Thursday, November 07, 2013



Inaugural Remarks by Former Ambassador and Vice-Chairman of the Kerala State Higher Education Council, T.P.Sreenivasan, at the Kerala History Congress, Kozhikode, November 7, 2013.

I am glad to be invited to inaugurate the Golden Jubilee of the Govt. Arts and Science College, Kozhikode, and the Kerala History Congress today. It is a matter for celebration that the college has made a major contribution to higher education in Kerala for fifty years. We have different kinds of colleges in Kerala, but the Government colleges constitute the backbone of the system. You will be glad to know that the paradigm shift in funding of state colleges under RUSA of the Ministry of Human Resource Development will transform higher education in the country. I am sure the Government of Kerala will give special attention to Government colleges, which are particularly poor in infrastructure.

It is most appropriate that that you have organized a Kerala History Congress with the participation of scholars from India and abroad on this occasion. But I am at a loss, as a non-historian, as to what to say at this inaugural ceremony in the presence of erudite historians. I seek comfort in making these remarks, however, because every individual, in every profession, contributes to the making of history. Our personal histories and accomplishments do contribute to the history of our society, our country and the world. Journalists, they say, write the first draft of history. The celebrated journalist, B.G.Varghese, called his autobiography “The First Draft.”

Diplomats create history in their own way. They also record history. They provide the raw material of history when the archives are opened. Many countries open out even the most secret documents after thirty years to reveal the conversations and negotiations, which led to important international developments. For example, we now know the details of the discussions that took place in the White House during the Bangladesh war. India is still conservative in opening up the archives, but we have the memoirs of several diplomats, which throw light on history as it evolved.

There are different ways of looking at history. I remember that in the Soviet Union, it was believed that the past could always be changed. Only the future was certain! History was rewritten not to rectify errors, but to change it to suit the purposes of the Communist Party. For instance, Soviet history claimed that Soviet citizens made every important invention and discovery. They knew well that this did not happen, but they deliberately rewrote history to instill pride among the Soviet people. The aircraft, the steam engine and penicillin were first made in the Soviet Union, it was taught in schools.

The most important point about history is that if you do not learn it, you will repeat the mistakes of history. When history repeats itself, often the reason is the lack of awareness of what had happened in the past. By reading history, we can learn from the mistakes of the past, as we do not have time to make our own mistakes to correct them.

Of course, there is justification for reinterpreting and rewriting history as new facts come to light and such rewriting of history is a responsibility of historians. New biographers of historical personalities appear because different historians see them in different lights. As long as such rewriting is not to serve political or other purposes, it is legitimate and necessary. Very recently, the lives of Jinnah and Sardar Patel have been re-evaluated. New biographies of Gandhi, Nehru and Indira Gandhi keep appearing and all of them enrich history.

Study of history has seen a revival of late, because of the realization that the present cannot be managed without the knowledge f the past. History, it is said, is “carefully and critically constructed collective memory.” Just as personal memory is important for us to deal with others, collective memory is inevitable to deal with public and social choices. Absent or defective collective memory deprives us of the best available guide for public action. Without learning history, we face nasty surprises and frustrating failures. The dimensions of contemporary reality can be understood only if we have knowledge of the story of the human adventure on earth. Public memory need not be fixed. It can be rectified in the light of new facts. An issue, which may have appeared trivial years ago might assume new dimensions in the movement of history. With the wisdom of hindsight, we may be able to assess situations better. At the same time, we should refrain from condemning leaders who made their best judgment at a particular time in history.

Educationists around the globe agree that history should be part of any curriculum. History should be placed somewhere between humanities and social sciences. Historians like Ramachandra Guha focuses on contemporary life with the strength of his historic perspectives. The number of students who offer history and humanities and social sciences has increased in the colleges in Kerala, because avenues of employment such as the print and electronic media have increased. Many commercial companies have begun to appoint social scientists and not necessarily engineers and scientists at the helm, because what is needed at that level is a broad view rather than narrow specialization.

