The Panel of Vendettas at UC Berkley

Aisha Sarwari
Mar 4, 2002



We rely on our social technocrats to protect vulnerable average

people from harmful propaganda. We assume these educated elite know the bullet power of and the reign of capitalistic on it. Nothing could be further from the truth as far as is concerned.

The term “” itself is problematic, because it projects an image of the collective but is a disproportionate representation of reality. is a home to 1/6th of humanity, leaving the 140 million Pakistanis lag behind in figuring out fact from fiction. Like postmodernist writers, Pakistanis have come to the scene when all the great jokes have been already played out. But the and its educational discrepancy are hardly an element that the term "" suppresses. The hegemonic attempts of in wars practically make each one posing under its banner a mouthpiece for the Indian . All the Indian technocrats do is echo the agenda setting monologues of and all Pakistani technocrats do is provide fodder for their claims. As Zameer Akram mentioned in a Yale conference, “Pakistanis think that to be elite they have to vehemently criticize .”

UC Berkley held such a conference in February 2002, and called it, “ & : , and Strategic Balance in .” However the actual speeches were on the line of, “ and .” As a moderator of the talk we had an Indian Professor of Political at UC Berkley, Mr.Pradeep Chibber; Neil Joeck, planning staff of US State Department; Saeed Shafqat, a professor of Quaid-e-Azam University. Then there was Samit Ganguly, the infamous professor of UT Austin and lastly, The distinguished writer of The Friday Times, Khalid Ahmed.

Prior to September 11th the west suffered from too much choice and abundant leisure. Entertainment and sensationalism led the money only to the that sizzled most. Emerging out of the tragic shock of will require decades to recognize heroes from , distinguish the big man from the big name and separate those who are worthy of respect from those who are known for being known. Understanding the issues that plague and calls for heroes not social . Those of Noam Chomsky’s stature are heroes and those of that February night were simply cheap actors.

Before the context of the talk, may I explain that is a glorious aim that Pakistanis have. I would have preferred to believe in the goodness of the Indian people, but there are questions in our minds that remain unanswered. and become security matters when they are threatened, as apparent by the ongoing and deaths over the Babri Mosque today in . When this brand of tyranny of the majority became unbearable, was created (mind you by the greatest Indian Nationalist and Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity: M. A ). Why then is our existence questioned till today? Why does Mr. L. K Advani of propose that we should reunify? Why should be made a religious issue and not a human issue? Why does have a veto over International mediation? Why are no journalists spicing the plight of the Kashmiri people? Why did the spiritual guru of the Modern world, Mr. Deepak Chopra, add a chapter of fundamentalism in when his book was aimed to heal the world after September 11th? What is if this is not it? Where is impartiality? Why does telling it as it is mean the opposite? Are these questions not 'elite' enough to be answered?

Now to support the earlier claims, there are three dominant paradigms that the Indian wants to impose on the public. These three ideals are aimed to

soften the blow of ’s alienation after - alliance grew. Essentially, for the purpose of setting an agenda; to give people the content on what to talk about.

1. is the US baby. America would have chosen to launch an attack on , but was chosen for its proximity. was coerced into the support for the .

2. is a terrorist state. was chosen as an ally because of its own involvement in the .

3. US and are brother-victims of ’s support for radicalism. In is the victim of Islamic Fundamentalism as the US was on 9/11.

These three agenda setting theories were used generously and solely by all panelists except Mr. Saeed Shafqat who was more of a token Pakistani to “balance” the farce they called a conference.

Sumit Ganguly:

Samit Ganguly was rewarded for his name, an offer to write a book, a position at UT Austin and more. This man flees reality, and claims dignity. He creates

unsettling words and people confuse it for being liberating. Because he goes up on National Public Radio and so all can suffer fools gladly. For those who want to know, I’ll paraphrase what he said, “I went to Peshawar (), picked a grenade from the ground, then I brought it home with me to the US. To make sure it is safe, I removed the pin.” The irony of this sad story is, apart from flabbergasted listeners he was sent another dose of fame. This behavior of leaving morsels of altered truth and fleeing the consequences is not worthy of fame. It is worthy of infamy.

~ Pointed out how close was to being called a rogue/terrorist state and added that the fact was of little consequence. (Perhaps someone should walk up to him and say he’s extremely unattractive and add that it didn’t matter. In most cases such points are well taken.)

~ Mentioned that is vulnerable and after the attack on parliament by Pakistani terrorists, just had enough. The “essence of ” was attacked, he said. Also repeated that was secular and democratic often, (attempting to make parallels between and the US. Leading on false analogies.)

~, like the US and unlike hated the Taliban and their brutality.

~Of course was on many occasions referred to as a ‘ dictatorship’, and President Musharraf as the ‘General’. was a regime and the misled Musharraf equated with freedom fighting.

~Attacks by Pakistani Terrorists on Indian Civilians, Indian Army, Indian Pilgrims, even sparking the insurgency in . (This is usually called Ad Miseracodium: An appeal to pity.)

~ gained superiority over post September because “unfortunately geography still matters in this day and age, believe it or not.”

