Art of Dealing with the Weather-George and Bowie
By T.P.Sreenivasan
This may be an apocryphal story, but worth recounting as the weather has turned the United States topsy turvy, with flights canceled, trains stranded, roads blocked, holiday plans scuttled and people put to endless misery. The most powerful and scientifically advanced nation bowed to mother nature.
The story is about the visit to Washington by the President of India, Dr.Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan at the time of President John F.Kennedy. The presidential helicopter landed on the White House lawns in torrential rain and the entire welcome ceremony was ruined. As President Radhakrishnan braved the rain and finally stepped into the White House, President Kennedy said: "Mr.President, I am sorry, we have not yet developed the science of controlling the weather." President Radhakrishnan did not miss the arrogance in that statement. "Don't worry, Mr.President," he said, "we in India mastered the art of dealing with the weather centuries ago."
The ancient Indian art of dealing with the weather came in handy this Christmas Day for us. Having complained that the Christmas was not white this year for the sake of my daughter-in-law, Sharavati, who preferred the cold New York to the warm Bali for a holiday, eight Sreenivasans set out for La Guardia airport, ready to fly out for Montego Bay via Atlanta. The Delta lines appeared thin for Christmas day and we congratulated ourselves for booking our flights after Christmas eve. Then came the shocker that all flights to Atlanta were canceled because of bad weather there and we should remain in line for alternate flights to Montego Bay. There were rumours that there was nothing wrong with the weather and that the Delta employees were on a slow down strike.
Of course, the Delta employee, with whom we spent the next hour, with children sleeping on chairs and all of us making various suggestions, was indeed slow, but helpful. She took a long time to locate the Sreenivasans, an Unnikrishnan and a Choksi and finally when she did, she decided to arbitrarily make us into pairs and send us in different directions such as Cincinnati, Colorado and Sacramento. When we wanted to make changes in the pairings, she adamantly refused, as though her computer would not accept such logic.But our persistence paid off and she found seats on a direct flight to Montego Bay from JFK, but not without insisting that she would book us only two at a time. As Roopa and Durga were the last pair ordained by the computer, they had to wait the longest.
As we were lounging in exhaustion in a corner, a huge African- American employee in Delta uniform walked towards us menacingly and we were ready for some stern advice about airport behaviour. We could barely make out his accent when he asked us: "What remains short even if we add anything to it?" Then only we realised he was trying to keep us amused with a riddle. We dont know, we said in consternation. "The word"short"!", he said triumphantly and walked off to the next group of weary passengers!
Having obtained the seats on a direct flight the next day, we started to deal with the situation. The first thing to remember was that Roopa's parents would arrive in the next hours expecting to have an empty apartment for themselves and they would have to cope with eight Sreenivasans for a night. But we had faith in their ability to put up with us just for a night. We gave them a surprise by not telling them the happy news that we would be there to receive them. The weather was still good, though there were predictions of a snow storm the next day afternoon. We said triumphantly that we would take off before the snow arrived and settled on inflated mattresses and convertible sofas.
We drove the next morning to JFK with the confidence that all of us had confirmed tickets. There were hardly any passengers to be seen and we thought we had a whole plane to ourselves. Armed with boarding passes, we breezed through immigration and security, feeling great that there was no pat-down on any of us except little Durga, who was given special treatment.
After two hours of joyful savouring of sandwiches and cofee and coconut water in anticipation of the tropics, we were invited to board and as we stood in line, we heard an announcement seeking volunteers to stay back and get a package of some Delta dollars, hotel room, food vouchers and taxi fares, together with confirmed booking in Business Class three days later. We joked that we could volunteer and stay back, but dismissed the thought immediately as we wanted to be together in the balmy Jamaica before the arrival of the snow storm in New york. We decided to help the airline by spreading the news of the offer to those in line, but no one obliged. Then came the surprises of surprises. Delta was seeking volunteers to find seats for us, Lekha, myself and a Jamaican lady, whom we had seen even on the previous day. There was only one seat for the three of us. We became the reluctant volunteers as both of us could not go and the Jamaican lady boarded with our children, who wished us a happy stay in New York as they bid a reluctant goodbye.
Delta kept the promise and gave us a handful of vouchers and sent us back home in a stately limousine to be received by smiling Unnikrishnans and snow flurries, which had begun to dance in the wind. Within hours, a snow storm, unprecedented since 1996, turned New york into a mountain of snow. We sent out the news on Facebook and Twitter to get an avalanche of messages and phone calls suggesting activities ranging from reading to honeymoon. We saw the power of social networking.
We too called our fellow KICian, Attorney Ram Cheerath,who, we heard, had already spent a day at JFK, not knowing when he would leave. Apparently, 'Etihad' had told him that their flight was on time and he took seven hours to get to the airport only to find that the counter was closed. He could not return home and he told us there was not enough food and water there to go round. We could give him nothing but a lot of sympathy.
Only one caller to us, Bowie, the wife of the musician, George Mathew, a close friend of Sree, who had visited us in Trivandrum a few months ago, said that she and her husband would like to come over with some food. Mathew, who had brought symphonic music to focus on global humanitarian issues,had raised funds for war victims in Darfur and flood victims in Pakistan. I had heard about his new project, "Beethoven for the Indus Valley."
I assured Bowie that we had stocked up food and that the Gristedes next door was still open. But she insisted on coming and I agreed, thinking that they would not be able to make it. But there they were, not only with a bag of chicken stew and material to make the Kerala specialty, puttu, but also a bundle of joy, their three months old son, Akbar, about whom we were not even aware!
They made puttu in our own kitchen and after a delightful meal, they walked into the pouring snow, not even sure of getting a cab. We could only pray that they reached home safely and they did. As we settled down to our snow prison term for the next three days, we wondered what prompted the Mathews to brave into the brutal weather outside with a little baby. The art of dealing with the weather was never on such splendid display! Bowie was not even born in India. She had learnt the Indian art from her husband.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
China Reacts to my Rediff Article
I am flattered that 'Global Times' China has responded to my Rediff article on India China relations.
(http://www.rediff.com/news/column/column-india-china-relations-worse-than-in-1962/20101221.htm)
By using selective quotations from the article, the newspaper has characterised my article as "irresponsible" and contrasted it with the statements made by the Foreign Secretary and the President of India. This is standard practice for the Chinese press. Interestingly, the paper has not listed among the examples the J&K related developments ie the stapled visas and the disappearance of the length of the border. This indicates that they see those as the more negative elements in Chinese policy. A colleague has just sent me an English translation, which is below. I wish the Chinese themselves had denied the assessment instead of using public statements of Indian dignitaries!
The article appeared in the Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)
‘Some people in India continue to make provocative statements with regard to China-India relations. A few days ago, former Indian ambassador to the US Mr. T.P. Sreenivasan made an irresponsible assertion that the future of China-India relations is bound to result in conflict. He also said that the current state of China-India relations is even worse than 1962.
According to Rediff India news report on 21st December, in a commentary on India-China relations, Mr. Sreenivasan said, “Those who know China would not be complacent enough to think that the China threat is an illusion”. He said, “It is no more a question whether there will be a confrontation between India and China, but when it will take place”.
He further said that the current state of China-India relations is worse than 1962. Sreenivasan listed the following examples: In 1962, China had not gifted Pakistan with nuclear weapons; however, it has gifted two nuclear reactors to Pakistan in 2010. In 1962, there was only a border dispute; however, in 2010, there is not only a border dispute, but “China also occupies tens of thousands of square kilometers of Indian territory”.
Mr. Sreenivasan is currently the Director General of Kerala International Centre which is an Indian foreign policy think-tank. He is also a member of Indian National Security Advisory Board. His remarks above seem to run contrary to the views of Indian authorities. Commenting on the recent visit of Premier Wen to India, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said that this visit has deepened the understanding and trust between the two countries and is important in the context of further development of relations between the two countries. On December 16, President Prathiba Patil said after meeting with Premier Wen that she hopes that the friendly relations between the two peoples would last for generations and also said that this visit is significant, coming as it does on the 60th anniversary year of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries.’
I am flattered that 'Global Times' China has responded to my Rediff article on India China relations.
(http://www.rediff.com/news/column/column-india-china-relations-worse-than-in-1962/20101221.htm)
By using selective quotations from the article, the newspaper has characterised my article as "irresponsible" and contrasted it with the statements made by the Foreign Secretary and the President of India. This is standard practice for the Chinese press. Interestingly, the paper has not listed among the examples the J&K related developments ie the stapled visas and the disappearance of the length of the border. This indicates that they see those as the more negative elements in Chinese policy. A colleague has just sent me an English translation, which is below. I wish the Chinese themselves had denied the assessment instead of using public statements of Indian dignitaries!
The article appeared in the Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)
‘Some people in India continue to make provocative statements with regard to China-India relations. A few days ago, former Indian ambassador to the US Mr. T.P. Sreenivasan made an irresponsible assertion that the future of China-India relations is bound to result in conflict. He also said that the current state of China-India relations is even worse than 1962.
According to Rediff India news report on 21st December, in a commentary on India-China relations, Mr. Sreenivasan said, “Those who know China would not be complacent enough to think that the China threat is an illusion”. He said, “It is no more a question whether there will be a confrontation between India and China, but when it will take place”.
He further said that the current state of China-India relations is worse than 1962. Sreenivasan listed the following examples: In 1962, China had not gifted Pakistan with nuclear weapons; however, it has gifted two nuclear reactors to Pakistan in 2010. In 1962, there was only a border dispute; however, in 2010, there is not only a border dispute, but “China also occupies tens of thousands of square kilometers of Indian territory”.
Mr. Sreenivasan is currently the Director General of Kerala International Centre which is an Indian foreign policy think-tank. He is also a member of Indian National Security Advisory Board. His remarks above seem to run contrary to the views of Indian authorities. Commenting on the recent visit of Premier Wen to India, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said that this visit has deepened the understanding and trust between the two countries and is important in the context of further development of relations between the two countries. On December 16, President Prathiba Patil said after meeting with Premier Wen that she hopes that the friendly relations between the two peoples would last for generations and also said that this visit is significant, coming as it does on the 60th anniversary year of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries.’
India-China Relations in 2010 worse than in 1962
The bewildering questions that haunt mankind like “who?” and “when?” may have nothing to do with the names of Chinese leaders, Hu and Wen, but they bewilder us as much today as the eternal questions always did. Even the best Indian minds are unable to fathom the intentions and inclinations of the duo, which is poised to take the leadership of the world. After the latest Wen visit, it is no more a question whether there will be a confrontation between India and China, but “when” it will take place and “who” the dramatis personae will be when it occurs.
We have assurances from those who know China well that 1962 will not happen again. They contend that China is no more an isolated dragon, learning the art of breathing fire into the neighbourhood. As it has grown huge and powerful, it has become domesticated and responsible and would like to tango with the elephant. The elephant can relax in the thought that the dragon will not step on its toes or its fiery breath will not incinerate it. But there is one condition: the elephant has to tango to the tune of the dragon. The dragon, in the meantime, grows big enough to swallow the elephant at short notice. But we are also assured that the dragon is not as strong as it appears and it has bad entrails, which may afflict it at any time.
The year 2010 is certainly not 1962. At that time, there was only a border dispute and the presence of the Dalai Lama to provoke a war. Today, those two still remain and China misses no opportunity to remind us that there was “a certain unpleasantness” in the relationship sometime in the past. According to our calculations, China still occupies 38,000 square kilometers of Indian territory in Ladakh and another 5000 square kilometers, ceded to it by China in Kashmir. Nothing has changed in that situation since the devastating defeat of 1962.
On the other hand, there is much at the close of 2010 which should cause us concern. In 2010, 1600 km of the border between India and China suddenly disappeared from Chinese maps, which amounts to nothing but handing over Kashmir to Pakistan. It is not even a disputed territory anymore. One has to see whether China has extended its border with Pakistan by the same extent. In 1962, China had not gifted Pakistan with nuclear weapons. In 2010, China has added two more nuclear reactors to a country, which has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world. In 1962, people of Jammu and Kashmir and those who worked there could get Chinese visa on their Indian passports. Today, they have to use Chinese staples to attach themselves to their motherland. In 1962, China did not characterize India-China relations as fragile, but in 2010, China warns us that it is so fragile that India should take the responsibility not to let it break.
India and China were not incommunicado in the years preceding 1962. Prime Ministers met and talked, but China gave no inkling of its intentions to take law into its own hands. The dozen meetings our Prime Minister had with Prime Minister Wen, including the one at the end of 2010 should give us no cause for comfort. Stung by India’s attendance at the Oslo ceremony, Prime Minister Wen made it a point not to concede an inch on the core issues of concern to India. Is there any precedent for such a result in previous meetings?
The trend of 2010 was for the most powerful states in the world to come to India to sign contracts, which could have been signed at other levels. In fact, many of those contracts were finalized years ago at the level of experts. President Obama got USD 15 billion, President Sarkozy got USD 16 billion and Prime Minister Wen got even more. President Medvedev must be having his own package to carry home. The friendliest among them all was the one who got the least, Prime Minister Cameron of the UK, who put Pakistan on notice for terrorism against India in so many words. President Obama at least reprimanded Pakistan for giving safe havens to terrorists and expressed his hope that one day India would be a permanent member of the Security Council. President Sarkozy expressed dismay that India was not on the Security Council as yet. All of them sang for their supper, but Prime Minister Wen took the contracts and gave nothing in return. No opposition to Pakistani terrorism, no talk of permanent membership of the Security Council. He cannot even do without staples! The increase in trade envisaged (USD 100 billion by 2015) will benefit China more than India. Unlike the others, he did not think it was necessary to make political concessions for economic benefits.
Indian assertiveness in response too is a far cry from 1962. At that time, India had just completed its mission to get the Peoples Republic of China its rightful place in the world, having even declined the permanent seat in the Security Council offered to it, instead of China. We had not challenged Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. India had never provoked China even to the extent of taking the position we have taken in 2010 that if Tibet is important for China, Jammu and Kashmir is equally important for India.
Prime Minister Wen offered the panacea of trade for all the ills in the relationship. To think that the situation today is better than that of 1962, one has to be an optimist with a vengeance. Perhaps, war clouds are not gathering over the Himalayas because of the nuclear status of the two countries. Perhaps, the future war will be in cyberspace and there will be no clouds to detect. We could take comfort in the fact that China’s rise is peaceful and the dragon is more than willing to tango with the elephant. We may also take comfort in the fact that we are cooperating with China in Doha, Copenhagen and Cancun. Otherwise, those who know China would not be complacent enough to think that the Chinese threat is an illusion.
“Grandpa Wen” played with the children and spread sunshine and cheer. But his visit was a clear signal that, if anything, India-China relations are worse in 2010 than it was in 1962.
The bewildering questions that haunt mankind like “who?” and “when?” may have nothing to do with the names of Chinese leaders, Hu and Wen, but they bewilder us as much today as the eternal questions always did. Even the best Indian minds are unable to fathom the intentions and inclinations of the duo, which is poised to take the leadership of the world. After the latest Wen visit, it is no more a question whether there will be a confrontation between India and China, but “when” it will take place and “who” the dramatis personae will be when it occurs.
We have assurances from those who know China well that 1962 will not happen again. They contend that China is no more an isolated dragon, learning the art of breathing fire into the neighbourhood. As it has grown huge and powerful, it has become domesticated and responsible and would like to tango with the elephant. The elephant can relax in the thought that the dragon will not step on its toes or its fiery breath will not incinerate it. But there is one condition: the elephant has to tango to the tune of the dragon. The dragon, in the meantime, grows big enough to swallow the elephant at short notice. But we are also assured that the dragon is not as strong as it appears and it has bad entrails, which may afflict it at any time.
The year 2010 is certainly not 1962. At that time, there was only a border dispute and the presence of the Dalai Lama to provoke a war. Today, those two still remain and China misses no opportunity to remind us that there was “a certain unpleasantness” in the relationship sometime in the past. According to our calculations, China still occupies 38,000 square kilometers of Indian territory in Ladakh and another 5000 square kilometers, ceded to it by China in Kashmir. Nothing has changed in that situation since the devastating defeat of 1962.
On the other hand, there is much at the close of 2010 which should cause us concern. In 2010, 1600 km of the border between India and China suddenly disappeared from Chinese maps, which amounts to nothing but handing over Kashmir to Pakistan. It is not even a disputed territory anymore. One has to see whether China has extended its border with Pakistan by the same extent. In 1962, China had not gifted Pakistan with nuclear weapons. In 2010, China has added two more nuclear reactors to a country, which has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world. In 1962, people of Jammu and Kashmir and those who worked there could get Chinese visa on their Indian passports. Today, they have to use Chinese staples to attach themselves to their motherland. In 1962, China did not characterize India-China relations as fragile, but in 2010, China warns us that it is so fragile that India should take the responsibility not to let it break.
India and China were not incommunicado in the years preceding 1962. Prime Ministers met and talked, but China gave no inkling of its intentions to take law into its own hands. The dozen meetings our Prime Minister had with Prime Minister Wen, including the one at the end of 2010 should give us no cause for comfort. Stung by India’s attendance at the Oslo ceremony, Prime Minister Wen made it a point not to concede an inch on the core issues of concern to India. Is there any precedent for such a result in previous meetings?
The trend of 2010 was for the most powerful states in the world to come to India to sign contracts, which could have been signed at other levels. In fact, many of those contracts were finalized years ago at the level of experts. President Obama got USD 15 billion, President Sarkozy got USD 16 billion and Prime Minister Wen got even more. President Medvedev must be having his own package to carry home. The friendliest among them all was the one who got the least, Prime Minister Cameron of the UK, who put Pakistan on notice for terrorism against India in so many words. President Obama at least reprimanded Pakistan for giving safe havens to terrorists and expressed his hope that one day India would be a permanent member of the Security Council. President Sarkozy expressed dismay that India was not on the Security Council as yet. All of them sang for their supper, but Prime Minister Wen took the contracts and gave nothing in return. No opposition to Pakistani terrorism, no talk of permanent membership of the Security Council. He cannot even do without staples! The increase in trade envisaged (USD 100 billion by 2015) will benefit China more than India. Unlike the others, he did not think it was necessary to make political concessions for economic benefits.
