Thursday, December 31, 2015

New Year 2016

Friends,
As the New Year 2016 dawns, my family joins me in wishing you the very best. May your dreams come true and may you have a peaceful, healthy and prosperous life in the year ahead. Let me also thank all of you, who remembered to send us greetings in so many innovative ways.
Optimism should be the right note at this time, whether the past year was an unmixed blessing or not. As a family, we have had a generally pleasant 2015, with glad tidings from the different locations. Though we have not had an opportunity to get everyone together since December 2014, we met one way or the other and remained constantly in touch through the multiplying platforms available for virtual togetherness. Our children and grandchildren, the extended family, friends and colleagues gave us reasons to be proud of them.
I divided my time in 2015 between following international affairs, writing on them and trying to reform the higher education scene in Kerala. I devoted time also to my role as an evangelist of the IFS, interacting with many aspirants to the Civil Services. I have begun to see some of them doing extremely well in our missions abroad. My weekly television programme on foreign affairs has completed ten years. I traveled throughout the year, giving talks to diverse audiences on a variety of themes. Lekha spent her time in charity work, particularly running a short stay home for the sick and the poor.
The overwhelming sense in the year for India was that it was in the cusp of change in every area of activity, primarily because of a dynamic Prime Minister, who announced programmes and projects virtually every day. The unprecedented activism in foreign affairs has given India great visibility around the globe. Continuity, dictated by geopolitics, is a salient feature, but some bold initiatives may eventually lead to significant changes. The New Year may bring new surprises and it is hoped that they will be pleasant.
Kerala is gearing up for elections early in the New Year. The latest events and new coalitions make it difficult to predict the outcome. The record of the present Government is likely to prevail in the end.
Technology continued to grow dramatically in 2015, with new opportunities and challenges to the world. The New Year will usher in new products and processes, making digital literacy important for people of all ages.
We hear of revolutions everywhere and we can only hope that these will be peaceful and beneficial to mankind. Let us hope for a peaceful, non-violent world in the years to come.
We may not have kept all the New Year resolutions of last year, but now is the time to make new ones. One resolution we must make is to remain in touch as often as possible.

Warmly,

TPS

--

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Paris Climate Summit

A requiem for Rio in Paris

ShareComment
To get such articles in your inbox
Text size:  A   A   A
December 14, 2015 12:12 IST
The net effect of the Paris agreement for India is a sense of resignation that we cannot gain much from international cooperation either in the form of technology or funding. Without any mandatory cuts, India could keep its own pace of mitigation of climate change by moving away from fossil fuels in the long term.
We lost the gains of Rio and Kyoto in Copenhagen and Paris, but it would have been worse if any mandatory restraints were imposed on our green house gas emissions, says Ambassador T P Sreenivasan.

