| Published on 12-01-2008 In General |
| Viewed 1857 times |
| Precious thoughts on a new year |
|
|
Written by
T. S. V. Hari |
On yet another new year, here are some personal conclusions from various incidents that concern the part of the world we inhabit.
Allow me to recall the highlights of two discussions I had with two altogether different kinds of experts while talking about Benazir's assassination. The first was with a "south Asia analyst" based in London who appeared on a British television channel.
"Will the crescendo of "media exclusives" attempting to unravel the mystery of her death culminate in someone saying that Benazir didn't die at all? Let us face facts. While everyone in her family and the movers and shakers of her party (the two groups don't have a big difference anyway) are still continuing to allege that somehow Pakistan's present dictator was responsible for her murder, one cannot forget that Benazir had talked of sharing power with the former general.
The two cannot be true together now, can they? So, obviously, a third party had a role to play. Admitting that would be beneficial to the PPP (with yet another dynastic leader at the helm in the subcontinent), the present Pakistani government and the world at large. Such a third party could be anyone from those who run the Al Qaeda (one of the deceased leader's creations with active support from abroad), to rogue elements within the ISI (the secretive organisation which is a law unto itself), to unknown assassins from any other highly connected international warmongering spy networks of any country with an agenda yet to be known.
And finally if the Bhutto clan is so piqued with the de facto general who claims to control Pakistan, why isn't it bluntly ruling out the possibility of having any truck with him after the elections?"
These were some of the points that came up during the first conversation.
No concrete answers emerged.
Soon afterwards, during a tête-à-tête with someone who is totally level-headed about assassinations in India I came to the conclusion that Benazir could have been killed only by an unseen sniper's bullet(s) within hours of the incident.
"Not for a moment can it be believed that a suicide bomber or the Islamic version of a daredevil, wild-west-style marksman (shown subsequently on television) could have achieved the impossible – hitting a target with such precision. Anyone who knows the basics of high profile assassinations could have discerned that these incidents are planned months in advance. Several teams of assassins, multiple decoys and multifarious theories floated to divert the world's attention from the real McCoy could have been put together.
For all one knows, though the deed is already done, in all probability, there must be another army of men (and women) well trained in their diabolic art waiting in the wings to do worse – not only in Pakistan, but also elsewhere in the world including India. Determined killers always can work their way around the tightest security," went our refrain.
Again, we were only delving into our memory and common sense.
I do not wish to reinvent the wheel by giving details of other assassinations – from Abraham Lincoln (March 4, 1861) to Benazir (December 27, 2007). All investigations after such ghastly deeds have produced multiple reports that have more holes than Swiss cheese.
So, how to make such desperadoes stop?
The answer to that, if one calls it as such, is indeed simple.
Once upon a time on earth, when terrorism did not exist, borders were unheard of.
Those who are clever (for instance the Europeans) have successfully begun erasingborders within growing regional boundaries.
We haven't heard of a major incident like that of Benazir (and all the others before it) from Europe in recent times after the attempt on Pope John Paul II on May 13, 1981 ( a.k.a. Karol Jözef Wojtyla) by a man called Mehmet Ali Ağca .
The world at large may not be aware of it, but the papacy is one of the bodies that has been and continues to advise the European Union about foreign policy since 1957.
And what pray did that policy result in?
The 27-member states of EU (the number is bound to go up again) had fought acrimonious wars against each other since the medieval ages. Despite those and several cultural differences, they came together burying their collective hatchets, created the biggest economic supranational cartel worth over € 12 trillion (approximately 31 percent of the world's GDP) and have a major say in the global geopolitics. In another 10 years, the entity will be richer and stronger than the USA. Further, they may not need anything more than a few conventional weapons.
Okay, what is the point, one might ask.
Starting with Indochina in the east to Afghanistan in the west, Asia has been at war within itself as well – beginning long before the Moguls. In spite of being endowed with the richest soil, cultures as old as time, wisdom good enough for the whole world's intelligentsia, we still snipe at each other. Flashpoints like Punjab, Kashmir, Eelam, etc are just a few of those that weigh us down. Our defence establishments cost so much that we can't provide the basic necessities to our masses. The cross-border jingoistic claptrap sounds sillier by the day.
And, two of the fastest growing economies in the world – China and India – are in this neck of the woods.
Wouldn't it be a better if we begin to think about ourselves as a regional economic entity?
Instead of having festering wounds in the east of China, northeast of India, northwest of Pakistan and so on, a single federation of nations indulging in give and take is any day a better option.
For want of a better name, I suggest we call it the Asian Union or AU.
It cannot happen overnight.
Statesmen will have to overcome petty politicians and pettier officialdom – certainly a long haul – but surely not impossible.
All of usshould comprehend that Kashmir or Eelam cannot be hived off with a giant knife and deposited into the middle of the Indian Ocean for them to be completely independent of influences from the neighbourhood.
In other words, co-existence is an unalienable axiom.
Here is what Pope John Paul II said after a meeting with Mehmet Ali Ağca on December 27, 1983.
"What we talked about will have to remain a secret between him and me. I spoke to him as a brother whom I have pardoned and who has my complete trust."
Finally, by the way, AU is the short form of the Latin word Aurum which means gold. |
|
|
|
|
| Social Web |  |
| |
|
|
| |
Processing please wait ...
Top Stories
