India and UN Reform

(Paper presented by Former Ambassador T.P.Sreenivasan at the International Conference on the UN at the Central University Kasargod. March 20, 2013.)

By T.P.Sreenivasan

India’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council with the power of the veto is a distant dream even 33 years after we initiated a move in the General Assembly to expand the Council. Although the need for reform has been established and India’s case has been strengthened, there is a multiplicity of formulas, ranging from maintaining the status quo to a massive expansion by adding 6 permanent members and 6 non-permanent members. As of today, there is no formula, which can command 128 votes, including the votes of the five permanent members, the minimum requirement for an amendment to the UN Charter.

The UN reform we are seeking, particularly the expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council, is nothing short of a revolution. We are challenging the very foundation of an institution, born out of a world war, the winners of which gave themselves the responsibility of maintaining world peace and security by assuming extraordinary powers. The UN Charter, which was crafted by them, has been embraced voluntarily by 193 nations. That there has not been a world war since and that the UN has served, as a stabilizing factor in the world is the strongest argument for continuing the status quo. But the contrary argument is stronger, because the global equations have changed so much in the last 68 years that it is imperative that the UN must reflect those changes to maintain its representative character and moral strength. The struggle is on between those who wish to perpetuate their privileged positions and the forces of change that cannot but win. But no one can predict the time and nature of revolutions. They have their own logic and time.

The question today is not whether change is needed, but whether the provisions of the very Charter that established the institution can bring about a real change. If history is any guide, major changes take place when the time is ripe, in unexpected ways, regardless of the strength of those who seek change and those who resist. The provisions of the law that seek to protect the establishment will be thrown to the winds and the old system will yield place to the new. A Malayalam poet declared many years ago: “Change your out dated laws, if not, they will change you yourselves.” We have many examples in history to show that those who have conceded changes have lasted longer than those who have resisted the forces of change.

India was among those who lit the first spark of inevitable change, back in 1979, at the height of the cold war, when an item entitled “Equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council” was inscribed on the agenda of the General Assembly. The demand was to add a few more non-permanent members, on the simple logic that the ratio between the strength of the General Assembly and that of the Security Council should be maintained. The exponential increase in the membership of the UN should be reflected in the size of the Security Council. This principle was, in fact, followed in 1965 when the number of non-permanent members was raised from 6 to 10.

The reaction from the permanent members was instant and shocking. In an unprecedented show of solidarity, they opposed the move tooth and nail. They argued that any expansion of the Security Council would undermine its efficiency, integrity and credibility and ensured that the agenda item was postponed year after year, with a nominal and sterile debate. The idea remained alive, but no action was taken till the end of the cold war.

The game changed in the early nineties, when the idea of adding new permanent members was brought up by Brazil and we initiated the exercise of ascertaining the views of the members and setting up a mechanism to study the proposals and to reach consensus. The permanent members led by the US offered a “quick fix” after initial hesitation and proposed the addition of Japan and Germany as permanent members on the ground of their being the highest contributors to the UN budget after the US and a marginal increase in the non-permanent membership. If India had not stopped the “quick fix” and insisted on comprehensive reform with the support of the nonaligned group, the door for expansion would have been closed after inducting Japan and Germany at that time. We demolished the payment argument by stating that permanent membership should not be up for sale. If I may be permitted to quote from my own speech at the Working Group in February 1995, “Contribution to the UN should not be measured in terms of money. We do not agree with the view expressed by a delegation that permanent membership is a privilege that can be purchased. Financial contributions are determined on the basis of “capacity to pay” and those who pay their assessments, however small, are no whit less qualified for privilege than the major contributors.”

As a lethargic debate went on in the Working Group for years, national positions evolved and loyalties changed, but it became clear that the expansion of the Security Council could not be easily accomplished. The formation of an interest group called the “Coffee Club” and later “Uniting for Consensus” which opposed any expansion of the permanent membership made the situation more chaotic. We ourselves advanced our position from seeking to establish criteria, such as population, seminal contribution to the UN, participation in peacekeeping operations etc to staking a claim and began campaigning bilaterally in capitals. Over the years, our claim became strong and it became universally recognized that if a single developing country were to become a permanent member, that would be India. One adverse consequence of the debate, however, was that the discussions highlighted that a vast majority of member states had not served even once on the Security Council, while countries like India, Japan, Pakistan and Egypt had served on the Council several times. This led to our long absence from the Council from 1993 to 2010 after having been elected as a non-permanent member 7 times in the earlier period.

Efforts made outside the Working Group were also fruitless. After the deliberations of a High Level Group, Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed two Plans; Plan A, proposing creation of 6 permanent and 3 non-permanent seats and Plan B, proposing 8 new seats for 4 years subject to renewal and 1 non-permanent seat. The Plan B had greater acceptability in the Group and it was at the insistence of Indian member of the Group that Plan A was included. Another exercise undertaken by India, Brazil, Germany and Japan (G-4) to get the General Assembly to adopt a resolution on expansion failed to take off because of differences with the African Group. It, however, resulted in the G-4 conceding for the first time that they would not insist on the veto at least for 15 years. The General Assembly recently entered intergovernmental negotiations to suggest a “timeline perspective” to agree on reform in two stages on the basis of a draft text, but no progress has been reported as yet. A move was initiated by the G-4 to introduce a resolution to decide that both permanent and non-permanent membership will be expanded, but it did not command majority support and was abandoned.

