Rajpal's Column

2nd August 1998

SAARC: Why English only?

By Rajpal Abeynayake

Is it a subcontinental linguistic accident that all SAARC leaders who addressed the summit in Colombo did so in English? And these are the jingoists of the world?

Though its not for want of translation facilities at the BMICH the leaders who addressed SAARC last week all did so in an alien tongue. Whether this was by pre-conference arrangement or not would be an interesting query for the curious, but it seemed that English had by default become the lingo of South Asian statesmanship.

Even a cursory eye at the summits of other similar bodies such as ASEAN or G7 would indicate that these meetings are conducted in a heady mix of languages. Some of the recent world summits on the other hand have had a sartorial consensus as well, and there was one recent occasion when all heads of states attending a summit in Indonesia were required to don colourful batik shirts.

Why language would be germane at all would be a fair question if lingo is after all is only a vehicle for communication. Is a common SAARC identity to be forged by sacrificing individual identities in favour of an alien device? Why NOT English? One may as well ask, why not three piece suits and power frocks for the ladies? Its not a problem of substance but yet its a problem of substance. If we in this part of the world should so effortlessly ditch our linguistic identities its also paradoxical that this geographical area is the home to so many divisive conflicts. Anybody shed any light on this?

Tailpiece:

No war and no more war,

No war shall come again,

Then came that Hitler lunatic fanatic

Upon the Denzig corridor

The cause of all this fearful war is none but nasty Hitler

May the Lord in heaven send down upon him seven balls of thunder!

That old wartime ditty would leave no room for guessing as to who caused WW2. Hitler caused the war . it was his pernicious psyche that did it, and all the woes of WW2 could be directly heaped at his door.

But since the end of WW2, the world has been desperately seeking for the Hitler sequel. The modern world has seen Hitler in Saddam Hussein, and now doomsday scenario's have been read into the possible future actions of both Vajpayee of India and Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan.

It is in this backdrop that the laid back profiles of Sharif and Vajpayee at last week's SAARC summit in Colombo seemed almost out of the surreal. Two months ago, if memory serves right, these two leaders were painted as the world's most dangerous sabre rattlers who were dangerous because they were advanced, but more dangerous because they were thought to be primitive in the gut.

That image was surely belied by the pictures of Sharif and Vajpayee looking more like pet poodles than pugnacious warlords. Vajpayaee has a cigar chomping avuncular manner that was underscored by his low profile at the summit. By all standards, these leaders were low key. Neither Sharif nor Vajpayee offered any smart yapping sound bites for the camera; Not even a Truman like give me hell speech was offered by either the Pakistani Premier or his Indian counterpart. Yet these were supposed to be the leaders who wielded the button that could unlock nuclear Armageddon.

The sceptical would definitely say that geopolitical realities cannot be explained in terms of individual personal traits, but yet those who sized up Hitler always said that it was his audacity and nothing else that caused world War 2.

Why is it that the bilateral talks between Vajpayee and Sharif were kept essentially out of the major TV news channels of the world? If this twosome were portrayed a few months ago in these same channels as two of the modern world's most dangerous influences, how is it that their détente a few months later becomes marginalised from the world headlines? Is it because it had already been decided by the leaders of the former nuclear club that Vajpayee and Sharif are villains ? Would that make it difficult for them to make a turnabout and say that these leaders deserve a closer glance because they have met and spoken in a statesmanlike spirit. Though it may have been an uneasy detente it did better than the nuclear standoffs of the past that pitted American leaders against Soviet leaders in those Cold War winters. The Nawaz-Vajpayee talks by themselves may have not yielded anything to write home about, but the news here is that the talks took place in the first instance. There was no thunderous curtain call or applause when the two leaders met bilaterally, but the fact is they met, and the world media essentially ignored this . If they'd prefer to keep casting them as the villains of the piece that's their problem, but what deserves to go on record is that when leaders are capable of statesmanlike conduct they should probably be given the credit for it. .. Especially when it is a fact that they are vilified prominently when they show their aggressive face.

Commentary

Editorial/Opinion Contents