I am glad to see that this seminar will focus on Kerala history. A number of eminent historians like Prof. M.G.Narayanan will be presenting papers here. I noticed in an advance copy of his paper that he is demolishing the widely held belief that “Silappathikaram” was written by Ilangovadigal in the 2nd century. He has established that a Jain bhikshu composed it in the 9th century to propagate the tenets of Jainism. Such dispassionate studies will shake the foundations of false versions of history and lead us to new insights. I am happy to inaugurate the international seminar and wish your deliberations every success.

Thank you.

--

Friday, October 25, 2013



'Modi'fication of Foreign Policy

By T.P.Sreenivasan

A tough line towards Pakistan, greater attention to building of brand India and a bigger role for the states in foreign policy making are the proposed modifications of foreign policy put forward so far by Prime Ministerial candidate Narendra Modi. His promise to allow states a bigger say in strategizing and building foreign policy is unexceptionable.

The states, which have special links with certain countries, either because of a common border or cultural and commercial affinities should be consulted in framing policies towards those countries, he said. As examples, he gave links of Gujarat with Africa, West Asia, China and Japan, Odisha with Indonesia, Goa with Portugal, Pondicherry with France, Tamil Nadu with Sri Lanka, Singapore and Malaysia and Bihar with Buddhist countries. One could add Kerala and the Gulf countries, West Bengal and Bangladesh, Bihar and Nepal and Mauritius. Most states have links with the United States because of the large number of immigrants from these states. As stakeholders in India's relations with the countries concerned, it is only legitimate that these states be consulted and kept informed of developments.

The Chief Minister did not question the constitutional position on foreign policy, which is crystal clear. It is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Centre and there is no mechanism to consult the states. Some people believe that the Indian state is only quasi-federal because of the lack of autonomy given to the states in certain vital matters.
In his letters to the Chief Ministers, Pandit Nehru often took the regional leaders into confidence on some aspects of foreign policy, more to educate them than to consult them. Foreign policy advocacy by certain states was not uncommon even then. But with the advent of coalitions, in which the regional parties had the power to make and unmake governments, state leaders began to play a decisive role in foreign policy. With globalization and economic reforms, ethnic, immigration and economic issues and even simple prejudices of regional leaders began to play a role. The most recent dramatic instances were of Mamta Banerjee holding up the Teesta water sharing agreement with Bangladesh and Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi pushing India to vote in favour of a US sponsored human rights resolution on Sri Lanka. The Tamil Nadu legislature even passed a resolution, asking the Government of India to move the United Nations Security Council to ask for a referendum in Sri Lanka on establishing a Tamil Eelam there. In its latest resolution, Tamil Nadu legislature has demanded that India should boycott the Commonwealth Summit in Colombo. It was not long ago that the Kerala legislature passed a resolution against the India-US nuclear deal. Less dramatically, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu slowed down the Jaitapur and Kudankulam nuclear projects, Odisha forced a revision of a South Korean project and Kerala made it hard for the Centre to deal with the Italian marines, who killed two fishermen off the cost of the state.
There have been other state interactions with neighbouring countries. Pakistan announced readiness to buy power from Gujarat, the Bihar Chief minister has been hosting dinners for Nepal politicians and the Chief minister of Punjab has received a gift of a buffalo from the Chief Minister of Pakistani Punjab. Taking these into account, the noted columnist, Nitin Pai has suggested the setting up of a Subcontinental Relations Council, headed by the Prime Minister and comprising of the External Affairs Minister and the Chief ministers of all states that have external borders.   
The way to deal with the situation is for the Centre to subsume the interests of the states. Coalition politics cannot be permitted to sway foreign policy beyond a point. Trade agreements are particularly important, when products, which are special to different states, are covered in such agreements. The virtual veto given to the states on the issue of FDI in retail is a case in point.
Jammu & Kashmir is, of course, a special case when it comes to foreign policy. The state leaders have always been consulted on our policy towards Pakistan. Moreover, the state has used our differences with Pakistan to push for its own autonomy in various ways. The special privileges that Kashmir enjoys are a consequence of our foreign policy preoccupations. The role that Hurriyet plays in relations with Pakistan is significant. The Hurriyet leaders meeting Pakistani leaders in India has almost become routine. In the name of Pakistani sensitivities, the state adopts positions, which the other states will not be permitted to do.
Of late, Chief Ministers and others have begun to visit foreign countries to canvass investments, to seek changes in immigration policies and to smoothen trade regulations. Increasingly, foreign dignitaries too have begun to visit the states to win potentially powerful regional leaders. Hillary Clinton chose to visit Mamta Banerji in Kolkata and  Jayalalthaa in Chennai. She made a policy statement on the US rebalancing in the Pacific not from Delhi, but from Chennai. A day may come when foreign dignitaries will do their business in the states and go to Delhi only to pay homage to the Father of the Nation and to receive the ceremonial welcome at the Rashtrapati Bhavan!
The foreign Consulates have stepped up their activities in several states. Requests for appointment of Honorary Consuls have multiplied. The states have also begun to push for internationalization of education to gain benefits abroad.

