The case for an IIT in Kerala- A Letter to the Chief Minister


Shri Oommen Chandy September 15, 2011
Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Kerala
Thiruvananthapuram
Dear Sir,
We, the undersigned, are a group of intellectuals who have been associated with one or more of the Indian Institutes of Technologies in India as students, administrators, faculty or governing board members.
We are all keen to ensure that an IIT is established in Kerala too. We are aware that the Government of India is considering establishment of 5 more IITs in India. We are concerned that Kerala’s legitimate demand for an IIT will be overlooked this time also for political or other considerations.
We believe that the claim of Kerala for an IIT is more legitimate than even before and the clout of Kerala in Delhi is the highest ever. We have the same alliance as ruling party in both Center and State and we have representatives of the same party in the Education and Human Resources Ministries in Kerala and India respectively. We, therefore, believe that the time is NOW to make a determined effort to bring an IIT to Kerala.
We are, therefore, writing to you to seek your personal attention in doing the appropriate political and administrative groundwork to make a case for an IIT in Kerala. We know you need not be convinced about the legitimacy of Kerala’s claim, but in order to illustrate the need to bring IIT to Kerala and the strength of our case, we have put together some facts and figures. This concept note is attached for your kind perusal.
We, the members of a voluntary group, stand ready to assist you in any way possible, in making IIT Kerala a reality. We have been encouraged by hundreds of other intellectuals who have been associated with IITs and see the importance and legitimacy of our demand.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely
(A.E. Muthunayagam) (T.P. Sreenivasan) (Nivedita P. Haran)
(M.P. Rajan) (Muralee Thummarukudy) (K.V. Jayakumar)
(Job Kurien) (P.S. Robi ) (Narayanan Komerath)
(V.K. Mathews) (Ramesh Chandra) (C.M. Abraham)
IIT Kerala - A Concept Paper
Establishing an IIT in Kerala is a long standing demand and dream of highly literate Kerala for many years. Various Governments have taken the initiative to bring an IIT to Kerala, but somehow nothing has materialized yet. In support of the Government of Kerala's steps to bring an IIT to Kerala, a group of well-wishers has come together and prepared a concept paper. We trust that this will help the Government to look into the problem more seriously and make all the efforts needed to bring an IIT to our state. The committee listed below was formed by the group to prepare this concept paper, and acknowledges the support and input from other members and stake holders of the intellectual group of IITians from Kerala. Our concept paper addresses the following points:
Executive Summary
• Does Kerala need an IIT?
• Does Kerala deserve an IIT?
• Does an IIT help the state in its future development?
• Steps to be taken by Kerala Government to get an IIT and finally
• Conclusion
Members of the Committee
1. Dr. A.E. Muthunayagam, Former Chairman, Board of Governors, IIT Madras
2. Mr. T.P. Sreenivasan, IFS, Ambassador (Rtd)
3. Dr. Nivedita P. Haran, IAS, IIT-Alumni
4. Prof. M.P. Rajan, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Thiruvananthapuram
5. Dr. Muralee Thummarukudy, Chief, Disaster Risk Reduction, UN Enviourn. Programme, Geneva
6. Prof. K.V. Jayakumar, Executive Director, CWRDM, Kerala
7. Prof. Job Kurien, Indian Institute of Technology Madras
8. Prof. P.S. Robi, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
9. Prof. Narayanan Komerath, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
10. Mr. V.K. Mathews, Executive Chairman, The IBS Group, Thiruvananthapuram
11. Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Managing Director, Ranal Ltd. Bangalore
12. Mr. C.M. Abraham, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Thiruvananthapuram
1. INTRODUCTION
There have been sporadic requests in the past thirty years for an IIT in Kerala. However, of late we do not hear that. This is not because we have an IIT or a comparable technical institution in Kerala now. This is partly because we have been tired of asking for one during every expansion and being rejected. We were promised an IIT in the previous expansion but unfortunately we lost the battle to get this premier institution to our state.
The Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) were established as the premier institutes of our country with the focus of training talented minds in becoming creative, top quality engineers and scientists . The intention was to generate high calibre human capital to help the nation in its socio-economic development. The IITs are governed by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 which has declared them as “institutions of national importance” with autonomous status. There are 15 IITs at present in India. A committee headed by Dr. Anil Kakodkar was constituted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India to suggest the road map to develop the IITs as world-class institutes for research and higher learning. They recommended another five IITs to be created within a decade. Now many states have an IIT, as per the data given below in Table I.
Sl.No.
Name of the IIT
Year Established
Place
State
1
IIT Kharagpur
1951
Kharagpur
West Bengal
2
IIT Bombay
1958
Mumbai
Maharashtra
3
IIT Madras
1959
Chennai
Tamilnadu
4
IIT Kanpur
1959
Kanpur
Uttar Pradesh
5
IIT Delhi
1963
Delhi
Delhi
6
IIT Guwahati
1994
Guwahati
Assam
7
IIT Roorkee
2001
Roorkee
Uttarakhand
8
IIT Hyderabad
2008
Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh
9
IIT Gandhinagar
2008
Gandhinagar
Gujarat
10
IIT Patna
2008
Patna
Bihar
11
IIT Rajasthan
2008
Jodhpur
Rajasthan
12
IIT Bhubaneswar
2008
Bhubaneswar
Orissa
13
IIT Ropar
2008
Rupnagar
Punjab
14
IIT Indore
2009
Indore
Madhya Pradesh
15
IIT Mandi
2009
Mandi
Himachal Pradesh
Table I: List of IITs in India
IT-BHU is in the process of being named as the 16-th IIT resulting in UP getting two IITs in the same state. But Kerala's dream of getting an IIT is still a distant dream. Should we not get one among the 4 being considered for establishment? If our state government does not pursue this matter urgently, we will once again lose a golden opportunity to get an IIT. The neighbouring state of Karnataka has also been asking for an IIT in their state for many years.
2. DOES KERALA NEED AN IIT?
Examples around the world show how a state gains economic advancement from having an institute that imparts and performs top quality education and research. Kerala now has around 120 engineering colleges, including many private colleges which are set up Capitation Fee business plans, one State University of science and technology, one National Institute of Technology, one Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, one Space Institute and one Indian Institute of Management. However, competing with the best in the world, requires a merit-based, autonomous technological institution with world-class infrastructure. We lack that. The recenly-established IISER is promising, but is mainly set up for education in basic sciences.
IITs are known worldwide for their quality in technical education. The fact is that an IIT is not just a big engineering college, better NIT or a fully residential technological University. IITs are a group of autonomous engineering and technology-oriented institutes of higher education. As mentioned earlier, the IITs are governed by the Indian Institute of Technology Act, 1961 which has declared them as “institutions of national importance”, and lays down their powers, duties, and framework for governance. This Act provides IITs with substantial administrative freedom and total academic autonomy. This freedom has been zealously guarded by all the IITs for past 60 years. Most importantly, IITs have the faculty and administrators needed to enforce a proud tradition of purely merit-based admission and grading systems. This is crucial to providing opportunities and nurturing the best of India, regardless of non-merit considerations. Selection of students and faculty in IITs is done transparently leading to some of our best brains entering IIT as students and faculty. It is the combination of these factors which makes IITs one of the most prestigious and the only globally recognised academic institutions in India.
Each IIT has autonomous status, where admission for undergraduate and post graduate programs is decided through common admission tests. In addition to these each IIT also offers Ph.D programs. Since the IITs are Central Government institutions, the Government of India has deployed considerable resources to these institutes to give them the required physical infrastructure. The faculty-to-student ratio in the IITs is envisaged to be around 1:9. In order to encourage students from all economic strata to undertake higher studies, IITs provide scholarships to students to pursue M.Tech. and Ph.D programs, where research is an integral part of their education. The combination of the resources and branding ensured that the best students in the country were attracted to IITs. Academic freedom, availability of physical resources to undertake research and presence of quality students in turn attracted good quality faculty to join the IITs. IITs are also different from other engineering colleges or Universities primarily in the degree of autonomy that the individual faculty members have in framing the syllabus considering the latest technological trends, teaching approaches and evaluation methods. These features enabled IIT alumni and faculty, within a few short decades, to build the international brand recognition that the IITs enjoy today, on par with top institutions worldwide that have existed for hundreds of years. Below we review some of the features of the IIT experience.
Each IIT has an Academic Senate consisting of all Professors and student representatives with the Director as the ex-officio Chairman. The Senate controls and approves the curriculum, courses, examinations and results, and appoints committees to look into specific academic matters. The Senate also periodically reviews the teaching, training and research activities of the institute to maintain educational standards.
All the IITs follow the continuous evaluation system. The B.Tech course is based on 4-year program. In all IITs, the first year courses are marked by a common course structure for all the students. These include the basics from most of the departments such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, mechanical engineering, mechanics, electronics, biology, etc. All the students also have to choose between NCC, NSS, NSO to instil a sense of team effort and national pride.
From the second year onwards, the students study subjects exclusively from their respective departments in addition to some compulsory advanced courses from other departments in order to broaden their education. At the end of the third year, undergraduate students have to undertake a summer project in industry or at a reputed academic research institute as part of the curriculum. Most of the students are placed into industrial and research organizations during the last year of their studies through the placement cell. Each IIT has a central library holding a large collection of high quality books, journals, periodicals, multimedia facilities and electronic libraries. They also provide access to on-line journals and periodicals for use by students, and stay open late into the night.
The striking feature of all the IITs is the on-campus residential facilities for the students, research scholars and faculty. This feature facilitates all the students to concentrate on academic activities round the clock. The students can approach faculty members at any time to discuss academics and research. During their project period, the students can also work in the laboratories even during night hours. In addition, the gymkhana and sports facilities are an integral part of the IIT system, where the students get a chance for extra curricular activities and personality development.
The focus of the national institutes of importance such as IISER and IIM are scientific education and research and, management respectively. IIST, a supporting institute of ISRO, is focused on training personnel for ISRO, rather than on a broad technological education. The NIT has neither the infrastructure nor the other unique features of an IIT that would enable growth towards world-class recognition.
Science is the foundation of technology; however, technological innovation is what drives further scientific development as well as economic growth. The growth in scientific and technological development is an indication of the growth and development of a state or nation. Our state needs an IIT to help Kerala rise to our true potential.
3. DOES KERALA DESERVE AN IIT?
Out of 28 states and 7 union territories, 14 states and one union territory have IITs (see Table I). We analyse the question of Kerala's claim to have an IIT in the state using a few objective criteria:
• Population Size
• Literacy
• Economy
• Geography
3.1 Population Size of the State
With 14 of the states and one Union Territory already being awarded an IIT, and UP possibly getting second IIT shortly, let us look at the states which have not yet been awarded an IIT. It is also useful to compare Kerala's position with other states already having an IIT with respect to population size. Kerala accounts for 2.76% of India’s 1.2 billion population.
Population Rank
State
Population(2011 Census)
% in Total Population
1
Karnataka
61,130,704
5.05
2
Kerala
33,387,677
2.76
3
Jharkhand
32,966,238
2.72
4
Chhattisgarh
25,540,196
2.11
5
Haryana
25,353,081
2.09
6
Jammu & Kashmir
12,548,926
1.04
7
Tripura
3,671,032
0.30
8
Meghalaya
2,964,007
0.24
9
Manipur
2,721,756
0.22
10
Nagaland
1,980,602
0.16
11
Goa
1,457,723
0.12
12
Arunachal Pradesh
1,382,611
0.11
13
Mizoram
1,091,014
0.09
14
Sikkim
607,688
0.05
Table II - Population of states not having IIT
Population Rank
State
Population(2011 Census)
% in Total Population
1
Assam
31,169,272
2.58
2
Punjab
27,704,236
2.29
3
Uttarakhand
10,166,752
0.84
4
Himachal Pradesh
6,856,509
0.57
Table III - Population of states having IIT but less than the population of Kerala
From Table-II and Table-III we see that four states with population less than Kerala already have IITs. Karnataka is the only state having population 5.96% , above Kerala in population; however, we note that Bangalore already has the world-renowned Indian Institute of Science and the Indian Institute of Management. We wish Karnataka well, and point to the economic and technological development that these institutions have already brought to our neighboring state. The rest of the states have population less than Kerala. Hence, in terms of size of the population, Kerala certainly is overdue for an IIT.
3.2 Literacy
Malayalees have always led India in our thirst for knowledge. Kerala has for a long time been the most literate state of India, even in the 1960s when our state was desperately poor. As per the 2011 census, Kerala still holds the first position with 93.91% compared to the national rate of 74.04%. Kerala thus will naturally lead the table of the states which do not have an IIT. Ironically, Kerala even tops the states which do have an IIT. With so much emphasis placed on education, it is only natural that Kerala should get due consideration for the establishment of the next IIT.
3.3 Economy
In order for a state to make full advantage of an IIT, it is important that it has an economy which is able to at least partly make use of the intellectual capital present and generated in the IITs. The new strategy for IIT expansion places an increased emphasis on academy-economy linkages. It is, therefore, useful to check how Kerala ranks among those states which do not have an IIT.
Rank
State
Size of Economy in Indian Rupee(10 Million)
%of Total GDP
Per Capita Income
1
Karnataka
335,747
5.39
50,676
2
Kerala
230,316
3.70
59,179
3
Haryana
216,287
3.47
78,781
4
Chhattisgarh
109,823
1.76
38,059
5
Jharkhand
106,358
1.71
30,719
6
Jammu & Kashmir
43,236
0.69
30,582
7
Goa
25,882
0.42
132,719
8
Tripura
14,604
0.23
35,799
9
Meghalaya
12,502
0.20
42,601
10
Manipur
8,687
0.14
28,531
11
Nagaland
7,508
0.12
21,434
12
Arunachal Pradesh
7,241
0.12
51,644
13
Mizoram
5,633
0.09
45,982
14
Sikkim
3,475
0.06
48,937
Table IV - Economy of states not having an IIT
Similar to population, it is also useful to check how Kerala ranks with those states which do have IITs.
Rank
State
Size of Economy in Indian Rupee(10 Million)
%of Total GDP
Per Capita Income
