Hiccups in Afghan poll

A remarkable development has taken place in Afghanistan. In conformity with the predictions of President Hamid Karzai and the Americans, an extremely high turnout was witnessed in the presidential elections of October 9.

The turnout, by all accounts, was heavy in all parts of the country, and credible reports suggest that women in large numbers were among those who lined up for hours to cast their vote.

No estimates have appeared as yet regarding the total number of votes cast, nor are there any prospects of official figures being announced by the Joint Electoral Management Body (JEMB) before October 30.

However, eyewitness accounts appear to suggest that the turnout may have been as large as 80 per cent of the registered voters, and that it was just as heavy in the troubled south and southeast as it was in the relatively calmer areas in the north.

The Taliban did not make any serious effort to disrupt the elections and their previous threats had failed to deter the voters even in areas formerly regarded as Taliban strongholds.

Earlier that day, there were fears that the exercise would become infructuous when opposition candidates demonstrated to reporters that the indelible ink with which the voters' fingers were being marked to prevent double voting could be easily washed off.

On this basis, they said that they were boycotting the polls and would demand fresh elections. However, the OSCE election observer team termed their demand for the abrogation of polls as unjustified, bore testimony to the heavy turnout and asked that dissatisfied candidates seek to have their grievances addressed in accordance with the procedures laid down by election laws.

Early on Sunday, it was also announced that an independent commission would be set up to consider the complaints regarding the conduct of the elections. It will take some to determine how genuine the complaint about the indelible ink was and how much of an impact it had.

Afghan officials have maintained that some ill-trained members of the Afghan election staff used the wrong pens to mark fingers, but that this happened only in a few places.

Sitting in New Delhi, I heard the Kabul correspondent of the independent Indian News Channel NDTV explain that the indelible ink used in Afghanistan had in fact been donated by India as its contribution to the election process in Afghanistan.

It was his view that the problem arose because, at the insistence of the Afghans, the ink was supplied in tins rather than in bottles, and its quality may have been affected by its interaction with the metal.

If this proves true, the case for deliberate sabotage at Karzai's prompting is weakened further since Qanooni or other candidates who had received Indian support in the past could not plausibly claim that India had deliberately sought to undermine their election prospects.

It is very probable that many people who had registered more than once voted more than once, but one can be certain that this was done as much by Karzai's opponents as it was by his supporters.

In the meanwhile, the Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan said that over all, a "fairly democratic environment" had been observed in the polling centres by its 2,300 observers.

UN officials and Afghan election officials said that except for minor problems the voting in the five southern provinces went off smoothly, and there was no problem of inedible ink there.

Apparently, pressure was also brought to bear on the recalcitrant candidates by American ambassador Khalilzad and UNSG's representative Arnault. The State Department issued a statement congratulating the people of Afghanistan on their successful participation in the elections, and having noted the complaints, expressed its confidence that the JEMB would review these.

President Bush declared the election a success while making no mention of the boycott call. National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was quoted as being "just certain" that this election would be deemed legitimate.

Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld described the elections as "breathtaking" and added that even while he recognized that the media would criticize the minute errors, including the fact that "some ink came off", the elections were an "enormous accomplishment". There was thus no room for doubt left about how the American administration wanted the elections to be viewed.

Nor was there any doubt about how the rest of the western world felt about this. The EU representative in Afghanistan was involved in the effort mounted by the UN and the US to persuade the candidates to accept the appointment of the independent commission as a sufficient reason to drop their call for new elections.

Chancellor Schroeder, while in Pakistan and en route to Afghanistan, let it be known that despite the problems the election had been a success. Almost certainly, as a result of this, a number of candidates, most notably Qanooni, caved in and agreed that the question of the ink should be resolved by an independent commission which would also consider other complaints filed by the candidates until Tuesday evening.

Despite the fact that the immediately publicized call for boycott of elections was given fairly early in the day by all 15 dissenting candidates, there was no diminution in voter enthusiasm.

Many polling stations stayed open till long after the scheduled time to allow those who had queued up to cast their vote. The rejection of the boycott call by the voters must also have had a sobering effect on the candidates, and persuaded them to accept the face-saving opportunity provided by the appointment of the independent commission.

Some of the candidates were, at least in theory, holding out. The spokesman for Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai asserted that the election was not even "one per cent of international standards" and that numerous reports of voter fraud had been received.