The only silver lining in our quest for a permanent seat on the Security Council is that the need for expansion has been recognized by the entire membership and that there is also recognition that if the permanent membership is ever expanded, India will be the first developing country to find a place in it. For the rest, there are almost as many views as there are members of the UN about the size, composition and rights and responsibilities of the members of the Security Council.

The framers of the UN Charter did not intend that it should be amended easily. But that has not prevented the UN from transforming itself to deal with new issues and new circumstances. Today’s preoccupations of the UN like peacekeeping, human rights, environment, climate change etc were not anticipated in the Charter. The flexibility and resilience of the Charter have been tested again and again and nothing in the Charter has prevented the UN from taking on new responsibilities and obligations. Charter amendments have not been initiated even to remove anachronisms like the enemy countries clause and the name of one of the permanent members. The most crucial article of the Charter on the veto itself has been changed in practice as abstention by a permanent member is considered a concurring vote. The proposals for reform like the working methods of the Council introduced in the Working Group from time to time are mere diversionary tactics as these can be adopted without any amendment to the Charter. But when it comes to an expansion of the Security Council, the only way is to bring a Charter amendment. This explains why the only amendment of the Charter was made in 1965 to raise the number of non-permanent members from 6 to 10 when the strength of the General Assembly increased. The different groups of countries and entrenched interests are in no mood to repeat the exercise, particularly if the permanent membership should be touched.

The permanent members, for instance, consider that they only stand to lose by adding new permanent members with veto. They have made it clear that there is no question of veto being extended to the new permanent members, even though some of them tactically accept the African demand for veto. Even the UK, France and Russia, who have extended support to India and others, have not taken any action to bring about changes. One thing that France and the UK dread is the suggestion that the EU should have only one representative, while they already have two inside and another at the door. They are not willing to float a formula for expansion even to set the ball rolling. The same is the case with many others, who have pledged support to India and other candidates. In many cases, such support is an easy gesture to win goodwill.

A major development in February this year was the emergence of a draft resolution from the Caribbean Community, which is nothing but a wish list of the aspirants to permanent membership as well as of those who seek an expansion of the non-permanent membership. The draft envisages a Security Council consisting of 11 permanent members with veto and 16 non-permanent members. The additional seats will give two permanent seats to Africa, two permanent seats to Asia, one permanent seat to Europe and one permanent seat to Latin America. The G-4 has reason for joy about this formula as it meets its own demand. Africa’s demand for two permanent seats has also been met. But the permanent members, the Coffee Club and several countries, which have championed the abolition of the veto will vigorously oppose the Caricom draft. But if it can secure more than 128 votes in the General Assembly, the pressure will increase on the permanent members to at least offer an alternative formula and enter into serious negotiations in a new forum as the present Intergovernmental Negotiations have reached a dead end. But as it has happened in the past, the permanent five will try, by hook or by crook, to stave off a vote on the Caricom draft in the General Assembly.

The US, which had supported Japan and Germany in the early nineties, now favours “two or so” new permanent members, including Japan and “2 or 3” non-permanent members making an addition of only 5 more to the Security Council. Such a formula is a non-starter. The support extended to India by President Obama during his visit to India is in the form of a wish without a commitment to bring it about. His words were: “In the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.” Though this is a significant departure from the previous US position, it is not enough for the US to extend support to India; it should shape a formula, which is acceptable to the membership. Its reservation over Germany and Brazil will itself deprive it of being decisive on the issue of expansion.

We did not need Wikileaks to find the reasons for the reluctance of the US to bring about expansion of the Council. But we now have it in black and white what we knew from the beginning. “We believe expansion of the Council along the lines of the models currently discussed will dilute US influence in the body…..On most important issues of the day—Sanctions, Human Rights, Middle East etc---Brazil, India and most African states are currently far less sympathetic to our views than our European allies”, said the US Ambassador in a cable in December 2007. The US delegation at the UN seems to have only a watching brief till intervention becomes necessary to prevent an expansion that will not serve US interests. A special report of the Council on Foreign Relations which has urged the President to do so makes the expansion contingent on demonstration of the qualifications of permanent membership. The position of the aspirants on non-proliferation, climate change and human rights will be subject to scrutiny. The Caricom draft will electrify the US delegation into action against it as it flies in the face of the US position.

China is opposed explicitly to Japan and implicitly to India, though it pays lip service to developing countries’ representation on the Council. Its position could be decisive as the permanent members will coordinate their positions before any advance is made. France, UK and Russia are not likely to support the draft, despite their declared support for a modest expansion, including recognition of India’s credentials for permanent membership.

It is clear that it will be difficult to accomplish the fundamental change we are seeking by way of the procedure laid down for change. Like it happened in the case of the formation of G-20 when G-8 could not resolve the unprecedented economic crisis, a situation may arise when the P-5 find it difficult to maintain international peace and security without additional permanent members and thus force their hands to accept change. Such an ominous future was predicted by the President of the General Assembly, when he said on May 16, 2011, “Unless we find the determination to advance on the issue, the UN will lose its credibility. Our organization will be marginalized and important issues will be discussed in other forums and groupings, which are perceived to be more efficient and more representative of the new realities of the day.” Such a situation may arise sooner than later and that gives us reason for hope.

