Mubarak to Morsi,little has changed

There was some hope that, with a new regime coming to power in Cairo, bilateral ties between India and Egypt would improve. But a recent visit of the Egyptian presidential delegation has proved that the glorious Nehru-Nasser era is over.

In 1975, when Hosni Mubarak was appointed as the Vice President of Egypt, no one expected that he would be an epoch-maker. But the assassination of President Anwar Sadat catapulted him to the helm in Egypt, and a new chapter of history was in the making.

Mr Mubarak served as President for the next 30 years years, until the status quo-defying ‘Arab Spring’ forced him out of office. In February 2011, he was stripped of all his power, but that does not in any way take away from the fact that Mr Mubarak will remain Egypt’s longest-serving ruler since Muhammad Ali Pasha.

In recent years, the changes imposed upon emerging economies through greater global economic integration have resulted in the development of a new consciousness among its citizens. Structural and social contradictions propelled tensions between the people’s rising aspirations and the Government’s failure to provide good governance.

The Arab Spring was essentially instigated by popular dissatisfaction with the Government while the lack of equity in income distribution may have been the other reason. Anyhow, when Egypt’s dictatorial regime fell, there was hope for a better future. That is the better part of the story.

As the movement for regime change in Egypt was essentially driven by a middle-class desperate for growth and development, it should have come as no surprise that Mr Mubarak’s successor Mohamed Morsi is an accomplished professional focussed on reviving the economy. It is in this context that Egypt’s relations with India must been seen.

After decades of being low-key, India-Egypt diplomatic and trade relations have now witnessed some degrees of improvement. However, it would be incorrect to term these recent developments as a ‘breakthrough’, as the recent visit of an Egyptian trade delegation led by President Morsi himself proves.

First, Mr Morsi’s India visit came as a follow-up to his Pakistan trip. Second, the Memorandum of Understan- dings signed during a joint meeting of the Indian Industrial Chambers were largely insignificant. Finally, nothing conclusive came out in India’s favour in the realm of diplomatic engagements even.

Against this backdrop, one can safely say that Egypt’s new regime doesn’t have a foreign policy that would distinguish itself from the one followed by its predecessor. There used to be a time when alongside Mahatma Gandhi, the Egyptian revolutionary leader Saad Zaghloul also shared the common goal of overthrowing colonial rule in their respective countries.
In later years, Egypt and India solidified their relationship through the Non-Aligned Movement essentially built on the co-operation between Nehru and Nasser.

In fact, through the crucial decades of the 1950s and the 1960s, Nehru offered Egypt India’s unrelenting support. It is no secret that during the Israel-Arab war, India was among the few nations which encouraged President Anwar Sadat to visit Jerusalam and sign a peace treaty with Israel. It is this treaty between the largest Arab country in the world and Israel that till dates holds the key to peace in West Asia.

But the fundamentals of the India-Egypt relation have changed with time. Moreover, by the time Mr Mubarak came to power, Egypt had already lost much of its liberal character. Of course, Mr Mubarak did his best to keep the Islamists on a tight leash, but after his ouster, the Muslim Brotherhood has come all out and captured political space in Egypt. Today, along with its Salafi allies, the Brothers rule from Cairo.

In India too, the situation did not remain stagnant. Nehru viewed the Cold War as yet another round of Western imperialism, wherein the rest of the world was expected to pick any one superpower and stick to it. But, Nehru’s non-alignment logic failed when he chose to join the Commonwealth of Nations.

In fact, the basic purpose of the Non-Aligned Movement was compromised at this time by none other than Nehru himself. Consequently, as the era of moralism in international relations passed, and realism knocked on many fronts, NAM quickly lost its way and along with it India and Egypt drifted apart as well.

As mentioned earlier, the relationship between India and Egypt has not changed drastically even though it has been many months now that Mr Morsi’s new regime has taken over in Cairo. Of course, this could quite possibly be because of the many dire challenges that the President faces at home. Indeed, Egypt is yet to recover from the impact of the Arab Spring and it remains to be seen if revolutionaries can deliver on their promises.

Mr Morsi especially will have to work hard to respond to the aspirations of his people. At a different time in history, India may have actively participated in Egypt’s development processes but given that there has been no visible warming up in bilateral ties, New Delhi will most probably just watch the developments from a distance.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer,on April08,2013)

Frindship is a two-way street

Both India and Nepal have faltered in strengthening their historical ties in recent years. But now, as Kathmandu struggles towards democracy, New Delhi must be a more understanding and supportive neighbour
As the political transition in Nepal progresses, the country’s political institutions have become a hub of sorts for intermingled ideas. These ideas are neither being shaped nor developed constructively to end the political impasse that has plagued Nepal’s journey to democracy. Consequently, key challenges such as drafting the Constitution, delineating the nature of Nepali federalism and more recently, accepting a national unity Government before general election next summer, still remain. It is against this backdrop that President Ram Baran Yadav’s recently concluded trip to India must be viewed. In fact, many were a bit surprised that Mr Yadav made this visit when his country was at such a critical juncture. After all, the President is the sole stable authority in Nepal today.