Turning to Kerala, there has been sustained interest in foreign affairs in the state, but it was confined to sending some Menons, Nairs and Panikkars to the South Block and trusting them to take care of Kerala’s interests.  Today, Kerala pressurizes the Centre to send Malayalee envoys to the Gulf, in the expectation that they would look after the Kerala labour in those countries better. The possibility of the forced return of Kerala workers from the Gulf creates tremors and Kerala Ministers rush to the Gulf even when two Central Ministers from Kerala deal with the issues. At the time of the nuclear deal, the leftist Government in Kerala campaigned strongly against it. The same Government raised alarm when a trade agreement between India and ASEAN came up. It agitated that the loss of revenue to the state should be avoided even if there were more than corresponding benefits for the Centre. Kerala insisted that the bilateral relations between India and Italy should not be dragged into the legal case against the Italian marines. Even the United Front Government, dominated by the Congress Party, felt deceived when its jurisdiction in the case was questioned. Kerala was confident that a settlement could be reached with the Italians with the help of the church, if the Centre had not intervened.
The Centre should be more sensitive to the needs and concerns of the states. Some methods of institutionalized consultations between the Ministry of External Affairs and the states have been mooted in the past. Apart from the MEA Branch Secretariat in Kolkata, which was set up under special circumstances, a proposal to station senior MEA officials in major state capitals was mooted by the then Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and it was partly implemented. Other suggestions such as annual consultations with the states on foreign policy, inclusion of the relevant Chief Ministers in the Prime Minister's delegations to certain countries etc have been suggested.

Serving officers of the Ministry of External should brief think tanks and other groups, who are interested in foreign policy through outreach programmes and provision of support to them for sustaining themselves. More courses should be started in international relations in the Universities to enthuse youngsters. State media take interest in foreign affairs only when something of their immediate interest happens and they tend to be negative about them. The successes in foreign policy elsewhere go unnoticed in the process.
Intensive and continuous interaction between the Centre and the states is important to allay the fears of the states regarding foreign policy being made in Delhi. 
Foreign policy making cannot be shifted out of Delhi and the regional satraps, who do not have a national perspective, should not be allowed to dominate foreign policy. But regional inputs should be integral to foreign policy making at every step of the way. If regional leaders, think tanks and media are fully briefed, they will become partners in foreign policy making and implementation rather than hurdles. 


Friday, October 11, 2013




Federalism and Foreign Policy

(Remarks at ICWA-JNU Conference)

Oct 9, 2013

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Some years ago, I worked with a Foreign Secretary, who believed that no Punjabi should deal with Pakistan and no Tamil should deal with Sri Lanka. In fact, when I offered to be posted to Sri Lanka, he told me that I should not go there because of my Tamil sounding name. I pleaded that the name was not uncommon in Kerala, but he said that it was not possible to convince every Tamil Tiger and Sinhala extremist that I was not a Tamil. Today, he might say that no Bangali should deal with Bangladesh, no Bihari should deal with Nepal or Mauritius, nobody from the North-East should deal with China and no Malayalee should deal with the Gulf. Such are the interlinkages that have developed between our border states and our neighbours. Their concerns about our relations with these countries are so real that foreign policy can no longer be framed or practiced without taking into account their interests.

