Gateway 080211.pmd - Rotary Club of Bombay

Diplomacy had played a key role in preventing furtherattacks after 26/11, claims Shashi Tharoor(Continued from Page 2)Returning to the theme that he hadset out with, that is, the security andprosperity of its people, Mr. Tharoorsaid India’s biggest external menaceremained the export of terrorism froma neighbouring country.In the aftermath of the horrificevents of 26/11, he said, the governmenthad been wise in not heedingimpetuous calls for some kind of retaliatorystrike on Pakistan. Thatwould at best have destroyed a fewtraining camps which would havebeen reassembled in a matter ofweeks. But it would have had a farmore calamitous impact on the Indianeconomy.“Investors don’t want to come intoa war zone. And we, as I said earlier,should be far more concerned aboutour economic well-being than aboutthe momentary gratification of hittingan elusive target in a neighbouringcountry.”On the other hand, India had shownits diplomatic resolve by turning onthe heat by all available means,whether at the UN, in its sanctionscommittee and its counter-terrorismcommittee, or through bilateral relationswith Pakistan’s biggest ally, theUnited States. India had, indeed,turned the heat on Pakistan.There had been no attack since 26/11, save the blasts at the German bakeryin Pune which appeared to be aone-off thing not planned on the scaleof 26/11. Thus, diplomacy had playeda key role in preventing further attacksby making it clear that the price forPakistan of condoning or permittingsuch attacks would be an extremelyhigh one to pay internationally.Mr. Tharoor said India’s “toughneighbourhood” appeared more reasonablethan it had been a few yearsago. Sri Lanka, which had been in thethroes of bitter strife, had seen theend of its civil war. Bangladesh, whichwas faced with a military coup, hadhad a democratic election, the returnof the army to its barracks and theinstallation of a government sympatheticto India.In the Maldives, where an unpopularPresident had jailed his opponent,a free election had seen thejailed person being sworn in as President.Nepal was confronted with aMaoist insurrection, but things hadcooled down. Although it was not yetstrife-free, there had been no revivalof violence and India was playing anactive role in trying to ensure a seamlesstransition to full-fledged normalcy,with the Maoists accommodatedwithin the political structure.To the north, Afghanistan had seenanother election, albeit a contestedone, but it seemed that the developmentworks India had done there hadnot gone unappreciated.“Our only problem remains withPakistan and that’s an indefinite problem.Our foreign policy will have totake this fundamental reality into account,that there are at best going to bespasms of uneasy peace between us –a cold peace; it’s never going to beparticularly pleasant because we haveone fundamental conundrum, the differencebetween our two societies.“In India, the state has an army, inPakistan, the army has a state. Andthe army in Pakistan commands agreater share of national resourcesthan any army. They expend a largerpercentage of the country’s GDP thanany army in the world. You don’tjoin the army in Pakistan to defendthe country, you join it to run thecountry.“Not only has the army controlledthe government for 32 out of 63 yearssince independence, but during theremaining 31 years it has been pullingthe strings, drawing the red lines,telling the civilian governments howfar they can or cannot go. Not onecivilian government in the history ofPakistan has completed a term of officebecause the military has alwaysstepped in to take back the reins ofpower.”Mr. Tharoor pointed out that Pakistanisociety was run by the militarywhich was so comfortably ensconcedthat it was unlikely to everdesire peace or normal relations withIndia – unless that country’s societychanged so fundamentally that itsmilitary was firmly put in place.But that was a pipedream. Electedgovernments lived in constant fear ofthe army which always got its way.The best India could hope for was acold peace, something it would be ableto manage with its diplomatic skills.Turning to China, Mr. Tharoor saidthe media often propagated worryingstories about developments on theborder, China’s claims on ArunachalPradesh and the bellicose statementsmade by the Chinese.India had a long, unresolved borderdispute which could have beensettled under Deng Xiao-Ping, but thethen Indian leadership was not confidentthat it would be able to