Over these years I've been an avid follower of not only the events [political and a-political] in the home country but I've tried to consciously follow India's perception abroad. Its has been an engaging avocation.
I've seen, albeit from afar, various events which grabbed international attention in the years Ive been away. Just from the top of my head:
- Godhra and the ensuing riots in Gujrat,
- The 2002 border flare up,
- 11 July train bombings in Mumbai in 2006,
- The latest terror attacks on 26 Nov, 2008.
As a child I remember the entire Kashmir episode leaving me baffled. I listened to the news and I read the news and I could not understand the continuous argument between the Indian authorities and the world [read mostly US in those days]. Our people kept saying that our neighbours and especially their intelligance unit were responsible. No one listened. No one agreed with us. We gave reasons for our suspisions and then we showed proof for it. Yet no one believed us. Why we never managed to convince anyone was beyond me. I remained stupified.
I left the country and within some months the Gujrat riots happened. It was days before I heard about Godhara. The first 4-5 days I got the impression that the hindu fundamentalists had all of sudden gone on a killing spree. No matter where on the political spectrum one stands, its difficult to believe something like that began without a propeller so to speak. Whether the propeller was genuine or out of deliberate mischieve is a talk for another day. The point is I wasnt impressed that the fact the riots happened as a reaction to the Godhara incident was not highlighted from the begenning. From the outside it looked as if the riots were completely unprovoked. The riots were in the world news section, 4th or 5th item on the headlines.
Then came the border flare up in May of the same year. Again the reasons that led to the military escalation along the border never really were voiced. The entire attention was focused on the fact that India had started a systematic military build up along the border and that this could lead to a nuclear war. The world panicked. I kept thinking India has had nuclear arsenal from 1998 and a nuclear program from the 50's. But the country has never flexed its nuclear muscle nor hinted, forget threatned to use the weapons. So when we finally visibly decide to take action shouldnt the restraint practiced over the years mean anything? Shouldnt that at least give us credibility, give reason enough to be held as a responsible nation? Make the world want to really look into the reasons why India decided to undertake such a course of action? We remained in the world news. Initially 4-5th in the headlines and later 3-4th as the posiibility of war grew.
Then bombs set off within 11 minutes of each other on the trains, the life line of Mumbai. The attention was again on the lack of security and death toll. No one voiced the proof gathered by the police. No one believed the authorities. Sympathay was expressed and condolences were given. No one believed. We remained in the world news section, 4th-5th item on the headlines.
And now we've had the terror attack. For 2 days we were front news!! We were the first news item everywhere! I did not hear the old adage "India habitually blames its neighbouring Pakistan for such incidents of violence" for almost 4 days!! and even then maybe just a couple of times. In fact, everyone kept justifying the onus on the terror network's safe haven along the Pak-Afghan border. Suddenly we are viewed as victims. Suddenly we are the poor people who are suffering from the repercussions of the phenomenon other wise known as " Al Qaeda" ! Really?
So, should I assume that finally the Indian state has collected enough world credibility to be taken seriously and be believed? OR should I go with my deduction that we have arrived on the world platform only because we just cannot be ignored any more? Jiski lathi, usi ke bhais? Is that fair?