The constitutional position on foreign policy is crystal clear. It is within the jurisdiction of the Centre and there is no mechanism to consult the states. Some people believe that the Indian state is only quasi-federal because of the lack of autonomy given to the states in certain vital matters.

In his letters to the Chief Ministers, Pandit Nehru often took the regional leaders into confidence on some aspects of foreign policy, more to educate them than to consult them. Foreign policy advocacy by certain states was not uncommon even then. But with the advent of coalitions, in which the regional parties had the power to make and unmake governments, state leaders began to play a decisive role in foreign policy. With globalization and economic reforms, ethnic, immigration and economic issues and even simple prejudices of regional leaders began to play a role. The most recent dramatic instances were of Mamta Banerjee holding up the Teesta water sharing agreement with Bangladesh and Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi pushing India to vote in favour of a US sponsored human rights resolution on Sri Lanka. Less dramatically, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu slowed down the Jaitapur and Kudankulam nuclear projects, Odisha forced a revision of a South Korean project and Kerala made it hard for the Centre to deal with the Italian marines, who killed two fishermen off the cost of the state.
The only way to deal with the situation is for the Centre to subsume the interests of the states. But coalition politics cannot be permitted to sway foreign policy beyond a point. Trade agreements are particularly important, when products, which are special to different states are covered in such agreements. The virtual veto given to the states on the issue of FDI in retail is a case in point.

Kashmir is, of course, a special case when it comes to foreign policy. The state leaders have always been consulted on our policy towards Pakistan. Moreover, the state has used our differences with Pakistan to push for its own autonomy in various ways. The special privileges that Kashmir enjoys are a consequence of our foreign policy preoccupations. The role that Hurriet plays in relations with Pakistan is significant. The Hurriet leaders meeting Pakistani leaders in India has almost become routine. In the name of Pakistani sensitivities, the state adopts positions, which the other states will not be permitted to do.

Of late, Chief Ministers and others have begun to visit foreign countries to canvass investments, to seek changes in immigration policies and to smoothen trade regulations. Increasingly, foreign dignitaries too have begun to visit the states to win potentially powerful regional leaders. Hillary Clinton chose to visit Mamta Banerji and Chennai to meet Jayalalthaa. She made a policy statement on the US rebalancing in the Pacific not from Delhi, but from Chennai. The Consulates have stepped up their activities in several states. Requests for appointment of Honorary Consuls have multiplied. The states have also begun to push for internationalization of education to gain benefits abroad.

Turning to Kerala, where I have lived for nearly ten years after leaving the Foreign Service, there has been sustained interest in foreign affairs, but it was confined to sending some Menons, Nairs and Panikkars to the South Block and trusting them to take care of Kerala’s interests. Even today, Kerala pressurizes the Centre to send Malayalee envoys to the Gulf, in the expectation that they would look after the Kerala labour in those countries better. The possibility of the forced return of Kerala workers from the Gulf creates tremors and Kerala Ministers rush to the Gulf even when the issues are dealt with by two Central Ministers from Kerala. At the time of the nuclear deal, the leftist Government in Kerala campaigned strongly against the deal and even adopted a resolution in the legislature against it. The same Government raised alarm when a trade agreement between India and ASEAN came up. It agitated that the loss of revenue to the state should be avoided even if there were more than corresponding benefits for the Centre. Kerala insisted that the bilateral relations between India and Italy should not be dragged into the legal case against the Italian marines. Even the United Front Government, dominated by the Congress Party, felt deceived when its jurisdiction in the case was questioned. Kerala was confident that a settlement could be reached with the Italians with the help of the church, if the Centre had not intervened.
Intensive and continuous interaction between the Centre and the states is important to allay the fears of the states regarding foreign policy being made in Delhi. The Centre should be more sensitive to the needs and concerns of the states. Serving officers of the Ministry of External should brief think tanks and other groups, who are interested in foreign policy through outreach programmes and provision of support to them for sustaining themselves. More courses should be started in international relations in the Universities to enthuse youngsters. State media take interest in foreign affairs only when something of their immediate interest happens and they tend to be nagaive about them. The successes in foreign policy elsewhere go unnoticed in the process.
Foreign policy making cannot be shifted out of Delhi and the regional satraps should not be allowed to dominate foreign policy without the national perspective. But regional inputs should be integral to foreign policy making at every step of the way.






