It was a great pleasure to watch the way President Obama dealt with the Indian media, government and politicians single-handedly. It was not just entertaining to watch, it also demonstrated the full glory of democracy in a way which nascent half-baked democracies like us seldom witness. In a very hostile environment, Obama very amicably debunked all the tactics which were adopted to turn him against Pakistan and wheedle him into making statements against it.
The very first stop in his visit was Mumbai, where the 26 November tragedy took place. He stayed in the Taj Mahal Hotel, which was occupied by terrorists and its guests were subjected to brutal treatment and some of them were killed. This hotel is surrounded by places where innocent civilian blood was shed. Bringing President Obama here was an attempt to manipulate his emotions so that he would say something against Pakistan. He was also taken to meet the bereaved relatives of the victims so that their misery would pull his heartstrings and he would be overcome by emotions at the visible distress of those people; thus, leading him to make that elusive anti-Pakistan statement. President Obama definitely expressed his grief and sympathy but did not comply with the wish of holding Pakistan responsible.
The next day he met with children and young students. He was invited to participate in Diwali festivities. He and the first lady mixed well with the children and danced quite a lot. In a Q & A with college students, a student was made to ask in unambiguous terms as to why the President was avoiding declaring Pakistan as a terrorist state. President Obama astutely said that he was expecting the question thus giving his hosts a signal that he knew what they were up to and where said query was coming from. After this question followed his usual stock answers about condemning terrorism and every other thing as put down in the US policy. But he still abstained from naming Pakistan as a terrorist country.
Seeing two days worth of efforts going down the drain unnerved the hosts. The media was now filled with unfavourable reviews. The politicians joined the party of Obama-bashing and the government representatives started telling the US Presidents advisors that this silence on Pakistan was creating antipathy and anger towards America. These advisors were told to relay this fact and the Indian publics sentiments to the President. The President must have been aware of the circumstances. Yet he still did not fulfill the wish of his hosts. It was then left to the Prime Minister to relay the publics sentiment to the visiting President. According to the schedule, the Prime Minister and the President were to have their one-on-one meeting the next day. But the programme was modified on an emergency basis and a 15-minute meeting was set up before dinner which turned into a 50-minute one-on-one meeting. It is apparent that President Obama was being convinced on the basis of public sentiment to unequivocally label Pakistan and say that India is the target of its terrorist activities. President Obama must have vowed to do it because after this meeting, the BJP leaders were ordered to hold their tongues against Obama. Even the media did an about turn after this meeting. Gone were the allegations of Pakistan-patronisation. The analysts and news anchors were now saying that they should not react as strongly at this juncture; there is still a day left in President Obamas tour. They thought he still has to address a press conference; he might call Pakistan a terrorist then. Or maybe he could fulfill the hosts wishes when he addresses the Parliament.
In addition to other leaders, Obama also met the BJP leader Sushma Suraaj that day. After that, he was coaxed to speak up against Pakistan in the press conference. But it was not to be. Obama clearly desisted from giving his hosts this particular satisfaction. After no luck in the press conference, the hopes were shifted to his address in the Parliament. Here I will quote what Obama said to appease his hosts: (On Afghanistan) Our strategy to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates has to succeed on both sides of the border. That is why we have worked with the Pakistani government to address the threat of terrorist networks in the border region. The Pakistani government increasingly recognizes that these networks are not just a threat outside of Pakistan, they are a threat to the Pakistani people, who have suffered greatly at the hands of violent extremists.
And we will continue to insist to Pakistan’s leaders that terrorist safe-havens within their borders are unacceptable, and that the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks be brought to justice. We must also recognize that all of us have an interest in both an Afghanistan and a Pakistan that is stable, prosperous and democratic and none more so than India.
If we contextualise these words in the above explained efforts that went into eliciting them, one can truly appreciate the cunning of democrats born and bred in a thriving democracy. They possess abilities of the highest quality and degree. These words of Obama in the parliament were treated to long and protracted applause whereas they enraptured the Indian nation.
But one must read the text word for word. Nowhere in these lines has Obama declared Pakistan a terrorist state, as per Indian desire. Nor has he made any reference to the extremists operational inside India. Each word was following the American policy line to the tee. The US and Pakistan are in perfect consonance on the views that he expressed in these particular words. Moreover, the terrorist safe-havens that he mentioned: not only is the US conducting drone attacks against them but the Pakistan Army is also busy in uprooting them. The border he specifically mentioned was the Af-Pak border. This clearly means that the Line of Control (terrorism along which is the issue that India keeps crying foul about) wasnt even alluded to. The question that then remains is: what was the Pakistani Foreign Office expressing its reservations about?
The writer is one of Pakistans most widely read columnists.