Indian assertiveness in response too is a far cry from 1962. At that time, India had just completed its mission to get the Peoples Republic of China its rightful place in the world, having even declined the permanent seat in the Security Council offered to it, instead of China. We had not challenged Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. India had never provoked China even to the extent of taking the position we have taken in 2010 that if Tibet is important for China, Jammu and Kashmir is equally important for India.
Prime Minister Wen offered the panacea of trade for all the ills in the relationship. To think that the situation today is better than that of 1962, one has to be an optimist with a vengeance. Perhaps, war clouds are not gathering over the Himalayas because of the nuclear status of the two countries. Perhaps, the future war will be in cyberspace and there will be no clouds to detect. We could take comfort in the fact that China’s rise is peaceful and the dragon is more than willing to tango with the elephant. We may also take comfort in the fact that we are cooperating with China in Doha, Copenhagen and Cancun. Otherwise, those who know China would not be complacent enough to think that the Chinese threat is an illusion.
“Grandpa Wen” played with the children and spread sunshine and cheer. But his visit was a clear signal that, if anything, India-China relations are worse in 2010 than it was in 1962.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Impact of IT on Diplomacy
I am delighted that I have been invited to address the IT Summit 2010, even though I feel a little out of place in the company of technologists and technocrats. I am quite innocent of technology and as for computers, I had thought till recently that personal computers made excellent hat or book stands. For fear of being treated as an illiterate, I learnt from my children and grandchildren to handle email, facebook and twitter. Now I feel very technologically savvy when I see my contemporaries think that facebook is a book on cosmetology and that twitter was invented by Dr. Shashi Tharoor.
Indeed, I represent the generation in transition, someone who has worked mostly with typewriters, carbon paper, stenographers and innumerable drafts and now coping with paperless workplaces. It is a bewildering world, with two kinds of IT posing some of the grave challenges of the 21st century, Information Technology and International Terrorism. One IT was benign so far and the other IT deadly and widespread. Today even the first IT is assuming dangerous proportions, with the prospect of the next world war being fought not with bombs or guns, but with laptops and cell phones. Is IT another Frankenstein monster that man has created?
Our topic today is E-governance, the art of governing a corporation or a country with the gifts of IT. We are entering a world of digital interaction between the Government and citizens, Government and business and between Government agencies. This is still in its infancy in India as our connectivity and network of computers are still very low. But the fact is that the growth of IT has made a big difference to the way Governments function and whether we like it or not, the age of E-governance are upon us.
You will understand if I draw upon my experience in the field of diplomacy to show how IT has transformed the way the Government functions. Perhaps IT has revolutionized the art of diplomacy more than any other profession. There was a time when ambassadors were truly “extraordinary and plenipotentiary” and they were sent to lie abroad for their country largely on their own. Armed with the credentials with the sign and seal of their heads of state, they became masters of their areas of accreditation. They had the authority to make peace or declare war as they deemed fit to secure the interests of their nation. They negotiated treaties, acquired territories and won hearts and minds of foreign nations. Their masters came to know of their accomplishments only when they dispatched a messenger or when they themselves returned to recount their exploits. They enjoyed victories and suffered defeats by themselves. Their dispatches, written at leisure in flowery language traveled to their Governments by the venerable diplomatic bag at snail’s pace. No instructions came and they came late, if at all, leaving ambassadors to their own devices.
Today, both Information Technology and International Terrorism have changed diplomacy beyond recognition. The communication revolution has transformed the way diplomacy works. Diplomats cannot lie abroad anymore because news, both good and bad, travel fast and unless they employ the latest IT tools, they cannot cope with the flow of information. Foreign ministers and heads of state meet frequently and talk to each other on phone, giving the Governments diverse channels of communication at multiple levels. Ambassadors have to struggle hard to remain relevant today. As for the impact of the other IT, International Terrorism, ambassadors have become suspects, being patted down at airports, not to speak of those who have been injured and killed in terrorist attacks.
More than any other department of the Government of India, it is the foreign office and our missions abroad that will have to use IT tools effectively. I recall my days in Fiji, when the paradise was plagued by the first military coup in the South Pacific in 1987. The first thing that Sitiveni Rabuka, the coup leader did was to cut the telephone and teleprinter links with the rest of the world, a standard practice for coup leaders. For three days, I had no contact with Delhi and all I did was entirely on my own. But the British High Commissioner told us that his fax line was not cut as the authorities were not aware of its existence. We learnt our lesson and our High Commission in Fiji became our first mission abroad to be equipped with a fax machine. Today the fax machine has become too antiquated. No military dictator can ever cut communications in the cyber era and no ambassador can claim that he had no way of seeking instructions from home.
The way we report from abroad has also changed dramatically. Till the advent of the fax machine, diplomats used to read newspapers and magazines in their countries of accreditation, absorb them, analyze them and send only the most relevant portions with their considered comments and recommendations to the headquarters. With the introduction of fax machines, we began transmitting texts of everything important, shifting the burden of reading to headquarters. Today, with the world press at the finger tips of decision makers at home, diplomatic reporting is relevant only if it contains instant analysis of a confidential nature. Of course, the confidentiality of diplomatic correspondence, considered sacrosanct has also been violated by Wikileaks, a fall out of technology. When messages were coded and decoded by human hands and transmitted by telegrams, it was possible to share frank assessments without fear of compromise and embarrassment. Not anymore. Wikileaks must have changed the way ambassadors, at least American ambassadors, report.
Today, the Public Diplomacy Division of the Ministry of External Affairs has not only an interactive website, but also facebook and twitter accounts. How times have changed!
IT has brought speed and efficiency and transparency in Governments, it reduces corruption and error of human judgment, but at the same time, opens out possibilities of hacking, manipulation of data and total loss of valuable material. The overarching danger of cyber warfare looms over the horizon. But one thing is certain. No Government, no profession can stem the tide of IT and even if we can, it would be unwise to attempt it. There may be paperless Governments and phoneless conversations, but there can never be Governments without the human touch. Compassion and consideration must remain as important ingredients of Governments. E-governance, however efficient, cannot serve the people without the human touch.
Although India takes pride in being the software super power of the world, we are not even one of the 50 countries in the world, which have e-government ready status. So we have to go a long way in terms of connectivity, adaptation, innovation and creativity before e-governance becomes a reality.
Turning to Kerala itself, I recently had a glimpse of the achievements in this field as a member of the jury which chose products and processes for the e-governance awards. From imaginative websites to user friendly services, there was an array of innovative measures adopted by different departments of the Government. Among them were innovative citizen services of the Kozhikode Collectorate, digital base of doctoral theses of Mahatma Gandhi University and the selection process of engineering and medical students online. These are major accomplishments, but they also show that we have to travel much before we reach anywhere near e-governance becoming a reality. More than anything else, a change in the mindset and attitude is absolutely essential.
I have no doubt that this conference has contributed to the development of IT in Kerala, including the development of our e-governance skills.
I am delighted that I have been invited to address the IT Summit 2010, even though I feel a little out of place in the company of technologists and technocrats. I am quite innocent of technology and as for computers, I had thought till recently that personal computers made excellent hat or book stands. For fear of being treated as an illiterate, I learnt from my children and grandchildren to handle email, facebook and twitter. Now I feel very technologically savvy when I see my contemporaries think that facebook is a book on cosmetology and that twitter was invented by Dr. Shashi Tharoor.
Indeed, I represent the generation in transition, someone who has worked mostly with typewriters, carbon paper, stenographers and innumerable drafts and now coping with paperless workplaces. It is a bewildering world, with two kinds of IT posing some of the grave challenges of the 21st century, Information Technology and International Terrorism. One IT was benign so far and the other IT deadly and widespread. Today even the first IT is assuming dangerous proportions, with the prospect of the next world war being fought not with bombs or guns, but with laptops and cell phones. Is IT another Frankenstein monster that man has created?
Our topic today is E-governance, the art of governing a corporation or a country with the gifts of IT. We are entering a world of digital interaction between the Government and citizens, Government and business and between Government agencies. This is still in its infancy in India as our connectivity and network of computers are still very low. But the fact is that the growth of IT has made a big difference to the way Governments function and whether we like it or not, the age of E-governance are upon us.
You will understand if I draw upon my experience in the field of diplomacy to show how IT has transformed the way the Government functions. Perhaps IT has revolutionized the art of diplomacy more than any other profession. There was a time when ambassadors were truly “extraordinary and plenipotentiary” and they were sent to lie abroad for their country largely on their own. Armed with the credentials with the sign and seal of their heads of state, they became masters of their areas of accreditation. They had the authority to make peace or declare war as they deemed fit to secure the interests of their nation. They negotiated treaties, acquired territories and won hearts and minds of foreign nations. Their masters came to know of their accomplishments only when they dispatched a messenger or when they themselves returned to recount their exploits. They enjoyed victories and suffered defeats by themselves. Their dispatches, written at leisure in flowery language traveled to their Governments by the venerable diplomatic bag at snail’s pace. No instructions came and they came late, if at all, leaving ambassadors to their own devices.
Today, both Information Technology and International Terrorism have changed diplomacy beyond recognition. The communication revolution has transformed the way diplomacy works. Diplomats cannot lie abroad anymore because news, both good and bad, travel fast and unless they employ the latest IT tools, they cannot cope with the flow of information. Foreign ministers and heads of state meet frequently and talk to each other on phone, giving the Governments diverse channels of communication at multiple levels. Ambassadors have to struggle hard to remain relevant today. As for the impact of the other IT, International Terrorism, ambassadors have become suspects, being patted down at airports, not to speak of those who have been injured and killed in terrorist attacks.
More than any other department of the Government of India, it is the foreign office and our missions abroad that will have to use IT tools effectively. I recall my days in Fiji, when the paradise was plagued by the first military coup in the South Pacific in 1987. The first thing that Sitiveni Rabuka, the coup leader did was to cut the telephone and teleprinter links with the rest of the world, a standard practice for coup leaders. For three days, I had no contact with Delhi and all I did was entirely on my own. But the British High Commissioner told us that his fax line was not cut as the authorities were not aware of its existence. We learnt our lesson and our High Commission in Fiji became our first mission abroad to be equipped with a fax machine. Today the fax machine has become too antiquated. No military dictator can ever cut communications in the cyber era and no ambassador can claim that he had no way of seeking instructions from home.
The way we report from abroad has also changed dramatically. Till the advent of the fax machine, diplomats used to read newspapers and magazines in their countries of accreditation, absorb them, analyze them and send only the most relevant portions with their considered comments and recommendations to the headquarters. With the introduction of fax machines, we began transmitting texts of everything important, shifting the burden of reading to headquarters. Today, with the world press at the finger tips of decision makers at home, diplomatic reporting is relevant only if it contains instant analysis of a confidential nature. Of course, the confidentiality of diplomatic correspondence, considered sacrosanct has also been violated by Wikileaks, a fall out of technology. When messages were coded and decoded by human hands and transmitted by telegrams, it was possible to share frank assessments without fear of compromise and embarrassment. Not anymore. Wikileaks must have changed the way ambassadors, at least American ambassadors, report.
Today, the Public Diplomacy Division of the Ministry of External Affairs has not only an interactive website, but also facebook and twitter accounts. How times have changed!
IT has brought speed and efficiency and transparency in Governments, it reduces corruption and error of human judgment, but at the same time, opens out possibilities of hacking, manipulation of data and total loss of valuable material. The overarching danger of cyber warfare looms over the horizon. But one thing is certain. No Government, no profession can stem the tide of IT and even if we can, it would be unwise to attempt it. There may be paperless Governments and phoneless conversations, but there can never be Governments without the human touch. Compassion and consideration must remain as important ingredients of Governments. E-governance, however efficient, cannot serve the people without the human touch.
Although India takes pride in being the software super power of the world, we are not even one of the 50 countries in the world, which have e-government ready status. So we have to go a long way in terms of connectivity, adaptation, innovation and creativity before e-governance becomes a reality.
Turning to Kerala itself, I recently had a glimpse of the achievements in this field as a member of the jury which chose products and processes for the e-governance awards. From imaginative websites to user friendly services, there was an array of innovative measures adopted by different departments of the Government. Among them were innovative citizen services of the Kozhikode Collectorate, digital base of doctoral theses of Mahatma Gandhi University and the selection process of engineering and medical students online. These are major accomplishments, but they also show that we have to travel much before we reach anywhere near e-governance becoming a reality. More than anything else, a change in the mindset and attitude is absolutely essential.
I have no doubt that this conference has contributed to the development of IT in Kerala, including the development of our e-governance skills.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
‘First Draft’ by B.G.Verghese
A conversation with the author after the release of the book
Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer released the autobiography of Shri. B.G.Verghese today in Kochi under the auspices of Kerala Press Academy. I was invited to receive the book and to have a book chat with the author. My remarks and the questions are below. The lines of his replies are indicated, but not full answers.
If I was asked to speak of B.G.Verghese ten days ago, I would have described him as a journalist, who has become a legend in his own lifetime. His outstanding work at the ‘Times of India’, the ‘Hindustan Times’ and the ‘Indian Express’ is the stuff that legends are made of. But today, having read his ‘First Draft’, I would describe him as one of the builders of modern India. As an editor, he has been a sentinel of personal and press freedoms, as an adviser to the Prime Minister he has been the architect of domestic and foreign policy and, as an activist, he continues to provide policy options on intractable issues ranging from human rights, environment, water resource and terrorism to Naxalism. ‘First Draft’ is testimony to the way he has helped shape modern India.
Verghese is a nationalist and an internationalist, having been born in Burma and educated at the Doon School, St Stephen’s and Cambridge and lived in different places in India, with short spells in Kerala. His story is also the story of modern India from the last days of the Raj to this day. In this narrative, the hero often fades into the background and his country comes to the forefront. But his portrayal of history is very personal, given his deep involvement as an influential commentator. As adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, he did not confine himself to public relations and made policy recommendations on domestic and foreign policy. His disillusionment with the emergency and his passion for freedom landed him in the Janata camp, leading to his defeat in his only foray into electoral politics in Mavelikara. He was also a consultant to Defence Minister Jaswant Singh.
Today, he has the status of an elder statesman, with involvement in many causes, a highly respected voice of the conscience of India. We are fortunate to have him with us to present his memoirs to us and also to answer some of the questions arising from it.
1. Allow me, Sir, to drag you directly to the raging controversy about journalism today. Your book gives the impression that as a senior editor, you not only reported history, but also shaped it. You say in the book, “Indeed it was a routine ploy for us at the TOI to ring up party contacts and drop a hint about rumours of a possible Cabinet reshuffle to get the man salivating and ready to share insider knowledge about political goings-on.” In other places, there are hints of your getting politicians together to resolve one issue or another. Do you think Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi went beyond such legitimate activities and brought discredit to journalism?
(BGV said that there was a fine line between contacts for the sake of gathering news and journalists getting close to lobbyists of corporations. Transgressions should not take place, but, happily, in the instant cases, there was no evidence of corruption. They themselves had admitted misjudgment.)
2. You were on the frontline in 1962 to witness what you call the psychological defeat, which was more than the military debacle at the hands of China. You deplore the “imbecility and paralysis that had come to characterize Delhi” at that time. In the last chapter of the book, you list the problems with China. But you say that “it is unlikely that 1962 can ever be repeated” because of China’s own vulnerabilities. But don’t you think China may decide to teach India a lesson again?
(BGV said that relations with China would remain complex. China had become assertive and there were instances of provocation from their side. But China would not embark on any adventure because of its position in the world and its own inherent weaknesses. But India should remain vigilant and also have a pragmatic relationship.)
3. During your stint with Indira Gandhi, you found policy making generally unsatisfactory with last minute changes in speeches and acceptance of ideas on the spot etc. You are specific about little integration between foreign policy and defence. “We did not have a clear world view or security doctrine”, you say. Do you think the situation has changed?
(BGV said that things had improved, but there were some problems. He quoted the response to 26/11 as an example of lack of coordination and cohesion in dealing with issues.)
4. Sir, let me take you back to your campaign in Mavelikara with the support of the non-Congress Parties including the Communists. Why was it that the anti-Congress wave was absent in Kerala? Why was it that your personality and passion for freedom did not get you votes?
(BGV explained the circumstances in which he entered the fray. Unlike in the rest of India, Congress did well in Kerala. He felt that though he did not get elected, his cause had won in 1977.)
5. You have dealt with relations with Pakistan at some length in your book. Do you think that the back channel solution on Kashmir will ever be accepted by the people of the two countries? As an expert on water, do you think that we can use the Indus Water Treaty as a pressure point on Pakistan?
(BVG explained the history of the Indus Water Treaty. It was the expectation that the deficiencies in the Treaty would be rectified when the relations improved. If the proposal to make the borders irrelevant were to succeed, it would be possible for both the countries to make optimum use of water.)
6. You speak in the book on the reasons for the Naxal violence. Obviously, you have considerable sympathy for the tribal people and you think that the Government’s plan for socio-economic development will not work. Do you think the Maoists are “Gandhis with guns”? What is your solution to the Maoist menace?
(BVG explained the reason for disaffection among the tribals, who revolted against injustice. The Maoists exploited the situation, leading to the present serious situation. Law and order should be preserved, but the grievances of the tribals should also be addressed. He did not agree that they could be called Gandhis with guns. Arundhati Roy, he said, was a good writer, but she should not overdramatize issues as she did in the case of Kashmir. He felt that she should not have been charged.)
In reply to questions from the audience, BGV said that the media made it out as though everybody was corrupt. He blamed the media for spelling disaster. Much was being said and written for the sake of breaking news. He was optimistic that, after the churning, which would bring up some scum, there would be a cleansing and India would emerge stronger.
A conversation with the author after the release of the book
Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer released the autobiography of Shri. B.G.Verghese today in Kochi under the auspices of Kerala Press Academy. I was invited to receive the book and to have a book chat with the author. My remarks and the questions are below. The lines of his replies are indicated, but not full answers.
If I was asked to speak of B.G.Verghese ten days ago, I would have described him as a journalist, who has become a legend in his own lifetime. His outstanding work at the ‘Times of India’, the ‘Hindustan Times’ and the ‘Indian Express’ is the stuff that legends are made of. But today, having read his ‘First Draft’, I would describe him as one of the builders of modern India. As an editor, he has been a sentinel of personal and press freedoms, as an adviser to the Prime Minister he has been the architect of domestic and foreign policy and, as an activist, he continues to provide policy options on intractable issues ranging from human rights, environment, water resource and terrorism to Naxalism. ‘First Draft’ is testimony to the way he has helped shape modern India.