Image: French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius (centre), president-designate of COP21, and Christiana Figueres (left), executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, react during the final plenary session at the World Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21) at Le Bourget, near Paris, France, December 12, 2015. Photograph: Stephane Mahe/Reuters.
If Copenhagen rang the death knell of the accomplishments of Rio de Janeiro, Paris chanted its requiem.
Concepts like “common, but differentiated responsibilities”, “incremental costs”, “equity”, “justice” and “polluter must pay principle” have been either buried or resurrected in new incarnations.
The rich nations of the world, which had realised the mistake of accepting mandatory cuts to their green house gas emissions and agreeing to pay for the pollution they have caused, have wriggled out of their commitments by threatening to impose mandatory cuts on the poor and extracted an agreement in which none has mandatory cuts.
An agreement in Paris, which is known to have no significant impact on climate change, is being hailed as historic, leaving the world to fend for itself.
Unless a new technology emerges to defang the green house gases or a carbon tax is imposed, God alone can save the earth.
The terrorist attacks in Paris turned out to be a blessing in disguise to the hosts and their allies because they were able to impose severe restraints on the participation of NGOs and popular movements in the Paris conference.
It has been a tradition for the public to hold several side events and maintain constant pressure on the negotiators. In the Berlin conference in 1995, for instance, it was a draft circulated by the World Wildlife Fund, which formed the basis of the Berlin Mandate which, in turn, led to the Kyoto Protocol.
Without such pressure and monitoring, the word that went out was that the outcome of the conference was a decisive contribution to the mitigation of climate change. Many delegations, including India, had hired public relations agencies to present their positions in the most positive manner. A small demonstration was held in Paris only a day later to proclaim that the whole Paris Agreement was a hoax.
James Hansen, formerly the chief climatologist of NASA, was forthright in his assessment. “It is a fraud, really a fake,” he said. “It is just bullshit for them to say, ‘we will have a 2 degree Celsius warming target and try to do a little better every five years’. It is just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuel out there, they will continue to be burnt.”
That the Paris deal will have no immediate effect on climate change is evident in the wording of the heart of the document. The “strong agreement” is to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.
But the “Nationally Determined Contributions” submitted so far and the indications given by others make it clear that they will not be able to hold the increase below 3 degree Celsius.
Such a patently unrealistic expectation from the Paris agreement will be proved false sooner than later. The pious hope that the future cuts every five years will strengthen the agreement has no basis either.
Those who have supported the agreement, including India, claim that all countries, rich or poor, have undertaken the obligation to reduce green house gases. But given the fact that the industrialised countries did not reduce their emissions even after accepting mandatory cuts to 1990 levels, there is no reason to believe that they will do so voluntarily.