India and the other aspirants for permanent membership, in the meantime, must maintain pressure for expansion. But to give the impression that permanent membership is the holy grail of Indian foreign policy does not enhance our prestige. Legend has it that India spurned an offer to take over China’s permanent seat on the Security Council, saying that we would win it in our own right one day. That position has won us more glory than what we have gained by our constant knocking at all doors. Making support for our permanent membership the litmus test of bilateral relations is untenable. We should appear more confident and secure even as we demand our rightful place in keeping with our status as the largest democracy with a dynamic, fast growing economy, an impressive record in UN peacekeeping, ability to protect the global commons and to combat transnational terrorism and strong record against proliferation.

Without appearing to spurn the proverbial “sour grapes”, we should acknowledge that that permanent membership without veto is not such an attractive trophy that we should expend unlimited resources and energy on it. As it happened during our recent term as a non-permanent member, India will be called upon to take sides on every issue in the world, sometimes losing friends in the process, as we are fiercely independent and do not play second fiddle to anyone. The lack of the veto may make us vulnerable as a result, if issues of crucial importance to us come up in the Council. India has been playing a significant role even without being on the Security Council for many years. A posture of our willingness to serve when required to do so rather than being desperate about securing a seat here and now may be a good strategy to adopt. The UN needs reform not to make one country or the other happy, but to make itself more relevant, credible and effective in the world and it will be ready for a revolution sooner rather than later.

Thank you.

Maldives: The Limits of Power

By T.P.Sreenivasan

The day the former President Nasheed left the Indian High Commission in Male, India heaved a sigh of relief that India had opened a window of opportunity in Maldives for a peaceful resolution of the political crisis there and to restore the rule of law and democracy. It was a narrow window, it was noted, which could be closed very soon. And it did, when Nasheed was arrested again, prompting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to express concern over the “critical political instability” in Maldives.  The mighty regional power finds itself powerless to change the course of events in Maldives and, by a conspiracy of circumstances, the victory of Nasheed in the next election has become the litmus test of India’s diplomatic success in the Indian Ocean at a time when the area is considered pivotal to global peace and security.

Soon after an Indian delegation returned after resolving the Nasheed stand off and declaring that Nasheed was now free to return to normal personal and political life, the spokesman of the Acting President ridiculed Nasheed’s stay in the Indian High Commission as “the longest meeting in history”. He was referring to the Indian claim that Nasheed had gone eleven days ago to the High Commission for a meeting. The clear message was that the Government had given no guarantee for Nasheed’s safety to India and that the Indian role was not legitimate. This was made even more explicit when Nasheed was arrested, perhaps to assert Maldives’ sovereignty.

All the facts leading to the state of India’s power in the least powerful of its neighbours are not known, but the general impression is that India was not adept enough to see the writing on the wall ever since Nasheed was elected and that it closed its eyes shut when the old strongman Gayoom began flexing his muscles. The coconut wireless of the islands must have been abuzz with speculation about Gayoom’s moves long before the army and police closed in on Nasheed and made him voluntarily resign the Presidency. Male must be a place, where everyone knows everyone else and state secrets must be the market folklore.

Perhaps, we knew precisely the unfolding events and chose not to intervene, partly because we were nostalgic about the days when Gayoom was in the Presidential palace and all was well with the world. We were obviously unaware of the schooling Gayoom received from two of our other neighbours in the art of containing India and thwarting Indian “hegemony” in the Indian Ocean. Ironically, the struggle between Acting President Waheed and former President Nasheed has assumed the flavor of a proxy conflict between China and India. Waheed portrays Nasheed as someone seeking Indian intervention, while Nasheed accuses the former of favouring proximity to China. Nasheed has publicly sought a more “aggressive posture”, while Waheed asserts that since Maldives is a small state, it should not receive “small justice”.

The preset Indian strategy appears to be to play the peacemaker between Nasheed and Waheed, so that free and fair elections are held in September, with the participation of Nasheed, notwithstanding the “Judge Abdullah Abduction Case”, which threatens to disqualify Nasheed. Waheed maintains that he is pledged to hold such elections, but claims that he has no control over the judicial process. In the present scenario, the past glory India-Maldives relations can be restored if Nasheed wins. We do not seem to be contemplating any other way to wield our legitimate influence in our own backyard. Our power to help and harm does not seem to impress the powers that be in Maldives.

A spokesman of the Waheed Government told me on television that Nasheed had lost his support among the people long before he “voluntarily stepped down”. He asserted that there was no way Nasheed would win the September elections, even though Waheed did not have a single seat in the Parliament at this time. Asked about the increasing influence of China, he said that, as a developing country, Maldives received the much-needed assistance from China. He did not acknowledge the assistance that India had provided for many years. On links with India, he mentioned only the “nonaligned link”, which Maldives had with more than a hundred countries. He said that the GMR contract was one-sided and that its cancellation had helped Maldives earn more foreign exchange. He may have been uninformed or engaging in disinformation, but the mindset of the regime was clearly evident. It feels that China will make up for the loss of Indian support and that it has nothing to lose by defying India by denying its role, cancelling its airport project and forgetting that the ocean around it carries the name of a great and reliable nation.

The present situation reveals the limits of power of states in different situations. Unless our neighbours have a stake in our progress and success, they will challenge our role in various ways and power will become irrelevant. No one tries to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. In the long term, India must leverage other power centres in Maldives to retain its influence, even if the Nasheed gamble fails. Whether it can do this before the September elections and play a decisive role in restoring constitutional democracy is a moot point. The expression of concern by the Prime Minister over the critical political instability in Maldives is, one hopes, the first step in the right direction. Having missed the opportunity to use the wide open doors in Maldives, let us now use the narrow opening in the window.  

