Perils of the Apparel

Perils of the Apparel

Rediff Column by T.P.Sreenivasan


‘Striking a balance between elegance and image is a challenging task. Mahatma Gandhi succeeded by stressing his humble image, while others suffered setbacks on account of their flashy and extravagant attire,’ says Ambassador T P Sreenivasan.
Statesmen and politicians around the world tend to make fashion statements through their attire knowingly or unknowingly. Some win approbation for their originality and appropriateness, while others attract criticism for extravagance or for lack of taste or imagination.
Choosing the appropriate apparel is as important as being well mannered and sophisticated enough to be worthy of the position they hold. It takes considerable effort and attention to make the right impression by the right apparel. Apparel not only proclaims the man, but also makes and unmakes leaders.
Long time ago, when Bhutan joined the United Nations, I was surprised to see that Foreign Minister Dawa Tsering appeared at the General Assembly not in the traditional Bhutanese clothes, which are mandatory back home, but in a well-stitched suit and tie.
When asked, he said that he had observed that those who wore traditional clothes, whether scantily or in panoply, were from the least developed countries. Though Bhutan was one of the least developed countries, he did not want his country to be identified as such wherever he went. Wearing a western suit was the easiest way to attain a level playing field.
Coming to think of it, I realised that no Australian or US diplomat had ever appeared in aboriginal clothes. It was Guatemalan, Malawian and Western Samoan diplomats, who came in colorful skirts and plumes. Now, even they appear in western suits, following the Bhutanese foreign minister’s example.
Even the Chinese have abandoned Mao suits in favour of mass produced blue western suits and ties. Today, the General Assembly sessions are no more the riot of colours that it once was. Only a few African chiefs sport their national costumes on the inaugural day.
Indian diplomats wear the ‘bandhgala’ often, but that is hardly noticed as distinct from the suit. I have not seen any Indian in a kurta in the sanctum sanctorum of the United Nations. The thermostats in the halls of the United Nations are kept so low that light clothes attract not only stares, but also cold and cough.
Diplomacy is the most conservative profession, when it comes to clothes and fashion. But there are many countries where much variety is offered even for diplomats.
In Tonga, a little island in the Pacific, to which I was concurrently accredited as high commissioner while stationed in Fiji, every occasion had its dress code prescribed. We spent five days on the island to celebrate the birthday of the king and we had to change clothes three times every day -- morning coat with tails for breakfast, suit for lunch and the dinner jacket for dinner.
For the audience with the king, we needed to carry a silk hat (never worn), which we had to hire from New Zealand!
On the other hand, in the neighbouring Kiribati, the president appeared in shorts and a colourful ‘bula’ shirt, when I was dressed up in a suit in 35 degrees Celsius to present my credentials.
Seeing my discomfort at being over dressed, he pointed to his shining shoes and said that he was wearing the shoes in my honour. Normally, he would have worn Hawaii chappals!
Generally in the Pacific, the dress code is fairly relaxed, though members of Parliament wear suits and ties inside the house, regardless of the weather. In many African countries, woolen suits are worn in office, defying the dictates of the weather. The general rule in most countries on the dress code is, ‘when in doubt, wear a lounge suit.’
The exceptions to this general rule on dress are made by some to develop fashion statements of their own to make an impact. Mahatma Gandhi made the biggest fashion statement by having no fashion, not even enough clothes to cover himself fully. When he was asked why he went to see the British Emperor half naked, he said: “His majesty was wearing enough clothes for the two of us.”
The hat and cigar of Winston Churchill were a similar fashion statement. Charlie Chaplin’s walking stick was in a genre of its own. None of Gandhiji’s followers adopted his dress style. Nehru had a rose bud on the lapel of his achkan, adding a royal touch. He is reported to have changed clothes three times when he was in Cambridge.
Indira Gandhi wore very fashionable saris and set a fashion trend. Rajiv Gandhi’s ‘bandhgalas’ were very elegant.
More recently, Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan sported his own fashionable clothes even when he was moving from crisis to crisis. He looked elegant among the suited and booted gentry around him. But the dress sense of an Indian home minister, who changed his clothes three times on a day of crisis led to his downfall.
Shashi Tharoor, who came to politics after many years at the UN, decided to dress like an ordinary Kerala Congressman in white dhoti and shirt and did very well in his first election. But when he adopted his own fashion of colourful kurtas with tricolour shawls, he began to appear different from his colleagues and the fact of his being an outsider came to be accentuated.
There were many factors in his loss of votes in his second election, but his distinctive dress sense was one of them.
APJ Abdul Kalam, when he became President, having been a scientist all his life, developed a new hairstyle and his own distinctive suit. It made up for his short stature and gave him a new personality. Together with his erudition and energy, he has become the most popular former President ever.
Narendra Modi’s sartorial journey is the opposite of Mahatma Gandhi’s. While Mahatma Gandhi dressed like a peasant after having been a fashionable barrister, Modi adopted aristocratic attire, even while being proud of his humble origins as a tea-seller.
His brand of the kurta became famous for its colours and styles, but his ten lakh rupee suit with his own name embroidered on it, which he wore at the time of the visit of President Obama, damaged his image considerably.
Arvind Kejriwal, in his humble muffler and Gandhi cap, which he has hijacked from the Congress, swept the polls in Delhi as the ‘aam admi’ not only in name, but also in appearance.
At global summits of groupings like APEC and G-20, the leaders appear in traditional costumes of the host country on one occasion. It must be a major effort to get these clothes stitched to measurements in advance, but it creates an atmosphere of easy informality and even banter, contributing to the success of the summits.
There was a chuckle on the lips of the guests at Rashtrapati Bhavan, when Obama said that he was thinking of wearing a ‘Modi kurta’ at the banquet.
Striking a balance between elegance and image is a challenging task. Mahatma Gandhi succeeded by stressing his humble image, while others suffered setbacks on account of their flashy and extravagant attire.
Kejriwal stumbled upon his own fashion statement, which caught the imagination of the people of Delhi. Apparel can be used to great advantage by statesmen and politicians, but its perils are also real.
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 wore a suit with his name woven into the pin stripes during President Obama's visit. Photo: PTI.
T P Sreenivasan

