US in Asia-Pacific: An Indian Perspective

The US Strategic Goals in Asia Pacific: An Indian Perspective.

By T.P.Sreenivasan

The distant drums of an approaching new cold war were audible at the Asia Pacific Roundtable on Asian Security Governance and Order in Kuala Lumpur. The increasing influence and assertiveness of China in the region seemed to invite a matching response from the United States.

The striking point about the rise of China was the perception in the region, at least among some countries, that the Chinese presence was benign. Prime Minister Razak of Malaysia, for instance, said that he would not belittle “the positive transformational effects China’s ascendancy has and will continue to have on Asia and beyond.”

Mahathir Mohammed, the elder statesman of Malaysia, sough to allay the fears about China by saying that the Chinese, who had contacts with the region for centuries, had never colonized any country, while the Portuguese and other Europeans merrily built empires in Asia. He said that Malaysia should fear the Europeans more. He revealed his admiration for the Chinese when he said that the Chinese were cleverer than the Russians. The Soviet Union collapsed because it tried to reform both the economic and political systems at the same time. The Chinese survived as a nation because they only reformed the economic system.

Malaysians were not the only ones to praise China or to predict that China would determine the future of the Asia Pacific region. The assessments of China were always positive and there was never even a hint of human rights violations or curtailment of press freedom.  Mahathir favoured a certain amount of authoritarianism in Government and was as tolerant of “some killings” by the Chinese as of American atrocities against terrorists.

China’s own perceptions about security in Asia and the Pacific were quite patronizing, bordering on arrogance. The Chinese Ambassador to ASEAN spelt out the Chinese position on the South China Sea, making light of the repercussions of the Chinese assertiveness on this matter. Other Chinese scholars openly admitted that confrontation with the United States was inevitable, as the US “Back to Asia” security policy was targeting on China and it was a direct threat to it. But even while admitting strategic distrust, they said that shared interests made the two countries cautious and pragmatic in managing tensions.

According to the Chinese, China’s increasing importance and influence were making the countries of the region perform the feat of “putting legs on two boats”. Even though confidence made China continue to play a positive role in managing the new complex relations and challenges, the situation gave rise to nationalism and a “new victim feeling”, a strange concept of fear, which led, ironically, to greater assertiveness. China clearly sees a competition between the old US dominated military alliances and the new structures in which China plays a central role. It realizes that the key to political dominance is economic penetration and the Chinese make no secret of their strategy.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the US has identified the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia as the region which needs to receive greater attention. The rebalancing means shifting the US concentration from the Middle East to Asia and a broader reach in Asia itself with more flexible deployments and rotation of troops. President Obama was candid about the US strategic objective in Asia. He said, “I am determined that we meet the challenges of the moment responsibly and that we emerge even stronger in a manner that preserves American global leadership and maintains our military superiority.” The real debate today is not about the importance of Asia, but what methods should be used to increase the US engagement in the region.

The US interests in the region should be seen against China’s growing military capabilities and its assertiveness of claims, which has implications for freedom of navigation. Although the President is committed to reducing the defense budget, the disengagement in Afghanistan and Iraq may release enough resources for Asia Pacific. In November 2011, Secretary Hillary Clinton recalled that the stability and security in Asia was guaranteed for long by the US military. The US could not afford not to strengthen its presence in Asia at a time when the region is likely to shape global security itself.

The new strategy appears to be to reduce ground forces and focus on nuclear forces and the navy, in which the US has clear superiority over China. Old alliances in the region need to be strengthened and new friends need to be found. Since the region straddles two oceans, the Pacific and the Indian, shipping and strategy have to take the interlinkages into account.

Although the US has maintained that its rebalancing of forces in Asia is not directed against any country, China has repeatedly accused the US of pointing at a Chinese threat to perpetuate its hegemony in Asia. It has said that a de facto empire on borrowed money is flexing its muscles, while its creditors are at the door. China believes that it is all a matter of cold war mentality and that nobody will believe that the US actions are not directed against China. If anything, China will be more assertive of its claims on the South China Sea and other disputes, as it became evident at the recent ASEAN summit.

India-US relations have undoubtedly benefitted from the change of scene in Asia Pacific. When External Affairs Minister S M Krishna and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met on June 13, 2012 for the third round of their strategic dialogue, there was spring in the air, not blowing in from the Potomac, but from the distant Pacific and Indian Oceans. The issues that had bedeviled the bilateral relationship in the last two years were all there, but there was certain urgency about putting them behind and moving forward for larger objectives. The ripples that grew into waves in the South China Sea and the changing equations in Asia Pacific gave their parleys new content and a sense of purpose.

No doubt, after initial hesitations, the US began to see India as the “lynchpin” of its new security architecture and India became a doorway to the Pacific. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta made it clear that he was on a mission to recruit India as a partner in Asia Pacific, whatever may have been the irritants in the past.

The elaborate Joint Statement issued at the end of the strategic dialogue makes the context very clear. “The US and India have a shared vision of peace, stability, and prosperity in Asia, the Indian Ocean region, and the Pacific region and are committed to work together, and with others in the region, for the evolution of an open, balanced and inclusive architecture.”  Such a firm assertion of the role of the two countries in the region is rare in India-US statements. What is more, Secretary Clinton welcomed India’s growing engagement in the Asia Pacific. The Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC), an old Indian initiative, which had lost momentum, received a boost when the US sought to become a dialogue partner of the Association.

The US, once wary of Indian activism in Afghanistan for fear of Pakistan’s displeasure, declared its intention to seek new opportunities to intensify the efforts of the two countries for consultation, coordination and cooperation to promote a stable, democratic, united, sovereign and prosperous Afghanistan. India, in turn, welcomed the announcement of the Chicago Summit of NATO of progress in the security transition process, acknowledging the legitimacy of NATO operations in Afghanistan. The statement also favoured the elimination of safe havens and infrastructure for terrorism and violent extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. No better evidence was necessary of the disillusionment of the US of the role of Pakistan as an ally in Afghanistan and its desire to work with India.

The reference to defence relations was of particular importance. Instead of harping over the disappointment over the fighter aircraft contract, the statement celebrated the fact that India had awarded defence contracts worth USD 9 billion in recent years to US companies. It noted the many military exercises and exchanges in the last six years and reaffirmed their desire to strengthen defence cooperation through increased technology transfer.  Defence Minister A K Antony had stressed to Secretary Panetta the need to transform the buyer-seller relationship into a partnership in technology and strategy. In New Delhi earlier, the US had conceded that India’s unwillingness to sign a couple of basic agreements relating to defence cooperation should not stand in the way of new defence deals.

Among the differences, which were pushed under the carpet was the nuclear liability issue, which had prevented nuclear trade between India and the United States so far.  No mention was made to the obstacles to the licensing and site development work associated with construction of the new Westinghouse reactors in Gujarat, but they welcomed progress towards the full implementation of the nuclear deal. The need of the hour was to highlight points of convergence, not of divergence.

An endless list of issues of agreement in diverse fields such as counter terrorism, intelligence, homeland security, cyber security, energy, climate change, education, development, trade, agriculture, science and technology, health and innovation and people-to-people ties found place in the Joint Statement.

The spring in India-US relations, evident after the third round of the strategic dialogue, comes from the anxiety of the two countries to rebalance them in the face of Chinese assertiveness. Compulsions of security in Asia Pacific may well bring the two democracies closer together in the future.

The Indonesian Foreign Minister expressed the current dilemma of the countries of the region in these words: “What worries us is having to choose; we do not want to be put into that position. The Pacific is sufficiently accommodating to provide not only the role of China and the US, but of emerging powers too.” A spokesperson of ASEAN said that ASEAN would not like to dictate the roles of different powers in the region. It would rather act like a flight controller at an airport, making sure that all arrivals and departures are smooth and there is no collision.