Verghese is a nationalist and an internationalist, having been born in Burma and educated at the Doon School, St Stephen’s and Cambridge and lived in different places in India, with short spells in Kerala. His story is also the story of modern India from the last days of the Raj to this day. In this narrative, the hero often fades into the background and his country comes to the forefront. But his portrayal of history is very personal, given his deep involvement as an influential commentator. As adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, he did not confine himself to public relations and made policy recommendations on domestic and foreign policy. His disillusionment with the emergency and his passion for freedom landed him in the Janata camp, leading to his defeat in his only foray into electoral politics in Mavelikara. He was also a consultant to Defence Minister Jaswant Singh.
Today, he has the status of an elder statesman, with involvement in many causes, a highly respected voice of the conscience of India. We are fortunate to have him with us to present his memoirs to us and also to answer some of the questions arising from it.
1. Allow me, Sir, to drag you directly to the raging controversy about journalism today. Your book gives the impression that as a senior editor, you not only reported history, but also shaped it. You say in the book, “Indeed it was a routine ploy for us at the TOI to ring up party contacts and drop a hint about rumours of a possible Cabinet reshuffle to get the man salivating and ready to share insider knowledge about political goings-on.” In other places, there are hints of your getting politicians together to resolve one issue or another. Do you think Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi went beyond such legitimate activities and brought discredit to journalism?
(BGV said that there was a fine line between contacts for the sake of gathering news and journalists getting close to lobbyists of corporations. Transgressions should not take place, but, happily, in the instant cases, there was no evidence of corruption. They themselves had admitted misjudgment.)
2. You were on the frontline in 1962 to witness what you call the psychological defeat, which was more than the military debacle at the hands of China. You deplore the “imbecility and paralysis that had come to characterize Delhi” at that time. In the last chapter of the book, you list the problems with China. But you say that “it is unlikely that 1962 can ever be repeated” because of China’s own vulnerabilities. But don’t you think China may decide to teach India a lesson again?
(BGV said that relations with China would remain complex. China had become assertive and there were instances of provocation from their side. But China would not embark on any adventure because of its position in the world and its own inherent weaknesses. But India should remain vigilant and also have a pragmatic relationship.)
3. During your stint with Indira Gandhi, you found policy making generally unsatisfactory with last minute changes in speeches and acceptance of ideas on the spot etc. You are specific about little integration between foreign policy and defence. “We did not have a clear world view or security doctrine”, you say. Do you think the situation has changed?
(BGV said that things had improved, but there were some problems. He quoted the response to 26/11 as an example of lack of coordination and cohesion in dealing with issues.)
4. Sir, let me take you back to your campaign in Mavelikara with the support of the non-Congress Parties including the Communists. Why was it that the anti-Congress wave was absent in Kerala? Why was it that your personality and passion for freedom did not get you votes?
(BGV explained the circumstances in which he entered the fray. Unlike in the rest of India, Congress did well in Kerala. He felt that though he did not get elected, his cause had won in 1977.)
5. You have dealt with relations with Pakistan at some length in your book. Do you think that the back channel solution on Kashmir will ever be accepted by the people of the two countries? As an expert on water, do you think that we can use the Indus Water Treaty as a pressure point on Pakistan?
(BVG explained the history of the Indus Water Treaty. It was the expectation that the deficiencies in the Treaty would be rectified when the relations improved. If the proposal to make the borders irrelevant were to succeed, it would be possible for both the countries to make optimum use of water.)
6. You speak in the book on the reasons for the Naxal violence. Obviously, you have considerable sympathy for the tribal people and you think that the Government’s plan for socio-economic development will not work. Do you think the Maoists are “Gandhis with guns”? What is your solution to the Maoist menace?
(BVG explained the reason for disaffection among the tribals, who revolted against injustice. The Maoists exploited the situation, leading to the present serious situation. Law and order should be preserved, but the grievances of the tribals should also be addressed. He did not agree that they could be called Gandhis with guns. Arundhati Roy, he said, was a good writer, but she should not overdramatize issues as she did in the case of Kashmir. He felt that she should not have been charged.)
In reply to questions from the audience, BGV said that the media made it out as though everybody was corrupt. He blamed the media for spelling disaster. Much was being said and written for the sake of breaking news. He was optimistic that, after the churning, which would bring up some scum, there would be a cleansing and India would emerge stronger.
‘First Draft’ by B.G.Verghese
A conversation with the author after the release of the book
Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer released the autobiography of Shri. B.G.Verghese today in Kochi under the auspices of Kerala Press Academy. I was invited to receive the book and to have a book chat with the author. My remarks and the questions are below. The lines of his replies are indicated, but not full answers.
If I was asked to speak of B.G.Verghese ten days ago, I would have described him as a journalist, who has become a legend in his own lifetime. His outstanding work at the ‘Times of India’, the ‘Hindustan Times’ and the ‘Indian Express’ is the stuff that legends are made of. But today, having read his ‘First Draft’, I would describe him as one of the builders of modern India. As an editor, he has been a sentinel of personal and press freedoms, as an adviser to the Prime Minister he has been the architect of domestic and foreign policy and, as an activist, he continues to provide policy options on intractable issues ranging from human rights, environment, water resource and terrorism to Naxalism. ‘First Draft’ is testimony to the way he has helped shape modern India.
Verghese is a nationalist and an internationalist, having been born in Burma and educated at the Doon School, St Stephen’s and Cambridge and lived in different places in India, with short spells in Kerala. His story is also the story of modern India from the last days of the Raj to this day. In this narrative, the hero often fades into the background and his country comes to the forefront. But his portrayal of history is very personal, given his deep involvement as an influential commentator. As adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, he did not confine himself to public relations and made policy recommendations on domestic and foreign policy. His disillusionment with the emergency and his passion for freedom landed him in the Janata camp, leading to his defeat in his only foray into electoral politics in Mavelikara. He was also a consultant to Defence Minister Jaswant Singh.
Today, he has the status of an elder statesman, with involvement in many causes, a highly respected voice of the conscience of India. We are fortunate to have him with us to present his memoirs to us and also to answer some of the questions arising from it.
1. Allow me, Sir, to drag you directly to the raging controversy about journalism today. Your book gives the impression that as a senior editor, you not only reported history, but also shaped it. You say in the book, “Indeed it was a routine ploy for us at the TOI to ring up party contacts and drop a hint about rumours of a possible Cabinet reshuffle to get the man salivating and ready to share insider knowledge about political goings-on.” In other places, there are hints of your getting politicians together to resolve one issue or another. Do you think Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi went beyond such legitimate activities and brought discredit to journalism?
(BGV said that there was a fine line between contacts for the sake of gathering news and journalists getting close to lobbyists of corporations. Transgressions should not take place, but, happily, in the instant cases, there was no evidence of corruption. They themselves had admitted misjudgment.)
2. You were on the frontline in 1962 to witness what you call the psychological defeat, which was more than the military debacle at the hands of China. You deplore the “imbecility and paralysis that had come to characterize Delhi” at that time. In the last chapter of the book, you list the problems with China. But you say that “it is unlikely that 1962 can ever be repeated” because of China’s own vulnerabilities. But don’t you think China may decide to teach India a lesson again?
(BGV said that relations with China would remain complex. China had become assertive and there were instances of provocation from their side. But China would not embark on any adventure because of its position in the world and its own inherent weaknesses. But India should remain vigilant and also have a pragmatic relationship.)
3. During your stint with Indira Gandhi, you found policy making generally unsatisfactory with last minute changes in speeches and acceptance of ideas on the spot etc. You are specific about little integration between foreign policy and defence. “We did not have a clear world view or security doctrine”, you say. Do you think the situation has changed?
(BGV said that things had improved, but there were some problems. He quoted the response to 26/11 as an example of lack of coordination and cohesion in dealing with issues.)
4. Sir, let me take you back to your campaign in Mavelikara with the support of the non-Congress Parties including the Communists. Why was it that the anti-Congress wave was absent in Kerala? Why was it that your personality and passion for freedom did not get you votes?
(BGV explained the circumstances in which he entered the fray. Unlike in the rest of India, Congress did well in Kerala. He felt that though he did not get elected, his cause had won in 1977.)
5. You have dealt with relations with Pakistan at some length in your book. Do you think that the back channel solution on Kashmir will ever be accepted by the people of the two countries? As an expert on water, do you think that we can use the Indus Water Treaty as a pressure point on Pakistan?
(BVG explained the history of the Indus Water Treaty. It was the expectation that the deficiencies in the Treaty would be rectified when the relations improved. If the proposal to make the borders irrelevant were to succeed, it would be possible for both the countries to make optimum use of water.)
6. You speak in the book on the reasons for the Naxal violence. Obviously, you have considerable sympathy for the tribal people and you think that the Government’s plan for socio-economic development will not work. Do you think the Maoists are “Gandhis with guns”? What is your solution to the Maoist menace?
(BVG explained the reason for disaffection among the tribals, who revolted against injustice. The Maoists exploited the situation, leading to the present serious situation. Law and order should be preserved, but the grievances of the tribals should also be addressed. He did not agree that they could be called Gandhis with guns. Arundhati Roy, he said, was a good writer, but she should not overdramatize issues as she did in the case of Kashmir. He felt that she should not have been charged.)
In reply to questions from the audience, BGV said that the media made it out as though everybody was corrupt. He blamed the media for spelling disaster. Much was being said and written for the sake of breaking news. He was optimistic that, after the churning, which would bring up some scum, there would be a cleansing and India would emerge stronger.
A conversation with the author after the release of the book
Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer released the autobiography of Shri. B.G.Verghese today in Kochi under the auspices of Kerala Press Academy. I was invited to receive the book and to have a book chat with the author. My remarks and the questions are below. The lines of his replies are indicated, but not full answers.
If I was asked to speak of B.G.Verghese ten days ago, I would have described him as a journalist, who has become a legend in his own lifetime. His outstanding work at the ‘Times of India’, the ‘Hindustan Times’ and the ‘Indian Express’ is the stuff that legends are made of. But today, having read his ‘First Draft’, I would describe him as one of the builders of modern India. As an editor, he has been a sentinel of personal and press freedoms, as an adviser to the Prime Minister he has been the architect of domestic and foreign policy and, as an activist, he continues to provide policy options on intractable issues ranging from human rights, environment, water resource and terrorism to Naxalism. ‘First Draft’ is testimony to the way he has helped shape modern India.
Verghese is a nationalist and an internationalist, having been born in Burma and educated at the Doon School, St Stephen’s and Cambridge and lived in different places in India, with short spells in Kerala. His story is also the story of modern India from the last days of the Raj to this day. In this narrative, the hero often fades into the background and his country comes to the forefront. But his portrayal of history is very personal, given his deep involvement as an influential commentator. As adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, he did not confine himself to public relations and made policy recommendations on domestic and foreign policy. His disillusionment with the emergency and his passion for freedom landed him in the Janata camp, leading to his defeat in his only foray into electoral politics in Mavelikara. He was also a consultant to Defence Minister Jaswant Singh.
Today, he has the status of an elder statesman, with involvement in many causes, a highly respected voice of the conscience of India. We are fortunate to have him with us to present his memoirs to us and also to answer some of the questions arising from it.
1. Allow me, Sir, to drag you directly to the raging controversy about journalism today. Your book gives the impression that as a senior editor, you not only reported history, but also shaped it. You say in the book, “Indeed it was a routine ploy for us at the TOI to ring up party contacts and drop a hint about rumours of a possible Cabinet reshuffle to get the man salivating and ready to share insider knowledge about political goings-on.” In other places, there are hints of your getting politicians together to resolve one issue or another. Do you think Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi went beyond such legitimate activities and brought discredit to journalism?
(BGV said that there was a fine line between contacts for the sake of gathering news and journalists getting close to lobbyists of corporations. Transgressions should not take place, but, happily, in the instant cases, there was no evidence of corruption. They themselves had admitted misjudgment.)
2. You were on the frontline in 1962 to witness what you call the psychological defeat, which was more than the military debacle at the hands of China. You deplore the “imbecility and paralysis that had come to characterize Delhi” at that time. In the last chapter of the book, you list the problems with China. But you say that “it is unlikely that 1962 can ever be repeated” because of China’s own vulnerabilities. But don’t you think China may decide to teach India a lesson again?
(BGV said that relations with China would remain complex. China had become assertive and there were instances of provocation from their side. But China would not embark on any adventure because of its position in the world and its own inherent weaknesses. But India should remain vigilant and also have a pragmatic relationship.)
3. During your stint with Indira Gandhi, you found policy making generally unsatisfactory with last minute changes in speeches and acceptance of ideas on the spot etc. You are specific about little integration between foreign policy and defence. “We did not have a clear world view or security doctrine”, you say. Do you think the situation has changed?
(BGV said that things had improved, but there were some problems. He quoted the response to 26/11 as an example of lack of coordination and cohesion in dealing with issues.)
4. Sir, let me take you back to your campaign in Mavelikara with the support of the non-Congress Parties including the Communists. Why was it that the anti-Congress wave was absent in Kerala? Why was it that your personality and passion for freedom did not get you votes?
(BGV explained the circumstances in which he entered the fray. Unlike in the rest of India, Congress did well in Kerala. He felt that though he did not get elected, his cause had won in 1977.)
5. You have dealt with relations with Pakistan at some length in your book. Do you think that the back channel solution on Kashmir will ever be accepted by the people of the two countries? As an expert on water, do you think that we can use the Indus Water Treaty as a pressure point on Pakistan?
(BVG explained the history of the Indus Water Treaty. It was the expectation that the deficiencies in the Treaty would be rectified when the relations improved. If the proposal to make the borders irrelevant were to succeed, it would be possible for both the countries to make optimum use of water.)
6. You speak in the book on the reasons for the Naxal violence. Obviously, you have considerable sympathy for the tribal people and you think that the Government’s plan for socio-economic development will not work. Do you think the Maoists are “Gandhis with guns”? What is your solution to the Maoist menace?
(BVG explained the reason for disaffection among the tribals, who revolted against injustice. The Maoists exploited the situation, leading to the present serious situation. Law and order should be preserved, but the grievances of the tribals should also be addressed. He did not agree that they could be called Gandhis with guns. Arundhati Roy, he said, was a good writer, but she should not overdramatize issues as she did in the case of Kashmir. He felt that she should not have been charged.)
In reply to questions from the audience, BGV said that the media made it out as though everybody was corrupt. He blamed the media for spelling disaster. Much was being said and written for the sake of breaking news. He was optimistic that, after the churning, which would bring up some scum, there would be a cleansing and India would emerge stronger.
Friday, December 03, 2010
WIKILEAKS--THE MIDNIGHT SUN
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A dreaded thought for many is the possibility of the sun rising at midnight without warning. People will be caught in the wrong places doing the wrong things. The embarrassment will be not that these things happen, but that these come unexpectedly to public view. At the time of the normal break of day, they will be prim and proper. To change the image, no one wants to be seen in the green room of a play, when the actors are putting on make up or having a drink, even when dressed up as Mahatma Gandhi. Once the curtains are up, they will play their roles perfectly and receive approbation. The embarrassment of the US today is that of people caught in the midnight sun, actors caught in the green room.
The world of diplomacy is an elegant and beautiful world. Diplomats dress well, say the right things at the right time, respect other people's views and even appear to change their positions for the good of the world. They are totally rational and reasonable and there are no harsh words. But that does not mean there is no struggle, no rancor, no arm twisting, no name calling, no plain speaking behind the scenes. It is in the strong rooms of the chanceries that honest opinions are aired, cold calculations are made and strategies and tactics are shaped to subdue the enemy and to put the friend to the best use. Deals are made, concessions are given and the IOUs are counted. This is not the preserve of the big powers and all nations play the game by their own rules before everything is formalized in accordance with the provisions of the Vienna and Geneva conventions. In fact, it is the struggle behind the scenes that leads to the photo opportunities and signature ceremonies with flowers and smiles all around.
The unwritten rules for protection and promotion of national interests are as important as the code of conduct of diplomats ranging from sartorial propriety to acting for the common good. Confidentiality of communications within an individual Government should be sacrosanct at least for a reasonable period so that the diplomats can be brutally frank in their assessments. These assessments enable the Governments concerned to understand each other and according to their best interests. Such frank assessments and forthright predictions contribute to peace and stability in the world. Indeed, it is the "cables" that make the diplomatic world go round.
We should not rejoice over the loss of face that the US has suffered on account of the leakage of its cable traffic. This can happen to any country, even though some countries are more discreet than others and maintain a certain decorum in even confidential communications. But if diplomatic cables leak even in India, there will be many red faces. What we write in these cables cannot but offend the people whose conduct or conversations are reported in what we call "telegrams". Unless the confidentiality of these communications are assured, the very functioning of our missions will be in jeopardy.
The Wikileaks have, however, come as a bonanza for US watchers as they give a rare glimpse of the workings of US diplomacy and the private views of US diplomats expressed in privileged communications to their Government. Such leaks may even have a beneficial effect if the US Government takes corrective measures to remove the irritants that may be generated by the leaks.
One point to remember is that diplomatic "cables" or "telegrams"have undergone many changes over the years. From a situation where each word or each letter was painstakingly coded by hand, we have reached a stage when words keyed into a computer automatically get coded and then get decoded for the recipients. Neither the sender nor the recipient needs to worry about any unauthorized person reading the messages. Without that comfort and confidence, no one will convey his frank opinions and assessments.
Diplomats are generally the worst critics of their host countries because they watch and learn about their hosts on a day to day basis. They also experience culture shocks each time they change their assignments. The excellent relations the countries may have do not prevent them from expressing their views among themselves. The hosts will not be too pleased to hear these views. Such conversations take place in diplomatic circles in every capital.
The US Government had already warned several countries, including India. about the likelihood of irritants emerging on account of the leaks. We do not know the nature and extent of the damage that is likely to result when the thousands of pages, which have been leaked, are published and analyzed. The early revelation about India's aspirations for permanent membership of the UN Security Council had no real surprise in it. We knew for a fact that the US had not yet arrived at a formula for the expansion of the Security Council, which it can expect to accomplish. It had "enthusiastically" supported Japan and Germany in the past, but could not succeed in promoting them. The hope to see India as a permanent member may be genuine, but the hope can be fulfilled only if there is a workable formula, involving the nature and size of the expansion. The US is still searching for such a formula.