However, like the representatives of other dissenting candidates, he also stated that Ahmadzai did not intend protesting formally to the independent commission since they did not believe that the Afghans working for the commission were impartial.

It would appear, therefore, that what appeared to have the potential of becoming a major crisis has now been defused so as to appear no more than a minor hiccup.

Form will still have to be observed. At the time of writing, it has been announced that the independent commission will be a three-man body consisting of a Canadian diplomat, a Swedish election expert and a member yet to be nominated by the JEMB.

It was also announced that while the collection of the ballot boxes at the eight counting centres would continue and poll officers would count the number of votes cast at each polling station to ensure that they do not exceed the number of registered voters for that polling station, they will not mix them with ballots from other centres as per election rules. The mixing and formal counting of votes would start only after the independent commission ruled on the complaints of the candidates.

The result would appear to be a foregone conclusion. Karzai would be the clear winner. If the protests of the candidates and the heavy peaceful turnout in the predominantly Pushtun south where Karzai was clearly the candidate of choice were not evidence enough, we also have the evidence provided by an exit poll conducted by 230 teams sent out by The International Republican Institute.

The latter has close links with the Republican Party but no direct affiliation. It found Karzai ahead of Qanooni by 43 percentage points and an unnamed candidate in third place with only five per cent of the vote.

The NGO revealed that this poll was based on the findings so far obtained from a little more than 10,000 voters, but it was confident that the margin of error would not be more than one per cent.

This is a credible finding and should be regarded as such even though it comes from a pro-Bush organization that is clearly interested in getting acceptance of Karzai's success well before the counting of the votes is completed so that it has a favourable impact on Bush's own election prospects.

Once he has been formally declared winner, Karzai will no doubt have to give significant posts to the Panjsheris, the Uzbeks and the Hazaras for the sake of ethnic balance.

Perhaps some such assurances have been held out already on his behalf. But following his legitimization by the election, he will be dealing with them from a position of far greater strength than he was as interim president.

Two significant consequences flow from the fact that this historic election has invited such enthusiastic participation and has been free from violence. First, Bush will be able to portray this as a genuine success and as a vindication of his policy, giving the lie to the implicit assertion by Kerry that by diverting attention and resources to Iraq, Bush had given a fresh lease of life to terrorism and the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

It has gone so much better than had been expected that it will also cause many in America to believe that Bush's policies may prove to be equally successful in Iraq. The fact that the Mahdi army of Moqtada Al-Sadr is now being disarmed in Sadr City and that there has been a visible diminution in the level of violence in Iraq in the last week will lend him further credence.

With this will come, if he is re-elected, further expressions of appreciation for the role the added presence of Pakistani forces on the border played in reducing the Taliban's disruptive capabilities.

Second, it would be naove to assume that the Taliban, who until a couple of days before the elections were still able to mount fairly significant attacks and whose power of intimidation remained largely unimpaired, have become impotent.

It is far more likely that Karzai's wooing of the moderate Taliban, Pakistan's influence on these elements, and the dangerous consequences that would have flowed from the disenfranchisement of the Pushtuns, helped the moderates prevail in Taliban councils.

They could then force the representatives of the Al Qaeda and the hard-line Taliban to permit violence-free polls and to renounce attempts to persuade the Pushtuns to boycott the elections.

Many of them may now join the mainstream. If this analysis is correct there will be positive consequences not only for Afghanistan but also for Pakistan where extremists have drawn strength from the activities of the hard-line Taliban and their Al Qaeda mentors.

Needless to say, Karzai, too, will have reason to be grateful to Pakistan. All in all, the vast majority of Pakistanis have reason to be pleased with the way in which the election has gone and the hiccup has been handled.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

Writing on the wall

A district nazim is reported to have prohibited the use of walls for the writing of any kind of slogans, for or against anything. An explanation not forthcoming, it is presumed that he is possibly worried what some people may write about President Pervez Musharraf's uniform and get him (the nazim) into trouble.

While not wanting to see the writing on the wall is an understandable weakness with us, it seems that short of banning all sorts of walls, this particular nazim has thought it prudent to stop people from writing on them.

My new neighbour, a German diplomat, has got the landlord of his house to extend the height of our mutual boundary wall by means of white corrugated iron sheeting.

