John Kerry and Salman Khurshid

When emotions were running high in India immediately after the arrest of Devyani Khobragade, the American secretary of state John Kerry spoke to India's national security adviser Shivshankar Menon and not the foreign minister Salman Khurshid. This was interpreted variously by the media. Was Uncle Sam trying to give short shrift to democratically elected leaders? Khurshid misled the nation claiming he was trying to establish contact with Kerry and that the latter was busy visiting some country and time zones interfered with early contact.

The New York Times has now reported what really happened:
"American officials quietly say they bent over backward to heal bruised feelings. On Dec. 19, Secretary of State John Kerry tried to get in touch with the Indian foreign secretary, Salman Khurshid, but Mr. Khurshid did not take his call for reasons he has not explained. So Mr. Kerry called Shivshankar Menon, the Indian national security adviser, to express his “regret” over the matter."

Salman Khurshid was merely being churlish. It is possible that the prime minister ticked him off for his unprofessional act. The minister was promoted to foreign affairs ministry after his family oversaw embezzlement of funds meant for physically challenged persons. Will he get another promotion now?

India's silly tit for tat

Indian government has taken a lot of action against American diplomatic mission obviously in retaliation to the way in which India's deputy consul general, Khobragade was dealt with in New York. Steps taken by India include withdrawal of barricade protection for consular office, withdrawal of flight passes and cancellation of automatic imports of consumables.

Why did the normally lethargic government plunge into action? Is it because an American court has dared to persist with issue of summons to Sonia Gandhi? Any kneejerk reaction is prone to contain blunders. 

WikiLeaks

Should we not marvel at Assange's digital diligence and dexterity in prising open the dichotomy between the public and private views of so many leaders and diplomats? Instead of trying to gun down Mr.Inconvenient, the governments ought to introspect on the advisability of continuing to indulge in double talk. We may succeed in tracking down the "evil genius", but the pioneering path he has shown is likely to get crowded with many followers, some skilled and many naive.



Equally interesting is the "Radiagate" that is blowing the lid off the imaginary integrity of business tycoons like Ratan Tata. It is indeed sad that an icon of our times is getting exposed in this sordid way; it is even more sad that his amateurish attempts to protect his teflon coat are only aggravating the damage to his reputation. It appears that there is no leader in politics or elsewhere whose image has not been sullied. Tragic times, indeed!

It would be a travesty if instead of modifying our errant behaviour we resort to silencing the critics.

Jairam Ramesh, a Chindian ?

Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for Environment and Forests has done the unpardonable a la Shashi Tharoor. He has criticised our Home Ministry while on a visit to China.

He has discovered that there are two dimensions to India's relationship with China. The Copenhagen spirit dimension is what the minister endorses. He is against the "Huawei headache dimension". According to the overly articulate minister, our Home Ministry's suspicion that possible malware / spyware in imported telecom equipment , particularly from China, could severely threaten national security is "needless" and "paranoid". "We are imagining demons where there are none". Even Pandit Nehru and Krishna Menon would not have been so naive !

The minister has committed a double fault. One, what is the expertise at his command to give a clean chit to Huawei ? Secondly, is a foreign territory the right place to castigate another ministry in the Indian cabinet ?

Irrepressible Tharoor

Shashi Tharoor is at it again. He has expressed his view that Nehru was responsible for negative publicity for India as conducting foreign policy as a sort of moralistic running commentary on other people's behaviour. This perception is widely held and therefore, Tharoor has not floated a new theory. To be fair to him, he has also, in the same meeting, acknowledged the stellar role of Gandhiji and Panditji in enhancing India's standing in the international arena. There is unfortunately no place for objective analysis in our political parties. In the Congress party, any criticism, however mild and well-intentioned, of Nehru and his descendants is a strict no-no.

There are some 'holy cows' for the Congress party which all Congress people are expected to respect. Secularism with undisguised support for minorityism is one such. It was interesting to watch a TV show where a Muslim religious leader pleaded that Muslims should more openly decry terrorism and Pakistan's proven role in fomenting trouble in India. He was unequivocal that given Pakistan's nefarious role, air passengers with Pak connection must be subjected to stringent screening. This frankness made Jayanthi Natarajan, a Congress spokesperson overtly furious and she started lashing out against "such racial or national profiling".

Jayanthi Natarajan, quite well-informed as she is, was certainly expressing a view more in line with the public persona of the Congress rather than her own opinion. Thus we see the public behaviour of Tharoor and Jayanthi Natarajan at two extremes. The latter is a political survivor. It is no coincidence that Jayanthi Natarajan was among the first persons calling for punishment to Tharoor when he spoke out his mind even earlier.

Why this difference between the two ? Tharoor has been exposed to and affected by the American culture of talking straight without mincing words. This aspect of his personality ironically was responsible for his losing the U.S. support when he contested for U.N.Secretary Generalship.

Jairam Ramesh's suggestions

Media reports indicate that Jairam Ramesh has written 'confidentially' to the prime minister seeking a change in our policy on climate change. He says that critics are distorting the contents of his letter. As the full text of his letter is not yet available, it is difficult to comment on distortions, if any. However, certain suggestions which have been revealed are interesting. The minister is supposed to have written, "India's interests and India's interests alone should drive our negotiations.India must be seen as pragmatic and constructive, not argumentative and political. -------- India must listen more and speak less in negotiations, or else be treated with disfavour and derision by the developing countries." Very sane advice indeed. One may add,"As a country we need to be more articulate and less argumentative, more bold and less belligerent, more candid and less cacophonous and more disciplined and less dogmatic."

Peace in Sri Lanka

Here is an interesting excerpt from The Economist dt.30th May:
"On May 25th the UN Human Rights Council convened a special session on Sri Lanka following a request submitted by Germany on behalf of 17 mostly European countries. Its members proceeded to vote down a proposed resolution decrying the Sri Lankan government's disregard for civilian life. But another draft resolution tabled by the Sri Lankan government itself, praising its own commitment to human rights, was passed by a vote of 29 to 16. Its motley crew of supporters included China, Cuba, India, Russia, Pakistan and Egypt."
It is good that the violence in Sri Lanka has come to an end. The Sri Lankan government was forced to adopt tough measures to counter the villainy of LTTE. But it is a travesty of truth to say that the government was committed to human rights. Commitment of China, Russia and Pakistan to human rights is well known ! India's support to the resolution is intriguing. India perhaps was trying to prevent further beachheads to China in Sri Lanka. But China is too shrewd a diplomatic player to be secondguessed by bumbling India.