But sooner or later, the countries in the region will have to develop a cohesive Asian strategy to deal with the challenge of Chinese assertiveness. Chinese domination of the sea-lanes of Indian and Pacific Oceans will be a major concern for India. Assertion of its claims in the South China Sea, if it succeeds, will encourage it to press its territorial claims on India. India considers its strategic autonomy sacrosanct and wishes to pursue a new generation of nonalignment, but as it became evident in June, India’s engagement with the US will become stronger and more productive in the light of the evolving situation in Asia Pacific.

India has a stake in working with the US, China and other countries in the region to rearrange the regional security system, which accommodates rather than collide with India’s security interests. India’s efforts have been to identify issues, particularly multilateral issues, such as global trade, the financial system and the environment in which cooperation with China can be enhanced. But three major issues still divide India and China, with the potential for an adversarial relationship. The unsettled border between the two countries, the Chinese propping up of Pakistan against India and the possibility of China diverting the water, which flows into India are intractable. Some scholars have suggested an India-China diplomatic structure to monitor these issues and to find temporary, if not final solutions to these issues. But given the present assertiveness of China, it is not likely to help matters. India will have to search for its own security in the larger context of the evolving situation rather than bilaterally with China.

 

--  

Implementation “Hona Chahiye!”

Implementation “Hona Chahiye!”

(Remarks at a Roundtable at the Brookings Institution on August 8, 2012)

I did not know enough Hindi to think up a bilingual title for this talk, the first such title I have ever used. It must be Steve Cohen who coined it, with his knowledge of India and Hindi. I found the title very fascinating and decided to accept it. Coming to think of it, implementation of existing agreements, rather than negotiating new ones, has turned out to be harder in international relations, as in private lives. Reaching of agreements often happens out of idealism and optimism or even romance, but when it comes to implementation, the imponderable impediments spring up and implementation often falls short of expectations. The test lies in the ability of the partners to stick as much as possible to the sentiments that originally engendered the agreements and implement them in good faith. Implementation “hona chahiye”, and I would even add, “zaroor.”

However, the story has another side. Agreements have a certain historical context and compulsion and it may not be possible or even desirable to implement them in letter. It may become necessary to implement them in spirit and set aside some elements of the written word to suit the new context and compulsion. History is full of agreements, which served a purpose at the time they were signed and approved, but much imagination and flexibility became necessary to sidetrack some details and proceed with the purposes and principles of the original document. Bringing the agreements in line with the implementation may be so hazardous that it will be better to let the anomalies lie. This is demonstrated in the mother of all agreements, the UN Charter itself. Nobody asks for the implementation of the “enemy clause” or the original composition of the permanent members of the Security Council as recorded in the Charter.

Coming to the specifics of the agreements between the US and India, the general situation I just laid out, holds good in diverse ways. The single instance of the US-India Nuclear Deal is sufficient to study the dynamics of agreements and their implementation. In the first place, we have to remember that what was attempted was nothing short of a miracle. The bottom lines of the two countries were so diametrically opposite that a meeting of minds was unlikely. I am referring to India’s rocky determination not to sign the NPT and the abiding faith of the US in NPT as a cornerstone of its global non-proliferation policy. It was such irreconcilable positions that the deal sought to bridge. Inevitably, the pressures of contemporary history pushed both the countries to an agreement, but the differences in perception persisted till the end. What enabled the two nations to reach an agreement was the willingness of the two to keep their own respective understandings to themselves.

In their effort to convince their own constituencies, both sides issued declarations and passed legislations to show that they had not reneged on the fundamental positions they held. But each of these steps made the implementation complicated. The most celebrated of these was the declaration of the Indian side that there was nothing in the deal that would prohibit India from testing again and the declaration on the side of the US that the deal could be annulled if a test took place. The provisions in the deal itself were ambiguous on the issue, but both had its respective interpretations. Similarly, many provisions of the Hyde Act were anathema to India, but it was explained that these were unilateral US assumptions to which India was not party. The US side clarified time and again that the Act was part of the deal and was binding. Even the meaning of “full nuclear cooperation” and the “clean waiver” given by the NSG left many lose ends. But the agreement was signed because of the political compulsions rather than practical considerations. The fact that it has not been fully implemented should not detract from its significance as a milestone in US-India relationship.

I wrote an article in 2009, when I was a Fellow at Brookings, entitled, “The US may have no nuclear trade with India” which sent shock waves among strategic thinkers and the nuclear industry in the US and in India. I received phone calls from major US companies. My logic was that the US, while it had enabled India to enter the nuclear mainstream, it had no intention to contribute even remotely to India’s nuclear capability. This was not lust my own surmise. Someone who ought to know told this to me. I could see the logic of the argument. First of all, the US had no significant new technology to share with India. The political purpose of the deal was fulfilled when the NSG clearance was given. US nuclear trade could not be resumed just with the 123 Agreement. There were more conditions built into the system. I concluded that the US would find it hard to provide nuclear technology or material to India.

India should not have been disappointed that US supplies might not materialize. Many people had opposed the deal in India because it was being signed with the US. An agreement with France or Russia would have been more acceptable. It was the indication of an assurance given to the US that India would have significant nuclear trade with it, which caused a major controversy. Many argued that we should confine our dealings with France and Russia now that the obstacles had been removed. My US interlocutor told me that India’s wish would be fulfilled and it should rejoice at the outcome. The US would benefit more from the goodwill generated by the deal and the expected defence contracts than from the nuclear trade envisaged under the deal.

The liability issue and the controversy over enrichment and reprocessing technology, which arose subsequently, have delayed the full implementation of the deal. Both these are legal and sentimental issues, which did not alter the spirit of the deal. The Government of India had no intention to include the liability of the suppliers in the bill as it was aware of the international practice in this regard and there were sufficient provisions in the Indian legal system to deal with criminal negligence by anyone involved in the transactions. A sentimental debate on the Bhopal tragedy gave the opposition an opportunity to amend the bill, knowing fully well that it would block nuclear trade with the United States, which involves private companies. What they could not accomplish during the debates on the deal was achieved through the mechanism of the liability act. The French and Russian positions on the liability law was not different, but since the companies involved were state entities, the law did not affect the supplies, which were already in the pipeline. Both the US and India are engaged in finding a way to remove the legal impediments imposed by the liability law and the MOU signed between NPCIL and Westinghouse in June this year indicates some movement. But both sides may not be unhappy by the turn of events, if my contention in my 2009 article turns out to be right.

The reiteration in 2011 by the major suppliers that ENR technology would not be available to India should not have come as a surprise to India. But India insists on the principle of “full nuclear cooperation” and the “clean waiver”, knowing full well that India will not get it. India has the necessary technology and the agreement is specifically about the establishment of reprocessing facilities, not technology. No tears need be shed on account of restrictions on ENR technology, though it has become a “Holy Grail” for India when the implementation of the deal is considered.

The totally unexpected Fukushima disaster has also cast a shadow on the implementation of the deal. Though the Government of India is determined to pursue the path of developing nuclear power for its energy needs, as originally planned, there is sizeable popular opposition to the establishment of new nuclear reactors, as was demonstrated in Kudankulam. The sites allotted to the US are in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, where regional predisposition is towards industrialization, but popular sentiment against nuclear power could be ignited anywhere. This new factor must also be taken into account in the implementation of the deal.

