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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