The Elusive Horseshoe Table

The Elusive Horseshoe Table 

The Indian Express Feb 20, 2015

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Each time an Indian dignitary goes abroad or a foreign dignitary visits India, both sides scramble for a formulation on India’s candidature for permanent membership of the Security Council which pleases India, without moving it any closer to its diplomatic Holy Grail. If China or the US is involved, the excitement is even higher, but new formulations are crafted like old wine in new bottle. The substance is the same, but the presentation is appealing and open to different interpretations. The tantalizing horseshoe table of the Security Council at the UN remains elusive for India except for an occasional rendezvous for two years. The net result of our 35-year campaign is that we are elected less often these days than before, despite the increased geopolitical and economic importance of India.

President Obama thought that he was giving the next best thing to India after the nuclear deal when he declared in the Indian Parliament in 2010, “In the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.” But it had no substance, except for the fact that the US had not said anything similar ever before. The futuristic and conditional formulation had no practical meaning. What was worse, news leaked that the US intelligence agencies were keeping a watch on India’s activities in the UN with regard to Security Council reform. Unless the US makes a proposal to build a consensus in favour of a particular package for expansion, no kind of verbal support has any meaning. The reality is that there is no particular package, including the latest proposal by Kofi Annan and Gro Brundtland, which can enjoy the support of the two third majority of the General Assembly, including the support of the permanent members.

Barack Obama did not raise the quality of his support for India as a permanent member during his visit this year, in spite of the bonhomie between him and Narendra Modi. He used the 2010 formulation in different ways and the message was loud and clear that the US was not ready for Security Council reform as yet. “I reiterated -- and reiterate to the Indian people today -- that we support a reformed U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.  At the same time, we see India playing a greater role in ensuring international security and peace and meeting shared challenges,” he said. 