Rediff.com 

Higher Education 2.0 A Blueprint for Kerala.

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Two laments that we hear about higher education in Kerala are that it has remained static and that our Universities and Colleges do not figure in the lists of excellent institutions nationally or internationally. The first is contrary to facts and the second arises out of inadequate appreciation of the relevance, rationale and methodology of drawing up the lists by national and international entities.

In the forty-five years that I have been away from the education scene in Kerala, higher education has made rapid strides, in terms of establishment of new institutions in areas of special interest, new courses to teach emerging technologies and new methods of teaching. To cite just one instance, the Masters Degree course in English Literature offered in the Universities in Kerala today are very different from the course I did in the sixties. Gone are the days when considerable space was given for Old English and Chaucer. Today, Communicative English, Diaspora Literature and Dalit Literature are part of the curriculum.

As for the lists of world-class universities and others, it is true that such lists recognize the exceptional quality of education available around the world. In our quest for excellence, the institutions recognized become models to emulate. But the criteria used in identifying these institutions are such that they are beyond the reach of the majority of institutions, particularly in Kerala. The number of Nobel Prizes won, patents registered, industry support, teacher-student ratio, autonomy, the presence of international students and infrastructure are factors that go into the selection of institutions. While it is desirable to strive for recognition on the basis of these standards, our institutions must be assessed in the light of our own needs and capabilities.

A prerequisite for excellence in higher education is the high quality of the school graduates, who enter the universities. Near hundred percent pass at the school level, the variety of syllabuses in use in the school and the system of all school graduates seeking to enter the universities have a bearing on the quality of higher education. More rigorous testing at the school level and diversion of school graduates to vocational courses on the basis of their capabilities and talents will ensure that our universities get a better corpus of students at the entrance level. If I were to cherry pick from Gandhiji’s views on education, as suggested by Amartya Sen, it should not be his rejection of western education, but his emphasis on vocational education. Dignity of labour and the principle of higher pay for the tougher job should be the norm if we have to divert young people to productive professions without entering universities.

The blueprint that the Kerala State Higher Education Council (KSHEC) presented to the Government last year has identified five areas for special attention—infrastructure, use of technology, teachers’ training, research and autonomy. The expectation is that the package of proposals that will emanate from the Council will constitute the emergence of a new generation of higher education in Kerala, which may be characterized as Higher Education 2.0.

An urgent issue that received the attention of the Council was a set of anomalies and difficulties in the Choice Based Credit and Semester System (CBCSS), introduced at the graduate level recently. Lack of the required working days in each semester, the teacher-student ratio, the five point gradation system and unimaginative selection of books and syllabus were identified as the issues and recommendations were made to rectify them. The Government has approved the recommendations and it is for the Universities to implement them without delay.

The Council also undertook a comprehensive review of the state policy on education. The Government has already picked and chosen several recommendations from our report for implementation. Improvement of the working conditions of the administrative staff in the universities and colleges is one of the recommendations we have stressed. Use of technology is an absolute necessity today. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) has transformed the education scene in developed countries and the same is available free of cost to our teachers and students, provided we have the connectivity. Course content could be simply modified to suit our requirements.

Training of teachers is the highest priority in Higher Education 2.0. A Faculty Training Centre with the proportions of a university has already been designed. No teacher in any faculty should go to the classes without training in teaching methodology. Teachers of exceptional ability should be given incentives and dead wood should be eased out of our higher education institutions.

Multiple assessment institutions are being created all over India and Kerala will give the lead by establishing the first institution at the state level for accreditation and assessment. With the advent of the new Kerala State Accreditation and Assessment Council (KSAAC), the state of assessment of our institutions will see a sea change. KSAAC assessments will be compulsory and it will include gradation of teachers to provide incentives and disincentives. The standards of assessment, already set by an expert group, will be second to none.

Kerala has a fairly large number of research projects in the universities, but not the kind of research that will produce new products and processes. Research institutions of the kind that exist outside the universities must be created in the departments that have the expertise and facilities. Even graduate and postgraduate students must engage in research, leading to entrepreneurships. Many schemes have been announced to incentivize innovation and entrepreneurship, but unless a research culture is developed, our universities cannot create knowledge.

Industries, the main beneficiaries of our higher education, must also become its benefactors. It is not enough that they recruit the graduates and declare them unemployable. They should work with the universities to design courses, invest in them and then insist on quality. The Narayana Murthy Committee had envisaged fifty percent of the investment in higher education emanating from the industries. Kerala established its own committee to study the issue and framed its own constructive proposals for the linkages between industries and institutions.

Kerala does not have a single autonomous college in the state, though there are several, which deserve autonomy, both academic and administrative. But autonomy entails higher responsibilities and accountability. Strict criteria should be observed in creating autonomous colleges. No less a person than Prof. Madhava Menon is heading a group, which is laying down the rules for the implementation of a decision already taken by the Government.

Internationalization of education is a corollary to globalization and the present smattering of foreign collaborations should be expanded. We should also be able to attract foreign students to our universities by designing courses for which India has a particular capability. Indian semesters for foreign students should attract many universities abroad. The Council has been asked to coordinate efforts of the universities in Kerala for internationalization.