When I referred to it as the Iron Curtain, he swore he was not the usual snooty European diplomat taught not to fraternize with Pakistanis for fear that they'll start asking for visas. I have decided to believe him, though this Berlin Wall rankles.

The newspaper report does not specify the walls to which the nazim's order applies. Is it in respect of boundary walls or ordinary house walls, and does it cover jail walls and toilet walls? The last-mentioned (their insides at least) are the most favourite writing tablets for graffiti composers and are witness to many a literary gem that was born in a washroom and died there.

If the administration could stop people from writing on walls, a large number of persons in every city would lose their means of livelihood. You would then not be able to read slogans in Urdu saying, "Join our jihad and see Kashmir," or "Ustad Yusuf, the only reliable astrologer."

A pertinent comment on the powerlessness of a Pakistani president was found written one morning on the wall of the presidency when ZAB was prime minister. It said, "Release poor Chaudhry Fazal Ilahi!"

There are advertising agencies in every city, without posh offices and without pretty girls sitting at reception desks, which specialize in transmitting your message on to bare walls, whether the message is a demand for Islamization or about a popular washing machine or carries the address of a quack to whom you can turn after dissipating your youth.

The practice is so widespread that if the advertisers were told that a wall-owner does not like such inscriptions they will not understand why. They believe all walls are public property and writing on them is a freedom guaranteed by established custom. If you can defecate against them why can't you inscribe a message on them?

It is not the advertisers' fault that the number, length and height of walls in the country are increasing day by day. This is not because more and more houses are being built.

It is because walls provide a psychological protection against social contamination and fear of the unknown intruder. In Lahore's Model Town before partition you couldn't have a boundary wall on the side of your house facing the road.

It could only be a green hedge. Now most of the houses there have become enclosed in walls. I see no other reason for this than a feeling of insecurity. People get frightened even when other people look at them from outside.

It is not only the citizenry that is infected with fear. The authorities too seem to suffer from unknown dangers. Danger from where? Fear of what? Of the common people maybe. Look at the boundary wall of Lahore's beautiful Governor's House.

In any civilized country the house would be displayed to the people on fixed days, as the White House is. But what do the inmates of this palace do? Every few years they make the wall more and more impregnable.

In the early sixties, the wall was raised by a couple of feet. After a few years the top surface was treated with broken bottle glass, This was followed by an additional three feet in height in the form of barbed wire. The latest device to protect the inmate is searchlights every 20 yards or so along the wall.

Add to this the routine police patrol 24 hours a day and you get the impression that this is not the residence of the Punjab governor but Fort Knox where the US government keeps its gold.

Go into any street in any part of Karachi or Lahore, or even Islamabad (described as a comparatively safe city) and you will see either new walls being constructed or old ones being raised.

Why do people want to be cloistered, and why this abnormal fear of other human beings? What are we trying to hide? The worry of the rich is understandable, but what's eating the middle class which has hardly anything for dacoits or a grasping government?

Is it that in the prevailing free-for-all, where even the most ordinary family manages to acquire something or the other beyond its normal means, an element of secrecy must be maintained? Is that why there is so much stress on chardivari, the four walls? It is mutual.

You don't peep over my wall and I won't peep over yours. In localities with bungalows, huge iron gates bar the entry of even the residents who have to honk the car horn for minutes before they are let in.

The more sophisticated have a two-way talkie at the gate so that visitors may announce their identity. The only thing now left is to have a password. If sonny has forgotten it when he comes home late at night, he may as well go and sleep elsewhere.

One asks, why this obsession to enclose oneself, and against what? I have questioned many friends. "There are no hawkers in this locality, no buffaloes, not even a stray dog.

Against what contingency do you keep your outer gate closed when you can't keep determined interlopers out?" There is no plausible explanation. Only a vague answer, "You never know these days."

We must ask ourselves about the fears of "these days" that haunt us. We must make a collective effort to get rid of these fears, whether they are real or imaginary. We shall have to have more trust in humanity, in our neighbours, in ourselves.

But to fight these fears we must first identify them and also decide whether it is society that can help us get rid of them or the state. It's no use tilting at unknown windmills.

Doing more for mental health

Last week, the Pakistan Association for Mental Health (PAMH) observed the mental health week to coincide with the world mental health day on October 10 organized globally by the World Federation for Mental Health and WHO. This is an annual event.

Much as cynics might be tempted to brush it off as a ritual which has no impact, any discerning observer of the scene cannot fail to note the awareness which has been created in Pakistan, thanks to the endeavours of the PAMH.

