    Google Plus    Linkedin    Subscribe Newsletter

Twitter