Mr Yadav’s official visit to India took him to Banaras Hindu University, where he was conferred an honorary DPhil, but his time in New Delhi was also quite hectic as he met with leaders of the ruling and Opposition parties, besides inviting his Indian counterpart to Kathmandu. At a time of receding trust in India’s role in Nepal, President Yadav’s India visit holds strategic value that can lead to greater cooperation between these formidable allies. The beginning of this new dialogue will hopefully infuse dynamism in the India-Nepal diplomatic engagement and economic partnership.

Hailing from the Madhesh region of Janakpur in Nepal, Kolkata-educated President Yadav is well-connected in India. His understanding of India-Nepal relations is better than that of the average Nepali politician. Even though President Yadav doesn’t have the charisma of someone like Girija Prasad Koirala, as a long-practicising doctor, he knows how to treat maladies well. It is an ability that is sadly lacking in many leaders who have been entrusted with handling India-Nepal affairs.

For instance, even Indian representatives and officials who are otherwise sensitive and responsive towards Nepal, try to run down their counterparts in Kathmandu during diplomatic visits. This makes India, a less dear ally. Also, Nepal has never really received the kind of attention it deserves from India’s Tier-I leadership, even though it is one of New Delhi’s important neighbours. This is an unwavering trend that has continued since the period of Jawaharlal Nehru.

It is time that India brings to its relationship with Nepal more in action, rather than friendly mannerisms alone. This is the need of the hour, especially if New Delhi wishes to keep at bay Nepal’s India-baiters. The first generation of Nepali leaders had also fought for India’s independence and they shared with their Indian counterparts a desire for democracy. Leaders like BP Koirala, MP Koirala, Manmohan Adhikari, Ganesh Man Singh and others had also dealt with the politics of two countries, and this was possible only because they had leveraged the power of people-to-people relations between India and Nepal.

In New Delhi, President Yadav’s presence at the Mahendra Malangia Natya Mahotasav (organised by the Maithili Lok Rang), which saw the participation of a number of reputed artists from India and Nepal including leading Maithili thespian Ramesh Ranjan Jha and his Mithila Natyakala Parishad, was a reminder of the golden moments that India and Nepal once shared in the cultural-political field. In fact, it is events such as these that really have the potential to boost bilateral ties.

Listening to the voices of aggrieved Nepali youth (mostly because of their ignorant biases) at a New Delhi conference, organised by the Nepal-Bharat Sahyog Manch a few weeks back, however, offered an altogether different experience. A blunt question put to one of India’s seniormost diplomats at that conference by a young Nepali continues to haunt the mind for it also represents the mindset of a reactionary section in Nepal. The youth had asked why Nepal should give priority to India, and not favour China instead.

Such wild ideas are causing the current mess in Nepal. In this case, for example, it is amply clear that China will not think twice before disrupting Nepal’s close relationship with India, but still there are talks about China taking over India’s place in Nepal.

There is, of course, no doubt that Nepal will overcome its political hurdles in its own time, especially if its leaders and its people were to exude more confidence in democratic values. Since the massacre of 2001, the royal family of Nepal first became a nefarious and later a ghostly object. Now, it is no longer in a position to offer itself as a system of alternative governance. Still, while the physical end of the monarchy was painful, the collapse of the idea of the monarchy is a healthy development for Nepal’s democratic aspiration. Still, unless the duplicity of political leaders is brought under control, change as desired will not happen.

Ideologically, the radical Maoist movement in Nepal is impure and reflects the personal cynicism of its leadership. Next to the ideological line, these leaders have been nurturing their political ambitions by pumping up a ‘sovereignty phobia’ which naturally leads to anti-India sentiment in Nepal. The Maoists are a divided entity now, and those who sit outside the power circle are trying to carve a niche for themselves. They hope that the anti-India demonstration will give them the leverage to do so.

Over the last one and a half decades, China has made various efforts to proliferate a certain version of communism inside Nepal. Sect and sub-sects of Maoist ideology have marred Nepal’s development on all fronts. Nepal has a lot to deliver with its untapped natural and human resources; here, the political leadership of Nepal has a pivotal role to play. It must decide on how it will move collectively on the bigger issues of foreign policy and trade negotiation and how it will rid Nepal of the ‘underdog’ tag that has prevented the country from embarking on a regular course of development. President Yadav too must remind the political elite in Nepal of all its unkept promises to him and the country.
Atul K Thakur
(Published in The Pioneer, 31 December2012)

The Soft Power Status!