True, the stigma attached to mental illness is still there. But mercifully, now more people than ever before know that just as physical diseases affect the body, mental illness affects the mind.

Similarly, there is a growing realization that just as physical ailments have to be treated if a person is to be cured, mental illnesses also require treatment. Moreover, it is now also understood that mental illness has an organic or biochemical cause.

This is an important breakthrough. Not long ago, even highly educated men and women stigmatized the mentally ill, viewing their illness as something shameful.

The unlettered believed the patient to be "possessed". As a result, people who needed help - whether they were educated or illiterate - very often didn't get it. Things are visibly changing.

Yet, a lot needs to be done as the high prevalence of mental illness in the country indicates. Nearly 10 per cent of the population suffers from severe mental illness, and if psychosomatic illnesses are added to the list, the figure jumps to 35 per cent.

Apart from the underlying causes, it is known that the social and cultural environment also exacerbates a person's condition. Given the sense of insecurity created by rampant lawlessness, terrorism and crime the anxiety generated by economic problems and the fast pace of life, people are under tremendous pressure which makes them prone to stress-related and psychosomatic illnesses.

In fact, according to one medical expert, 40 to 50 per cent of the patients visiting a physician are actually suffering from some underlying mental stress which is giving rise to health problems. Medical science has conclusively established that stress exacerbates cardiac ailments, diabetes and problems of the digestive tract and kidneys.

The problem is pretty serious and the question to be asked is what do we do about it. The simple answer which health professionals, especially psychiatrists, have been suggesting (some of them for ages) is to increase mental health facilities in the country, create more awareness about mental illness, do away with the stigma at the social level, increase the course content of psychiatry (at present practically nil) in the medical curricula of the public sector medical schools, and, of course, implement the Mental Health Ordinance of 2001, which after a lot of foot-dragging replaced the Lunacy Act of 1912. All these are very important demands that need to be addressed immediately.

But there were other aspects of the mental health issue which came up at a very interesting seminar the PAMH organized in the course of this week. What clearly emerged from the discussion, in which there were quite a few health professionals, was that the doctors - specialists and GPs alike - have a very important role to play in alleviating people's distress which they are not doing.

Dr Abdullah Mangi, a retired health planner and medical adviser to SESSI, pointed out that attitudes are formed early in life. A physician can shape his patients' attitudes right from the start.

But for that he has to practise the science and the art of medicine. This requires a doctor to listen to his patient and besides writing a prescription also explain things to him and do some counselling.

Dr Mangi was of the opinion that doctors are only practising the science of medicine - dispensing prescriptions like "conveyor belt operators" - but the art of medicine has been taken over by quacks who exercise greater influence on their patients because they give them time and listen to them.

It was conceded at the seminar that some sympathetic hearing and talking by a doctor can cure more than half the ailment being suffered by the patient. In order to orient our doctors towards the art of medicine, Dr Mangi feels that medical ethics must be taught to medical students at the undergraduate level and paramedics, who have a closer interaction with patients, must be adequately trained.

Another important and sensible suggestion came from Dr Anwar Mangi, Dr Abdullah's wife and a psychiatrist. She feels that a distinction must be made between mental illness, stress-related illnesses and emotional strains.

To remove the stigma, students in school should have courses on mental health in their classrooms. It was also suggested that our schools should have social workers and psychologists to counsel students when they are under stress and need to talk to a sympathetic adult.

This is important because a child cannot always talk to his parents, howsoever much they may claim to be his best friends. Sometimes a child may be having problems at home with a family member and may need to talk to an "outsider" who understands but will, at the same time, not betray his "secret".

Some of the schools with fees touching the skies do have counsellors. But what do these worthies counsel their students about? They usually advise the youngsters about which would be the best American university to seek admission to, which would be the most lucrative subjects for them to study, how to do better in their examinations, and so on.

Not that students don't need guidance on these issues, especially when the family and the society has charted out a course for them that will take them on the road of wealth and "success".

But there are also many contradictions and conflicts a child has to come to grips with, and some sound and detached but sympathetic counselling from a person who understands children can do him or her a world of good.

Finally, the most important issue which was thrown up at the seminar and which calls for greater attention from people concerned about mental health as well as the welfare of the people.