Hillary's instructions in the leaked document reveals that the US mission in New York would go to the extent of spying on the concerned countries to learn about their moves in this connection. The issues to be followed are listed in these words:
"B. Key Continuing Issues
1) UN Security Council Reform (FPOL-1).
-- Positions, attitudes, and divisions among member states on
UN Security Council (UNSC) reform.
-- Views, plans and intentions of Perm 5 and other member
states on the issue of UNSC enlargement, revision of UNSC
procedures or limitation of Perm 5 privileges.
-- International deliberations regarding UNSC expansion among
key groups of countries: self-appointed front runners for
permanent UNSC membership Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan
(the Group of Four or G-4); the Uniting for Consensus group
(especially Mexico, Italy, and Pakistan) that opposes
additional permanent UNSC seats; the African Group; and the
EU, as well as key UN officials within the Secretariat and
the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Presidency.
-- Willingness of member states to implement proposed reforms.
-- Reactions of UN senior leadership towards member
recommendations for UNSC reform."
The objection is to the description of "a key group of countries", India, Brazil, Japan and Germany, as "self-appointed front runners". This description need not be seen as derogatory because they are seen as front runners, but not recognized formally by anyone else. India is of the view that it has substantial support, but this is not a matter of public record. The other criticism is that Obama's statement of support for India voiced in the Indian Parliament is proved hollow by the statement of the US state secretary that India is nothing but a self appointed front runner. Here, it is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the US President. What he expressed was the consensus view in New York that if and when the Security Council is expanded, India should have a place in it as a permanent member. This is indeed a significant shift in the US position as no US leader had expressed this sentiment so far. But too much should not be read into it. Our dream may be a little nearer to reality now than before, but not enough.
There may still be worse revelations in the coming weeks when more documents get published. As long as they are seen in their right perspective, no serious damage will be done to India-US relations. Some of them may even help clarify some of the mysteries of US behaviour around the world.
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A dreaded thought for many is the possibility of the sun rising at midnight without warning. People will be caught in the wrong places doing the wrong things. The embarrassment will be not that these things happen, but that these come unexpectedly to public view. At the time of the normal break of day, they will be prim and proper. To change the image, no one wants to be seen in the green room of a play, when the actors are putting on make up or having a drink, even when dressed up as Mahatma Gandhi. Once the curtains are up, they will play their roles perfectly and receive approbation. The embarrassment of the US today is that of people caught in the midnight sun, actors caught in the green room.
The world of diplomacy is an elegant and beautiful world. Diplomats dress well, say the right things at the right time, respect other people's views and even appear to change their positions for the good of the world. They are totally rational and reasonable and there are no harsh words. But that does not mean there is no struggle, no rancor, no arm twisting, no name calling, no plain speaking behind the scenes. It is in the strong rooms of the chanceries that honest opinions are aired, cold calculations are made and strategies and tactics are shaped to subdue the enemy and to put the friend to the best use. Deals are made, concessions are given and the IOUs are counted. This is not the preserve of the big powers and all nations play the game by their own rules before everything is formalized in accordance with the provisions of the Vienna and Geneva conventions. In fact, it is the struggle behind the scenes that leads to the photo opportunities and signature ceremonies with flowers and smiles all around.
The unwritten rules for protection and promotion of national interests are as important as the code of conduct of diplomats ranging from sartorial propriety to acting for the common good. Confidentiality of communications within an individual Government should be sacrosanct at least for a reasonable period so that the diplomats can be brutally frank in their assessments. These assessments enable the Governments concerned to understand each other and according to their best interests. Such frank assessments and forthright predictions contribute to peace and stability in the world. Indeed, it is the "cables" that make the diplomatic world go round.
We should not rejoice over the loss of face that the US has suffered on account of the leakage of its cable traffic. This can happen to any country, even though some countries are more discreet than others and maintain a certain decorum in even confidential communications. But if diplomatic cables leak even in India, there will be many red faces. What we write in these cables cannot but offend the people whose conduct or conversations are reported in what we call "telegrams". Unless the confidentiality of these communications are assured, the very functioning of our missions will be in jeopardy.
The Wikileaks have, however, come as a bonanza for US watchers as they give a rare glimpse of the workings of US diplomacy and the private views of US diplomats expressed in privileged communications to their Government. Such leaks may even have a beneficial effect if the US Government takes corrective measures to remove the irritants that may be generated by the leaks.
One point to remember is that diplomatic "cables" or "telegrams"have undergone many changes over the years. From a situation where each word or each letter was painstakingly coded by hand, we have reached a stage when words keyed into a computer automatically get coded and then get decoded for the recipients. Neither the sender nor the recipient needs to worry about any unauthorized person reading the messages. Without that comfort and confidence, no one will convey his frank opinions and assessments.
Diplomats are generally the worst critics of their host countries because they watch and learn about their hosts on a day to day basis. They also experience culture shocks each time they change their assignments. The excellent relations the countries may have do not prevent them from expressing their views among themselves. The hosts will not be too pleased to hear these views. Such conversations take place in diplomatic circles in every capital.
The US Government had already warned several countries, including India. about the likelihood of irritants emerging on account of the leaks. We do not know the nature and extent of the damage that is likely to result when the thousands of pages, which have been leaked, are published and analyzed. The early revelation about India's aspirations for permanent membership of the UN Security Council had no real surprise in it. We knew for a fact that the US had not yet arrived at a formula for the expansion of the Security Council, which it can expect to accomplish. It had "enthusiastically" supported Japan and Germany in the past, but could not succeed in promoting them. The hope to see India as a permanent member may be genuine, but the hope can be fulfilled only if there is a workable formula, involving the nature and size of the expansion. The US is still searching for such a formula.
Hillary's instructions in the leaked document reveals that the US mission in New York would go to the extent of spying on the concerned countries to learn about their moves in this connection. The issues to be followed are listed in these words:
"B. Key Continuing Issues
1) UN Security Council Reform (FPOL-1).
-- Positions, attitudes, and divisions among member states on
UN Security Council (UNSC) reform.
-- Views, plans and intentions of Perm 5 and other member
states on the issue of UNSC enlargement, revision of UNSC
procedures or limitation of Perm 5 privileges.
-- International deliberations regarding UNSC expansion among
key groups of countries: self-appointed front runners for
permanent UNSC membership Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan
(the Group of Four or G-4); the Uniting for Consensus group
(especially Mexico, Italy, and Pakistan) that opposes
additional permanent UNSC seats; the African Group; and the
EU, as well as key UN officials within the Secretariat and
the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Presidency.
-- Willingness of member states to implement proposed reforms.
-- Reactions of UN senior leadership towards member
recommendations for UNSC reform."
The objection is to the description of "a key group of countries", India, Brazil, Japan and Germany, as "self-appointed front runners". This description need not be seen as derogatory because they are seen as front runners, but not recognized formally by anyone else. India is of the view that it has substantial support, but this is not a matter of public record. The other criticism is that Obama's statement of support for India voiced in the Indian Parliament is proved hollow by the statement of the US state secretary that India is nothing but a self appointed front runner. Here, it is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the US President. What he expressed was the consensus view in New York that if and when the Security Council is expanded, India should have a place in it as a permanent member. This is indeed a significant shift in the US position as no US leader had expressed this sentiment so far. But too much should not be read into it. Our dream may be a little nearer to reality now than before, but not enough.
There may still be worse revelations in the coming weeks when more documents get published. As long as they are seen in their right perspective, no serious damage will be done to India-US relations. Some of them may even help clarify some of the mysteries of US behaviour around the world.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Remarks by T.P.Sreenivasan at a function to release Gautaman Bhaskaran's Book on Adoor Gopalakrishnan November 30, 2010
‘Adoor Gopalakrishnan- A Life in Cinema’ is an extraordinary book on an exceptional film maker. I have been an ardent admirer of Adoor for a long time. I am now an admirer also of Gautaman Bhaskaran for elevating the genre of biography to an artistically higher level, close to a novel for readability and felicity of language. Adoor and his movies come out of this book as a composite whole, inseparable and indistinguishable from each other. The man and the movies are one. Adoor hopes that the book will throw some light on his life and work. Gautaman Bhaskaran does more than that- he shows Adoor and his work in a new light.
For practicing diplomats like me, India’s icons, whether they are writers, artists, poets or film personalities constitute the soft power of India, which has been an instrument of our foreign policy. Different film personalities captivated the imagination of people in different countries-Raj Kapoor and Nargis in the Soviet Union, Amitabh Bachan and Sharukh Khan in West and East Asia and Satyajit Ray in earlier years and Adoor more recently in the US and Europe. Adoor retrospectives were common in the US as well as in Austria, where I was invited to share the honour with the film maker and India. I was glad to see that connoisseurs in these and other countries related to the art films of India more than to the mélange of dance and music of Bollywood.
It is difficult to capture in a few minutes the doors that Gautaman Bhaskaran has opened to Adoor and his cinema in his book. All of us knew well that Adoor made films about real people and real situations and that there was nothing artificial or superficial in them. But the author takes us through Adoor’s background, upbringing, interest in Kathakali and theatre, the profound influence of Gandhi on him and the expertise he acquired in Krishnanattam and Koodiyattam and shows us how each of these facets comes through in his work. Whether the author is narrating the events of Adoor’s early life, as a biographer should or whether he is reviewing each of his films as a critic should, his focus is on the unique features of the Adoor cinema. The two sections of the book, the first on Adoor’s life and the second on his movies, merge into each other to reveal the genius of Adoor and its manifestation on the screen. His accomplishment is in persuading Adoor, a reluctant conversationalist, to talk and weave his insights into a remarkable biography.
Gautaman Bhaskaran deals with some of the misconceptions about Adoor’s work. For instance, many people place Adoor in the Satyajit Rray School of movie-making. The criticism that Ray exploited Indian poverty has been hurled at Adoor also. Adoor may have been attracted to Ray’s cinema, but the very fact that Ray considered Adoor his most favourite Indian director shows that his work is far different from Ray’s own. “Had my work resembled Ray’s, he would have had nothing but disdain for me”, the author quotes Adoor as saying, although Adoor considered Ray a constant source of creative energy and inspiration.
Gautaman Bhaskaran also examines the unease that spectators feel when there is silence on the screen, a feature of Adoor’s work. Adoor’s sparing use of background music has also been criticized. In Kodiyettam, Adoor did not use background score at all. The author explores the world of other sounds that Adoor uses and the great lengths to which he goes to record the commonest of sounds to be used with great effect to accomplish the right balance of sound and silence. People with the ear for these sounds will not miss the musical score in Adoor’s movies. Adoor believes that silence exists with sound, between sounds. Sometimes, silence accentuates sound.
An amusing section of the book is on the non-human actors, the birds, the animals and the fish which make Adoor’s films richer with their presence and histrionics. The rat becomes an actor in Elipathayam, crows and mynahs come to life in Mathilukal. The story of how a Swiss- bred cow, masquerading as a nadan pasu, made Adoor rewrite the scene in Kathapurushan is amusing indeed.
The last few days since Kurien Sabarigiri invited me to this event have been Adoor Gopalakrishnan days for me. After I began reading the book, I heard Adoor speaking on Koodiyattam, saw him at the Hay Festival and watched three of his latest movies, starting with Nizhalkkuthu, my all time favourite among Adoor’s movies. As I conclude this brief comment on the book on Adoor Gopalakrishnan, the thought that occurs to me is one of gratitude that we, in Thiruvananthapuram, are blessed that we are Adoor’s contemporaries and we have the privilege of seeing this great film maker not only on celluloid, but also in flesh and blood. I am glad that Gautaman Bhaskaran has given us a glimpse of the genius of this great son of Kerala. When we see Kodiyettam, Elippathayam, Nizhalkkuthu or a new creation by Adoor, we will enjoy these creations even more, thanks to this brilliant biography.
‘Adoor Gopalakrishnan- A Life in Cinema’ is an extraordinary book on an exceptional film maker. I have been an ardent admirer of Adoor for a long time. I am now an admirer also of Gautaman Bhaskaran for elevating the genre of biography to an artistically higher level, close to a novel for readability and felicity of language. Adoor and his movies come out of this book as a composite whole, inseparable and indistinguishable from each other. The man and the movies are one. Adoor hopes that the book will throw some light on his life and work. Gautaman Bhaskaran does more than that- he shows Adoor and his work in a new light.
For practicing diplomats like me, India’s icons, whether they are writers, artists, poets or film personalities constitute the soft power of India, which has been an instrument of our foreign policy. Different film personalities captivated the imagination of people in different countries-Raj Kapoor and Nargis in the Soviet Union, Amitabh Bachan and Sharukh Khan in West and East Asia and Satyajit Ray in earlier years and Adoor more recently in the US and Europe. Adoor retrospectives were common in the US as well as in Austria, where I was invited to share the honour with the film maker and India. I was glad to see that connoisseurs in these and other countries related to the art films of India more than to the mélange of dance and music of Bollywood.
It is difficult to capture in a few minutes the doors that Gautaman Bhaskaran has opened to Adoor and his cinema in his book. All of us knew well that Adoor made films about real people and real situations and that there was nothing artificial or superficial in them. But the author takes us through Adoor’s background, upbringing, interest in Kathakali and theatre, the profound influence of Gandhi on him and the expertise he acquired in Krishnanattam and Koodiyattam and shows us how each of these facets comes through in his work. Whether the author is narrating the events of Adoor’s early life, as a biographer should or whether he is reviewing each of his films as a critic should, his focus is on the unique features of the Adoor cinema. The two sections of the book, the first on Adoor’s life and the second on his movies, merge into each other to reveal the genius of Adoor and its manifestation on the screen. His accomplishment is in persuading Adoor, a reluctant conversationalist, to talk and weave his insights into a remarkable biography.
Gautaman Bhaskaran deals with some of the misconceptions about Adoor’s work. For instance, many people place Adoor in the Satyajit Rray School of movie-making. The criticism that Ray exploited Indian poverty has been hurled at Adoor also. Adoor may have been attracted to Ray’s cinema, but the very fact that Ray considered Adoor his most favourite Indian director shows that his work is far different from Ray’s own. “Had my work resembled Ray’s, he would have had nothing but disdain for me”, the author quotes Adoor as saying, although Adoor considered Ray a constant source of creative energy and inspiration.
Gautaman Bhaskaran also examines the unease that spectators feel when there is silence on the screen, a feature of Adoor’s work. Adoor’s sparing use of background music has also been criticized. In Kodiyettam, Adoor did not use background score at all. The author explores the world of other sounds that Adoor uses and the great lengths to which he goes to record the commonest of sounds to be used with great effect to accomplish the right balance of sound and silence. People with the ear for these sounds will not miss the musical score in Adoor’s movies. Adoor believes that silence exists with sound, between sounds. Sometimes, silence accentuates sound.
An amusing section of the book is on the non-human actors, the birds, the animals and the fish which make Adoor’s films richer with their presence and histrionics. The rat becomes an actor in Elipathayam, crows and mynahs come to life in Mathilukal. The story of how a Swiss- bred cow, masquerading as a nadan pasu, made Adoor rewrite the scene in Kathapurushan is amusing indeed.
The last few days since Kurien Sabarigiri invited me to this event have been Adoor Gopalakrishnan days for me. After I began reading the book, I heard Adoor speaking on Koodiyattam, saw him at the Hay Festival and watched three of his latest movies, starting with Nizhalkkuthu, my all time favourite among Adoor’s movies. As I conclude this brief comment on the book on Adoor Gopalakrishnan, the thought that occurs to me is one of gratitude that we, in Thiruvananthapuram, are blessed that we are Adoor’s contemporaries and we have the privilege of seeing this great film maker not only on celluloid, but also in flesh and blood. I am glad that Gautaman Bhaskaran has given us a glimpse of the genius of this great son of Kerala. When we see Kodiyettam, Elippathayam, Nizhalkkuthu or a new creation by Adoor, we will enjoy these creations even more, thanks to this brilliant biography.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Welcome, President Obama
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Mr.President,
Welcome to India. We are excited about the prospect of receiving a man of destiny not just for the people of the United States, but also for people around the world, who see you as a messiah of change and hope. We have a stake in your success because, on it depends the advent of a just, equitable and non-racist world. On this Diwali day, when you arrive in India, the brightest light that we see in the horizon is the one you lit in Washington that cold January night in 2008. Our welcome is spontaneous and unconditional. Your arrival in India itself is historic, regardless of whatever you may or may not accomplish here in the next four days.
We know that you will arrive in India before recovering from the mid-term shock of losing the House and reducing your majority in the Senate. The fact that your predecessors too had to face such defeats may be no consolation for you. In your case, the amazing fact is that you never received bipartisan support even in your struggle to tackle the national economic crisis or crucial health reform issues. There appears to be a conspiracy by vested interests to reverse the historic process that brought you to the White House. The trends you have set in foreign policy from Cairo and Prague break new ground for global peace and prosperity and you should have the time to bring them to fruition. We see hope in your initiatives and we wish you well.
Though the loss of the House is a blow to the Democratic Party and your own Congressional agenda, you will find that the new leaders of the various Congressional bodies will be supportive of your efforts to build a strategic partnership with India. Some leaders of the Republican party, who shaped President Bush's pro-India policies will be back in influential positions and this is a silver lining from the point of view of beneficial India-US relations.A new bipartisan approach to India may well be in the offing.
Strategic thinkers on both sides have debated every Issue that is likely to come up during your visit and we hope that your mind is not muddled by the prophesies of doom or high expectations contained in those masterpieces. As one of our former Foreign Ministers famously said, the visit should be seen in "directional" and not "transactional" terms. As long as you are able to have a frank exchange of views with our Prime Minister, whom you consider your guru, on strategic issues and reach an understanding on China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, your visit will be of infinite value.
There is a certain inevitability of success in these areas as neither of us is guided by any desire to subvert or dominate the region. We desire nothing but prosperity and stability for our neighbours as long as they do not work either to inflict a "thousand cuts" on us or to create a "string of pearls" to suffocate us. You are fighting a war not to conquer territory, but to ensure that never again will terrorism engendered in this region threaten lives in the United States. We have been engaged in that battle for more than twenty years and we know the pain and loss, which that struggle entails. When we urge you to complete the task of eliminating terrorism, we are not suggesting that we are ready to fight the battle to the Last American. Indians, Americans and humanity itself have a stake in ridding the world of the scourge of terrorism. There should be no more Headleys to perpetrate terrorism.
