<b>T N Ninan:</b> TV anchors go to war

Following the attack on an army camp in Uri, reporting has given way to posturing, intelligent commentary to absurd warmongering

India’s TV channels and other media outfits have rarely embarrassed themselves (and the country too) as much as they have done in the wake of the fidayeen attack on an army camp in Uri. Reporting has given way to posturing, and intelligent commentary to absurd warmongering. In truth, the bellicosity seems to reflect frustration that the country’s security forces continue to have no answer to cross-border raids—but demanding a jaw for a tooth is no substitute. “Speak softly,” Theodore Roosevelt had advised, “but carry a big stick, and you will go far.” We are doing the opposite. Amidst the noise, we don’t even ask negligent or incompetent generals questions on how they allow army camps to be penetrated as easily as Sarojini Nagar Market; the business of asking tough questions does not seem to be part of journalism any more. Even people whom one should take seriously, like the former foreign minister Yashwant Sinha, have advocated adventurist lines like abrogating the Indus Water Treaty—a surefire way to win massive international sympathy for Pakistan.

Now that the brave warriors in TV studios have shot their current stock of blank bullets and paused for breath, let’s look somewhat differently at the national headache called Pakistan. Just in case you got the impression that that benighted country has been benefiting from its antics with India, think again. Fact is, Pakistan is the ultimate loser country—economically, socially, diplomatically. Its nuclear bombs permit a military stand-off, but that has not helped it get rid of paranoia. On top of all its other problems, it chose long years ago to ride the terrorist tiger, and now does not know how to get off. Well, serve it right.

As for water, the country is one of the most badly off in the world, with water availability per head down to barely 1,000 cubic metres; India has its water problems too, but per capita availability this side of the border is 40 per cent more. If India simply uses all the water it is allowed to under the Indus Treaty, Pakistan’s water crisis will become an existential one. If it recognises then that only India can help it, we might be able to start talking. Abrogating the treaty should be the last thing on our minds; what the treaty does is prevent Pakistan from blaming us for its water crisis.

On the economic front, most people are only dimly aware that, till 10 years ago, the average Pakistani was better off than the average Indian. Today the average Indian has a 25 per cent higher income. A decade from now, it is likely to be 50 per cent higher; so the existing imbalance in economic power and international heft can only improve in India’s favour. Pakistan’s rupee has slipped to two-thirds of the value of the Indian rupee, its exports are lower today than in 2010, three-quarters of government revenue goes to service accumulated debt, there is a 25 per cent power shortage that causes 8- and 10-hour power cuts, and the country has lurched from one IMF loan to the next. The American largesse that used to come in useful is a thing of the past; China offers no substitute because it expects project loans to be repaid (ask Sri Lanka or any African country).

Pakistan has made a speciality out of being a client state—of America initially, and now of China. It has supporters among other Islamic countries, but it is seen increasingly as an “international migraine”, as someone termed it. It does not matter what Nawaz Sharif says in the General Assembly, and we don’t need to lose our heads over it because no other national leader refers to the Kashmir issue in the UN forum. The world has moved on. We should recognise that as victory, not treat it as defeat.