1
Kerala
230,316
3.70%
59,179
2
Delhi (UT)
217,860
3.49%
78,690
3
Madhya Pradesh
216,958
3.48%
27,250
4
Punjab
199,459
3.20%
62,153
5
Bihar
168,603
2.71%
16,119
6
Orissa
162,327
2.61%
33,226
7
Assam
92,472
1.48%
27,197
8
Uttarakhand
62,214
1.00%
55,877
9
Himachal Pradesh
43,281
0.69%
50,365
Table V - Economy of states below that of Kerala but having an IIT
The domestic GDP rate of Kerala is 3.7% holding 9-th position at the national level with average per capital income of Rs. 59,179. From Tables IV and V, it is clear that at least 8 states who had their economy smaller than Kerala have been granted an IIT. Moreover, Kerala holds second position in GDP among states that do not have IITs. A summary of the above discussion comparing Kerala's position with states having an IIT in terms of population, literacy and economy is presented in Chart I and a respective criterion comparison with states that do not have an IIT is presented in Chart II.
Chart I: Comparison with states having an IIT
Chart II: Comparison with states that do not have an IIT
3.4 Geographical Proximity
Government of India has sanctioned IIT in other states by taking in to account various factors. Regional balance is one of the important criteria that any Government may consider while making such an allotment. Since the most prestigious programme in IITs are its undergraduate programme, the geographical proximity to an IIT is critical in terms of parents feeling comfortable to sent their wards to IITs. Map I shows the location of various IITs in India.
Map I: Location of IITs in India
It also shows that the densely-populated, highly literate southwest part of India is devoid of IITs. Let us compare the geographical clustering of location of IITs. Kerala is the southern-most state of India. The closest IIT to Kerala is in Chennai, which is around 800 km from Trivandrum and on an average 600 km from anywhere in Kerala. The next closest one is in Mumbai followed by Hyderabad. If we look at Chennai as a hub of southern part of India, IIT Chennai is far away from Kerala. If we take Delhi as the centre of northern part of India, within 6 to 7 hours journey, there are at least 4 IITs. That is, within 300 to 400 KM circle there are 4 IITs. Within 500 km of Kolkata or Mumbai, there is more than one IIT making the IIT more accessible to students of those states.
Apart from all these objective criterion, Kerala holds the first position in the human development index. Kerala has achieved significant improvements in conditions of living, infant mortality rate and social development that are comparable to those of many developed countries, even though the state's per capita income is low in comparison. We also note again that although Karnataka does not have an IIT, it has a national institute of importance, Indian Institute of Science ( IISc ) which has undergraduate and post-graduate level degree programs in both Science and Engineering. That institute is at par with an IIT. Therefore, Kerala can be considered as the frontrunner of getting an IIT. Hence, Kerala's claim to have an IIT in the state is more than fair, it is urgent and undeniable.
4. DOES AN IIT HELP THE STATE IN ITS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT?
One of the major criticisms raised against IITs is that IITs are nothing but a processing centre for facilitating brain drain. The IITs have been successful in preparing students to compete with the best anywhere in the world. This is proven by the fact that many, in fact a good proportion, of IIT graduates have gone abroad or taken careers which are not related to engineering. Some argue, albeit without merit, that these alumni do not contribute to the original objectives of IIT or of the state. The concept of “brain drain” and the narrow vision of what an IIT graduate can do in life, are both outdated and discredited. It is worthy to note that IIT graduates are sought out as students for masters and Ph.D programs by the top institutions worldwide. Many have earned their higher education and returned back to India with that experience. IIT graduates who stayed back in India have chosen a range of career paths from Engineering to Management to Civil Service to Entrepreneurship. It is now well established that regardless of the path they chose, they have excelled in their career field and contributed to the confidence of emerging India. A few names noteworthy are: Shri N.R. Narayana Murthy of Infosys, Dr. Subba Rao, Governor of Reserve bank, Shri Anil Agarwal, Shri Nandan Nilekani, etc. In the following, we would address the key benefits of having an IIT in the state. Events in the past 20 years have completely debunked the “brain drain” superstition. The contribution of IIT alumni to the revolution in computer and information technology is well-known. The rise of India as a superpower in that field is directly attributable to the excellent preparation imparted by the IITs and IISc, as well as the contributions of their alumni who first showed that Indians could compete worldwide, then opened the doors for Indian workers and exports all over the world, and today they are building the most innovative industries in India. Today the revolution in manufacturing is spreading rapidly to all fields. It is hard to see how any of this could have happened so quickly, if Indians were unwilling, unable or too lazy and backward to venture out, perform and compete with the best in the world.
There is no system of state or regional reservation in the IITs. Having an IIT in Kerala does not guarantee any more seats for Malayalees than establishing a new IIT in the Andaman or in Jammu and Kashmir. Some might therefore ask "Is there any benefit to the State?". At the undergraduate level, the mere presence of an IIT would boost the motivation of the school students of Kerala to try for admission in IIT. For instance, it is a fact that IIT Chennai has many students who got admission from local Chennai colleges. The same is true of IIT Mumbai, Delhi and Kharagpur. The statistics of IIT Guwahati would reveal that there was a continuous increase in the number of students getting admitted to IITs from the north eastern regions since its inception in the year 1994. However, the benefit to a state from having a top post-graduate technological institution, can be easily seen from the growth stories of California and Massachussetts in the USA, and from Japan. There is no substitute for the advantage gained from having world-class research facilities and researchers located within easy access. Thirty years ago, Kerala may not have had the business capital and transportation access in the state to justify having such an institution. But today the story is very different. Kerala has excellent international airports, as well as world-class businessmen and the capital to put the best ideas developed here, to the best use.
Improvement in Higher Education System: Establishing an IIT in Kerala will give a big boost to the higher education scene in Kerala. The first change is in seriousness and professionalism. IIT students and faculty take education very seriously, and consider themselves to be competing or at least benchmarking not against the best in their home town but the best in the entire world. The first and most stunning impact that an IIT has on a new student from a small town or village is the experience of being surrounded by the best in India (and the world), and realizing that one has to perform at a level that is far different from what was sufficient in one’s previous school. In the old days, telephones, transportation and money were more difficult to access, so that there was no way to turn around and call for help or run back home, and merit was the only way to get good grades from IIT professors. Even today it remains true that one has no one to turn to except oneself to make the necessary changes to one’s discipline and level of effort. This basic difference in mindset brings several positive changes. To begin with we will have an institution with a global brand to which we can look up with pride. The flexibility for frequent course restructuring depending upon the current needs is the most advantages point in the IIT system. As IITs are networked with engineering colleges under a Quality Improvement Programme, they will boost the quality of teachers in engineering colleges all over the state. The engineering college teachers in Kerala will get a chance to carry out research in their institution in collaboration with IIT even while carrying out their normal teaching at their parent institute. The qualifications and quality of these teachers can thus be improved. With a few exceptions, at present there is a lack of qualified teachers in almost all the engineering colleges in Kerala. In addition, the presence of an IIT would help engineering colleges of the state to get better higher education by enrolling their teachers in the masters and Ph.D programs under various categories such as part-time, self financed, and sponsored candidates.
The Government of India is promoting the creation of increased collaboration between IITs and local industries as well as supporting the creation of industrial innovation units. Both of these give a boost to the industrial scene in Kerala in the Information Technology (IT) and manufacturing arenas. Most IITs also run specialized programmes for state services, such as pollution control boards, which also will result in capacity building in the state.
Socio-Economic Development: The above development in higher education will in turn strengthen Kerala's plan for creating a good industrial climate in the state. The higher education system especially plays a major role in economic growth and it is an indicator of the prosperity of a nation. Scientific and technical education is critical to India’s aspirations as a leader in the global knowledge economy and in social development. Having an IIT in Kerala helps the state to play an active role in national development. Kerala will definitely emerge as a preferred destination for quality education and research in the global map due to its natural beauty and geographical location.
An IIT in Kerala will naturally increase the number of young Keralites who will get into the IITs. This is so because the presence of an IIT in Kerala, and possibly having an opportunity to visit it or hear more about it will prompt more youngsters to work harder to get into the
IITs. Some students, especially from economically backward families, will find it more financially manageable if the IIT is in Kerala than in a distant place. Finally, women students, who are at least equally represented among the top rankers in mathematics and science in Kerala’s high schools, will find more opportunities to get the unique advantages of an IIT education because parents will find it much easier if they are attending an IIT inside Kerala.
IIT is currently a global brand in academic excellence and presence of an IIT in Kerala will act as a magnet to attract investment in high-tech industry to Kerala in the long run. It is well known around the world that when there is a critical mass of research activities, bright young people and atmosphere conducive to entrepreneurial activity, high tech industry will prosper in that area. While NIT, CUSAT and IISER all can contribute to forming that critical mass, only IIT can bring the global brand in terms of technology. So, if Kerala aspire to move into the big league in being the preferred destination for new generation of industries, we must have an IIT. The best technological institutions in the world today, all have highly successful “industry incubators” located on campus, to develop their ideas into competitive, well-paying enterprises.
General Impacts: Looking at a wider perspective, one has to accept that IIT is not just an educational institution imparting education. It also provides service to the society. Apart from teaching, the faculty members are continuously involved in research. University research is critically important because it
• is of strategic importance for the nation,
• contributes to the growth of the Indian industries,
• helps the local society by finding solutions to their needs,
• disseminates technology for the upliftment of the rural sector,
• provides consultancy services to industries and finally
• leads directly to the creation of innovative, leading-edge enterprises.
In India today, research projects train and employ a large number of technically qualified personnel. Working in these projects, qualified students from the local area get admission to M.Tech and Ph.D programs thereby they are able to pursue their higher education. Though there is no regional reservation for the candidates to take part in these activities, simple statistical data analysis would reveal that the candidates from the particular state hosting a particular IIT is benefited maximum due to the geographical location. The above features are true of any research, but the critical advantages of a world-class research program are yet to be realized in most of India, where research projects appear to make improvements to what is already being done elsewhere. One only has to wonder why the strongest and most innovative military and the most lucrative early years of new industries, always seem to come from places that invest in leading edge research.
3. STEPS TO BE TAKEN BY KERALA GOVERNMENT TO BRING AN IIT
There are few key things the state Government should consider while making an effort to bring an IIT in Kerala. In fact, a planned strategy is required. The key points to be emphasised are:
i. Availability of Land
ii. Location of the Institute
iii. Future of the Institute
Dr. Anil Kakodkar’s Committee has given certain guidelines to MHRD to start new IITs. The Committee clearly specified in recommendations that the objective should be "to add more quality IIT" rather than just another IIT. The objective should not be to duplicate an existing IIT but to establish institutions that will bring to the table something new that the established IITs could not do. More care and attention in planning is emphasised in the recommendations.
The first and foremost recommendation is identifying the site. The Committee mentioned that "The site should be near to an industrial area and or complementary educational institutions with good access including an airport." This Committee reemphasis this point.
Generally, an IIT requires about 500 acres of land in a single location as specified in the above para. It is not a difficult task for any state to acquire this much land for establishing an IIT. Location is most important in many aspects such as
i. Fast development of the institute
ii. Industry-academy interaction
iii. Collaboration between like-minded institutions
iv. Attracting the best faculty to the institute.
An institute starting in the outskirts of a city with good infrastructure, connectivity and industrial presence would give a boost to the development of the institute. The state Government will have to take a proactive stand in acquiring land without giving any preferences which are of a political, regional or personal nature. The goal should be to bring an IIT to Kerala. Hence we suggest the name as "IIT Kerala" like IIT Rajasthan. It should be an IIT for every Keralite. A new IIT should not be under the clutches of an existing IIT, but rather under a visionary Director with a team of dedicated task force that can make a difference. The best example is IIT Guwahati which came to existence in the midst of political unrest in one of the most remote and industrially undeveloped region of India. Looking in to its contribution in terms of development of the region, rural sector, educating the teachers of the region, industrial growth, human resource development, technology incubation centre, etc., IIT Guwahati within 15 years, has emerged as an institute which is on
par with the older IITs that were established around 40 years ago. Probably we should explore this aspect to make IIT Kerala as a world-class institute.
5. CONCLUSION
The time is ripe for the intelligentsia and politicians to make a determined push to get an IIT in Kerala. Almost all major states have one and there is no more serious competition. Secondly, there has been no time in Independent India’s history when Kerala had so much clout in Delhi in both political and administrative circles. Finally, the political constellations between the Centre, the State and the HRD ministries in both, are most favourably aligned. The Committee recommends that the state government should act quickly but with a determined and pragmatic approach keeping in mind that the state should receive the maximum benefit from this opportunity.

