Technology Based Education

Inaugural Remarks by Former Ambassador T.P.Sreenivasan at the Seminar on Technology Enabled Education at the Chinmaya Institute of Technology at Kannur

Oct 20, 2014

I am grateful to Dr.K.R.Srivathsan and his colleagues for organizing this timely seminar on technology-enabled education. This is a matter of high priority for the Kerala State Higher Education Council, which has set up a Committee on IT@Colleges, of which Dr.K.R.Srivathsan is a leading member. The Committee has a two-fold agenda. The first is to assess the IT assets that our educational institutions have to enable them to make optimum use of the different platforms available and to provide additional facilities to them. The second is to design the necessary content to facilitate the use of the platforms in accordance with the syllabi of our universities. I hope that the present seminar will provide the necessary inputs to our Committee. As is well known, the key to effective use of technology in education is the design.

A year ago, the KSHEC organized an International Meet on Transnational Education and issued a Thiruvananthapuram Declaration, which emphasized, among other things, the need to popularize MOOCS in the state to fill the gap between the knowledge of the teachers and advanced knowledge, which is freely available in cyberspace. We faced some criticism from high places, which pointed out that India did not have either the connectivity or even the electricity to use MOOCS. What we had suggested was not to replace traditional education with MOOCS, but to use MOOCS as tools to supplement classroom education. Today, however, there is recognition of the central role of MOOCS in higher education. The President, the Prime Minister and the MHRD Minister have spoken of MOOCS as an essential tool. Dubbed as SWAYAM, (Study of Webs of Active learning for Young aspiring Minds) MOOCS have been generated in India with the involvement of UC Berkley and IIT Mumbai.

In our own way, we have incorporated MOOCS in our teachers training programmes and held several workshops. Together with the University of North Carolina, the Mahatma Gandhi University has held a MOOCS programme for University students. Since we propose to move rapidly in this direction, we need to create the necessary content to suit our curricula.

Distance learning is not entirely new and different forms of distance learning have existed for long. Educational films were produced as early as 1910 and Thomas Edison said in 1913 that there is no branch of human knowledge, which cannot be taught with motion pictures. Technology has transformed education in the last ten years and in the next ten years, it will reach unprecedented levels of innovation. India needs to catch up with these developments to keep our higher education relevant, competitive and efficient. Technology and education can promote each other, if they are used with reason and vision.

The variety of learning tools available can be used to enable the teachers and the students to use online resources and to develop research skills. Flipped classrooms have proved effective and technology is particularly suited for Math, which is fundamental to the growth of technology. Unless our universities specialize in research and create knowledge, rather than gather information, we can never reach the world-class levels of education we aspire to. We do not have world-class universities in India not because they are poor, but because the criteria used are applicable more for research universities, not teaching universities.

Some say that universities, the way we know them, will disappear with the growth of technology. I do not subscribe to this view. Learning cannot be imparted by machine alone. Interaction with teachers and peers are extremely important to embellish education. Resources available in cyberspace should be used with discretion and on the basis of mentoring by teachers.

Nobody can be enthusiastic about technology without being skeptical at the same time. We cannot take effective technology for granted even in the advanced countries. Failure of technology has resulted in heavy losses, not to speak of the embarrassment it causes to technologists. I have seen technology failure in seemingly minor technologies even in MIT and NASA. Once I was with Ambassador (later President) K.R.Narayanan at MIT and when he stood up to speak, the microphone failed. Ambassador Narayanan said that if it had happened in his village, it would be called “third world technology”, but since this is MIT, we can only call it “system failure!” On another occasion, when Kalpana Chawla was about to take off on her first shuttle mission, I was told I could greet her from the NASA headquarters. The system failed and later, we discovered that someone had unplugged the device under the table! If such things can occur in MIT and NASA, how can we rely on technology in the conditions that exist in our universities? The answer, of course, lies in the mastery of man over the machine. Needless to say, we have to reach higher levels of technology to use it uninterruptedly on the education scene.

With these words, may I inaugurate the Seminar and wish it every success? We have a major stake in your success as we propose to use your conclusions in reforming education in Kerala.