~ holds significant sway on the US and sustains a magnificent growth rate. “One does not need to be an Economist to figure it out, even a mere

political scientist can.”

~Significant evidence of the December attack on the Indian Parliament to the -based terrorist groups. (Evidence that is sealed behind the four walls of the Indian , but he seems to be taking the governments word for it, and people call him a critic.)

~Praised his ’s beautiful and original use of “coercive diplomacy” since the person who coined the term was not affiliated with the Indian . He added that this strategy gave the opportunity to correct itself despite the duress, and justified the massive troop build up all along the - border.

(He comes from a -loving country.)

~Clearly simply stated that anyone who thought that would stop mobilizing troops to coerce was “Evil”. At another time he quoted the Bible when

talking of to make a point on Indian’s position. (Propaganda has two elements 1. it is simple, 2. it makes use of good and evil scores.)

~Musharraf is not ready to “dispense” the issue and the support for . (Pakistanis should roll over and die, don’t assert any claims and don’t support a people’s right of self determination so it is really easy for to progress.)

~To think that there will be any change in the status quo until stops in is to be a “fool or naive, or both…I think both.”

~ is a problem because of the low level of political consciousness.

~ must stop its “iron handed rule” in . (A good propagandist always momentarily bashes what he promotes or protects.)

~Solutions to the issue are to firstly address the grievances of the Kashmiris. This solution is tied to ’s decrease in support for terror. A good propagandist presents half-baked solutions.

~An artist is not the only free man, a tenured professor can get away with anything he says so he’s freer. (Mr. Ganguly is unaware of the sordid combination of bad and a tenured professor who abuses his freedom to create it.)

Pradeep Chibber:

He was the self appointed moderator and though I am thankful that dialogue, any dialogue happened on this issue I am not going to be thankful for a group of people who are not willing to defend what they say. He is clearly a hater like his above friend Mr. Ganguly. He shouldn’t have been the one to choose the questions at the end of the show. If the feedback too is filtered by another stooge of the Indian hiding behind the label of an independent thinker here we have a large . Many people walked out the hall intoxicated with only one side of the story, with no statistics on the conflict in , no portrayal of what the Kashmiris may want despite their efforts for decades now. Later he admitted to seeing one of the 11 questions I wrote and sent but said he didn’t read it, despite my rather bold attempts to call attention to the question just incase he misses it. Later he also told me that above 80,000 the Indian Army has murdered Kashmiris, but that was later.

After explaining the reason for choosing the topic, he voluntarily took it upon himself to abolish the myths of the Issue. He used Grey propaganda for each myth, without a need to explain or back his claims with evidence.

~ The myth that is anything but a territorial issue between and .

~ The Myth that the Indian army is sitting in .

~ The Myth that Baharatiya Janta Party is a Hindu party and right wing people now rule that .

~ The Myth that ’s obsession with strategic depth was to protect itself.

~ The Myth that wants to break up . And many Pakistanis believe this myth he said.

~ Myth that was “cheated off” .

~ He said that wants to win over by making a strategy to promote the option of an independent .

~ and are a non-issue.

Khalid Ahmed:

The code of journalism has one aim: To incite social change. This aim was blurred to the brink when Mr. Khalid Ahmed took the podium visibly many feet above it. The question to ask is, ‘change society for better or worse’? He spoke of the connection between and the menace that caused September 11th. There is no about the fact that he is a writer of International standard, his greatest service is reminding us of ’s secular passions, yet beyond that he killed the sprit of authenticity with what he chose not to say on that day.

His ladder was up the wrong wall because he failed to conjure a context for his link between and . Additionally he seemed to forget that and are at and have been in conventional ones 3 times. He chose not to see an issue vis a vis when he was amidst people who were leading on a conclusion about Indian’s moral superiority over . This is a relation of great mistrust and mass weapons of destruction, at a time when tolls in rise just as ’s expenditure on arms. Thirdly, he was talking to people who had no interest in reforming . As the editor of News Service pointed out, “This is like telling the bandits of the neighborhood what parts of the house are insecure.”

His attempts to explain that the brand of fundamentalism and radicalism of in actually emerged from what is now fell on deaf ears. The audience fascinated by his terms, “High Church and Low Church” and what mattered was today, was High Church, Wahabism, Deobandi, Fundamentalism, strict

rigid laws, Not modern. etc. What was more fascinating was Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar met in a mosque in . That it wasn’t the CIA as much as

itself that created and fueled the High Church. Perhaps he was trying to prove it is that was the culprit of Sep 11th and not . I wasn’t clear and that was the . One can’t and at the same time.

Neil Joeck powered the theory of concerns over being a “failed state”. And he reiterated the US’s stand that it will be friends with both. And he provided the high point of that night when he reminded that it is not the US. He also emphasized to that the situation between and US was not comparable to and .

A true hero would make a radical notion and never back track. One can understand a hero, and what he believes in. One can spell his stance or take on any issue.

Heroes don't offer solutions if they don’t have the forthrightness to state the obvious. They do not repeat the rhetoric of their states. Therefore, a hero on the issue of and - is long overdue.