news details |
|
|
| Reticence is hallmark of Chinese politics | | | NIRBHAY JAMMUAL
Reticence is the best political activity. The Chinese are the only expert in playing the game of political reticence. Those in India and Pakistan are considered chirping politicians who lose their shirt over a trifle. In the Indian subcontinent every action finds instant reaction. If a ruling political leader in Pakistan makes a statement slightly critical of India Delhi is gripped by fury of political activity in the shape of counter reaction to what was said in Islamabad. If Delhi treats Kashmir as an integral part of India Islamabd is quick to react believing that immediate reaction is battle half won.So far understandable. But what is beyond comprehension is the way rulers in Delhi react to an incident or event in a distant corner of the world.
At times politicians in India and Pakistan register their presence by reacting to some minor development in the neighbourhood. If Pakistan says that the situation in India is not congenial for India-Pakistan cricket tests even those totally unconnected with the game react angrily, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari described militants, operating in Jammu and Kashmir, as terrorists. India was quick by reacting favourably to his statement. Separatists in Kashmir were quick to condemn him. The PDP did not miss the chance of criticising Zardari. All of them were newsmakers of the day.If the USA carried out nuclear tests India remains first to react against it.On the contrary the Chinese wait for the nuclear test exercise to settle down and if Beijing feels a statement is called for it issues the one.The lack of the quality of being reticent has travelled from politicians to the common people.The Indian cricketeers are today heroes if they win a test match or a one-dayer.They are subjected to ridicule if they lose another test.
In the game of reacting and counter reacting one accuses the other of interference and the vice versa.If the elections are rigged in Pakistan India is the first to react or comment.Such a reaction or comment is greeted by the established jargon of interferring in the internal matters of Pakistan.If there is poor percentage of polling in the Assembly election in the Kashmir valley Pakistan is quick in ridiculing this democratic exercise in a state where nothing short of a plebiscite is warranted.
On a number of occasions India has reacted angrily against Pakistan's abetment in crossborder terrorism.Pakistan has been equally vocal in denying its involvement in aiding terrorism in Kashmir.And when India loses its patience it submits documentary evidence in support of its claim that Pakistan has been providing material support to militants to the US Government.The Indian charge is based on repeated annoucements by Islamabad that it provides only moral and diplomatic support to militants operating in Jammu and Kashmir.Against this the Chinese are reticent when they have been providing material,moral and diplomatic support to insurgents in the north-east regions of India.The Chinese do not believe in wordy duel but in action which speaks volumes about the military might of Beijing.Such an attitude is missing in the Indian subcontinent because India,Pakistan and Bangladesh do not have that much of military strength which can help them to settle scores militarily.Hence they indugle in war of words.
Is it necessary for India to react if the US Government announces hefty military and financial aid to Pakistan ?Is it mandatory for Pakistan to react if India receives military hardware either from Russia or from America ?Politicians in the two nations do it because of their fear of being over run by the rivals.And if there is any political segment that is quite prompt and aggressive in reactiong to an action it is the Kashmiri separatists.They speak,as if it is their birth right,on any issue even if it does not relate to them.It is this zest for reacting or over reacting that there is no unity among the separatists.Instances are galore.Moderates have favoured dialogue with Delhi.They have supported opening of roads for trade and travel.Hardliners have opposed both.Which side is correct ?This not important for them because they wish to score over each other.The result is chaos and confusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
