Kargil and the Myth of Losing the Media War

Adil,

This is yet another twist to the idea of losing the media war, link it to the fundamental political structure of pakistan and call for changes. However lofty and noble the motives are, one need not have to go to such fundamental levels to see why there was no international support for pak actions.

First of all pakistan maintained that the infiltrators are mujahideen, not under the pak military command. Pkaistan provides only diplomatica and moral support, no military support. Pakistan declared that essentially these are muslims on a jihad. Hence the expectation was that the international community should support these armed intruders, which is too much to ask. Pakistani govt was not involved.

On the indian side, it was war involving the troops, the jawans given the final farewell in military tradition, kargil fund and the public out pouring of emotions. In the pak media this has beeen desribed as war mongoring and jingoism. In reality, india was at war with the intruders, pakistan was not at war. Who needs the support.

After the cruise missile attack on afghanistan, the world knows that pakistanis are being trained by bin laden to attack kashmir, the kargil was the final confirmation of pak-bin laden designs and to expect international support for this is insanity.

The strategic decision of india not to cross the LOC was the final egg on pakistan, a country that is trying to evict islamic mercenaries from her soil need all the support and pakistan govt was simply informed of this by the international community.

Yes the media war was lost not because of any skill by indians (except for not crossing the LOC) but by the flawed strategy of declaring the intruders as islamic freedom fighters with no control by pak govt. If pakistan had admitted the truth that they are pak troops with a few mercenaries thrown in as gun fodder, the outcome would have been very different.

Adil:

Agree with everything you said. Almost.

You write, ``It is time that our leaders realize that there is no better way to win media support abroad than to indulge in good politics at home.`` Is that not putting the cart before the horse?

regards

Dr Najam,

you castigate the Pakistani`s for practicing self

deception, yet you are indulging in the same. The

reason Pakistan ``lost`` the media war, more than

the reasons you have pointed out, was that

Pakistan`s version of the ``truth`` was unteneble

in the eyes of any objective observer. True

Kashmir has a strong separatist movement, but to

expect a rag-tag bunch of militants to occupy

such difficult terriotery with no seemingly

rational reason for doing so, and at such cost,

is unbelievable. The real truth was brought out

forcefully when all ``mujahideen`` withdrew

silently from Kargil at the behest of Mian

Sharif, while their ``leaders`` were going blue in

the face saying that they would not do so.

Pakistan was wrong, it was the aggressor, and the

international media punished it for being so. In

doing so, however, they were only being truthful.

India, on the other hand, also received its fair

share of criticism for its repressive policies in

Kashmir from the very same media.

-narain

Good analysis of cause & effects.The anology of NOT Pakistan worked very well,i almost put the predicament solely on internal politics.But atleast in this case i see all this infringement(by mujahdeen) on some noncoperation by the the other party TOO.

When lack of trust,resentment true or false,

prceived victimation true or false,& sense of being wronged can lead to unending hosility ,animosity like in family fued!

To some extent India deserves the irritation on Kashmir for being apathetic to resolve it.This is foolish when the govt taking advantage of sacred patriotism & shedding crocodile tears for its dead jawans families & kins.You may say its true for pakistan too,yes But on repeated request India dont have desire to discuss Kashmir.There fore loses my sympathy & all the hysterics of guerellas in Kasmir are meaningless until you show meaningful attempt to adress the grieving party

Adil,

I think your solution is right one for the current malaise in the country and the society, but not for the subject on hand though.

I tend to agree with Jay`s comment as to the fundamental reasons for the media failings. However, IMO, the most important factor is the involvement of religion (on the part of Pakistan) in political affairs. What scares the people in the non-Islamic world is the advocacy of severing a region from a nation purely on theocratic grounds. This may look quite normal to the Islamic world since it refuses to live on an equal basis with the non-Islamic population in their own realm. However, the whole idea is frightening to the rest of the world, particularly to the Western world, which is secular and tolerant of different faiths. They begin to wonder the implication to their own future status when they hear an elected government trying to justify intrusion, genocide, etc. as a religious JIHAD. Whenever a nation became a terrorist, the world, irrespective of the localized problem, has turned against such a nation. This time there was no exception either. So, you see, Adil, it was the perception - what the world perceives, irrespective of the fairness or lack of it of the basic issue - that was the compelling reason for the world community to turn against Pakistan`s actions in Kargil. As I see it, it was not pro-India, it was against-Pakistan. And, if the country does not get the message it will be destined to repeat the same mistake.

