archive: Rogue is not the right word
Rogue is not the right word
KC Markandan
The Pioneer
July 28, 1999
Title: Rogue is not the right word
Author: KC Markandan
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: July 28, 1999
Talking to newsmen in Lucknow at the VVIP lounge on June 23, Home
Minister LK Advani dubbed Pakistan as a "rogue and irresponsible
State", with too many "power centres". The use of the term "rogue"
vis-a-vis a "state" is unknown to the English language. One is
familiar with the use of the term in the context of persons, plants
and animals and not beyond. A person is called a rouge if he is a
knave, rascal or a swindler, or playfully "a mischievous child".
Inferior plants among seedlings are also called rogue, the usage being
"weed out rogues from the seedlings". The term "rogue" is also used in
the context of animals, whose behaviour is normally calm, but who have
turned wild, particularly in the case of elephants and buffaloes.
An elephant living apart from the herd, and developing a savage
temper, is called a "rogue elephant". In Tamil Nadu, there is a saying
that if a female elephant turns rogue, the male elephants run in herds
to hide themselves. The thesaurus uses the term "rogue horse" for an
inferior variety.
The use of the term "rogue" by Home Minister LK Advani in the context
of a state was unique. However, he failed to adequately explain why he
called Pakistan a "rogue state". According to him, there were two
reasons to call Pakistan a "rogue state". One, Pakistan has made
cross-border terrorism a matter of governmental policy; and two, its
army, bureaucracy and government are working without any coordination.
The reasons advanced are unconvincing though, as the interviewer did
not choose to seek any clarification.
Intra-State border terrorism is a common phenomenon wherever relations
between two neighbouring countries are inimical or strained. It is not
necessary to give examples in this regard. For Pakistan therefore to
make cross border terrorism a national policy vis-a-vis India, in view
of the relationship between the two countries, is natural. We cannot
expect Pakistan to reciprocate any amount of goodwill and trust that
we may choose to bestow on it and build cordial relationship till
normalcy is restored between the two countries. On the contrary, such
gestures would are looked at as an act of cowardice by Pakistan.
The goodwill shown by India towards Pakistan has often been taken as
an opportunity by that country's leadership to carry out its designs
that aim to seek a revenge for its 1971 humiliation. As recently as in
February this year, a goodwill mission to Pakistan was undertaken by
Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. That country, in response,
thought it was the right time to march its troops, arms and ammunition
into the Dras-Kargil-Batalik sector across the Line of Control into
Indian territory. Is this the way any responsible nation should
behave?
Whether there exists any coordination or not between the various wings
of the state machinery within Pakistan, its military leadership seems
to have achieved its objective. It has also given Pakistan a
diplomatic victory of sorts. Kashmir has after all acquired an
international focus. Its much touted diplomatic isolation, on the
other hand, could be a temporary phenomenon.
Pakistan should be characterised as "a Machiavellian state" and not a
"rogue state". Mr Advani should perhaps read The Prince. If not the
entire book, he must read its last chapter. Pakistan has combined the
qualities of a fox and a lion. Its behavioural pattern is not that of
a "knave, rascal or a swindler", an "inferior plant among the
seedlings". Or that of a wild elephant with a savage temper. On the
contrary, it has emerged as a devious state, one that complies with
the Machiavellian description.
Mr Advani was perhaps tempted to use the adjective "rogue" in the
context of Pakistan since his expectations of decency from its leader,
"Sharif", were belied. for Mr Sharif turned out to be a rogue. Hence
perhaps the description of Pakistan as a "rogue" state.
Back
Top
|
