| 06 June 2004 | Sunday | 17 Rabi-us-Saani 1425 |
Not a ritual observance
Attacks on ambulances
Pakistan and India, which are now nuclear powers, appear to have come round to exploring a rational approach to the arms race. President Pervez Musharraf has offered to reduce Pakistan's nuclear arsenal if India agrees to do the same. Earlier, Foreign Minister Natwar Singh had said that India would seek a trilateral dialogue with Pakistan and China for a common nuclear doctrine. Of course, these are tentative proposals and by themselves do not signify any tangible change in the ground situation. But such statements should be welcomed as positive moves for two reasons.
First, any commitment to open talks on nuclear disarmament should clear the air between the two South Asian neighbours which had been locked in a bitter confrontation until a decision was taken in January to open a dialogue. Second, if the two countries decide to consider arms cut moves, it should put a halt to the arms race which has characterized relations between them.
One doesn't have to emphasize the danger posed to peace in South Asia by a policy of building up huge nuclear arsenals. They are very well known. Cutting down on weapons of mass destruction would be a sensible move in view of the peace, economic and diplomatic dividends it would yield. As the president pointed out, Pakistan has been striving for a nuclear weapons-free zone in South Asia for several decades.
However, such a zone cannot be created without mutual agreement between the two sides. For India, the limiting factor has been its arms race with China. One of the reasons determining New Delhi's security doctrine has been its competitive relationship with China. Thus the exchanges between India and Pakistan as well as between India and China have been more of a trial balloon with no serious negotiations on the cards on a security regime in the region involving the three countries.
If something were to come out of this move and India and Pakistan were to open talks on arms cuts, it could result in meaningful measures being adopted. Whether China's participation is to be on a trilateral level or on a bilateral level with New Delhi, it would have to be worked out after preliminary talks. Until the framework is worked out, it would be a good idea for India and Pakistan to agree on a moratorium on further arms testing which invariably conveys the wrong message to the other side about a burgeoning arms race.
Just as the two have agreed to put a stop to rhetorical exchanges to allow a cooling of the atmosphere, a mutual agreement on a ban on the show of the military muscle would also calm down belligerent emotions in the region. Caution requires the two governments to refrain from using their defence and nuclear policy as a political weapon to counter attacks from critics and opponents at home. Irrespective of what they might claim, any arms build-up cannot be said to give different signals to critics at home and governments abroad.
A country can have only one strategic/security policy; it should be carefully planned and when any arms cuts are planned, it has to be modified accordingly. Many problems have been created by governments seeking to play to the gallery rather than working in good faith on a disarmament policy that is in the interest of the two countries and the region.
Not a ritual observance
World Environment Day fell on June 5 and this year the theme had to do with clean seas and oceans. As usual, several street rallies, walks, poster competitions, speech contests, clean-ups by schoolchildren and other related activities were held. Once the day passes most people forget about the importance and relevance of such issues and it will be business as usual again.
The government will continue to give lip-service, just as the NGOs will go back to their plush offices and resume holding seminars where the same issues will be talked about ad nauseum. As for society in general, it will go back to its apathetic ways. All the stakeholders concerned will have already forgotten that the right to breathe fresh, smoke-free air, the right to drink clean water and the right in general to lead a life in hygienic surroundings free from pollution. These are all rights as fundamental as any other.
Setting aside a day in a year might seem all right from the point of view of making people aware of the importance of the focal point of the occasion. However, the more important aspect is to promote legal measures where necessary and social action is encouraged to contain the problems of environmental pollution in Pakistan. The debate for a cleaner environment has to come out of the drawing rooms, bureaucratic catacombs and airconditioned NGO offices and into the minds of ordinary people.
The government should implement the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act of 1997. It could begin by holding the meeting of its governing council which has met only once in seven years. It should make the environmental tribunals in the provinces functional and should lend some financial, technical and legal muscle to the provincial EPAs so that they can carry out their jobs more effectively.
Attacks on ambulances
One is shocked by reports that, in Karachi, during the MMA-led strike on Friday, ambulances were not allowed to do their duty. Some ambulances were denied movement while some Edhi vehicles were stoned. In the past, too, ambulances have been attacked. (During the PNA movement in 1977 angry crowds burnt some ambulances down.) On Friday, reports say, some patients died because Edhi workers were not allowed to drive the ambulances.
In all, the Edhi Foundation received 210 distress calls from heart patients, but in many cases ambulances could not reach them or carry them to hospitals. This is astonishing and reflects adversely not only on those who called the strike but also on society at large which seems to have lost all feelings of compassion, kindness and regard for human lives.
We know, of course, that those who called the strike would blame "anti-social elements" for the attacks on ambulances. But that is being evasive. Any party or group that gives a call for strike must ensure that those who respond to its call conform to certain norms of discipline and propriety while protesting. Ambulances are allowed to work even in war zones, and armies and political authorities not only do not interfere with their work; they help in clearing the way for these services.
That our society tolerates this heartlessness by "some miscreants" should be a cause for anguish for us. Since strikes have become a regular phenomenon in our life, it is time all leaders of opinion, ulema, politicians, NGOs, human rights lobbies and women and teachers' groups joined hands in a concerted campaign against a trend that, with the passage of time, seems to be getting worse.
This can be done through joint appeals to the public - in the electronic and print media - to uphold the sanctity of ambulances and all relief activity. The aim should be to raise awareness about the issue and to emphasize the point that it is the duty of every citizen to help rather than obstruct relief work.