Glory days

The writer is former executive editor of The News and a senior journalist with Geo TV.
In the past week we, the people, mixed myth with reality, poured fiction over fact and then gulped the mix down on September 6 to let nationalistic adrenaline run through our bones. This wasn’t unnatural. All nations, big or small, take such drinks to live on. The Germans, the French, the Brits, the Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese and of course of the Americans mark selected days in history to put out compelling versions of success and self-acclaimed glories on battlefields and war fronts.
Movies, songs, people, literature, sounds, sights, records – everything and everyone is thrown into a dizzying narrative that moves like a tidal wave, impervious to logic, sweeping in its scope, and totally irreversible in its stance. It pushes cynics to the margins, drowns out voices of dissent and dominates the mainstream. This is how it is done across the world. This is what we do as well – every year, without fail, with fervour.
But our celebrations are unique in at least one significant sense – the moment we are over our highs of the day – September 6, August 14, March 23, to name just three – our lows follow swiftly and effectively. In our upward swing, we roar like lions; we brighten the dull skies with cracking claims of never relenting to secure the motherland. We eulogise sovereignty and vow to die and kill for its sanctity. We boast. We brag. We laud. We praise. Unsheathed swords shine; fear is struck deep in the hearts of the enemies.
And then the day ends, like all days do – and night follows on its heels, like nights always do. The moment goes. The present takes hold. In our daily routine, there is hardly ever any mention of our great deeds. All lofty ideals are shelved. Back to the business of real life, we begin to duck tough challenges that demand proof that we really mean what we say.
Very few nations adhere to concepts of national

dignity, honour and esteem as selectively as we do. Out of the mode of rapturous applause, our definitions of sovereignty become elastic. Our idea of defending the country suddenly opens up to convenient suggestions. Our narrative of what national security means gets framed in expediency.
It does not take long for the roar of the lion to turn into the cooing of a caged bird. And that is a disheartening note to hear.
You think this overdramatic? Think again. Consider, for example, the idea of protecting national borders. See how many times our land has been attacked by drones that are flown by the CIA from military bases across the border. In 2014 there were 24 drone strikes. This year the US has struck 10 times inside our territory. Regardless of whom they kill and whether this is in conformity with our declared policy of knocking out terrorists, we have consistently maintained these strikes to be illegal and a breach of our sovereignty. Yet other than issuing press releases that are not even worth the paper they are issued on in terms of impact, we have stopped debating this grave violation of our land. Once firing all the time, all our big guns have fallen totally silent on this score, almost as if they have run out batteries or ammunition.
Khawaja Asif, the defence minister, who has a statement to make in retaliation to every mortar that India hurls across the Working Boundary, has never been heard talking on this subject. Imran Khan, who once made a career out of protesting against drones, too has become wiser. No free-flying punches any more. He listens to the US ambassador patiently on more important issues without raising the drones issue. (His last tweet on drones was in October 2014.)
And incredible as it may sound, the director general of ISPR, who tweets policy at will, doesn’t have a single tweet to his credit on this issue. Drone has become a five-letter word that no one wants to speak, and yet drone attacks remain and continue to be the most blatant form of intrusion of our land.
Another off-limits topic that involves complex issues of national security relates to Nato supplies. In the aftermath of the Salala incident national honour sprouted everywhere. These supplies were blocked and deafening noises were made over these being a suspect activity undermining our internal security. Political parties all rallied behind this call for cutting off these supplies. Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, and everyone else said ‘let’s do it.’ Condemnatory resolutions abound. The PTI did a dharna to restore damaged national prestige. But then the inevitable happened.
Today, in 2015, Nato supplies routes are most active. The groups that used to attack them (for commercial rather than ideological reasons) have all been neutralised. We are building more spacious roads to facilitate easy traffic of these massive trucks that move in hundreds. The dharna has ended quietly. Parliament is looking at other matters. Our defence establishment is fully cooperating with our Nato friends to ensure that these supplies remain uninterrupted.
The same thing happened with what once seemed like the number one national security challenge: foreign spies in our midst. Remember the claims made by that sharp-tongued low-performing, but high-sounding General Shuja Pasha that our land has more foreign intelligence agencies operating than any other country? (Nobody asked him what he was doing when these agencies were striking roots here). Remember those tales about Blackwater hiring homes and infesting all of the capital’s shiny neighbourhoods? Do you recall the more recent national sirens over NGOs hiring spies to penetrate our body politic and how we need to pull them out?
This was a big public debate, right? What happened to this debate? Why isn’t there a debate anymore? Have all spies and their running puppies left the country, or have they made amends and become good patriots upon our special request? Or is it that this is part of the inconvenient bunch of subjects that we cannot raise since the cost of raising them is too high? Or is it that we have to balance these ‘considerations’ with the prospective benefits of joining the US-backed alliance against the Islamic State?
If so, leave this tricky list and focus instead on the seemingly more manageable and newsy matter of Indian shelling upon our villages and towns. This is a mini-war. Yes, we respond to the shells, but what’s our response to the attack? Visiting hospitals and telling the families of the victims that we will protect them and then visiting more families of more victims the next week and telling them the same thing?
Has it crossed our minds that our mindless overstatements of our own greatness and glory commit the state and the government to benchmarks of expectations that are impossible to measure up to, much less surpass? Do we know how overkill in making promises breeds an unsustainable flight of fancy in the public mind that always crashes the moment it is launched from official platforms?
There is no harm in feeling extra good on a few national days. It is perfectly legitimate to see history through the prism of the positives and compliment the heroes who died fighting for the land, whether military or civilians. But this should be done with measured grace, deliberate poise and dignity. There is no need to play tricks with history to claim a rightful place in its archives. Admission of mistakes and a resolve to never repeat them is the best defence available to any nation. That is why all bravado must be borne out by facts – some facts at least.
It is pointless to rattle sabres when the follow-up is sheepish silence. Why say we have redlines when their breach produces nothing except more red faces? Those who lose this perspective, lose sight of reality. Folklore is a heart-warming thing, but in the long run its overdose can cause deep national heartache, pain and enduring strategic embarrassment.
Email: syedtalathussain@gmail.com
Twitter: @TalatHussain12