Refuting Aatish Taseer

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Aatish’s personal fire​

By Ejaz Haider
Published: July 18, 2011

Will Cuppy, American humorist and literary critic, was said to read some 25 volumes of history on average before penning his humorous sketches of historical figures contained in the delightful volume The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody. That was then. Now we base our analysis of an entire country on a tweet. Welcome to Aatish Taseer’s Wall Street Journal article “Why My Father Hated India”!

There’s much thrown in here so let me try a flowchart of sorts.

Indian rocket test fails; father tweets to taunt at India’s misfortune; father’s attitude to India causes tension with Aatish (right!); Pakistan’s obsession with India; grounded in Partition; Pakistan’s search for identity; rejection of India’s culture; Islamisation; identity crisis; coups; Pakistani military is the villain; wants strategic depth in Afghanistan; plays a double game; imaginary threat from India; back to father’s tweet; veneer of bravado; arid pain and sadness; wounds of Partition to be healed.

How does one deal with a piece which throws in everything except the kitchen sink in order to construct a supposedly linear reality? The technique reminds me of the cross-examination of Stanley Weber by the two strange characters, Goldberg and McCann in Pinter’s The Birthday Party. From ‘why the chicken crossed the road’ and ‘you left the organisation’ to ‘why you defiled your mother’, the rhetoric becomes a nightmare for Stanley and leaves him catatonic. Taken separately, one can discuss issues and arrive at a balanced analysis. But that’s not the purpose of Aatish’s piece. Pakistan must be seen as a mistake, acting without stimuli. India is Professor Godbole sitting contentedly and doing nothing while Dr Aziz goes around raging and making a fool of himself. That is of course nonsense. But whoever controls the narrative wins.

Mercifully, contained within Aatish’s piece are pointers to greater complexity. The father was killed because he supported a Christian woman. How does that fit in with the article’s thesis that the father hated India (and Pakistan has to hate India and be Muslim) because that religious distinction lies at the core of its ‘other’-isation of India? Or is Pakistan more complex than is hinted in the article?

Aatish’s father did not ‘hate’ India. He was one of those who did much to open up Lahore — to Indians — by using the Basant festival. There is not a single viable political party in Pakistan that does not want to normalise with India. That is a matter of record. But Salmaan Taseer (Aatish’s eye for detail doesn’t inspire much confidence since he gets the spellings of his father’s name wrong), like others, was a proud Pakistani. We don’t need to ‘other’ India to be Pakistanis but neither can we ignore real problems that need to be addressed. Tackling those problems requires mature analysis, not reducing everything to Pakistan’s identity crisis vis-a-vis India.

But what of the Pakistani military, the villains in all this? Since Aatish began with India’s failed GSLV rocket test, let me put in some facts here for him.
The Indian Army, standing at over 1.1 million active-service personnel and 1.8 million reserves, is configured under six area commands (operational) and one army training command (ARTRAC). Three of these area commands — western, northern and southwestern — are totally Pakistan-specific. A fourth, central command, with one corps (1 Corps) is also primarily Pakistan-specific. The Indian Army has 13 corps, out of which eight, including one from the central command, are specific to Pakistan.

But more than the number of corps, it is the number of divisions — infantry, mountain, armoured — as well as independent armoured and artillery brigades that manifest the deployment pattern or order of battle (ORBAT) of the Indian Army. The Pakistan-specific area commands and corps have a much-higher number of lower formations, the actual fighting elements, than the eastern and southern Commands.

Aatish alleges that Pakistan army has diverted most of the $11 billion to arming itself against India. He has no details and is plainly wrong but let’s take what he says on face value. This money has come to Pakistan over 10 years, according to his own piece. Compare this with India’s defence expenditure especially in purchasing power parity terms and one would realise what Pakistan is up against. He can check the figures with SIPRI and IISS.

Finally, each of his points has inspired scholars to write books; he would do well to avoid reductionist analyses. Nor should he utilise his father’s clout to serve personal ends by making a sales pitch to audiences in both India and the US. On a personal note, his article would have extracted only a yawn from me but for a query from Shashi Tharoor who wanted to know why I had advised Aatish Taseer to stick to writing novels. Now, Mr Tharoor is serious business. And if he needs to be explained what was wrong with Aatish’s article, then we are in real trouble.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 19th, 2011.
Aatish

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thread opened for posting. Not sure why it was closed when I created it.

 

[gubbi]

While dwelling on IA's "Pakistan centric" deployments or ORBAT, what Mr Ejaz Haider conveniently ignores is the fact that all the wars India has had to fight with Pakistan were initiated by Pakistan. Even in times of high hopes (Lahore Bus diplomacy?), it turned out we were caught with our blokes sleeping! So pray, why shouldnt we be prepared for such blatant transgressions?

Apart from that, there is nothing in this article which refutes points raised in Aatish Taseer's article. Getting a spelling wrong is NOT a sacrilege - many variations of the name Mohammad exist - and so it goes for others.