I think most of the analysis is correct except the statement that Pakistan had high moral ground in Kargil. These infiltrators were islamic jihadis trained by the Pakistan army and belonged to groups like Lashkar-e-tayyaba etc...it is not at all clear that these groups have any popular support amongst the Kashmiri people. The idea that Pakistan is supporting the self-determination movement in Kashmir is ridiculous...it is supporting a small number of right wing pro Pakistan religous groups which do not reflect any popular sentiment in Kashmir. Its important to realise that both Paksitan and India have absolutely no moral standing in Kashmir and the people of Kashmir are getting squashed in the middle.

An addendum to my reply #5:

Adil,

If Pakistan becomes `NOT Pakistan`, i.e., ``indulge in good politics at home``, there will be no question of either loosing or winning the media war. For, a rational country, by definition, will not take an irrational action, will it! And, hence, no need for support from any quarters.

Dr. Najam, the problems you described of country X is a very common phenomeon in third world countries. India too has many of the same problems. So I find it a little hard to believe that it is only bad politics that are to blame for the intrusion.

I think that the whole Pakistani attitude is anti- India. The people themselves hate India. I had no idea, that this was the case, until I came to the USA and made some Pakistani friends. In their histroy, they were taught that India, is a Hindu country which wants to overtake Pakistan and is the enemy of Islam. In our schools, in India, we were never taught about how bad Pakistan was. In fact the subject of Pakistan came up only in terms of the geography or history of the Harrappa civiliztions or other such topics.

I feel that if the minds of the coming generations of people keep on getting poisoned by such ideas, how are we ever going to live peacefully.

Where does the root of this hatred arise ? I think this arises because Pakistan choose to follow a very corrupted interpertation of Islam. It choose to be Islamic rather than democratic. It choose to have an official religion, and it choose not to tolerate minorities. Consequently the society became intolerant at things that do not follow the norms. That meant targeting the small minority of Chrisitains and Parsis. Once that minority became small, then they turned to the ``pseudo muslims`` ie the ahmadis etc.

I feel that a socitety in which religon is made a part and parcel of the government, is not going to survive in the 21st century. Your country needs to realise that the words of the Prophet, need to be taken in spirit and not in words.

Hopefully Pakistan will become stable, and prosperous because India`s well being depends on that.

AD

Re: Professor Adil Najam

This was an interesting article on what I call the CNN syndrome. I am not sure, where you are getting the impression that there was a media war and that Pakistan lost it, but there was no international media war on the Kargil problem. The only decent coverage of the situation was done by the BBC and the media in this country, CNN included, paid scant attention to the problem and covered the crisis in mere sound bytes.

It is true that Pakistan lost out in this process, but that has more to do with the post-1989 reality than it does with the media. Pakistani politicans and its military leadership still operates under the impression of a Cold War confrontational style and do not seem to realize that the United States is becoming increasingly isolationist and the Republican dominated Congress favors disengagement over supporting former allies in their proxy struggles.

The reasons, which you listed as being the cause of Pakistan losing out in this media war are true. The real reason why Pakistan lost had to do with the preception of Pakistan as being incapable of insitituting a rationale and doctrine for its nuclear weapons. The attempt by Pakistan to exploit the Kargil situation under the umbrella of its nuclear weapons horrified the world, because Pakistan was seen as being hypocritical to its original statements that it exploded the nuclear weapons to match India`s nuclear tests and to re-equate the balance of security in the region.

I agree with your conclusion that our leaders need to practice good policies, but what are those policies? The problem is not a lack of good policies, but the ability to implement them in a coherent sense through a process, which is fair and inclusive of all political interests in the country.