Narayanan More Credible than Roemer
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Former National Security Adviser and present Governor of West Bengal, M.K.Narayanan had barely taken off from Thiruvananthapuram after honouring Ambassador Nirupama Menon Rao with the Sree Chithira Thirunal award for outstanding achievements, when the news broke out about the latest Wikileaks revelations. The report was that Narayanan had indicated to the then US Ambassador, Timothy Roemer, that India was not serious about the demand for extradition of David Headley. In a cable to the State Department in December 2009, Roemer said that Narayanan had suggested to him that the Government was not actually keen on the extradition issue, but wanted to be seen to be insisting on it. According to Roemer, Narayanan told him that “it was difficult not to be making the effort” but the Government was not seeking extradition “at this time”.
Roemer was apparently trying to convince Delhi that the threat of extradition to India could cause Headley’s cooperation to dry up, but that by allowing the judicial process to continue, more information could be obtained and passed on to India. He claimed that Narayanan showed understanding of the American position. Certain sections of the press and the opposition rushed to the conclusion that the Government was guilty of doubletalk and that it was never serious about bringing Headley to book.
Narayanan told the press in unequivocal terms that India had always been serious about Headley’s extradition and he did not convey anything contrary to Roemer. As for the correspondence between Roemer and the State Department, the questions should be addressed to the Americans, he said. This should have ended the speculation, but the talking heads on national and regional television channels continued to speculate over the conversation, seeking to find motives of both sides. Asked about the wording of the leaked cable and Narayanan’s response, I said on television that it was a matter of Narayanan’s words against Roemer’s and that we should give greater credence to Narayanan than to Roemer. My reasoning was simply that Narayanan had nothing to gain by misrepresenting the Indian position to Roemer, while the latter had to impress upon his Government that his demarche on the phone was very effective. Ambassadors are known to write their cables in a way that pleases their masters back home. These are not recorded conversations, but first person accounts from memory, which could lead to wrong interpretations in cold print. As long as there is no change in policy and the Americans are as keen on finding the truth as we are, there is no cause for concern.
Apart from the embarrassment that this cable has caused, Wikileaks have caused considerable damage to diplomacy as a profession not only in the US, but also worldwide. Diplomats should have the facility to convey information and opinions to their Governments without any fear of their getting into unauthorized hands. Much of international diplomacy is conducted in unofficial conversations over a cup of coffee or a glass of wine or a meal. There will be no note takers or pieces of paper so that diplomats can explore different ideas without being held to any specific positions. But even informal conversations have to be reported home as policy inputs. The fear that these communications will come out in the open will inhibit diplomats from engaging in these conversations, which are the life blood of diplomacy.
As for the US diplomats, the damage is even more as people around the world will be reluctant to confide in them. Surprisingly, very few American ambassadors have lost their jobs on account of the embarrassment of Wikileaks, but many careers may have been affected by the indiscretions that these cables have revealed. If Jyoti Basu or Pinarayi Vijayan, the hard core communists and US baiters felt confident about sharing their thoughts with US diplomats, that was because the feeling that their conversations would remain confidential. Wikileaks must have closed those windows of opportunity forever.
The furor that a meeting that some of the communist leaders had with the US Consul General in Chennai and his Political Counsellor was amazing as it is no secret that at least three Ministers of the former LDF Government in Kerala had taken missions to the US with the specific purpose of seeking investment and other kinds of cooperation at the very time when their leaders were opposing the nuclear deal and soon thereafter. Perhaps, the factional fights within the Communist Party in Kerala may have fuelled the fire because the ideologue, V.S.Achuthanandan was clearly hostile to the US officials while the Party boss, Pinarayi Vijayan not only solicited direct investment, but also played down the agitation against Coca Cola as a local problem in the area it was held. The Party had even opposed the appointment of someone, who was on the Board of Coca Cola as a member of the State Planning Board. The Wikileaks cable noted this divide in the Party.
Even more importantly, the Kerala Wikileaks revealed that two Ministers confided in the Americans that there was a Muslim fundamentalist menace in Kerala and that foreign funding was available to them. A Minister in the current Government was accused of having been supportive of such groups for political reasons. The Americans must have been very attentive to such allegations as they were looking for clues around the globe about the spread of terrorism. All concerned have denied that they had said such things to the Americans, but, as it happens, the Americans seemed to have greater credibility with the public than our politicians. Funnily enough, the very politicians, who were dismissing Wikileaks as American lies, had no qualms about quoting the same Wikileaks to score points over their opponents.
With all the problems that Wikileaks unleashed, the silver lining was that no Indian diplomat or senior official was caught saying anything improper to the Americans. Narayanan was no exception. Many of them, who were quoted in the cables, said nothing out of line with policy. Some of them were even frank and forthright with the Americans about US policy. But the politicians did not come out so well as some of them appeared to show off their influence or knowledge even to junior US diplomats.
Wikileaks came like the sun rising at midnight or someone peeping into the makeup room of a play behind the stage. They revealed some of the raw material which goes into diplomacy, which is rarely seen during the day or on the stage. But such raw material too is an essential ingredient of international intercourse and it should be seen as such. But what matters is what the nations do in the daylight and the actors do on the stage. Modern technology has affected all professions and diplomacy cannot escape it, however conservative that profession may like to remain. But it will be a pity if Wikileaks rob diplomats of their ability to engage in informal discussions and to convey their assessments to their Governments without fear of being exposed.

India-US Defence Co-operation.

T.P.Sreenivasan

(Lecture at the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. Aug 24, 2011)

I have seen the days, not long ago, even after the cold war, when India and the United States virtually had no defence co-operation at all. I had spent a year in Washington as a senior Indian diplomat without ever entering the portals of the Pentagon. I remember spending the first few weeks in Washington to rescue a nominal Defence Policy Group, which had got embroiled in some protocol problems. The first time I stepped into the Pentagon was after our nuclear tests of 1998 when we were invited for a briefing on nuclear weapons command and control. The purpose of the briefing appeared to be to show how complex, complicated and hazardous the upkeep of nuclear weapons could be.

Needless to say, India’s dependence on the Soviet Union for most of its military hardware and the perceived Indian tilt towards Eastern Europe was the reason for the lack of any defence cooperation during the cold war days. More than any ideological obsessions, what drove India into a Soviet arms embrace were the rupee payment arrangements, lower prices and manufacturing licenses. That legacy, further complicated by the US entanglement with Pakistan, continued well into the early twenty-first century.

India has, however, been a user of US defence equipment since the 1960s. The massive shipment of US arms following the Chinese aggression of 1962 cannot be forgotten. Subsequently, the US made several proposals in 1984, 1987, 1991 and 1995 and India was not unresponsive to them. These were mainly of commercial in nature and they had no strategic underpinnings. Differences over the NPT and CTBT and the nuclear tests of 1998 complicated matters. It was only when the Bush Administration recognized India’s potential as an emerging power in Asia and engaged in a genuine dialogue on cooperative security issues that defence cooperation, in the strategic sense, was ever considered.

We have come a long way since then. Today, it makes world headlines when India decides not to purchase a particular aircraft from the United States. It is no news at all when India and the United States stage joint exercises in the Indian Ocean. Indian defence officials, including the Defence Minister himself, make working visits to Washington and the top brass of the US army are seen in the corridors of the South Block round the year.