Hopes of Autumn

Indian Express Oct 11, 2013


By T.P.Sreenivasan

The salubrious early autumn in New York offers the ideal setting for the General Assembly session, which opens in the third week of September every year. Kings, Presidents and Prime Ministers, not to speak of Foreign Ministers and professional diplomats throng New York, some to mix business with pleasure, others to mix pleasure with pleasure. Diplomatic activities multiply everywhere and every one reviews policies and projects them to the world. Deals and pledges are made, even if they have to be broken subsequently. After the long speeches, gala dinners and joint statements, the guests return to their homesteads to continue their struggle for power and progress.
In Japan, they say that the autumn sky and the woman’s heart are susceptible to frequent changes. Leaves change colours and fall, paving the way for winter. This year, war clouds were visible on the Syrian firmament as delegates were packing their bags for their pilgrimage to the United Nations. Pundits around the globe declared that war was inevitable, now that Syria had used chemical weapons and thus breached the red line. The words from President Obama and Secretary Kerry were warlike. War drums were heard in London and Paris. The United States, they said, could not but attack Syria to maintain its global status and credibility among its allies. Money was no problem, as oil rich Arabs would finance the war.


The experts were obviously wrong. The Americans, the British and the French were in no mood for war even if their leaders were. Regime changes in the Middle East did not seem very attractive after the aftermath of the Arab Spring in other countries. The Morsi phenomenon in Egypt and the murder in cold blood of the American Ambassador, who was the architect of the new regime in Libya, had dampened enthusiasm for change. President Assad seemed still strong and fundamentalist elements had crept into the dissident movement. A dithering US Administration, therefore, grasped the straw that Vladimir Putin extended by way of a plan to eliminate the chemical weapons of Syria, as though the rebellion in Syria was not against President Assad, but his chemical weapons arsenal. President Obama claimed that Syria accepted the deal because of the gravity of his threat. Others thought that it was the defeat of imperialism and triumph of the “Communist” Putin, who threatened the Americans through the New York Times. But there was an element of wisdom and the preference to avoid war in the mind of President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry. Nobody will concede this, as the world is not accustomed to the breaking out of peace. War and violence come more naturally to the Homo sapiens.


The beginning of a thaw in the Arctic freeze of US-Iran relations was more dramatic as the two countries had not spoken to each other since 1979. The feeble signs of a change after President Rouhani took over were dismissed as unreal, but the announcement of the first direct contact between the two leaders by way of a telephone call from President Obama to President Rouhani shook the very foundations of the theory of inevitability of war. What was more, President Obama said that it was not merely a goodwill call, but a discussion on Iran’s nuclear programme and that he was persuaded there was even a basis for agreement. Obama called the discussion an important breakthrough after a generation of deep mistrust and suggested that it could serve as the starting point to an eventual deal on Iran’s nuclear programme and a broader renewal of relations between two countries that once were close allies.


“The test will be meaningful, transparent and verifiable actions, which can also bring relief from the comprehensive international sanctions that are currently in place,” added President Obama. “Resolving this issue, obviously, could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” he said.


The skeptics and the non-believers have ruled out any change in the future and have pointed out the geopolitical compulsions on both sides. They expect that the mirage of peace will give way to war clouds, as it is unthinkable for Iran to give up its nuclear adventure as long as the hidden weapons of Israel posed a threat to the Islamic world.