It is the dichotomy in our society created by the contradictions in our speech and action. This creates severe stress. This is arguably a major cause of the malaise which is destroying our social fabric.

One has to acknowledge that to a large measure these contradictions are created by the role religion has been assigned in Pakistan. Maulana Ali Murtaza Zaidi, who teaches Islamic Studies to O-levels and Intermediate classes and was a participant in the seminar, made a very rational speech.

He admitted that there are people who are using Islam for political ends and undermining the credibility of religion in the process. He also pointed out that the liberals have allowed the religious leaders to gain ascendancy by attempting to sideline them in their discourse. Since our people are spiritually inclined, they turn to the religious leaders in the absence of an alternative, and not all the religious leaders are sincere.

This subject, especially the stress created by the Islam that is preached and the Islam that is practised, could have done with some further elucidation and discussion. But the maulana was in a hurry since he was getting late for his prayers and the delay was becoming stressful for him.

The seminar provided food for thought and as Dr Uzma Ambareen, the clinical director of PAMH's mental health clinic and the coordinator of the seminar, pointed out that the stigma attached to mental illness causes more suffering than the illness itself and prevents patients from seeking help.

Who cares about the truth?

So, no weapons of mass destruction (WMD). And no programmes to manufacture them either. The final findings of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) come as no surprise, and they conclusively relegate to the realm of fantasy two tiers of the vapid justifications advanced for the conquest and occupation of Iraq.

But, given that the ISG is an organ of the US government rather than an independent entity, it was more or less inevitable that it would try to offer some comfort to the invaders. This takes the shape of its conclusion that Saddam Hussein was determined to revive his weapons programmes once the United Nations sanctions were lifted.

Conveniently, this assertion cannot be substantiated. It is purely speculative and based on hearsay, yet it is now supposed to suffice as a reason not only for maintaining sanctions even after they had served their ostensible purpose, but also for a military assault that has cost tens of thousands of civilian lives.

This, surely, is the stuff that dystopias are made of. Even neo conservatives would distance themselves from the implication that the possible long term intentions of a leader, elected or otherwise, should constitute reasonable grounds for pre-emption through exclusively military means. But not George W. Bush and Tony Blair. To them, the ISG's speculative coda proves that they were right to wreak havoc in Iraq.

In a just world, Bush and Blair would be hauled up before an international tribunal and tried for crimes against humanity - alongside the likes of Saddam and Osama bin Laden.

The difference between the two pairs would, of course, be that while Bush and Blair could be prosecuted in tandem for the same offences, Saddam and bin Laden would require completely separate trials. They had nothing to do with each other, as the US Defence Secretary acknowledged last week.

Being who he is, Donald Rumsfeld subsequently claimed he had been misunderstood. It was, in other words, just another case of the truth inadvertently slipping through lips that ought to have known better.

By the weekend, Rummy had slipped quietly into Baghdad, reportedly armed with a plan to ensure that over the next few weeks the news from Iraq isn't bad enough to undermine the US president's bid for re-election.

That can only be achieved by killing the truth (or, perhaps, members of the international press corps) alongside Iraqis. And all for the sake of preventing regime change in Washington DC.

That shouldn't require too much effort, given John Kerry9s tendency to queer the pitch for himself. Although his fortunes have recovered somewhat after he out-pointed the incumbent in their first two debates, Kerry has been far too cautious on Iraq. He has chiefly restricted himself to the argument that the mess in Mesopotamia is a consequence of the Bush administration's mis-judgments.

That's accurate enough as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. Kerry concedes that the official arguments for the invasion were based on falsehoods, but hasn't been able to muster the courage to unequivocally condemn the war as a duplicitous misadventure that shouldn't even have been contemplated.

Australian opposition leader Mark Latham made the same mistake during the campaign that preceded last Saturday's election, which saw the conservative incumbent, John Howard, returned to power with an increased majority for a fourth term as prime minister.

Australia has only 800 troops in Iraq - a token presence by any measure. But they were deployed in the face of overwhelming public opposition, and the process was accompanied by a series of fairly blatant lies.

Over the past couple of years, the Howard government has also faithfully regurgitated the untruths passed down from Washington and London. Last week's election was the first opportunity for voters to express their dismay. But they didn't. Because throughout the campaign almost no one mentioned the war.