Higher Education 2.0 in Kerala should have many more features. It should be developed into a new vision and a blueprint for the future. The resistance to change must change to realize that vision. True, as management gurus say, it is hard, expensive and risky to innovate in established enterprises, such as higher education. But with care, expertise and commitment, it should be possible to reform higher education in Kerala to meet our needs and to benefit from the demographic dividend. We may not find a place in the list of world-class institutions for another generation, but we will be able to equip our leaders of tomorrow for the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century in which India will be one of the power centres of a multipolar world.

 The Pains and Pleasures of Writing

I am delighted to be invited to deliver this year's Dr. EC Antony Memorial Lecture of Sri. C. Achutha Menon Government College, Thrissur. Allow me to pay a tribute to Dr. E.C.Antony, who has been recognized as a "great academician and social activist." My respects also go to Sri. C.Achutha Menon, an outstanding Chief Minister of Kerala, whom I had the privilege of meeting in Moscow many years ago.

I rarely get invited to speak on literary topics, as my long career in the Foreign Service and my present assignment in Higher Education have diminished my academic background in English Literature. Having got this opportunity to speak in memory of a legendary teacher of English Literature, I have chosen to speak today on the pleasures and pains of writing, as all of us, at one time or another, have experienced both, whether we are students, teachers, professionals and most of all, creative writers. When I speak of creative writing, I refer not only to poetry and fiction, but all writings, which contain thoughts, feelings and emotions, not just information. We engage in creative writing at one time or another and experience its pleasures and pains.

Every educated person carries ideas for creative writing, whether he ever puts pen to paper. Someone said that there are only two kinds of people on this earth, those who write and those who think they can write. Indeed, we believe that any of us can write a novel, short story, poem or autobiographical reflections if only we tried. But it is like imagining that we can play the sitar like Ravi Shanker, if only we tried. We need extensive reading, intensive imagination, a compulsive urge and specialist training to create any kind of literature. A famous writer prosaically remarked that a literary creation is a piece of furniture, which has its own requirements. We have to learn the laws of construction before we go about creating it. "Just because I had read plenty of novels did not mean I could write one, more than I could make a chair because I had sat on enough of them", said Nigel Watts. On the other hand, the Director of a creative writing program in a University for many years said that all creative writing programs ought to be abolished by law, as creative writing cannot be taught. 

Writers have their own reasons to write and many of them have explained why they write. Some do it to create a revolution. Friedrich Nietche believed in the old dictum that the pen is mightier than the sword. He said, “All I need is a sheet of paper and something to write with, and then I can turn the world upside down.” I suppose Martin Luther King would have been reading Neitzche when he inspired the masses by exhorting them: “If you want to change the world, pick up your pen and write.” Mahatma Gandhi brought a mighty empire to its knees by writing. Others write for their own satisfaction and pleasure, but not without pain. According to Thomas Mann, “A writer is someone for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people.” Writing is pain and pleasure in parallel proportions like the two sides of a coin. A young researcher collected for me what famous writers had to say as to why they wrote. Some remarkable explanations worth noting include poignant ones like Albert Camus, “The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself”; philosophical ones like Maya Angelou “A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song”; “psychological” ones like E.L. Doctorow “Writing is a socially acceptable form of schizophrenia”; prudent ones like F. Scott Fitzgerald “You don't write because you want to say something, you write because you have something to say”; pragmatic ones like George Orwell “I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They are: sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse and political purpose”; matter of fact ones like W.Somerset Maugham, “There are three rules for writing a novel. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are” and simply practical ones like Toni Morrison, "If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." George Bernard Shaw is credited to have suggested that he writes for the same reason as a cow gives milk: "It's inside me, it's got to come out, and in a real sense I would suffer if I couldn't.” The pain of milking is compensated for by the pleasure of giving. The most fascinating and simple reason for writing was given by my own guru, Prof. Ayyappa Paniker, who wrote: "I cannot but bloom, as I am a flowering tree." (Pookkathirikkan enikkavathille, kanikkonnayalle)

Writing is the simple exercise of translating a thought into an action through the chosen medium of words; though finding the right word is often a difficult task. Mark Twain says: “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” Nonetheless, the writer must set his pen moving constantly as perfection is like chasing the horizon. Words leave behind indelible impressions that can be restrictive or resurrective in nature. The reader should be able to visualize a world of his own, rather look for real images in the mind of the writer To sum it up, allow me to borrow these prescient words of Marcus Fabius Quintillions, a Roman rhetorician of the first century AD who wrote “We should not write so that it is possible for [the reader] to understand us, but so that it is impossible for him to misunderstand us.”

Needless to say, reading is the most essential requirement for writing. Some writers say that one needs to read a thousand sentences before writing one sentence. Reading gives you language, thoughts and experience, not to be copied, but to be imbibed to ignite your imagination and to express your thoughts in elegant language. The war with words ensues only if one has conquered the first battle; which is the drive to initiate writing. Blaise Pascal once prophecied, “All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” I would say that the solution to it is to engage in the art of writing. The ability to embrace the self in solitude and empathize with fellow human beings either directly with the characters created or indirectly with the targeted reader is essential for creative writing. Starting to write is often painful, but finishing it is pleasurable. It may be tedious, but the pure pleasure of writing is priceless, just like it is for a bird that sings in the wilderness. The sense of fulfillment that one derives out of writing is often compared with that of motherhood.

Language was the earliest and the best invention in human history. It arose not only from man’s absolute necessity to convey his ideas, but also his enthusiasm to communicate in the best possible manner. Creative writers molded the language, in its many manifestations, to change the world itself. The voice of the writers ought to be the voice of change and the collective voice of the society should bring about progress and betterment. The voluminous novels and scholastic tomes have determined the course of history in the past and micro writings on twitter and facebook create revolutions today.