India too contributed to the autumn of hope with the farewell visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the White House, though seen by many as nothing but ceremonial. A significant step that was taken by the two sides went almost unnoticed in the midst of disappointment of on the Afghan front and the economic liberalization area. The media, which called the move “reckless adventurism” when there were indications that the liability law would be “diluted”, kept quiet when an agreement was signed to begin work on the installation of a Westinghouse reactor in Gujarat. We do not know whether the US relaxed its insistence on no liability for suppliers or we relaxed our liability law, but one irritant in India-US relations seemed to be fading away.

One exception to the general mood of change for the better was the disastrous India-Pak summit in New York. It was a summit, which should have gone the way of Obama-Putin summit and the Dilma Roussef-Obama summit, for which the time was not propitious. India and Pakistan did not even have the courage to announce the meet and it was made to appear as though no decision had been taken. Guns continued to boom across the Line of Control as a cover for infiltrators from Pakistan. The only substantive outcome of the summit was an agreement that Directors General (Military Operations) on both sides should look into cease-fire violations, a job already assigned to them. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif did not even show the courtesy of avoiding his meaningless reference to Kashmir in his speech to the UN General Assembly. Whether he referred to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as a “dehathi aurat” or simply narrated the story of a village woman, who constantly complained about her neighbor, the body language did not show any warmth. Nawaz Sharif had the habit of embracing Prime Minister Gujral and breaking into Punjabi when they met. With his hands and feet tied up, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh could only read the riot act on terror to him, for which he did not need to meet him face to face. The summit did more harm than good, because it highlighted that the two leaders were hostage, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his army and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the Indian public opinion. The claim that we lost nothing was untenable. We lost at least a dozen more lives on the eve of the meeting.

Though the India-Pak summit failed to take things forward, in the eyes of international observers, the summit also fitted into the general trend towards relaxation of tensions. The hopes of autumn, however,  must go through the rigours of winter before blossoming in spring. Chances are that the winter freeze will destroy some of the seeds planted in autumn.



Thursday, September 26, 2013






TEDx MEC: FROM SOME TO AWESOME
September 26, 2013
 
 From Paddy Fields to the World Parliament

From some to awesome, from the ordinary to the extraordinary, from the mundane to the memorable, from man to superman, is the law of evolution. The transformation is slow and gradual for humanity, but for individuals, it is dramatic, a revolution in a single lifetime. It is the evolution of an individual human being that adds up to the transformation of humanity. As Armstrong said, a small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind.

Imagine a boy, born in a village, with no electricity, whose playgrounds were the paddy fields, flooded in certain seasons and dry in others, whose toys were made out of coconut leaves and used bicycle tires, with no idea of the world outside. Subsistence farming ensured that there was plenty of food, but not much else. He had one pair of clothes for the school and a topless outfit for the home, either a tattered pair of shorts or a coarse loincloth.

He walked to the school, barefooted, balancing himself on the slippery, narrow tracks in the fields, rain or shine, and read with the help of a kerosene lamp. His ambition was only to do well in class, with hardly any competition in a village school. What guided him was a dream that his father had, that he should conquer the world, not just be the best in the state or India. The widest horizon he could visualize was the Foreign Service, a magic wand, he thought, that would transform a village boy into a globetrotter. His father’s dream became his own, though he did not know what it meant, or how to accomplish it. But he toiled on, from school to college, in frustration and excitement, in failure and victory.
He went through College with the singular objective of competing for the diplomatic service, chose literature rather than science, read everything that he could get hold of from the libraries, read newspapers and meticulously took notes that filled many notebooks. The  Hindu editorials were the staple of his learning, both for language and information. Academic success gave him the courage to tackle the Civil Services examination. Pursuit of a dream energized him even when there were setbacks.

And finally, the fairy arrived with her magic wand in the form of success in an examination, which literally transformed him from being one in a billion struggling  
Indians into one in less than a thousand diplomats, consisting mainly of princes and other privileged men and women from Oxford and Cambridge. It was truly turning from some to awesome. It was an intoxicating experience as he moved from one world capital to the other, initially as a minor functionary, but eventually as an Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, authorized by the President of India to speak on behalf of a billion people. His identity merged with the identity of India, his voice became one with the voice of the motherland. He became an Excellency, not just a simple human being.