The changes in strategic thinking in the US and India culminated in the signing in June 2005 of a bilateral Framework Defence Agreement just before the announcement of the nuclear deal. The commotion in the two countries over the nuclear deal eclipsed the Defence Agreement, which looked like a purely commercial deal, but today the Defence Agreement has assumed greater significance than the nuclear deal in terms of mutually beneficial cooperation between the US and India. It also has great implications for India’s standing in its tough neighbourhood and in the world.
We should recognize that there is a fundamental disconnect between the aspirations of the US and India in fostering defence cooperation. The US envisages India as a partner in their own scheme of things in Asia, friendly to US interests and balancing China in the long term. The US would like India to be its partner in the Indian Ocean region to address regional contingencies. The US is seeking collaboration in “multinational operations of common interest”, ranging from humanitarian and disaster relief activities to interdictions and even a “coalition of the willing” in the absence of a UN mandate. India, on the other hand, is seeking to have high technology to equip itself to strengthen its defences, without mortgaging itself to another power. We are looking for commercial deals with no strings attached. We would also like to have licenses to manufacture these weapons in India to avoid the vagaries of supplies at crucial moments. In other words, India wants arms length cooperation as opposed to integrated defence links.

The divergent views of the two countries on the ultimate objective of defence cooperation have led to India holding back from some of the links necessary for smooth defence dealings between the two countries. For instance, even after ten years of consideration, India has not posted a mid level officer on a permanent basis to the US Pacific Command. We do not allow unsupervised contacts between the armed forces. Even after joint exercises, India has not signed a Memorandum of Agreement for Tactical Communications System Interoperability. Though a navy to navy fuel arrangement was in place during the Malabar series of exercises, India has stepped back from a Mutual Logistic Support Agreement.

Though the US arms sales to India and joint military exercises have proceeded, India has been reluctant to sign some of these agreements that the US considers necessary to safeguard the technology transferred through these sales and to ensure that the arms are not used against the interests of the United States. But in July 2009, the two countries announced in New Delhi that they had agreed on an “end-use monitoring” arrangement that would provide safeguards for the sale of sophisticated US weaponry to India. The arrangement was for a provision to be written into future defence contracts, guaranteeing that sensitive equipment will be used for its intended purpose and not transferred to a third party.

The list of defence equipment India has imported since 2002, which is available in the public domain, is really impressive, given the reservation that India has about a strategic involvement with the US. These include counter battery radars, an amphibious transport dock along with 6 helicopters, C130 transport planes, 24 Harpoon Block II missiles, C17 Heavy transport planes, P-8 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, VVIP planes equipped with advanced electronic warfare suites and others. Other orders for attack helicopters and light howitzers are on the anvil.

India’s decision in April 2011 to eliminate the top two US contenders from its short list of suppliers for the Indian Air Force’s fourth generation of advanced combat aircraft came as a rude shock to the United States. American officials and many analysts had given the impression that this was a done deal for the US, not only because of the suitability of the aircraft for Indian conditions, but also because it was seen as a reward for the nuclear deal. With the adoption of the nuclear liability law, it became clear that the nuclear trade that was envisaged in the nuclear deal would not materialize in the near future. In fact, there is a school of thought in Washington that the US should not sell nuclear reactors or material to India as long as India stood outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Instead, Washington should press for more defence deals from India. The US leadership, including President Obama himself, lobbied for the aircraft order at all levels and made it clear that the order would be a demonstration of India’s readiness to give substance to its strategic partnership with the US. The US sought the contract at the technical as well as at the political level.

The disappointment over India’s decision to exclude the US aircraft from consideration received disproportionate attention in the US and the Indian action was portrayed as a negative signal on the strategic relationship. The sudden resignation of the US Ambassador Timothy Roemer was also linked to the failure of the US to bag the contract, for which he himself had staked his personal prestige and influence. “India has bought a plane, not a relationship”, screamed the headlines, as though this deal alone would have ensured perpetual friendship, while the other defence deals were ignored as insignificant. India has taken the position that the decision was purely technical in nature, though it was known that, among other things, India was hesitant to put all our aircraft eggs into the US basket. Pakistan had already obtained fighter aircraft from the US and it was considered imprudent to acquire the same aircraft for our fleet. At the same time, India signaled its disinclination to upgrade the strategic dialogue to a joint 2+2 (foreign and defence ministers) format, as the US has with Japan, in turn, leading to postponement of the Strategic Dialogue.

The matter of the aircraft deal was set aside by the time Secretary Hillary Clinton visited India for the second Strategic dialogue, but the shadow of the aircraft deal and the nuclear liability law cast a shadow on the conversations she had with the Indian Minister of External affairs. The decision of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to strengthen the guidelines on transfer of reprocessing and enrichment technology also led to a war of words.

After a period of extraordinary warmth during the days of the nuclear deal, India-US relations have moved to a more realistic level, with suspicions on the Indian side and disappointments on the US side showing up. Those who have witnessed the roller-coaster nature of the history of India-US relations will not be surprised by these developments. A stable strategic relationship can be built only on mutual trust and identification of a common strategic agenda. The time for it has not yet come and both the countries need to strive for it.
Thank you.

Distinguished Lecture Series on Indian Foreign Policy by the Public Diplomacy Division of the Ministry of External Affairs. Goa University, August 17, 2011
India’s Quest for a Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council
By T.P.Sreenivasan
I am grateful to the Goa University and the Public Diplomacy Division of the Ministry of External Affairs for inviting me to deliver a lecture in the Distinguished Lecture Series on India’s Quest for a Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council. Public Diplomacy is fairly new to India, but it has spread its wings far and wide and has made a tremendous impact. I am delighted to be part of its effort to bring the intricate aspects of diplomacy to a wide audience and to attract talent to diplomacy as a profession. I must state, however, that the views contained in my lecture are my own and I have had no official briefing. I shall rely on my own experience of either dealing with the issue or following it in the last 32 years.
The UN reform we are seeking, particularly the expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council, is nothing short of a revolution. We are challenging the very foundation of an institution, born out of a world war, the winners of which gave themselves the responsibility of maintaining world peace and security by assuming extraordinary powers. The UN Charter, which was crafted by them, has been embraced voluntarily by 192 nations. That there has not been a world war since and that the UN has served as a stabilizing factor in the world is the strongest argument for continuing the status quo. But the contrary argument is stronger, because the global equations have changed so much in the last 66 years that it is imperative that the UN must reflect those changes to maintain its representative character and moral strength. The struggle is on between those who wish to perpetuate their privileged positions and the forces of change that cannot but win. But no one can predict the time and nature of revolutions. They have their own logic and time.
The question today is not whether change is needed, but whether a real change can be brought about by the provisions of the very Charter that established the institution. If history is any guide, major changes take place when the time is ripe, in unexpected ways, regardless of the strength of those who seek change and those who resist. The provisions of the law that seek to protect the establishment will be thrown to the winds and the old system will yield place to the new. A Malayalam poet declared many years ago: “Change your out dated laws, if not, they will change you yourselves.” We have many examples in history to show that those who have conceded changes have lasted longer than those who have resisted the forces of change.
India was among those who lit the first spark of inevitable change, back in 1979, at the height of the cold war, when an item entitled “Equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council” was inscribed on the agenda of the General Assembly. The demand was to add a few more non-permanent members, on the simple logic that the ratio between the strength of the General Assembly and that of the Security Council should be maintained. The exponential increase in the membership of the UN should be reflected in the size of the Security Council. This principle was, in fact, followed in 1965 when the number of non-permanent members was raised from 6 to 10.
The reaction from the permanent members was instant and shocking. In an unprecedented show of solidarity, they opposed the move tooth and nail. They argued that any expansion of the Security Council would undermine its efficiency, integrity and credibility and ensured that the agenda item was postponed year after year, with a nominal and sterile debate. The idea remained alive, but no action was taken till the end of the cold war.
The game changed in the early nineties, when the idea of adding new permanent members was brought up by Brazil and we initiated the exercise of ascertaining the views of the members and setting up a mechanism to study the proposals and to reach consensus. The permanent members led by the US offered a “quick fix” after initial hesitation and proposed the addition of Japan and Germany as permanent members on the ground of their being the highest contributors to the UN budget after the US and a marginal increase in the non-permanent membership. If India had not stopped the “quick fix” and insisted on comprehensive reform with the support of the nonaligned group, the door for expansion would have been closed after inducting Japan and Germany at that time. We demolished the payment argument by stating that permanent membership should not be up for sale. If I may be permitted to quote from my own speech at the Working Group in February 1995, “Contribution to the UN should not be measured in terms of money. We do not agree with the view expressed by a delegation that permanent membership is a privilege that can be purchased. Financial contributions are determined on the basis of “capacity to pay” and those who pay their assessments, however small, are no whit less qualified for privilege than the major contributors.”
As a lethargic debate went on in the Working Group for years, national positions evolved and loyalties changed, but it became clear that the expansion of the Security Council could not be easily accomplished. The formation of an interest group called the “Coffee Club” and later “Uniting for Consensus” which opposed any expansion of the permanent membership made the situation more chaotic. We ourselves advanced our position from seeking to establish criteria, such as population, seminal contribution to the UN, participation in peacekeeping operations etc to staking a claim and began campaigning bilaterally in capitals. Over the years, our claim became strong and it became universally recognized that if a single developing country were to become a permanent member, that would be India. One adverse consequence of the debate, however, was that the discussions highlighted that a vast majority of member states had not served even once on the Security Council, while countries like India, Japan, Pakistan and Egypt had served on the Council several times. This led to our long absence from the Council from 1993 to 2010 after having been elected as a non-permanent member 7 times in the earlier period.
Efforts made outside the Working Group were also fruitless. After the deliberations of a High Level Group, Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed two Plans; Plan A, proposing creation of 6 permanent and 3 non-permanent seats and Plan B, proposing 8 new seats for 4 years subject to renewal and 1 non-permanent seat. The Plan B had greater acceptability in the Group and it was at the insistence of General Satish Nambiar, the Indian member of the Group that Plan A was included. Another exercise undertaken by India, Brazil, Germany and Japan (G-4) to get the General Assembly to adopt a resolution on expansion failed to take off because of differences with the African Group. It, however, resulted in the G-4 conceding for the first time that they would not insist on the veto at least for 15 years. The General Assembly recently entered intergovernmental negotiations to suggest a “timeline perspective” to agree on reform in two stages on the basis of a draft text, but no progress has been reported as yet. A move is afoot by the G-4 to introduce a resolution to decide that both permanent and non-permanent membership will be expanded, but its fate is uncertain.
The story so far of our quest for a permanent seat on the Security Council is “Kabhi Khushi, Kabhie Ghum” (Joy sometimes, despair at other times), as Ambassador Hardeep Puri described it, drawing inspiration from a Bollywood movie of that name. In fact, there is more despair than joy in that saga. The only reason for joy is that the need for expansion has been recognized by the entire membership and that there is also recognition that if the permanent membership is ever expanded, India will be the first developing country to find a place in it. For the rest, there are almost as many views as there are members of the UN about the size, composition and rights and responsibilities of the members of the Security Council. As of now, there is no formula for expansion which can command consensus or even secure two thirds majority of the General Assembly, including the support of the 5 permanent members.
The framers of the UN Charter did not intend that it should be amended easily. But that has not prevented the UN from transforming itself to deal with new issues and new circumstances. Today’s preoccupations of the UN like peacekeeping, human rights, environment, climate change etc were not anticipated in the Charter. The flexibility and resilience of the Charter have been tested again and again and nothing in the Charter has prevented the UN from taking on new responsibilities and obligations. Charter amendments have not been initiated even to remove anachronisms like the enemy countries clause and the name of one of the permanent members. The most crucial article of the Charter on the veto itself has been changed in practice as abstention by a permanent member is considered a concurring vote. The proposals for reform like the working methods of the Council introduced in the Working Group from time to time are mere diversionary tactics as these can be adopted without any amendment to the Charter. But when it comes to an expansion of the Security Council, the only way is to bring a Charter amendment. This explains why the only amendment of the Charter was made in 1965 to raise the number of non-permanent members from 6 to 10 when the strength of the General Assembly increased. The different groups of countries and entrenched interests are in no mood to repeat the exercise, particularly if the permanent membership should be touched.
The permanent members, for instance, consider that they only stand to lose by adding new permanent members with veto. They have made it clear that there is no question of veto being extended to the new permanent members, even though some of them tactically accept the African demand for veto. Even the UK, France and Russia, who have extended support to India and others, have not taken any action to bring about changes. One thing that France and the UK dread is the suggestion that the EU should have only one representative, while they already have two inside and another at the door. They are not willing to float a formula for expansion even to set the ball rolling. The same is the case with many others, who have pledged support to India and other candidates. In many cases, such support is an easy gesture to win goodwill. No group, outside the G-4, is actively campaigning for a formula. The African Group differs significantly from G-4 because of their insistence on the veto and an additional non-permanent member. Moreover, the idea of the African Group is to rotate two permanent memberships within the Group, itself a contradiction. The Uniting for Consensus group wants to add only 10 new non-permanent members. This is an attractive proposition for a large number of small states, whose chances of serving on the Council will increase, while they have nothing to gain by adding new permanent members. In other words, the G-4 proposal for 6 new permanent members and 4 non-permanent members cannot as yet win a two thirds majority in the General Assembly, not to speak of the support of the P-5.
The US, which had supported Japan and Germany in the early nineties, now favours “two or so” new permanent members, including Japan and “2 or 3” non-permanent members making an addition of only 5 more to the Security Council. Such a formula is a non-starter. The support extended to India by President Obama during his visit to India is in the form of a wish without a commitment to bring it about. His words were: “In the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.” Though this is a significant departure from the previous US position, it is not enough for the US to extend support to India; it should shape a formula, which is acceptable to the membership. Its reservation over Germany and Brazil will itself deprive it of being decisive on the issue of expansion.
We did not need Wikileaks to find the reasons for the reluctance of the US to bring about expansion of the Council. But we now have it in black and white what we knew from the beginning. “We believe expansion of the Council along the lines of the models currently discussed will dilute US influence in the body…..On most important issues of the day—Sanctions, Human Rights, Middle East etc---Brazil, India and most African states are currently far less sympathetic to our views than our European allies”, said the US Ambassador in a cable in December 2007. The US delegation at the UN seems to have only a watching brief till intervention becomes necessary to prevent an expansion that will not serve US interests. There is expectation, however, that President Obama might declare openness to a modest expansion of the Security Council at the next session of the General Assembly. But a special report of the Council on Foreign Relations which has urged the President to do so makes the expansion contingent on demonstration of the qualifications of permanent membership. The position of the aspirants on non-proliferation, climate change and human rights will be subject to scrutiny. A few days ago, our Minister of State for External Affairs indicated that both India and the US were actively involved in the ongoing negotiations.
China is opposed explicitly to Japan and implicitly to India, though it pays lip service to developing countries’ representation on the Council. Its position could be decisive as the permanent members will coordinate their positions before any advance is made.
If I may go back to where I began, it will be difficult to accomplish the fundamental change we are seeking by way of the procedure laid down for change. Like it happened in the case of the formation of G-20 when G-8 could not resolve the unprecedented economic crisis, a situation may arise when the P-5 find it difficult to maintain international peace and security without additional permanent members and thus force their hands to accept change. Such an ominous future was predicted by the President of the General Assembly, when he said on May 16, 2011, “Unless we find the determination to advance on the issue, the UN will lose its credibility. Our organization will be marginalized and important issues will be discussed in other forums and groupings, which are perceived to be more efficient and more representative of the new realities of the day.” Such a situation may arise sooner than later and that gives us reason for joy even in the midst of despair.
India and the other aspirants for permanent membership, in the meantime, must maintain pressure for expansion. But to give the impression that permanent membership is the holy grail of Indian foreign policy does not enhance our prestige. Legend has it that India spurned an offer to take over China’s permanent seat on the Security Council, saying that we would win it in our own right one day. That position has won us more glory than what we have gained by our constant knocking at all doors. Making support for our permanent membership the litmus test of bilateral relations is untenable. We should appear more confident and secure even as we demand our rightful place in keeping with our status as the largest democracy with a dynamic, fast growing economy, an impressive record in UN peacekeeping, ability to protect the global commons and to combat transnational terrorism and strong record against proliferation.
May I also say, without appearing to spurn the proverbial “sour grapes”, that permanent membership without veto is not such an attractive trophy that we should expend unlimited resources and energy on it. As a member of the Council, India will be called upon to take sides on every issue in the world, sometimes losing friends in the process as we are fiercely independent and do not play second fiddle to anyone. The lack of the veto may make us vulnerable as a result, if issues of crucial importance to us come up in the Council. India has been playing a significant role even without being on the Security Council for many years. A posture of our willingness to serve when required to do so rather than being desperate about securing a seat here and now may be a good strategy to adopt. The UN needs reform not to make one country or the other happy, but to make itself more relevant, credible and effective in the world and it will be ready for a revolution sooner rather than later.
Thank you.