Turning to my own experience of writing, which consisted initially of professional analyses of political events and personalities and now of newspaper columns and autobiographical narrations, is prompted by an urge to share experiences and shape opinions. I would not call it creative writing, but the sense of fulfillment in seeing my writings published gives me immense joy. Even after many years of public speaking, producing television programs and blogging, the thrill of seeing bylines in the leading publications of the world is unparalleled. Today, the writer has been liberated from the clutches of editors and publishers, as blogs and electronic publications are not subject to the scissors of editors and publishers. But the traditional interaction with editors before a piece sees the light of day is an exercise I enjoy most. Most Indian publications carry columns either as they are written or edited for brevity or acceptability, but writing for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Quarterly involves a dialogue with gifted editors, who do not leave any fact unchecked or views unexamined. The final product inevitably has the stamp of the publication in both language and content. The partnership between the author and the editor embellishes rather than diminish the value of writing.

The pleasure and pain of writing, I imagine, is more in poetry and fiction, but any writing that goes beyond conveying information carries the exhilaration of creation as well as the frustration of inadequacy. Like many others who believe that they can play the sitar like Ravi Shankar or sing like Yesudas if only they tried, I too dream of the day when I can create a masterpiece of classical proportions. But for the time being, I must be content with the lesser experience of expressing my thoughts in words for the pure joy of it.

Thank you.

Strategic Dialogue with John Kerry

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai told me in a television interview last week that the only change he expected in India-US relations in the second term of President Obama was that they would be “normal”, not “novel” anymore. The relationship had become stable, wide-ranging and mutually beneficial, with a large number of working groups contributing to its growth. The gains of the Strategic Dialogue in 2012 would be consolidated and expanded. Economic relations, described not long ago as flat like a “chappati” now looked more like a “poori”, he said.

We cannot be so sanguine about the next round of Strategic Dialogue primarily because the US delegation will not be led by the familiar and friendly Hillary Clinton, but the new Secretary of State, John Kerry, whose reputation on the Hill does not augur well for India. He has the makings of a non-proliferation Ayatollah and a Pakistan enthusiast.  Among the Senators and Congressmen, whom we met to explain the Indian position on the 1998 tests, Kerry stood out as the most negative. He was convinced that India had made a grave error by testing and that it should be reversed under the pressure of sanctions. He eventually supported the India-US nuclear agreement and also led a business delegation to India.

Kerry is known to be particularly friendly to Pakistan and he has been stressing the need for India to continue the dialogue with Pakistan, regardless of terrorist attacks and ceasefire violations. During his confirmation hearings, he declined to make US aid to Islamabad conditional to the release of Pakistani doctor Shakil Afridi, who helped find Osama bin Laden. Pakistan had not gotten "credit sufficiently for the fact that they were helpful," by allowing the Americans to search for Osama.  Kerry said that he intended to raise the issue with Islamabad, but thought it would be unwise to cut assistance given Pakistan's importance as a supply route to Afghanistan. “We need to build our relationship with the Pakistanis, not diminish it," he said. He had no chance to speak on India because no question was asked on India at the confirmation hearings.

As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, however, he had said some time ago that India-US ties were "without doubt one of the most significant partnerships in US foreign policy.” “There are fewer relationships that will be as vital in the 21st century as our growing ties with India and its people," he said, reflecting Obama’s own words about the significance of the relationship.

Kerry has already set the stage for the Strategic Dialogue by telephoning External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid, in response to the latter’s message of congratulations, and telling him that he was looking forward to the visit. He recalled his past visit to India to promote business relations between the two countries. Kerry has, in other words, signaled that he would follow the Obama line on India and not be prejudiced by his own inclination towards Pakistan. Like Hillary, who adopted the Obama worldview once she lost her bid for the Democratic candidature for President, Kerry may also follow his master’s voice than his own.

Kerry and Khurshid will, however, find the going tough during the Strategic Dialogue more on real strategic issues that have arisen since last year than on purely bilateral matters. Primarily, Kerry will seek India’s cooperation in the increased US engagement in Asia Pacific. As Former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran has noted, there is “a potentially destabilizing asymmetry between the emerging economic architecture and the lack of consensus on what the emerging security architecture should look like.” India has already opted for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which includes China rather than the US sponsored Trans-Pacific Partnership, which excludes China. Ambassador Nirupama Rao said recently that India would welcome the US engagement in what she called “Asia of the Indo-Pacific” on the basis of a vision of “all powers in Asia and beyond work together to address the traditional and non-traditional challenges and to create a basis for a stable and prosperous Asia.”

Kerry will certainly press for more forthright support from India for the intended rebalancing, considering our own problems with China. The success of the Strategic Dialogue will depend on the leeway that the US detects in the Indian position. One bargain we should seek in this context is India’s membership of the Asia Pacific Economic Community (APEC), from which India was deliberately excluded. While ASEAN should remain at the center of the economic and security architecture in the region, our own interests will be better secured with a greater understanding with the United States.

Afghanistan could be an area, in which India may be able to secure guarantees for a post 2014 scenario in exchange for greater accommodation in Asia Pacific. The tendency of the United States to exclude India from the dialogue on a future dispensation may prove costly for India. A possible return of Taliban as part of the new Government in Kabul will be the beginning of the end of our involvement in Afghanistan. Indications that the US might be present in some form in Afghanistan may be welcome, but increase in violence may result in its sudden withdrawal.