In fact, the US ensured that the agreement is not a treaty under the US law to obviate the need for President Obama to secure Congressional approval to sign the agreement. Since any financial commitment would require such approval, the offer of USD 100 billion after 2020 has been relegated to the preambular part of the final document.
All these precautions are proof, if proof were needed, of lack of any commitment on the part of the United States and the other developed nations. On its part, OPEC, particularly Saudi Arabia, insisted that there should be no green house gas emissions neutrality even in the distant future.
India’s support to the agreement may have arisen from a desire to avoid mandatory cuts of green house gas emissions for itself, which were a possibility till the Copenhagen consensus, which India joined reluctantly. India’s subsequent efforts to resuscitate the Kyoto Protocol and the spirit of Rio were futile, particularly after the US and China reached an agreement on the Paris outcome earlier in the year.
It was only after India disowned the Kyoto Protocol by saying that we had to go beyond the failed agreements of the past that India’s status changed from “a challenge” to a “partner” in the eyes of the United States. The New York Times’s cartoon showing India as the elephant stopping the Paris train in its tracks was not an exaggeration of the Indian position at the time of the beginning of the Paris conference. Subsequently, it was after some high level persuasion that India agreed to go along with the Paris agreement.
The net effect of the Paris agreement for India is a sense of resignation that we cannot gain much from international cooperation either in the form of technology or funding. Without any mandatory cuts, India could keep its own pace of mitigation of climate change by moving away from fossil fuels in the long term.
We have already made a beginning by imposing a tax on the use of coal, a measure that has not been taken by any of those who advocate cuts on coal use.
We lost the gains of Rio and Kyoto in Copenhagen and Paris, but it would have been worse, if any mandatory restraints were imposed on our green house gas emissions. That explains Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comment that there are no winners or losers in Paris.
We embraced the lesser evil of voluntary cuts for everyone rather than mandatory cuts for the main emitters, including India.
T P Sreenivasan, a former Ambassador of India and Governor for India at the IAEA, was the lead negotiator of India on climate change and the Vice-Chairman of the COP between 1992 and 1995.
T P Sreenivasan

Paris Climate Summit 2015

 

A requiem for Rio in Paris

ShareComment
To get such articles in your inbox
Text size:  A   A   A
December 14, 2015 12:12 IST
The net effect of the Paris agreement for India is a sense of resignation that we cannot gain much from international cooperation either in the form of technology or funding. Without any mandatory cuts, India could keep its own pace of mitigation of climate change by moving away from fossil fuels in the long term.
We lost the gains of Rio and Kyoto in Copenhagen and Paris, but it would have been worse if any mandatory restraints were imposed on our green house gas emissions, says Ambassador T P Sreenivasan.