From Hiroshima to Fukushima-
Nuclear Lessons Learned and Unlearned
(Nagasaki Peace Day Lecture, 2011. Indian Pugwash Society at IDSA, New Delhi Aug 9, 2011)
I feel greatly honoured that I have been invited to deliver the Nagasaki Peace Day Lecture, 2011. I have been a member of the Indian Pugwash Society for some years, but this is the first time that I am participating in its activities other than using its excellent publications and website resources.
I am delighted that this session is being chaired by my senior colleague, Ambassador Arundhati Ghose, whom I admire and respect.
The long journey of the nuclear genie from Hiroshima to Fukushima and beyond has kept humanity on the edge of a precipice for more than half a century. We have been through many twists and turns, with fear of total annihilation looming large even while rays of hope emerged in the distant horizon from time to time. Sincere efforts were made to put the genie back in the bottle or to put it to productive use, but the nuclear danger has remained with us till today in different manifestations. Sadly, nuclear policies of various countries were determined by their ambition to acquire destructive power in their search for security. But security has eluded the planet, initially by the threat of use of nuclear weapons by design or accident, then by nuclear terrorism by non-state actors and now by the possibility of accidents in civil nuclear stations. The devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was caused by an act of war, but it set in motion a chain of events that led to the atoms for peace initiative, the creation of the IAEA, the advent of the NPT and related Treaties and the dream of a nuclear weapon free world and global zero.
Just as Hiroshima marked the beginning of a rethink on the possession of nuclear weapons, Fukushima should mark the beginning of a relook at civilian nuclear power as we know it today. It is not enough that we audit the facilities and satisfy ourselves that we are safe against the known risks like earthquakes and tsunamis. Needless to say, we should strengthen safety features and open our facilities for peer review to ensure that we are in tune with the best standards in the world. There should be transparency in the operations of our reactors and the results of studies done in the past on risks should be shared with the civil society. But above and beyond these measures, we have to rethink the whole question of civilian nuclear power generated by the same processes that are employed in the making of weapons. We should not be lulled into the belief that physical protection will save us from the vagaries of nature or simple human errors. We owe it to the future generations to start thinking of alternatives, whether it is fusion, sun, wind or waves. Fukushima must set us thinking on the use of nuclear power as much as Hiroshima prodded us to start thinking of the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The lessons we learnt from the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are valuable even if a world without nuclear weapons is nowhere near realization. Nations still consider nuclear weapons indispensable for their security, though 9/11 demonstrated that the power to destroy the world many times over provides no guarantee of security. The world tends to huddle under their nuclear installations and nuclear umbrellas in a futile quest for security. Those outside these false comfort zones find ways and means to acquire dubious nuclear capability from death merchants like A.Q.Khan. The grand bargain of the NPT has not prevented proliferation even among the signatories. The IAEA, which was designed as a mother cow to bestow the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy on developing countries was transformed into a watchdog, without keeping the concomitant promise of nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapon states. The CTBT and the FMCT are still in limbo. The India-US nuclear deal is embroiled in the liability act and the ENR guidelines.
In the distant horizon, however, there is hope because of the lessons we have learned and unlearned after Hiroshima. Today, there is no serious fear that any sovereign nation will use nuclear weapons against another. Four cold war veterans began trudging along a difficult path of disarmament, which goes beyond arms control and non-proliferation, to reach the top of a mountain from which a new vista of a nuclear weapons free world might come to view. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had visualized that vista long ago and drawn up an action plan to reach there. President Barack Obama started a journey from Prague in the same direction, though he is not sure whether he can complete that journey in his own lifetime. The global zero has inched away from the proverbial square one. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had their impact on mankind.
Today, a major challenge is to protect nuclear material from terrorists, whether state- sponsored or non-state. They obviously have no conscience to be touched by Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Much of the nuclear material, which has been reported lost, has not been recovered, but some material has been recovered, which was never reported lost. Sufficient knowledge and material are out there to put together a dirty bomb or even a clean one. A failed nuclear state may even place a sophisticated arsenal in the hands of terrorists. The war on nuclear terrorism is an urgent necessity, a lesson we have learned after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks in different parts of the globe.
A nuclear renaissance emerged out of a sense of security as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were caused by human error rather than by systemic deficiencies or natural disasters. The increased awareness of climate change and the role of nuclear power in mitigation of global warming gave nuclear power a new halo. In 2009, the IAEA reported that 65 countries lined up at the IAEA to seek technology to either start or expand nuclear power programmes. While the growth of nuclear power slowed down in the US and European Union, it began to grow exponentially in Asia, notably China and India. The India-US nuclear deal removed most of the restrictions on import of nuclear fuel and equipment imposed by a technology denial regime and India signed new contracts for supply of reactors and fuel.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster of March 11, 2011, involving a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns and release of radioactive materials, following a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami could not have come at a more inopportune time for the nuclear renaissance. It was the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind. The severity of the nuclear accident was rated 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, indicating an accident causing widespread contamination with serious health and environmental effects. Fukushima had an instant impact on the use of nuclear power everywhere in the world, ranging from evaluation of the safety situation everywhere to announcement by Germany and Switzerland of complete withdrawal from nuclear power by 2022 and 2034 respectively.
Although many countries, notably India, declared business as usual, the nuclear power scene around the world changed beyond recognition. In any event, it was clear that by 2050, nuclear power would be absent from the US and the EU. Whether any announcement is made or not, every country has begun to plan quietly for finding viable alternatives to nuclear power. The lesson we learned from Fukushima is that the prospect of dotting our coastline with nuclear reactors is perilous even if it guarantees much needed electricity as an engine of growth. Human survival should have a higher priority than human development.
Fukushima has clearly accentuated the divide between those who believe in nuclear power as the panacea for our power shortage and those who believe that nuclear power is fraught with dangers, ranging from accidents to proliferation risks and long term damage from waste disposal. The former group would have us believe that the risks far outweigh the benefits of nuclear power, while the latter would have us close down reactors instantly and switch to solar, wind and wave energy. Having been a champion of nuclear energy and its benefits, I would advocate a third way. First and foremost, let us not minimize or hide the impact of Fukushima on mankind by arguing that nobody has died in the Daiichi plant while thousands perished in the tsunami. We do not know how and when the radiation leaks will manifest in disease and death. The most recent reports on the aftermath are alarming. The Wall Street Journal reported on July 20, 2011 that Japan has banned all beef exports from the affected areas and introduced a health review of human beings for thirty years.
Business as usual is not an option for nuclear power after Fukushima, just as we learned after Hiroshima that nuclear weapon should not be a legitimate weapon of war. We should begin visualizing a world without nuclear power in 30, 40 or 50 years and begin developing alternate sources with the same vigour with which we developed nuclear reactors. Once that vision is recognized, human ingenuity will be channelized into innovation. We do not need to halt production or stop imports of nuclear material and reactors, but let there be a sunset clause for nuclear power in our planning for the future. I am painfully aware that there are no takers for this approach yet and the established camps on both sides of the divide have dismissed it as utopian, foolish and worse, devious. I am no scientist, but someone who argues that the imported reactors are bad, while the indigenous reactors are benign, cannot be credited with much scientific wisdom. If the processes are the same and safety features are similar, how can “swadeshi” be better than “videshi”? Nuclear disarmament was also dismissed in the same manner before, but at least the vision of a nuclear weapon free world is now shared by the haves and the have-nots. The lessons of Hiroshima have been learned, but the lessons of Fukushima are wished away.
The nuclear dilemma persists, despite the process of learning and unlearning ever since the atom was unleashed, but some truths must be recognized from experience, regardless as to whether one country or the other incorporates them in its policy framework.
First, the devastation from the use of nuclear weapons is so great for the present and future generations of mankind that use of such weapons should not even be contemplated. Nuclear weapons must be declared illegitimate and eliminated. Second, non-proliferation efforts on discriminatory basis will not eliminate the threat. As Dr. Mohamed Elbaradei says in his book, “The Age of Deception”, “the threat will persist as long as the international community continues to address only the symptoms of each nuclear proliferation challenge, waging war against one country, making a deal with a second, issuing sanctions in a third, seeking regime change in still another. So long as nuclear weapons remain a security strategy for a limited few possessor countries, with umbrella arrangements that extend that security to a secondary circle of allied countries, so long as others are left out in the cold, the proliferation risk will be with us.” The need for total elimination of nuclear weapons is a lesson that Hiroshima taught, but it took us 66 years just to acknowledge it. No one knows how long it will take to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Fukushima, preceded by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, has also had its lessons. First, nuclear power carries with it a safety risk, which cannot be ignored, whatever be its benefits. As Prof. Amarjeet Singh said at this very forum last year, “safety makes all plants mutual hostages…. A nuclear accident anywhere in the world affects the prospects of nuclear power everywhere.” He was prophetic when he said, “Nuclear energy is more brittle than other strategies to mitigate climate change as one major future accident could overnight nullify the resources and time invested in nuclear power up to that point.” Fukushima came just eight months after those words were uttered in this very hall. No amount of action by the international community can eliminate this danger, unless we have the courage to visualize a world without nuclear power and work for finding alternatives for energy production.
We have seen political, economic and environmental colonialism and should be aware of “nuclear power colonialism” in the making. We appear to be eyeing the “buyer’s market” in reactors and fuel as their supply increases as major countries move away from nuclear power. We should not forget that President Bush had defended his nuclear deal with India by saying that India’s use of nuclear power will reduce pressure on oil. A Japanese Minister has just declared that Japan might terminate its fast breeder reactors to eliminate the rationale for reprocessing. When developed countries move away from such technologies, export incentives for such material to developing countries will increase. The reduced demand in some countries makes the market move to other regions. In fact, fear has been expressed that the ironic consequence of Fukushima may be a more dangerous global nuclear landscape. India and China may well be the victims of this trend unless we exercise caution.

