India-US : Hazardous Days Ahead from Rediff.com May 28,2009


A strange polarisation is taking place in India. Whenever President Obama [ Images ] says or does something prejudicial to India's interests, the anti-US lobby attacks the UPA government for misreading the Americans.

Instead of giving Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] credit for gaining ground for India by skillful diplomacy during the Bush administration, they blame him for not anticipating the reversal of trends during the next presidency.

This happened when a State Department official restated the position that India should sign the NPT and when President Obama opposed outsourcing. Why did India reach agreements with the US when it was possible that a future government in the US would disown them?

If this is indeed the case, no agreements should be reached with any country. In the case of the US, the new administration is now constrained to work around the existing agreements even if it has to distance itself from the commitments made by President Bush.

The fact is that President Obama himself was taken by surprise by the kind of issues he faced in his first hundred days. 'Keep your hands washed; cover your mouth when you cough!' President Obama would never have thought that he would have to utter these words at his press conference to mark his first hundred days in office.

Nothing would surprise him any more as he has seen many issues he had not thought of coming to him all at once. He has also learnt not only that change in Washington comes slowly, but also that posturing is par for the course there. He has not taken long to know that the state is an ocean liner and not a speed boat and it cannot change course in a desperate hurry. His responses in this bewildering situation has to be necessarily tentative and subject to adjustments in the future.

The world misunderstood President Obama when he promised change. He has begun to say since his inauguration that many things that he wants to change cannot be done in a single term, a single presidency or in a single lifetime.

The time horizon he has in mind is much longer than the rest of the world had imagined. He can only start the journey and it may end only with a different president or a different generation. Continuity is part of the change.

The global economic crisis played a role in Obama's election, but he had not anticipated it when he initially offered his candidature. Iraq was the issue then and the economy had appeared robust. But he found that the economy was built on shifting sand. He lost no time in taking the bull by the horns, but the surprise was that he did not get bipartisan support, which was expected at a time of national and global crisis.

The world was aghast that business was as usual on the Hill when the stimulus package was being piloted there. President Obama is proud of his accomplishments in the economy, but not content.

In foreign policy, the shift from Iraq to Afghanistan and then to Pakistan was warranted by the threat from Taliban [ Images ], which diminished even the importance of capturing Osama bin Laden [ Images ]. The war on terror returned to the theatre of terror, but a weakened and resource starved civilian government in Pakistan did not seem willing even to provide a front line for the war.

President Zardari had no qualms about signing an agreement with the Taliban to introduce Shariat law in Swat. Though the Taliban was nothing but a foreign force, the Pakistan army [ Images ] had to be forced into action by the United States. The very creation of an Afpak region for special attention and the designation of Richard Holbrooke as the special representative signaled the importance in US policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The likelihood of a takeover by the Taliban and fall of Pakistan nuclear weapons in the hands of the militants was used as a cover to enhance assistance to Pakistan.

President Obama has, at the same time, allayed fears about Pakistan's nuclear assets by saying that the military to military cooperation between the two countries will guarantee the protection of nuclear command and control mechanism. He has indirectly confirmed that the United States has a say in the management of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

This was instituted when the A Q Khan scandal broke out and it came to be known that Khan had hurt non-proliferation more than Saddam Hussein [ Images ] had done. If A Q Khan and Pakistan had to be let off, they had to pay a price.

President Obama has not been very innovative in his Afpak policy. The three way summit in Washington was an instant success in the sense that Prime Minister Gilani declared an all out war on the Taliban even before the summit ended. President Zardari was handsomely rewarded with an aid package, which should convey a message that he still has the support of the Americans.

India was an unseen presence at the summit as Pakistan's world view could not be divorced from its paranoia with India.

Depending on Pakistani rulers and the army and pandering to their military and financial needs is an old American habit. If Pakistan has to fight the Taliban, it needs training in guerrilla warfare, not F-16s and warships. But the US Congress is again on the old track of handing over cash to Pakistan.

President Obama has thrown in an assertion that Pakistans obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan is misguided. But there is no insistence that no assistance that could be used against India would be supplied to Pakistan.

Even excluding India from Holbrooke's mandate was only to accommodate Indian sensitivity. Holbrooke routinely halts in Delhi [ Images ] and gives gentle hints to India. India was conspicuously absent from Hillary Clinton's [ Images ] Asian itinerary. President Obama thinks that India can be satisfied by pious warm words about India and its prime minister.

The Prague speech outlined President Obama's new vision on nuclear disarmament, but there was hardly any change there. The commitment to move towards nuclear disarmament is nothing but a reaffirmation of the grand bargain in the NPT and the further steps he has suggested are old wine in new bottle.

He has no quarrel with the India-US nuclear deal, but he is in no mood to make it a part of the new dispensation. By treating the deal as a one time exception will not guarantee its faithful implementation. The appointment of the new czar of nonproliferation in the State Department does not augur well for the deal.

As far as India is concerned, the nuclear deal has already had its benefits in terms of the NSG exemption, leading to the agreements with France [ Images ] and Russia [ Images ].

China, rather than India is President Obama's focus in Asia. The old Bush view of India as a balancing factor in Asia is a thing of the past. The talk of a G-2 to run the world is getting more frequent in the light of the economic crisis. This is a gigantic mistake the US is making.

The US and China cannot partition the world between themselves as the victors of the World War II did in 1945. President Obama appears oblivious of Chinese perfidy and ambition to dominate the world. Walking into a Chinese embrace will endanger the US itself in the long term.

Say no to Bangalore, yes to Buffalo is the new slogan President Obama has coined in the context of outsourcing. He must know that business will go wherever there is profit and there is little that the government can do except in terms of denying tax benefits.

The president has to create jobs in Buffalo, but to suggest that Bangalore is taboo is to hurt globalisation, which has brought immense benefits to the United States.

President Obama has reappointed veteran negotiator, George Mitchell, for the Middle East, but he is yet to make his agenda clear. If he allows domestic politics and Israeli influence determine his Middle East policy, justice will be denied to Palestine again.

Getting close to Turkey may be a great idea, but the key to winning the hearts of the Muslim world lies in establishing the Palestine state and insisting that Israel should abide by international law.

In the rest of his foreign policy postures and pronouncements, President Obama has demonstrated candour and vision. Gestures to Iran and Cuba, new signals to Russia and Europe and a smile and hand shake for Venezuelas Hugo Chavez mark a change in style, if not substance.

He has neither overreacted nor made concessions to DPRK's nuclear and missile antics. It may be true that he has not yet moved from campaign mode to governing mode, but the directions are clear and consistent with his promise of change.

India has much to be apprehensive about President Obama's Afpak policy, nuclear agenda and outsourcing. Part of the reason for this could be the feeling in the new Administration that India got away with too many diplomatic victories during the Bush era.

India's diplomatic efforts should be directed towards getting those victories consolidated in the days to come. We should build on our accomplishments rather than undermine the gains of the last five years. The hazards ahead are formidable, but not insurmountable.

Visiting Fellow at Brookings Institution

I joined the Brookings Institution as a Visiting Fellow on May 21,2009. In a welcome message, Mr. Strobe Talbott,President of Brookings said: "Your tenure here reflects Brookings serious commitment to work on South Asia.....We greatly value your association with Brookings." I expect to do research for my book on the India-US Nuclear Agreement and other nuclear matters till end July.

I have an office at the Brookings (Room 524) a telephone (202-797-6294)and an email ID (tsreenivasan@brookings.edu)

I shall be working with Mr. Carlos Pascaul, Director of Foreign Policy and Prof. Stephen Cohen, Senior Fellow.

The Fellowship has been made possible by generous contributions made to Brookings by Mr. Sreedhar Menon and Mr.Tushar Kothari.

Slumdog: Exploiting India

Slumdog Millionaire? I hate that film!" said a much decorated, liberal and well-travelled former submariner.

"It is poverty porn at its worst. The Mumbai [Images] marauders are supposed to have done their deed to hurt India, to challenge its success, to expose its soft underbelly. But this movie has done the job better"

He did not say it, but suggested that the movie was cinematic terror against India. But he had not seen the movie or read the novel. "What kind of diplomat is he, who does the job of a drain inspector? Isn't he supposed to project India in a positive light?" he said of my former colleague, Vikas Swarup.

I teased my friend, "You are like the Soviet citizens of yore, who used to say they hated Dr Zhivago though they had never read the novel." We were both in Moscow [Images] in the seventies.

I too had not seen the movie or read the novel, Q&A, now christened Slumdog Millionaire [Images] with an eye on the bestseller list, and I too had heard horrible things about the shit pit, the blinding of children with acid and such other horrors of Dharavi slum that the movie presents graphically.

I had also heard that the movie was nominated for the Oscars and A R Rahman had already won the Golden Globe [Images]. But I said I would read the novel, see the movie and judge whether the artistic excellence of the film absolves it of its obscenity.

Having read the novel and seen the film, I cannot say that it has done more good than harm to India. This is not a matter of my wanting to shove the reality under the carpet. Vikas Swarup, or any other diplomat, cannot lie abroad for his country anymore.

But the film is exploitation of the novel, of Dharavi, of poverty, of Rahman, of India itself to titillate foreign audiences. It is the exploitation of the new curiosity about India's success. The curiosity today is not about maharajas and snake charmers, magic or rope trick, but about the market and the malls, the computers and the cell phones.

The question is whether India is a boom or a bubble. It seeks to reassure the world, as Jamal says to an American tourist couple, when he rolls on the ground after a brutal beating by the police, 'You want to see the real India? Here it is!'

Vikas Swarup can explain his novel away, as he has done, by saying that he merely held up a mirror to nature and made a hero of a boy from the slums in celebration of his keen eye and keener brain. Even the word 'slumdog' was not his creation. He found a clever story line and wrote a readable novel, though replete with horrible scenes and unpalatable descriptions of his country.

His book would have raised some eyebrows, but passed to obscurity, like some other creations of diplomatic wordsmiths. But he walked into a trap and sold his rights, without caring to insist that the movie should at least be faithful to his novel. The screenplay has very little to do with the novel itself, except the theme of a millionaire rising from a slum to win a fortune by sheer luck.

Even the questions in the book are different from those in the movie. So are the events that helped Jamal (not Ram Mohammad Thomas) to win his millions. Vikas Swarup, the Indian diplomat, became a willing instrument in the hands of his exploiters. 'I am not a millionaire as yet,' lamented Swarup in an interview!

Take the opening scenes of torture. An idiotic policeman carries out the orders of his cleverer and sympathetic boss in the expectation that Jamal would confess to even graver crimes at the end of it. But Jamal did not cheat. The reason he won was that 'it was written.'

Torture is internationally banned and the director of the film knew that India had not joined the global consensus against torture. He also knew that India is obsessed with Amnesty International raising issues of human rights when they hear about torture. The police officer mentions Amnesty as the disaster, not the possible death of the victim of torture. The police man appears to enjoy torturing and even insulting the victim. He provokes Jamal by referring to Latika as the 'bitch of the slum.' The torture scenes do not add much to the story, but denigrates India even more than the slums do.

As though the depiction of squalor, crime and cruelty is not enough, the film challenges India's success. In a relatively harmless scene, in which Jamal and Salim look with pride at the skyscrapers, which had come up where their slums flourished during their younger days, Salim says: 'Today India is in the centre of the world.'

As I heave a sigh of relief that there is at least one line in praise of India, he goes on to say: 'And I am in the centre of it.' He then goes on to say that he is with a gangster. Well, the movie was taken before the revelations about Satyam [Get Quote]. Who then are the gangsters in the centre of India as it emerges as the centre of the world?

Consider a question that Jamal could not answer. The quiz master asks what is written below the Ashoka lions on the Indian national crest. Is it truth alone triumphs or lies alone triumph? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that this is an insult, particularly as Jamal does not seem to know the answer.

The champions of the film, including my own sons, one, a journalism professor at Columbia University in New York and the other, a young manager and a music and movie enthusiast, say that Slumdog is a cinematographic wonder with excellent acting, soulful music, perfect direction and amazing photography.

'Exuberant, exciting, gaudy, and gritty in a way that can only be called Dickensian, Slumdog Millionaire brings contemporary Mumbai to life from the seamy side up, and it does so with compassion and all-around cinematic excellence,' exults Shashi Tharoor.

Many say that the film will do India proud if Rahman picks up three Oscars. In fact, the music is a redeeming feature of the movie. Even the redlight district scene comes to life with the melody of the anklets on dancing feet. But the celebrated song at the end of the movie sounds like a parody of the national anthem with the use of the phrase, Jai ho!

It was not necessary to rake up the dirt in India to create a film to bring Oscars to India. India rejoiced at the Gandhi Oscars, but Slumdog Oscars, if any, will only highlight how India became a victim of exploitation.

Eminent writer Chitra Banerjee Divakurni claims that the movie is, after all, fiction and it should not hurt anyone. Could this not be dealt with by an inscription that any similarity with reality is pure coincidence? But the makers of the film took special care to shoot on location and document every detail. The purpose was obviously to make the movie as authentic as possible and make an impact. The adverse reaction to the movie in India is precisely because of its authenticity.

The fact remains, however, that the novelist and the makers of the movie have brought to light the horrors of Dharavi. If the passion it has aroused could be directed towards a mass movement to combat the evils of the slum and to eliminate the slums altogether in stages, that would be an appropriate response to the movie.

If those involved in the movie would offer their profits from the film to that movement, they would elevate themselves from exploiters to benefactors.

T P Sreenivasan is a former ambassador of India to the United Nations, Vienna [Images], and a former Governor for India at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. He is currently the Director General, Kerala [Images] International Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and a Member of the National Security Advisory Board.

Shashi Tharoor creates history

Shashi Tharoor has created history by winning the Lok Sabha seat from the Kerala capital, Thiruvanathapuram, by an unprecedented margin. Never before has any one not born in Kerala or not educated here or not proficient in Malayalam registered an electoral victory in the state.

V K Krishna Menon and K R Narayanan claimed victories on the basis of their accomplishments abroad, but they had their places of birth and educational institutions in Kerala to speak of and they spoke reasonable Malayalam.

More significantly, Tharoor has never worked for India or represented India at any international forum. He came, he saw, he conquered.

I was not surprised when Shashi told me more than a year ago that he intended to seek the Congress ticket for Thiruvanathapuram. I knew from his various moves since his leaving the United Nations that he would seek political fortunes in India in one way or another.

He visited Kerala many times, held meetings with political leaders, set up an academy of communications and was generally seen and heard. He had said long ago that India always mattered to him and that he hoped that one day he would matter to India.

But I had many doubts as to whether his quest for a political role would be successful. I told him that he had to overcome several hurdles, which had been built by vested interests in the political system to prevent new entrants.

Dynasty, party hierarchy and money power were powerful deterrents, I said. I told him that it would be an uphill task even to get nominated by the Congress party and the fact remained also that no Congress candidate had won in Thiruvanathapuram for several years.

Shashi had no ready answers, but he seemed well aware of those challenges and determined to meet them as they came. He had a sense of mission and nothing would stop him.

In the days that followed, I saw closely how he tackled each issue and overcame his many opponents. Several Congress leaders were sceptical about his chances of success on account of his lack of experience and past record of disapproval of Congress icons.

Efforts were made to get him to contest in a Communist stronghold, Palakkad, which eventually went to the Left Front. At one stage, Shashi himself seemed to be reconciled to contesting from his ancestral constituency.

In the end, it was the strong position taken by the Congress high command that clinched the Congress seat for him. Once he got the Congress ticket, his transformation was complete and he became a professional politician with gusto. He dressed himself in the Congress uniform of white khadi, merged into the Congress mainstream and conducted himself as a traditional Congress candidate, including hugging babies and throwing garlands to the crowds.

He followed the directives of the local Congress leadership, even though he was aware of the murmurs of protest among them and went about charming the electorate. Not many knew who he was or what his achievements were, but even in the poorest localities, he was welcomed like a new messiah, untainted by corruption or nepotism.

He turned his lack of proficiency in Malayalam into an advantage by using a few words with electrifying effect. "If you elect me, I shall work for you wholeheartedly. I shall try and turn Thiruvanathapuram into a city of international standards," was his refrain. He did not have to say more and his transparency and sincerity of purpose won him an army of admirers, among them many young people, who were attracted by his pleasing personality.

The Left Front strategy was to discredit Shashi in every possible way rather than counter his message of change in Indian politics and his vision for his constituency and his country.

A former diplomat, currently a leftist commentator on international affairs, was brought in to hatch one theory after another to paint him as pro-US, pro-Israel and anti-Muslim. Shashi's writings over the years were dissected to demolish his image. A 700-word article about Israel, in which Shashi had argued that India could not emulate Israel in dealing with Pakistan, was shown as evidence of his love for Israel.

Of course, the article was not publicised, but its many interpretations were given by ministers and 'intellectuals.' At the same time, Shashi's admiration for M F Husain was projected as anti-Hindu.

Shashi was not shaken by any of these; he simply brought out the facts of his position without disowning what he wrote in the past. He had his record at the United Nations and his many articles on contemporary events to show his objectivity and convictions. His campaign team merely had to invite attention to those to prove the Left Front wrong.

Perhaps, Thiruvanathapuram was the only constituency in India where the nuclear deal and policy towards the US were made into election issues. I was amused that I had to debate foreign policy with a former colleague on a Thiruvanathapuram beach with bewildered fishermen watching us!

Shashi, having declared his wealth, did not seek campaign contributions from the public and found the money for the campaign himself. This made a remarkable impression on the public mind and assured them that he will not serve the rich campaign contributors. He had his supporters around the globe, some of whom camped in Kerala to work quietly for him. They kept away from the party campaign, but worked away on their laptops through night and day to spread the word around in favour of Shashi Tharoor.

The NRI excitement over Shashi's candidature resulted in their relatives back home extending support to him. The cyber space was agog with campaign slogans. Facebook, Orkut, Twitter and other modern means of communications among young people must have helped him in various ways.

Shashi Tharoor and the Congress party coming together was a recipe for success. If Shashi had chosen to contest on his own on the basis of his personal accomplishments, he could have presented an agenda for change and made a splash, but like some of the other Independent stars, he would have made a point, but not gone any further.

But once he made the necessary changes in his perspectives to come to terms with the Congress ideology, the way was clear for him to claim victory. In the ultimate analysis, he can take the credit for taking the right decisions at the right moments in the last few months.

No one has played a more decisive role in his victory than himself.

In giving a massive mandate to Shashi, Thiruvanathapuram has not only elected a Member of Parliament, but also a minister. There is a clear expectation that his talents in foreign affairs and his contacts around the globe will be put to productive use by the prime minister.

The fact that the Congress will not have too many pressures on Cabinet formation in the present scenario has raised these hopes further. But whether this happens or not, Shashi is sure to make an impact in New Delhi.

Shashi did not overplay the 'change' card as Barrack Obama did, because he was seeking to get elected on the ticket of the grand old party of India. But he does represent the urge for change -- change from an old generation to the new, from corruption to cleanliness in politics and from inefficiency to effective action.

He has already created history; he should now proceed to prove that change is possible.

India Abroad April 25, 2008

INSIGHT

Community doubts the India story

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Parag Khanna´s thesis in his new book, `The Second World´ is different
from the generally accepted notion that India, Russia and Japan,
together with China, the European Union and the United States will
form the power centres in the new global order. He does not believe
that China and India will lead the world in the second half of the
twenty-first century. Khanna asserts: "The United States, the European
Union and China already possess most of the total power in the
world—and will do their best to prevent all others from gaining ground
on them. Russia, Japan and India cannot assert themselves globally,
militarily or otherwise; they are not super powers; but rather
balancers whose support (or lack thereof) can buttress or retard the
dominance of the three super powers without preventing it outright. In
fact, they are being outmaneuvered by the United States, the EU and
China in their own regions."

It took Khanna a number of trips to a hundred countries and 466 pages
of writing to put forward his theory, but for the first generation of
Indian Americans in New York, it is pure instinct to conclude that
India will miss the opportunities of the twenty-first century. Their
occasional visits to India only reinforce their impression and they
are not averse to proclaiming it. The cover stories of reputed
newspapers and magazines about the Indian miracle leave them
unimpressed. Not one in a group of twenty Indian professionals in a
recent gathering in New Jersey shared the view that India is on the
threshold of being a major world power.

I began with the growth rate. But is not the inflation rate also of
the same magnitude? An Indian American retorted. I then talked about
the success of IT. What percentage of the IT industry in the world is
in India? Have we invented anything new in the industry? Is doing
slave labour for foreign companies for one tenth of the price they pay
in their own countries IT revolution? Look at the letters that the
Government of India sends out. They are still badly typed on brown
paper. I talked about twenty different models of cars available in
India as against the three models we had in the past. O those horrible
roads, they lamented. India should have built roads first before they
allowed foreign cars to come in. I said that these cars are mostly
made in India. And look at the Jaguars and the Land Rovers being owned
by Indians, I said. The Tatas were rich even when we were there; what
is new about them getting richer? Then I talked about Mittal, Narayana
Murthy and Azim Premji. They just yawned. They had heard about these
miracles before, but they thought they were isolated success stories.

I talked about the revolution in the banking industry. Checks can be
cashed in any city in India at par, credit cards are common and most
trade establishments accept debit cards. Nonsense, someone said. He
went two months ago to Calicut, now the harder to pronounce
`Kozhikode`, and wanted to cash a traveler's cheque. No bank would
entertain him. Finally he went to a particular branch of the State
Bank of India, which was authorized to handle foreign exchange. He had
to fill in many forms and wait for the supervisor only to be told that
his signatures did not match. Once that hurdle was over, the cashier
told him that they simply did not have enough cash to pay him. Would
he come in the afternoon, please? He could not care less that an
average Indian did not go around cashing traveler's cheques every day.

I mentioned the construction boom and the posh apartments coming up in
every city. But the lack of cleanliness in posh areas in major cities
left them unimpressed. You have to step around filth, stray dogs and
cows before we enter those palaces, they said. And then they talked
about corruption and gave examples of petty corruption they
encountered even a few months ago. My argument that corruption was a
global phenomenon and no country was free from it made no impact. The
resurgent India did not seem to beckon them at all.

I changed the subject and mentioned the nuclear deal and all hell
broke loose. India has bungled, they all said in unison. Not a single
one accepted that as a democracy, India had to respect the views of
the parties that supported the Government. Who is this Prakash Karat,
who is determining the future of the country? I, a firm supporter of
the nuclear deal, ended up defending the leftists. I said that the
history of American behaviour towards India in the past had not
generated confidence that it would honour its obligations in the
future. I recalled the Tarapore episode in which the US violated a
bilateral agreement on the ground that it militated against an
international understanding. There were also apprehensions about the
Hyde Act, I said. The mention of the Hyde Act infuriated them further.
The Indian Embassy asked us to campaign for the Hyde Act, they said.
We went to our Congressmen and Senators and got them to sign it and
then we were told that the Hyde Act was the obstacle. Where were the
experts when we were asked to use our clout to promote the Hyde Act?
Do they not know that we can buy fuel and technology from France and
Russia once the exemption is given and thus bypass the Hyde Act
altogether? I had to give up the role of the devil's advocate and join
them in saying that the Government underestimated the fury of the
left. Since the Government did not want to face an election, the deal
had to be put on the back burner. Then came a harangue about the
thoughtlessness of the Government and how the Democrats would take
India to the cleaners, come 2009!

These were the same Indian Americans, who passionately campaigned
against the Burton Amendment, built up the India caucus in the
Congress to foil the machinations of the likes of Aulakh on the Hill
and defended the nuclear tests of 1998. Why have we lost them despite
high growth and prosperity, IT cities, better roads, cars and the
construction boom? Has the glare of positive publicity in the western
media blinded us to the need of educating the Indian community?

I pulled out a couple of books to reassure myself that the Indian
Americans, who talked to me, were wrong. Mira Kamdar´s `Planet India`
and Shashi Tharoor´s The Elephant, the Tiger and the Cell Phone` gave
me some solace. After living in Bombay in 1968 in hard conditions,
Kamdar found that her uncle and aunt in Gurgaon now had two
refrigerators, pasteurized milk, flat-screen television, email, cell
phones and a Honda car. "No democracy in history has undergone a
transformation of India's magnitude or velocity", she concludes. But
after just a few pages, she too warns: "Clearly, India faces daunting
challenges that must be overcome-and fast- or the incredible momentum
of Indian resurgence will suffer." Tharoor is even more explicit:
"Whether through elections or quotas, political mobilization in
contemporary India has asserted the power of old identities, habits,
faiths and prejudices. Transcending them will be the challenge for the
Indian polity in the twenty-first century. India must rise above the
past if we are to conquer the future." Old faiths and prejudices seem
to still cloud the vision of our brethren in the United States.

Paper Presented by me at a Seminar on Conflict in Sri Lanka-Road Ahead in Colombo on March 27, 2008

Mr.Chairman,

Sir Arthur Clarke, the most celebrated guest citizen of Sri Lanka passed away without having his three fondest wishes fulfilled. He had wanted to establish contact with extra terrestrial beings, which, he knew, existed; he had wanted to rid humanity of dependence on fossil fuels and he had wished to see lasting peace established in his adopted land. Many of his other dreams came true and these three may well happen, but all the three appear distant at this time. On establishing peace, he observed: “Peace cannot be just wished; it requires a great deal of hard work.” Let us hope that peace comes to Sri Lanka before we see ET and set ourselves free from slavery to black gold.

If seminars, studies and debates could resolve the simmering problems in Sri Lanka, which have taken a huge toll in terms of human lives and property, it would have happened long ago. Much has been said and written by both Sri Lankans and outsiders, many peacemakers have made sincere efforts and every known method of resolving conflicts has been tried. The sum total of our experience in Sri Lanka has shown that only a change in the minds of men can lead to lasting peace in this war ravaged and tension ridden piece of Paradise.

Many of the studies and seminars, particularly by the Centre for Security Analysis, have not been in vain. The fact that they and other think tanks persist with their efforts to look for new insights and alternatives shows that they are sincere and determined to end this conflict. One particular study, “Cost of Conflict in Sri Lanka” by another think-tank confirms our suspicion that the costs of the conflict have been staggering. In every sphere of activity, the economic costs alone are huge, not to speak of loss of lives, the opportunity costs and the environmental costs. Sri Lanka of the sixties was a role model for developing nations. Some analysts have concluded that the cost of the conflict per year is 2 to 3% of the GDP per year. By 1996, the cumulative cost of the war was estimated to be 1.5 times the GDP of Sri Lanka. There are no winners in this conflict, only victims.

Speaking of the international dimensions of the conflict in Sri Lanka, it should be said in fairness to the international community that it has not been insensitive to the problems faced by this nation. Whether it is the neighbouring India or the distant Norway, whether it is the United Nations or the Commonwealth, nations and international organizations have spared no effort to bring this conflict to an end. That those efforts were rebuffed, often with tragic consequences, proved that the problems were deep and extremely complex. But it is unconscionable to abandon peace efforts, as a military solution would not be attainable. Only a negotiated solution, which takes into account the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankan citizens, can be durable and the international community has the responsibility to urge and assist such a solution.

The Sri Lankan Ambassador to the US said recently that no other country in the world in a similar situation has given greater access to foreign individuals, nations and international organizations than Sri Lanka has done. This is an acknowledged fact. The successive Governments in Sri Lanka have thrown open the doors of the country to those they thought would be of help, without asserting the point that these are matters of domestic jurisdiction, in which the outside world had no business to get involved. All the parties concerned have traveled long distances in the quest for peace. Even today, though the Government has taken a position that it will not allow stationing of foreigners in the island, it has not closed its doors to foreign ideas and assistance to establish peace. I have no doubt that the Nobel Peace Prize is waiting to be awarded to any one who can find the magic formula which can bring peace to Sri Lanka.

The role of the international community is essentially limited as the conflict is domestic in origin and has to be resolved domestically. As Prof. G.L.Peiris observed at a CSA seminar in Chennai: “We have to remember at all times that this is our problem and there is no question of abdicating responsibility and blaming the international community when things go wrong. That is an irresponsible attitude. Our friends can help us, the solution is in our own hands because this is our problem and as a nation we have to formulate a solution with the assistance of the international community.”

An analysis of the previous efforts at internationalization and direct external intervention, particularly by India in the eighties, shows the validity of Prof Peiris’s assertion. India’s intervention was, in a way, aimed at preventing excessive internationalization of the issue. If the accord of 1987 had succeeded, the history of Sri Lanka would have been different. India paid a heavy price for the failure of the accord and decided not to involve directly in the conflict any more. But it has not tried to prevent other international efforts to facilitate a peace process. The most recent abrogation of the ceasefire agreement has once again demonstrated the limitations of any external role. The external role is further constrained by the fact that many countries see one of the parties as a terrorist group.

But the international community can neither ignore nor remain a silent witness to the conflict in Sri Lanka. At the very least, it has to alleviate the suffering of the people and be ready to rebuild the devastated areas as soon as the situation permits it to do so. The way India went to give medical and other assistance to the tsunami victims in the North-East was much appreciated even by the warring factions.

In a situation where the traditional methods of peace making and peace keeping are not possible by the United Nations, the international community can only urge Sri Lankans to make use of the vast experience it has gained in other areas and to abide by the norms, standards and ground rules set by the United Nations over the years. The concepts that surface again and again in the discussions on the Sri Lankan situation are self-determination, democracy, non –violence, human rights, development, disarmament and terrorism. None of these concepts is either new or unique to Sri Lanka. Their characteristics and scope have been debated in the United Nations either in the abstract or in the context of a particular conflict or another. International consensus or near consensus exists on many of these concepts and the best that the international community can do is to urge the parties in Sri Lanka to abide by these norms. The international community will support the country during and after the conflict if it is confident that the norms have been followed.

Take, for instance, the concept of self-determination. While it is asserted as a right of all peoples, it was clarified in the early days of the UN that it applied only to people under colonial occupation or alien domination. A people exercises self-determination in a particular moment in history and once a sovereign nation is born, sections of that nation has no right to claim the right to self determination. The whole concept of the sovereign state will be undermined by repeated exercises in self-determination. Similarly, the international community has identified the features of a democratic society, even if local variations have developed. The possibility for the entire population to participate in elections and the government is the fundamental feature that cannot be compromised. At the same time, all violence stands condemned by the international community.

Human rights have been the subject of extensive deliberations and standard setting by the international community. Violations of the fundamental freedoms of citizens by states have been condemned worldwide and there are norms of behaviour by the states even while dealing with law and order situations. Extra-judicial killings, illegal detentions and torture are not permissible in any circumstances. No civilized nation should violate human rights of its people even in the face of provocations. But at the same time, politicization of human rights and violation of human rights by organized groups or terrorists also stand condemned.

Terrorism has been recognized globally as the worst kind of crime against humanity as it takes different forms and manifestations. Although an international convention on terrorism is yet to take shape, there are several seminal conventions on terrorist activities of various kinds. In an earlier phase, there was a tendency to exclude liberation struggles from the purview of terrorism, but today there is universal recognition that there is no such thing as “good terrorism”. To use indiscriminate force to destroy innocent lives and property in order to secure political advantages is to engage in the worst form of terrorism. States too cannot engage in terrorist activities of any kind. Some see even the examination of “root causes” of terrorism as justification of terrorism.

These are some of the issues on which the international community has clear and definite views. As long as the parties to the conflict act within the framework of these norms, they can be assured of the support of international community. The confidence of the Government that the country is at the threshold of a decisive phase in her contemporary history is welcome and as long as the norms are observed, nobody will point fingers or preach from the pulpit. As Jehan Pereira observed just the other day, the need for preservation of Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity, the inadmissibility of terrorism and the impracticability of a military solution are the messages that lie behind the mixed signals that emanate from the international community.

Thank you

Talbott is right: so is Sinha

By T.P.Sreenivasan

In an uncharacteristically convoluted manner, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott told a news channel that the NDA Government was ready to settle for much less than what had been offered by the Bush Administration to the UPA Government in the form of a nuclear deal. “I think that what the Clinton Administration has been prepared to offer the BJP-led Government that we were dealing with, the deal that President Bush was willing to make with Manmohan Singh and company, the Indian side would have gone for it”, he said. The statement is hypothetical as the Clinton Administration did not offer any such deal, but the public record would corroborate Talbott’s claim in substance. Talbott’s “Engaging India” and Jaswant Singh’s “A Call to Honour” differ on the details as to what each tried to achieve in their marathon talks, but both agree that the “village” that they sought to find was not a comprehensive agreement, but an understanding on each other’s concerns, arising out of India’s tests. But if they had the opportunity to build a house once they reached the village, they would have gone for it.

Talks with the United States became imperative when the Clinton Administration imposed the Glenn Amendment sanctions over and above the technology denial regime that had already existed. Though Jaswant Singh never conceded that his immediate objective was to return to the pre-May 1998 situation, Talbott made no secret of the conditions or “benchmarks” India had to reach to set it free from the new sanctions. The Glenn Amendment was entirely uncharted waters and the way it operated sent shock waves across India. Apart from trade and financial restrictions, the so-called people sanctions threatened to undermine even the visa system. Several Indian scientists had to leave and others, like Dr.R.Chidambaram, were denied even visitors’ visa. American officials decided to err on the side of overdoing the sanctions regime. There was a palpable sense of emergency in the air in Washington, when anxious Indian Americans lost sleep over their visa status. The Jaswant Singh-Talbott talks were, therefore, seen in India and the U.S as a modality for getting the Glenn Amendment sanctions lifted.

Talbott’s benchmarks were clearly spelt out publicly. They consisted of India’s signature on the CTBT, India’s agreement to negotiate a permanent ban on the production of fissile material and, in the interim, a freeze on further production, a strategic restraint regime, a stricter export control regime and improvement in India-Pakistan relations. The U.S. expected that these reasonable benchmarks would be accepted in return for the reward in the form of sanctions relief and a Presidential visit. But India, without rejecting any of the conditions outright, kept developing theories on each of them, as though we were willing to do some of them as part of our own scheme of things at our own pace. We were tantalizingly close to making our de facto commitment not to test into a de jure undertaking, we had no problem with entering negotiations on an FMCT, we had an open mind on export control and we were more than willing to normalize relations with Pakistan. It was only on the question of strategic restraint that there was no meeting point.

No nuclear deal like the kind President Bush offered to India was on the table, but India’s anxiety to build new bridges with the United States and the new confidence that India had demonstrated in the talks should lead to the logical conclusion that India would have moved to a nuclear deal if such a deal was on offer. But the fact is that the two sides had a more limited objective of returning to the pre-May 1998 position.

Talbott’s contention is also based on the efforts made by the NPA Government to move further on the nuclear front with the Bush Administration. Jaswant Singh states that the document signed in January 2004, the ‘Next Steps in Strategic Partnership’ (NSSP) had been planned during his time as Foreign Minister. It was under the aegis of NSSP that the two countries began talking about the sale of civilian nuclear technology, joint space exploration, missile defence and high technology trade. Jaswant Singh has expressed satisfaction that it was on the foundations laid by him that the nuclear deal was constructed by the Bush Administration and the UPA Government. It is also well known that it was the NDA Government that had first mooted the idea of additional nuclear installations being subjected to IAEA inspection in return for civilian nuclear co-operation. On the basis of this, it was logical for Talbott to assume that the NDA Government would have accepted the present deal or even something less. He had read the minds of his interlocutors correctly.

It was not Jaswant Singh, but Yashwant Sinha, who reacted to Talbott. Without the burden of history on him, he said in a straightforward fashion that “we had no discussion on the current lines of the current nuclear deal or the 123 Agreement’ with the Clinton Administration. This was absolutely correct. He was also correct in asserting that “there was no draft of the kind like the 123 Agreement of the present Government”. But when he went on to say that “in our time, as all the evidence will show, we were discussing peripheral issues like safety of nuclear plants etc’, he was way off the mark. How could Jaswant Singh claim that he planted the seed for today’s tree if only peripheral issues were under consideration?

Indeed, both Talbott and Sinha are right in their own ways. They represent two former Governments, who aspired to reach an agreement on nuclear issues, but could not make it on account of force of circumstances. But it is hard for politicians to rise above politics. It takes statesmen to see beyond political expediency and accept what is in the best interests of their countries.

The “Unclear” Deal

By T.P.Sreenivasan

(Former Ambassador of India and Governor of IAEA)

After two years of the most extensive and exhaustive debate nationally and internationally, no one seems to be clear about the prospects of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal of 2005. The UPA Government, which piloted the deal with gusto till August 2007 and performed a negotiating feat by finalizing a bilateral agreement with the US (the 123 agreement) and appeared to be prepared to go down with it, if necessary, has suddenly lost momentum. The BJP, which initiated a new strategic partnership with the US and prepared the ground for the deal, wants it renegotiated, with no certainty that they can get a better deal. The left, with its abhorrence of possible US domination on account of the deal, blows hot and cold. For the first time in Indian history, India is in no position to operationalise an international agreement, which has been approved by its cabinet. The path ahead is unclear for the nuclear deal.

Except for a few fanatics, who think that India can do without nuclear energy in the future, no one believes that India can afford to continue its international isolation as a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). We know that we decided many years ago that the energy mix for India in the future will have nuclear energy as an important component. We also know that our civilian nuclear programme cannot be sustained at a level commensurate with our current economic growth unless we have access to fuel and technology from abroad. We know, therefore, that we need to have a deal of some kind at some time in the near future with the nuclear weapon states. In fact, India’s diplomatic efforts since 1974 have been directed towards securing such a deal without signing the NPT. Till 2005, the prospects for such a deal were gloomy, particularly after India defied international opinion and declared itself a nuclear weapon state. Any Government of India in the future, regardless of its ideology, will have to seek an accommodation with the international non-proliferation regime. What is unclear is the price we are willing to pay for such an accommodation.

For Indian diplomats, who have been engaged in disarmament negotiations for several years, the Indo-US Joint Statement of July 18, 2005 was a dream come true. President Clinton, with all his goodwill for India, could not go beyond setting aside the nuclear issue and proceeding with co-operation in other areas, but President Bush showed an alternative to the NPT route for India to end its nuclear isolation. India virtually won nuclear weapon state status with the same rights and obligations as the other nuclear weapon states. In return, India reaffirmed its moratorium on testing; it agreed to separate the Indian military and civilian nuclear facilities and place the civilian facilities under IAEA inspection and abide by the internationally accepted norms for export control and fissile material production. The balance of rights and obligations in the Statement ensured that we had a non-discriminatory regime in place. Against the backdrop of the bitter arguments of 31 years, the deal looked the best that we could ask for.

But a mix of ignorance, fear of the United States and undue optimism about our own capabilities ignited protests against the deal in India and the blind believers in non-proliferation in the United States and elsewhere raised a hue and cry. Both the Governments were pressured by their respective constituencies to become rigid, if not backtrack on the initial agreement. In India, it was the scientific community, unaccustomed to external inspections, which raised questions. The issue of the theoretical possibility of testing by India was raised repeatedly, making India suspect in the eyes of the world. They argued that the separation plan was expensive and unrealistic and that India’s deterrent as well as its fast breeder programme would be jeopardized by the deal. The non-proliferation Ayatollahs in the US created the Hyde Act of the US Congress, with the objective of constraining the Administration to put forward caveats of a political nature. The cumulative effect of these debates was that the Indian and US negotiators had their hands and feet tied as they sat down to negotiate the enabling 123 Agreement.

It is a tribute to the negotiating skills of the Indian diplomats and the willingness of the US to go more than half way that the 123 agreement was successfully negotiated. The contentious issues of testing and reprocessing were resolved for the purposes of the agreement, even though doubts remained on both these issues. India has the right to test, but the US has the right to react! The reprocessing scenario is far from clear as the modalities are yet to be worked out.

The Government genuinely believed that the agreement would move forward to the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) before being submitted to the US Congress. But the bomb shell came not from the IAEA or the NSG, but from the leftist members of the UPA coalition when they demanded that the agreement should not be operationalised as they saw the grave danger of US hegemony in it. It is not clear as to why they chose to oppose the deal only after the agreement was reached with the US. They felt, perhaps, that the US would not agree to the features we were seeking in the agreement and, therefore, remained silent. The Government was unaware of the strong feelings in the minds of the Left and tried to call their bluff only to find that the Left was willing to bring the Government down on this issue. The UPA relented in the end and virtually put the agreement in the cold storage. Not that it loved the nuclear deal less: it loved power more. In any event, if they gave up power, the deal would have also fallen by the wayside.

The “unclear” deal will have to wait for better times when we have a Government which has the ability to implement agreements it negotiates with foreign governments. But it remains to be seen in what circumstances and under what conditions the deal will be operationalised. It is a deal, which is good for India, good for the US and good for the world. But it has to be acceptable to the members of the ruling coalition in India. In a democracy, the crucial test is not the merits of the issue, but its perception by the majority.

SPEECHES, SPEECHES, SPEECHES (From January 2008)

January 27, 2008
Lecture at the Civil Service Academy, Trivandrum

January 31, 2008
Inauguration of Angloscape Workshop, Trivandrum

February 7, 2008
Valedictory Address, Trivandrum Management Association

February 8, 2008
Friday Club Meeting of KIC with HE David Malone, Canadian High Commissioner

February 12, 2008
Valedictory Address Seminar on Clobalisation, Ethnicity and Terrorism in South India
University of Kerala, Trivandrum

February 14, 2008
President, Anniversary of Sree Chithra Memorial School, Chirayinkil

February 17, 2008
Kerala Launch of my two books by the Maharaja of Travancore, Trivandrum Club

February 21-27, 2008
Commission of Eminent Persons, IAEA, Vienna

February 27, 2008
Inaugural Address, Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation
Seminar on Central Asia, Trivandrum

March 2, 2008
Pondicherry University
Inaugural Address Seminar on India and the EU.

March 6, 2008
Alliance Francais, Trivandrum
Lecture on India and the European Union

March 9, 2008
Inauguration of the Janasakthi Convention, Calicut

March 11, 2008
Meeting of the SCAP India Committee, ICWA, New Delhi

March 12, 2008
Release of a book by VSSNair, Institution of Engineers, Trivandrum

March 14, 2008
Friday Club Meeting of the KIC on MYANMAR

ElBaradei in India- A Friend Caught in the Storm

By T.P.Sreenivasan

When Mohamed ElBaradei told me that he would be in India on the same days that I was going to be in Vienna, I was not only disappointed, but also perturbed that he might be in India at the wrong time. Indeed he was and, irony of ironies, the forum he came to address on the benefits of India joining the nuclear mainstream turned out to be the burial ground of the India-U.S. nuclear deal. His proverbial diplomatic skills were on display at every step, but his friends in India could have spared him the experience. Whether the Government chose to stick to the deal and faced elections or took the path of self-preservation, ElBaradei was sure to be embarrassed. He could have played a role only if India had decided to begin consultations with the IAEA on the next steps for the implementation of the deal. To his credit, the IAEA chief weathered the storm admirably, without hurting his hosts or himself.

ElBaradei is unique among the non-proliferationists in that his commitment to the NPT is equally matched by his commitment to the development of the developing world. Non-proliferation is not a dogma for him; it is the first step towards elimination of nuclear weapons. He is, therefore, as tough with the nuclear weapon states as with the non-nuclear weapon states when it comes to their commitments under the NPT. He is also meticulous in investigating allegations about violations of the treaty as he has shown in the cases of Iraq and Iran. His latest statements on Iran prompted the New York Times to call ElBaradei an “irritant”, reminiscent of the propaganda mounted against him when the war clouds were gathering over Iraq. His assertion of Iran’s innocence, unless proved guilty, is seen as blasphemy by the Ayatollahs of non-proliferation in the west.

As for India and the others (Pakistan and Israel) who are outside the NPT, ElBaradei has shown greater tolerance and understanding than his predecessors. He has consistently maintained that a way should be found to bring them into the fold rather than isolate them. Long before the India-U.S. deal was contemplated, he used to suggest small but significant measures to us to bring us closer to the world consensus on non-proliferation. He felt that India should make use of the Technical Co-operation Fund and also accept safety inspections without compromising our position. He was extremely sensitive to our fundamental position and he sought to find an alternate route. For him, the India-U.S. nuclear deal was this very alternative and that explains his enthusiastic welcome for the initiative even without any prompting by India or the United States.

The invitation for the IAEA chief went not from the government, but from the Hindustan Times. It is not clear whether the newspaper acted on its own, sensing his news value or the government encouraged it in the hope of gaining some support for the deal. The function in Mumbai at which Dr. Anil Kakodkar handed over a miniature model of a cobalt therapy unit for Vietnam as part of the technical co-operation programme was a bit laboured because a similar ceremony was held in Vienna at the time of the General Conference in September. There has been even a suggestion by those who do not know ElBaradei that the U.S. prompted him to go to India. It is also significant that the Prime Minister broke normal protocol to host a meal for ElBaradei. Normally, the Prime Minister does not even meet heads of UN Specialised Agencies.

The masterly diplomat that he is, ElBaradei sensed the atmosphere in India very quickly and steered clear of either supporting the nuclear deal per se or suggesting that there is any hurry to begin the negotiations with the IAEA Board or the NSG. He stressed, however, that, as a friend of India, he would like India to get the full benefits of nuclear technology and not remain isolated. He also made the point that the global efforts for elimination of nuclear weapons cannot succeed without the participation of India in the nuclear mainstream. At one point, it was reported that he suggested that the safeguards agreement was not “significant” as the IAEA already had similar agreements with India, but what he meant was that it did not involve complex negotiations, once there was political agreement.

The only point he made about the deal was that it was a significant step towards the ending of India’s isolation and that regardless of changes in the United States, the deal will go through the Congress. He noted that there was bipartisan support for the deal. Even after it became clear that the deal would be shelved in order to save the government, Elbaradei did not express any alarm. His poise and choice of words were impeccable even though the spinning around him would have made him wonder whether he should have come to India at this particular juncture.

The sudden change of heart by the government to shelve the deal when Elbaradei was in town was the mother of all coincidences. But it may not be a coincidence that the left decided to press the government to abandon the deal when he was in India. They may have seen the visit as a demonstration by the government that it was going to take the deal forward. ElBaradei is a friend indeed, but we should have waited for the need to arise before we tested his friendship.

Nuclear Deal: Leave It to the Little Man

By T.P.Sreenivasan


“At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man walking into the little booth with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper. No amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of that point.” said Sir Winston Churchill. Will that little man put that little cross in the right place if he is given an opportunity to decide whether India should proceed with the nuclear deal?

The nuclear deal is nothing but a logical extension of the efforts made by the previous government to find an accommodation with the global non-proliferation regime after the tests of 1998. In fact, India has been pursuing such an accommodation since 1974, which means that virtually every political party in India is in agreement that India’s nuclear isolation should end. Therefore, there is no doubt that the little man will have no difficulty to accept a deal, which gives India an opening to nuclear technology without signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The only question, then, is whether the Manmohan Singh Government could have negotiated a better deal with the United States. Anyone, who has followed the dialogue with the United States since May 1998, will know that the deal has the right mix of rights and obligations for India and that we could not have done better in the negotiations, given the proclivities of public opinion not only in the United States, but also in other countries, including Russia. The proof of this is that the deal has gained acceptance in many countries, though the Chinese position is generally negative.

Strobe Talbott may have said that the Indian negotiators got the better of him, but the five benchmarks that he was pursuing with Jaswant Singh would have tied us in knots much more than the present nuclear deal would do. In fact, India had all but accepted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), subject only to “de-demonising” it in the eyes of the Indian public. Another benchmark, namely, strategic restraint, was nothing but a thinly veiled plan for capping, rolling back and eliminating our nuclear weapon capability. On export controls, we virtually endorsed the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines. We had no difficulty in agreeing to negotiate and, if possible, sign a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). Even on the fifth benchmark of better relations with Pakistan, we were receptive as Lahore and Agra had shown.

The Bush-Manmohan Singh deal, even with the Hyde Act as a backdrop, stops short of conceding some of the points in the blue print that the previous Government was considering. The 123 Agreement is open to different interpretations, but it has enough ambiguities there to operate in our interest, if the American change of heart in favour of India in the new world is real. It is a framework that can accommodate concessions in the business interests of both the countries. The withdrawal clauses in the Agreement are a masterpiece in drafting. But it is premised on good faith and mutuality of interests, not on the shibboleths of the cold war or even the Bangladesh war.

The opposition to the deal today, which did not become apparent during the 1998-2000 period and did not become acute till the 123 Agreement was finalized, is on the assumption that good faith does not exist and that a strategic relationship with the United States, even in the changed world scenario, is harmful. The argument appears to be in favour of an agreement that deals with the nuclear issue, but does not bring us any closer to the United States. The irony, of course, is that we have been trying in the past to resolve the nuclear imbroglio, which alone stood in the way of improving our relations with the United States.

As of today, the situation is that one alliance loves the deal, but it loves power more and another alliance hates the deal, but hates to lose the political leverage it has today. Yet another alliance would like to sign the same deal, but in a different garb, if and when it comes to power. No mechanism, whether political or technical can square this circle. The questionnaire can be answered, but the questions will remain. The Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement are realities that cannot be wished away. In fact, India, in an act of misjudgment, had deployed all its Indian American and business clout in Washington to have the Hyde Act passed, in the expectation that it would be defanged by the Bush administration. The Left was not breathing down the necks of the negotiators when they secured satisfactory formulations in the 123 Agreement.

If India pauses or even ejects on account of domestic pressure, it is not just our credibility that will be at stake, but also an opportunity to have a satisfactory deal. In international law, an agreement comes into force or it does not. Not “operationalising” is not a recognized option for parties to an agreement. Another U.S. President and another U.S. Congress may not be inclined to negotiate on the same lines in the future, particularly if there is no national consensus in India in favour of a new relationship between the two countries.

The question today is whether the apparent disapproval of the deal by a majority of the members of parliament really reflects the mood of the people. In other counties, this would be a classic case for a national referendum. Since we do not have such a constitutional provision, there is no choice for us, but to go to the little man and let him make a choice. But the worry is his proverbial unpredictability. Indian democracy will shine more if the political parties have the courage to face the electorate on an issue of such public importance. If voted back to power, the Government can pursue the deal as well as its worldview with vigour. If not, the new dispensation will find its own path forward. Let the little man decide.

January 29, 2007

Words, Words, Words-Adventures in Diplomacy

My first book, with the title above, has just come off the press. Pearson Longman has done a splendid job in editing and production and the book will be on the stands shortly. Shri. Hamid Ansari, the Vice-President of India has graciously agreed to release the book in New Delhi later this year.

Advance praise for the book has come from Mohamed ElBaradei, Shashi Tharoor, Jagdish Bhagwati, KPS Menon and Karl Inderfurth.

The hard cover book has 253 pages and is priced at Rs.600 (US$15)It has eight colour pictures.

The book has the following chapters:

My Story (Memoirs)
Magic of Multilateralism (United Nations)
Nuclear winter, Kargil Spring (India-US relations)
On Whom the Sun Never Sets (Indian Diaspora)
Quest for Balance (The IAEA)
Back to the Backwaters

Happy reading!

Indo-US roller coaster on the brink again

Today,the Indian-American activists, who have been lobbying for better relations between India and the United States, are in a jubilant mood. They are basking in the glory of the Congressional approval of the India Bill. They are pleasantly surprised that the defeat of the Republicans has not made any difference to the outcome in the Senate.

In fact, it turns out that it was not the substance of the nuclear deal that prompted the Democrats to delay its approval. They simply did not want to hand out a political victory to President Bush. Now that he is down, even though not out, they have no reason to stand in the way of a strategic relationship.

Indian Americans, however, do not want to think of a scenario in which India walks out of the deal because of the conditions attached to it by the United States Congress. Many of them do not even bother to study the additional elements to see how much of it is vital to safeguard US interests before making an exception for India.

I asked a leading Indian American as to how the Indian community and the business circles would react if India backed out of the deal after they had spent so much time and effort to get the deal adopted by the US Congress.

For the first time in history, the US-India Business Council had hired a professional lobbyist to promote the deal. He did not even want to think about it as he felt that it would be a real disaster. Without challenging India's right not to be influenced one way or another on foreign policy issues, he felt strongly that India should focus on the core of the agreement and ignore what are essentially window dressing for internal consumption in the United States. They felt that India should take note of positions of Senators Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, who are no enemies of India.

There is realisation here, as in India, that the deal goes beyond what it does to the nuclear issues between the two countries. It is more of a symbol of a transformation of bilateral relations. It will make a difference as to how the United States and the rest of the world look at India. The Cold War will end when cooperation begins under the deal. India will occupy a unique position in the global hierarchy and gain benefits beyond the terms of the nuclear deal.

Ironically, the opponents of the deal in the US are concerned about the narrow aspects of non-proliferation, while its critics in India are fighting the larger issue of US domination. For this reason, they see ghosts behind every clause in the Bill even before the final shape of the Bill is known. They see a conspiracy to induct CIA agents even behind proposals for scientific studies. The more innocuous the proposals, the more diabolical they become.

As the Senate was debating the Bill and dealing with 'killer amendments', I was speaking to the faculty and students of the James Madison University in Virginia. They were very surprised that there were critics of the deal in India after all the efforts made by the two governments to find an understanding on the nuclear issue. I had to dwell at length on the history of mutual suspicion between the two countries.

A young student asked what it would take America to remove Indian suspicions. Would India be happy only if the United States conceded every point in the negotiations?

I took refuge in the argument that India would be happy if the agreement of July 18, 2005 was left untouched. I did not tell them that there were objections even to the original agreement. I did not tell them also that the subsequent debate had brought the extremists to give up their tantrums about the original agreement.

One question on everybody's lips is where the two democracies will go if there is no deal at the end of December 2006. Will they be estranged again? Or will they be able to keep the relationship on an even keel? The answer is to go back to December 2000 when President Clinton and Prime Minister Vajpayee agreed upon a new architecture of bilateral relations without any understanding on the nuclear issue. The compulsions of cooperation between the two countries are too strong to be underestimated.

The roller coaster falls if it climbs the heights without reaching a plateau. President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have laboriously pulled the roller coaster close to a higher plateau. The fall will be fast and scary if it does not make it up there. But as long as the roller coaster remains on its rails, the landing will be soft and the climb can begin again.

The non-proliferationists in the US and the 'suspicionists' in India should remember that they too have a stake in preventing a steep fall. They should at least refrain from making it difficult for the next long haul.

Nalini By Day, Nancy By Night - A Trailblazer

Sonali Gulati, an Indian American film maker and teacher, became curious when a telemarketer pronounced her name perfectly for the first time and realized that the voice she heard, despite its American accent, came from her motherland. Her encounter with outsourcing took her to India to figure out how young Indians coped with the dual identities imposed on them by their profession. She discovered a whole new world of call centres and the social transformation that they were engendering in India. She saw the potential for a full-length documentary on it and began shooting a trailer to bring back to the United States to raise funds for such a film. But when she began editing the trailer, she realized that she had enough footage to cover at least one aspect of the new world, namely, the identity crisis among the young call centre employees. She decided to turn the trailer shots into a 27-minute documentary and a fascinating film called “Nalini By Day, Nancy By Night” was born.

When the documentary was screened at the Longwood University in Virginia as part of an international awareness week to an American audience, it touched a sympathetic chord, even though it also brought back the rural American grievance over the flight of jobs to distant lands. Many Americans voiced concern over the consequence of outsourcing for the labour force in the United States. When they were told that it was a win-win situation for the United States and India, they pointed out that the profits went to the big corporations and that outsourcing had rendered many Americans jobless. The film gave them a glimpse of another dimension of outsourcing that they had not been aware of. But they also felt that a film should be made about the impact of outsourcing on America.

Gulati, who was lucky to have been introduced to the right people, got ready access to several call centres in Delhi and she was allowed to film extensively on the condition that she should not shoot the computer screens or attach mikes on the people she was filming. She made up for the poor audio by adding sub-titles to the concerned frames. She was aware that she was covering only one aspect of the new phenomenon, but she could not exclude altogether the other aspects, such as the economic impact of globalization on India.

The name of the film suggests the depiction of an individual experience, but ‘Nalini’ in the film is a generic name, which embraces the whole new generation of young men and women, who have been swept into the vortex of change on account of outsourcing. Through a series of conversations with owners, managers, supervisors, workers and aspiring candidates, the film reveals the aspirations, struggles and joys of the world of call centres.

Gulati discovers that the call centres are not the sweatshops, which she had imagined them to be. The workers have decent work places, basic comforts and luxuries of the American corporate life such as exercise machines, indoor games facilities and even cola and burgers. They get picked up from home and dropped back in the morning as they work when the United States sleeps in order to use the time advantage. They have a sense of liberation from their parents because they leave home when the parents come home and they can stay as late as they want with friends even after work.

The best part is, of course, the money they earn. The average earnings of a 21-year-old college graduate with the necessary language skills is US$ 210 per month, the same that a highly qualified MBA gets on first recruitment, Gulati says. Needless to say, they earn more than their parents after many years of work and their home expenses are low as they live with their parents even after they take up work. The workers generally present a happy and contented existence, though there is uncertainty about the future. They do not seem to grumble about the large profits their companies make and even larger fortunes that the American companies amass in the process.

Gulati raises the question of identity as she notices that they turn into aliens not only in name, but also in accent and pronunciation to raise the comfort level of their customers. The new identity protects them also from the racial prejudices of their American customers. There have been reports of some customers abusing them when their accent or pronunciation betrays their identity. But the film does not examine whether the Nancies by night really live as Nalinis by day. That may well be the subject of another movie as they may also have the challenge of relating to the real world when they go home. They cannot but be affected by the work environment and the changed accent. An aspirant from Jharkhand, who has a problem about making himself understood even by Indians, burns the midnight oil in a pathetic effort to speak like a Bostonian. It is not clear whether he finally makes it to the chosen few.

Gulati says that she did not engineer the conversations in the film in any manner, not even the conversation about the film, “Face Off”, which also deals with identity. It was simply an unexpected windfall, which she fully exploited. She just happened to film the right scene at the right time.

Indeed the skill of the filmmaker is in the juxtaposition of her shots, animation and archival material to create a witty and personal narrative. The archival material establishes a linkage between the present phenomenon of outsourcing to past co-operation among nations in the field of communications.

Gulati’s own dual identity is projected through the movie, as she herself provides the commentary in her accented English. In fact, it is a truly one-woman movie except for the music. No wonder it is being distributed by “Women Make Movies”.

From the title of the film to its jovial ending as the name Sonali Gulati is spelt out, the documentary commands attention by a mix of seriousness and gentle humour. “Nalini By Day, Nancy By Night” will be a trailblazer for a number of movies, either fictional or otherwise, on globalization. Gulati, at a very young age, has established herself as a sensitive and artistic film maker.

.

A Tale of Two University Visits

Following a son's footsteps is the greatest joy of a father. So when Dr, Ramesh Rao, Chair, Communication Studies and Theatre Department of the Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia, invited me to deliver the same lecture that my son, Sreenath, delivered last year, I was more than excited. The long journey from Thiruvananthapuram to Farmville did not seem tedious at all as it was interspersed with meeting the family and friends in several cities and celebrations of Kerala Day in Washington DC, New York and New Jersey.

The Kerala Day celebrations were true to form with food and cultural festivals and speeches galore. I tried to introduce a certain focus by suggesting that a group of Malayalee achievers in the United States should be set up to advise the relevant people in Kerala on development. The idea was generally supported, but the focus was essentially on festivities.

A bumpy plane ride from New York to Richmond ended in a warm welcome by Dr. Ramesh Rao, who drove me to his charming home in Farmville to be greeted by his wife, Sujaya and his wide-eyed and smart four year old son. As ardent Hindus, they treated me fully in accordance with the dictum, "Adhiti devo bhava". Dr. Rao was characterised by an American scholar as a "Hindu militant", but he turned out to be a scholar rather than an activist.

Classes in American Universities are dramatically different from those of my student days in India. For one, they are informal and interactive, with the teacher being just a guide and not the embodiment of all wisdom. I went to four classes, two by Dr. Rao on public speaking and communications and two by others on water issues and international relations. The easy informality of the class rooms facilitate exchange of views and the students are encouraged to do their own research rather than take down the teachers' notes, even in under-graduate classes. One amusing discussion was on whether students should be allowed access to pornographic material on the Internet link provided by the University. Both girls and boys were for a liberal approach and one of them argued that pornography promoted abstinence!
The questions on India from students, which I answered, were well researched, sympathetic and intelligent. Speaking to young Americans on India was a refreshing experience.

In an unusual gesture, the President of Longwood, Dr.Patricia Cormier, invited me to a lunch at her magnificent home, on the edge of a golf course, with the senior faculty. Her probing questions led to a delightful conversation on a variety of subjects. The entire faculty was alert, courteous and well-informed.

I was in Longwood to participate in an International Awareness Week and the other Indian event was the screening of an engaging documentary on outsourcing, "Nalini By Day, Nancy By Night" by Sonali Gulati of the University of Virginia. I have written elsewhere on the sensitive and humourous portrayal of the call centre workers in the film.

My lecture itself was on "India and the US- Two Democracies on the World Stage", an amalgam of the three topics that Dr.Rao had suggested originally. He wanted me to cover the points that unite India and the US and the factors that divide them, Indian democracy and India's experience and vision of the United Nations. I traced the various historic events that led to the estrangement of the two democracies, despite their common colonial past and values and aspirations. Speaking on a couple of days before the Senate considered the nuclear deal, I presented an optimistic picture of the future of bilateral relations. The questioning from the audience showed that they heard me with interest and understanding. The President herself was there and her compliments were flattering indeed.

Dr. Rao drove me for a couple of hours the next day to the neighbouring James Madison University (JMU), where our first meeting was with Dr. Sushil Mittal, Director, Mahatma Gandhi Centre for Global Non-violence and Associate Professor of Hinduism. Dr. Mittal was born in Canada, but was brought up as an ardent Hindu and became a great scholar on Gandhi and Hinduism. As a true scholar, he has no links with Hindutva movements in any part of the world and he focuses on academic studies and lives as a Hindu and a Gandhian. He has built up the Gandhi Centre in AMU and believes that there is something called the Gandhi magic that brings him resources and opportunities to promote Gandhiji and Hinduism world wide. In his advocacy, he is forceful and convincing, just as he is uncompromising with obscurantism in any faith. The time we spent with him was most rewarding and enlightening.

Dr.Peter Pham Director, The Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs of JMU, a political analyst and thinker with strong Republican credentials, much sought after by the media, hosted two events for me, one round table with the faculty and a public lecture on "Indo-US Strategic Relationship". The nuclear deal figured prominently in both, since the Senate was close to considering it when we were discussing it. We also looked beyond the deal and looked at the scenarios with and without the deal in place. My optimism was shared by the audience. The response from the students was exhilarating.

After three wonderful and sunny days, I spent a day at the Richmond airport, waiting for the storms to clear for my flight back to New York. It gave me the time to think over the experience. Once again, I was convinced that it is the liberal education that the American Universities provide that makes the United States a strong and prosperous nation.

Machines Mar US Polls- Again

The last time I watched US election results was back in 2000 from a Las Vegas hotel room. The television was on throughout the night and each time I woke up, the results appeared different. The overwhelming thought was not the enormity of the change, but surprise over the sheer inability of the Super Power to manage an election without snags. This time, as I followed the election results from a Washington hotel room, the thought was not very different. The results were, as expected, a severe setback to President Bush, but the number of glitches in the voting and counting machines, which interfered with the prompt expression of the will of the people was amazing. The system is not even scrutinized in the case of clear verdicts and consequently, no serious effort is made to fix the systemic problems.

The media had alerted the Government to the possibility of malfunctioning machines long before the elections. People had suspicion not only that machines might malfunction, but also that they might be manipulated. Curiously, neither the electoral officers, nor the manufacturers of the machines cared to assuage the concerns of the public in this regard. Even an invitation extended by a television channel to a representative of the association of voting machine manufacturers was rebuffed. All the latest computers in the world cannot guarantee accuracy and speed for the electoral process in the United States.

On the morning after, the results of the election to the House of Representatives were clear enough, but the position of the US Senate was unclear and, with the possibility of a recount in Virginia, it appeared as though the results would not be available for as long as a month. A recount is a simple matter, but interminable legal battles will ensure that it will be a legal decision rather than an electoral one. Like the proverbial ambulance chasers, lawyers will arrive in Richmond and raise so many issues that the recount will be delayed. With the Republicans and the Democrats sharing 49 seats each in the Senate, the results of Virginia and Montana will determine who will lead the Senate. It was the failure of the counting machine that held up the results in Montana. Apparently, the counting machine went back to zero at one point and the whole counting exercise had to begin all over again.

Undoubtedly, the elections were a referendum on President Bush, particularly his Iraq misadventure, but it is precisely on Iraq that the Democrats still do not have an alternate policy. Nancy Pelosi’s agenda for her first hundred hours in office does not even include Iraq. One thing that the Democrats can do is to cut off funding for the Iraq war to force the President to withdraw, but the Democrats cannot afford to do that mistake, having seen that even a botched up joke on the soldiers in Iraq could drive John Kerry into hiding. The farthest that the Democrats would go is to say that they would like to adopt an alternate approach, possibly on the basis of the Hamilton-Baker report on Iraq. In her first press conference, Nancy Pelosi, as the new voice of the people, spoke only about a bipartisan approach to Iraq and the need to fire Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. She was careful not to sound critical of the fighting forces in any manner.

It turns out that Iraq was not even the main issue that decided the outcome of the elections. Among the factors mentioned, Iraq (36%) comes only after corruption and ethics (41%) and terrorism (39%). It was scandals like aggressive homosexuality and indiscreet business deals which demolished Republican incumbents. A powerful Senator in Virginia suffered immensely for calling an Indian on the staff of his rival “macaca” (monkey). Congressman Foley’s folly of sending a suggestive e-mail to a young man on the Congressional staff hurt him and his replacement on the Republican ticket. But if terrorism and homeland security are still concerns, the Bush record is not unsatisfactory. He has ensured that anything like 9/11 never took place in the US in the last five years.

India was never mentioned in the elections, but India watchers and Indian Americans are curious about the fate of the Indo-US nuclear deal and the future of bilateral relations. The Democratic Party has more Indophiles than the Republican Party, but it also has more non-proliferationists. In the wake of the 1998 tests, friends of India of long standing in the Democratic Party were extremely critical of India. Many of them were apprehensive of the Indo-US nuclear deal and they went along with the related bills in the House and Senate Committees only after the non-proliferation concerns were incorporated in them. Senator Hillary Clinton was non-committal on the deal till the modified bill reached the Senate, much to the chagrin of her Indian American supporters.

The Bush Administration is still hopeful that the lame duck Senate will still approve the deal and a bilateral agreement will be possible soon. But with the President himself rendered lame duck by the elections, it remains to be seen how the deal will fare in the session of the old Senate. But for the rest of Indo-US relations, the President and the Congress will work together as there is bipartisan support for good relations with India. One new area of co-operation should be the management of men and machines during the elections!

The Namesake is excellent

The pangs of migration, which run through much of Indian-American writing was the theme of the film. And the audience comprised those who could resonate with it by virtue of their own variety of the experience.

A Salman Rushdie-Padma Lakshmi-Mira Nair billing guaranteed the success of the premiere of The Namesake as the opening event of Aroon Shivdasani's sixth Indo-American Arts Council film festival in Manhattan on November 1.

The event was Indian American to the core, with its celebrities thronging the hall and delaying the performance by chatting away much beyond the social hour.

What sets The Namesake apart from the other Indian nostalgia-cum-rebellion movies is the sensitivity with which the writer Jhumpa Lahiri and the director Mira Nair have treated the story.

Tabu, apparently Mira's third choice for the lead role, lifted Ashima, the Bengali bride, who had more than her share of stress and trauma, to the level of a heroine of legendary proportions. The serenity and calm on her face even at the height of emotional drama, speak volumes of her innate strength, which initially prompts her to accept the challenge of a life abroad.

When she is told at the traditional 'bride viewing' about the loneliness of housewives abroad, her response is that, after all, 'he' will be with her and she hardly knew him! She faces adversity stoically and has a life as a singer beyond the dissolution of her family and her husband's death. Her grief is dignified and her acting restrained.

Irrfan Khan as Ashoke Ganguly is the perfect Bengali intellectual, to whom books gave the joy of travel without moving an inch. Nikolai Gogol, the mystic writer from the Ukraine inspired him more than the Bengali masters to the extent that he gives his son the name Gogol, which has a Bengali ring about it.

It is a copy of Gogol's Overcoat that changes his life in more ways than one, but he does not even try to persuade his son not to change his name into Nikhil, an uncanny adaptation of Nikolai. He is an extraordinary liberal father when it comes to his children and there is hardly any clash between father and son on account of their cultural identities.

He clings to his values and culture, but does not resent the customs of others, even a peck on the cheek by his son's girlfriend. He accepts the transition with dignity and even trains his wife for a life without him by moving to another city for a while.

Even the way he faces death, without protesting against his having to wait in line for medical attention makes him an embodiment of pathos. He may be a bit unreal in the context of desi culture in the US, but not exaggerated or artificial. His Bengali pride and sense of history stand out in the film.

Kal Penn is an unusual Indian name, but as Gogol, he is the epitome of the second-generation desi in America. He is tethered to the rock of an Indian upbringing, but he pulls it as far as he can to be part of the culture that he has to live in. He is extremely loyal to his parents, but sees no contradiction in having a family of his own by virtue of a relationship with a white girl. He quickly accepts his mother's suggestion to marry an Indian, but ironically finds that his Indian wife is disloyal.

Gogol's relationship with his mother and father is portrayed in a subtle manner and he becomes the true hero of the movie when he handles his varied roles with equal devotion.

Others in the film, except Jacinda Barrett, Gogol's American girlfriend, are just part of the wide canvas that Mira Nair uses to tell her story. None of them commands individual attention. But all of them merge into the scenery and accentuate different aspects of desi life in America. The slice of desi life that the film presents is authentic.

Jhumpa Lahiri was not at the premiere, but it is her genius that permeates the film. Mira Nair did justice to the novel by her casting, her sympathy for the theme, which, she said, was her own story in a way, and her superb sense of timing. The opening scene in an Indian train and the accident that follows bring in the change in the Ganguly family with a bang.

The film is likely to lose a couple of its explicit sex scenes when it opens in India. But the scenes are integral to the movie and the first scene of Ashoke and Ashima in bed with all their clothes on contrasts with the prompt shedding of clothes by Gogol's Indian girlfriend. Migration, it is clear, changes even the way people make love.

Indian Americans love to delve deep into their own lives and they lap up all the desi literature and movies about themselves. But they are very discriminating in their taste. The Bombay Dreams musical, which did well in London, flopped in New York because of the exacting standards of the Indians in New York.

Many tearjerker tales of desi nostalgia have disappeared without a trace. But The Namesake is sure to be received well when it is commercially released early next year. The celebrity audience on November 1 has already passed the verdict: "Excellent!"

Saddam Hussein

The news has just arrived that Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death by hanging. As expected, there are supporters and opponents of the verdict. But was not this a foregone conclusion ever since tha Americans went into Iraq? If a soldier had shot him to death when he was found in a hole, the matter would have ended then and there. So the question is why the Americans went through this whole legal process to bring him to judgement. It could be a genuine desire to see that justice is done. The present sentence has been given by an Iraqi court after the due process of law.

Saddam Hussein should also feel satisfied that he had an opportunity to defend himself and show his contempt for the new rulers in Baghdad. There may be reactions to his hanging, but the question is simply whether a dead Saddam Hussein will have a greater impact on history than a live one. History alone will tell.

November 5, 2006