Image: French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius (centre), president-designate of COP21, and Christiana Figueres (left), executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, react during the final plenary session at the World Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21) at Le Bourget, near Paris, France, December 12, 2015. Photograph: Stephane Mahe/Reuters.
If Copenhagen rang the death knell of the accomplishments of Rio de Janeiro, Paris chanted its requiem.
Concepts like “common, but differentiated responsibilities”, “incremental costs”, “equity”, “justice” and “polluter must pay principle” have been either buried or resurrected in new incarnations.
The rich nations of the world, which had realised the mistake of accepting mandatory cuts to their green house gas emissions and agreeing to pay for the pollution they have caused, have wriggled out of their commitments by threatening to impose mandatory cuts on the poor and extracted an agreement in which none has mandatory cuts.
An agreement in Paris, which is known to have no significant impact on climate change, is being hailed as historic, leaving the world to fend for itself.
Unless a new technology emerges to defang the green house gases or a carbon tax is imposed, God alone can save the earth.
The terrorist attacks in Paris turned out to be a blessing in disguise to the hosts and their allies because they were able to impose severe restraints on the participation of NGOs and popular movements in the Paris conference.
It has been a tradition for the public to hold several side events and maintain constant pressure on the negotiators. In the Berlin conference in 1995, for instance, it was a draft circulated by the World Wildlife Fund, which formed the basis of the Berlin Mandate which, in turn, led to the Kyoto Protocol.
Without such pressure and monitoring, the word that went out was that the outcome of the conference was a decisive contribution to the mitigation of climate change. Many delegations, including India, had hired public relations agencies to present their positions in the most positive manner. A small demonstration was held in Paris only a day later to proclaim that the whole Paris Agreement was a hoax.
James Hansen, formerly the chief climatologist of NASA, was forthright in his assessment. “It is a fraud, really a fake,” he said. “It is just bullshit for them to say, ‘we will have a 2 degree Celsius warming target and try to do a little better every five years’. It is just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuel out there, they will continue to be burnt.”
That the Paris deal will have no immediate effect on climate change is evident in the wording of the heart of the document. The “strong agreement” is to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.
But the “Nationally Determined Contributions” submitted so far and the indications given by others make it clear that they will not be able to hold the increase below 3 degree Celsius.
Such a patently unrealistic expectation from the Paris agreement will be proved false sooner than later. The pious hope that the future cuts every five years will strengthen the agreement has no basis either.
Those who have supported the agreement, including India, claim that all countries, rich or poor, have undertaken the obligation to reduce green house gases. But given the fact that the industrialised countries did not reduce their emissions even after accepting mandatory cuts to 1990 levels, there is no reason to believe that they will do so voluntarily.
In fact, the US ensured that the agreement is not a treaty under the US law to obviate the need for President Obama to secure Congressional approval to sign the agreement. Since any financial commitment would require such approval, the offer of USD 100 billion after 2020 has been relegated to the preambular part of the final document.
All these precautions are proof, if proof were needed, of lack of any commitment on the part of the United States and the other developed nations. On its part, OPEC, particularly Saudi Arabia, insisted that there should be no green house gas emissions neutrality even in the distant future.
India’s support to the agreement may have arisen from a desire to avoid mandatory cuts of green house gas emissions for itself, which were a possibility till the Copenhagen consensus, which India joined reluctantly. India’s subsequent efforts to resuscitate the Kyoto Protocol and the spirit of Rio were futile, particularly after the US and China reached an agreement on the Paris outcome earlier in the year.
It was only after India disowned the Kyoto Protocol by saying that we had to go beyond the failed agreements of the past that India’s status changed from “a challenge” to a “partner” in the eyes of the United States. The New York Times’s cartoon showing India as the elephant stopping the Paris train in its tracks was not an exaggeration of the Indian position at the time of the beginning of the Paris conference. Subsequently, it was after some high level persuasion that India agreed to go along with the Paris agreement.
The net effect of the Paris agreement for India is a sense of resignation that we cannot gain much from international cooperation either in the form of technology or funding. Without any mandatory cuts, India could keep its own pace of mitigation of climate change by moving away from fossil fuels in the long term.
We have already made a beginning by imposing a tax on the use of coal, a measure that has not been taken by any of those who advocate cuts on coal use.
We lost the gains of Rio and Kyoto in Copenhagen and Paris, but it would have been worse, if any mandatory restraints were imposed on our green house gas emissions. That explains Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comment that there are no winners or losers in Paris.
We embraced the lesser evil of voluntary cuts for everyone rather than mandatory cuts for the main emitters, including India.
T P Sreenivasan, a former Ambassador of India and Governor for India at the IAEA, was the lead negotiator of India on climate change and the Vice-Chairman of the COP between 1992 and 1995.
T P Sreenivasan

Thoughts on PM Modi's Surprise Visit to Lahore

Creating history for its own sake

ShareComment
To get such articles in your inbox
Text size:  A   A   A
December 26, 2015 09:56 IST
'In a relationship that does not permit cricket, how can the prime ministers embrace and send a false message,' asks Ambassador T P Sreenivasan.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Lahore, December 25,  2015.
Breakfast in Moscow, lunch in Kabul, evening tea in Lahore and dinner in Delhi are 'such stuff as dreams are made on' for any statesman. Prime Minister Narendra Modi literally accomplished this feat. But his history making stop over in Lahore, which had the least substance, dominated the news, robbing the glow of Moscow and Kabul.
Instead of celebrating the 16 pacts signed in Moscow, covering defence, security, energy and trade and the pathbreaking address to the Afghan parliament, the world went agog with birthday diplomacy with Pakistan that created an unreal image of goodwill, camaraderie and trust.
A facade of friendship where it does not exist may do more harm than good. A calibrated approach, reflecting the reality of the relationship is the need of the times towards Pakistan. History has been created without doing justice to the history of nearly seventy years.
Even the short public memory will recall that the last time an Indian prime minister went to Lahore on a goodwill mission to meet the same prime minister of Pakistan to usher in peace ended in the Kargil conflict, causing fears of a nuclear war.
It was India's decision not to cross the Line of Control in retaliation and the parleys by President Clinton on July 4, 1999 with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Washington that prevented a conflagration. Past history should be a guide even when efforts are made to create history. George Santayana's warning that 'those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it' should not be forgotten.
India has already made substantial concessions to Pakistan by agreeing to a 'comprehensive dialogue' without insisting on progress on the trials of the planners and perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks.
India and Pakistan have embarked on a dialogue process after the two prime ministers famously whispered in Paris, the national security advisers met on neutral grounds to avoid the sensitive issue of the Hurriyat and a visit by External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj in the guise of attending a multilateral meeting on Afghanistan in Islamabad. The foreign secretaries are set to meet in January 2016.
Evidently, a meeting between the two prime ministers at this stage may not have served any purpose. The prime minister's decision to drop by in Lahore for a birthday bash was, therefore, prompted by a desire to go down in history as an innovative statesman. The fact that he chose the birthday of Jesus Christ, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif in itself has earned him a place in history.
No effort has been made so far to make out that the visit had any substance. It is the symbol that has been stressed in official pronouncements. 'That's like a statesman. Padosi se aise hi rishte hone chahiyen (This is how it should be with neighbours),' the external affairs minister tweeted. She has forgotten that she herself did not agree to the resumption of cricket between India and Pakistan when she was in Islamabad.
In a relationship that does not permit cricket, how can the prime ministers embrace and send a false message?
In fact, it is the message to the world that the two prime ministers shaped by their Lahore meeting. Both of them are under pressure from the US, the UK, France and now Russia to remain engaged, as they fear that India and Pakistan have embarked on a nuclear arms race.
Recent reports in the Western press have been highlighting the nuclear danger on the sub-continent, with Pakistan developing tactical nuclear weapons and India building thermonuclear weapons 'in secret.'
A recurring theme in these stories is the lack of safeguards against accidental use of nuclear weapons and the danger of their reaching the wrong hands. With such existential threat in mind, they have been weighing heavily on India and Pakistan to pursue peace.
The Lahore embrace may have gladdened their hearts and made them feel comfortable about arms sale and assistance to Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi also had the compulsions of an image makeover in the context of the most recent developments in India.
The reassertion of the importance of Russia in India's development and the hazardous visit to Afghanistan with the highly symbolic act of dedicating a temple of democracy in that volatile country were more than enough to make his most recent voyage memorable and meaningful. His speech in the Afghan parliament was a masterpiece in itself.
'Eight centuries ago, a famous son of Balkh province, one of the greatest poets in human history, Jalaluddin Rumi, wrote, "Raise your words, not your voice. It is rain that gives flowers, not thunder",' Prime Minister Modi said in an unusually poetic speech without raising his voice.
It captured the long, heroic history of the Afghan people and the bonds between India and Afghanistan. He had a gentle dig at Pakistan for questioning India's presence in Afghanistan, including the mysterious Indian consulates, which never existed. But it was soon followed by a prediction that 'Pakistan will become a bridge between South Asia and Afghanistan and beyond.' Many will find that ominous prediction fearful.
The Lahore visit has, if anything, only detracted from the importance of Prime Minister Modi's successes in Moscow and Kabul. If he had returned to India without a detour to Lahore, the analysts today would have sung his praises as a statesman and ace diplomat rather than speculate on his motivations for a risky adventure.
It is unimportant whether the visit was undertaken on the spur of the moment or whether it was pre-planned. But diplomatic surprises are often well choreographed.
It is also not unusual for leaders to keep matters confidential for reasons of security till the mission is accomplished. But since India has a stake in Prime Minister Modi's success, we shall await with bated breath the outcome of the birthday bash.
T P Sreenivasan -- (IFS 1967 a former Ambassador of India and Governor for India of the IAEA -- is the Executive Vice-Chairman, Kerala State Higher Education Council, Director General, Kerala International Centre.
T P Sreenivasan