The Chinese position also stood still during Sushma Swaraj’s visit to Beijing, though a section of the Indian media made it out as though there was a change for the better in the Chinese position and that it might be crystallized during Narendra Modi’s visit. The Chinese position has been that they favour involvement of developing countries in the Security Council and that China respects the willingness of India to play a bigger role in the UN body. This is precisely what the Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said in answer to a question. The added statement that China would not support Japan and that a broad consensus was necessary to make reform possible has detracted from the alleged “respect” for India. Pakistan promptly informed Barack Obama that India was not qualified to be a permanent member as long as Kashmir issue was not resolved. This appeared to be orchestrated to counter whatever was positive in the US and Chinese statements on India.

The latest in the series of proposals, put forward by the “Elders”, Kofi Annan and Gro Brundtland, made on the occasion of the 70^th anniversary of the UN has no greater chance of acceptance than the other proposals made by others at the time of the 50^th and 60^th anniversaries. In fact, it is a modified version of one of the Plans contained in Kofi Annan’s report on “In Larger Freedom”.  The Elders drive clear of the quagmire of permanent membership and advocate periodical elections of non-permanent members, appointed for longer terms. “Instead of new permanent members, let us have a new category of members, serving a much longer term than the nonpermanent ones and eligible for immediate re-election. In other words they would be permanent, provided they retained the confidence of other member states. Surely that is more democratic,” they said. Would any of the permanent members get reelected if the same formula is applied to them? The self-discipline being imposed on the permanent members is hazy and not likely to be accepted. A large majority of members will rather have the veto abolished.
Contrary to the general impression, it is not the just permanent members, who are unenthusiastic about new permanent members. Most members, other than the candidates and aspirants, have nothing to gain by having more permanent members. They would rather have an expansion of the non-permanent membership so that they also have a chance of serving on the Security Council. Even those countries, which have pledged support for India or the other candidates may not support any move to expand the permanent membership. They are hoping that the permanent members will block such moves. There is, of course the “Coffee Club”, promoted by Pakistan, Italy etc, which openly oppose any expansion. They will enthusiastically support the proposal of Annan and Brundtland that the Council should closely consult the members, who are likely to be affected by the decisions of the Security Council.
While it is widely acknowledged that the present composition of the Council is outdated and that more developing countries should be represented, there is no support at all for new permanent members with veto. The possibility is only for permanent members without veto or non-permanent members with longer terms and provision for immediate reelection. Intensive efforts will be made during the 70^th Anniversary of the UN to find a formula. The UK and France are reportedly keen to resolve this issue soon, because they are afraid that the longer it takes for reform, the greater will be the pressure on them to step down in favour of a EU representative. For India, the horseshoe table of the Security Council may still prove elusive

Making and Unmaking of Foreign Secretaries

Making and Unmaking of Foreign Secretaries

The Hindu   February 2, 2015 

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Every two years, sometimes more often, national media regales the readers with stories on making and unmaking of Foreign Secretaries. No other post, not even that of the Cabinet Secretary, attracts such national attention and interest. The post has an aura of brilliance, political acceptability, high visibility and also vulnerability. It is a position that legends are made on. But becoming Foreign Secretary and staying there for a full term are Herculean tasks. But there are also instances, in which unsuspecting officers are plucked out of their comfortable perches in Beijing, Islamabad and Dublin and installed in the hot seat. Some are born Foreign Secretaries, some achieve the job and some have the job thrust upon them.

The glamour of the Foreign Secretary is not as real as it is made out to be. The pressures and tension emanating from above and below are such that the person can hardly savour the power and the glory. As the interface between the bureaucracy and the politicians, he is buffeted by both constantly. The Foreign Service is highly competitive, if not combative. Its leader needs to have three pairs of hands, like gods and goddesses, one to implement orders from above, one to hold on to his chair and one to do his work. Any slackening of the hands will bring instant retribution, often undeserved and unjust. Two years of such tension is the reward for brilliance, manipulation or chance, one of the many ways to secure the post. Former Foreign Secretaries are a happier lot than the incumbents.