Among global issues, the Arab world would receive attention in the dialogue. While both countries are in favour of democratic movements, the outcome has caused anxiety to both. India shares with the US a special interest in the stability of the Gulf and an exchange of ideas cannot but be beneficial.

The US had already indicated last year the ways in which the irritants such as the nuclear liability law and the purchase of fighter aircraft from Europe could be dealt with. Though the way out of the liability law has not been revealed so far, both sides have been optimistic on this score and tangible progress has been made in preparing the ground for the US nuclear sites. Much headway has been made in expanding defense cooperation. A review of the working groups will show much progress in cooperation in energy, education, agriculture and anti-terrorism. But the next big development in bilateral relations is still elusive. For that very reason, a second visit by Obama to India may not be an outcome of the talks.

Both Kerry and Khurshid are new to the Strategic Dialogue, but the change in personalities may not make much of a difference as long as their principals remain committed. If anything, Khurshid’s extraordinary skills may make up for the absence of Hillary Clinton.

Kerala's Tryst with Italy

New York Times  (India Ink)

Indian states, though powerful in matters of internal administration, rarely deal with foreign governments. A bizarre shooting near Kerala’s coast involving Italian marines last year, which killed two Indian fishermen, gave the state a crash course on international diplomacy, one that also tested Kerala’s political standing with the central government.

One year after the shooting, the case appears to be nearing a quiet conclusion in what could have been a messy international fight. Though the outcome may not completely satisfy Keralites, they are not likely to find fault with their government. Kerala fought for as long as it could to handle the case on its own turf, and its determination has strengthened the state’s position in domestic politics.

In the afternoon of Feb. 15, 2012, two impoverished fishermen, returning to the Kerala coast from an exhausting fishing expedition, were shot dead by two Italian marines who were guarding an oil tanker, the Enrica Lexie, on suspicion that the fishermen were pirates.

The Indian authorities say the Italian marines had behaved suspiciously on the fateful day. After the marines killed the two fishermen, their ship sped away, the authorities said, angering the Indian Coast Guard, which pursued the tanker and brought it to the Kochi port under escort.

The Italian authorities, on the other hand, say that the marines warned an approaching boat to keep away, and that when it did not, they had no choice but to fire warning shots into the air. Since the shooting took place in international waters, the ship was not obliged to come to the Indian shore and that the matter would have been investigated back in Italy, the Italian authorities say.

If Italy had admitted its marines had made a mistake and offered compensation out of court in the early days, the case would have ended long ago. But Italy insisted that there was a piracy attempt and that since the shooting took place in international waters, India had no jurisdiction to try the marines on murder charges in India.

Then Kerala’s courts intervened and affirmed jurisdiction. A judge later rejected an out-of-court settlement that the Italians had worked out with some local church leaders.

Emotions ran high in Kerala, accentuated by the suspicion that Italy's Delhi connections would let the marines off the hook at any time. The two Italians were lodged in prison first and then in a more comfortable guesthouse at the repeated requests of the Italian government at the highest level in Delhi. High-ranking Italian officials visited Kerala multiple times on behalf of the marines.

But Kerala’s courts maintained pressure, and it appeared that the case was moving toward a conviction. Then the Italian government filed a petition with the Supreme Court arguing that because the shooting occurred in international waters that the trial could not be held in India.

The chief minister of Kerala, Oommen Chandy, may have heaved a sigh of relief when the case was moved to the Supreme Court, but the shift initially caused much consternation in the fishing community in Kerala. The victims’ next of kin and the owner of the fishing boat were disappointed that the huge compensation that they had expected to receive through a direct settlement with the Italians or through a court order eluded them.

In fact, when the marines were allowed by the Kerala High Court to go home for Christmas after depositing 60 million rupees ($1.1 million) as surety, the local people were praying that they would not come back. The marines returned ahead of time, much to the disappointment of the next of kin.

Delhi took the line that the whole incident was an unfortunate accident, not involving any machinations by the Italians. It is in that direction that the case has moved.

Last month, the Supreme Court rejected Italy’s argument but ruled that the case should be moved out of Kerala and into a special Indian court under international maritime law. Since the shootings had happened in the contiguous zone and not territorial waters, Kerala had no jurisdiction, the Supreme Court said.

Even if the marines are ultimately convicted, it is likely they will return to Italy. On Monday, India announced that in November it had ratified a treaty with Italy, which was agreed upon before the shooting incident occurred, that allows citizens convicted of crimes in either country to serve their prison sentences in their home country.

Though it wasn’t the outcome it had sought, Kerala is taking a pragmatic view. Moving the legal battle from Kerala itself has brought down the profile of the case and the pressure of public opinion. Now, the state will accept any decision by the Supreme Court as long as adequate compensation is given to the next of kin and the boat owner.

The episode was not without its benefits for Kerala, which emerged with its principles intact. The central government never challenged Kerala, nor did it pressure the state to make concessions, and Mr. Chandy himself emerged as a tough negotiator and a champion of the law, which can only benefit the state in the future.

Ironically, the heroic efforts of the Italian government to get their nationals released from an Indian prison won the appreciation of many Indians, including Keralites. They pointed to the sustained efforts at the highest level by Italy to rescue the marines and criticized the Indian government for not doing enough for its own nationals in prisons abroad, accused of far less serious crimes. 

The Nobel Prize Syndrome

By T.P.Sreenivasan

When politicians grow into eminent statesmen, they develop an intense desire for immortality. Their place in history becomes more important than solution of mundane issues of the day. Their world expands to embrace universal objectives that transcend national aspirations. Some of them step on to the world stage and make outlandish proposals at the United Nations for international peace, disarmament and development. Proposals for bringing celestial bodies and  even Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) within the purview of the United Nations have originated from the seekers of global fame. The more ambitious among them go on a quest of the Holy Grail, the Nobel Peace Prize.

India-Pakistan relations are so complex that anyone who can assist in normalizing them is likely to be honored by the Norwegian Academy. The acquisition of the nuclear dimension to the quagmire has made peace imperative between them in the eyes of the world. Many consider Kashmir a global hotspot, which deserves a global solution.  Even President Bill Clinton had eyed Kashmir as a potential road to the Nobel. In India, Morarji Desai, (He even tried to dilute India's opposition to the NPT), Inder Gujral and Atal Behari Vajpeyi had developed such ambitions. What held them back was the pressure of public opinion. Their efforts were also thwarted by the duplicity of Pakistan, which gained benefits, but refused to accept matching obligations.

The signs of the Nobel Prize syndrome gripping Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have been visible since the Havana Declaration, which, for the first time, conceded that Pakistan too was a victim of terrorism. Sharm-el-Sheikh statement remains the only document in which Baluchistan came within the purview of bilateral relations. India gradually relaxed the conditions it imposed on Pakistan to deal with the schemers and perpetrators of the Mumbai attack. The tough line on terrorism withered away as the peace process gained momentum. The invitation extended to Pakistan Home Minister Rehman Malik and resumption of sports and cultural contacts were also part of “the extra mile” theory. But none can point to a single matching initiative on the part of Pakistan. They appeared to respond to the friendly moves of India, but plotted, at the same time, to undermine the Indian state covertly and overtly. The most blatant was the intrusion in Kargil, coming as it did close on the heels of the Lahore bus “yatra”. Making the border soft resulted only in more intrusions and arrival of more terrorists.

The desire to build on the gains of the peace process was the sentiment that determined initial Indian reaction to the events of January 8, 2013. The tame response at the official level left the field open for the opposition to claim to know the pulse of the people and to project public opinion. If only the Prime Minister had spoken of “no business as usual” within hours of the report on killing of two soldiers and beheading of one of them, he would have retained the initiative in his own hand. If he had promised firm action, the baying for ten heads for one by opposition leader Sushma Swaraj would not have resonated so well within the nation. She would have sounded irrational if the peace process was halted on the first day. Each day lost added fuel to the fire of public opinion and Pakistan exulted in its denial, without any fear of retribution. They knew well that the image-makers of the Prime Minister would turn the other cheek.  When he finally spoke up, Pakistan had no choice but to budge and agree to commit itself to observe the ceasefire.

The “peace industry” in India with Pakistan has done more damage than good to India-Pakistan relations. South Block is constantly at pains to satisfy the peaceniks and many fall prey to the attractions of the industry, like fully paid trips not just to Pakistan, but also to more attractive destinations. Since the army is recognized as the real source of power in Pakistan, it has become fashionable to invite former Generals to these parleys. Many of them masquerade as the civil society in Pakistan, but make no impact on public opinion within Pakistan. On our side, however, the pressure mounts for a soft approach to Pakistan each time a Track II exercise throws up solutions. The shrill clamour for finding solutions to issues like Siachen and Sir Creek is raised from time to time, raising false hopes that these can be resolved. Siachen has been described as the only substantial military gain that India has made and the call is to throw it away unilaterally. Shimla’s lessons have not been learnt.

The truth that Pakistan’s existence itself is conditional to its differences with India should be remembered every time we deal with Pakistan. It has no compulsions to make peace with India. By paying a small price, Pakistan has acquired equal status with India in the minds of people across the globe. The peace process gives Pakistan a benign image even as it schemes to undermine the Indian state through infiltration and terrorism. Even when blatant violations of ceasefire take place, the “peace industry” is willing to ask whether, after all, India had pulled the trigger first. It is willing to close its eyes to the fact that the latest incident was not just a case of ceasefire violation, but a highly humiliating act that would demoralize our fighting forces.

The call on India is often to do everything possible to strengthen democracy in Pakistan. Even if the theory that a strong and prosperous Pakistan is in the interest of India is accepted, India can do little to strengthen democracy in Pakistan. Looking for democracy in Pakistan is like looking for the proverbial non-existent black cat in a dark room. Successive democratic Governments in Pakistan have either been facades or apologists for the army. Pakistan has only denigrated Indian democracy and not tried to learn from it.

The lessons of the past dictate that our Pakistan policy should be based strictly on reciprocity. Unilateral concessions have never yielded benefits in the past and will not in the future. If we relax on past crimes, new crimes will follow. In the recent case of beheading, Pakistan is guilty of a multitude of crimes, which should be accounted for. Any misguided forgiveness will only encourage the Pakistan Army to commit worse atrocities.

Indian reluctance to call a spade a spade is not on account of fear of conventional nuclear war. We have always believed that the most inextricable of issues can be resolved through negotiations. But, in the case of Pakistan, final solutions may not be possible for any of the problems that bedevil our relations for another generation. Our best hope is to mange the relations in such a way that our vital interests are protected. Strict reciprocity is the only strategy that will work with Pakistan.