Thank you.

The Nobel Prize: Pride and Prejudices

Nobel Prize: Pride and Prejudices

T.P.Sreenivasan

The announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize for India's Kailash Satyarthi and Pakistan's Malala Yousufsai during serious India-Pakistan border skirmishes led to speculation that it was meant to urge India and Pakistan to stop firing across the border and move to the negotiating table, though the decision was taken long before the present ceasefire violations by Pakistan. The Nobel Committee is being portrayed as a peacemaker. Malala herself has dramatized the situation by inviting the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan to attend the Prize ceremony in Oslo. This is far fetched because the award has nothing to do with India-Pakistan relations or the border conflict. India would reject any such linkage as it is likely to lead to external intervention.

Another twist to the award was added by the Nobel Committee by referring to a Hindu in India and a Moslem in Pakistan struggling together for the rights of the children, reflecting he stereotyped approach to the religions in the two countries. Satyarthi himself has denied that his work had anything to do with his religion. 

Both India and Pakistan are legitimately proud of their Nobel laureates of 2014, Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousufsai, but the award may reflect some prejudices about the sub-continent. Except in a very few cases, Nobel Prize for Peace has become a disruptive tool of intervention in the developing world. In the present case, the motivation was not just to honor two exceptional achievers, but to invite attention to the miserable state of children in India and Pakistan, without any regard to the social and economic conditions in the two countries. Often, such attention can lead to new conditionalities for development assistance.

It was the European Parliament, not any Indian entity, which nominated Kailash Satyarthi for the Nobel Prize. His long list of awards have come from the US, Italy, Germany and Spain. The reason is that Satyarthi’s struggle for the rights of the children in India was used as a part of the western agenda to impose their standards on India. At the UN and in the US, we have been bombarded about child labour with the material and evidence given to them by Satyarthi and his organization. Like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Satyarthi's work has often embarrassed India by challenging the reports we have submitted to international organizations.

India has been a champion of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and Indian representatives largely wrote it. But the formulation in it on child labour made it difficult for us to sign and ratify it. Totally forbidding any employment of children below the age of 14 in any sector would be neither practical, nor desirable in India. India tried to sign the Convention with a reservation on the child labour clause, but this was not acceptable to the UN. While India was exploring various ways to  join the Convention, we were under severe pressure from various international NGOs. Eventually, we signed and ratified the Convention on the understanding that we would implement the child labour clause in a progressive manner.

In the US, the then President Clinton had also campaigned for the abolition of child labour in India, using the work of Satyagrahi and others to prove that India had no concern for the plight of Indian children. The “Rug Mark”, instituted by Satyarthi to identify Indian carpets, which were made without child labour resulted in the reduction of carpet exports from India. This had become an irritant in India-US relations even when Clinton was forging new ties with India. The memories of the miserable conditions of children during the Industrial Revolution in Europe should have tempered the criticism against India.

Today, when Satyarthi is being honoured with the most prestigious global award, reports appear to the effect that many millions of Indian children are in “slavery”. This is hardly the reputation that India should have when we are basking in the glory of “Mangalyan”. That India is conscious of the rights of its children and that every effort is being made to end child labour is lost in the bustle of an Indian winning the Nobel Prize. Satyarthi’s comments after winning the Prize on a recent case of alleged child trafficking in Kerala without evidence has angered many in the state.

Malala Yousufsai was widely believed to win the Nobel last year, but, to the disappointment of her admirers, the award went to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the wake of the destruction of chemical weapons of Syria. One of the reasons cited for not giving the Prize to Malala last year was her young age and the fear that the Prize might provoke Taliban to hurt her. These considerations are still valid, but the pressure to give her the Prize came from very powerful groups, essentially because of clever marketing by her father. She had captured the imagination of the west because of her book and her acclaimed speech at the UN. Her courage and near sacrifice are unparalleled and she fully deserved the Prize.

