Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard Magazine/ July 24, 2011

Our diplomats Speak for the Government, Not the Nation

Diplomacy is an abstract art; and diplomats across the world its perfect practitioners. They talk a lot but say nothing; they keep all options open. But Indian diplomats are fast becoming the exception to the rule. Of late, most of them have been specific, even explicit, in their assertions even if these are not in tune with national sentiment. The recent utterances of some of our senior-most diplomats make it clear that they enjoy being politically correct even it means being diplomatically incorrect. Consider the recent statement on Pakistan-sponsored terror by Nirupama Rao, our ambassador-designate to the US, on CNN-IBN. Rao asserted, “I think the prism through which they (Pakistan) see this issue has definitely been altered.” Later, she talked about the need to tackle only non-state elements and ignored the active support that the terrorists enjoy from official agencies. As if to prove her wrong, terrorists struck Mumbai just 10 days later and killed 18 innocent people. Two died later of their injuries. On what basis the outgoing foreign secretary gave the ‘character certificate’ to what Home Minister P Chidambaram calls the “global epicentre of terrorism” is known only to her.

Surprisingly, no global leader shares her perception or even the formulations on Pakistan expressed by External Affairs Minister S M Krishna during his interactions with Pakistan leaders and at various other international fora. Even visiting US Secretary State Hillary Clinton was much more indiscreet when she spoke about Pakistan. Despite the friendly and strategic US relationship with Pakistan, Hillary was quite harsh on our neighbour. In fact, she warned Pakistan that “they cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists anywhere” and “when we know the location of terrorists whose intentions are clear and need to work together in order to prevent those terrorists from taking innocent lives and threatening institutions of the state”. Interestingly, while Hillary was talking tough on Pakistan in New Delhi, back home the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested Ghulam Nabi Fai, executive director of the anti-India Kashmiri American Council. He was charged with being an ISI agent and involved in a conspiracy to influence key US officials on Kashmir policy. Compare this with our diplomats, who were not even willing to hazard a guess about the possible involvement of the ISI in the Mumbai attacks. For the past one week, Indian diplomats have weakened India’s case against Pakistan by letting an impression grow that the Mumbai incidents may not have been sponsored from across the border.

So, while the world is looking at Pakistan with suspicion, Indian diplomats and some leading politicians are still talking about dialogue and debate. From President Nicolas Sarkozy of France to Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, most powerful world leaders have slammed Pakistan for harbouring and exporting terrorism. Last year, Sarkozy set the tone against Pakistan when he said, “It is unacceptable for the world that terrorist acts should be masterminded and carried out by terrorist groups trained in Pakistan.” Our foreign office mandarins, in contrast, can’t even ask Pakistan to wind up the terror camps operating inside the country. For the past few months, the foreign ministry has followed up the home ministry’s request to Pakistan to hand over the fugitives hiding there. Rao—while addressing a London-based think tank—made a strong case for a stable Pakistan which she hoped would act as a “bulwark against terrorism”, quite forgetting the categorical point made a few months ago by Hillary that “America cannot and shouldn’t solve Pakistan’s problems. That’s up to Pakistan.”

This stance of our diplomats baffles the political leadership. Some of them see it as the emergence of an alternative centre of power within the foreign office, which is following its own agenda. They see the diplomats taking advantage of a weak yet gentlemanly foreign minister and ignoring sensitive issues raised by the other ministries. While Pakistan diplomats are aggressively fighting for their country in global capitals, our ambassadors are either silent or making politically correct noises. Instead of isolating the country at world forums, our diplomats have allowed Pakistan to acquire the status of a victim of terrorism. Even after so many months, the foreign office hasn’t been able to get full access to Tahawwur Rana and David Coleman Headley, both accused in the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 180 people were killed. The ministry has also failed in persuading the American establishment to force Pakistan to punish the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage. None of them has made any impact on the American establishment in reviewing its relationship with Pakistan and supporting India on ISI-funded and sponsored violence in Jammu and Kashmir.

Indeed, with Indian diplomats becoming more vocal on international issues, there appears to be a reversal of roles. Earlier, it was the political leadership which would determine foreign policy and the diplomats would only implement it. India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who had veto power to decide on the contours of India’s external relations, allowed powerful diplomats to advise but not dictate to him. Those who succeeded him followed the same path, never allowing civil servants to take the lead. However, with the non-political Manmohan Singh as prime minister and a hands-off external affairs minister in South Block, the diplomats have

chosen to speak for the government but not for the nation.
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Race Course Road/The Sunday Standard/May 08, 2011

Osama fallout hurts Manmohan's dreams

Is there a rift between the Government and the Congress on Pakistan? Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is all for continuing the dialogue with Pakistan which is steadfast in refusing to take action against the 26/11 perpetrators. Last Friday in Paris, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao also elegantly articulated India’s current Pakistan policy. Home Minister P Chidambaram, though miffed with our hostile neighbour, had earlier advocated discussion and dialogue. On the other hand, Congress leaders refrain from speaking in public on this policy, privately favouring the suspension of talks. They are upset about the open defiance of India by pro-Pakistan elements in Srinagar like Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s procession protesting Osama’s killing. Many Union ministers and Congress office-bearers have warned the party high command about the negative impact of India’s soft Pakistan policy on the public mood, especially after the Abbottabad raid. Powerful foreign office mandarins influenced by American thinking are ignoring all political feedback; they are determined to push a Keep-Pakistan-Happy policy. The Ministry of External Affairs has mounted enormous pressure on the Government through opinion-makers, saying any reversal of India’s attitude towards Pakistan at this state would strengthen pro-Taliban elements. The survival of many think-tanks, managed and run by former diplomats and academics operating from India and abroad, depends on Indo-Pak relations. Some are upset with the revival of a pending demand for Pakistan to hand over 25 terrorists, including Dawood Ibrahim. Salman Bashir, Pakistan’s foreign secretary, took advantage of this rift, stating undiplomatically that “I only see them (statements) as symptomatic of trends and tendencies within Indian establishment and their armed forces to subvert the agenda of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. I don’t think Indian leadership would really subscribe to this”. On the same day , General Kayani issued a veiled threat to India. With Pakistan refusing to yield and the US asking India not to compare 26/11 with 9/11, Manmohan’s grand dream of peace with Pakistan could be in jeopardy.

Manmohan takes it easy for now

If Congress leaders and top civil servants are to be believed, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has drastically cut down on public appointments. He is also avoiding political meetings. As against over a dozen appointments a day, he is now accepting less than half-a-dozen meetings and so-called courtesy calls. Many chief ministers have called off their New Delhi visits since they weren’t sure of getting an appointment with the PM. He is particularly avoiding meeting corporate leaders and even some of his own party leaders. Manmohan, however, continues to hold weekly Cabinet meetings and important Cabinet committee meetings as well. Manmohan watchers feel he is catching his breath so he can deliver a powerful punch later in May.

Telecom scam politicking thickens

Though a divided BJP took Murli Manohar Joshi’s 2G scam report to the people, no one has a clue to its ultimate fate. Will Speaker Meira Kumar forward it to the Government? Or will she turn it down over the letter written to her by 11 of the 21 members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) rejecting Joshi’s findings? Meira won’t say. Is she waiting to discuss the matter with all parties before taking a decision? Insiders say the findings may be referred back to the PAC for a final decision. Since the report has been neither accepted nor rejected formally, the Speaker is within her rights to ask the committee chairman to take all into confidence once again. Since the UPA now has a clear majority in the reconstituted PAC, the Congress may not be averse to the idea of discussing and demolishing the Joshi report and save the PM from embarrassment. The Congress, however, is keenly watching the growing rift between the Parliamentary and organisational wing of the BJP over the 2G scam. No Opposition leader attended the first public meeting in favour of Joshi’s report organised by the Delhi unit of the party. BJP President Nitin Gadkari, Joshi and former Union minister Yashwant Sinha, who was also one of the BJP members of the PAC, addressed the meeting. Neither Joshi nor Sinha is given prominence in the party’s parliamentary affairs. Though the decision to take the issue to the people was taken at L K Advani’s home, it was left to the party chief to decide the names of the speakers and mode of agitation. Is the BJP trying to recast its image as a constructive yet accommodating opposition party?

More power to VIP security

The Government has decided to eliminate all bureaucratic roadblocks when it comes to the protection of national leaders. The exercise, obviously, has begun from the Special Protection Group, responsible for the security of the prime minister and his family, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Recently, the Government decided to extend the financial powers of a secretary to the director, SPG, who holds the rank of only special secretary. Bharat Vir Wanchoo, a 1976-batch IPS officer from West Bengal, will now have the power to clear projects, equipment and other requirements up to a limit of Rs 25 crore—Rs 5 crore more than a GOI secretary’s sanctioning powers. Wanchoo will enjoy this privilege as long he heads the elite force. A confidant of the Gandhi Parivar, he superseded five senior IPS officers to be appointed the SPG director after the UPA won in 2009.