As for Mr Salman Taseer's defence of the Pakistani Christian woman, it has to do with Pakistani politics/law/constitutional problems. Mr. Salman Taseer's defense of the woman does not make Pakistan secular, but happened to the man's personal point of view. What does that have to do with India or Aatish's article? The fact remains, that, Pakistan was created indeed as a homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims - the Land of the Pure. However with India's secularism and being home to millions of Muslims, Pakistan had/has been left groping in the dark for its true identity which invariably led to its embracing of Islam as a national identity, destruction of democratic machinery and looking up to the Army as its savior and craving for a piece of prime real estate, which in the first place was never its own to call.

 

[Rafi]

While dwelling on IA's "Pakistan centric" deployments or ORBAT, what Mr Ejaz Haider conveniently ignores is the fact that all the wars India has had to fight with Pakistan were initiated by Pakistan. Even in times of high hopes (Lahore Bus diplomacy?), it turned out we were caught with our blokes sleeping! So pray, why shouldnt we be prepared for such blatant transgressions?

Apart from that, there is nothing in this article which refutes points raised in Aatish Taseer's article. Getting a spelling wrong is NOT a sacrilege - many variations of the name Mohammad exist - and so it goes for others.

As for Mr Salman Taseer's defence of the Pakistani Christian woman, it has to do with Pakistani politics/law/constitutional problems. Mr. Salman Taseer's defense of the woman does not make Pakistan secular, but happened to the man's personal point of view. What does that have to do with India or Aatish's article? The fact remains, that, Pakistan was created indeed as a homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims - the Land of the Pure. However with India's secularism and being home to millions of Muslims, Pakistan had/has been left groping in the dark for its true identity which invariably led to its embracing of Islam as a national identity, destruction of democratic machinery and looking up to the Army as its savior and craving for a piece of prime real estate, which in the first place was never its own to call.

The guy couldn't even spell his fathers name right there goes his credibility and he is a bastard - his father had an affair that lasted a couple of weeks and he is the result.

 

[gubbi]

The guy couldn't even spell his fathers name right there goes his credibility and he is a bastard - his father had an affair that lasted a couple of weeks and he is the result.

Whats with the spelling? A name has many versions. Salman - Salmaan. Whats in a name? And if he's a "bastard" as you say, why is that any fault?

So you place credibility based on a spelling mistake when the larger picture barely depends on such a slight?

 

[53fd]

While dwelling on IA's "Pakistan centric" deployments or ORBAT, what Mr Ejaz Haider conveniently ignores is the fact that all the wars India has had to fight with Pakistan were initiated by Pakistan.

1971 was initiated by India when they trained the Mukti Bahini (both inside India & Bangladesh), & interfered by sending troops into Pakistani territory when the Pakistan Army started the operation against the Mukti Bahini. 1965 was initiated by Pakistan. 1999 cannot even be categorized as a war, more of a 'skirmish'. 1948 Kashmir was pretty much 'up for grabs', hence not really initiated by Pakistan.

 

[Rafi]

Whats with the spelling? A name has many versions. Salman - Salmaan. Whats in a name? And if he's a "bastard" as you say, why is that any fault?

So you place credibility based on a spelling mistake when the larger picture barely depends on such a slight?

Its not just any name, it's his fathers - and he spelt it wrong, he is a bastard because he is the result of a fling - by Mr Taseer when he was married and went to india for a visit. Ie his mother and father were not in a committed relationship, when he was conceived.

 

[gubbi]

1971 was initiated by India when they trained the Mukti Bahini, before the war even started. 1965 was initiated by Pakistan. 1999 cannot even be categorized as a war, more of a 'skirmish'. 1948 Kashmir was pretty much 'up for grabs', hence not really initiated by Pakistan.

71 war - international sources consider the beginning of the war to be Operation Chengiz Khan, Pakistan's December 3, 1971 pre-emptive strike on 11 Indian airbases.
65 war- initiated by Pakistan
99 war - skirmish to you when inspite of being at an advantage, incompetence compelled the PA and its NLI and "Mujaheddin" to run back.

As for Kashmir, Pakistan, instead of getting its own house in order - set out to occupy what was then an Independent Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir - a sovereign entity. Pakistan basically invaded an independent state. The ruler sought India's help. India helped. Simple. And Pakistan has been sore since then. This particular delinquency of getting one's priorities right set Pakistan on whats become a destructive road.

 

[gubbi]

Its not just any name, it's his fathers - and he spelt it wrong, he is a bastard because he is the result of a fling - by Mr Taseer when he was married and went to india for a visit. Ie his mother and father were not in a committed relationship, when he was conceived.

Ha ad hominem attack. Yup blame his birth instead of refuting the points raised in the article.

Blame what you would consider a spelling mistake instead of refuting points raised in the article.

Salmaan in India is spelt as Salman. Just like Pakistanis say Bharti instead of Bharati in India. Should we question your credibility on that kind of slight?

