I’m afraid Humpty Dumpty wasn’t correct. Nor, I would suggest, is the prime minister. Words may have different meanings but you can usually determine what is intended by the context. And that’s also true of most malapropisms. But let’s stick to Lewis Caroll’s philosophy and leave Sheridan’s wit for another day.
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’”
Now why do I think our prime minister has adopted the Humpty Dumpty position? Well, consider the following paragraph from the India-Pakistan joint statement on July 16: “Both prime ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward.
Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue Process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.”
What does that critical middle sentence mean? At its simplest, that action on terror and the composite dialogue should be seen as separate processes not dependent on each other. But does it then follow that even if there is no action on terror, the composite dialogue can (or should) carry on? That’s the Pakistani interpretation. Or that lack of advance on any of the subjects that are part of the composite dialogue must not be used to hold up action on terror? That’s the Indian view.
Read Full Article »