The interventionist aspect is evident in the case of Malala as well. The stereotyped image of Islamic countries consists of denial of education to women and prevalence of terrorism. Nothing illustrates this image more than the Malala incident. It is believed that she survived basically because she was shifted to Birmingham and received outstanding medical treatment. Pakistan is certainly embarrassed that Malala has received such international attention. Even though Malala aspires to political leadership in Pakistan, she has not chosen to return to Pakistan. Her Nobel Prize is the second in history of Pakistan, which makes the country feel proud, but not without a tinge of embarrassment.

The Nobel Prize for those who have many more years in social activism can cause complications in their work. Their dramatic rise in stature may impel them to be more daring. Unless they measure their steps carefully in the future, their messianic zeal may hurt rather than help their causes. Praveen Swami went to the extent of saying that the Prize is “ephemeral, arbitrary and ultimately banal” and not different from beauty contests. This may be an exaggeration, but for both India and Pakistan, the Nobel Prize for Satyarthi and Malala may be a mixed blessing.

The UN is 69, Going on 70

UN is 69, going on 70!

An AIR Talk

By T.P.Sreenivasan

In human lives, 70 is the age at which one senses the approaching dusk and begins to evaluate the accomplishments and disappointments. But for the UN, which is meant to survive many generations, being on 69, going on 70 is youth as yet, ready to fulfill expectations and explore new horizons. As the UN prepares for its 70th birthday next year, the world rejoices over its achievements, assigns new responsibilities to it and sets its new goals. New challenges, like the Ebola virus stare the UN in the face, while the festering issues of the past continue to defy solutions.

Leaders, who addressed the 69th session of the UN General Assembly made their appraisals of the UN from their own respective perspectives and outlined its future course. Much needs to be done, much needs to be corrected, and much needs to be innovated, they said. Each added at least a new agenda item; each proposed a new initiative, a new Year, a Month or a Day to be designated for one cause or another. Although the UN is not considered effective enough, it still remains the only universal body with a global agenda.

The UN has much to be proud of. The historic challenge of decolonization was met and the exponential growth in its membership itself is testimony to the birth of many nations with the least possible pain. Without the UN, disarmament and non-proliferation will not have registered even modest success. Equity and justice in global economy have been defined, if not achieved. The standards set for the promotion and protection of human rights serve as models of national behavior even if many nations deviate from them. The new challenges like the environment, cyber threats, management of outer space and various pandemics have also been tackled. The Specialized Agencies work in their areas effectively. There is no human activity, which the UN has not touched.

Admittedly, the UN has, however, not fulfilled its primary purpose, which is to rid the world of the scourge of war. More than 800 wars have been waged in the last 70 years and many others are in the offing. Peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace building have made an impact in conflict areas, but lack of authority and effective machinery have rendered several such missions unable to fulfill their mandate. Powerful countries manipulate the UN to suit their purposes and defy the UN even when it reflects the international will. The millennium goals remain more as benchmarks, rather than accomplished missions.

The UN has shown remarkable resilience in dealing with global issues to the extent that the members, particularly the permanent members have the will to let it act. The UN can be only as effective the members want it to be. While it has been successful in expanding the agenda over the years, it has not been able to get rid of the old baggage. Closing an agenda item is much harder than adding one. Much time is spent, therefore, in reiterating positions and repeating old arguments. The UN is the most conservative of organizations, with very little room for innovation in its methodology and practices. There are too many sleeping dogs allowed to lie around, with the threat that one side or another will wake them up and create havoc.

Leaders, including our Prime Minister expressed the hope that the long awaited reform of the Security Council will be accomplished on the occasion of the 70^th birthday of the UN. But this was said, as far as I know, on the 50^th and 60^th birthdays also. As of now, there is no formula for the expansion of the Security Council, which can command the support of two-thirds of the membership of the General Assembly, including the permanent members of the Security Council. Everyone understands the logic for change. They know that the realities of global power have changed beyond recognition. They know that the ratio of General Assembly members and the Security Council members is extremely low. But those who have enjoyed privileged positions for 69 years are not going to give them up in the 70^th year. India’s claim for permanent membership of the Security Council is well established, but there is no chance for it to be recognized in the 70^th year. No wonder that our Prime Minister spoke on the subject in general terms, without making any claim. Our ambition in this regard has been tempered by experience.

