Vajpayee on ‘necessity’
ONE would have welcomed Mr Vajpayee’s statement on Wednesday that war was not “a necessity” had he not, in the same breath, ruled out talks with Pakistan. Speaking to reporters at Lucknow, the Indian prime minister made a most welcome statement when he said he would put in all efforts to avoid war. “If diplomatic methods can be applied to resolve the existing problems,” he said, “I don’t see why we should resort to other means.” Pious words, indeed. But, then, this exactly shows the dichotomy in Indian words and deeds, for “diplomatic methods” are exactly what Mr Vajpayee’s government is not applying as a matter of policy. On the contrary, it is the outside powers that are pleading with Islamabad and New Delhi to end the eyeball to eyeball confrontation on the borders and begin talking.
During the last couple of days, among those who have pleaded for restraint and dialogue are leaders ranging from Jordan’s King Abdullah and Oman’s Sultan Qaboos to US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan. Earlier, several times, since India turned the mysterious Dec 13 attack on the Indian parliament building into an excuse for a military confrontation with Pakistan, world leaders have urged restraint and pleaded for talks. They included Presidents George Bush, Jiang Zemin, Jacques Chirac, and Mohammad Khatami, Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Mahathir Mohammad, virtually all SAARC heads of government, and, of course, Mr Kofi Annan. None of them has said something out of the ordinary. On the contrary, without exception, all of them have realized what the consequences of a war in South Asia would be and called upon Pakistan and India to exercise restraint and ease tension and resort to talks. India, on the other hand, has been persistently following a course that is the anti-thesis of what Mr Vajpayee called “diplomatic methods.” Instead, his hawkish ministers, among them Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh and Home Minister L.K. Advani, have either pugnaciously ruled out talks with Pakistan or, if at all, offered talks with a condition attached. The ludicrous condition is that Pakistan should stop supporting “cross-border terrorism.” There have also been veiled hints at using nuclear weapons. Addressing an Arya Pratindhi Sammelan, Mr Vajpayee said no weapon would be spared in “self-defence.” Later, however, he had the good sense to retract the threat, saying, “I never meant nuclear weapons.”
As against this sophistry, Pakistan’s position has been honest and straight-forward. All along, it has offered talks without conditions. Both President Musharraf and Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar have never once attached any conditions and, instead, offered talks as a solution not only to the present stand-off but also to the long-standing Kashmir issue.
It is now obvious that the SAARC summit meeting now under way in Kathmandu will achieve little, going by its track record since its founding in 1985. While it is true that SAARC is not a forum for discussing bilateral issues, President Musharraf and Mr Vajpayee or the two foreign ministers could have met on the sidelines to defuse tension. Such an attempt would not have militated against the charter and spirit of SAARC. By repeatedly announcing to the world that they would not talk to Pakistani leaders at Kathmandu, the Indian leaders have merely publicized their hubris and arrogance for the whole world to note.
Profit, but for whom?
PTCL’s chairman recently announced some good news for its shareholders. The company, he said, had a record Rs 62.04 billion in sales in 2000-01, earning a net profit of Rs 18 billion, the highest ever. The corporation employs around 56,000 people, he said, and earns around 80 per cent of its revenue from local and domestic calls, with the rest coming from international calls. This robust financial position also allowed PTCL to give its shareholders, in the words of its chairman, “handsome dividends”. It is indeed encouraging to see companies — especially a utility — doing so well at a time when business is not exactly booming. However, it must be pointed out that the benefits of this financial success have not really been passed on to consumers in the form of improved customer services. Even as far as tariffs are concerned, the line rent has been recently increased, and prices of local calls, which provide the bulk of revenue, have continuously been raised.
The reason a company like PTCL is able to earn massive profits despite a negative public image is due in large part to its monopoly status, guaranteed by law. However, this will end by December this year and then perhaps competition will force it to shrug off at least some of its complacency. The measure of any telephone company’s efficiency, as far as its customers are concerned, is linked to the time taken to respond to a user’s complaint and rectify it. Despite increased digitalization of its network, PTCL has a terrible record in this. Other than that, subscribers have been waiting for over five years now for getting their telephone directories. And they keep dialing the ‘17’ assistance number for hours but no one responds. So, may we then ask, what really is the point in making so much profit when PTCL subscribers — without whom none of this would have happened — continue to be treated with complete indifference?
Coping with fog
THE dense fog that has engulfed most parts of the country over the past two weeks has disrupted normal life and caused many fatal accidents. Temperatures have dropped sharply, and Tuesday was the coldest day of the current season in Lahore. Similar weather conditions have persisted in several Punjab cities from Jhelum to Multan. Transport all across the country has been affected. Traffic on roads and highways has been disrupted, and rail and commercial flight schedules have been badly upset, causing great difficulies for passengers. At places, visibility was reduced to 20 metres after midnight, creating traffic hazards.
Coping with this natural phenomenon has become almost an annual feature for the last many years. Its intensity seems to be increasing with the rising pollution levels. The contaminated smoke and dust remain suspended in the air for longer periods, adding to the chill and posing serious health hazards in the form of breathing disorders and chest ailments. Given the casualties and the serious disruption of life it causes, the provincial EPAs must make a concerted effort to lower the level of pollution. Which means the authorities must chalk out a plan to strictly enforce the anti-pollution laws that already exist on the statute book and penalize those who wilfully poison the atmosphere. If tough action is taken against polluting industries, vehicles and individuals, it will be possible to at least reduce the intensity of the fog over time.
Many European cities, particularly London, have managed to reduce this phenomena to manageable levels by enforcing strict anti-pollution measures. The authorities could do well to learn from such success stories and adapt them to our particular situation. The growing menace of fog and the death and misery it brings with it can be tackled if the government has the will. Not only will strong anti-pollution measures save precious lives; they will also restore the crisp and clear charm of winters past.