Any analysis of past appointments will defy any theory about the selection of Foreign Secretaries. Seniority has been the decisive factor in the largest number of appointments. But there have always been ways to get around it by rearranging the jigsaw puzzle and placing senior people in attractive posts abroad. Merit, subjective at every stage, is a nebulous factor. The rank allotted by the UPSC, by the most objective and diligent process. has been in play only in some cases. To secure blue eyes, you need to be not only in the eyes of the politicians, but also on their side. Instances of officers at the top swinging from one political ideology to another to earn merit are not rare. Good officers have fallen by the wayside and some have made it with poor credentials. But the record of selection of Foreign Secretaries in the past presents a picture of near perfection in a majority of the cases. The percentage of aberrations is not higher than in the making of Prime Ministers or selection of Nobel Peace Prize laureates.

The unmaking of Foreign Secretaries presents a more complex picture. The most celebrated case was the unprecedented sacking of a Foreign Secretary at a press conference by the Prime Minister. The last straw in that case was a factual issue as to whether the Prime Minister would visit Pakistan or not. The Prime Minister not only contradicted the Foreign Secretary, but also promised the nation a new Foreign Secretary. But it was well known that the chemistry between Rajiv Gandhi and A.P.Vekateswaran was not the best even before the latter was appointed Foreign Secretary. He was appointed because of his reputation and popularity in the service itself. “Let us have a bash at it!”, he is supposed to have said, while handing him the post. His removal was a foregone conclusion and the favourite of the Prime Minister was all set to take over, but the heat of the moment forced the Prime Minister to appoint the senior most officer in the service in his place. That was the only time the Foreign Service openly revolted against a decision of the Prime Minister.

The removal of Jagat Mehta by Charan Singh involved issues of foreign policy rather than personal predilections. Jagat Mehta’s rise from High Commissioner in Tanzania to Foreign Secretary was meteoric, primarily because Indira Gandhi, who discovered his potential. But her successors and finally she herself felt that his vision was not in keeping with the dictates of the times. Jagat Mehta anticipated much of the evolution of Indian foreign policy, like the reduction of the rigidity of our nuclear policy and the engagement with the United States and China. He had nothing against the Soviet Union, but his stress on other relationships set the Kremlin on fire and the heat was felt in New Delhi, when the Soviet lobby took up the cudgels against him. The fiasco in Lusaka involving his candidature for the post of the Secretary General of the Commonwealth speeded his removal, but it was done in a clandestine manner. He was repeatedly told that his letter of resignation was not accepted, but his successor, Ram Sathe, was informed of his choice through unconventional communication channels not accessible to the serving Foreign Secretary. Indira Gandhi herself cancelled a posting the previous Government had promised him and he stayed on in the service as an officer on special duty as a disciplined soldier till he retired. His vindication came when Atal Behari Vajpayee honoured him with a Padma Bhushan many years later.

The politically savvy and shrewd SK Singh fell victim to his own feeling of invincibility, which prompted him to make an enemy of Inder Gujral at a time when the latter’s rise was not anticipated by anyone. He tried to smoothen ruffled feathers and to work for the new dispensation, but he was quietly removed with the promise of a political appointment, which did not materialize till the Congress Party returned to power.

The most recent “curtailing” of a Foreign Secretary’s term and the appointment of another two days before his retirement are illustrative of the mix of the many factors, which lead to such decisions. Both of them are extremely competent and both, having benefitted from political patronage, must accept its shifting sands.

Neither the climb up the precarious rock of bureaucratic heights nor the descent is an easy ride for anyone. The satisfaction and pride come only when one gets back to the earth unscathed and looks at the path traversed. The journey to the pinnacle of the Foreign Service has more than its share of storms and avalanches. The added hazard is that the post of the Foreign Secretary is constantly under scrutiny because of his high profile and visibility. Making and unmaking of Foreign Secretaries will continue to baffle the public and frustrate the aspirants and incumbents, but the method in the madness will surface over the passage of time.