sell thesettlement to the people. Today’sleadership was prepared to settle thedispute, but China did not appear tobe keen. Perhaps it wanted to retainit as an issue with which to occasionallyharangue India.The “incidents” highlighted by themedia were not really serious. Chinacontinued to maintain its claims toArunachal Pradesh, but India hadstood its ground. It had conductedelections in Arunachal Pradesh; thePrime Minister had visited and campaignedin the State; and the DalaiLama, despite dire Chinese warnings,had also gone there. India had stoodfirm, without being too belligerent,about its sovereign rights over its territory.That was not going to change.In the meanwhile, said Dr. Tharoor,trade had grown to $51 billion in thelast financial year and could touch $60billion this year. Although the balanceof trade was overwhelmingly in China’sfavour, India was pushing away at thenon-tariff barriers that made it difficultfor Indians and Indian companiesto access Chinese markets.Many Chinese companies werebidding for power, construction andother projects in India. There were7,000 Indian students in China andtheir number was growing. The annualpilgrimage to Kailash andMansarovar in China was a success.What was lacking was a steady flowinto India of Chinese tourists whowere doing wonders for the economiesof Thailand and Singapore.“I think we must encourage moreChinese investments in India, becausethe higher the stake that China has inthe success of the Indian economy,the less likely it is that somebody inBeijing will say or do things that willdisrupt the growth or success of oureconomy.“So, I come back to the economy...India has become a force to reckonwith in the world. There are not toomany countries which have receivedofficial visits from the Presidents orPrime Ministers of all five permanentmembers of the UN SecurityCouncil in one calendar year, as wedid last year. That attention, that respect,is going to ensure that we continueto make the kind of impact thatwe are capable of making in the world.“The India that I believe in and Iam proud to have come back to serve,is an India that should be unafraid ofthe prowess or the products of theoutside world; that is confident aboutits place in the world and about itsneed to liberate the creative energiesof its own people; to give them opportunitiesto advance, to build decentlives for themselves, and at thesame time to set an example in ourneighbourhood and elsewhere for thesuccessful, democratic managementof diversity which is something thatI believe we are doing effectively,”Mr. Tharoor concluded.Answering questions, he told PPArvind Jolly that the rebellious developmentsin Tunisia and Egypt werethe result of authoritarian rule compoundedby economic failure. This wasa virus that bore ominous portents forall countries, especially in the Arabworld where “sclerotic regimes” hadrefused to change for several decadesand which had failed to maintain theirconcord with the people.Other countries that could facesimilar problems were Yemen,Libya, Jordan and Sudan (where thesouth had already voted overwhelminglyin a referendum to part fromthe North).Mr. Tharoor said the fears expressedby the West about the existingArab regimes being supplanted byIslamist extremists were unfounded.The “voices of the opposition”emerging in Egypt (in the shape ofElBaradei) and Tunisia were as moderateas the Islamist parties rulingTurkey.He also answered questions posedby Shailesh Haribhakti, Dr. ShaileshRaina, Dr. Aashish Contractor, PDGManibhai Doshi, Prof. Rohini Chowgule,two Rotaractors and two VisitingRotarians.Mr. Tharoor assailed as a shameful,craven act the episode of 1999when India released terrorists in orderto save the hostages hijacked toKandahar in Afghanistan.What got his goat was the factthat the then Foreign Minister hadgone on the flight that carried thereleased terrorists to (and whichbrought back the hostages from)Afghanistan. He decried the middleclass “vote bank” politics behind thedecision to release the terrorists tosave the hostages.He lauded the act of the Indiangovernment in sending troops to helpput down an attempted coup in theMaldives in 1995. The then President(who had been ousted recently)was a reliable friend of India. Withinhours, India flew in paratroopers whoattacked the coup leaders, took overthe country and handed it back to thelegitimate authorities.(Continued on Page 7)February 8 to February 14, 2011 THE GATEWAY, The Bulletin of the Rotary Club of Bombay Page 6