Sense & Insensibility
All the talk about all those talks
WE have a rich tradition of sitting down with political opponents to "talk" about problems across the table. From the presidential house or the prime minister's office down to the tiny union council office in the village, people have been sitting and talking, talking and sitting, since time immemorial. But our experience shows that in the end, from most of such talk or baithak, nothing substantive transpires, as everyone sticks to his gun. It is like the arbitration where one party says: "I shall accept whatever the verdict is, but the mango tree is mine." Hence, in most cases, talks or dialogues turn out to be a classic example of "much ado about nothing."
During the Pakistan days, we heard of many round table talks between Ayub henchmen and political leaders from East Pakistan (Bangladesh). Our leaders kept their hold-alls and paan dibba ever ready, in case call for a round table came from Rawalpindi. Most of such talks were about removing disparity and equitable distribution of wealth between West Pakistan and East Pakistan. But once there, our leaders watched in shock how jute, tea and hide money earned by East Pakistan was being used to build Islamabad, and massive edifices in West Pakistan with the best of mosaic slabs and expensive modern fittings. So much for dialogues.
Then there was the marathon talk initiated by the Yahya-Bhutto clan in Dhaka, that continued till March 23, 1971. The talks continued, centering round how to transfer power to the elected representatives and who would be the prime minister of Pakistan. It was obvious from the 1970 election results that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would be the prime minister. But they needed meetings, talks, baithaks, dialogues and what not, to settle the issue! Every day seemed like a month, as the entire Bengali nation waited with bated breath. Then came the night of March 25, when the outcome of that marathon talk was announced in the language of machine guns and mortars. So much for sitting down across the table with the Pakistani military junta!
Ah! Now we intend to backtrack to the recent past and reminisce about the legendary "dialogue" between Awami League's Abdul Jalil and BNP's Abdul Mannan. When the nation remained in a cliff-hanging position, when people waited outside the Parliament building, when the entire media of the country remained watchful outside, the two leaders came, smiled, waved and disappeared inside for hours. When they came out, every day, they said there was progress in their dialogue. What kind of progress? You will know about it soon, was the ready answer.
In one instance, Abdul Jalil became irritated at the questions of the media people, and said unless there was any progress in the talk why should he be wasting his time here. Perfect. It was the answer of a seasoned politician. But was it? It didn't take the nation to realise that Abdul Mannan was taking Abdul Jalil for a ride, but strangely enough the "clever" Jalil had no inkling of it. He had been coming and going when there was no progress at all! They hadn't progressed an inch, beyond drinking cups of tea and munching on some biscuits, all provided by the exchequer.
On the last day, the blank face of Abdul Jalil said it all. He had no idea that Abdul Mannan had no power to commit anything during those tumultuous days. He had no authority to allow an inch to the opponent because he knew if he did so then his head would roll outside on the pavement.
If you recall, it was BNP that benefited from the so-called "dialogue," because the drama had brought to an end the agitation of Awami supporters on the roads, who had been demanding that the 4-party alliance relinquish power and hand it over to a caretaker government. But, because of the dialogue drama, BNP could reach the wee hours of its 5-year rule. While Awami supporters expected Abdul Jalil to produce the "trump" card this time around, he came out of the Parliament building for the last time ashen faced, empty handed.
With such "historic dialogues" strewn all over our political history book, we are now a little skeptical about the efficacy of such modus operandi in gaining any mileage on the political track. We keep hearing about the caretaker government or the Election Commission sitting down with the political parties for dialogue. Have the political parties, especially the two major parties, ever sat across a table to take vital decisions for the greater interest of the country? They did not even listen to one another when the parliament sessions were on, which was the designated venue for initiating talks on things of national interest. Sorry, they did sit down, forgetting all the differences and forgetting all the bickering. They sat down and talked and reached consensus when it was about their own interest, such as, raising salary and perks, getting NAM flats, obtaining duty free cars, etc.
When one talks about a dialogue, one has to be sincere about starting it with no strings attached, whether it is on the part of the government or the political parties or among the political parties. The mindset has to be one of give and take and not take only, like that thing about the mango tree.
When it comes to greater national interest, politicians should not try their quaint antics, which they do all the year round. In a dialogue they have to be clever but not sly; they have to be focused but not ignorant; they have to be clear but not evasive. The bottom line is: National interest must come before personal or party interest. If politicians cannot develop such a mindset, they will never be able to do any good for the nation. Talk or baithak will produce nothing.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments