Add this

Friday 25 February 2022

INDIAN DIPLOMACY AND THE TACT OF THE MATTER

    To keep the synapses in my rapidly deteriorating brain functioning I always ask myself a trick question every week, and attempt to answer it the next week. The question for this week is: is it possible for somebody to be thick skinned and thin skinned at the same time ? If you're the type who thinks logically, your answer would naturally be: No. And you would, dear reader, be wrong, for logic is a lost art in New India.

   Consider our double engine government (both engines are, naturally, from Gujarat, since the one from Uttar Pradesh has been shoved into a railway siding). This government has the hide of a double-horned rhinoceros when it comes to criticism from within the country, and lets it pass by like the idle wind, swatting the occasional carping caviller with an F.I.R. (First Information Report) or two. But when it comes to criticism from abroad its skin is like gossamer, quivering with a carpet of ganglions, ready to take offence even at a hash tag and unleashing its dogs of war in instant retaliation. Its choice of pit-bull is the hapless Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), as suited for the job as a poodle is for the role of a guard-dog. And it does not help that the Ministry lacks a sense of humour, its spokespersons as animated as  marionettes on an off day.

   In just the last year or so the MEA has unleashed a fusillade of IEDs (Idiotic Explosive Demarches) at, among others, Rihanna, Greta Thunberg, Martina Navratilova, Freedom House, V-Dem Institute, Open Doors World Watch List, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Rashad Hussain who is the Presidential Advisor to Joe Biden, at least two UN Commissions and rapporteurs on Human Rights and Press Freedom, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. These organisations had disapproved of the rising majoritarianism, attacks on minorities and curbing of the press. None of these, of course, concern the MEA directly but it was roped in nonetheless to defend our slighted honour. And it does so in banal, meaningless cliches and jaded platitudes which shows its heart is not in it- for example: that the criticism is based on ignorance of our Constitution, that the matter is sub judice, that India is the world's largest democracy, that our institutions are robust and healthy, and so on. It's time the MEA at least hired some script writers to come up with more imaginative demarches and ripostes- raise a smile at least, if not a nod of approval.

   The Ministry can study, for example, the response last week of  Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry , to constant American claims that Russia was ready to attack Ukraine at anytime. It is worth reproducing it in full with the hope that some mandarin in South Block will read it in his spare time:

" I'd like to request US and British media outlets to publish the schedule for our upcoming invasions for the year. I'd like to plan my vacation."

The sarcasm is brilliant and the message more piercing than a stiletto, without any blood being shed. Tongue-in-cheek is always more effective than head-in-sand. For, as Churchill said: " Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to Hell in such a way that they ask for directions."

  This Russian template could have been profitably applied to respond to the criticism of our Parliamentarians and their criminal records by the Singapore Prime Minister recently. MEA's response was the standard default one of "uncalled for", "internal affairs of the country" and the meaningless summoning of the Singapore Ambassador for a cup of coffee paid for by you and me. The culprit was not far off the mark, mind you. What he had said was  that almost half of India's MPs had criminal cases, which is borne out by the ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms) data base which says it is 43% or thereabouts. So, what was MEA crying hoarse about, in this globalised era of 24X7 news? Based on Ms Zakharova's  template, maybe a response along the following lines would have stood us in better stead:

" The Govt. of India has noted with amusement the statement of the PM of Singapore and would like to invite His Excellency to Nagpur to study our culture. Criminals in our Parliament are proof of our tolerance, respect for all life (even low- life) and our compassionate justice system. Having seen both sides of the legal divide, their contribution to law making is immense. To ensure the safety of our citizens the state even provides security to murderers and rapists: there can be no bigger testament to our egalitarian values. Deeply influenced by the teachings of the Buddha, Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi (peace be upon his assassin) we hate the crime, not the criminal. We ardently believe that every judge has a past and every criminal has a future- if it be in Parliament, so be it. Our Election Commission (now renamed the Election Omission of India as it has been on leave since 2014 ) does not distinguish between law makers and law breakers since equality is the bedrock of our Constitution, and we are still a few years away from dispensing with this hallowed document."

   Actually, the MEA and its spokespersons have an unenviable and difficult job to do. Defending the indefensible is never easy. A country's foreign policy cannot be separated from what is going on within the country itself, and the first principle of foreign policy has to be good governance at home. As Hubert Humphrey said: "Foreign policy is really domestic policy with its hat on." We appear to be constantly defensive on the global front these days, rejecting international rankings, railing at reputed media outlets, repeating the "internal matters" trope ad nauseam. But none of this is cutting any ice and we are living on our past capital, which is dwindling at the same speed as this government's credibility. This could prove disastrous over time for our global standing. We would do well to remember the words of John F Kennedy: "Domestic policy can only defeat us; Foreign policy can kill us." Like it did those twenty soldiers in Galwan last year.

   The choice before the MEA, therefore, is clear: grow a thicker skin or develop a sense of humour. When you tell someone to go to Hell, do it in a manner that he looks forward to it. If you can't do that then join the U.P. police.
















21 comments:

  1. To quote from Mr. Shukla's own blog, "the sarcasm is brilliant and the message more piercing than a stiletto." Bravo, Avayji!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Absolutely brilliant! I trust you are sending copies to the PMO with copies to the bodies at the MEA...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Please send to Jaishankar. I am told he has a funny bone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is somewhere behind his very seriously trimmed/ clipped beard.Perhaps.

      Delete
  4. Wearing two skins and making the impossible possible, combining enviable humour with a laser sharp caustic twist is finesse... And this piece is one of the best

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just askin' (in the spirit of the time - elections - and everyone's asking questions etc etc) so er, what would happen if Mr Mody were to lose in 2024?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Physician’s prescription made easy.No further diagnosis required.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Desis in general and babus in particular lack a sense of humour. You may be asking for the impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Brilliant!
    And to counter Enkay's comment - We have a babu (Avay) who most certainly has a sense of humour. Oodles of it!
    Instead of the MEA spokespersons trying to cover their mouth and their arse at the same time, the better option would be to let 56" lose and have him go around once again hugging all the folk he had cringing the last time around!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Humour has eluded us with a barge pole from 2014. Regardless of the skin we drape, we find ourselves exposed to the bone. That we manage in these majoritarian times despite genocidal calls, is survival by the skin of our teeth.
    There is also a "skinless" existence as seen in our posturing towards the Ukraine crisis.
    In these times of vapid diplomacy and paucity of humour, I am reminded of the one and only Navjot Sidhu, who is into the election of his life. And he says, as I quote him,
    "A hair on the head is worth two in the brush!"
    A single humorous comment is more effective than a lengthy speech. If the Prime Minister were to embrace it more than hugging his foreign counterparts, our foreign policy may not change course, but may become more acceptable, I muse.
    Could we have unleashed a Shashi Tharoor upon Geeta Thumberg, Rihanna, Disha Ravi and the rest? Perhaps he had the right toolkit with him to diffuse the situation to a global laugh riot. Or even a Navjot Sidhu! So what if they are the opposition - Nehru had them in his cabinet to run the country.
    We the commoners also have skins thinner than the contraceptive advertised during cricket matches, I have noted. Remember how in 2014, Maria Sharapova was trolled by over a million Indians for expressing blunt ignorance of one Sachin Tendulkar…?
    The famous television host David Frost has commented, "Diplomacy is the art of letting the other person have your way"!
    I am sure Jaishankar has heard it.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P S. A magnificent blog by Avay Shukla....scathes and whips the thickest skin to the bone!!

      Delete
  10. I recall an incident way back in my young days, when Mr. T.T. Krihnamachari, who was the then Finance Minister, reacting to a criticism from Mr. Feroz Gandhi, who was a M.P., described him as the Prime Minister's lap dog. The next day, it is said, Mr. Gandhi approached Mr. Krihnamachari and asked him if it was true. Upon hearing an affirmative reply, Mr. Gandhi went on to ask Mr. Krihnamacari if he did consider himself to be a pillar of the state. Upon being told that that too was true, Mr. Gandhi told him "I really wish I were a dog, because I would have done to you now, what a dog generally does to a pillar". Laughter ensued among those present, but no blood was shed, and no friendships were ever lost.

    Whatever happened to the civility and sense of camaraderie that once existed? Today, God forbid, if such an exchange were to take place, the person would be at once arrested under one of the draconian laws, for 'hurting the religious sentiments' of the other person.

    We have come a long way, but I wish more often than before, that we went back to where we were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thoroughly illuminating Mr.Zafar Shariff, and a classic instance of a dificult situation diffused by humour!
      Judging from the names - both of renown - you are taking us back by 6 decades at least!
      It will be a pleasure to make your acquaintance and learn more of that era which we only read of now and draw conclusions.
      I do not find your email in the blogger's introduction; if you would add it or share it here, we will be the richer from picking your brains!
      It was a pleasure reading your comment Sir.

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much Sir, for having expressed yourself so kindly about me. I have added mt email address as requested by you. In case I haven't done it correctly, my email address is zhshariff@gmail.com. I will enjoy hearing from you.

      Delete
  11. Very well written. Humour is indeed an important and a sophisticated skill for self defense and attack.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Brilliantly written, as usual. Mr. Shukla is at his humorous best. May his tribe increase!

    ReplyDelete
  13. A flood! An excellent article with a dash of our own Capsico, followed by comments which made as good reading. Perhaps, civility and decency still retain a chance to survive.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A brilliant article, with a few drops of Capsico added. Followed by almost equally excellent comments. Perhaps, decency and a sense of humour retain a chance to survive.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Trick Answer: As Face is made up mainly of skin,a double face would naturally have two skins.

    ReplyDelete