The environment, particularly climate change, has been established as the one issue on which a global consensus is imperative in 2015. The Secretary General has already hosted a summit to focus attention on climate change. The consensus of Rio collapsed in Copenhagen and today, there is not even a basis for a new global agreement. Polluters are yet to pay and the international community is yet to fulfill their common, but differentiated responsibilities. In the meantime, anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases continue to accumulate beyond permissible levels, threatening the very existence of mankind.

Terrorism is the other issue on which the UN needs to develop a consensus. In the wake of 9/11, there was a renewed desire to approve a Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism, but that has been lost, once again, in the terrorist vs freedom fighter debate. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist and vice versa. If countries have adopted terrorism as their national policy, they will not condemn terrorism in all its manifestations. Al Qaeda has made new threats against India and the stirrings of fundamentalism in Iraq and Syria threaten to engulf West Asia. Scenes of abominable executions have added a new dimension to human depravity and cruelty. 

Can nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation become a reality in the 70^th year of the UN? Nuclear security has become a priority and safety has become a matter of of paramount importance after Fukushima. But on the fundamental issue of elimination of nuclear weapons, which had gained momentum a few years ago, has become dormant again. When countries, which have signed the NPT engage in surreptitious nuclear weapons activities, elimination of nuclear weapons cannot take place. As long as nuclear weapons remain at the centre of defense strategies, there is little hope of a world without nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes has also suffered a setback after Fukushima.

Much effort was made to turn the Human Rights Commission into the Human Rights Council, but it has changed only in name. Politicization of human rights continues. Political opponents are suppressed or eliminated in the name of human rights.

The fight against the Ebola virus will be the most urgent issue for the UN to tackle in its 70^th year. It has already reached the shores of the United States and no nation can remain immune to it in a globalized world. Even the modest success accomplished in the case of HIV/AIDS may elude the UN and rapid action is necessary. Such pandemics do not recognize national boundaries or distinctions of race and ideology. The UN has the responsibility to meet the threat on a war footing.

Another tendency, which will jeopardize the UN in the 70^th year is the propensity of powerful countries to act as coalitions of the willing when the Security Council is unwilling or unable to act. Today, most of the concerns of the US are outside the UN, whether it is the power struggle in the Asia Pacific, the dispute over the South China Sea or the change in Afghanistan. The absence of a UN framework leaves the field to the powerful nations.

India today has gained enough experience to know that it is unrealistic to expect to gain anything by taking up issues to the UN. Instead, we focus on the global commons and contribute ideas and efforts to build the capacity of the UN to deal with the new challenges. We do not ask what we can get from the UN, but we do what we can to advance the common good. India has abiding faith in the UN, despite its weaknesses and setbacks.

What can we expect the UN to accomplish in the 70^th year? Not much, I am afraid. It will continue to be a forum for international discourse, it will be seen as the conscience of humanity, it will set new targets and new standards, which may not be met. It will remain a beacon of hope for humanity, as it embodies the aspirations of all nations, big and small, the powerful and the weak. In the ultimate analysis, at 70, the UN as a symbol of hope is more valuable than the sum total of its achievements.

Thank you.

My Tehelka Article on the Modi Visit

 Modi Makes a Mark in America

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Prime Minister Narendra Modi joins President Barack Obama at the White House dinner table at the end of his first round of consultations with who is who on the global scene. He has met the heads of India’s neighbouring countries, attended the BRICS summit, visited Bhutan, Nepal and Japan and played host to the leaders of China and Australia, not to speak of many others leaders, who came calling. In the US itself, he made a mark at the United Nations with a restrained and forward looking speech and received a rock star style welcome from Indian Americans. At his meeting with the CEOs of major US corporations and at the Council on Foreign Relations, he spoke impressively on his economic and international agenda.

The significance of Modi’s meeting at the White House is that it will resuscitate a strategic partnership between India and the US, which had remained on hold for nearly five years on account of paralysis of the Government in India and other preoccupations in the United States. Obama cannot but take note of the events of the last three months of Modi’s performance in India and abroad as he sizes up the man who has taken up the reins of the largest democracy in the world.

Nothing in Modi’s domestic or foreign policy should be a matter of concern to Obama. Modi’s domestic agenda, consisting of a liberalized and foreign investment friendly economy and a strengthened defense sector is conducive to the growth of India-US cooperation. His neighbourhood policy and interactions with Japan, China, Russia, Israel and Australia have given no reason for concern for the US. His position on international terrorism that it is a crime against humanity and that the ISIS activities are a challenge to mankind, against which all people should unite coincides with Obama’s own worldview. His assertion that terrorism in India is not home grown and that Indian Muslims will defeat Al Qaeda would be much appreciated. On Afghanistan, he hinted at a continuing role for the US in the troubled nation. Therefore, even if all the irritants in India-US relations are not removed at their first meeting, the two leaders are sure to hit on well.

Modi’s maiden speech at the United Nations was striking for its restraint and realism, though his using a prepared text detracted from his oratorical skills. He was firm on Pakistan when he made it clear that India will engage in a dialogue with Pakistan only in an atmosphere free of violence and terrorism. He dealt with the issue of terrorism in the larger context of the world and called upon the United Nations to adopt a comprehensive convention against terrorism, which India had proposed years ago. He stated that India’s whole philosophy is one of treating the whole world as a family. He was restrained even when he spoke of the need for expansion of the UN Security Council, as he did so without reiterating India’s own claim. He urged unity in the United Nations suggesting that, instead of breaking into various groups, it should act as a “G-All”.   

The unprecedented rock star reception accorded to Modi at the Madison Square Garden (MSG) reflected the genuine admiration and expectation on the part of the Indian Americans that he will transform India. The Indian Americans extend support to India selectively. They were critical of Indian policies at times, but fully supportive on other occasions, like at the time of the nuclear deal.

The 1% Indian American population, which is not only prosperous, but also in crucial professions, has considerable influence. That explains why several Senators and Congressmen, including the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the equivalent body in the House and a Governor were at hand to greet Modi. The India Caucus in the Congress and the Friends of India in the Senate are the offshoots of the growing clout of the Indian Americans in US politics. President Barack Obama cannot but take into account the tremendous enthusiasm of the significant 1% of his people for the new leader of the largest democracy. The very purpose of the Madison Square Garden extravaganza was exactly that. Of course, Obama had anticipated the phenomenon when he appointed Nisha Biswal, Arun Kumar and now Richard Verma to take care of crucial positions in the US administration.

The MSG event was more important for its symbolism and implications for the future than for what was said or done there. But Modi could be trusted to say the right things at the right time. He harped basically on three themes---how the overseas Indians, particularly, Indian Americans, have raised India’s standing and prestige abroad, the greatness of India, old and new and his personal promise to meet the expectations by sheer dint of hard work.

Modi’s image of the Indians of today playing with the computer mouse rather than the proverbial snake was a compliment not only to India but also the overseas Indians, who spearheaded the IT revolution in the world. He thanked the   Indian Americans for keeping awake with bated breath during the Indian elections, even though they could not participate in the vote. Many had even gone to India to provide support to him, he said.

Modi was at his best in waxing eloquent on Indian heritage and its potential. Gandhi created the freedom movement and he is determined to create a clean India movement. Indian is a young nation with an ancient history. With his penchant to create alphabetical soups for all occasions, he spoke of three Ds this time--Democracy, Demographic dividend and Demand—which would drive India. Having not taken even a “fifteen minutes vacation” since he assumed office, he would work tirelessly to keep up the promise he had given to the people.

He invited every one to participate in the Make in India program.

As expected, Modi spoke eloquently about ‘Mangalayan’, the highly successful Mars mission, which took India to the galaxy of four Mars explorers. In Gujarat, an auto rikshaw ride costs rupees ten per kilometer, but the journey to the Mars cost only rupees seven per kilometer, an argument against the charge of extravagance voiced by some. Though the Mars mission was launched before Modi’s emergence, he took the full credit for it.

