One hopeful note in the present showdown with India is that the statements issued from Islamabad have been remarkably measured and, compared to the past, generally temperate. Gone is the rhetoric of unreality, threatening the other side with unimaginable consequences, as in the previous crises. The empty-ness of those threats were proven by the fact that Pakistan did not fare well in any of its military action with the neighbor next door.
Meaningless and irrational rhetoric seems to be quite peculiar to Muslims in general and Pakistan in particular. Though one might hasten to add that India is not to be left behind in that regard. Recently, one spokesman from New Delhi promised to “wipe Pakistan off the face of the earth.” Surprisingly, no one on the Pakistani side responded in kind. Perhaps this is a sign of new maturity for the leaders in Islamabad. Maintaining a cool stance in face of escalating crisis seems to be a distinct style of Pervez Musharraf’s leadership. This type of behavior is badly needed by the leaders of the country and, one would hope that those who follow in his shoes would emulate his example. Shrill and irrational rhetoric has never paid any dividends and has only served to alienate friends and foes alike.
At the beginning of the twentieth century President Theodore Roosevelt advised America “to speak softly and carry a big stick” in its dealings with foreign countries. The United States has always done that as a matter of course since the founding of the republic.
But in Pakistan and the Muslim world it is just the opposite: the leaders speak loudly and carry the smallest possible stick. Just listening to their threats is enough to send a chill down ones spine. The language used is so extreme and irrational that the threats carry no credibility. The declarations are taken to be the ravings of a lunatic who has no understanding of reality.
When Saddam Hussein promised the “mother of all battles” in the Desert Storm the late night TV comedians had a field day with him. Even the serious newscasters had a tough time maintaining a straight face reporting the news. Almost overnight the Iraqi strongman became more of a joke in the media than he was already.
Perhaps in the medieval mind-set threats may have some meaning but in the modern world it is the actions that speak louder than words. “We are there to defend ourselves,” is how George Bush, senior, put it before he began his systematic campaign of bombing the Iraqi forces in Kuwait. American military action was presented as a means of “defense” against a “dictator with weapons of mass destruction.”
In 1971 Yahya Khan promised to march on to New Delhi and his representative at the UN huffily walked out of the meeting of the Security Council. These types of intemperate behavior were costly to Pakistan leading eventually to its dismemberment. In a world where presentation of a positive and cooperative image is important the use of extreme language only demonizes the individual responsible for those words and puts the country he represents in a bad light. The international community’s negative perception of Pakistan is due largely to what its leaders say and do.
When Benazir Bhutto pledged to fight “for a thousand years” against India the words she used made her look irrational in the international media where she had previously enjoyed a favorable press. And Pakistan as nation was thought to be “crazy” to have a leader like her.
The use of extremist rhetoric has rapidly escalated in Pakistan and represents a dramatic departure from the cool, logical and composed language of Quaid-i-Azam. The shrill, irrational and intemperate rhetoric is the language of political discourse in contemporary Pakistan. Just about anyone who stands before a microphone, a politician, a mullah or a village elder states his ideas in the most uncompromising and dogmatic form imaginable. Facing up the current tensions the CE, and his spokesperson General Rashid Qureshi, seem to show the country how to state their position firmly in the coolest possible manner. At some point Pakistani leaders have to become mature, civilized and sober in their political discourse. Perhaps that time has come with the present crisis.