Friday, December 11, 2015

This round goes to Pakistan

This round is for Pakistan

ShareComment
To get such articles in your inbox
Text size:  A   A   A
December 11, 2015 11:33 IST
'One cannot escape the conclusion that Pakistan has won the Paris-Bangkok-Islamabad round.'
'To be able to resume the composite dialogue even by another name without making any progress on the Mumbai attack trials is a dream come true for Pakistan,' says Ambassador T P Sreenivasan.
Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif
In the long and arduous struggle with Pakistan, it is transient victories that matter, not the final result, because no one knows what the ultimate result would be.
Considered from such a perspective, one cannot escape the conclusion that Pakistan has won the Paris-Bangkok-Islamabad round. To be able to resume the 'composite dialogue' even by another name, 'Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue' without making any progress on the Mumbai attack trials, except a pious assurance of an 'early completion of the Mumbai trial' is a dream come true for Pakistan.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi was under international pressure in Paris to relent on his position that terrorism would be the only topic of conversation with Pakistan till the conspirators and perpetrators of the Mumbai attack were brought to book.
The talk of disproportionate use of force from the Indian side and the threat of using tactical nuclear weapons by Pakistan had alarmed the US, the UK and France, who got together to nudge the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers to resume the dialogue and that was possible only if India did not insist that the talks would not include Kashmir.
With that concession by India, Pakistan has succeeded in winning the approbation of its Western patrons by appearing to be eminently reasonable.
Resumption of the dialogue without any concession on terrorism was their objective. Though it was a sad commentary that the two neighbours had to go to Bangkok to hold the talks, Pakistan promptly seized the opportunity.
India's motives in making this concession are far from clear. External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj could have visited Islamabad for the Heart of Asia Conference without having to make any concession to Pakistan.
Enemies of the United States like Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat visited New York for UN conferences without budging on their policies to the United States. As for the visit of the prime minister for the SAARC conference, this was already announced.
What was then the compulsion for India to rush to comprehensive talks?
No one expects that Pakistan will abandon the 'core issue' of Kashmir and agree on other matters, just as India cannot be expected to make concessions on Kashmir. The logic of the dialogue is only that even adversaries should remain in contact so that no nuclear weapons are launched on any misunderstanding.
Creating a facade of normalcy while firing continues on the border and terrorists keep infiltrating into India will only hurt India. But it helps Pakistan to get massive assistance from the West in the name of resolving the Afghan situation.
It is not insignificant that there was no decision in Islamabad to hold a Pakistan-India cricket match in Sri Lanka. Some partners of the ruling party are adamant that sporting contacts are undesirable as long as terrorism goes unabated.
But how will they accept a comprehensive dialogue, without any concession from Pakistan? Is the cancellation of the cricket match sufficient compensation for them to accept the dialogue?
The fact that the two sides 'condemned terrorism and resolved to cooperate to eliminate it' only blunts our pointed accusation that Pakistan is engaged in terrorism across the border, while the terrorism in Pakistan is home grown. The two cannot be equated, as was done in Sharm el Sheikh to the consternation of Indian public opinion.
Trade and commerce are said to be the underlying motive, now that the prime ministers on both sides have an inborn trading instinct. But Pakistan has used trade as a weapon in the past and will continue to do so even if it hurts their interests.
The compulsions of economic benefits have never been a factor in the India-Pakistan narrative. It can become a factor only if powerful vested interests get into the act. To expect trade to flourish in anticipation of a political dialogue is to allow hope to triumph over experience.
The second announcement of the prime minister's participation at the SAARC meeting in Islamabad is also fraught with danger, as I pointed out when the first announcement was made.
The future of SAARC is under a cloud, with the deterioration of our relations with Nepal. If the problems with Nepal are not resolved by the time of the SAARC summit, they will dominate the summit to the prime minister's embarrassment.
Moreover, Pakistan will push for China's admission to SAARC as the host. This was a difficult issue during the Kathmandu summit as all members, except India, were in favour of China's admission.
The prime minister will face a Hobson's Choice of either acquiescing in China's admission or facing the opprobrium of blocking it.
Pakistan must guarantee the avoidance of such a situation before the prime minister boards the plane for the Islamabad SAARC summit.
The headline that the ice has been broken between India and Pakistan is a joke like the claim by a smoker that he has stopped smoking several times. Why do we need to break the ice again and again?
If history is any guide, time will not be far before we would need to break the ice again.
The resumption of the dialogue will only lead to further recriminations and another freeze, followed by another melting of the ice. A senior Indian negotiator told me in all seriousness once that the good thing about resumption of the dialogue is that we can suspend them when Pakistan launches another terrorist attack!
T P Sreenivasan is a former Ambassador of India and Governor for India at the IAEA; Executive Vice-Chairman, Kerala State Higher Education Council and Director General, Kerala International Centre.
T P Sreenivasan

