Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (44925)	11/2/2003 6:47:01 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

An asinine virtue Abdul Basit Haqqani People learn from one another, import what others make and turn this knowledge to good or bad uses. The principal point in common between Pakistan and India is that they ‘consistently’ turn things to bad uses. And that is nothing that either side can be proud of The other day the Foreign Office spokesman reiterated Pakistan’s consistent policy of not sending troops to Iraq. ‘Reiterated’ and ‘consistent’ are words that we are fond of, probably because reiteration becomes necessary because of scepticism about the consistency of policies. Unfortunately, however, repetition of oft-used words seems to work because the word ‘consistency’ is misused. Statements are not believed because they are inconsistent with the facts not with previous pronouncements, though they often are that too. This is not meant to imply that the spokesman, an honest and upright man, was prevaricating on the issue of dispatching troops to Iraq. That may be the policy, but what is it consistent with? It may ‘agree’ with previous declarations but is it also of a piece with what has actually been done? After all, Pakistan did vote in favour of the last Security Council resolution on Iraq and thereby helped provide a degree of legitimacy to the illegality of Washington’s action. Having done that, the question of sending forces there, to die in place of the men and women of the occupying power, is only a matter of practical consideration, primarily domestic, rather than of (another oft-used word) ‘principled’ position. My reason for bringing up this minor, and forgettable, episode in the saga of Pakistan’s diplomacy was different. It was not to blame the spokesman for what he said. He, after all, only speaks for others and belongs to a ‘front’ organisation which is useful as a scapegoat when policies devised by people with an M. Sc. degree in Strategic Studies go hopelessly wrong. My intention was to draw attention to a fixation with ‘consistency’ that pervades our political culture and is akin to the value placed on ‘political stability’ by ‘democratic dictators’ who achieve this by excluding the demos in democracy. In quite the same way, it is thought creditworthy that policies are ‘consistent’. Thus, Pakistan’s education policy, despite the occasional flourishes introduced to deceive, has been consistent. It has also been remarkably successful in what it was intended to achieve — to keep the people ignorant. But should we boast about it? For the past few days, another drama has been unfolding on the diplomatic stage of the subcontinent. Proposals to build confidence and improve relations were announced in a manner ‘consistent’ with the behaviour traits shared by both countries. It was an opportunity for each side to score points at the expense of the other. Confidence building was seasoned with irrational threats from India (this is the ‘last initiative’ and the prime minister will get ‘tired’ — this last an unnecessary reminder that the gentleman is an octogenarian and almost an invitation for Pakistan to send a masseur to Delhi). At the end of the to-ing and fro-ing of proposals, we may move, in Lenin’s immortal phrase, one step forward, two steps back. Some weeks ago, there had been yet another display of consistency by the two neighbours. Pakistan let off a series of rockets. The Indians dismissed the whole thing as of no importance. The matter could have rested there but it was too good an opportunity to miss for the mutual insult brigade. So it was stated that Pakistan had received help from abroad with the clear implication that Pakistanis did not have the intelligence, or the capacity, to master the scientific and technical intricacies involved. India, on the other hand, did. Its programmes of mass murder sprang from purely domestic genius. One would think that a gigantic genetic mutation took place at the time of partition and the intelligence of those who became Indian was boosted by a factor of twenty while the mental capability of Pakistanis was reduced by a similar margin. This would have been a ridiculous argument to get into except for the ‘consistency’ of our policy of tit for tat. So our spokesman, like the Indians, first dismissed the whole thing as unimportant, but then went on to say that the Indian programme was dependent on foreign help and imports, as evident by the embargo which had been placed on exports of certain equipment and technology to that country. However, Pakistan’s achievement was purely ‘indigenous’, another word that is used with great consistency. Neither side seems to realise that there is no such thing as autarky in science and technology, or even in materials and equipment. People learn from one another, import what others make and turn this knowledge to good or bad uses. The principal point in common between Pakistan and India is that they ‘consistently’ turn things to bad uses. And that is nothing that either side can be proud of. Several decades ago a British House of Commons style debate was held in Government College on the topic, ‘Consistency is the virtue of an ass’. Those who participated in that debate have either gone to a better world or now suffer, like me, from ‘sixtyitis’ (my rendering of the Urdu sathya jana) and make no contribution to the formulation of policy. But even the youth of that time knew that consistency is only a small step from obstinacy. It is only our rulers who don’t know that policies should be changed to meet changed circumstances and whenever it is in the national interest. There is little point in being proud of a quality that distinguishes Equus asinus. Basit Haqqani is a former ambassador