After all is said and done, what matters is the political will. The Obama Administration, and for that matter, the second UPA Government, have been ambivalent about the strategic partnership between the two countries. The promises made at the time of the Presidential visit have not been fulfilled as yet. The proposal for India to be admitted to the NSG, MTCR, the Australis Group and the Wassenar arrangement has been sacrificed at the altar of the NPT. The support for India’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council, voiced in vague terms by President Obama in the Indian Parliament, was not followed up by any concrete action. On the Indian side, the search for strategic autonomy resulted in its positions in the Security Council, not purchasing fighters from the US and not being helpful on Iran.

The winds, however, seem to change, with the US decision to rebalance its forces in Asia Pacific and defense cooperation with India becoming the linchpin in this context. This should explain the new spring in strategic cooperation that emerged in the latest round of strategic talks. Several issues, which had remained dormant, came up for favourable consideration, including some relating to the nuclear deal. That, however, is another subject I would like to deal with in another talk tomorrow on Asia Pacific.

Suffice it to say today that we can expect a greater degree of implementation of the agreements and understandings as the new realities of the global situation unfold. But implementation should be measured against the context of the agreements and the changing perceptions of their current relevance, rather than on the implementation of every clause. It is the spirit that should be implemented and not the letter.

Thank you.

Selective Alignments, not Nonalignment.



By T.P.Sreenivasan



Nonalignment 2.0 was not born a year ago in the fertile minds of Khilnani, Kumar, Mehta, Menon, Nilekani, Raghavan, Saran and Varadarajan, the authors of a Centre for Policy Research (CPR) paper, but in a conference room in Accra, Ghana in 1991. At a Ministerial Conference of NAM there, the movement abandoned rejection of blocs as its central pillar and embraced development, human rights and environment as their testaments of faith. Politics, it was decided, would not be the preoccupation of NAM.


The Egyptian Foreign Minister AmreMoussa formally proposed that NAM be merged with G-77 as imperialism and colonialism were not the evils to fight against anymore. Finally, it was agreed that the new generation of nonalignment should focus on equity and justice in the economic order, human rights and the environment.



The reaction to the Accra rebirth of nonalignment was rather negative among Indian writers, including, perhaps, some of the authors of the present paper. The argument that NAM was still relevant even in a unipolar configuration and that it should remain the voice of the developing world had no takers, but it was allowed to remain dormant except when Cuba, Venezuela or Iran revived it for US bashing purposes. India’s own involvement with the NAM became ritualistic and we pursued our own interests with no ideological obsessions or historical loyalties. While keeping away from its rhetorical assertions on non-proliferation, we associated ourselves with its declarations of one summit after another. NAM summits became non-events in the Indian calendar. G-20, IBSA, BRICS and ASEAN took precedence over NAM and even SAARC. Nonalignment became part of our political heritage, partly glorious, partly embarrassing, not in play in our big game for global status.



Now, many years later, the Centre for Policy Research has christened their paper on search for strategic autonomy “Nonalignment 2.0”, much to the consternation of the rest of the strategic community. A thoughtful and important policy paper has, consequently, got embroiled in controversy over its title. How could India embrace the very word that the Americans have just used in describing India’s attitudes in the UN Security Council? A commentator called it Failure 2.0. The apparent blessings that the exercise received from Shiv Shankar Menon and his deputies added more mystery to the rebirth of nonalignment as the instrument of Indian foreign policy in the near term of ten to fifteen years, the report says, is the narrow window for India to succeed. The authors are hard at work to disown their own title and, therefore, it should be set aside. They assert that strategic autonomy was the defining value and continuous goal of Nonalignment and that they are merely renovating it.



The report is descriptive in its political sections and prescriptive, when it comes to economic issues. In politics, there is an eagerness to have continuity, but in the more successful area of economic policy, much remains to be done.The reason for this anomaly is not far to seek. The economic writers have been more distant from policy making than the contributors of the political sections. The former have asserted right from the beginning that India’s global goals are limitless if it can maintain high growth and maintain democratic institutions. Diplomacy is secondary in their calculations, but deficiencies in minor things too should be avoided. That the kingdom can be lost for want of a horseshoe nail is not just a nursery rhyme, it is a parable about the nature of power, they assert.



Surprisingly, the report concedes, for the first time in Indian strategic writing, that China is already a super power together with the US. When did the reality of G-2 hit our thinkers? When have we begun considering ourselves one of the “other centres and hubs of power that will be relevant, particularly in regional context”? It looks as though the quest for a multipolar world, in which India plays a global role that K. Subrahmanyam and others dreamt, has been abandoned. We should aspire only to achieve a situation where no other state is in a position to exercise undue influence on us. Is that the be-all and end-all of foreign policy?



Having thus scaled down our ambition for a role in the world, the report claims that India is not seen as a threatening power except in our neighbourhoodand that the rest of the world wants India to succeed. Indeed, Sweden, Argentina and Ghana are quite comfortable with us even if Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka are not. In the same breath, the writers tell us that India is viewed as passive. In other words, India can neither hurt nor help anyone, not a particularly happy situation for a potentially powerful nation.



The threat from China is covered in subdued terms, but its power differential with India, the unlikelihood of the border issue being resolved swiftly, the asymmetry of our capabilities and deployments on the border, the projection of Chinese power in the Indian Ocean, the complex and ambiguous economic relations, the growing trade surplus etc. figure prominently in the report, but with inadequate analysis of these developments.Characterising Sino-Indian relations as the single most important challenge for Indian strategy in the years ahead, the only suggestion made is that India’s China strategy should strike a balance between cooperation and competition, economic and political interests, bilateral and regional contexts. It is left to the imagination as to what can be done if such a balance cannot be achieved, a very likely scenario.



India’s challenges in South Asia are described in starker terms in the report. The nature of politics and perceptions of India in our immediate neighbourhood not only make it hard for the countries in the region to act on policies of mutual benefit, but also place fetters on India’s global ambitions. The report echoes the Gujral doctrine of giving unilateral concessions to its neighbours. Deepening economic engagement is the answer, even to counter the threat of Chinese engagement in the region. The Indian dilemmas in the neighbourhood cannot be resolved with any amount of strategic autonomy. Opportunities abound, but the challenges are equally formidable.



With Pakistan, the report rules out a historical breakthrough and expects incremental improvement as a result of constructive engagement. The US cannot persuade Pakistan to abandon terrorism and the Chinese shield to Pakistan is likely to be reinforced. A number of negative and positive levers have been suggested, but none of them is new and they can be applied only if opportunities present themselves. Restoring the strategic unity of South Asia remains a distant goal.



In West Asia, the suggestion is that India should engage with both the lawfully constituted authority and the democratic forces, with a view to finding a political settlement. This easier said than done. How much can strategic autonomy help India to prevent external intervention? Equally hard will be for India to avoid sharp choices, like steering clear of the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia.



The elaborate treatment in the report of the international institutions, hard power, internal security, non-conventional security issues, knowledge and information etc. must be studied separately. They are indeed weighty sections.The clarion call to India to rise with our clear values intact and not to fritter away India's enormous legitimacy, when seeking power. We should set new standards for what the most powerful must do.


The passion for strategic autonomy or a new generation of nonalignment, however, should not be the priority of the powerful. They hire and fire allies to suit their strategic objectives. India has already moved away from a pathological attachment to nonalignment and opted for selective alignments on the basis of mutual benefit, giving birth to alignments across geographical and ideological divides. To harp on the primacy of autonomy, to the exclusion of finding common cause with others is a sign of weakness and lack of self-confidence. The authors themselves have not been able to link every solution they suggest to strategic autonomy. Strategic autonomy comes automatically to the powerful. In the pursuit of power, selective alignments are more crucial than nonalignment.

Pangs of Publishing

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Every creative person carries in his head a number of ideas about writing books. But only some manage to write books and fewer actually publish them. Still there are millions of books in the market on any conceivable subject under the sun. Had it not been for the need for discipline required to put things down in a systematic way and the hassles of publishing, there would have been many more authors on the face of the earth.

Writing is possibly the easiest part of publishing a book. It is a lonely exercise and the art of creation is exhilarating. Whether it is a memoir for which recollection is important or fiction, for which creativity is the key or technical or scientific books, for which research is of utmost importance, the author has to devote considerable attention. But the joy generated by the art of creation is reward in itself. The sense of exhilaration on the completion of a book is beyond words.

The scene changes the moment when the author begins looking around for a publisher. He realizes that publishers are ruthless in applying their standards before they accept a book for publication. Blessed are those who have publishers lined up before the books are written. It is even better if the book is commissioned and an advance of the royalty is paid. But for those who write their first book, publishing and marketing are harder than writing.

I had no idea who my publisher would be when I began to write my first book, inevitably an account of my life, including the details of the important negotiations that I was involved in. I thought that my experiences in the Indian Foreign Service would be of interest to scholars as well as general readers as nowhere else they could find the original source materials on the specific issues I dealt with. I had no diaries or notes, but a number of stray papers I had set aside for use. I felt a sense of accomplishment when I completed it, but every time I read and reread the text, I had to rewrite portions of the book. Finally, I decided not to read it again, for fear that the book would never be complete.

I happened to be in New York when I finished the book and I decided to explore the possibility of publishing my book there. Armed with introductions from my son, a Columbia Professor of Journalism, I met a couple of publishers to learn the harsh reality that a new writer stood no chance of being considered, not to speak of getting published. Legends like a publisher getting enthused after reading a manuscript of Arundhati Roy inspire new writers till they find that it is hard enough even to get someone to read a manuscript.

Speaking of my own manuscript, a publisher told me that people would read memoirs of celebrities, but they would not be interested in professional lives. He told me helpfully that if I were to write about how to be a successful diplomat, he would be interested. Readers, he said, would like to improve their lives by acquiring new skills and therefore the “How To” books were particularly popular. The clear message I got was that I should try publishing my book in my own home country.

During my travels, I almost lost my manuscript in an airport theft. The brief case in which I normally carried the floppies of those times was stolen, but I had packed the floppies in my main suitcase this time as my briefcase was full with other documents and goodies. On arrival in India, I saw a book by my erstwhile boss in New York, Ambassador Chinmaya Gharekhan, on the UN Security Council. I was quite impressed with its production and Ambassador Gharekhan introduced me to Pearson and its helpful and friendly executive, K.P.R. Nair, who had published a number of books by Indian diplomats. He lost no time in accepting the manuscript for Pearson and even with his best effort, it took a full year for the book to see the light of day.

The editor was a young and energetic young lady, who did not understand much of the intricacies of foreign policy or its vocabulary. But she improved the text in many ways, removing repetitions and correcting the sequence of events. But once she was done with the text, I had to reinstate many of my expressions and words. She gracefully accepted my revisions and the manuscript was ready. But the greatest difficulties arose in finalizing the title and choosing the pictures.

My title, “Words, Words, Words” was much older than the book itself and I had made up my mind that this definition of a book by Shakespeare was a masterpiece and that it would be the title of my memoir, as diplomacy is all about words, written, spoken and unspoken. I was told, however, that the book would appear to be a book on etymology and hence the sub-title, “Adventures in Diplomacy” was added. Pearson was still doubtful, but they decided to stick to the original title when I suggested an altogether new name, “Never A Dull Moment.”

The cover design too took a lot of work. I had thought that it would carry a portrait of mine like it happens in the case of memoirs. But we finally settled for a graphic design for the hard cover and a portrait of mine for the paperback.

I managed a high profile release for my book as my erstwhile boss in New York, who figured in the book, was elected the Vice-President of India just then and he hosted the event in his own house. Then began the hunt for reviews, another hard task. Considering the number of books that come out in India, it is hard to get the major journals to review books. But India Today, the Hindu and several other journals gave excellent reviews for my book. That made a big difference to the sales and the first edition was sold out, leading to a paperback print.

The royalties on the book, it turned out, was an illusion, as I had to pay more than the 15% royalty that the publisher offered me to order copies for presentation. My hope now is that one day I will earn enough royalty to pay for the copies I order for presents. No one offers to pay for the book you offer and most people feel that they are doing you a favour by carrying the book home.

Publishers are losing out when authors are able to reach the readers directly through e-books and other new media. But publishers still remain key players in book production and they lend value and prestige to books. The pangs of publishing do produce quality books and enrich the world of knowledge.

All India Radio Talk

March 8, 2012

Challenges In Higher Education

T.P.Sreenivasan

Vice-Chairman & Executive Head, Kerala State Higher Education Council.

Addressing the Kerala Legislative Assembly a few days ago, the Governor of Kerala, H.E. Shri. H.R.Bharadwaj, stated: “My Government recognizes that higher education is a powerful instrument of economic and social transformation and will aim to ensure quality education based on access, equity and excellence. My Government realizes the importance of regaining the primacy of our state in the field of higher education. The thrust of our Government will be on encouraging setting up of world class institutions and infrastructure in the state.”

Indeed, the challenge is to fashion an education system, which will provide access, ensure equity and maintain excellence. Today, none of the Indian universities figures in any list of a hundred or more world-class universities identified by different assessment agencies. The wide gap between our universities and world-class universities must be bridged so that our graduates can compete with their peers in India and abroad.

Higher education system in the state has succeeded in increasing quantity to meet the aspirations of the youth. The enrollment rate in Kerala is higher than the national average. No one needs to deny himself higher education for want of accessibility, though he may not get the course or college of his choice. Of late, even engineering colleges have vacancies. We have also risen to the occasion when it comes to offering new courses, including cutting edge technologies in some colleges and universities. Compared to the situation when I was a student at the Kerala University till 1966, there is a world of difference in quantity, diversity and quality in higher education today. Modern methods of teaching, including use of technology, have been introduced. Internet connectivity has opened a new world of knowledge. In other words, the system has much to claim credit for.

But Kerala seems to have lagged behind in competitiveness. This is evident from the fact that our graduates have only a small share of seats in specialized institutions in Kerala and outside, for which national competition is necessary. Similarly, the share of our graduates in the IT industry worldwide is low. We need to reform our higher education in such a way that it matches the highest standards in the world and makes our graduates competitive.

We should recognize that reform in the field of higher education would be slow and painful. Innovation gurus concede that it is hard to introduce innovation in the so-called “mature enterprises” as innovations can be risky and expensive. Past successes can also be a disincentive. Higher education is in this category of enterprises. Any failed innovation may put a whole generation into jeopardy. The available teachers may not be well equipped to impart the new system of education. Introduction of reforms should be after due deliberation and preparation. Any wrong step can be costly.

Inadequate infrastructure, particularly in the Government institutions is an immediate challenge. Low living and high thinking may be a good dictum, but our educational institutions should have the minimum comforts and conveniences to enable the teachers and students to perform at the optimum level. The disparities among the facilities available should also be a matter of concern. Libraries, laboratories and other facilities need modernization and upgrading as new courses are introduced. Internet connectivity, which remains low, is also crucial in higher education. Massive infusion of funds is necessary to improve the infrastructural facilities.

Teachers are the backbone of any system of education. The better the teachers, the better the students. Much has been done to improve the wages of teachers, but the wages are not linked to performance and the security of service tends to make some of them lethargic. There should be a system of evaluation to provide incentives and disincentives to teachers. The strength of the faculty must also increase to give teachers time to learn more and take time off to reinvigorate them. They should also have enough time to evaluate answer books and interact with their students. The present teacher-student ratio does not meet the basic academic requirements. Teachers training programmes and exchange programmes must be developed.

The basic weakness of our higher education system is that teaching and learning methods continue unchanged from schools to post-graduate studies. Teachers are the sources of all knowledge and the students merely imbibe knowledge. In higher education, the initiative for learning should come from the students and the teachers should be guides, evaluators and motivators. The spirit of enquiry should be encouraged in planning the curriculum and prescribing textbooks. As HE the Governor stated, “Our universities must not only impart knowledge, but also create knowledge through research and innovation. New products and processes must emerge from our campuses, giving the industry a stake in our education system.” Today, industry merely recruits graduates. Instead, they should invest in education and participate in its planning so that the graduates meet the requirements of the industry without sacrificing the basic academic standards and overall development of their personalities.

Fluency in English language, particularly its spoken variety, is lacking among our graduates and it militates against the acceptability of our graduates outside Kerala. Stress should be given to articulation of ideas in English as well as in the mother tongue and opportunities should be given to them to use the language in every day life. A special effort to develop linguistic skills must be made.

The Government of India is in the process of enacting laws to facilitate and regulate the operation of foreign universities in India. Since profit making is prohibited, only those universities, which have an interest in Indian knowledge and talents, will come to India. Kerala should equip itself for the advent of foreign universities by establishing links with some of them in advance in anticipation. Emulating the best practices in foreign education is the first step towards building world-class universities.

Continuous assessment of institutions and teachers is absolutely essential to determine the amount of autonomy that individual institutions should enjoy. Institutions of excellence can be developed in the state by identifying the potential of each institution. A state assessment and accreditation mechanism is being planned to meet this requirement.

Two reforms introduced in higher education recently have shown how problems develop in implementation of reforms, even when they are sound in objectives. The introduction of the semester system at the graduate level was long overdue in the state and it has proved valuable nationally and internationally. It aims at broader acquisition of knowledge, encourages the spirit of enquiry and transforms the relationship between the teachers and the students. It certainly increases the workload of the students and teachers, particularly since the number of examinations multiplies. The system was introduced rather hastily and without consequential changes in the curricula and the student-teacher ratio. As a result, several anomalies have cropped up, raising the demand for a return to the old system, which would be a retrograde step. We are in the process of examining the problems through wide consultations among the stakeholders and close examination by experts. The semester system should stay, but with the necessary correctives to make it an instrument of improvement in higher education.

The other reform, which met a similar fate, was the introduction of a cluster of colleges, aimed at sharing of resources among the colleges in the same area. But it has not yet taken off because of the reluctance of the private colleges to share their assets. The scheme is being examined to remove the apprehensions of the reluctant managements.

Everyone agrees with Swami Vivekananda that the purpose of education is “man making”. It should bring out the talents already inherent in every individual. Our own ancient system of education remains a guide and efforts are being made to revive the spirit of Nalanda and Takshasila. But in modern terms, man making will also include equipping the students to stand on their own two feet, another point that Swami Vivekananada had stressed. As the saint Narayana Guru emphasized, education must develop the hand, the head and the heart. The challenge of higher education is to devise a system that will meet the multiple needs of our youth to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world. They should be equipped to seize the opportunities of globalization, without being swept away by its tumultuous impact.

Reflections on Learning English Literature

T.P.Sreenivasan

I could not have expected a greater honour from the Department of English of the Government College for Women, Thiruvananthapuram, than being invited to deliver the Prof. Hrdya Kumari Endowment Guest Lecture 2011-2012. I had dreamt as a teenager that I would speak English like her one day. Today, at least, I speak in her name, though not like her. I bow my head to this extraordinary teacher and an exceptional human being. To our delight, “Age cannot wither her” and she remains active and engaged.

The topic of this talk to honour Prof.Hrdaya Kumari could not be anything other than “Reflections on Learning English Literature” as she was a towering presence in my five years as a student in the University College. But I must say that the final title of the lecture is a product of hard negotiations with the organisers. The process reminded me of an old Egyptian story of a fish vendor, who put up a board, “Fresh Fish Sold Here”, but ended up without a board as each wise man who passed by suggested one word after the other as redundant. In my case, I managed to retain the main part of the title, though I had to change the scope of the talk each time a word was dropped!

Believe it or not, it was precisely half a century ago that I made a crucial decision in my life. Instead of pursuing a professional course with a clear career option, I decided to chase a Foreign Service dream my father had by joining a course of study in English Language and Literature. I had no idea how it would help me reach my goal and I did not know how it would help in a Foreign Service career itself. I was happy to be rid of science subjects, particularly Mathematics, and nothing else bothered me as I registered myself in the University College for BA (English), which not many others seemed to want. At that time, as of now, the best and the brightest went to professional studies, leaving the rest of the world of opportunities in sciences and humanities to those who did not make the grade. Our protestations that we joined English for the love of literature and to compete for the Civil Services did not carry any conviction. But we claimed elitism over our poor brethren in History and Economics and gloated over our central location in the college and the attention we received by the abundance of the female of the species in our midst. Some of us also dabbled in student politics and became prominent.

Looking back at those years, 1961 to 1966, memories of events, personalities and experiences come to mind in an endless procession. As the most decisive years in shaping our lives, philosophies and thoughts, recalling them is an adventure in itself. Recording them after half a century is hazardous in the extreme, as events and people merge into each other and separating the different strands is difficult to accomplish. I can share only the overall impressions, fully aware that the important events may be hazy and the less consequential ones may get exaggerated. Personalities may emerge in black and white, though they were actually in colour, with the bewitching shades of an artist’s palette.

My overwhelming recollection about those times is that none of us, neither students, nor teachers, appeared to have a vision or mission about the knowledge imparted to us. The prescribed books for both the bachelors and masters courses belonged to different genres and different ages and there were no efforts to establish historic interlinkages either in terms of movements or literary crafts. We focused on texts without their contexts and we were unaware of the vast world of knowledge out there, outside our books.

The biggest weakness of teaching a course in English language and literature was that there was no effort to develop communicative English in the classrooms. We lived in two distinct linguistic worlds. We spoke in Malayalam the whole day except when we spoke to the teachers during lectures. Private conversations were strictly in the mother tongue and we were quite proud that neither our mother nor our tongue was English. In the process, the felicity of spoken English eluded us even after finishing five years of English language and literature. No group discussions were ever organized either to develop the language or the analytical ability of the students either at the graduate or post graduate level. The English Associations, which were supposed to provide such opportunities were mired in politics and were used by the student organizations to bring their favourite people to interact with the students. In fact, the language aspect received no attention. Grammar, usage and idiom were unheard of. We developed a bookish form of English, which should have been conducive to literary writing. But creative writing was totally outside the curriculum. I cannot recall a single significant creative work done by any of the students, even though we had people with the talents and linguistic skills for creative writing. One of them, Mani Jacob, who became an educationist and unfortunately passed away recently, had the skill to add cadence and colour to the most prosaic statements. For instance, I recall that when he had to say that Bacon made skillful use of aphorisms, he wrote, “Bacon was not inadept in the art of incubating aphorisms.” I do not think he developed his creative writing skills in later life. Creative writing, perhaps, had no place in his career as an educationist. I wonder whether Kerala was the only University in the world, where a student could become a Master in English Literature, without writing a dissertation or a literary piece or acquiring proficiency in spoken English.

The focus was on prescribed texts at both the graduate and post-graduate level and there was no incentive to read. The library was stocked with literature and literary criticism of an earlier era and we did not know the contemporary literature in English. The infamous question, supposed to have been asked by a professor of English, “Who on earth is T.S.Eliot?” may be apocryphal, but reflected the reality of the impression that English literature came to a close with the Victorian period. We had a book on British history in the BA class, but it was not linked to the literary movements or the nature of the society in which those movements flourished. How could we understand Shakespeare without the knowledge of what shaped his mind and what his preoccupations were as a playwright?

We had the most talented of teachers in the University College at the time, but we did not have the ability to understand them in the early years. With one year of English medium of instruction behind us, we did not grasp much of what they tried to convey. But they helpfully gave us notes on various topics both at the BA and MA levels to prepare us for the examination. This reduced our involvement further in the learning process. By the time we discovered the talents of our teachers, it was too late to benefit from their abilities.

The English teachers at that time were not anonymous, but people with established reputations, but we could see that their talents were not fully utilized in assigning their work. Two established poets among them taught us most prosaic subjects like British History, English phonetics and Old English. The senior professor, who taught us Shakespeare, was rather prosaic and depended heavily on his old notebook, neatly covered in brown paper and labeled. He was totally lost without his notebook. We tested it by hiding the notebook for a day! At one time we had a head of department, whose passion was not poetry, but ornithology on which he was an authority. He knew who T.S.Eliot was, but when I suggested to him that the English Association must meet to condole the passing away of the famous poet, he did not see any point in it.

When I reflect on the faculty that we had at that time, I distinctly recall what we admired best in each one of them. A teacher with the eloquence of Hrdaya Kumari, the depth of knowledge of Ayyappa Paniker, the creativity of G.Kumara Pillai, the friendliness of Sudhakaran Nair, the motherliness of Chellamma Joseph, the sprightliness of Santhakumari the smile of “Punchiri Mathai”, the good looks of Gopakumar and the simplicity of K.Srinivasan would be a perfect model. But one thing common for all of them was their enthusiasm for teaching. Their sincerity was beyond question. But the system of learning and teaching was such that there was no scope for innovation. They taught us the way they learnt as no thought was given to the nature of the professions for which the graduates were being educated. The skills, which we acquired, were good enough only to turn us into teachers without the special talents our teachers had.

One person, who seemed to care as to whether we will fit into the wide world was not in the English Department, but our Principal, Dr. N.S.Warrier. I remember him calling some of us to his room one day in 1964 to ask whether we had understood the full implications of the Chinese nuclear test that had taken place that day. We had not, and we had not cared. Today, we know how that single incident had transformed the world we would live in. Even our policy makers in Delhi had not grasped its impact as Dr.Warrier had done! The space age had just begun and Dr. Warrier appeared bewildered by it. He asked me once whether I had ever thought of flying in space and landing in a country I knew nothing about. Would I be equipped to deal with that situation, with the education I was receiving, he asked. Indeed, I lived in a dozen countries in different continents and discovered that it was important to develop a global view even when one is young.

The variety among us, the students who spent five years together, was great. They ranged from hard working and ambitious men and women to those with no particular goals in life. Those who came from the Thiruvananthapuram aristocracy had airs about them till the “outsiders” overtook them in the university examinations. I remember a classmate, who was confident about facing an exam on the basis of what I could tell him precisely five minutes before entering the examination hall. He asked me to tell him the story of ‘ The Twelfth Night’ so that he could take the examination. He had neither read the play, nor listened to the lectures on it. I obliged, but when he began telling the story in answer to a specific question, he could not remember what the respective genders of Orsino and Olivia were. The way out he found was to describe them not as ‘he’ or ‘she’, but as ‘it’, much to the consternation of the teacher, who valued the paper.

College was a pastime for some of the students and they fell by the wayside, but found their own way of making a living. We know from experience that dropping out of college need not necessarily a tragedy. Honorary degrees have been awarded to dropouts by the same universities when some of them became millionaires or political leaders. Some among my classmates, who may not have been good students, turned out to be reputed teachers as the years went by. The “glorification” course in the University Department of English gave them a second chance to qualify themselves as teachers.

One thing that puzzled me most was why we were taught Old English as part of the Masters Programme. The effort was as strenuous as learning a new language with no possibility of the dead language being used. If learning of the old literature was important, it could be done in modern English. The option that the University offered to study American Literature in lieu of Old English was not exercised in the University College. I cannot recall having had any use of the Old English we learnt in subsequent years. The other irony was that Dr. Ayyappa Paniker, the most modern of Malayalam poets, taught us Beowulf. We were unaware that even as he was teaching us Old English, he was creating a revolution in Malayalam poetry with his ‘Kurukshetram’. We only heard that he recreated ‘The Wasteland’ in Malayalam and we were not even inquisitive about his contribution. Now, many years later, we are discovering Ayyappa Paniker and finding the meaning of what he said to us half a century ago.

Learning literature for the joy of it was rare those days. It turned out that our graduation coincided with the advent of junior colleges in the state and all of us found jobs as lecturers even without applying for them. I was invited to teach in the Mar Ivanios College even before the results of my MA examination came out for a princely sum of Rs.125 per month. Privately, I taught a group of school teachers, most of them double my age, who wanted to move from school to college with a Masters degree in English. English MA Degree was an employment bonanza without much learning of literature. If employability was the purpose of a masters degree, nothing was better than an English degree at that time.

In my Foreign Service career, I often wished I had done politics, economics or international law in college, as these were the disciplines one needed on a daily basis in the business of diplomacy. But it is also true that many inadequacies can be covered with felicity of language. To speak without saying much, an art that is the hall mark of diplomacy, one can resort to flowery language and quotes from Milton and Shakespeare. Moreover, learning of literature expands your vocabulary and linguistic skills to your advantage. I can recall many situations in which I got away with language what I could not have accomplished with substance. But I have also seen an Ambassador, who filled his dispatches with literary embellishments being considered a man without substance.

I have no doubt that learning of English Literature in Kerala has undergone many changes since 1966. I understand that there is greater emphasis on spoken English and creative writing. Modern Indian writing in English, rather than Old English, is part of the curriculum. Amitav Ghosh and Vikram Seth should be part of any English literature course. I would go further and say that contemporary writing in Malayalam should also be familiar to the students of literature. The focus should be on research and innovative thinking.

The Kerala Higher Education Council intends to promote clustering of colleges in different cities and one of the activities that we are planning is to encourage lectures by outstanding teachers and men of letters for all post-graduate students. To make a beginning in sharing of intellectual resources among students and teachers, I have invited the heads of departments of English in the city to discuss ways and means of collective learning. The programme will be extended to other departments also. Our “Erudite Programme” will be redesigned in such a way that the availability of renowned scholars benefits as many students as possible. Students and teachers exchange programmes with foreign universities are also on the cards. Prof. Hrdaya Kumari herself is heading a Committee to remove the anomalies in the semester system at the undergraduate level.

In my view, the semester system, which has stabilized elsewhere in India and abroad, permits a broad perspective on the subjects of choice and stimulates thinking and the spirit of enquiry. I had found our system of intensive studies of a few works, instead of a comprehensive knowledge about each author a liability in answering questions in the Civil Services examination. The semester system does impose higher responsibilities on the teachers and the students, but the new teacher-student relationship envisaged in the system will be beneficial to both. I would like to see the system implemented in the state with the necessary correctives that we are in the process of shaping education for the future generations.

I shared my reflections on my own days in the university, not only to savour the old days, but also to show how much we have moved forward in higher education and how much more we have to do to give our students world class education. I am grateful that I have been given this opportunity to share my thoughts with you today.

Thank you.

How India Missed the Opportunity in the Maldives

By T.P.Sreenivasan



Mohamed Nasheed, elected in 2008 as President of the Maldives, the cluster of islands in the Indian Ocean off the cost of the Indian Peninsula, was the first ever head of state to hold a cabinet meeting under the sea to demonstrate the danger of his state disappearing as a result of global warming. But little did he realize that his tiny state had other more imminent vulnerabilities.

Nasheed, lost as he was in his quest for a global role, failed to attend to local and regional issues and gradually lost his mass base. He was reportedly contemplating resignation, but he claimed last week that he was forced to submit his resignation at gunpoint by the security forces. His long-term friend and associate, Waheed Hassan, took over power. It did not take long for Nasheed to realize that Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, the autocratic ruler of the islands for thirty years, who had lost the election, was behind his ouster. The events that led to the resignation of Nasheed are shrouded in mystery, but the fingerprints of Gayoom and Waheed cannot be erased.

Gayoom himself faced threats of coups in 1980 and 1983, not to speak of assassination attempts. In 1988, mercenaries from Sri Lanka arrived in the neighboring Maldives to subvert his regime. The Indian navy, whom Gayoom invited to deal with the situation, easily crushed the attempted coup. In the first operation of its kind in its backyard, India asserted its supremacy in the region, which was acknowledged by the world

It is widely believed that the assertive manner in which Rajiv Gandhi dealt with the crisis in Maldives in 1988 marked the emergence of India as the regional power. Subsequently, India's handling of the tsunami in 2004 and piracy in later years gave India a predominant role in the Indian Ocean. But in keeping with his low profile style, Manmohan Singh decided to let the local events play out and adopted a containment approach in consultation with the US and Europe. He lost an opportunity to reaffirm the predominant Indian role in its own backyard.

India's neighborhood policy has been a mix of assertiveness, reciprocity, benevolence and even concessions, basically aimed at keeping external forces at bay and enhancing influence. It has, however, refrained from any kind of intervention for system or regime change. India has dealt with democrats and dictators alike to pursue its interests. Being the biggest and the most prosperous country in the region, India has been under tremendous pressure inside the regional organization, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, (SAARC) for unilateral concessions. The situation in the regional forum is farther complicated by the manifestation of Pakistan's hostility in different forms. Exclusion of consideration of bilateral issues was a precondition imposed by India to enter the forum, but Pakistan has breached that understanding on several occasions. The entry of external powers as observers in the Association too has posed its own challenges to India. China’s generosity towards the countries of the region shines in contrast with India’s modest and modulated assistance programs.

In the specific case of Maldives, India's twin concerns are growth of fundamentalism, with the active support of Pakistan and the growing influence of China. Gayoom ran an Islamic state, but did not allow Maldives to be overrun by fundamentalists and he maintained a certain distance from China. At the same time, he maintained a cordial relationship with India, became a beneficiary of Indian economic assistance and provided a higher comfort level to India than its other neighbors. But, perhaps unknown to Gayoom and India, fundamentalist tendencies have been growing in Maldives. China’s rise and assertiveness have caused concern to India not just in India’s neighborhood, but also in distant Africa and Latin America. India is better equipped to deal with this challenge in its neighborhood rather than in distant lands. But the events in the Maldives have enhanced the threat from fundamentalism as well as from China.

India had no role in the advent of Nasheed, but it had no qualms about working with him, particularly since his was a democratic victory. But by failing to advise him to focus on local issues and letting him fall has struck a blow to democracy in the Maidives. India's decision to fall back on an Islamic and authoritarian Government to protect and promote its interests is a sad commentary on its neighborhood policy. By coordinating its efforts with the US and others, when India had the option to take an initiative, it has surrendered the regional domination it had asserted in 1988. It was by no accident that the Indian and the US envoys landed in the Maldives more or less at the same time.

India's options have narrowed down to encouraging Waheed to form a new unity Government with Nasheed's participation, if possible. An immediate election has been ruled out. It is incumbent upon India to engage the various sections of the people and encourage the establishment of a democracy. Gayoom's known inclination to appease the fundamentalists and Nasheed's claim that his ouster has strengthened Chinese influence on the islands should raise alarm bells in New Delhi. Timely intervention to strengthen Nasheed and to prevent his downfall was an easier option for India.

Iran: A Narrow Window of Opportunity for India

By T.P.Sreenivasan

A much publicized visit by President Ahmedinijad of Iran to a nuclear facility and the announcement that Iran was proposing to unveil a new variety of centrifuge, which is capable of enriching uranium four times faster, created war hysteria even though there was nothing new in the Iranian position. Iran stopped short of giving any evidence of weaponisation and offered to continue talks. A team of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had just completed a visit to Iran. But pressure mounted on India from the US as well as the strategic thinkers at home that India should intervene to defuse the crisis. Several US Congressmen have begun a campaign in the US against Indian policy towards Iran. The bombing of an Israeli car in New Delhi has added momentum to the demand for action by India.

The United States has been making two contradictory demands on India with regard to Iran ever since reports of the Iranian nuclear adventure surfaced suddenly in Vienna in 2002. First, India was asked to join in the effort to condemn Iran and to threaten action through the procedures of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran was clearly guilty of having concealed for twenty years its efforts to develop enrichment technology. The development of such technology was not against the letter and spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but it was incumbent upon the signatories to report such activities to the IAEA and seek safeguards inspection.

The second demand, which has been growing over the years, is that India should use its “tremendous influence” over Iran to dissuade the latter to give up its pursuit of nuclear technology. The theory that India has great influence over the Islamic Republic of Iran itself is exaggerated, given the nature of the regime and India’s own dissatisfaction over the role of Iran in the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) on Kashmir. Moreover, if India were to join the western countries in moving the IAEA mechanism to punish Iran, it would lose whatever leverage it had as a traditional and civilizational friend of Iran.

Even with this apparent contradiction in the expectation of the US of India’s role, India has been pursuing both possibilities. In Vienna, we made a significant shift in our traditional policy with regard to issues relating to the implementation of the NPT. We had abstained on such issues, notably in the case of allegations against North Korea’s violations of the NPT. Our explanation was that since we were not signatories to the NPT, we would not be party to any judgment on the acts of omission or commission of the signatories. The US had suspected that we would do the same with the Iranian file and escape any responsibility to censure Iran for its misdemeanors. It, therefore, came as an infinite relief to the US and the western powers that we did not hesitate to state that NPT signatories should abide by their solemn commitment to the treaty that they had voluntarily signed. The message went out loud and clear that India did not want another nuclear weapon state in its neighbourhood.

Consistent with the new and forthright position on NPT, India did not join the nonaligned bandwagon, created by Malaysia and driven by the more radical supporters of Iran, which tried to counter western propaganda against Iran. We participated in the nonaligned discussions on possible Iranian amendments to western draft resolutions, but did not subscribe to any amendment on the plea that we had not joined the consensus on any of the pronouncements of the nonaligned on the NPT. On one or two occasions, Iran complained to their lobbies in India that the Indian position in Vienna was not helpful.

It was against this background that the US increased the pressure on India to vote openly against Iran in the IAEA after the advent of the nuclear deal. Iran became the fulcrum of the negotiations on the nuclear deal as the US Congress insisted on India’s policy on Iran being consistent with US policy as a quid pro quo for the nuclear deal. The Hyde Act was explicit on this issue and India acquiesced in it when India voted to take the Iranian violation of the NPT to the Security Council. Together with the American demand for India to abandon the proposed pipeline from Iran, the US pressed India to move to the flanks of the anti-Iran front. The US did not seem to mind killing the potential golden goose, an India with good relations with both Iran and the US.

India, however, wriggled out of the US grip soon enough for reasons of its own larger strategic, economic and political interests in Iran and applied some correctives and moved some distance away from its antagonistic position towards Iran. Given the complexities that had crept in the position of the US itself on the Afghanistan imbroglio and President Barack Obama’s cautious approach to the war option, the US found the Indian moves more of an opportunity than a challenge. US diplomacy with India on Iran became subtler. The US began to believe that India’s friendly attitude towards Iran could be beneficial in its new strategy of measured sanctions rather than threat of war against Iran. The sanctions, we were told recently by the White House Press Secretary, were being implemented "in a way that had the desired effect just to pressure and isolate Iran further, and did not have unintended consequences for any of its allies."

India has never defied UN mandatory sanctions against any country, but not without pointing out that the suffering imposed on the people would be far in excess of the political benefits derived from the targeted regimes. For that very reason, India does not join any voluntary sanctions regime. In the case of Iran, India has no option, except to continue to buy Iranian oil, despite the political pressure from the US and the European Union. Buying Iranian oil, which amounts to twelve percent of its total imports, is vital for India to fuel its sagging economy. The US itself should understand that India may be able to work with Iran to provide stability in Afghanistan and its neigbourhood after the withdrawal of the American forces. India has worked around the banking restrictions as a matter of necessity by making payments to Iran through Turkey. A barter arrangement is also being contemplated to meet contingencies.

Iranian threats to disrupt shipping in the Gulf in retaliation to European sanctions have sent shivers down the spine of the Indian leaders because of the massive presence of Indians and Indian investments in the Gulf. Indian investors are awaiting some relaxation in the US-Iran standoff to expand their activities.

The liability issue in the case of nuclear supplies, charges of trade protectionism and the Indian decision not to buy American fighter aircraft have slowed down India-US relations and both the countries are looking for avenues to find a new area for cooperation.

The best that India can do to boost its ties with the United States is to prove helpful in reducing tensions between the US and Iran. With shared concerns and hopes about Iran, India, more than others like Russia or China, is in a position to be an honest broker to reduce the gap between the US and Iran and to remove the threat of war. India’s warmth towards Israel is also an asset for India. “Based on its relatively good relationships with both countries, India could attempt to broker a deal, which will, in effect, bring Iran out of its isolation - partly self imposed and partly forced by the US because of Israeli paranoia – that it has faced for many years”, says Rajeev Srinivasan, in a passionately argued case for Indian intervention.

While the benefits of such a proactive role by India, in both strategic and tactical terms, are beyond question, much depends on how willing the United States will be to see India in a mediatory role. The bitter experience of Turkey and Brazil, which tried to resolve the issue of Iranian uranium cannot be forgotten. Both the countries claimed that they were authorized to negotiate a settlement, but the US rejected the outcome outright, forcing those countries to abandon the results of their labour. The United States may welcome efforts by others to bring Iran in line, but it is not likely to trust any other country with making any compromise on its behalf.

The assurances given by Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai in Washington recently and the Indian vote on Syria in the Security Council may have enhanced the level of confidence the US has in India, but India will have to await the right moment to work with the United States and Iran to achieve the twin objectives of averting war and preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. To encourage India to use a narrow window of opportunity it has in this regard, the US should refrain from demonizing Indian policy towards its Iran.

Crisis Beyond Diplomacy

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Bewilderment was writ large on the faces of the hundreds of famished, half naked and sun drenched fishermen, who awaited the arrival of the bodies of two of their kind, Ajesh Binki and Gelastine, on the Neendakara beach near Kollam in Kerala on February 15, 2012. Death and destruction are not uncommon in their daily struggle with the sea and loss of lives in the outer sea is a way of life for them. But death from the bullet shots from a foreign ship was a new experience, which they could not comprehend. It was a rude shock for them, whose safety net consisted only of superstitions and blind faith in the 'mother sea', who protected and punished.

An Italian oil tanker, M.V.Enrica Lexie, with a crew of 34, including 19 Indian sailors, was travelling from Singapore to Egypt close to the Indian coast around 1630 hours, when it noticed an Indian fishing boat, ‘St.Antony’ approaching it. According to the ship’s captain, Umberto Vitelli, the boat appeared menacing and, fearing that it was a pirate vessel, the Italian security men opened fire after giving the customary warnings to the boat. Freddie Louis, the owner and captain of the fishing vessel, on the other hand, claimed that in the broad daylight, there was no reason for suspicion and that the “trigger-happy” Italians shot at his boat without any warning.

The two versions of the incident vary in details, such as the location of the two vessels at the time of the incident and whether the international norms relating to piracy situations were observed. The Italian ship was seen to be speeding away from the scene rather than going to the help of the fishing boat it had attacked. But no one disputes the fact that two innocent Indian fishermen fell victim to indiscriminate firing by Italian gunmen. There should be no two opinions about the need to investigate the incident, punish the guilty and pay compensation for the loss of lives.

The incident has, however, spun out of control for a number of reasons. The public outrage in Kerala over the action of a foreign ship against the fishermen was instant and intense. Without giving much credit to the Indian navy and the coastguard, which managed to bring the ship to the Kochi port, the call was for immediate retribution. The normally lethargic Kerala police swung into action to question the captain and the crew and to arrest the gunmen. The Government in the state and at the centre did not want to be seen to be indecisive in defending national interests in the middle of a crucial bye-election campaign in the state. The opposition propaganda was that India would not be able to stand up to the Italians, quoting the Qattarochi case as a pointer. Italy’s unrepentant efforts to rescue their ship and crew have added fuel to the fire. Italy maintains that the incident took place in international waters and, therefore, India has no jurisdiction.

The Indian position, which has overwhelming support in the country, is that the criminal act of cold-blooded murder of the fishermen should be dealt with according to Indian laws, without any diplomatic interference. The police and legal authorities in Kerala are proceeding on that basis. The gunmen are in police custody and orders have been issued to search the ship and confiscate the guns. Italy prefers a diplomatic solution. Moreover, Italy has been harping on the excellent relations between the two countries, which should not be harmed by this incident. The array of senior Italian diplomatic officials moving in and out of South Block is a clear indication of the intense diplomatic pressure being mounted on the central Government. India has not shown any sign of relenting on the due process of law being applied in this case.

A particular irony in this case is the recognition and reputation that India has gained in its fight against piracy, primarily from Somalia, in the Indian Ocean. The alertness of the Indian navy and coastguards has won international approbation. In fact, shipping circles say that foreign ships stay close to the Indian territorial waters because of this confidence. To imagine that a slow fishing boat with an Indian flag may have been a pirate ship is seen as the height of irrationality.

The redeeming factor in the Italian case is only that there could not have been any ulterior motive in the killing of the Indian fishermen. If only the Italians had accepted that it was a wrong judgment on the part of the crew of the ship, apologized and offered adequate compensation, the matter could have been resolved. But their whole approach has been defiant, and this has left the Government of India with no option, but to let the law take its course with no political or diplomatic intervention.

With the arrival of the Italian Vice-Foreign Minister on the scene, there is hope that matters will be resolved to mutual satisfaction. But the situation may have already been complicated by the cases registered by both sides and a compensation case filed by the wife of one of the deceased. The ship remains detained in Indian waters and the gunmen are languishing in police custody. The issue will not be resolved on the basis of bilateral relations or diplomatic negotiations. A hint given in Rome by a recently installed Indian Cardinal, Mar George Alancherry, that nothing should be done to hurt relations with Italy created a stir even among the believers, prompting the Cardinal to deny any such advice. Only a settlement with the involvement of affected families and local authorities can help in the highly explosive situation. The sooner this is done, the better it will be for India’s relations with Italy and the rest of Europe. The position of the Government so far has won some kudos, but the moment it tries to resolve the issue diplomatically, the ghosts of Bhopal and Bofors will be resurrected to destroy the credibility of the Government. The people of India will be convinced once again that India is incapable of safeguarding its own interests.