Even simpler than all the theories given in the article is the possibility that the G-8 countries knew, through their own sources, that the Pakistani army had crossed the LOC in Kargil.

Also consider the possibility that they did not appreciate the thinly veiled threats of nuclear

escalation by Pakistan.

-arun gupta

Re: ad #9

The problem is not a question of simple hate ad. It a question of national goals. Kashmir is a national goal of Pakistan. And that is not going to change simply because you want to wish it away.

Thus the only question is how many dead pagans will it take for Kashmir to be free. You want to vaporized? We can arrange that too now. You and the rest of Indians are the devil, and this is no different from how the U.S viewed the U.S.S.R and world communism during the cold war. And similiarly the official, hypocritical ideology of India and its illegal immoral occupation of Kashmir must be resisted at all costs for all time until India collapses under the weight of its own internal contradictions.

cheers,

Omar

Pakistanis are in search of acceptable excuses for the loss in Kargil. Media war and local politics are a few that are easy to blame. Pakistan was trying to maintain ``lies`` but it did not have proper plans to do so or it simply didn`t care. Perhaps, Pakistan was carried away and started beleiving in the misinformation that it was giving its people. Kargil was an ill-conceived misadventure carried out at the wrong time that is after the peace-hopeful bus diplomacy that was acclaimed by the whole world.

The objectives for Pakistan was to portray the insurgents as `freedom fighters`, to paint India as an oppressive occupier of Kashmir, to win sympathy of the world for the hapless Kashmiris who are allegedly subjugated, to win some Kashmir land in the process and to cut off the supply route to Siachen as a revenge for 1984. India had successfully quelled the native rebellion and normalcy was returning every passing day. Pakistan wanted to destroy the Indian success and revive the miltancy.

If the intruders are to be seen as `freedom fighters` by the world, Pakistan should have disconnected itself from the intruders by pretending to be a curious and concerned onlooker. Pakistan blew the cover and exposed itself by shooting down two Mig fighter planes. Except for the loss of a life, that was a good omen for India. In ordinary circumstances a country will only give warnings to such intruding planes. India claimed mechanical problems for the first plane but Pakistan stupidly insisted it shot it down. Even if Pakistan did shoot the plane down, it should have shut its mouth and went along with India`s claim. In addition, Pakistan engaged in fighting all along the LoC. Pakistan gave an excuse to the world that Indian troops are trying to enter Pakistan`s territory. This was a clear sign that Pakistan was part of the conflict.

Kargil is an inhospitable area and Pakistan chose to fight there. The world knows mere `freedom fighters` cannot fight from such an altitude without support from a trained army. Pakistan gives only moral and political support to the freedom fighters and so far Pak maintained to this effect. After seeing an interest in peace from Pakistan, the world would have been convinced to a degree if they had heared discouraging statements from Pakistan to the fighting intruders.

In addition to all that, to the dismay of Pakistan, India showed restraint in crossing the LoC which was applauded by the world. So, in all, India did not have anything for anyone to accuse of. India was merely protecting its territory. The worst ever mistake Pakistan did in this crisis, which will haunt them for a long time to come, was to proclaim that they were native `freedom fighters` who were not under its control and then on Cinton`s behest Nawaz called them back and the submissive `intruders` withdrew instantly and quietly without protesting. Pakistan not only desroyed the Kargil mischief it also self-destructed its future misadventures. The world will not believe the future insurgencies as native ones. Thereby Pakistan has given a free-hand to India to suppress future uprisals whether native or foriegn.

Blaming it on the Media war is just like blaming the gambling and drinking problems of the Pakistani cricketters for their worst ever loss in the world cup. You didn`t plan and you didn`t play the game right. 1999 is a year Pakistan simply would like to forget.

As I read the various comments I am reminded of this couplet from Faiz Ahmad Faiz:

woh baat saarey fasaney mein jiss ka zikr na tha

woh baat unn ko buhat nagawar guzri hai

(That one sentiment which was not even mentioned in the entire story, that one sentiment has really offended them so much!)

