Rabble Rousing Random Ramblings: Rushdie: The greatest calamity of all may lie ahead of us

November 15, 2005

Rushdie: The greatest calamity of all may lie ahead of us

In an evocative piece in The Times, Salman Rushdie points out that with winter almost upon the people of Jammu & Kashmir and Pakistan occupied Kashmir, the absence of substantial aid and relief could ensure that more people suffer and die.

But the people of Kashmir deserve better than they are getting. They certainly do not deserve to be subjected to a kind of "political test" of aid-worthiness. Yet, ever since the day of the earthquake, people in the US and Europe have been asking me and many others the same politically loaded questions: will the disaster "help"? Will it allow India and Pakistan to sink their differences and, at long last, make an end of their long Kashmiri quarrel? It has been hard to avoid the conclusion that Western attitudes to aiding Kashmir are dependent to some degree on the answer to these questions being "yes".
Alas, the answer is "no". India and Pakistan are still mired in mutual suspicion, as the saga of the Indian helicopters revealed. (India offered them, but Pakistan refused to accept unless they were flown by Pakistani pilots, a condition that India in turn refused to accept, and, in the meanwhile, the quake victims went right on dying.) Also, as the murder by militants of a Kashmiri moderate politician showed, and as the bombs in Delhi would seem to confirm, there are Islamist groups who are determined to continue to sabotage any improvement in Indo-Pakistani relations, and as long as those groups find sanctuary in Pakistan, a peace settlement will be impossible.

He is practical enough to rightly realize that the romantics' wish that this disaster would perhaps bring India and Pakistan closer to each other will remain just a pipedream, given the fracas over helicopters and accepting relief from India. In fact he seems to suggest that aid is being given with the hope that the differences between the two countries will vanish overnight, just as Pervez Musharraf's wish for the Kashmir issue to be resolved overnight.

Rushdie also hints at a potential compassion fatigue following last year's tsunami and hurricanes in North America.

Labels: jammu and kashmir, musharraf, pakistan

Rambled @ 3:02 PM

Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

4 comment(s)

>> seems to suggest that aid is being given with the hope that the differences between the two countries will vanish overnight

Rushdie also seems to suggest that people are not giving aid because of the unrest. Donors, using some twisted logic , seems to think that the people ate not worthy of the aid because they live in a place of conflict.

Compassion fatigue it indeed has been. Not just the ordinary people, but also the media. Take a look at any of the leading international (European/US) news website. You will be surprised if you find any news on the disaster. When the Tsunami struck, ordinary people on the street, influenced by the coverage I am sure, were giving donations without a second thought. Now, you don't even see anyone asking for donations!

Sad!

By Srijith (Nov 16, 2005, 2:55:00 AM)

Aid with strings, definitely, right? I think the donors are perhaps wondering if the aid money would be misused and instead of being put to use for relief effort, be used for building up military arsenal, nukes etc. Their fears are probably not entirely misplaced, after all, when you do shell out so much money, you do want it to go to the right folks.

By Jagadish (Nov 16, 2005, 1:52:00 PM)

If you look at official pronouncements from Pakistan, you won't be faulted for thinking that earthquake victims have a right to expect aid from foreign governments, NGOs and people. Musharraf himself has readily compared aid given to his country to that given to those affected by the tsunami.

I think there are serious problems with both these views.

First, while foreigners are not obliged to give aid to every disaster that comes along, it is for the country's government to provide for its affected citizens. I would contend that the external world makes a judgement of how much money to give based on how well the receiving government is likely to spend it. And even reasonable, kind and humane people cannot be faulted for putting more money in the hands of a military dictatorship that has previously diverted aid money to fund its nuclear weapons programme. And reasonable, humane and kind people can certainly not be faulted for giving money to the jihadi organisations which are carrying out relief work too. I remember tuning in to the BBC after the first reports of the quake only to hear a suave Shaukat Aziz convincing the viewers that Pakistan is well capable of handling the tragedy by itself. And then Musharraf refused help from India, during the critical immediate aftermath of the quake.These factors (esp unreliability of govt, and undesirability of the jihadis), imho, explain why the aid didn't match expectations.

Second, Musharraf's statements, blaming the west for giving inadequate aid, made him look like the whiner that he is. I think comparing one disaster with another is wrong in principle, and while media and some NGOs can indulge in comparing aid allocations, it was not for a head of state to do. Making out a case that the West has failed Pakistani disaster victims, as Musharraf has, only plays into the hands of the jihadis.

Yes, things like donor fatigue and remoteness of the tragedy do contribute towards the poor international humanitarian response; but even if these are held to be the primary reasons, there is little in Musharraf's previous or present conduct that helped mitigate these disadvantages. The people of Kashmir, as always, have been done in by the Pakistani army and the jihadi establishment.

By Nitin (Nov 16, 2005, 3:16:00 PM)

Yes, I was really appalled with Musharraf crying like a kid whose neighbour got more ice-cream. It was a tragedy. He sought to make political capital out of it, like he always does. The tsunami affected just about every country in the Indian Ocean. The earthquake affected PoK and J & K. No prizes for guessing which one is more likely to get aid. Like you mention, the remoteness of the disaster certainly contributed to the logistical problems associated with getting aid to reach the needy.

I think Musharraf's cry was in desperation. He certainly did not want to be seen as having forsaken PoK one more time! So he whined. Shaukat Aziz's first few statements were to convey the impression that if India could refuse aid during the tsunami, Pakistan Hindustan se kam nahin hai. In all this political one-upmanship, who suffers?

By Jagadish (Nov 16, 2005, 3:27:00 PM)

I'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. Obviously comments containing offensive and unsuitable language will be deleted. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own blog, especially if it discusses issues you find here.