To his credit, Latham never resiled from the position he adopted a few months ago, when he promised that Australian troops would be home by Christmas, and any civilian assistance to Iraq would be provided under US auspices. But it's not something he iterated very often, evidently under American pressure.

On domestic issues, the shrewd and mendacious Howard outwitted the Labor opposition, chiefly through scare campaigns concentrating on Latham's relative inexperience (he became party chief less than a year ago) and the fact that under previous Labor governments, interest rates were considerably higher than they are now.

A large proportion of Australians have mortgages or loans, and weren't willing to take a chance with Labor, despite assurances from leading economists that interest rates depend to a far greater extent on the international economic environment than on which party is in power.

During the five-week campaign, the government also made promises worth tens of billions of dollars, focusing on crucial groups of voters in marginal constituencies. The strategy paid off, in keeping with the trend in Western societies towards what has been described as the best democracy money can buy.

Over the next three years, Australian voters will have ample opportunity to regret their folly, for not only have their increased Howard's majority in the House of Representatives, they have for the first time also given him control of the Senate - the upper house, where the combined force of Labour, Greens and independents has hitherto been able to defeat particularly offensive pieces of government legislation.

That will no longer be possible. Nor is the new Senate likely to keep up the tradition of revealing inquiries into matters of public interest. The Howard government's agenda includes changes in industrial relations laws that would make it much simpler for employers to dismiss employees; changes in media ownership regulations that would enable the same company to own newspapers as well as television channels - something that Rupert Murdoch has long lobbied for; complete privatization of the nation's main telco; further undermining of state-provided health care; shifting resources from state-owned to private schools; and making further education increasingly inaccessible.

And, to top it all, the far-right spot on the parliamentary spectrum has been occupied by a new party called Family First, which is expected to bolster the smattering of Christian fundamentalists within the ruling coalition.

Of course, Australian voters' dire decision to opt for the forces of darkness is unlikely to cause many ripples beyond the nation's shores. Australia, after all, is a small and relatively insignificant country.

An equivalent result in the US election would have repercussions worldwide. Granted, regime change in the US would not lead to dramatic policy shifts - but even subtle modifications in nuance could, in the circumstances, make a big difference.

And, unlike in Australia, the war is a hot topic stateside. It's unfortunate that Kerry can't be expected to emphasize that, contrary to repeated claims by the Bush administration that military action against Iraq was necessitated by defiance of Security Council resolutions, the ISG's findings in fact prove that Saddam had done what was demanded of him.

Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter points out that Iraq sought to infiltrate inspection teams because it wanted to find out why sanctions remained in place despite its compliance.

Baghdad feared - correctly, as it turns out - that the US had an agenda quite different from that of the UN. It suspected some of the inspectors of effectively being American spies. Right again, says Ritter, adding that among the ostensible UN representatives who spoke regularly to senior US officials was Charles Duelfer, now chief of the ISG.

It is a pity that Kerry is reluctant to forcefully nail some of his rival's biggest canards. Electorates the world over take it for granted that most politicians are professional fibbers.

But the sheer scale and audacity of the lies told and repeated ad nauseam over the past couple of years - not only in the US but in Britain, Australia, Italy and Spain - is breathtaking. Unless the trend is arrested (as it was in Spain), it threatens grave damage to democratic institutions.

It isn't clear whether Kerry's ambiguous message is winning many converts, and it appears unlikely he will be able to deliver anything resembling a knockout blow at the third and final encounter with the president.

The White House has nonetheless been worried. Bush looked particularly out of sorts during the first debate, and hawkeyed viewers spotted a square-shaped bulge on the back of his jacket, which had the internet buzzing with speculation about the possibility that he was equipped with an electronic device that enabled a live audio feed from a strategically placed adviser - possibly Karl Rove.

This allegation is unlikely to ever be supported by conclusive proof. The White House kept quiet for a while, then came up with the explanation that the "object" was no more than a crinkle in an imperfectly stitched jacket. The presidential tailor was persuaded to weigh in with a corroborative remark. But the whispers are still doing the rounds in the ether.

Apparently, the suspicions are not unprecedented. Writing in the webzine Salon, David Lindorff cites the instance of a D-Day event in France "when a CNN broadcast appeared to pick up - and broadcast to surprised viewers - the sound of another voice seemingly reading Bush his lines, after which Bush repeated them". The very idea adds a whole new dimension to the concept of a puppet regime.

Email: mahirali2@netscape.net.