Pakistan May Want Peace Today But First Needs to Kill Militancy

For now, peace has more resonance in Pakistan, than the obfuscations of war, writes Pakistani journo Amber Shamsi.

Image of IAF Pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman used for representational purposes.

(Photo: The Quint)

On 26 February, the day the Indian Air Force struck Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, at a press conference held by Pakistan’s foreign minister, and other government representatives, a journalist asked, “What is a payload?”

He was told, a payload is explosive material carried by a military aircraft. A few hours after the Indian Air Force’s incursion on 26 February, the Director General of the Pakistani Army’s media wing, Major General Asif Ghafoor tweeted: “Under forced hasty withdrawal, aircraft released payload which had free fall in open area.”

Note, India calls it an air strike, Pakistan calls it an intrusion; India alleges a training camp had been bombed, Pakistan says nothing was bombed and that the aircraft merely lightened its load of explosive material before escaping.

Language of War is Imprecise

As Indian diplomats scrambled to brief foreign diplomats about the air strike, they were asked, what is a “non-military pre-emptive action”? They were told, a non-military target was bombed. In other words, no international rules were broken, that the air strike was justified to prevent further attacks based on intelligence, even as civilian casualties were avoided.

The day Pakistan carried out its own air strike, the carefully worded ministry of foreign affairs’ press release was at pains to emphasise that the strikes avoided “human loss and collateral damage”, to explain that the military action was a responsible response to India’s violation of its airspace.

Unlike high-precision weapons, the language of war is imprecise, and deliberately so. It is meant to strip death and destruction of horror. War and genocide are nothing new to the human race, but euphemisms to describe the effects of war are very twentieth century, as if jargon is enough to insulate soldiers engaged in war and the people affected by it, from the impact.

Journalists Should Present the Truth, Not Be Govt Mouthpiece

The terms “collateral damage” and “friendly fire” are uniquely American creations, and many US journalists and writers have cited George Orwell’s 1946 essay ‘Politics and the English Language’ to avoid using these expressions, since they are a tool of propaganda. “Political language — and with variations, this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

As journalists, language is our weapon, to explain, to decode, to present the truth as simply as much as is possible. But war – as low-scale and media-driven as this present round of hostilities between Pakistan and India is – forces journalists to take sides, many becoming the medium through which governments disseminate their propaganda or war hype.

Putting patriotism aside is not easy, and using military jargon or diplomatic and bureaucratic gobbledygook is easy, even lazy. But it is not our job as journalists to not be mouthpieces of our governments, but rather, to question their actions and inactions. War narratives and propaganda may suit governments, but not the people, who are entitled to the truths that affect their lives.

After all, several truths can co-exist.

Now, coming to the Indian air strikes in Balakot. If the aim of the strike was to “punish” Pakistan, or to dismantle terrorist training camps, it was way off the mark. If the Balakot air strike was meant to call on Pakistan’s “nuclear bluff”, it has achieved a counter-strike – falling stock markets in both countries, suspended domestic and international flights, and a paranoid populace, worrying about future attacks. It may even achieve an increase in defence spending. It may or may not boost Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s election prospects.

Pakistan Will Suffer Financially & Diplomatically For Inaction Against Home-Grown Militants

While Prime Minister Imran Khan has not explicitly named JeM and Jamaatud Dawa in his multiple statements on Pulwama and the current hostilities between India and Pakistan, he has repeatedly said that Pakistani territory will no longer be used for terrorist activity against other countries, that “armed militias” will no longer be tolerated.

The truth is that Pakistan cannot claim moral high ground over India or any other neighbour internationally, when there is troubles along the border. Nor can it afford to keep protecting militant groups that have become a liability.

Pakistan is currently on the grey list of the Financial Action Task Force, and could be put on the black list this October if it fails to take more concrete steps against terror financing and money laundering. The latest FATF review of measures Pakistan has taken says “it does not demonstrate a proper understanding of the TF [terror financing] risks posed by Da’eh, Al Qaeda, Jud, Falah-e-Insaniyat Foundation, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Haqqani Network, and persons affliated with the Taliban.” The cost of inaction against these groups is both financial and diplomatic.

Peace on Pakistan’s Mind

Whether the Pakistani state goes beyond token bans on these groups, remains to be seen. However, when it comes to war and peace, the divide between India and Pakistan could not be clearer. As Opposition parties in India slammed the BJP and Narendra Modi for “politicising the Indian armed forces”, Opposition parties in Pakistan whole-heartedly supported Prime Minister Imran Khan’s call for peace and de-escalation.

His pledge to release Wing Commander Abhinandan, as a “peace gesture” before a joint parliamentary session, was of tremendous symbolic value – domestically as well as internationally.

It showed the world that the political leadership, armed forces, the media and the people of Pakistan are united in wanting peace, barring a few hawks here and there.

The truth is, for now, the language of peace has more resonance in Pakistan, than the obfuscations of war.

(Amber Shamsi is a multi-media journalist who has worked for international and national media organisations as a reporter and on the editorial desk. She currently hosts a news and current affairs show on Dawn TV. She can be reached on Twitter @AmberRShamsi. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)