One of the ironies of history is that Pakistan, which has adopted terrorism as a state policy, is your front-line state in your combat against terrorism. The evidence of Pakistan's double game has come from reliable sources in Washington itself. You yourself have spoken about the danger of American equipment and money being used by Pakistan against India. In these circumstances, blind support to Pakistan for fear of the emergence of rulers in uniform or Taliban outfits will not serve American interests. For India, it poses grave dangers. A stable, free and democratic Afghanistan is in the best interests of both our countries. A regional rather than an Af-Pak solution should be sought in Afghanistan.
China's assertiveness in the wake of its rise is ominous for both our countries. India still has a vision of global partnership with China as a key element in it. But as long as the festering boundary issue is not resolved, the possibility exists of aggression in the guise of confusion arising out of different lines in different maps. it was the height of absurdity that China protested when our Prime Minister visited Arunachal Pradesh. No less serious is the policy to treat Indian citizens from Jammu and Kashmir as though they are from Mars, not entitled to normal consular access. You have your interests in China, but your visit should demonstrate in some way that the world will expect China to match its power with responsibilities. We are sure that you will benefit from Prime Minister's assessment of China as he will from your own analysis.
Unfortunately, the outcome of your strategic understanding with India will not be known either to your people or ours for a long time to come. They are likely to judge your visit on the basis of the transactional aspects of the visit. Your people need jobs and nuclear and defence contracts are very important from their point of view. You are aware that India is not averse either to nuclear trade or purchase of defence equipment. The liability law was put in place and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation was signed precisely to facilitate nuclear trade with the US and others. We have clarified that the language of our law has not changed the situation on the ground with regard to liability and that it is consistent with the Convention. It should not be beyond the lawyers on both sides to find a way to begin nuclear trade. On defence agreements too, the differences seem to be in form and not in substance. But any suggestion of surrender of sovereignty on the use of defence purchases is anathema to the Indian public.You should be able to carry with you good news on both these fronts even if everything is not signed and sealed before Nov 9.
The Indian wish list is quite realistic and achievable. No one disputes that sanctions are an anachronism between strategic partners. How can the entity black list be justified when the same entities are engaged in strategic cooperation with the United States? You say it is complicated, but is it not necessary to remove such anomalies, however complicated they may be? We are glad that you do not have the power to stop outsourcing, though you prefer to create jobs in Buffalo, not Bangaluru. It is a win-win situation and why not allow market forces to determine the future of outsourcing?
The third wish on the Indian side is to see you declaring from the floor of the Indian Parliament that you will support India's wish to be a permanent member of the Security Council. We know that it will not immediately open up the door of the Council for us. The process is long and arduous. But the perception in this country is that the US is an obstacle to Indian aspirations in this regard. You acknowledge the need for reform of the Security Council in the interest of making it representative and reflective of current realities. There is no better way for you to affirm your faith in India as a partner in global governance than by expressing support to India in suitable terms. India's involvement in international organisations should reflect its role and importance. More than anything else, you will be an instant hit with the Indian public.
On the same logic, in view of India's new role as a partner in disarmament and non-proliferation, India should be invited to join such bodies as the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) The world will benefit from India's participation in these bodies rather than just abide by their guidelines from outside.
The very fact that you have come to India at this juncture is significant in itself and even if our respective wish lists remain on paper for some more time, the directional significance of your visit will not be lost on anyone. But leaders meet to do what bureaucracies cannot do and however complicated these issues are, it should not be beyond the two of you to find ways to deal with them. Success is within your grasp.
The symbolism of your programme is not lost on us. Your stay at the Taj in Mumbai, your visits to the places associated with Mahatma Gandhi, your visit to Humayun's tomb and your address to the Parliament will make an indelible impression on India. No one who visits India is not transformed by the experience and you will be no exception.
Long before your historic election victory, I was asked who I would vote for if I had a vote. "My heart is with Obama, but my head is with McCain." Perhaps, a McCain administration would have been more sensitive to India's concerns. But it is the Obama phenomenon that captured my heart. My heart is still with you. And so are the hearts of many others in India.
Thank you, Mr. President.
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Mr.President,
Welcome to India. We are excited about the prospect of receiving a man of destiny not just for the people of the United States, but also for people around the world, who see you as a messiah of change and hope. We have a stake in your success because, on it depends the advent of a just, equitable and non-racist world. On this Diwali day, when you arrive in India, the brightest light that we see in the horizon is the one you lit in Washington that cold January night in 2008. Our welcome is spontaneous and unconditional. Your arrival in India itself is historic, regardless of whatever you may or may not accomplish here in the next four days.
We know that you will arrive in India before recovering from the mid-term shock of losing the House and reducing your majority in the Senate. The fact that your predecessors too had to face such defeats may be no consolation for you. In your case, the amazing fact is that you never received bipartisan support even in your struggle to tackle the national economic crisis or crucial health reform issues. There appears to be a conspiracy by vested interests to reverse the historic process that brought you to the White House. The trends you have set in foreign policy from Cairo and Prague break new ground for global peace and prosperity and you should have the time to bring them to fruition. We see hope in your initiatives and we wish you well.
Though the loss of the House is a blow to the Democratic Party and your own Congressional agenda, you will find that the new leaders of the various Congressional bodies will be supportive of your efforts to build a strategic partnership with India. Some leaders of the Republican party, who shaped President Bush's pro-India policies will be back in influential positions and this is a silver lining from the point of view of beneficial India-US relations.A new bipartisan approach to India may well be in the offing.
Strategic thinkers on both sides have debated every Issue that is likely to come up during your visit and we hope that your mind is not muddled by the prophesies of doom or high expectations contained in those masterpieces. As one of our former Foreign Ministers famously said, the visit should be seen in "directional" and not "transactional" terms. As long as you are able to have a frank exchange of views with our Prime Minister, whom you consider your guru, on strategic issues and reach an understanding on China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, your visit will be of infinite value.
There is a certain inevitability of success in these areas as neither of us is guided by any desire to subvert or dominate the region. We desire nothing but prosperity and stability for our neighbours as long as they do not work either to inflict a "thousand cuts" on us or to create a "string of pearls" to suffocate us. You are fighting a war not to conquer territory, but to ensure that never again will terrorism engendered in this region threaten lives in the United States. We have been engaged in that battle for more than twenty years and we know the pain and loss, which that struggle entails. When we urge you to complete the task of eliminating terrorism, we are not suggesting that we are ready to fight the battle to the Last American. Indians, Americans and humanity itself have a stake in ridding the world of the scourge of terrorism. There should be no more Headleys to perpetrate terrorism.
One of the ironies of history is that Pakistan, which has adopted terrorism as a state policy, is your front-line state in your combat against terrorism. The evidence of Pakistan's double game has come from reliable sources in Washington itself. You yourself have spoken about the danger of American equipment and money being used by Pakistan against India. In these circumstances, blind support to Pakistan for fear of the emergence of rulers in uniform or Taliban outfits will not serve American interests. For India, it poses grave dangers. A stable, free and democratic Afghanistan is in the best interests of both our countries. A regional rather than an Af-Pak solution should be sought in Afghanistan.
China's assertiveness in the wake of its rise is ominous for both our countries. India still has a vision of global partnership with China as a key element in it. But as long as the festering boundary issue is not resolved, the possibility exists of aggression in the guise of confusion arising out of different lines in different maps. it was the height of absurdity that China protested when our Prime Minister visited Arunachal Pradesh. No less serious is the policy to treat Indian citizens from Jammu and Kashmir as though they are from Mars, not entitled to normal consular access. You have your interests in China, but your visit should demonstrate in some way that the world will expect China to match its power with responsibilities. We are sure that you will benefit from Prime Minister's assessment of China as he will from your own analysis.
Unfortunately, the outcome of your strategic understanding with India will not be known either to your people or ours for a long time to come. They are likely to judge your visit on the basis of the transactional aspects of the visit. Your people need jobs and nuclear and defence contracts are very important from their point of view. You are aware that India is not averse either to nuclear trade or purchase of defence equipment. The liability law was put in place and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation was signed precisely to facilitate nuclear trade with the US and others. We have clarified that the language of our law has not changed the situation on the ground with regard to liability and that it is consistent with the Convention. It should not be beyond the lawyers on both sides to find a way to begin nuclear trade. On defence agreements too, the differences seem to be in form and not in substance. But any suggestion of surrender of sovereignty on the use of defence purchases is anathema to the Indian public.You should be able to carry with you good news on both these fronts even if everything is not signed and sealed before Nov 9.
The Indian wish list is quite realistic and achievable. No one disputes that sanctions are an anachronism between strategic partners. How can the entity black list be justified when the same entities are engaged in strategic cooperation with the United States? You say it is complicated, but is it not necessary to remove such anomalies, however complicated they may be? We are glad that you do not have the power to stop outsourcing, though you prefer to create jobs in Buffalo, not Bangaluru. It is a win-win situation and why not allow market forces to determine the future of outsourcing?
The third wish on the Indian side is to see you declaring from the floor of the Indian Parliament that you will support India's wish to be a permanent member of the Security Council. We know that it will not immediately open up the door of the Council for us. The process is long and arduous. But the perception in this country is that the US is an obstacle to Indian aspirations in this regard. You acknowledge the need for reform of the Security Council in the interest of making it representative and reflective of current realities. There is no better way for you to affirm your faith in India as a partner in global governance than by expressing support to India in suitable terms. India's involvement in international organisations should reflect its role and importance. More than anything else, you will be an instant hit with the Indian public.
On the same logic, in view of India's new role as a partner in disarmament and non-proliferation, India should be invited to join such bodies as the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) The world will benefit from India's participation in these bodies rather than just abide by their guidelines from outside.
The very fact that you have come to India at this juncture is significant in itself and even if our respective wish lists remain on paper for some more time, the directional significance of your visit will not be lost on anyone. But leaders meet to do what bureaucracies cannot do and however complicated these issues are, it should not be beyond the two of you to find ways to deal with them. Success is within your grasp.
The symbolism of your programme is not lost on us. Your stay at the Taj in Mumbai, your visits to the places associated with Mahatma Gandhi, your visit to Humayun's tomb and your address to the Parliament will make an indelible impression on India. No one who visits India is not transformed by the experience and you will be no exception.
Long before your historic election victory, I was asked who I would vote for if I had a vote. "My heart is with Obama, but my head is with McCain." Perhaps, a McCain administration would have been more sensitive to India's concerns. But it is the Obama phenomenon that captured my heart. My heart is still with you. And so are the hearts of many others in India.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Welcome, President Obama
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Mr.President,
Welcome to India. We are excited about the prospect of receiving a man of destiny not just for the people of the United States, but also for people around the world, who see you as a messiah of change and hope. We have a stake in your success because, on it depends the advent of a just, equitable and non-racist world. On this Diwali day, when you arrive in India, the brightest light that we see in the horizon is the one you lit in Washington that cold January night in 2008. Our welcome is spontaneous and unconditional. Your arrival in India itself is historic, regardless of whatever you may or may not accomplish here in the next four days.
We know that you will arrive in India before recovering from the mid-term shock of losing the House and reducing your majority in the Senate. The fact that your predecessors too had to face such defeats may be no consolation for you. In your case, the amazing fact is that you never received bipartisan support even in your struggle to tackle the national economic crisis or crucial health reform issues. There appears to be a conspiracy by vested interests to reverse the historic process that brought you to the White House. The trends you have set in foreign policy from Cairo and Prague break new ground for global peace and prosperity and you should have the time to bring them to fruition. We see hope in your initiatives and we wish you well.
Though the loss of the House is a blow to the Democratic Party and your own Congressional agenda, you will find that the new leaders of the various Congressional bodies will be supportive of your efforts to build a strategic partnership with India. Some leaders of the Republican party, who shaped President Bush's pro-India policies will be back in influential positions and this is a silver lining from the point of view of beneficial India-US relations.A new bipartisan approach to India may well be in the offing.
Strategic thinkers on both sides have debated every Issue that is likely to come up during your visit and we hope that your mind is not muddled by the prophesies of doom or high expectations contained in those masterpieces. As one of our former Foreign Ministers famously said, the visit should be seen in "directional" and not "transactional" terms. As long as you are able to have a frank exchange of views with our Prime Minister, whom you consider your guru, on strategic issues and reach an understanding on China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, your visit will be of infinite value.
There is a certain inevitability of success in these areas as neither of us is guided by any desire to subvert or dominate the region. We desire nothing but prosperity and stability for our neighbours as long as they do not work either to inflict a "thousand cuts" on us or to create a "string of pearls" to suffocate us. You are fighting a war not to conquer territory, but to ensure that never again will terrorism engendered in this region threaten lives in the United States. We have been engaged in that battle for more than twenty years and we know the pain and loss, which that struggle entails. When we urge you to complete the task of eliminating terrorism, we are not suggesting that we are ready to fight the battle to the Last American. Indians, Americans and humanity itself have a stake in ridding the world of the scourge of terrorism. There should be no more Headleys to perpetrate terrorism.
One of the ironies of history is that Pakistan, which has adopted terrorism as a state policy, is your front-line state in your combat against terrorism. The evidence of Pakistan's double game has come from reliable sources in Washington itself. You yourself have spoken about the danger of American equipment and money being used by Pakistan against India. In these circumstances, blind support to Pakistan for fear of the emergence of rulers in uniform or Taliban outfits will not serve American interests. For India, it poses grave dangers. A stable, free and democratic Afghanistan is in the best interests of both our countries. A regional rather than an Af-Pak solution should be sought in Afghanistan.
China's assertiveness in the wake of its rise is ominous for both our countries. India still has a vision of global partnership with China as a key element in it. But as long as the festering boundary issue is not resolved, the possibility exists of aggression in the guise of confusion arising out of different lines in different maps. it was the height of absurdity that China protested when our Prime Minister visited Arunachal Pradesh. No less serious is the policy to treat Indian citizens from Jammu and Kashmir as though they are from Mars, not entitled to normal consular access. You have your interests in China, but your visit should demonstrate in some way that the world will expect China to match its power with responsibilities. We are sure that you will benefit from Prime Minister's assessment of China as he will from your own analysis.
Unfortunately, the outcome of your strategic understanding with India will not be known either to your people or ours for a long time to come. They are likely to judge your visit on the basis of the transactional aspects of the visit. Your people need jobs and nuclear and defence contracts are very important from their point of view. You are aware that India is not averse either to nuclear trade or purchase of defence equipment. The liability law was put in place and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation was signed precisely to facilitate nuclear trade with the US and others. We have clarified that the language of our law has not changed the situation on the ground with regard to liability and that it is consistent with the Convention. It should not be beyond the lawyers on both sides to find a way to begin nuclear trade. On defence agreements too, the differences seem to be in form and not in substance. But any suggestion of surrender of sovereignty on the use of defence purchases is anathema to the Indian public.You should be able to carry with you good news on both these fronts even if everything is not signed and sealed before Nov 9.
The Indian wish list is quite realistic and achievable. No one disputes that sanctions are an anachronism between strategic partners. How can the entity black list be justified when the same entities are engaged in strategic cooperation with the United States? You say it is complicated, but is it not necessary to remove such anomalies, however complicated they may be? We are glad that you do not have the power to stop outsourcing, though you prefer to create jobs in Buffalo, not Bangaluru. It is a win-win situation and why not allow market forces to determine the future of outsourcing?
The third wish on the Indian side is to see you declaring from the floor of the Indian Parliament that you will support India's wish to be a permanent member of the Security Council. We know that it will not immediately open up the door of the Council for us. The process is long and arduous. But the perception in this country is that the US is an obstacle to Indian aspirations in this regard. You acknowledge the need for reform of the Security Council in the interest of making it representative and reflective of current realities. There is no better way for you to affirm your faith in India as a partner in global governance than by expressing support to India in suitable terms. India's involvement in international organisations should reflect its role and importance. More than anything else, you will be an instant hit with the Indian public.
On the same logic, in view of India's new role as a partner in disarmament and non-proliferation, India should be invited to join such bodies as the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) The world will benefit from India's participation in these bodies rather than just abide by their guidelines from outside.
The very fact that you have come to India at this juncture is significant in itself and even if our respective wish lists remain on paper for some more time, the directional significance of your visit will not be lost on anyone. But leaders meet to do what bureaucracies cannot do and however complicated these issues are, it should not be beyond the two of you to find ways to deal with them. Success is within your grasp.
The symbolism of your programme is not lost on us. Your stay at the Taj in Mumbai, your visits to the places associated with Mahatma Gandhi, your visit to Humayun's tomb and your address to the Parliament will make an indelible impression on India. No one who visits India is not transformed by the experience and you will be no exception.
Long before your historic election victory, I was asked who I would vote for if I had a vote. "My heart is with Obama, but my head is with McCain." Perhaps, a McCain administration would have been more sensitive to India's concerns. But it is the Obama phenomenon that captured my heart. My heart is still with you. And so are the hearts of many others in India.
Thank you, Mr. President.
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Mr.President,
Welcome to India. We are excited about the prospect of receiving a man of destiny not just for the people of the United States, but also for people around the world, who see you as a messiah of change and hope. We have a stake in your success because, on it depends the advent of a just, equitable and non-racist world. On this Diwali day, when you arrive in India, the brightest light that we see in the horizon is the one you lit in Washington that cold January night in 2008. Our welcome is spontaneous and unconditional. Your arrival in India itself is historic, regardless of whatever you may or may not accomplish here in the next four days.
We know that you will arrive in India before recovering from the mid-term shock of losing the House and reducing your majority in the Senate. The fact that your predecessors too had to face such defeats may be no consolation for you. In your case, the amazing fact is that you never received bipartisan support even in your struggle to tackle the national economic crisis or crucial health reform issues. There appears to be a conspiracy by vested interests to reverse the historic process that brought you to the White House. The trends you have set in foreign policy from Cairo and Prague break new ground for global peace and prosperity and you should have the time to bring them to fruition. We see hope in your initiatives and we wish you well.
Though the loss of the House is a blow to the Democratic Party and your own Congressional agenda, you will find that the new leaders of the various Congressional bodies will be supportive of your efforts to build a strategic partnership with India. Some leaders of the Republican party, who shaped President Bush's pro-India policies will be back in influential positions and this is a silver lining from the point of view of beneficial India-US relations.A new bipartisan approach to India may well be in the offing.
