Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Preparing for war as we aspire for peace PRESIDENT Gen Pervez Musharraf announced last week the country was prepared for war. Others in the government said the defence was invincible and more missiles, including some capable of carrying nuclear weapons, were successfully tested. Some of the troops formerly assigned to the western border were reported to have been redeployed to the east and there was talk of recalling soldiers from peacekeeping duties in Sierra Leone. The president also said Pakistan wanted peace. To this end, he called on the hostile neighbour to exercise restraint. Rejecting allegations of fostering terrorism, he pointed out that Pakistan itself was a victim. As a frontline ally of the civilized world in the war against terror, he argued, it deserved understanding and support. He welcomed the various diplomatic initiatives to stop an undesirable war and appeared to be genuinely concerned. Claiming progress in his government’s own crackdown on extremism, he vowed to disallow use of Pakistan’s territory for attacks on another country. Prime Minister Vajpayee, who told his troops earlier the time was at hand for a decisive battle, remained unimpressed. Diplomacy, he implied, could be allowed to achieve the war objectives but only if Indian perceptions were unquestioningly accepted. Nobody seemed to reject that as a basis for progress. On the ground, Indian artillery continued pounding border villages in Sialkot area. The casualties, meanwhile, declined as a result of a near-complete evacuation. The governor mentioned plans to pay compensation to the villagers now forced to live in relief camps set up mostly in school buildings. Schools were closed in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Unlike the winter stand-off, however, there was no evacuation from border villages in Lahore and to the south. Nor were hospital patients sent home. Not much citizens’ interest was visible in the civil defence drills and there was no rush of volunteers. Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto started a trend by claiming that a representative government in Pakistan could not only prevent a war now but also guarantee lasting regional peace. The government, however, preferred non-binding ‘consultation’ with politicians of its choosing. The major parties stayed away, insisting that the regime needed to yield more political ground to gain their support. This did not stop the government from claiming consensus on the ‘core issue.’ Trade unions, non-government individuals and organizations and minor parties offered their good offices for initiating a de-escalation of the situation leading to normal relations. The existentialists were as divided as ever on what was desirable policy. There was a deep mistrust of one another, state institutions and the world at large. The silent majority remained resigned to fate, amused now by plans of improvement in civil defence arrangements, now by reports that Pakistan had refused to rule out first nuclear strike. Some Lahoris seemed to take heart from the report that an imminent fall of the metropolis would trigger a nuclear attack on some Indian city. Some even took a silly pride in it. *********** THE president also apologized in his address to the nation for “certain irregularities” in the referendum. He said he was saddened by reports that unworthy acts by some ignorant and careless people had disappointed his well-wishers. As has been quickly pointed out by the opposition, an apology does not undo the damage. The general seemed to imply that popular support for him was obviously so overwhelming that the irregularities could not have affected the outcome. They had been unnecessary. This, of course, is contested by the opposition. But where does that lead us? To another referendum? Certainly not. But unless something is changed the admission is not only meaningless but also counterproductive. It has already given the opposition another argument in support of its challenge to the legitimacy of Musharraf presidency beyond October. So what did the president have in mind by way of a concession to the opposition? Could he be hinting at appointing a new chief election commissioner? If so, why does he have to go about it in such a roundabout way? The problem, as President Clinton had warned during his visit to the region, was that the people here were irresponsible. Much as we might resent the diagnosis, there is an unmistakable ring of truth about it. No, it is not a direct quote from the former US president. He had, however, regretted that prominent people, including government leaders, tended to ignore consequences of their actions and decisions. Once the damage was done, good intentions were the ready excuse. Also, when proved wise-too-late, they still trusted their wisdom. A realization, even acknowledgement of mistakes did not, therefore, lead to an atonement. Where the proverbial lamb could be found, the sacrifice was quick. Where there was none, they concluded that the episode represented the highly improbable event of their making a mistake. The law of chance being what it is, the happy conclusion was that another mistake could now be ruled out. If anything, it made them even more arrogant. Weird logic, but it goes on. *********** AN irate traffic police officer stopped a Dawn staffer pushing his motorcycle with a flat tyre at the Shadman intersection last week. “Why do you think you can get away with a violation,” he demanded. Bewildered, the Dawn man denied such a claim but the officer was not listening. Summoning a subordinate, he ordered the issuance of a ticket and left in a huff. The subordinate demanded registration papers for the bike and the driving licence. Having gone through them, he wanted to know what the violation had been. “Shouldn’t you be telling me?” the motorcyclist asked. “I did not catch you, sir. Col Saheb did.” The biker pleaded that the question of a violation did not arise for the simple reason that he had not been — and could not have been — driving. The officer found the story incredible but would not let him leave. Presently a colleague saw him and stopped to ask what the matter was. The policeman’s explanation was: “No. I don’t want to issue him a ticket. I just want him to stay until I can spot a motorcyclist violating some rule and issue a ticket. Col Saheb will remember he caught a motorcyclist and I wish to keep my job.” *********** SENEGAL, one of the lowest ranked teams in World Cup football, delighted those rooting always for the underdog with their shock victory over holders and favourites France. That the West African nation had been a French colony may have made the victory even sweeter in Dakar. France, clearly the more refined team, dominated the game for the most part but lacked sharpness in the absence of star player Zidane. They also seemed to have given up rather early on penetrating the determined defence and chosen long shots and unconventional tactics. One of the enduring attractions of competitive sport is the fact that history cannot determine the outcome. To win, a team must not only have the potential on paper, but also perform on the field. There are 32 teams comprising outstanding athletes and very professional managers and the tournament has just begun! — ONLOOKER Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