The glamorous places on the political, cultural and tourist maps of the world became part of his daily routine, driving past the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, the Dzong in Thimphu, the red square in Moscow, the Empire State Building in New York, the lions park in Nairobi, the fabulous beaches of Fiji, the White House in Washington and the Hofburg Palace in Vienna. He sat across the table with world leaders, Brezhnev and Clinton, Castro and Tito, negotiated with world class diplomats and signed agreements that served the best interests of the country. Even when he was expelled from a country and hurt in an armed attack, the feeling was of elation that he went through them for his country. Having pledged to do whatever was required to be done, a few drops of spilt blood or a couple of metal pieces in the bones made no difference.

He turned every challenge into an opportunity and treated every experience as part of the learning process. He sipped bitter green tea with relish at tea ceremonies with the geisha, gulped down yak buttered and salted tea not to offend the Bhutanese monarch, burnt the gullet with undiluted vodka to celebrate India-Soviet friendship and drank kava, which tasted no better than gutter water to savour the bliss of the lotus eaters of the South Pacific islands. He ate raw fish in Japan, raw meat in Moscow, tasteless corn meal in Kenya and flourished on burgers and hot dogs in the US and relished schnitzel and wines in Austria. He watched the kabuki theatre in Tokyo, the Nutcracker in the Bolshoi Theatre, heard Jazz in New York Village and enjoyed opera in Vienna. He wandered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Hermitage in Leningrad, the Space Museum in Washington and the Museum Quarter in Vienna. He lived in temperatures ranging from -30 degrees in Moscow to +40 degrees in Delhi. Magnificent libraries, high domed Cathedrals and manicured parks were daily fare for him. Could any one wish for more, having been born and brought up beside the muddy waters of the paddy fields?

Every time our man stood up in the magnificent hall of the General Assembly or addressed the mightiest around the horseshoe table of the UN Security Council on issues of international importance to India, he marveled at his own journey from the paddy fields of Kayamkulam to the Parliament of the world.

Our hero did not know whether he made a difference to the world, as achievements in the IFS are nebulous. There are no bridges to be built except in the minds of men. No accomplishments can be attributed to individuals. It is more a matter of intellectual satisfaction. On rare occasions, one gets a chance to play a crucial role in a crisis or shape a consensus among warring factions. None of these bothered our man, as he saw his work as a mission to be accomplished to his own satisfaction.

The evolution from some to awesome continues. Both his sons, who had better living conditions and better education than him, had their own accomplishments. One, who went to school in Manhattan near the famous Metropolitan Museum of Art, today leads the Met’s efforts to turn its marvelous collection of art into a digital resource for global education. The other is a connoisseur of popular western music, even while managing a business concern. Happily, even the next generation is showing signs of evolution.

Believe me, friends, there is no exaggeration, no hyperbole, no fiction in this tale. The person who transformed himself from “some to awesome” was none other than the speaker, now back in the back waters with a fund of memories to recall and to relish with malice to none and goodwill for all.

Thank you.