Hiroshima and Fukushima have brought to light two facets of the danger from the nuclear genie. Man developed nuclear weapons in his quest for security and realized the folly of mutually assured destruction. The quest for energy security has driven him to develop nuclear power, the more benign manifestation of the atom. The time has come for him to pause and ensure that the second quest does not prove as dangerous as the first.
Thank you.

Pakistan's Charm Offensive Works

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Pakistan's foreign ministers do not have to be young, attractive, fashionable or of the weaker sex to attract attention in India. Even at multilateral conferences in India, filled with fashionable young women, the television cameras stay focused on Pakistan's representatives, regardless of their sex appeal. The interest becomes ecstatic if a visiting Pakistan Minister happens to have the attributes of Bollywood stars. Rightly did Seema Goswami call Foreign Minister Hira Rabbani Khar "Pakistan's new weapon of mass distraction." More sensational, but poorer in taste was the headline, "Pakistani bomb lands in New Delhi." India is still reeling under the imagined value of her pearl and diamond necklaces, Cavalli sunglasses and Birkin bag.

No doubt, Pakistan was on a charm offensive this time, demonstrated not just by the charm of the brand new Foreign Minister on her first ever foray into diplomacy, but also by the Foreign Secretary having a new and friendly mask this time, in contrast with his previous postures. Consequently, the admonition administered by our Foreign Secretary for the meeting with the Hurriyat appeared harsh in the media. But more significantly, India seems to have been charmed into conceding ground on many of its established positions.

The fundamentals of the Pakistan position remained intact through the hype about "new engagement" and "new beginning." HRK, as the Pak Foreign Minister was affectionately called, began with an assertion that India should not dominate South Asia. Then she walked into a meeting with Kashmiri separatists even before meeting her host. She also made sure that the right phrases about outstanding issues were included in the Joint Statement.

India's main agenda, the punishment of the perpetrators of 26/11 was quickly sidelined when HRK dished out the wisdom that the judicial process took time and much groundwork had to be done. If it is still in the stage of groundwork, she has no responsibility to deliver on this issue. India naturally insisted on speeding up the judicial process, but without making it conditional for advancing the peace process.

The Joint Statement appears to be a wish list of Pakistan.For instance, two sides expressed satisfaction on the holding of meetings on the issues of Counter-Terrorism (including progress on Mumbai trial) and Narcotics Control; Humanitarian issues; Commercial & Economic cooperation; Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project; Sir Creek; Siachen; Peace & Security including CBMs; Jammu & Kashmir; and promotion of friendly exchanges.

Though the composite dialogue is not mentioned, the assertion of the dialogue process is with a view to resolving peacefully all outstanding issues through constructive and result oriented engagement, and to establish friendly, cooperative and good neighbourly relations between the two counties.

The trust issue is dealt with simply by agreeing to build a relationship of trust and mutually beneficial cooperation in conformity with the determination of the people of both countries to see an end to terrorism and violence and to realise their aspirations for peace and development.

Terrorism is no more a threat from Pakistan to India, but terrorism poses a continuing threat to peace and security and the two have reiterated the firm and undiluted commitment to fight and eliminate this scourge in all its forms and manifestations. Both sides agreed on the need to strengthen cooperation on counter-terrorism including among relevant departments as well as agencies to bring those responsible for terror crimes to justice.

Although we know that Pakistan is building up its nuclear arsenal at break neck speed and holding up the negotiations on a fissile material treaty, India had no problem in promoting "Confidence Building Measures, between India and Pakistan and to agree to convene separate meetings of the Expert Groups on Nuclear and Conventional CBMs, in Islamabad in September 2011."

The press went to town on the absence of the K word in the discussions but the Joint Statement loudly proclaims that the two sides held discussions on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and agreed to the need for continued discussions, in a purposeful and forward looking manner, with a view to finding a peaceful solution by narrowing divergences and building convergences. Our position that the only matter to be discusses is terrorism in Kashmir has been totally forgotten in the formulation. Mani Shankar Aiyer's formula of "uninterrupted and uninterruptable" dialogue has been embraced bu HRK, but it, mercifully, does not find a place in the statement. How can there be uninterruptable dialogue with Pakistan? Even if there is another 26/11, will we continue the dialogue process?

The provisions made for border trade are elaborate and specific, glossing over the problems of the past. On trade itself, the tone is unduly optimistic, considering the hesitation Pakistan has always had in normalising trade relations with India. By reaffirming the commitment to the Indus Water Treaty, we seem to have sacrificed one of our bargaining points on the water issue.The resumption of the Joint Commission also masks the problems in bilateral relations.The schedule of meetings envisaged gives a false impression of progress.

The extent and depth of the agreements reached at the talks has given Pakistan reason to convince the world that the bilateral relations are back to normal despite lack of satisfaction over 26/11 and continuation of terrorism as its state policy. HRK has established her credentials. The US will be particularly impressed. Has India been swept off its feet by the charm offensive of Pakistan? Or is there a change of heart in Pakistan to prompt concessions by India? Only time will tell.

India-US: The Limits of Engagement

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Unsavoury incidents involving diplomats and their families are not rare in friendly countries at the best of times. The issues are dealt with in terms of diplomatic protocol and reciprocity, without even the press getting wind of it. When reciprocal expulsions become necessary occasionally, care is taken to order home those diplomats, who have completed their terms so that breaches of diplomatic civility do not cloud bilateral relations. But the US and India have been showing increasing irritability in dealing with such issues. Some harsh US actions have elicited uncharacteristically sharp responses from the South Block. The US is even holding up clearance for a new Indian Consulate in Seattle, Washington, according to press reports.

India-US relations are far too important, diverse and complex to be affected by thoughtless actions of law enforcement agencies or even diplomats. But the oversensitivity, demonstrated of late, appears symptomatic of a deeper malady. The creeping disillusionment in major areas seems to spill over to the diplomatic level. As Hillary Clinton packs her bags to come to Delhi and Chennai next week, she needs to think of ways and means to convince her hosts that the strategic partnership is alive and well. Hers is indeed a rescue mission. Many areas in the strategic partnership require immediate and focussed attention.

Of course, both sides will vehemently deny this proposition, as they did to me in Washington and New Delhi a couple of weeks ago. Both will point to the umpteen working groups, quietly working away to fulfil the promises of the Obama visit and the last round of the strategic dialogue, not to speak of high level visits from both sides. They will quote trade figures and speak of the intensity of the economic dialogue to demonstrate the robustness of the relationship. They will even attribute any gloomy assessments to ignorance. But ask them about civil nuclear cooperation, balance of trade, India’s candidature to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the record of cooperation in the Security Council on West Asia and non-proliferation and then you will hear from both sides the tales of unfulfilled promises and unchanging mindsets. The grievances on both sides are so well balanced that it is difficult to determine who should or can make the first move.

Since the nuclear deal had raised the highest hopes for a sea change in the relationship and had accomplished most, the disillusionment is also most acute in that area. Our perception is that President Bush signed the deal for his own selfish reasons, but the official line and popular thinking in America is that it was a price paid to win India as an ally. A senior American official recently repeated the question we had heard from 2005 as to what India had done in return for the nuclear deal, which dramatically changed India’s profile. The give and take within the deal itself is not at issue here, but the transformation of the relationship from a friend to an ally. India is willing to comply with the letter of the deal and expects the same from the US, but the US wishes to see fundamental changes in Indian policy. The US feels that while India has derived immense benefits from the deal, it has made no readjustments in policy, worthy of a natural ally of the United States. The unchanged voting pattern of India and echoes of cold war rhetoric continue to make them uneasy.

To make matters worse, the promise of nuclear trade worth billions of dollars has remained unfulfilled on account of the Liability Law and we have done little to help President Obama reduce his unemployment burden, which has reached unbearable proportions. No American President has won a re-election if the unemployment rate is 7% or above. There is no sign that President Obama can bring the unemployment down to safe levels by 2012. The “fighter aircraft shock” has worsened the situation. In the American view, India opted for the purchase of an aircraft from Europe, while the US was offering a friendship package. India, on the other hand, believes that we adopted the Liability Law in our own interests and chose the fighter that suited our functional requirements. These are done deals, which have little scope for changes at this stage.

