The clockwork precision with which the Pakistan establishment and our English media establishment work closely is really worthy of emulation. On the same day that The Hindu front pages Pakistan Prime Minister’s irrelevant and illogical appeal for talks, they also publish an illogical article – coincidentally titled “The illogical rejection of the idea of South Asia”. The article was written by The Hindu’s controversial national editor, Suhasini Haidar.
The article blames most of the current global issues – Climate Change, Economic Recession, COVID-19, Ukraine war, and Women’s rights – on India not talking to Pakistan, and therefore claims that SAARC is defunct. Suhasini Haidar has been advocating the concept of “One South Asia” since the year 2021. She wants Prime Minister Modi to consider the entire of South Asia as one unit to combat all the above problems. The other name for “One South Asia” is Akhand Bharat. But you should not take that particular name because then you become a fascist and whatnot! It’s kosher to use “South Asia” though.
The introductory premise of the article is that according to a World Bank report, 9 out of the 10 most (air) polluted cities of the world are in South Asia. Interestingly, the actual report doesn’t tell us what these 9 cities actually are. Neither does it point to the source of this data or the timeframe of when this data was taken.
She quickly moves on to some reports from Bhutan and Maldives and informs us that these reports have asked “India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and all other South Asian countries” to talk to each other to solve the air pollution problem. The author is baffled that the countries have ignored these reports just like most people in the world have! In fact, she reminds us that it was under the awesome leadership of Pakistan that the G-77 groups of developing countries “negotiated a breakthrough at COP27 in Sharm-el Sheikh”.
While you, the reader, are trying to grasp the wealth of this information so far, the author ups the ante. We are told that – “India and Pakistan, the chief opponents of an integrated South Asia” are primarily responsible for not formulating enough responses for South Asia with regard to the Ukraine War, COVID-19, global economic recession, women’s rights and terrorism. Terrorism was actually last on her list of problems that need to be tackled by us. The order of priority clearly gives a peek into the author’s delusionary mindset.
Such an illogical argument is not new for the author and the newspaper. In November 2021, the newspaper published a similar article advocating “One South Asia” and the focus of that entire article was just to use climate change as an excuse to restart the India-Pakistan dialogue. In January 2023, she simply added all other world problems to her list and continue to advocate that India and Pakistan should start talking so that SAARC also can be revived and voila – the problems of the world are gone!
The author then comes up with an innovative solution that will put the best brains in the business to shame. She tells us that since Prime Minister Modi is not inclined to go to SAARC meetings in Pakistan, he can send either the President of India or the Vice-President of India to the meeting! It is really perplexing how it’s possible to have such a poor understanding of the country’s foreign policy and write so openly about it!
Pakistan’s latest Prime Minister, Shebaz Sharif has said that even though his country is suffering, miserable, is in poverty – they will only talk to India about Kashmir and that too after we restore Article 370 to its original form. Yet, we have folks in our English media establishment that continue to put the burden on India to somehow start talking to Pakistan! India says we will talk the moment you stop terrorism on your soil – our English media establishment continues to argue that terrorism is the last problem on the list of issues! If there is anything illogical, then it is the premise and the subsequent arguments in the Op-Ed piece today in The Hindu. It is time to question the ulterior motives behind wanting to restart a dialogue that clearly our enemy doesn’t want!