Strategic thinkers on both sides have debated every Issue that is likely to come up during your visit and we hope that your mind is not muddled by the prophesies of doom or high expectations contained in those masterpieces. As one of our former Foreign Ministers famously said, the visit should be seen in "directional" and not "transactional" terms. As long as you are able to have a frank exchange of views with our Prime Minister, whom you consider your guru, on strategic issues and reach an understanding on China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, your visit will be of infinite value.
There is a certain inevitability of success in these areas as neither of us is guided by any desire to subvert or dominate the region. We desire nothing but prosperity and stability for our neighbours as long as they do not work either to inflict a "thousand cuts" on us or to create a "string of pearls" to suffocate us. You are fighting a war not to conquer territory, but to ensure that never again will terrorism engendered in this region threaten lives in the United States. We have been engaged in that battle for more than twenty years and we know the pain and loss, which that struggle entails. When we urge you to complete the task of eliminating terrorism, we are not suggesting that we are ready to fight the battle to the Last American. Indians, Americans and humanity itself have a stake in ridding the world of the scourge of terrorism. There should be no more Headleys to perpetrate terrorism.
One of the ironies of history is that Pakistan, which has adopted terrorism as a state policy, is your front-line state in your combat against terrorism. The evidence of Pakistan's double game has come from reliable sources in Washington itself. You yourself have spoken about the danger of American equipment and money being used by Pakistan against India. In these circumstances, blind support to Pakistan for fear of the emergence of rulers in uniform or Taliban outfits will not serve American interests. For India, it poses grave dangers. A stable, free and democratic Afghanistan is in the best interests of both our countries. A regional rather than an Af-Pak solution should be sought in Afghanistan.
China's assertiveness in the wake of its rise is ominous for both our countries. India still has a vision of global partnership with China as a key element in it. But as long as the festering boundary issue is not resolved, the possibility exists of aggression in the guise of confusion arising out of different lines in different maps. it was the height of absurdity that China protested when our Prime Minister visited Arunachal Pradesh. No less serious is the policy to treat Indian citizens from Jammu and Kashmir as though they are from Mars, not entitled to normal consular access. You have your interests in China, but your visit should demonstrate in some way that the world will expect China to match its power with responsibilities. We are sure that you will benefit from Prime Minister's assessment of China as he will from your own analysis.
Unfortunately, the outcome of your strategic understanding with India will not be known either to your people or ours for a long time to come. They are likely to judge your visit on the basis of the transactional aspects of the visit. Your people need jobs and nuclear and defence contracts are very important from their point of view. You are aware that India is not averse either to nuclear trade or purchase of defence equipment. The liability law was put in place and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation was signed precisely to facilitate nuclear trade with the US and others. We have clarified that the language of our law has not changed the situation on the ground with regard to liability and that it is consistent with the Convention. It should not be beyond the lawyers on both sides to find a way to begin nuclear trade. On defence agreements too, the differences seem to be in form and not in substance. But any suggestion of surrender of sovereignty on the use of defence purchases is anathema to the Indian public.You should be able to carry with you good news on both these fronts even if everything is not signed and sealed before Nov 9.
The Indian wish list is quite realistic and achievable. No one disputes that sanctions are an anachronism between strategic partners. How can the entity black list be justified when the same entities are engaged in strategic cooperation with the United States? You say it is complicated, but is it not necessary to remove such anomalies, however complicated they may be? We are glad that you do not have the power to stop outsourcing, though you prefer to create jobs in Buffalo, not Bangaluru. It is a win-win situation and why not allow market forces to determine the future of outsourcing?
The third wish on the Indian side is to see you declaring from the floor of the Indian Parliament that you will support India's wish to be a permanent member of the Security Council. We know that it will not immediately open up the door of the Council for us. The process is long and arduous. But the perception in this country is that the US is an obstacle to Indian aspirations in this regard. You acknowledge the need for reform of the Security Council in the interest of making it representative and reflective of current realities. There is no better way for you to affirm your faith in India as a partner in global governance than by expressing support to India in suitable terms. India's involvement in international organisations should reflect its role and importance. More than anything else, you will be an instant hit with the Indian public.
On the same logic, in view of India's new role as a partner in disarmament and non-proliferation, India should be invited to join such bodies as the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) The world will benefit from India's participation in these bodies rather than just abide by their guidelines from outside.
The very fact that you have come to India at this juncture is significant in itself and even if our respective wish lists remain on paper for some more time, the directional significance of your visit will not be lost on anyone. But leaders meet to do what bureaucracies cannot do and however complicated these issues are, it should not be beyond the two of you to find ways to deal with them. Success is within your grasp.
The symbolism of your programme is not lost on us. Your stay at the Taj in Mumbai, your visits to the places associated with Mahatma Gandhi, your visit to Humayun's tomb and your address to the Parliament will make an indelible impression on India. No one who visits India is not transformed by the experience and you will be no exception.
Long before your historic election victory, I was asked who I would vote for if I had a vote. "My heart is with Obama, but my head is with McCain." Perhaps, a McCain administration would have been more sensitive to India's concerns. But it is the Obama phenomenon that captured my heart. My heart is still with you. And so are the hearts of many others in India.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Diaspora Diplomacy
Need for MEA and MOIA to work in unison
By T.P.Sreenivasan
The conclave of Indian envoys in New Delhi, which has become an annual feature, focuses on issues of current importance in foreign policy. Its agenda will show the priorities of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). Terrorism, Pakistan and China are recurring themes, but economic and cultural diplomacy also receive attention. The concerned Ministers are invited to interact with the envoys. Conspicuous by his absence this year was the Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA), Vayalar Ravi. Not that he was unavailable or unwilling; he was simply not invited.
Among the Cabinet Ministers, who work closely with the Indian missions abroad is the Minister, who looks after the diaspora, as there is hardly any country in the world without an Indian community. The MOIA is practically an extension of the MEA because the only instrument it has in dealing with the diaspora is our mission network. Defence, Commerce and Education Ministries have their own officers stationed in the relevant missions, but MOIA has officers only in two or three missions and, therefore, the MOIA has to necessarily bank on MEA personnel. Minister Ravi, who is not only a hands- on Minister, but also a person, who makes it a point to remain in touch with the heads of mission and the diaspora itself from Africa to the Americas, would have shared his vision and strategy with the envoys. Not inviting the Minister to address the envoys was, therefore, a serious omission, which reflects the low priority accorded by MEA to diaspora diplomacy.
At the political level, there is recognition of the utility of the diaspora as an instrument of diplomacy, ever since Rajiv Gandhi changed the traditional diaspora policy of only “being alive to their welfare and interests” to active engagement with the objective of securing investment, technology and political influence for India. He demonstrated the new policy at the time of the first coup in Fiji by sanctioning the country and taking upon himself the task of getting Fiji expelled from the Commonwealth as it practiced discrimination against Fiji citizens of Indian origin. He raised expectations around the world that India will stand by the diaspora , whether in prosperity or in adversity.
Successive Governments, regardless of party affiliations, have tried to meet the demands of the diaspora in a progressive manner. The Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) card, the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card, the annual Pravasi Bharatiya Divas PBD) in Delhi and the regional PBDs in different parts of the globe, the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman and the MOIA itself, with its subsidiary outfits are devices established from time to time for the purpose. They may not have fulfilled the aspirations of the diaspora in full, but have gone a long way in impelling them to be the advocates of Indian causes in their countries of adoption.
The missions, which are required to administer these facilities abroad, do perform their job, but often half heartedly, because diaspora diplomacy has not assumed the same importance as political, economic and cultural diplomacy, though it encompasses all these areas in countries like the US and the UK. In countries like Mauritius, Fiji, Surinam and Guyana and recently in the Gulf countries, diplomats go with the realization that they have to deal with the diaspora, but in the high profile missions, there is a tendency to relegate the diaspora work to secondary importance.
Years of practice and prejudice cannot be erased in a day. In the olden days, diplomats considered demands of the diaspora as distractions at best and the interactions did not go beyond social and cultural contacts. Invitations were sent to the Indian community twice a year to celebrate national days, but there was no strategy to utilize it for any diplomatic purposes. Today, there is a resolve to use the community as a resource for attaining foreign policy goals, but no defined strategy on which there is a consensus. It is left to the individual heads of mission to resort to their own devices to deal with the diaspora.
The Indian diaspora is as diverse as India itself. The challenges in Fiji are different from those in the United States or the United Kingdom. However, an occasion like the conclave of heads of mission is an opportunity to compare notes with the MOIA and to evolve a strategy. MEA must accord a higher level of priority to diaspora diplomacy if the Government’s objectives in this regard are to be reached. Creation of a separate Ministry does not absolve the IFS of the responsibility to implement the decisions of the Government.
In practice, however, the two Ministries are becoming more and more alienated. It would have been ideal if an IFS officer was deputed as Secretary, MOIA to make the shaping of our diaspora diplomacy coherent. But today, even the practice of having an IFS officer at the Joint Secretary level in that Ministry has been discontinued. Could not the MEA provide a suitable officer to head a division of the MOIA? The two Ministries should work in unison, not in competition as they tend to do.
A regional Pravasi Bharatiya Divas for Africa has just been concluded in Durban, South Africa. The South African Government made it a great celebration of the ties with India, coming as it did on the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi and the 150th anniversary of arrival of the first batch of indentured labourers. President Zuma himself attended the closing ceremony and made a memorable speech on what South Africa owes to India. He urged India to use the tremendous goodwill it has in Africa for the good of Indians and Africans. The Natal State Premiere and the King were also there. But the representation from India was confined to the Minister for MOIA and a Minister of State from the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Of course, the High Commissioner to South Africa and the Consul General in Durban played a major role. But there was hardly any representation from the rest of Africa in what was a regional conference. Did our missions in the rest of Africa carry the message to the communities in those countries? How many of them were invited?
The Durban Conference was a splendid occasion to showcase India’s links with Africa. The Africa Division should have given greater attention to the conference, particularly since it is in the process of evolving a strategy to counter the efforts of other countries to replace the Indian influence in Africa. This is the time for us to convert the image of the Indian diaspora in Africa into a benign one. It does not consist of labourers, petty traders and money lenders anymore. There are skilled workers, businessmen and bankers. They have risen to the challenges of globalization and they should be seen as nation builders and not exploiters. The change of image is necessary and India needs to be a catalyst. We missed a splendid opportunity to do this in Durban.
It is not long since India and its diapora discovered each other and realized that each has to gain from the other. Our diaspora diplomacy is still in its infancy. The facilities that have been put in place have their teething troubles. Holders of Overseas Indian Citizens cards are bewildered that they still need a visa to enter India. Prejudices remain about investing in India and setting up businesses. Our missions are not yet diaspora friendly, except where individual officers accord priority for this work. The mindset of some that Indians abroad is being pampered unnecessarily has to change. Unless the MEA and MOIA work together, not to speak of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), many of the problems cannot be ironed out. The Government and the diaspora also need to reorient themselves to working together if the diaspora diplomacy initiated by Rajiv Gandhi and nurtured by successive Prime Ministers should succeed.
Need for MEA and MOIA to work in unison
By T.P.Sreenivasan
The conclave of Indian envoys in New Delhi, which has become an annual feature, focuses on issues of current importance in foreign policy. Its agenda will show the priorities of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). Terrorism, Pakistan and China are recurring themes, but economic and cultural diplomacy also receive attention. The concerned Ministers are invited to interact with the envoys. Conspicuous by his absence this year was the Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA), Vayalar Ravi. Not that he was unavailable or unwilling; he was simply not invited.
Among the Cabinet Ministers, who work closely with the Indian missions abroad is the Minister, who looks after the diaspora, as there is hardly any country in the world without an Indian community. The MOIA is practically an extension of the MEA because the only instrument it has in dealing with the diaspora is our mission network. Defence, Commerce and Education Ministries have their own officers stationed in the relevant missions, but MOIA has officers only in two or three missions and, therefore, the MOIA has to necessarily bank on MEA personnel. Minister Ravi, who is not only a hands- on Minister, but also a person, who makes it a point to remain in touch with the heads of mission and the diaspora itself from Africa to the Americas, would have shared his vision and strategy with the envoys. Not inviting the Minister to address the envoys was, therefore, a serious omission, which reflects the low priority accorded by MEA to diaspora diplomacy.
At the political level, there is recognition of the utility of the diaspora as an instrument of diplomacy, ever since Rajiv Gandhi changed the traditional diaspora policy of only “being alive to their welfare and interests” to active engagement with the objective of securing investment, technology and political influence for India. He demonstrated the new policy at the time of the first coup in Fiji by sanctioning the country and taking upon himself the task of getting Fiji expelled from the Commonwealth as it practiced discrimination against Fiji citizens of Indian origin. He raised expectations around the world that India will stand by the diaspora , whether in prosperity or in adversity.
Successive Governments, regardless of party affiliations, have tried to meet the demands of the diaspora in a progressive manner. The Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) card, the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card, the annual Pravasi Bharatiya Divas PBD) in Delhi and the regional PBDs in different parts of the globe, the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman and the MOIA itself, with its subsidiary outfits are devices established from time to time for the purpose. They may not have fulfilled the aspirations of the diaspora in full, but have gone a long way in impelling them to be the advocates of Indian causes in their countries of adoption.
The missions, which are required to administer these facilities abroad, do perform their job, but often half heartedly, because diaspora diplomacy has not assumed the same importance as political, economic and cultural diplomacy, though it encompasses all these areas in countries like the US and the UK. In countries like Mauritius, Fiji, Surinam and Guyana and recently in the Gulf countries, diplomats go with the realization that they have to deal with the diaspora, but in the high profile missions, there is a tendency to relegate the diaspora work to secondary importance.
Years of practice and prejudice cannot be erased in a day. In the olden days, diplomats considered demands of the diaspora as distractions at best and the interactions did not go beyond social and cultural contacts. Invitations were sent to the Indian community twice a year to celebrate national days, but there was no strategy to utilize it for any diplomatic purposes. Today, there is a resolve to use the community as a resource for attaining foreign policy goals, but no defined strategy on which there is a consensus. It is left to the individual heads of mission to resort to their own devices to deal with the diaspora.
The Indian diaspora is as diverse as India itself. The challenges in Fiji are different from those in the United States or the United Kingdom. However, an occasion like the conclave of heads of mission is an opportunity to compare notes with the MOIA and to evolve a strategy. MEA must accord a higher level of priority to diaspora diplomacy if the Government’s objectives in this regard are to be reached. Creation of a separate Ministry does not absolve the IFS of the responsibility to implement the decisions of the Government.
In practice, however, the two Ministries are becoming more and more alienated. It would have been ideal if an IFS officer was deputed as Secretary, MOIA to make the shaping of our diaspora diplomacy coherent. But today, even the practice of having an IFS officer at the Joint Secretary level in that Ministry has been discontinued. Could not the MEA provide a suitable officer to head a division of the MOIA? The two Ministries should work in unison, not in competition as they tend to do.
A regional Pravasi Bharatiya Divas for Africa has just been concluded in Durban, South Africa. The South African Government made it a great celebration of the ties with India, coming as it did on the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi and the 150th anniversary of arrival of the first batch of indentured labourers. President Zuma himself attended the closing ceremony and made a memorable speech on what South Africa owes to India. He urged India to use the tremendous goodwill it has in Africa for the good of Indians and Africans. The Natal State Premiere and the King were also there. But the representation from India was confined to the Minister for MOIA and a Minister of State from the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Of course, the High Commissioner to South Africa and the Consul General in Durban played a major role. But there was hardly any representation from the rest of Africa in what was a regional conference. Did our missions in the rest of Africa carry the message to the communities in those countries? How many of them were invited?
The Durban Conference was a splendid occasion to showcase India’s links with Africa. The Africa Division should have given greater attention to the conference, particularly since it is in the process of evolving a strategy to counter the efforts of other countries to replace the Indian influence in Africa. This is the time for us to convert the image of the Indian diaspora in Africa into a benign one. It does not consist of labourers, petty traders and money lenders anymore. There are skilled workers, businessmen and bankers. They have risen to the challenges of globalization and they should be seen as nation builders and not exploiters. The change of image is necessary and India needs to be a catalyst. We missed a splendid opportunity to do this in Durban.
It is not long since India and its diapora discovered each other and realized that each has to gain from the other. Our diaspora diplomacy is still in its infancy. The facilities that have been put in place have their teething troubles. Holders of Overseas Indian Citizens cards are bewildered that they still need a visa to enter India. Prejudices remain about investing in India and setting up businesses. Our missions are not yet diaspora friendly, except where individual officers accord priority for this work. The mindset of some that Indians abroad is being pampered unnecessarily has to change. Unless the MEA and MOIA work together, not to speak of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), many of the problems cannot be ironed out. The Government and the diaspora also need to reorient themselves to working together if the diaspora diplomacy initiated by Rajiv Gandhi and nurtured by successive Prime Ministers should succeed.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Mr. Obama's Passage to India
The president's trip may not accomplish very much of note.
By T.P. SREENIVASAN
Many American presidents have made passages to India, from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush. In early November, President Obama will follow in their footsteps when he attends a major summit between the two partners in Delhi. Whether it will be a successful trip however, is still very much an open question.
President Obama set the bar high in June 2010, when he declared the U.S.-India partnership a "defining relationship of the century." In that, he was simply echoing the logic of his two predecessors, who realized that democratic India could serve as a useful counterpoint to the rise of China. India, too, has gravitated toward Washington for similar reasons.
Yet the strategic partnership envisaged in June, when the White House announced the summit, has not yet taken off, as the wish lists on the two sides differ substantially. For starters, the U.S. would like India to sign several pending agreements to facilitate the sale of American defense equipment, but India would like to move cautiously precisely because of the strategic nature of the agreements, which will cover communications and information security, geospatial cooperation and logistics sharing. Defense Minister A.K. Antony visited Washington this week to push these deals forward.
India's civil nuclear program is, still, another big sticking point. President Obama backed a reprocessing agreement in June—a major gesture, considering the conservative position he holds on enrichment and reprocessing technologies. But India has not been able to reciprocate by enacting liability legislation consistent with the relevant international regime, in which liability for nuclear damage is only for the operators, not the suppliers. The U.S. business community, eager to sell nuclear wares to India, is disappointed. It's unlikely that Mr. Obama can budge Delhi, however, given the Indian position that the new law does not, in reality, create new supplier liabilities and is consistent with the Vienna Convention on Supplementary Compensation.