India maintains that the US should find ways to accept the suppliers’ responsibility and also fulfil the promise of full civilian nuclear cooperation, including transfer of ENR technology, in accordance with the “clean” NSG waiver for India. India would also like the US to push harder for India to be admitted to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a promise held out by President Obama during his visit. More than the practicality of these measures, the truth of the matter is that the Obama Administration would rather have no nuclear trade with India than dilute its non-proliferation commitments. I was told two years ago that the US would not be unduly concerned if there was no nuclear trade at all, provided it was compensated in other ways. ( “The US may have no nuclear trade with India” Rediff column dated April 21, 2009). Moreover, the increasing scepticism regarding nuclear power after Fukushima has also become a factor in nuclear cooperation. Steering around the nuclear irritant is still a major challenge.

On the Indian side, the lack of any forward movement on the reform of the Security Council after the promise held out by President Obama in the Indian Parliament is another instance of disillusionment. India continues its heroic efforts at the UN to move the proposal forward, but without any tangible support from the US. The latest G-4 move, masterminded by India, to seek an endorsement of the principle of expansion in both categories has elicited no US response. The US stakes in the expansion puzzle go beyond bilateral considerations.

If anything, India’s performance as a non-permanent member of the Security Council has only enhanced concerns in the US over revival of Indian “nonalignment”. On Iran, Libya and Syria, congruence of policies is hard to accomplish even with the best of intentions. The latest US moves in Afghanistan and Pakistan are hardly conducive to increase confidence either. The emerging contours of policy on both sides cause concern.

When Strobe Talbott, recently chosen by “India Abroad” for the Friend of India award, said bluntly that “India and the US are not now and may never be allies”, he was pointing to the fundamental contradiction in expecting a fiercely independent India to serve US interests in the region and the world. The public opinion in India is such that the assertion of a certain distance from the US policies is essential for any Government in New Delhi. The limits of engagement with the US, breached during the first term of the Manmohan Singh Government, have come into play once again. The Prime Minister does not have either the leisure or the energy to go beyond those limits as he had done during his first term. The US too has learnt its lessons on the extent of the strategic relationship possible with India.

The Hillary visit will certainly make progress on a number of vital issues of cooperation, the logic of which is beyond question. But an alliance of minds, which is essential to elevate the strategic partnership to a higher level, appears hard to accomplish. A new sense of realism, rather than undue optimism, will prevail in India-US relations in the future. As long as expectations are curtailed and mutuality is established, there will be neither recrimination nor disillusionment. In the end, it may not be a defining relationship of the new century, but a mutually beneficial partnership.

MATTERING TO INDIA The Shashi Tharoor Campaign By T P Sreenivasan

THE TRIUMPH AND AFTER

P.Ravindran Nayar

T.P.Sreenivasan's book, "Mattering to India: The Shashi Tharoor Campaign" takes a critical look at the phenomenal sway the glamorous diplomat had over the ballots and his image as a politician which got mired in controversies.

The New Indian Express June 28, 2011

When Shashi Tharoor moved into a hill top house up a narrow by-lane in a quiet residential area in Thiruvananthapuram, prior to his contesting the parliament elections in 2009, the excitement among the people was palpable. The local residents were pleased that an internationally renowned UN diplomat and brilliant author, who had the additional qualification of being suave and handsome and genuinely articulate, had come into their midst, elevating the pot-holed by-lanes of Palace Garden to instant stardom. Taking up residence in Thiruvananthapuram was a precursor to, or rather a pre-requisite for, Tharoor’s seeking a ticket to contest the elections. And such was his charm that long before he quietly vanquished his detractors in the Congress Party, who were many, and made himself the favoured nominee of the party High Command for the Thiruvananthapuram seat, there were considerable sections of people, especially youngsters, who had made up their mind to vote for him in case he contested.
But winning the party ticket did not mean that it would be a cake walk for him in the election. Much needed to be done and his credible victory with an impressive margin was the result of really hard work put in by Tharoor, says former Ambassador T P Sreenivasan in his book Mattering to India:The Shashi Tharoor Campaign.
Sreenivasan has based his title on a flamboyant quote from Tharoor himself. ’India has always mattered to me. Now I want to matter to India,’ Tharoor had once said.
Being a close, long-time friend of Tharoor, what Sreenivasan has attempted is an intensely personal narrative on the runup to the elections and the many factors that led to Tharoor’s impressive victory with a huge margin. Sreenivasan was both an observer of and participant in many of the events recounted in this book.
Born in London, brought up mostly outside the state and working for long outside the country, Tharoor was in every way a rank outsider as far as Malayalees were concerned. His link to Kerala was mainly through his ancestral family in his native village of Kollengode, Palakkad district. But he had a far better link to educated Malayalees through his many books and countless articles on matters of interest to Kerala.
Srenivasan explains how such a virtual outsider, who was not proficient in the local language and had never lived in Kerala, overcame the several impediments he faced and generated a veritable Tharoor wave. With a team of aides, which included some of his friends and well wishers from abroad, Tharoor slowly but steadily worked his way up , neutralizing opposition and enlarging his support base. The campaign was hectic in the sense that on many days Tharoor was up and about for 22 hours a day, leaving just two hours for a catnap.
The book, which makes absorbing reading, gives rare insight into the manner in which Tharoor successfully overcame opposition to his candidature from within the Congress and outside. This included how he managed to negate the threat from two strong contenders for the party ticket, former MP V S Sivakumar and Vijayan Thomas,who was the main support base for the party’s television channel. According to Sreenivasan, Tharoor mollified these two with the help of the Congress High Command. Once he was sure of the party ticket, Tharoor sought to neutralize opposition from BJP leader and former Union Minister O Rajagopal who was most likely to be the BJP nominee.Though Rajagopal would not have won the seat he was sure of garnering a good chunk of the votes, reducing Tharoor’s chances of victory. Srenivasan says that it was through the good offices of Mata Amritanandamayi that Tharoor ensured that Rajagopal, her disciple, opted out of contest.
Statistics of the poll results apart, Sreenivasan has included guest essays from two journalists and some people involved with the campaign to supplement his views. Many of Sreenivasan’s articles on Tharoor during and after his abortive bid for the top post in the UN also find a place in the book. It has a Foreword by Dr Babu Paul,former Chief Secretary,Kerala, who does not conceal his fascination for Tharoor. ‘There is a certain charisma about the man. It is as if there is a magnet implanted somewhere in his thoracic cavity,’ he says.
Though the book was probably planned after his victory in the polls and his elevation to the Union Council of Ministers as Minister of State for External Affairs, by the time it was out Tharoor was embroiled in a series of controversies from Twitter to IPL and was out of the ministry.The book makes a detailed reference to these events, as also to his subsequent marriage to Sunanda Pushkar, in an epilogue which sums up the sordid resignation drama thus:
“The glittering image that Tharoor brought with him after his elitist and western upbringing and his life in rarefied circles dazzled many people. His apparent ability to play down that elitism and be one with the people in dress, food and language made him an instant hit. His impeccable image gave the impression that he would be the harbinger of change in Indian politics, which had become corrupt and inefficient. But the messiah image was marred when his elitism manifested itself in his five- star life style and fondness for fame, wealth and other pleasures of life. He is perceived today as clever and shrewd but not much different from others before him. He may well return to prominence and political leadership, not because of the promise that he will change the system, but because he is far less guilty than many others who have flourished in politics with fewer talents and skills.
“In George Bernard Shaw’s play Saint Joan, the executioner says after burning Joan of Arc at the stake that we have heard the last of her. Warwick, another character in the play, responds: ‘The last of her? Hm! I wonder!’
“We have not heard the last of Shashi Tharoor.”

Mattering to India The Shashi Tharoor Campaign
By T P Sreenivasan
Pearson
Pp 165 Price Rs 550

Illusion of Immunity: Strauss-Kahn and Krittika Biswas

By T.P.Sreenivasan

The US State Department has responded on June 14 formally to India's protests over the arrest of Krittika Biswas. The reply is sugar coated, but the answer is an unambiguous assertion that dependents of officers of the Consular Corps are not entitled to diplomatic immunity.

Diplomatic immunity gives a sense of security to those who "lie abroad" for their nations, but it is best when it is not tested. Fortunate are those who enjoy the privileges such as duty and tax free facilities, but do not ever have to resort to immunity to escape action against criminal offenses. The cases of Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) and Krittika Biswas clearly illustrate that police authorities, particularly of the New York variety, have little respect for diplomatic niceties. For them, they are criminals first and Managing Director of the IMF and an Indian Vice-Consul's daughter later. They know that the lawyers will fight endlessly over the fine points of law,but they believe in instant justice for those who are criminals in their eyes.

The way the world has reacted differently to the two cases of violation of diplomatic immunity, however, indicates that the public accepts technical violations in the case of serious crimes, but questions them in cases of juvenile or light crimes. The way DSK was pulled out of a plane and taken handcuffed to jail for an alleged rape attempt, which had not yet been proved, inspired awe rather than derision, while the narration of the travails of an 18 year old hapless Krittika aroused sympathy for her and condemnation for the police. Popular perception, rather than diplomatic immunity, was the decisive factor, which determined public reaction to the two events. The Managing Director of the IMF, doubtless, had diplomatic immunity, but it became irrelevant, while Krittika's immunity was in question, but her humiliation stood condemned.

Diplomatic immunities and privileges should be the same in every country that has ratified the related Vienna Conventions, but in actual practice, different countries apply them differently. The more developed the country, the less respect for privileges and immunities. In India, for instance, even the junior most diplomats and consular staff are treated with respect even if they do not have privileges by the book. In New York, on the other hand, people complain about special parking spots and tax concessions for diplomats. Those in the line at a department store in New York openly protested when I handed my tax exemption card to the cashier and no amount of explanation that this was a reciprocal facility available also to the American diplomats in India satisfied them. "They should also not have such privileges", was the answer. Parking fines and towing were made applicable to diplomatic cars in New York after a public outcry. At one point, there was even a move to ship the UN out of New York on account of the presence of too many diplomats disturbing peace in New York even while building peace in other corners of the globe. The city appeared to be willing to give up the vast amount of revenue it earned from the UN presence there.

In most developing countries, diplomatic passport holders are waved off at immigration and customs counters, but in many western capitals, such privileges cannot be taken for granted. Terrorism and drug trafficking have made diplomatic privileges less relevant today than before.

In the case of Krittika, diplomatic privilege is only a side issue. The questions being asked in India are whether her alleged crime was serious enough to call the police and whether the police treated her harshly because of her colour and nationality. The answer may well be negative to both these questions. Diplomatic immunity for the children of the Consular staff is a matter of interpretation of the Vienna Convention and the US interprets it narrowly. The first mistake was made by the teacher by calling the police, which took disproportionate action. The details of her humiliation, which were given by Krittika, were abhorrent, to say the least. Like the Indian police, the New York police seemed unaware of the basic human rights of a teenager. Whether she had diplomatic privileges or not was not an issue here.

The racial overtone was given to the incident by the subsequent revelation that the actual culprit, a Chinese boy, was treated differently even after his guilt was established. Here, a charitable explanation could be that having faced charges by the Indian Consulate and others in the case of Kirttika, the police went soft on the Chinese boy. The mystery is that this incident, which took place in February, did not come to public attention till Krittika announced her intention to sue the New York City for one and a half million US Dollars. Was her decision to sue the city prompted by the subsequent soft handling of the Chinese case?