Snippets / Mail Today, November 29, 2010

Cong looks to star power to end southern discomfort

IF you can't beat them, at least join hands seems to be the new AICC motto, at least as far as two southern states are concerned. In Andhra, the Congress is in the midst of a fratricidal war and despite installing a new, young chief minister, it is trying to get all the help it can from anyone who is willing to help to stay afloat.

In Tamil nadu, its alliance with the DMK is uneasy at best and a search for a new partner will do no harm, senior leaders feel. In both states where filmdom dominates every sphere of public life, the Congress’s new game plan is to rope in political parties which are headed by cinema stars. With assembly elections due in Tamil Nadu next year, the party has now set its eyes on Vijayakant.

Efforts are now on from one section of the Tamil Nadu Congress to bring Vijayakant closer to 10 Janpath. Soon after the winter session of Parliament is over, there are plans to bring Vijayakant over to New Delhi to meet Sonia and Rahul Gandhi. The party has for sometime been actively wooing the Prajarajyam Chief and Telugu superstar Chiranjeevi and the AICC is encouraged by the response after a twohour meeting that Ahmed patel and Veerappa Moily had with the actor recently.

Obviously, Vijayakant has been acting pricey, because this is the fifth meeting that the Congress duo had with him in recent months.

Is the overt courting of the film star an indication that the Congress has decided to get rid of the baggage that is the DMK, particularly in the light of the 2G scam that has cost the party dearly? Vijayakant floated his party, the DMDK on the eve of the last assembly elections. It did not do as spectacularly as the film star expected but nevertheless with a 10 per cent vote share, has the potential to tilt the scales. Vijayakant recently said that his party was open to alliance with anyone except the DMK. Already, the AIADMK is actively wooing him. Having spurned the AIADMK’s offer of support, the Congress is also now actively wooing the actor. We will wait and see who gets the prize catch?

BJP must not undermine CMs in spite of Bihar result

I CAN understand Nitish Kumar wanting to flaunt his secular credentials by keeping all BJP chief ministers out of the campaign for the recent assembly elections. But I was surprised that none of them was invited for the swearing in of the first ever NDA government in a state to be reelected.
The BJP’s state icons such as Narendra Modi, P. K. Dhumal, Raman Singh, Shivraj Singh Chauhan, B. S. Yeddyurappa and Ramesh Pokhriyal were all conspicuous by their absence last Friday when Nitish and his deputy, the BJP’s Sushil Modi took oath of office in Patna.

This is a departure from the past when all BJP chief ministers made it a point to be present when one of their own was taking office. Instead, the spotlight this time was, deservedly so on Nitish, and quite undeservedly, on the handful of central leaders from 11 Ashoka Road though their contribution to Nitish’s victory can be a point of debate. L. K. Advani, Nitin Gadkari, Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley and a handful of lesser leaders were all there. So is the new line- up making a pitch for a “ secular” BJP in the light of the fact that even Muslims who otherwise keep an arm’s length from the party chose to vote in large numbers for the NDA. One school of thought within the BJP has it that this is the party of the future. As the leader of the NDA, it could attract many regional parties into its fold, as was the case during the Vajpayee regime. Many allies of that period have since found better sanctuary elsewhere, leaving the BJP a bit out in the cold, but Bihar has shown that there is still hope.

The next round of elections will show whether this is a sound strategy. My own hunch is that the Bihar experiment cannot be replicated elsewhere and in the next Lok Sabha elections, the party will have to fall back on its tried and tested leaders in the states to deliver the numbers.

THE political turmoil in our neighbourhood is taking its toll on the establishment at home. Going by the diplomatic buzz, the abject failure of our mission in Kathmandu is triggering off a major reshuffle in the Foreign Office and many missions in strategically important capitals around the world such as Moscow, Tokyo, Tehran and Kathmandu will soon have new ambassadors. I understand that Rakesh Sood, an otherwise brilliant officer who has had a rather ineffective tenure in the Nepalese capital is being recalled for posting as one of the Secretaries in the ministry of external affairs.

He is likely to be replaced by Jayant Prasad, additional secretary at HQ. P. S. Raghavan, a Joint Secretary in the PMO during the Vajpayee regime will most likely be on his way soon as envoy to Moscow. The most significant of the many changes will be that of Alok Prasad, the former ambassador to Sri Lanka and current deputy national security adviser who was widely tipped to succeed Nirupama Rao as the next foreign secretary. His hopes were dashed once when last month the government gave Nirupama a seven- month extension. It now appears that Alok will be sent as envoy to Tokyo. In that case, a dark horse will emerge for the top foreign office job, or Nirupama will get yet another extension. That will be no surprise because, in the current dispensation, no Malayalee has ever retired or not got a sinecure.