Shiban Khaibri
Could this also happen that an Indian journalist could dream to meet one of the most wanted perpetrators of crime against humanity viz; mastermind of 26/11 and talking to him in the hope to get him along all the way from Pakistan and deposit him here before the concerned Police authorities? Could a slight change in the attitude of such a person be brought about by talking to him or discussing with him any logic or reason? Could a journalist from this country after meeting Hafiz Sayeed motivate him to express regrets and surrender to justice for involvement in gruesome 26/11? If not, what motivated a senior journalist Dr. Ved Pratap Vaidik to meet Sayeed whose agenda is spreading hate, animosity and acrimony against this country and preach violence? What is more important is to know as to who arranged and facilitated this meeting and why?
What are this Track 2 or 3 dialogue processes and who is behind it with what motive? What is the composition of this group of journalists and “intellectuals”? In the same fashion, more or less some “peace lovers” were accepting the “warm” hospitality of Gulam Nabi Fai, an American citizen of Kashmiri origin to “discuss” so called peace in the subcontinent and the solution to the (created) problem of Kashmir? He was running some thing like Kashmiri American council. Could any peace be established due to such meetings, any development towards cementing friendship between the two countries or any withholding of the Kashmir rant by Pakistan, let alone end infiltration and terror activities in Kashmir? What subsequently happened to the KAC and how the “distinguished guests” to the intermittent meets started later distancing themselves from being branded as too close to Fai are not faded away from the memories of the people and that only shows unnecessary importance given to and wasteful exercise undertaken to accord any legitimacy to such efforts albeit Track 2 or 3 missions. As per reports, flag ship of Track 2 dialogue was led by Congress leaders Manishankar Aiyar and Salman Khursheed and other participants were journalist Dilip Padgaonkar, N. N. Jha, Sanjeev Ahluwalia, Barkha Dutt, Amit Baruah, S. Varadharajan, Anil Padmanabhan, Aakar Patel, S. Kulkarni, Dr.Zoya Hassan and Ved Pratap Vaidik. What did this bilateral dialogue seminar held in Islamabad last month achieve excepting issuing of statements to “India and Pakistan to fight two fights, one within and the other without, that of addressing the fear factor and uninterrupted and irreversible dialogue process…” Flowery worded statements for just formalities lead to nowhere as after issuing of the statement, there have been twenty incidents in the state, that of border violations, firing unprovoked from Pakistan aimed at even civilian targets and violent incidents in Kashmir engaging security forces. Could the group muster courage to urge Pakistan to ensure providing no support to terrorism aimed against this country let alone winding up all terror camps? Tokenism and informal stances for peace and resolution of “fights” remain on paper based on what we have experienced right from 1947. That, however, does not mean that the two countries should not talk, discuss and resolve to usher in eras of lasting peace but sincerity from the other side has always been in utter deficit. That being a tragedy rendering Track dialogues and diplomacy redundant, hence a review of such moves is seriously required.
Can anyone from this Track club clarify the outcome of the conference at the Regional Peace Initiative and the quantum of success the delegation achieved during its four day session and stay in Islamabad and how far Pakistan, ISI and other power centers there underwent a transformation of heart and the mindset against this country at least partly if not wholly? What made Ved Pratap Vaidik stay back in Pakistan and whether it was included in the itinerary of their track schedule? Why did he, as per his claim, individually meet PM Nawaz Sharif and why not along with the other members forming the Indian delegation? It is the prerogative of a journalist to meet and interview personalities but to meet people like Sayeed by this journalist appears to be shrouded in mystery. Who facilitated his meet with him and why?
When even very aspiring people in Pakistan, as per reports, cannot have any access to Sayeed then how Vaidik could have one. It is believed that Sayeed was “controlled” by the Pakistan army and the ISI especially after the US and the World body declaring him as a global terrorist. In other words, more than the Government there, it is the military and the ISI which ensure safety and security of this man feigning grossly “involved” in charitable and philanthropist activities. Vaidik, when grilled on TV Channels back home was categorical in saying that some “journalist friends” in Pakistan organized the meet which brought notoriety fame to this hitherto not fairly known journalist in our country. Did he brag about his closeness to certain leaders in Delhi either in power or having close proximity to the ruling NDA and his “journalist friends” albeit ISI etc; wanted to exploit the same either to show that they were courting one believed to be close to the Government in Delhi or the move was to embarrass the Modi Government to send feelers that his Government too was like the Congress soft peddling with Pakistan? The matter does not end with the Government distancing itself far away from the journalistic tantrums of Vaidik in Pakistan or a statement in Parliament given by the External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj but a thorough probe into the whole gamut of this meet followed by telecasting of his interviews there and his narrative of what he said where and to whom. His meeting with Sayeed in the burst of so called journalistic inquisitiveness without recording the same as also the range of silly childish unprofessional questions asked has made him a queer egg both in the eyes of his fellow countrymen as well as in the journalistic fraternity. He must face the rigours of questioning from the concerned authorities so that a line is drawn where a journalist under the alibi of meeting any one and asking any thing and speaking anything does not become a convention and a precedent even if termed as diluting the “freedom of expression”. No action as yet appears to have been taken against him more so when his utterances there especially on Kashmir as reported by a Pakistani TV Channel are not only against the national interests but violates the tenets of territorial integrity and sovereignty of India. Talking on Kashmir and putting forth silly solutions by those who know nothing about Kashmir, its history and its real political landscape has become a habit of some self proclaimed intellectuals and some journalists. Such intellectuals need be reined in to deter others from advocating solutions and resolutions of sensitive nature repugnant to the national interests. One Indian journalist, for example, has heaped ridicule and disrespect on the Father of the Nation by advocating institutions named after the Mahatma be rechristened. Likewise her stand on Kashmir too has been known to all but such writers survive behind the shield of “freedom of expression”.
The issue of Vaidik meeting Sayeed in Pakistan was seen blown out of proportion on a few TV Channels which not only made him gain cheap publicity but the whole episode must have made us a laughing stock in the eyes of other countries, at least 47 as one of the channels more frequently claims. Debates, discussions and sprees of “tough questions” continued for days together in a spirit of competitiveness as if these channels were short of other important issues to deal with. A wordy duel between Vaidik and a TV journalist was watched on one of the channels which looked as “tuu tuu main main”, appearing as less of a debate and more of accusations and counter accusations. Clips of Baba Ram Dev with Vaidik and Baba with the PM Modi was projected perhaps as if it was sponsored by the Government or the journalist thought that a chance meeting with the PM made him a demagogue to try a suicidal journalistic adventure not approved of by the people more so by those who have suffered and those who continue to suffer in this country due to the mechanizations of Pakistan.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel