Kargil and the Myth of Losing the Media War

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: 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.