Monday, December 07, 2015

Myanmar



A mysterious country that has baffled the world

ShareComment
To get such articles in your inbox
Text size:  A   A   A
November 28, 2015 10:07 IST
'Ne Win kept good relations with the Nehru family even though he did nothing to do business with India.'
'When Indira Gandhi was assassinated, Ne Win took off to an undisclosed destination, leading to rumours that he had gone to India.'
'But we had no knowledge of his visit and days later, we were told that he was so struck with grief that he went into meditation on an island.'
Ambassador T P Sreenivasan on mysterious Myanmar.
Myanmar
The designs in a kaleidoscope change at every turn in most unpredictable ways. No design is permanent and no two designs are the same. Such has been the fate of Burma, now known by its ancient name, Myanmar.
Even in the seventy years of independence, the design has changed many times beyond recognition. It is again in a cusp of change, as the world watches with bated breath.
Aung San Su Kyi has already won a convincing victory and she believes that she will lead the country, even if she cannot be president till a constitutional amendment is made. One never knows whether another design will unravel and throw the country into uncertainty again.
If anyone wishes to gaze into the crystal ball and predict the future, there is a pathfinder in the scholarly tome by Rajiv Bhatia, India-Myanmar Relations. Changing Contours (Routledge). After years of living in Myanmar, studying it and researching on it, he has attempted to decipher the several designs in the kaleidoscope.
His travels in Myanmar were not just on planes, but 'in the company of a variety of thinkers, travellers, scholars, authors and leaders, who studied, reflected and wrote about this country.'
No wonder it has twelve pages of bibliography and forty pages of notes, a testimony to the Herculean task he undertook to write the book. The result is an authentic study of a mysterious country, which has baffled the world.
I remember the shock treatment that Burma gave to the Nonaligned Movement in Havana in 1979. Some time in the middle of the night of the general debate, the Burmese foreign minister was invited to speak after a lengthy speech by an African leader.
Normally, the rule in the Movement is that the smaller the country, the longer the speech. Delegates went out for a walk or settled down to a nap, thinking that Burma would have nothing to say.
As the junior most delegate from India, I was glued to the earphone not to miss the Burmese wisdom. What shook up everybody was that the minister finished his speech in precisely three minutes.
When he returned to his seat, everyone in the Indian delegation turned to me to find out what he said. I told them that Burma had just left the Movement as it had ceased to be of any value to Burma. He said that Burma was too nonaligned to be in the Nonaligned Movement!
The Movement took it in its stride and moved on till it came back to a session in Bali asking for re-entry. Under direct instructions from the prime minister, we blocked their return on the ground that the elected leader was denied power.
Burma was, in 1979, in the second of the four phases Bhatia has identified, first, the U Nu era, second, the Ne Win Years, the third, the transition period and the fourth, Than Shwe rule.
Ne Win was in the same class as Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung in that he reduced a fairly prosperous Burma into a bankrupt and isolated country through his Burmese Way to Socialism.
Golf was the only effective diplomatic instrument at that time as the golf course was the only place where we could speak to the Burmese officials. It was a good alibi for me to take lessons in golf, which turned out to be a passion in later years.
Every year, diplomats were invited to the special army golf course, where Ne Win played. The Burmese repeated their golf jokes and laughed loudly on the 19th hole, giving an impression of camaraderie, but without any business being transacted.
'My wife is my handicap!' was the most popular golf joke in Burma!
Ne Win's actions, which led to an exodus of nearly 100,000 people of Indian origin during 1963-1964, are covered in the book. Since then, it was an uneasy calm without substance in India-Burma relations during my time (1983-1986) and all our efforts to give some content was rebuffed.
We imported rice from Burma to please them, the commerce secretary visited Burma, we flooded Rangoon with cultural programmes to which the local Indians and Burmese came in large numbers, but the relations remained static.
The diplomatic community kept itself amused by golf and staging of plays like Charlie's Aunt and The Thwarting of Baron Bolligrew in the British embassy. About forty Burmese families, who were assigned to enjoy diplomatic hospitality, filled our parties to add the local touch.
