| October 18, 2002 | Friday | Sha'aban 11, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
New setback in Ulster
Sartorial rigging
AT long last India has seen the wisdom of withdrawing its troops massed along the border with Pakistan for over ten months. Nearly a million men will now go back to their peacetime locations, thus ending what was an utterly senseless and costly stand-off. Tensions between the two countries touched new heights when India, following a terrorist attack on its parliament building in New Delhi, massively deployed its troops along the border with Pakistan, with the Indian prime minister threatening “decisive” action against this country. In May-June, South Asia came dangerously close to an open military conflict. All along these nerve-racking months, Pakistan maintained a dignified posture of restraint, condemning terrorism, repeatedly offering talks to New Delhi for resolving all disputes, including Kashmir, and a phased withdrawal of troops by both sides. But the Indian response was consistently negative. It refused to talk to Pakistan, unless Islamabad stopped what New Delhi called “cross-border terrorism.” India obdurately stuck to this refrain in the face of many impartial assessments speaking of a virtual end to infiltration of militants across the Line of Control in Kashmir. This attitude, more than anything else, explains the ten-month long stand-off.
However, now that good sense seems to be prevailing in India, it is time the BJP-led government in New Delhi drew a balance sheet of what the military stand-off has given to the two countries, especially to India, which started it. The confrontation has cost the two countries billions of rupees that could have been better spent on the welfare of their people. While Pakistan, too, has suffered a drain on its resources, the cost to India has been much higher because of the larger size of its deployment and longer lines of communication. More important, the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation did not serve to raise India’s stature and image. Instead, the international community noted that New Delhi was threatening war on Pakistan while this country was critically engaged in the war against Al Qaeda on its western front. This cost India a great deal in terms of goodwill. India was also hit economically when many western multinational companies withdrew their expatriates. This especially hurt India’s IT industry. Another senseless action by India was to cut off road, rail and air links with Pakistan. This served no purpose other than creating problems for the two countries’ nationals. Commercially speaking, Pakistan’s losses were less, because fewer Pakistani flights were affected than India’s.
One hopes the decision to withdraw troops will now be followed by more steps that will have a positive impact on Indo-Pakistani relations. The first and foremost need, of course, is for the two countries to open a dialogue to resolve the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan has repeatedly indicated its willingness to do this any time and anywhere. Meanwhile, road, rail and air links snapped in December should be restored. This will remove a source of inconvenience to the two countries’ nationals and help develop trade, which, in the absence of normal communications, has continued informally. More important, this will create a congenial atmosphere in which the two countries can better address their problems and remove the irritants in their relationship.
THE consensus emerging on London’s decision to suspend the beleaguered Northern Ireland assembly ahead of next May’s general election in the troubled province seems to be a case of a difficult but necessary step. The British and Irish prime ministers, the White House and the bipartisan Northern Ireland leadership said the suspension was the only course left open to Westminster after allegations of spying by the IRA and imminent resignations by the unionist ministers threatened to plunge the province into political chaos. This is the fourth time the Stormont Assembly has been suspended since the 1998 Good Friday Accord that paved the way for a joint Catholic-Protestant rule in the province involving unionist and republican representatives.
The present crisis was precipitated by the unionists’ demand that the republican Sinn Fein members be suspended for their continued involvement in spying on secret government documents and making these available to the IRA paramilitaries — a euphemism for terrorists, who have not fully complied with the conditions set in the 1998 accord requiring them to disarm. For their part, the republicans insist that paramilitaries on both sides need to disarm simultaneously for any meaningful peace to endure in the strife-ridden province. The British minister for Northern Ireland, while suspending the Belfast first ministry on Monday night and imposing direct rule from London, said the suspension should give both sides the breathing space to think through their future strategies so that a more stable joint government emerges following next May’s general election. It seems the key to keeping the peace over the longer term lies in complete disarmament of the paramilitaries on both sides, who could very well count on the good offices and assurances given by the major stakeholders — London, Dublin and Washington — in the peace process, without having to lose face.
WE are indeed a quite remarkable people. When the atmosphere literally bristles with political problems, our cabinet secretary has found the time — and seen the need — to issue a directive asking all federal ministers, secretaries and other key officials to wear the “national dress” on formal occasions. The directive does not appear to define “formal occasions”, but it does go into great detail about what the national dress should look like, down to “black shoes (loafers or with laces?) and matching socks”. Only the number of buttons on the waistcoat and/or sherwani has not been specified. Black socks in blazing summer! But let this minor matter of sartorial discomfort pass. What is more relevant is why issue a directive like this a day before the general election? Our ministers and bureaucrats who have been ruling over us for the past three years under the military-led government wore what they pleased, and it pleased us that they did. They looked neither less smart nor shabbier than their predecessors under Zia, who first brought on the shalwar-kameez-waistcoat regime. They also probably did no more or no less work than their forerunners who sat trussed up in waistcoats and sherwanis.
President General Pervez Musharraf was seen in public either in suits or casual wear, and we are quite certain that what he did or didn’t do to the nation has nothing to do with what he wore. Perhaps the cabinet secretary has anticipated what the expected induction of a large number of maulanas in government might lead to and the administration, as in many other areas, wants to take pre-emptive steps here also. But this dress rigging and dress management should be done away with. Fine, if on state occasions, people wear formal dress, but otherwise let our ministers and officials be. Let them wear what they find comfortable. Even in the so-called cleric-ruled Iran, ministers and government officials wear western suits. Lastly, Thomas Hardy in The Ruined Maid: ‘You left us in tatters, without shoes or socks,/ Tired of digging potatoes, and spudding up docks;/And now you’ve gay bracelets and bright feathers three!’—/ ‘Yes: that’s how we dress when we’re ruined’, said she.