Wednesday, September 11, 2013




Dialogue in search of consensus

T P Sreenivasan : Sat Aug 31 2013, 04:32 hrsSmallLargePrint
MAriel Detergent  www.ariel.inFor Shiny Clean Clothes  Use Ariel. Visit us to know more!Ads by Google
 1G +0SU0Reddit0 0
For the moment, India's government must manage, not promote, ties with Pakistan.
Once upon a time, Jawaharlal Nehru made foreign policy and Girija Shankar Bajpai and K.P.S Menon implemented it, and all was well. Even after the China fiasco of 1962, South Block, the PMO and MEA, ruled the roost as far as foreign policymaking was concerned. That changed when it came to the nuclear deal and the new friendship with the US. Polarisation on the degree of friendship that we should seek from one country or another may be acceptable, but when it comes to the strategy to deal with external threats, at least a basic consensus on fundamental issues is critical.
Today, the national consensus on Pakistan and China is limited to the recognition that both are in illegal occupation of Indian territory and that the continuing claims of these countries pose a serious and imminent threat to India. Beyond that, there are as many opinions as there are people. The government itself is clear on the minimum requirements of a possible settlement with both China and Pakistan, but for the rest, it does not rule out any option. It is ready to go the extra mile for peace and rules out the use of force, even a limited strike, as an option. Wherever possible, India is willing to work with both countries in the UN and elsewhere on issues of common interest.
On Pakistan, the basic consensus is that Kashmir is an integral part of India legally and constitutionally, and that the borders cannot be redrawn. This can be stretched to mean conversion of the Line of Control (LoC), but Pakistan rejected that option long ago. No one in India has any doubt that Pakistan perpetrates terrorism as part of its policy. After Sharm el-Sheikh, we saw that India is not in favour of acknowledging that in Balochistan, Pakistan is a victim of terrorism.
Beyond this consensus, Indian and Pakistani moves are carefully watched by the people of India. Neither the hawks nor the doves hold any particular appeal. The government of the day cannot presume that its mandate to rule the country gives it a free hand to negotiate a deal with Pakistan. Atal Bihari Vajpayee had greater credibility as a peacemaker than any other prime minister before or after him because of his long association with the Jan Sangh. Still, Lahore and Agra became tombstones, not milestones, on his road to peace. His bus journey to Lahore became a fiasco not only because of Kargil, but also because it was evident that tourists would travel to Lahore and terrorists would use the same bus on the return.
We trust our leaders with the future of the nation, but not with settling disputes with our neighbours. Such a limitation of the power of the executive must be accepted by every government. Including Kashmir on the agenda of the dialogue with Pakistan was clearly a risk that PM Narasimha Rao took at a crucial moment. He did so in greetings he sent to Benazir Bhutto from New York, ostensibly under pressure from the US. His ingenuity was put to the severest test to explain a major change in policy. He managed to convince the country that Kashmir was included only to discuss terrorism in J&K, but subsequent developments showed that Pakistan used the agenda item to try to extract concessions from India. Rao paid heavily for his act of statesmanship. Every government that seeks a settlement beyond managing the status quo will have a tightrope to walk on.
The most recent government effort to salvage the gains of the Track II dialogue by tweaking a few words in its statement to Parliament was the most eloquent example of the tight leash placed on it by the people. The opposition may have exploited it politically, but the entire nation felt uncomfortable with the unfamiliar language used. The nation was convinced that the terrorists were part of the ISI. In one stroke, the government lost credibility, even arousing suspicions it was not on the same page with the armed forces. It was also unclear as to why the government believed that it could have a deal with the civilian government in Pakistan against the wishes of the latter's powerful armed forces. The "mantras" developed over the years to react to Pakistani actions cannot be altered, even with good intentions. What the country expected was an unambiguous statement on the identity of the culprits and a strong affirmation of the right to self-defence. To imply that even a limited engagement is ruled out is to decimate the value of the arms we have accumulated.
The first step necessary for any serious dialogue with Pakistan is an acknowledgment by Pakistan of the imperatives of normalcy in political relations and cooperation in trade and economic activities. There should also be convincing signs that the terrorist outfits have been dismantled. A smokescreen of dialogue simply gives Pakistan legitimacy and an opportunity to seek financial resources.
Recent events have once again revealed that no consensus exists in India to establish peace with Pakistan at any cost. The distrust of Pakistan transcends the religious divide. The existence of a China-Pakistan nexus cannot be wished away. The mandate that the government enjoys as of now is to manage the relationship with the least damage to lives and property, and to establish an image abroad of sweet reasonableness and willingness to engage in a dialogue in an atmosphere of peace. Any change will have to wait for a more propitious moment.
The writer, a former ambassador and governor for India of the IAEA, is executive vice-chairman, Kerala State Higher Education Council

--