Tension at the top?

Power generation may be beyond our capacity these fogged-in and electricity-free days; but the cultivation of a daily crop of rumours brings a harvest of half-truths, untruths and misspeaks for the various branches of the media to mould into ‘the news’. There are obvious dangers in reporting rumour, not the least of these being that most rumours are without foundation and plain wrong – and no media outlet wants to be seen as having got something-or-other so wrong as to have either made themselves look fools or brought opprobrium to a person or institution entirely undeserving of it. Rumours, therefore, have to be handled with care. One rumour has recently gained sufficient currency and substance, despite official denial, to find itself turned into news – namely that a tension exists between the two men holding the apex jobs, the presidency and the prime ministership.

Tales of ‘differences’ between the two have been circulating for weeks, but have never been of sufficient substance to create the warp-and-weft of hard(ish) news until now. The media began to sense that (to quote the Bard) – ‘all is not well in the state of Denmark’ when there was a curious lapse in protocol at the end of the recent visit of the British prime minister, Gordon Brown. It would have been ‘normal protocol’ for the prime minister of Pakistan to stand beside the prime minster of the United Kingdom when there was the final press conference before the visitor departed. But no, it was the president and not the prime minister who stood beside Gordon Brown; and those well-versed in the arcane art of reading the diplomatic runes nodded silently and made notes. Other stories began to surface, one of them offering a little drama as it told of the prime minister hurling a file – which he had allegedly refused to sign – at the wall. The file concerned the reinstatement of employees of the previous Bhutto government; a matter dear to the presidential heart but apparently less so to the heart of the prime minister, who is perhaps wisely looking to the future and not wanting to find himself hoist with his own petard at a later date. Then there are reports of musical chairs in the upper echelons of the bureaucracy that serves directly under both men, with some chairs yet to be sat on despite the music having stopped.

Taken all together and looked at with a critical eye, this batch of rumours and corridors-of-power bedtime stories begins to look like an all-too-familiar real-time scenario rather than the product of the fevered imagination of journalists. An all-powerful president once again is set against a would-be-if-allowed powerful prime minister who might just be flexing his muscles for a bit of a tussle. The president, as evidenced by a recent poll, is far from being the most popular kid on the block, at least in the superheated world of politics. The prime minister by contrast is seen as a mild-mannered yes-man doing his master’s bidding and taking care not to rock the presidential boat. We wonder which of the two will be sitting in the same seat on this date one year hence.


With India-Pakistan tensions still running high, China has stepped in to try and defuse a crisis that is rocking stability in Asia, and indeed across the world. The Chinese intervention is a reminder of just how acute anxiety is over the ferocious war of words between Islamabad and New Delhi that erupted a month ago, following the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. In Islamabad, the Chinese vice foreign minister met virtually every civilian and military leader of any note, including the president, the prime minister and the chief of army staff. They have seemed able to persuade him of the good intentions of Pakistan. The key leaders all stressed their desire for peace while pointing out Pakistan’s right to defend itself. Mr He Yafei has praised Pakistan’s approach and called its attitude ‘constructive’. He will presumably now take this message to New Delhi, where he is to meet Indian leaders. The Chinese dignitary has made it clear that his country is committed to helping both countries avoid conflict and that it wished to urge them to show restraint.

The Chinese diplomacy is welcome. It has seemed clear for some time that there was a need for third-party intervention of one kind or the other. While the war hysteria has mercifully begun to decline, there is a sense that both countries need help in backing away from their entrenched stands. For the moment India continues to demand Pakistan act on evidence made available to it. Pakistan insists it is ready to cooperate in the investigation, but lacks sufficient proof to act against any individual or group. In New Delhi, Mr He Yafei is sure to hear details of the materials India says it has provided to Pakistan and assertions that these be acted on. Indeed, it seems likely the matter would have come up for discussion during the intense talks in Islamabad. Diplomats from the UK and other countries are said also to have discussed the issue with top Pakistani leaders. There is no getting around the fact that it will need to be tackled. Pakistan must accept that terrorist outfits do exist within its frontiers. It must make an effort to break up their networks, but it must do so in a manner that makes it clear it is acting for its own interests, and also those of the world, rather than solely because of New Delhi’s strident demands. China can play a part in assisting it in this.

A compromise between the two positions needs to be reached. India would do well also to pay heed to Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s suggestions regarding the deployment of troops and activation of forward air bases. A palatable solution offered to both countries. But amidst all the diplomatic spiel that is necessary to bring the situation back to normal, it must not be forgotten that terrorists are the real enemy. Both India and Pakistan have a great deal to gain by initiating a joint effort to combat them. The two countries have suffered immensely due to terrorist offensives. The latest peace efforts must then also be directed towards creating a mechanism and a will to take on terrorists together, put the ugly rhetoric of war aside and work towards a South Asia free from militant attacks that have already destroyed so much within the region, and which could, in the future, destroy still more.

__________________
Regards,
P.R.