Modi announced some consular concessions to overseas Indians, but not the dual citizenship, the long cherished dream of the Indian Americans. Many had expected him to announce it, going beyond the Person of Indian Origin (PIO) card and the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card, put in place by previous Governments. He must have explored it and realized that dual citizenship was not feasible for various reasons, including constitutional constraints. Lifelong visa for PIO card holders is, however, an improvement. His own visa issue appeared to be behind his comment that India was offering visa on arrival to those who are reluctant to give visas to Indians.

Modi was unconcerned about

the fact that he was addressing essentially foreign nationals , who owe their allegiance to the US than to India. He also ignored the fact that many of them did not follow Hindi. In fact, some in the audience had challenged Atal Behari Vajpayee in 2000, when he spoke in Hindi at an Indian community function in Washington. When Vajpayee said that that he had spoken in Hindi even at the UN, he was told that he had the facility of simultaneous interpretation at the UN. At MSG, the mood was so exuberant that what he said was less important than the privilege of being with him.

Modi did not dwell at length on India-US relations, even though US policy makers were present, perhaps because he wanted to hold his horses till he reached Washington. But the word must have reached Obama loudly and clearly that a significant 1% of his people saw Modi as a messiah of change in India and that partnership with him will benefit the US in meeting the global challenges of the future. The euphoria of MSG will definitely reverberate in the White House and the man, who was once a Persona Non Grata in the US, will be warmly received. Obama is sure to seek his counsel on Ukraine, ISIS, South China Sea and Afghanistan and seek to resolve problems relating to the nuclear deal, defense cooperation and investment.

The Modi magic is bound to make an impact on Obama and the American public. More than anything else, his message of peace, non-violence, development and a liberalized economy has been carried to the wide American public opinion. Pepsico’s Indra Nooyi encapsulated the American response, when she said, “Great Prime Minister, answers questions brilliantly. He is very focused on improving India and we are ready to work with him.”