On foreign affairs, the U.S. strategy for Afghanistan will loom large. President Obama's commitment to withdraw troops by next year has created concern in Delhi that the U.S. will leave before the country is fully stabilized. Delhi has also been dissatisfied with how little it's been consulted over strategic matters. To top it all off, the Wikileaks scandal earlier this year confirmed something many analysts already suspected: that Islamabad is working in collusion with the very Taliban it was supposedly fighting. The U.S. pooh-poohed the scandal publicly, but Delhi took note. Pakistan has also, in the meantime, stirred up trouble in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Then there's Iran, with which India has long had political and cultural ties. The U.S. would like India to be more forthright in its opposition to Iran's nuclear weapons program, but India has larger interests to protect in its neighborhood. In the event of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iran may be the only country that can help India stabilize the war-torn country. India will implement the United Nations sanctions against Iran, but it will not join the U.S. inspired publicity campaign against Iran's nuclear plans.
Mr. Obama hasn't made the relationship with Delhi any easier by pandering to his domestic constituents at India's expense. He was silent on the virtues of India's large outsourcing industry for some time for fear of creating an irritant in bilateral relations. But when the campaign against Indian companies like Infosys gathered momentum, leading to enhanced visa fees and Ohio outlawing outsourcing, the president has begun to harp on the importance of creating jobs on the U.S. soil. Outsourcing is an emotional issue among job seekers in the U.S., but it is equally sensitive in India, as many businesses are meant exclusively to cater to U.S. outsourcing.
The president's trip may still yield some positive results. The U.S may abolish a black list of Indian firms, euphemistically called the "entity list," which would allow American companies to transfer dual-use technologies to India. President Obama may also support India's bid for permanent membership of the U.N. Security Council and advocate the inclusion of the country into nonproliferation groups like the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The U.S. has nothing to lose by supporting India's aspirations. If other countries block the Security Council bid, for instance, it won't be America's fault, and Mr. Obama will win hearts in India.
Underlining all of this, and complicating matters, is China. Asia's other rising power threatens Indian and U.S. interests through its support for Pakistan's nuclear program, among other things. China continues to provoke India by asserting the disputed status of Kashmir and stepping up activities on Pakistan side of the Line of Control. This puts India in a dilemma: On one hand, Delhi wants to be militarily prepared in the context of China, which suggests a closer relationship with the U.S. But neither does Delhi want to be seen as provoking China by cozying up to the Americans.
President Obama's passage to India may not be as smooth as his predecessors' journeys, but that doesn't mean it has to be devoid of achievement. It's in both countries' interests that he succeeds. The flurry of activities on both sides continues unabated for this purpose.
Mr. Sreenivasan is director general of the Kerala International Centre in Trivandrum and a member of the National Security Advisory Board in New Delhi.
The president's trip may not accomplish very much of note.
By T.P. SREENIVASAN
Many American presidents have made passages to India, from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush. In early November, President Obama will follow in their footsteps when he attends a major summit between the two partners in Delhi. Whether it will be a successful trip however, is still very much an open question.
President Obama set the bar high in June 2010, when he declared the U.S.-India partnership a "defining relationship of the century." In that, he was simply echoing the logic of his two predecessors, who realized that democratic India could serve as a useful counterpoint to the rise of China. India, too, has gravitated toward Washington for similar reasons.
Yet the strategic partnership envisaged in June, when the White House announced the summit, has not yet taken off, as the wish lists on the two sides differ substantially. For starters, the U.S. would like India to sign several pending agreements to facilitate the sale of American defense equipment, but India would like to move cautiously precisely because of the strategic nature of the agreements, which will cover communications and information security, geospatial cooperation and logistics sharing. Defense Minister A.K. Antony visited Washington this week to push these deals forward.
India's civil nuclear program is, still, another big sticking point. President Obama backed a reprocessing agreement in June—a major gesture, considering the conservative position he holds on enrichment and reprocessing technologies. But India has not been able to reciprocate by enacting liability legislation consistent with the relevant international regime, in which liability for nuclear damage is only for the operators, not the suppliers. The U.S. business community, eager to sell nuclear wares to India, is disappointed. It's unlikely that Mr. Obama can budge Delhi, however, given the Indian position that the new law does not, in reality, create new supplier liabilities and is consistent with the Vienna Convention on Supplementary Compensation.
On foreign affairs, the U.S. strategy for Afghanistan will loom large. President Obama's commitment to withdraw troops by next year has created concern in Delhi that the U.S. will leave before the country is fully stabilized. Delhi has also been dissatisfied with how little it's been consulted over strategic matters. To top it all off, the Wikileaks scandal earlier this year confirmed something many analysts already suspected: that Islamabad is working in collusion with the very Taliban it was supposedly fighting. The U.S. pooh-poohed the scandal publicly, but Delhi took note. Pakistan has also, in the meantime, stirred up trouble in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Then there's Iran, with which India has long had political and cultural ties. The U.S. would like India to be more forthright in its opposition to Iran's nuclear weapons program, but India has larger interests to protect in its neighborhood. In the event of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iran may be the only country that can help India stabilize the war-torn country. India will implement the United Nations sanctions against Iran, but it will not join the U.S. inspired publicity campaign against Iran's nuclear plans.
Mr. Obama hasn't made the relationship with Delhi any easier by pandering to his domestic constituents at India's expense. He was silent on the virtues of India's large outsourcing industry for some time for fear of creating an irritant in bilateral relations. But when the campaign against Indian companies like Infosys gathered momentum, leading to enhanced visa fees and Ohio outlawing outsourcing, the president has begun to harp on the importance of creating jobs on the U.S. soil. Outsourcing is an emotional issue among job seekers in the U.S., but it is equally sensitive in India, as many businesses are meant exclusively to cater to U.S. outsourcing.
The president's trip may still yield some positive results. The U.S may abolish a black list of Indian firms, euphemistically called the "entity list," which would allow American companies to transfer dual-use technologies to India. President Obama may also support India's bid for permanent membership of the U.N. Security Council and advocate the inclusion of the country into nonproliferation groups like the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The U.S. has nothing to lose by supporting India's aspirations. If other countries block the Security Council bid, for instance, it won't be America's fault, and Mr. Obama will win hearts in India.
Underlining all of this, and complicating matters, is China. Asia's other rising power threatens Indian and U.S. interests through its support for Pakistan's nuclear program, among other things. China continues to provoke India by asserting the disputed status of Kashmir and stepping up activities on Pakistan side of the Line of Control. This puts India in a dilemma: On one hand, Delhi wants to be militarily prepared in the context of China, which suggests a closer relationship with the U.S. But neither does Delhi want to be seen as provoking China by cozying up to the Americans.
President Obama's passage to India may not be as smooth as his predecessors' journeys, but that doesn't mean it has to be devoid of achievement. It's in both countries' interests that he succeeds. The flurry of activities on both sides continues unabated for this purpose.
Mr. Sreenivasan is director general of the Kerala International Centre in Trivandrum and a member of the National Security Advisory Board in New Delhi.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Wall Street Journal July 20, 2010
Empty Talks, Fragile Peace
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A dialogue that began between India and Pakistan with the purpose of removing the trust deficit between them has ended up sowing greater distrust. Mystery remains as to why the two sides went ahead with talks last week when the preparatory meetings had not shown any sign of success. The theory that any dialogue will bring some incremental benefits has been proven wrong.
Sparks flew right, left and center when Foreign Ministers S.M. Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureshi of India and Pakistan, respectively, gave an account of the “cordial and positive” talks they held in Islamabad on July 15. On every issue that came up in the final press conference, the positions of the two countries remained far apart. No advance was made on investigations into the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack; no respite was indicated on infiltrations or ceasefire violations across the Line of Control separating Indian- and Pakistani-controlled areas of Kashmir; and Pakistan continues to allege that India is stirring up trouble in Baluchistan. If there was any good news on other issues, nothing was heard about it.
The timing was a big part of the problem. India had just received evidence from its questioning of the architect of the Mumbai terrorist attack, David Headley, suggesting that Pakistan’s intelligence agency was involved in the attack, a charge Pakistan denies. That was good enough reason for the talks to be suspended until the cobwebs in the case were cleared.
Instead, Pakistan rebuffed the allegation from Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai, repeated on the eve of the summit. Pakistan’s foreign minister equated Mr. Pillai’s comment to remarks made by one of the prime suspects in the attacks, Hafeez Sayeed, by saying that both were equally unhelpful. This cast further doubt on Pakistan’s commitment to bringing the perpetrators to book. Without that determination, no progress was possible on other issues as far as India was concerned.
Meanwhile, even as Pakistan’s army was firing a salute for the Indian foreign minister, guns were booming across the line of control in Kashmir. On July 13, a major of the Indian army was killed and a colonel wounded by the firing from across the line. Mr. Krishna also told Mr. Qureshi that there was a 40% increase in the infiltration of Pakistan terrorists into Jammu and Kashmir. The sound of guns on the border cannot provide background music to talks on peace.
Complicating matters, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari had just returned from his fifth visit to China since he became president. The president brought back with him not just the two nuclear reactors China had agreed to build in defiance of world opinion and Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines, but also additional infrastructure to be built on what India considers its own territory in Jammu and Kashmir. The message was one of eternal friendship between Pakistan and China, clearly aimed at keeping India in check. Pakistan believes it can afford a bit of distrust with India if it has a surfeit of trust with China.
India may have calculated that some progress with Pakistan would help bolster India’s own reputation in the forthcoming international conference on Afghanistan, which both India and Pakistan are scheduled to attend. Pakistan, already concerned about the U.S. position that India has a legitimate role in Afghanistan, may not have wanted any change in the equations in Afghanistan at this stage. Letting this round of dialogue go without results may have been part of Pakistan’s calculation.
In a similar vein, U.S. National Security Adviser Jim Jones arrived in India a day before the Islamabad parleys to prepare for President Barack Obama’s scheduled November visit. His outright condemnation of terrorism and the blunt message he conveyed to Pakistan about harboring terrorists within its own territory may have made alarm bells ring in Islamabad. Any admission of Mumbai guilt at this time could have undermined Pakistan’s credibility with the United States.
Such a configuration of events and trends provided a sure recipe for disaster at the Islamabad talks. Perhaps the two countries felt they had gone too far along in the preparations to postpone the summit without losing face. But it’s far worse for peace talks to end in a war of words. Mr. Qureshi rubbed salt in the wound by criticizing Mr. Krishna personally when he was still on Pakistan soil.
Hope remains alive. The two sides will reconvene in November, and when they do, they could usefully remember the experience of this round: Talking for talking’s sake, without a clear path toward results, risks adding a war of recriminations in addition to all the countries’ other troubles.
Mr. Sreenivasan is director general of the Kerala International Centre in Trivandrum and a member of the National Security Advisory Board in New Delhi
Empty Talks, Fragile Peace
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A dialogue that began between India and Pakistan with the purpose of removing the trust deficit between them has ended up sowing greater distrust. Mystery remains as to why the two sides went ahead with talks last week when the preparatory meetings had not shown any sign of success. The theory that any dialogue will bring some incremental benefits has been proven wrong.
Sparks flew right, left and center when Foreign Ministers S.M. Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureshi of India and Pakistan, respectively, gave an account of the “cordial and positive” talks they held in Islamabad on July 15. On every issue that came up in the final press conference, the positions of the two countries remained far apart. No advance was made on investigations into the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack; no respite was indicated on infiltrations or ceasefire violations across the Line of Control separating Indian- and Pakistani-controlled areas of Kashmir; and Pakistan continues to allege that India is stirring up trouble in Baluchistan. If there was any good news on other issues, nothing was heard about it.
The timing was a big part of the problem. India had just received evidence from its questioning of the architect of the Mumbai terrorist attack, David Headley, suggesting that Pakistan’s intelligence agency was involved in the attack, a charge Pakistan denies. That was good enough reason for the talks to be suspended until the cobwebs in the case were cleared.
Instead, Pakistan rebuffed the allegation from Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai, repeated on the eve of the summit. Pakistan’s foreign minister equated Mr. Pillai’s comment to remarks made by one of the prime suspects in the attacks, Hafeez Sayeed, by saying that both were equally unhelpful. This cast further doubt on Pakistan’s commitment to bringing the perpetrators to book. Without that determination, no progress was possible on other issues as far as India was concerned.
Meanwhile, even as Pakistan’s army was firing a salute for the Indian foreign minister, guns were booming across the line of control in Kashmir. On July 13, a major of the Indian army was killed and a colonel wounded by the firing from across the line. Mr. Krishna also told Mr. Qureshi that there was a 40% increase in the infiltration of Pakistan terrorists into Jammu and Kashmir. The sound of guns on the border cannot provide background music to talks on peace.
Complicating matters, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari had just returned from his fifth visit to China since he became president. The president brought back with him not just the two nuclear reactors China had agreed to build in defiance of world opinion and Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines, but also additional infrastructure to be built on what India considers its own territory in Jammu and Kashmir. The message was one of eternal friendship between Pakistan and China, clearly aimed at keeping India in check. Pakistan believes it can afford a bit of distrust with India if it has a surfeit of trust with China.
India may have calculated that some progress with Pakistan would help bolster India’s own reputation in the forthcoming international conference on Afghanistan, which both India and Pakistan are scheduled to attend. Pakistan, already concerned about the U.S. position that India has a legitimate role in Afghanistan, may not have wanted any change in the equations in Afghanistan at this stage. Letting this round of dialogue go without results may have been part of Pakistan’s calculation.
In a similar vein, U.S. National Security Adviser Jim Jones arrived in India a day before the Islamabad parleys to prepare for President Barack Obama’s scheduled November visit. His outright condemnation of terrorism and the blunt message he conveyed to Pakistan about harboring terrorists within its own territory may have made alarm bells ring in Islamabad. Any admission of Mumbai guilt at this time could have undermined Pakistan’s credibility with the United States.
Such a configuration of events and trends provided a sure recipe for disaster at the Islamabad talks. Perhaps the two countries felt they had gone too far along in the preparations to postpone the summit without losing face. But it’s far worse for peace talks to end in a war of words. Mr. Qureshi rubbed salt in the wound by criticizing Mr. Krishna personally when he was still on Pakistan soil.
Hope remains alive. The two sides will reconvene in November, and when they do, they could usefully remember the experience of this round: Talking for talking’s sake, without a clear path toward results, risks adding a war of recriminations in addition to all the countries’ other troubles.
Mr. Sreenivasan is director general of the Kerala International Centre in Trivandrum and a member of the National Security Advisory Board in New Delhi
Friday, June 04, 2010
Shashi Tharoor without Twitter, OSD and IPL----
A Successful Minister of State of External Affairs
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Shakespearean tragic heroes are known more for their tragic flaws than for their magic qualities. Hamlet was indecisive, Macbeth was ambitious, Othello was jealous and King Lear was vane. But Hamlet was a thoughtful and loyal son, Macbeth was a heroic warrior, Othello was a loving husband and King Lear was a doting father. The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones, as the bard himself has said
Being a Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs (MOS) must be very frustrating for any politician. The MOS has nothing to do with the sexy subjects the Ministry deals with—Pakistan, China, the United States, the other big powers and the United Nations. Moreover, any one, who has no role in the posting and promotion of IFS officers directly or indirectly, has any clout in South Block. But there is so much to do in other areas and, given the right attitude and hard work, any MOS can make a mark and use the position as a stepping stone to climb greater heights. Among the Ministers of State that I have worked with between 1977 and 2004, the two who made the biggest impact were Natwar Singh, on account of his direct access to the Prime Minister and Salman Khurshid, by sheer brilliance and hard work. More recently, Anand Sharma and E. Ahamed have proved their mettle and moved on to other positions. Many others have fallen by the wayside as they were misfits in the South Block. One of them read ‘Namibia’ as ‘Nambiar’ and the other pronounced “nodules” as “noodles”. Covering their meetings with their counterparts was often embarrassing for professional diplomats. They held their breath in the hope that the Minister would not say anything improper or undiplomatic.
Shashi Tharoor would have been a highly successful MOS in every respect, had he just focused on the work of his Ministry. A senior official of the Ministry of External Affairs told me what a delight it was to work with Tharoor. He would read a brief once and understand all the nuances of the issues he had to deal with. After that, he would handle any meeting with aplomb because he understood the intricacies of international relations, with his long experience at the United Nations. He had no problem dealing with unexpected issues raised by his interlocutors and he was never lost for words. “It was a pleasure watching him at work”, he said. This view was shared by many in the Ministry of External Affairs.
Those who miss him sorely in the South Block are the Ambassadors from the Gulf, Africa and Latin America, who are orphans once again as no Minister, not even the concerned Secretary has any time for them. They are often at the mercy of the concerned Joint Secretaries, who would condescend to give them time only if there was some urgent business to do. Ambassadors would like to send cables home about conversations at the highest level possible and it is rarely that they get chances to go beyond the level of the territorial Joint Secretaries. Tharoor knew many of these Ambassadors, who had served at the United Nations and made it a point to meet all of them and even accepted their invitations to visit their embassies.
A delegation of Latin American Ambassadors, who visited Trivandrum when Tharoor was the MOS were all praise for Tharoor for the attention he gave them, particularly to facilitate their visit to his own constituency. Now, with only one MOS in the Ministry, the Ambassadors from Africa, Latin America and the Gulf have no chance of meeting the MOS. By his exit, Tharoor has left a wide gulf in the Ministry.
Ironically, the longest speech Tharoor ever made in the Lok Sabha was after he resigned. But he had once an opportunity to handle a question on Afghanistan in the absence of the External Affairs Minister. Even senior Cabinet Ministers were greatly impressed with his performance. He was well briefed, inventive and articulate.