 

[Rafi]

Ha ad hominem attack. Yup blame his birth instead of refuting the points raised in the article.

Blame what you would consider a spelling mistake instead of refuting points raised in the article.

Salmaan in India is spelt as Salman. Just like Pakistanis say Bharti instead of Bharati in India. Should we question your credibility on that kind of slight?

It's clear that his bitterness comes from his fathers perceived rejection - that makes him a biased observer, he is not Pakistani, has never lived in Pakistan - all he shares is his Pakistani fathers DNA.

 

[53fd]

71 war - international sources consider the beginning of the war to be Operation Chengiz Khan, Pakistan's December 3, 1971 pre-emptive strike on 11 Indian airbases.

You can spin it whatever way you want, but the 71 war started when India armed & trained Mukti Bahini insurgents (both inside India & East Pakistan) against the Pakistani Establishment [which is why Pakistan attacked India]; just like the 1999 'war' was initiated by Pakistan when they infiltrated proxies over the LOC. Apply the same standards in both situations.

99 war - skirmish to you when inspite of being at an advantage, incompetence compelled the PA and its NLI and "Mujaheddin" to run back

It was India, despite having four times the number of troops than Pakistan on the LOC, that went to the international community (because they were losing out areas to the fighters), which was when Clinton asked Nawaz Sharif to pull out troops, & which was eventually why Musharraf had to withdraw the troops from the many areas they had captured (& consequently, India regained those areas it had lost). This was how the 1999 war ended, so please avoid the emotional talk when your troops were losing out to an enemy 1/4th of your size, & had to resort to the international community to rescue you.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

While dwelling on IA's "Pakistan centric" deployments or ORBAT, what Mr Ejaz Haider conveniently ignores is the fact that all the wars India has had to fight with Pakistan were initiated by Pakistan.

That is incorrect, and has been shown to be so several times.

In 1947 it was in fact India that first resorted to 'non-state actors' in supporting the rebels in Junagadh, whose ruler had legally and officially acceded to Pakistan, a little before Pakistanis rebels engaged the Maharajah in J&K.

In 1971 it was India again that supported terrorists/insurgents in East Pakistan, and fanned the flames of violence and the subsequent refugee exodus into India, and therefore 'initiated aggression against Pakistan'.

India was again the aggressor in Siachen. So the argument that India has 'never initiated hostilities against Pakistan' is rather easily shown to be false. This discussion can however continue on the 'Indian myths about Pakistan', or the various other threads on the wars.

Apart from that, there is nothing in this article which refutes points raised in Aatish Taseer's article. Getting a spelling wrong is NOT a sacrilege - many variations of the name Mohammad exist - and so it goes for others.

I think you need to read the article again, Aatish's arguments have been shown to be shallow quite effectively.

As for Mr Salman Taseer's defence of the Pakistani Christian woman, it has to do with Pakistani politics/law/constitutional problems. Mr. Salman Taseer's defense of the woman does not make Pakistan secular, but happened to the man's personal point of view. What does that have to do with India or Aatish's article?

Again, you need to read both articles again - Aatish maligned his father and Pakistan by resorting to distorting his father's views on certain issues, and then extrapolating from those views a condemnation of all of Pakistan.

 

[gubbi]

It's clear that his bitterness comes from his fathers perceived rejection - that makes him a biased observer, he is not Pakistani, has never lived in Pakistan - all he shares is his Pakistani fathers DNA.

Again, attack the messenger instead of the article. AFAIK, in the article Mr Aatish Taseer posted very valid points, the same points raised by many analysts anywhere else. So how does his being a 'bastard child' or whats conceived to be a spelling mistake or presumed to be a paternal rejection influences the credibility of points raised in the article?

 

[Rafi]

You can spin it whatever way you want, but the 1971 war started when India trained Mukti Bahini both inside India & Bangladesh (E.Pakistan) [which is why Pakistan attacked India]; just like the 1999 'war' was initiated when Pakistan tried to infiltrate fighters over the LOC. Apply the same standards in both situations.



It was India, despite having four times the number of troops than Pakistan on the border, that went to the international community (because they were losing out areas to the fighters), which was when Clinton asked Nawaz Sharif to pull out troops, & which was eventually why Musharraf had to withdraw the troops. This was how the 1999 war ended, so please avoid the emotional talk when your troops were losing out to an enemy 1/4th to your size, & had to resort to the international community to rescue you.

And don't forget Bilal that we control some important real estate that we captured from the indians that overlook the key indian lifeline in occupied J&K - artillery observers can bring in very accurate fire, on that road and effectively close it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Whats with the spelling? A name has many versions. Salman - Salmaan. Whats in a name? And if he's a "bastard" as you say, why is that any fault?

So you place credibility based on a spelling mistake when the larger picture barely depends on such a slight?

Spelling your own father's name incorrectly would certainly indicate a lack of familiarity with the man, which makes Aatish's attempts at 'interpreting his father's views' rather suspect.

How well did he really know his father?