Multispeak disorder

Will the government please extricate its foot from its mouth and speak sensibly? Given the suddenness with which the crisis hit, members ...

Will the government please extricate its foot from its mouth and speak sensibly? Given the suddenness with which the crisis hit, members of the Cabinet can be forgiven for struggling to arrive at the precise words to describe Kargil. Over the last few days the country has heard the Prime Minister, Defence minister and Foreign Minister variously call it a 8220;war-like situation8221;, 8220;a war of sorts that has not been declared8221; and 8220;an armed intrusion amounting to aggression8221;. Not quite the same thing but such semantic trouble can be taken as an attempt neither to play up or play down the situation. The national security adviser has been less cautious.

Brajesh Mishra thought it appropriate to bring up 1962 on television quite unnecessarily in the context of opposition criticism of the government. All this inexactitude would not need particular attention if the government did not also betray confused thinking in other more serious ways.

There appears to be a substantial difference between what the NationalSecurity Adviser and the External Affairs Minister expect out of talks with Pakistan8217;s Foreign Minister. Mishra thinks they may provide an opportunity to defuse the situation on the border. To Jaswant Singh talks are meaningless until aggression is vacated. They cannot both be right.

As one presumably prepares for Sartaj Aziz8217;s visit in the expectation of a positive interim outcome and the other to give his counterpart a earful, it is legitimate to ask whether the government knows where it is going with the dialogue. Will it improvise along the way or does it have a clear idea of its objectives? Does or doesn8217;t the government recognise the potential for escalation of the conflict in Kargil? It should and therefore spell it out for Aziz in order to ensure there are no further miscalculations on the Pakistani side. That at the very minimum must be the purpose of talks, if the government is serious about the whole exercise.

It is dismaying to find the government inflicted with verbal diarrhoea as eventsoccur in quick succession. Safe passage not amounting to a ceasefire 8212; George Fernandes8217; latest formula which is supported by what Atal Behari Vajpayee said in Mumbai 8212; is a meaningless twist on words.

It has already evoked criticism because most people do not consider the intruders deserving of any sympathetic treatment, even if they are on the retreat. That apart, the infiltrators cannot get a safe passage without a ceasefire and there cannot be a ceasefire without reliable assurances from the Pakistani government that all occupied positions will be vacated.

All such talk is highly premature and the fact it goes on through the media shows a lack of clarity of purpose. Contradictory explanations about who in Pakistan is responsible for the incursions and whether they are an 8220;aberration8221; or deep-seated conspiracy continue. The government must show it is of one mind about the problem and its solutions. It must speak in one voice, preferably through well-briefed spokespersons, and avoid adlibbing beforethe microphones.