It was during his visits abroad that he proved his mettle, whether in bilateral discussions or in conferences. He certainly had drafts and briefs prepared for him by the bright officers of the Ministry of External affairs, but he made them his own because of his familiarity with the issues, his perception of Indian interests and his general geniality and oratorical skills. He breathed new life into the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC) with his speech at the Plenary Meeting of the Ninth Council of Ministers in Yemen in June 2009. The association was largely an Indian creation and it had become imperative for India to give more substantive support to it. He gave a shot in the arm to another body, the Community of Democracies, set up with much fanfare during the Clinton era, when he addressed its Fifth Ministerial Conference in Lisbon in July 2009. He also delivered several speeches in different parts of India on foreign policy in general and different regions in particular. In the course of his short stint as MOS in the Ministry of External Affairs, he has built up an impressive repertoire of valuable pronouncements on foreign policy. His speeches on foreign policy at his own alma mater, St. Stephen’s College and at the Aligarh Muslim University were a clarion call for inclusive foreign policy making, with the cooperation of Universities, think tanks and strategic thinkers. His point that foreign policy is too important to be left to the foreign office alone must have struck a sympathetic chord across the nation.
Tharoor followed up his idea of inclusive foreign policy making by reviving the Policy Planning Division in the Ministry with the participation of expertise from outside South Block. The Policy Planning Division was just a parking place most of the time, but it was a powerful force at the time when G.Parthasarathy and A.K.Damodaran turned it into a policy making body. Heads of territorial divisions in the Ministry never conceded space for the Policy Planning Division except when the leadership in the Ministry made use of it. Tharoor had made a good beginning by stressing the importance of policy planning. Planning for the future is as hazardous in foreign policy as in other areas, but planning with the best available data is the surest way to expect the unexpected.
Among his many purposeful visits abroad, the most important was his timely visit to Haiti soon after the devastating earthquake there. It must have been a sad moment for him to see many of his friends in the United Nations gone in the earthquake, but his visit, the first Ministerial visit to the island, brought much solace and comfort to the victims, specially to the Indian community.
Back home, Tharoor also attended to the needs of passport offices and Haj pilgrims to the extent possible. Both these operations of the Ministry have perennial problems and they will never be perfect, regardless of the efforts put in by successive teams. The outsourcing experiment in providing consular services has made them less personalized and less efficient. But a ministerial touch does energise matters and Tharoor has made an important contribution.
As MOS in the Ministry of External Affairs, Tharoor had more attributes than were considered necessary for the job in the past. Had it not been for twitter, his OSD and IPL, he may well have done well and qualified for higher responsibilities.
May 25, 2010
--
A Successful Minister of State of External Affairs
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Shakespearean tragic heroes are known more for their tragic flaws than for their magic qualities. Hamlet was indecisive, Macbeth was ambitious, Othello was jealous and King Lear was vane. But Hamlet was a thoughtful and loyal son, Macbeth was a heroic warrior, Othello was a loving husband and King Lear was a doting father. The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones, as the bard himself has said
Being a Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs (MOS) must be very frustrating for any politician. The MOS has nothing to do with the sexy subjects the Ministry deals with—Pakistan, China, the United States, the other big powers and the United Nations. Moreover, any one, who has no role in the posting and promotion of IFS officers directly or indirectly, has any clout in South Block. But there is so much to do in other areas and, given the right attitude and hard work, any MOS can make a mark and use the position as a stepping stone to climb greater heights. Among the Ministers of State that I have worked with between 1977 and 2004, the two who made the biggest impact were Natwar Singh, on account of his direct access to the Prime Minister and Salman Khurshid, by sheer brilliance and hard work. More recently, Anand Sharma and E. Ahamed have proved their mettle and moved on to other positions. Many others have fallen by the wayside as they were misfits in the South Block. One of them read ‘Namibia’ as ‘Nambiar’ and the other pronounced “nodules” as “noodles”. Covering their meetings with their counterparts was often embarrassing for professional diplomats. They held their breath in the hope that the Minister would not say anything improper or undiplomatic.
Shashi Tharoor would have been a highly successful MOS in every respect, had he just focused on the work of his Ministry. A senior official of the Ministry of External Affairs told me what a delight it was to work with Tharoor. He would read a brief once and understand all the nuances of the issues he had to deal with. After that, he would handle any meeting with aplomb because he understood the intricacies of international relations, with his long experience at the United Nations. He had no problem dealing with unexpected issues raised by his interlocutors and he was never lost for words. “It was a pleasure watching him at work”, he said. This view was shared by many in the Ministry of External Affairs.
Those who miss him sorely in the South Block are the Ambassadors from the Gulf, Africa and Latin America, who are orphans once again as no Minister, not even the concerned Secretary has any time for them. They are often at the mercy of the concerned Joint Secretaries, who would condescend to give them time only if there was some urgent business to do. Ambassadors would like to send cables home about conversations at the highest level possible and it is rarely that they get chances to go beyond the level of the territorial Joint Secretaries. Tharoor knew many of these Ambassadors, who had served at the United Nations and made it a point to meet all of them and even accepted their invitations to visit their embassies.
A delegation of Latin American Ambassadors, who visited Trivandrum when Tharoor was the MOS were all praise for Tharoor for the attention he gave them, particularly to facilitate their visit to his own constituency. Now, with only one MOS in the Ministry, the Ambassadors from Africa, Latin America and the Gulf have no chance of meeting the MOS. By his exit, Tharoor has left a wide gulf in the Ministry.
Ironically, the longest speech Tharoor ever made in the Lok Sabha was after he resigned. But he had once an opportunity to handle a question on Afghanistan in the absence of the External Affairs Minister. Even senior Cabinet Ministers were greatly impressed with his performance. He was well briefed, inventive and articulate.
It was during his visits abroad that he proved his mettle, whether in bilateral discussions or in conferences. He certainly had drafts and briefs prepared for him by the bright officers of the Ministry of External affairs, but he made them his own because of his familiarity with the issues, his perception of Indian interests and his general geniality and oratorical skills. He breathed new life into the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC) with his speech at the Plenary Meeting of the Ninth Council of Ministers in Yemen in June 2009. The association was largely an Indian creation and it had become imperative for India to give more substantive support to it. He gave a shot in the arm to another body, the Community of Democracies, set up with much fanfare during the Clinton era, when he addressed its Fifth Ministerial Conference in Lisbon in July 2009. He also delivered several speeches in different parts of India on foreign policy in general and different regions in particular. In the course of his short stint as MOS in the Ministry of External Affairs, he has built up an impressive repertoire of valuable pronouncements on foreign policy. His speeches on foreign policy at his own alma mater, St. Stephen’s College and at the Aligarh Muslim University were a clarion call for inclusive foreign policy making, with the cooperation of Universities, think tanks and strategic thinkers. His point that foreign policy is too important to be left to the foreign office alone must have struck a sympathetic chord across the nation.
Tharoor followed up his idea of inclusive foreign policy making by reviving the Policy Planning Division in the Ministry with the participation of expertise from outside South Block. The Policy Planning Division was just a parking place most of the time, but it was a powerful force at the time when G.Parthasarathy and A.K.Damodaran turned it into a policy making body. Heads of territorial divisions in the Ministry never conceded space for the Policy Planning Division except when the leadership in the Ministry made use of it. Tharoor had made a good beginning by stressing the importance of policy planning. Planning for the future is as hazardous in foreign policy as in other areas, but planning with the best available data is the surest way to expect the unexpected.
Among his many purposeful visits abroad, the most important was his timely visit to Haiti soon after the devastating earthquake there. It must have been a sad moment for him to see many of his friends in the United Nations gone in the earthquake, but his visit, the first Ministerial visit to the island, brought much solace and comfort to the victims, specially to the Indian community.
Back home, Tharoor also attended to the needs of passport offices and Haj pilgrims to the extent possible. Both these operations of the Ministry have perennial problems and they will never be perfect, regardless of the efforts put in by successive teams. The outsourcing experiment in providing consular services has made them less personalized and less efficient. But a ministerial touch does energise matters and Tharoor has made an important contribution.
As MOS in the Ministry of External Affairs, Tharoor had more attributes than were considered necessary for the job in the past. Had it not been for twitter, his OSD and IPL, he may well have done well and qualified for higher responsibilities.
May 25, 2010
--
Iran-Brazil-Turkey----Hazards of Mediation.
By T.P.Sreenivasan
I was in Brasilia last month, together with twenty others from around the globe, to discuss “Emerging Structures of Global Governance” at the initiative of the Government of Brazil. Our man in Brasilia, Ambassador B.S.Prakash, pleased with a highly successful visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who participated in two summits (Brazil-Russia-India-China (BRIC) and India-Brazil-South Africa(IBSA) in one day, was all praise for the new initiatives of Brazil in the international arena. Al Jazeera had a story at the same time about the emergence of Brazil on the centre stage of the world. President Lula’s domestic success and heightened status in South America had encouraged him to play a global role. The seminar on global governance itself, where the best minds of Brazil asserted that there was a turning point in the international system, was aimed at providing leadership for change.
Turkey too was poised for a new role on the global scene. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuloglu, in spelling out the new directions in Turkish foreign policy, had stated, “Today, Turkey has a great deal of say in the international arena. More importantly, there is a critical group of countries that lends a careful ear to Turkey’s stance on a myriad of regional and international issues. At this point, the world expects great things from Turkey and we are fully aware of our responsibility to carry out a careful foreign policy.”
Given their non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council and their willingness to wade into international waters, it was no wonder that the two countries took on the most pressing of the international problems of the day, the face-off between the United States and Iran. Though it looked like an initiative taken on by them at the instance of Iran, the United States had obviously encouraged them to strike a bargain, though Hillary Clinton had predicted that they would fail. The skilful diplomats of Brazil and Turkey revived an old deal of swapping of Low Enriched Uranium in exchange for fuel rods, from which Iran had reneged ostensibly on account of the trust deficit between Iran and its western interlocutors. The idea that the Iranian uranium will be in the trusted hands of Turkey and the fuel rods will come from the same source as indicated before made the deal possible.
The ten article agreement is fairly simple and straightforward. The commitment to nonproliferation and respect to the rights of states to nuclear energy, research and fuel cycle have been asserted at the outset. In the most important part of the agreement, Turkey is to keep 1200 kilogram of Low Enriched Uranium fuel (3.5%) owned by Iran with monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran itself. In exchange, the Vienna Group (France, Russia, the US and the IAEA) will deliver 120 kilogram of nuclear fuel with 20% purity) to Iran for use in its research reactor in Teheran. By and large, the agreement is very similar to an earlier proposal, which was made by the IAEA in consultation with the US and others. Iran did not agree at that time as it was not sure that the western countries would honour their part of the agreement.
Both Turkey and Brazil were in direct contact with the US right from the Washington Nuclear Security Summit on this issue and they had reason to believe that the new deal would be acceptable to the US. The Turkish Foreign Minister was confident that the sanctions were no more necessary. “This agreement should be regarded positively and there is no need for sanctions, now that we have made guarantees and the low enriched uranium will remain in Turkey”, he said. India too voiced cautious optimism about the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil. But Israel was quick in rejecting the deal by stating that Iran had “manipulated” Turkey and Brazil. Israel felt that Iran would not honour the agreement and the involvement of rising powers such as Brazil and Turkey would radically complicate matters. “The Iranian nuclear installations are going to continue working and Teheran will pursue its efforts to obtain a military nuclear programme while developing long-range missiles”, said an Israeli official.
Predictably, the US too rejected the deal and moved forward with the sanctions resolution, which apparently has the acquiescence of both Russia and China. The US has pointed out that the new deal does not say anything about the cessation of enrichment of uranium by Iran. The European Union has also taken the position that the deal is not enough to stop work on tougher sanctions. “If Iran has now accepted the IAEA proposal, this is welcome, but it does not solve the fundamental problem, which is that the international community has serious concerns about the peaceful intention of the Iran nuclear programme”, said a spokesperson of the European Union. The reasons for the rejection of the deal were not clear immediately, but the main reason is that considerable time has passed since the west had made a similar proposal. At that time, the transfer of 1200 kilogram of Low Enriched Uranium would have left Teheran with much less than the 1000 kilogram of LEU required to make a bomb. But in the interim period, Teheran has enriched more uranium and even after the transfer, it will have sufficient stocks to move towards weaponisation. Today, Iran is estimated to have nearly 2500 kilogram of LEU. But why this fact was not pointed out to Turkey and Brazil at the time of the negotiations remains a mystery.
Iran, Turkey and Brazil have, however, continued to press the world to accept the deal and delay the imposition of sanctions. Turkey has written to 26 countries saying that the deal would resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran by way of diplomacy and negotiations. The activism of Turkey and Brazil as the mediators is likely to embarrass the United States and its partners.
On the larger geopolitical context, the involvement of Turkey and Brazil in what was essentially a tussle between Iran and the west, appeared to mark the beginnings of a new world order. Iranian acceptance of a deal which was originally proposed by the west with new guarantors, one of them a regional Islamic country and the other outside the region, seemed like the rejection of the west as a partner and the discovery of an alternative, with broader international implications. Iran did not trust France and Russia, but it had no problems with Turkey and Brazil.
There must be red faces in Turkey and Brazil on account of the rejection of their deal by the west, which had encouraged them to enter into negotiations with Iran. The jubilation of Iran will also be an embarrassment for them. They must have discovered the hazards of mediation in an issue, which has assumed innumerable dimensions. Their zest for playing a new role in international relations may well have suffered a setback by the Iran experience.
By T.P.Sreenivasan
I was in Brasilia last month, together with twenty others from around the globe, to discuss “Emerging Structures of Global Governance” at the initiative of the Government of Brazil. Our man in Brasilia, Ambassador B.S.Prakash, pleased with a highly successful visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who participated in two summits (Brazil-Russia-India-China (BRIC) and India-Brazil-South Africa(IBSA) in one day, was all praise for the new initiatives of Brazil in the international arena. Al Jazeera had a story at the same time about the emergence of Brazil on the centre stage of the world. President Lula’s domestic success and heightened status in South America had encouraged him to play a global role. The seminar on global governance itself, where the best minds of Brazil asserted that there was a turning point in the international system, was aimed at providing leadership for change.
Turkey too was poised for a new role on the global scene. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuloglu, in spelling out the new directions in Turkish foreign policy, had stated, “Today, Turkey has a great deal of say in the international arena. More importantly, there is a critical group of countries that lends a careful ear to Turkey’s stance on a myriad of regional and international issues. At this point, the world expects great things from Turkey and we are fully aware of our responsibility to carry out a careful foreign policy.”
Given their non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council and their willingness to wade into international waters, it was no wonder that the two countries took on the most pressing of the international problems of the day, the face-off between the United States and Iran. Though it looked like an initiative taken on by them at the instance of Iran, the United States had obviously encouraged them to strike a bargain, though Hillary Clinton had predicted that they would fail. The skilful diplomats of Brazil and Turkey revived an old deal of swapping of Low Enriched Uranium in exchange for fuel rods, from which Iran had reneged ostensibly on account of the trust deficit between Iran and its western interlocutors. The idea that the Iranian uranium will be in the trusted hands of Turkey and the fuel rods will come from the same source as indicated before made the deal possible.
The ten article agreement is fairly simple and straightforward. The commitment to nonproliferation and respect to the rights of states to nuclear energy, research and fuel cycle have been asserted at the outset. In the most important part of the agreement, Turkey is to keep 1200 kilogram of Low Enriched Uranium fuel (3.5%) owned by Iran with monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran itself. In exchange, the Vienna Group (France, Russia, the US and the IAEA) will deliver 120 kilogram of nuclear fuel with 20% purity) to Iran for use in its research reactor in Teheran. By and large, the agreement is very similar to an earlier proposal, which was made by the IAEA in consultation with the US and others. Iran did not agree at that time as it was not sure that the western countries would honour their part of the agreement.
Both Turkey and Brazil were in direct contact with the US right from the Washington Nuclear Security Summit on this issue and they had reason to believe that the new deal would be acceptable to the US. The Turkish Foreign Minister was confident that the sanctions were no more necessary. “This agreement should be regarded positively and there is no need for sanctions, now that we have made guarantees and the low enriched uranium will remain in Turkey”, he said. India too voiced cautious optimism about the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil. But Israel was quick in rejecting the deal by stating that Iran had “manipulated” Turkey and Brazil. Israel felt that Iran would not honour the agreement and the involvement of rising powers such as Brazil and Turkey would radically complicate matters. “The Iranian nuclear installations are going to continue working and Teheran will pursue its efforts to obtain a military nuclear programme while developing long-range missiles”, said an Israeli official.
Predictably, the US too rejected the deal and moved forward with the sanctions resolution, which apparently has the acquiescence of both Russia and China. The US has pointed out that the new deal does not say anything about the cessation of enrichment of uranium by Iran. The European Union has also taken the position that the deal is not enough to stop work on tougher sanctions. “If Iran has now accepted the IAEA proposal, this is welcome, but it does not solve the fundamental problem, which is that the international community has serious concerns about the peaceful intention of the Iran nuclear programme”, said a spokesperson of the European Union. The reasons for the rejection of the deal were not clear immediately, but the main reason is that considerable time has passed since the west had made a similar proposal. At that time, the transfer of 1200 kilogram of Low Enriched Uranium would have left Teheran with much less than the 1000 kilogram of LEU required to make a bomb. But in the interim period, Teheran has enriched more uranium and even after the transfer, it will have sufficient stocks to move towards weaponisation. Today, Iran is estimated to have nearly 2500 kilogram of LEU. But why this fact was not pointed out to Turkey and Brazil at the time of the negotiations remains a mystery.
Iran, Turkey and Brazil have, however, continued to press the world to accept the deal and delay the imposition of sanctions. Turkey has written to 26 countries saying that the deal would resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran by way of diplomacy and negotiations. The activism of Turkey and Brazil as the mediators is likely to embarrass the United States and its partners.
On the larger geopolitical context, the involvement of Turkey and Brazil in what was essentially a tussle between Iran and the west, appeared to mark the beginnings of a new world order. Iranian acceptance of a deal which was originally proposed by the west with new guarantors, one of them a regional Islamic country and the other outside the region, seemed like the rejection of the west as a partner and the discovery of an alternative, with broader international implications. Iran did not trust France and Russia, but it had no problems with Turkey and Brazil.
There must be red faces in Turkey and Brazil on account of the rejection of their deal by the west, which had encouraged them to enter into negotiations with Iran. The jubilation of Iran will also be an embarrassment for them. They must have discovered the hazards of mediation in an issue, which has assumed innumerable dimensions. Their zest for playing a new role in international relations may well have suffered a setback by the Iran experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