Here is my one cent worth on some of tghe comments.... Read again, freinds. The article is not about why Pakistan did what it did (or supposedly did) nor about what India did what it did (or reportedly did). That is another article.... nay, another book perhaps. The role of new Indian (and India focussed) TV chanels (including BBC Satellite TV, which in fact was the most partisan of all) is also another article... the interesting point there being how well the local media capitalized and marketted the war fervor (this is not an issue of whose side they were on... this was simple capitalism at work... where is the best buck to be made).... What Indians and Pakistanis alike might ponder upon is the irony that the one thing that was the LEAST important in the entire Kargil episode was Kargil itself.... this was NOT about Kashmiris.... this was not about Mujahideen.... this was not about Islam and this was not about Hindu fundamentalist parties.... This was about marketting (hence the focus on media).... it was marketting my latest cassette of CDs (burree nazar na hum pay dallo... hum Hindustani), about putting my new all-news TV channel in the big league (ZeeNews), about selling my trashy afternooner (`Dopeher` and all those other rags that have been doing such booming business in Paksitan).... so lets please get over `low-horses` of petty patriotism and sloganeering and analyze the one fact thatthe episode proved beyond doubt.... We may be Pakistanis or we may be Indians.... but we are SOOOOOOO VERRRY GULLIBLE!

As a Pakistani-American, I have been searching for something of merit in this article. When and if I find that something, I will post again.
In the mean time it appears that it is time to
bring out the razor blades because CHOWK must surely be hurting for a readership to continually
print such self abuse.

Ras

I agree with most of your article. However Pakistan certainly did not have the high moral ground on Kargil. On Kashmir, yes, on Kargil, not at all. No country has the right to jeopardise a peace process that it is officially committed to by supporting an armed insurgency. There was no need for Kargil when the Lahore declaration had been signed and was to be followed up on. Pakistan has lost the trust of its adversary as well as of the international community and will have to pay a tremendous price for this adventurism.

The Kashmiri struggle for self-determination is a just cause. To the extent that Pakistan`s support has enabled the people of Kashmir to resist the Indian army, it has had a positive dimension. Beyond this, I do not see any contribution of Pakistan regarding Kashmir that would qualify us for categorisation as good guys.

Here are some aspects of our Kashmir policy that bother me:

1. Pakistan has consciously sought to sideline the secular nationalist political groups in Kashmir, such as the JKLF. Given Kashmir`s multi-religous and multi-cultural population, I don`t see how the various groups of mujahideen with a sectarian outlook could advance the POLITICAL

project of Kashmiri self-determination which will

require alliances of Kashmiri speaking people in the Kashmir Valley with Pundits in the Valley, other Hindus in Jammu, and with Buddhists in Ladakh.

2. Sine 1989, India has sought to suppress all institutions of civil society in Kashmir. The major responsibility for the emergence of religous fanaticism can rightly be laid at India`s door. BUT, the Mujahideen have committed atrocities on unarmed civilians repeatedly, and for this, they deserve the bad reputation that they have acquired. The principal supporters of these groups of Mujahideen, who are often not Kashmiri, should also accept their share of the blame for these acts. The international press had been very sympathetic to the Kashmiri struggle until the mid-1990s. It was probably in 1995, that the kidnapping of European hikers by Al-Faran

which began to change the positive perception of the Kashmiri struggle in Europe and North America.

By the late 1990s, the pop-media coverage of the

uncivilised policies of the Taliban has created a popular environment which is likely to doom any possibility of a sympathetic view in global civil society for Mujahideen.

3. Finally, concerning Kargil, I simply fail to see the logic which inspired this initiative. How could the capture of these heights have contributed POLITICALLY to the interests of Kahmiris and Pakistan? The Lahore declaratio at least had the potential of enabling Indian and Pakistani leaders to arrive at an agreement to persue thier conflicting interests in Kashmir through diplomatic, as opposed to military means. This might have created the possibility for the revival of civil society in Kashmir. With the indefinite stalemate in the post-Kargil period, the Kashmiris are likely to remain crushed between the conflict between hardline Indian nationalists and Muslim religous fanatics.