As Bhatia has noted, Ne Win kept good relations with the Nehru family even though he did nothing to do business with India. When Indira Gandhi was assassinated, Ne Win took off to an undisclosed destination, leading to rumours that he had gone to India. But we had no knowledge of his visit and days later, we were told that he was so struck with grief that he went into meditation on an island.
Then came the indication that he wanted to visit Delhi to express his condolences to Rajiv Gandhi and family. He was very warm and affectionate to Rajiv Gandhi and told him that as his 'uncle,' he would do everything possible to help him and raise the level of India-Burma relations.
On my return after the Ne Win visit to Delhi, I spoke with optimism about a new phase in bilateral relations to the diplomatic corps and the press.
My joy was short lived as the initiatives I took after Ne Win's visit were rebuffed as before. His policy of dealing only with 'third countries' (other than big powers and neighbours) continued with the exception of China, which built up its contacts with generous gifts and the support of the Burmese Communists.
The military dominated kaleidoscope had remained unchanged when I left Burma in 1986 for a more exciting time in Fiji.
I remember discussing Burma with the then prime minister of Fiji, Ratu Mara. He was astonished that the people of Burma had lived under authoritarianism except for a little trouble when the body of U Thant, the secretary-general of the United Nations, was brought to Rangoon.
I thought aloud that it could be because Buddhism might have given the people a sense of resignation to their fate. Ratu Mara suddenly perked up and said to me conspiratorially, 'Why don't you take back all these Hindus from Fiji and send me some Buddhists?' My reaction was a grim smile.
Bhatia is at his best when he describes the state of affairs in Burma, Myanmar now, when he was in Rangoon, now Yangon. The years between 1987 and 1992 have been characterised as transition years, but they were the years of uncertainty, violence and efforts of the army to present acceptable faces after Ne Win resigned.
India was totally opposed to the military government, which forced the military leader to observe, according to Bhatia, that 'India took a very hard line position against the military government, perhaps the hardest line anywhere in the world.'
After the advent of Than Shwe rule, the same P V Narasimha Rao, who blocked Myanmar from re-entering the Nonaligned Movement, decided to start a constructive engagement policy with Yangon.
The author himself steered the new policy as ambassador and the book has the details that no one else could have. The book contains a blow-by-blow account of the events in India-Myanmar relations, leading to a new understanding with the junta, with the reluctant acceptance of Aung San Suu Kyi.
Incidentally, her sojourn in Bhutan had coincided with mine and I did not see any indication of her steely determination at that time.
The complex India-Myanmar-China triangle is adequately covered in the book. Though the general perception is that it is a zero sum game, the author argues that this need not be so.
He is over optimistic about Myanmar seeking diversity in relations by cultivating India and believes that the new Chinese initiatives in the region will reduce the impact of the China factor and provide new opportunities for the three countries. Given the adversarial Chinese position towards India, I would not endorse the author's view.
The state of the remaining people of Indian origin, particularly the farmers, who were requested to stay back when the others left, is a matter of shame.
The author speaks of their warmth towards the Indian ambassador, but not about their grievances. They are virtually State-less and treated as foreigners. They cannot eat even the rice they themselves produce as it is taken away. India generally closes its eyes to the problem to avoid an irritant in bilateral relations.
As was said about Milton's Paradise Lost, Bhatia's scholarly work has to be read as a duty rather than as a pleasure, because the ordinary reader has to steer clear of the mountains of information that come in the way of a smooth passage through the text.
But his admiration for the country is based on his deep understanding of it, which he shares with the readers. When the Myanmar kaleidoscope turns again and a new image appears, we will certainly go back to the book for the insights contained in it to decipher it.
IMAGE: People walk around the Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon, Myanmar. Photograph: Jorge Silva/Reuters
T P Sreenivasan is a former Ambassador of India and Governor for India at the IAEA; Executive Vice-Chairman, Kerala State Higher Education Council and Director General, Kerala International Centre.
T P Sreenivasan