I often get e-mails from Indian readers complaining of what they perceive as a preoccupation with India in the Pakistani press. "Why can't your papers get over your anti-India fixation?" they ask.
Having just returned after a stimulating week in Delhi, I can safely inform them that this Pakistani hang-up is mirrored in India. Regular readers of this column will know that I have no axe to grind, no line to peddle; above all, I am not rabidly against things Indian. However, I was struck by how much space is devoted to Pakistan, and, considering how little coverage was given to world affairs by even serious papers like The Times of India and The Hindu, the imbalance was even more surprising.
In particular, the concern about Pakistan cashing in on the Afghan crisis while India was left out verged on the hysterical. Although The Times of India carried an excellent editorial questioning the Indian governments' ardent desire to jump on to the anti-terrorist bandwagon, the news slant made it clear that the Pakistani edge in the current situation does not sit well with thinking Indians. Many Indian journalists contrast what they perceive as General Musharaf's brilliant footwork in capitalizing financially and diplomatically on Pakistan's proximity to Afghanistan during his trip to America with Mr Vajpayee's wooden performance there.
Above all, it is Kashmir that is the touchstone by which diplomatic success or failure is measured. During my week in India, each word uttered by Bush and Blair was analysed carefully for any pro-Pakistan tilt. By the time Musharraf returned to Islamabad, there was an almost audible sigh of relief that, while the Pakistani leader might have brought back pledges of over a billion dollars with the possibility of more to follow, he had not managed to budge the American president on his hands-off policy on Kashmir.
On Afghanistan, there was a palpable air of self-congratulation over Pakistan's isolation in its efforts to induct 'moderate Taliban' in the new government in Kabul. I personally feel this attempt is doomed to failure, given that the taliban are now history (the Lord be thanked!). In any case, a 'moderate Taliban' is a contradiction in terms. But the glee evident in the Indian press over Pakistan's desperate efforts to have a major say in the post-Taliban dispensation was slightly nauseating.
For our part, we are certainly no better: every Indian reversal in any field is welcomed in our papers, while any success is met with ill-concealed envy. But it must be said that Pakistan has greater justification (if such puerile behaviour can be justified) for this fixation than India. After all, as the far smaller and weaker nation, we can perhaps be forgiven for our paranoia and our insecurity. But what excuse does India have? In my many discussions with Indian journalists and politicians, I made the point that, given their preponderance in just about every field, they could have afforded to take unilateral steps aimed at removing Pakistani suspicions and doubts.
Indeed, Indian pressure from 1948 onwards is partly to blame for the militarization of Pakistan, as the nascent state depended on western aid and our army to shield us from perceived Indian belligerence. The perception that the armed forces were our ultimate saviours made it possible for our generals to intervene at will, thus warping and deforming political development in Pakistan.
As a result of this mindless rivalry, we are now locked in a zero-sum game in which both countries are forever trying to score points off each other, as the rest of the world races ahead, sniggering quietly while we indulge in schoolboy scraps. One nation's gain translates automatically into the other's loss and vice versa. In this unending rivalry, the only losers are the people on both sides, while their leaders use each other as scapegoats for their own failures. Indeed, had Kashmir not divided us, we would have probably invented some other cause to squabble over because, given the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the leadership in New Delhi and Islamabad, we can be pretty sure they would have been unable to solve the many pressing problems that beset both nations. Leaders on both sides need a convenient excuse to deflect criticism for their ineptitude.
But if our leaders display their immaturity and their lack of vision and imagination, why does the press pander to them? As journalists, surely our job is to deflate them and hold up a mirror to their many imperfections. However, during my all-too-brief sojourn in Delhi, I was struck and disturbed by the solid consensus in the press behind core government policies and positions. While I had noticed this phenomenon on private Indian TV channels, I was taken aback to see it on display in the mainstream newspapers as well. Whatever my Indian readers might say about the Pakistani preoccupation with India, these columns (as well as those in other newspapers here) are full of articles and editorials that question and criticize many fundamental government positions ranging from Kashmir to the nuclear programme.
When General Musharraf expressed his annoyance at criticism in the Pakistani press, saying that this did not happen to the same extent in India, I thought he was exaggerating. But after my week-long scrutiny of Indian newspapers, I fear that he was not wide of the mark. When I discussed my perceptions with like-minded Indian journalists, they ascribed this malaise in the Indian print media to the price-war that has forced owners and editors to focus primarily on the bottom line: for instance, comment on the op-ed pages has been curtailed for reasons of ads. In Pakistan, there are mercifully no commercial announcements on these pages in this or any other paper. As a result, The Times of India sells for Rs 1.50. But this low price has meant that there is no editor of the paper, and nor are there any book reviews as the owners feel that the space could be put to more productive use by selling it to advertisers.
Despite the commercialization of many venerable Indian newspapers, many bright and talented journalists are fighting to preserve their integrity. Unfortunately, the policy of preventing Indian papers and periodicals from selling in Pakistan and vice versa has deprived us of gaining an insight into each other's thinking. Although the Internet has made it possible to bridge this gap, most journalists on both sides do not log on as often as they ought to. Meanwhile, our leaders continue to let us and themselves down through their futile rivalry.