Ever since India accused Pakistan of killing two Indiansoldiers on January 6, beheading one of them, at the Line of Control, thetension and the war of words between two countries have only gone north. In thelatest, India has raised Pakistan's continuing support to terror groups at theUnited Nations, seeking international action against the state sponsors ofterror. India named Pakistan terror groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jamaat-ud-Dawaas major security threats to South East Asian countries.
However, last week’s sad turn of events at the border wascomplicated more by the political babel that followed, than anything else. Theintensity of the matter can be gauged from the very fact that it angered PrimeMinister, Manmohan Singh ” famous by now the world over for his saintlycomposure and sepulchral demure ” enough to make him speak.
Only days ago, Delhi Chief Minister, Sheila Dikshit, one ofthe few politicians who at least tried and burned her hands in making an effortto speak with the protesters of Delhi gangrape, said and quickly denied and indoing that maybe impishly hinted that the PM was late in addressing the nation(following the massive outrage over the gangrape) at least by a week. However,this time the PM was bursting with machismo, sort of Danny Trejo’s Macheteavatar, and was provoked enough to speak. Singh made a statement on the matter,warning Pakistan, that it “cannot be business as usual”.
Speaking after the 65th Army Day celebrations, he said thoseresponsible for killing and mutilating Indian soldiers should be brought tobook. “What happened at the Line of Control is unacceptable,” said Singh. (Asif he had a choice in the matter!) The PM having said that ” and mind that itis big deal” it is largely business as usual now.
The Indian Army chief, General Bikram Singh, expected to behaughty and straightforward, chose to be more political than even politiciansin his polemic. “We reserve the right to retaliate at a time of our choosing,”he said.
While what he said can mean a thousand things, for amilitary chief speaking this kind of language must be the result of years ofhobnobbing with the political masters. However, as the general was still tryingto wriggle out of his lingual labyrinth, External Affairs Minister, SalmanKhurshid ” who so famously talked about “there will be blood” as law ministerwhen he was challenged by Arvind Kejriwal in his constituency Farukkhabad ”doused even the sparks that General Singh had managed to cause. “The decisionabout how we proceed and what pace in what manner is obviously a decision thatis taken by the government,” Khurshid said.
Leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj reacted onthe incident as if she were on steroids. Talking in a language more suited to atribal militia leader, she said, “If his (the soldier’s) head could not bebrought back (from Pakistan), we should get at least 10 heads from their side.”She was talking to reporters after visiting the slain soldier’s family alongwith party president Nitin Gadkari and leader Rajnath Singh.
While there is no doubt that the turn of events at theborder is sad, equally sad is the language being used by our leadership. Thisis a language that doesn’t soothe, heal or cure anything, anyone. This is noteven a language, which Orwell says, is designed to make lies sound truthful andmurder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. Atbest, this is the language of confusion and chaos ” voices from the Tower ofBabel.
In association with Governance Now