It is quite out of place to bring into this case India-US relations and China-US relations and their respective importance for the US. The State Department could never have instructed the police to run foreign policy. There could well be a certain animosity in certain circles towards foreigners in general, but it will not be limited only to brown colour. One far-fetched explanation could be that Indian children in American schools are so bright that there could be some envy towards them and an over zealous teacher may have tried to fix one of them.

Indians in the US are great achievers and they have begun to be noticed everywhere from the White House to the Board Rooms of big corporations. Inevitably, therefore, there have been instances of targeting them for harsh action even on suspicion of demeanor. Average Indians constantly complain of racial discrimination in matters of promotion and crucial appointments. But the success stories are overwhelmingly higher than instances of discrimination. Discrimination is certainly not the policy of the Government even if it is being practiced in certain circles. The US is still a country of equal opportunities even if some may feel deprived of their jobs by immigrants. In the case of Krittika, it could be a conspiracy between a teacher and a police official, but not racial discrimination or anti-Indian feeling. Even the earlier cases of disrespect to diplomats should not be construed as anti-Indian.

The Government of India was right in taking up the case in right earnest and in allowing Krittika to sue the city, but this case should not be mixed up with politics or with immunity issues. Some have called for reciprocity in applying the immunity provisions to American diplomats, which is fine, but there should not be any action that smacks of revenge. Diplomatic immunity is meant for ease of functioning, not to shield offenders and it should be applied more as an art rather than as a science. The New York police was praised for dealing with DSK, but was criticised in the case of Krittika and that is a lesson in itself.

Legacy of Dr.Mathew Illickal

(Eulogy at the Memorial Service-- New York June 15, 2011)

My son has already spoken, more poignantly than I could, on our family ties to Dr. Mathew Illickal and his family. I have myself spoken yesterday how indebted we are to the Illickal family for enriching our lives in the last 31 years. Today, I shall speak more broadly, not just from the perspective of our family, about the legacy of Dr.Illickal, a legacy that makes us all feel proud.

First and foremost, his legacy is the family he has left behind. Lilykutty herself is his creation. She is not the same bride he brought along to these shores: she is today an accomplished lady, who is an asset to the community and to the society at large. His children, Mohan, Manoj and Maya and his grandchildren are the greatest gifts he has bequeathed to us. He will live on in them and remind us of him. His values will remain immortal.

Dr. Mathew’s professional legacy shall also last very long. I am sure his motivation to come to the US was to gain professional skills in this land of technology and research. He became one of the best in his profession as a surgeon, but he retained the traditional values of his Indian training. He relied on his touch, his instinctive understanding of the human body to heal, not merely on machines. I have never heard him speak of his accomplishments, which celebrities he has operated upon etc. But we knew his professional skills. We called him whether we had a cold or broken bones and he gave us the cure with his thoughtfulness and sympathy. He healed us in a way only God could, by giving us strength and confidence.

His legacy as an Indian immigrant to the United States is also a noble one. He did not leave India because he had a grievance or because he could not make a living there. And having come here, he did not ever denounce India or Indian medicine. He gave his life of service to his country of adoption and earned the respect and confidence of his patients at a time when Indian doctors were few and far between. If Indian Americans have won a place for themselves here and enhanced India’s prestige and influence, it is because of the hard work and talents of people like Dr. Illickal. He has done more to India-US relations than any ambassador could. Like other Indian Americans, he was a true ambassador of his country here. He did not speak nostalgically about returning home, but his wish to have his ashes sent home has revealed his passion for his motherland. If lekha was here, she would have spoken of the support he has extended to “Karuna”, the charity organisation to help the poor that Lilykutty heads in New York.

And more than anything else, his is the legacy of a perfect human being. He had no malice, no ill will. He had a beatific smile for everyone, a word of encouragement and comfort for everyone. He will be remembered for his aristocratic upbringing and unfailing humanity and humility. We are the poorer for his parting, but richer for his legacy. May his soul rest in peace.

Engaging Global Indians

(My Remarks at the Plenary Seminar of the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, Toronto. June 10, 2011)

I suspect that I am on this panel because I have had the experience of engaging global Indians in diverse situations in different times. I have dealt with the impoverished Indian farmers in Burma after the Indian exodus of the sixties, I have witnessed the military coup in Fiji against the Indians who made those islands a paradise on earth, I have been in Kenya where the Indians had virtual control over the economy, I have seen the emergence of Indian Americans as a powerful force in the United States since the eighties and I have engaged the largely professional Indian expatriates in Europe. As someone who lives in Kerala, I cannot be unaware of the problems and prospects of the Indians in the Gulf.

One conclusion I have reached from this experience is that there is no single formula that India can deploy to engage the diverse Diaspora it has around the world. India’s policies and approaches have also evolved over the years. In the early years of our independence, India had left Indian immigrants to find their feet in foreign lands with no expectation from them and no promises. India was a passive witness to the upheavals in Kenya, Uganda and the Caribbean, though India warmly welcomed those who returned to their motherland. In the second phase, India began to realize the value of engaging the Indian community abroad to seek technology and investment. That was a period of discovery for both India and the overseas Indians, but the bewildering diversity of demands on their side and limitations of action abroad by India led to a searching of souls by both. Today, we are in the third phase, in which the expectations on both sides have been toned down to a realistic level and India and her children abroad have begun to work in a cohesive manner.
India is today aware that engaging the global Indians should not be single dimensional. There are limits to the extent of investments that they can bring in. Other than the expatriates in the Gulf, the community will not make remittances to India. Demands for dual citizenship have been partially met. Welfare measures have been drawn up for those in need, particularly in the Gulf. The engagement is now deeper, multidimensional and mutually beneficial. The institutional framework has been established by the sagacious Indian leadership, particularly the Minister responsible for Overseas Indian Affairs.

Two major developments have helped to create the right atmosphere for engaging the global Indians for the benefit of the country. First, India’s unprecedented economic growth and its influence in the world have given global Indians greater pride and incentive to be partners in the great game. Their opportunities back in India have grown to such an extent that the thought of return to India is no more far-fetched. This does not mean that there will be a massive return to India. The psychological sense of security about a safe and prosperous homeland gives them greater confidence. I remember that during the Fiji crisis, Indians came to me not for Indian visas, but for Australian and American visas. India does not bewilder them anymore.

The second reason is the political and economic instability in certain parts of the globe. The power and economic centres of the world are shifting. During the recession in developed countries, India presented a relatively stable trajectory of growth. Some regions, who were considered stable and steady sources of energy, are witnessing dramatic changes and democratic aspirations. India presents an alternative in the event of instability and uncertainty and this creates a stake for the community in India’s growth and development.

The new situation has transformed the chemistry between India and the Indian community abroad. Today, Indian communities abroad are seeking innovative ways and means to participate in the exciting events in India. Tomorrow I shall be at a meeting of Indian professionals from Kerala in Chicago to draw up a programme to give professional support to the Government of Kerala. This initiative has come without any prodding from Kerala itself. This is just one example of how global Indians are seeking to network in India for mutual benefit.

India is also in the process of orienting its policies for the benefit of Indian communities abroad. Memories are still fresh about the role played by Indian Americans in finalizing the nuclear deal and in taking India-US relations to a higher level. The growth in this relationship will serve the interests of the Indian Americans. Similarly, the growth in cooperation with Canada is of benefit to the Indian community here. There is a greater emphasis today on developing close ties with countries which have large Indian communities in the developed and developing world. Strategies are being worked out to turn the Indian communities abroad as a powerful resource in our foreign policy. The maturity that has developed between India and the Indians abroad will be of immense benefit to both.

Indians in the UN System

By T.P.Sreenivasan


You cannot throw a stone into the UN or its Specialized Agencies without hitting an Indian, but there are no Indians as chiefs in any of these bodies. Indians may do all the work and win approbation, but they continue to be sherpas and not summiteers. Even today, the highest level Indian in the UN system, Vijay Nambiar, is only the Chef d' cabinet, a glorified executive assistant to the UN Secretary General. None of the nearly twenty Specialised Agencies is headed by an Indian today, even though many Indians in key places may well be doing the work of these Agencies. After Arcot Ramachandran headed the UN Habitat in Nairobi many years ago, we have not been able to get a similar post even though we have highly qualified experts in many areas.

The reason for this sorry state of affairs is that we do not have a policy to create opportunities for deserving individuals to enable them to grow in the system. Even those who go fairly high do so by their own initiative and by pulling wires in the Government to gain support for one post or another. Many posts in the UN system are the preserves of different countries and the countries concerned plan the careers of successors in such a way that the jobs remain within the countries concerned or in the regional groups.


Even the Indian candidature for the post of the UN Secretary General was at the initiative of the candidate himself. The Government did not give any thought to finding a winnable candidate for the post and merely made Shashi Tharoor India's candidate after he decided to make a bid and influenced high places in India. Even after he became the official candidate, he did not get the whole-hearted support of those in the field and many of them were happy that he lost, as was predicted. It was argued that his candidature would stand in the way of reform of the UN and India winning a permanent seat in the Security Council.


The Asian Group in the UN is so diverse that there is hardly any possibility of agreement on a common candidate except on a rotational basis. There were already several Asian candidates, including Ban Ki-Moon when the Indian candidate emerged. Countries like Japan and Korea are able to get even posts considered preserves of other countries and groups by putting up candidates with relevant experience by keeping them in the mainstream for years. In our system, rotation is so sacrosanct that no individual is allowed to grow in any organisation beyond a few years.


Dr. Homi Bhabha helped establish the IAEA and his bust is still there outside the IAEA boardroom. But no Indian has risen to even the second level in the IAEA since then, though some of our scientists aspired to senior positions. Of course, our not signing the NPT had made several areas in the IAEA out of bounds for Indians.

The Indians who rise in the UN system are the objects of envy of their colleagues and every effort is made to get them back as soon as possible. Many diplomats have been forced to return to the country to protect their promotions in their own services, though now the Government is a bit more liberal in extending their deputation to the UN and other organisations.


We do not subscribe to the dictum that having Indians in high places in the UN system is helpful to India. Those who rise to these positions go out of their way to erase their Indian identity to become truly international civil servants. This is one of the reasons why those in the Government do not care to secure these jobs for Indians. Only personal networking enables them to get these jobs and the next time they look for the Indian ambassador is when they are due for a promotion or an extension. Most Indians in the UN system are no assets to the Indian missions accredited to them.


Most Indian PRs to the UN have managed to get positions in the UN, but not beyond Under Secretary General. None of them has contested for elected posts. Most heads of Specialised Agencies are elected and India is extremely reluctant to put up candidates. The myth is that contesting these posts will affect our chances for becoming a permanent member in the Security Council.


The World Bank and the IMF are even less democratic than the rest of the UN system because they operate on the basis of weighted votes. Even though we have good candidates and there is a general sentiment in favour of the highest jobs being made available to those outside the US or Europe, it will be very hard for India to get the top position in the IMF. India will be offered second or third positions as a compromise in the end.


There have been a few instances where it has suited the big powers to offer some high level positions to Indians. A few years ago, India got a very important post, but we paid a very high price for it by helping to bring down a fellow developing country head from another organization. Such deals may become increasingly possible, but we have to plan ahead and present acceptable candidates. No one gets top positions in the UN system by sheer merit. Major Powers should be made to develop vested interests in India or in certain Indians if Indians have to become chiefs in the UN system. Till then, Indians will be playing second fiddle or lead peacekeeping units under civilian bosses from the western world.