Rediff Column on Narendra Modi's Visit to the US

Transforming the relationship: From the transactional to the strategic

October 02, 2014 17:07 IST

'To expect that he has a magic wand to resolve all differences and announce breakthroughs in all issues during his first visit to the US is to be unrealistic,' says Ambassador T P Sreenivasan.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not a modern day Swami Vivekananda to conquer the West on his first visit nor is he Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to dazzle the world with his charismatic diplomacy.
He is the new prime minister of India, a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party which opposed the India-US nuclear deal first and supported the Nuclear Liability Act to deny US nuclear trade with India. He became prime minister at a time when India-US relations were at a low ebb and he himself was denied a US visa.
To expect that he has a magic wand to resolve all differences and announce breakthroughs in all issues during his first visit to the US is to be unrealistic.
As anticipated in these columns, Modi made a mark in the US, where the image in the media and the public mind matter, he established rapport with President Obama, reached agreements on the way to resolve difficult issues and identified new areas of cooperation, in keeping with his agenda for India's development and security.
The Vision Statement and the Joint Statement contain the way forward in specific areas. Instead of going for the low hanging fruit to show immediate achievements, the two sides decided to work diligently to transform the relationship from the transactional to the strategic.
Nuclear and arms trade on mutually acceptable terms, the combat together against terrorism and fighting climate change are long-term goals, which will immensely benefit the two countries and give the right signals to the rest of the world. The joint Op-ed in the Washington Post, a novel diplomatic tool, showed that the two leaders share a global view.
Nothing in Modi's domestic or foreign policy was a matter of concern to Obama. Modi's domestic agenda, consisting of a liberalised and foreign investment friendly economy and a strengthened defence sector is conducive to the growth of India-US cooperation.
His neighbourhood policy and interactions with Japan, China, Russia, Israel and Australia have given no reason for concern for the US.
His position on international terrorism that it is a crime against humanity and that the ISIS's activities are a challenge to mankind, against which all people should unite coincides with Obama's own worldview.
His assertion that terrorism in India is not home grown and that Indian Muslims will defeat Al Qaeda was much appreciated. On Afghanistan, he hinted at a continuing role for the US in the troubled nation.
Modi's maiden speech at the United Nations was striking for its restraint and realism, though his using a prepared text detracted from his usual oratorical flourish.
He was firm on Pakistan when he made it clear that India will engage in a dialogue with Pakistan only in an atmosphere free of violence and terrorism.
He dealt with the issue of terrorism in the larger context of the world and called upon the United Nations to adopt a comprehensive convention against terrorism, which India had proposed years ago.
He stated that India's whole philosophy is one of treating the whole world as a family. He was restrained even when he spoke of the need for expansion of the UN Security Council, as he did so without reiterating India's own claim. He urged unity in the United Nations suggesting that, instead of breaking into various groups, it should act as a 'G-All.'
The unprecedented rock star reception accorded to Modi at the Madison Square Garden reflected the genuine admiration and expectation on the part of Indian Americans that he will transform India.
Indian Americans extend support to India selectively. They were critical of Indian policies at times, but fully supportive on other occasions, like at the time of the nuclear deal.
The Indian-American population, which is not only prosperous, but also in crucial professions, has considerable influence. That explains why several Senators and Congressmen, including the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the equivalent body in the House and a Governor, were at hand to greet Modi.
The India Caucus in Congress and the Friends of India in the Senate are the offshoots of the growing clout of Indian Americans in US politics.
President Barack Obama cannot but take into account the tremendous enthusiasm of the significant 1% of his people for the new leader of the largest democracy. The very purpose of the Madison Square Garden extravaganza was exactly that.
The Madison Square Garden event was more important for its symbolism and implications for the future than for what was said or done there. But Modi could be trusted to say the right things at the right time.
He harped basically on three themes -- how the overseas Indians, particularly, Indian Americans, have raised India's standing and prestige abroad, the greatness of India, old and new and his personal promise to meet expectations by sheer dint of hard work.
Modi's image of the Indians of today playing with the computer mouse rather than the proverbial snake was a compliment not only to India but also overseas Indians who spearheaded the IT revolution in the world. He thanked Indian Americans for keeping awake with bated breath during the Indian elections, even though they could not participate in the vote. Many had even gone to India to provide support to him, he said.
Modi was at his best in waxing eloquent on Indian heritage and its potential. Gandhi created the freedom movement and he is determined to create a clean India movement. India is a young nation with an ancient history. With his penchant to create alphabetical soups for all occasions, he spoke of three Ds this time -- Democracy, Demographic Dividend and Demand -- which would drive India.
As expected, Modi spoke eloquently about Mangalayan, the highly successful Mars mission, which took India to the galaxy of four Mars explorers. In Gujarat, an autorickshaw ride costs Rs 10 per kilometre, but the journey to the Mars cost only Rs 7 per kilometre, an argument against the charge of extravagance voiced by some. Though the Mars mission was launched before Modi's emergence, he took full credit for it.
Modi announced some consular concessions to overseas Indians, but not the dual citizenship, the long cherished dream of Indian Americans. Many had expected him to announce it, going beyond the Person of Indian Origin card and the Overseas Citizen of India card, put in place by previous governments.
He must have explored it and realised that dual citizenship was not feasible for various reasons, including Constitutional constraints. A lifelong visa for PIO cardholders is, however, an improvement. His own visa issue appeared to be behind his comment that India was offering visas on arrival to those who are reluctant to give visas to Indians.
Pepsico's Indra Nooyi encapsulated the American response, when she said, 'Great Prime Minister, answers questions brilliantly. He is very focused on improving India and we are ready to work with him.'
Also Read: India feels shortchanged
Ambassador T P Sreenivasan, (IFS 1967), is a former Ambassador of India and Governor for India of the IAEA, Executive Vice-Chairman, Kerala State Higher Education Council,Director General, Kerala International Centre.
Image: Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Barack Obama at the Martin Luther King Jr Memorial in Washington, DC, September 30.

T P Sreenivasan