Book Review: Non-fiction/Pax Indica by Shashi Tharoor, Penguin/Allen Lane, 449 pp; Rs799 (Hardback)
Shashi Tharoor’s Pax Indica is formally written with the three different angels of a career diplomat, an articulate writer and finally a politician, who entered the political fray through the Lok Sabha, despite serving in alien foreign lands for over three decades. Rich in details and with Tharoor’s natural mastership on international affairs, this book inquisite India’s position in the new world order, where it gives the balanced picture of established and newly found strengths and weaknesses that finally shapes the design of India’s foreign policy. The richness of this book lies in the insights and information it exudes for the readers about the nature of Indian diplomacy and its institutional establishments.

Pax Indica, as the name suggests confirms India as a super soft power, which only has to work more meticulously with ‘grand strategy’ to make its presence felt on the world stage. The rational execution of ‘grand strategy’ will be needed a thorough synergizing exercise in the Indian foreign policy; international relationships that have been remain a cornstone needs to be reviewed now. At some front, India must think to amend its outdated policies-certainly the ‘non-alignment’ is one of those core issues, where India should act in favour of its interest, instead only responding for moralistic baggage.

In present global strategic scenario, ‘multi-alignment’ would be in favour of India, both as an individual nation and leader of the developing nations, where its leadership has all acceptance and prominence. Aptly quoted in the beginning of the book from Nehru’s ‘Tryst with destiny’ speech that ‘Those dreams are for India, but they are also for the world’ justifies India’s broad stake in the global policy making. The fundamental facts support India to rise up to the high rank, it deserves-since the first Asian Relations Conference in Delhi, India presented its ethical aspirations to the world as a young patient nation but with a strong civilisational history.

Tharoor’s idea behind the Pax Indica is progressively constituted and doesn’t support the ‘idea of global or regional domination along the lines of a Pax Romana or a Pax Britannica but a ‘Pax’ for the twenty-first century, a peace system which will help promote and maintain a period of cooperative coexistence in its region and across the world’. Atleast notionally, India has been maintaining its independent standing in international relations and there is no reason, why it should not continue its conventional stand with spontaneous adaptability to the changes.

Remarkably, some key historical developments since1947, which are important for knowing the basics of India’s foreign policy have generously covered by the author in course of finding the new vision for future. A famous quote of Tharoor, used in the jacket of this book as well perfectly sums up the diplomatic process of India as: ‘Indian diplomacy is like the love-making of an elephant: it is conducted at a very high level, accompanied by much bellowing, and the results are not known for two years’. This way, India will never fulfill the global responsibilities, which its domestic transformations happened over the decades easily allow.

The point of view, even which is being formed in the collective imaginations that the many ‘non-issues’ like, better line and staff management inside the establishment is the need of hour and at any cost, those concern should not be surpassed now. India needs specialists and generalists to run its diplomatic corpses, not alone the tailor-made bureaucratic crowd will really usher it to the prominently crucial position in global policy making. What India also urgently need is the new way of looking on ‘near abroad’ or ‘distant abroad’-revisiting of policies, not maintaining the ‘status quo’ will be the true progressivism here.

Initiatives and reciprocations are very essential qualities that a growing power like India should always follow. In recent past, India has ceased to demonstrate both these qualities on crucial occasions-Nepal could be a case in sight, where the radicals have major reservations against India’s asymmetric diplomatic engagement with their country. It really surprises, why Indian mission in Kathmandu not push for more engaged diplomatic collaboration with New Delhi, when this inertia is causing grave strain in relations between hitherto two most friendly nations. In the same way, India should work with new strategy of engagements with the Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Sri lanka for promoting the peace and co-operation in south Asia.

Working on the obvious and going beyond the obvious-both should be the prime action in foreign policy agenda. Since 1991, world has changed with the end of cold war and collapse of alternative power block, USSR-in the meantime, India has chosen the market reform that finally has given to a mammoth impression in its side, so now is time to working with fresh approaches. Mr. Tharoor has focussed on some of the path-breaking issues, which normally ignored in mega-observations of self styled foreign policy experts. Writing from a political position and with so many new observations are not lesser than a brave job, which Shashi Tharoor has done it again, following his own track records with more than a dozen of books and numerous articles.

Not necessarily, change should be always taken as ‘unconventional’; especially a rising soft power like, India must be more receptive with the dynamicism of new global political order, which is working covertly though needs proactive response and on the real time basis. This book has written on time and its specific suggestions should appeal the ruling UPA government, as the reality checks pointed by Mr. Tharoor are easy to reckon. The idea of Pax Indica is not timid, despite it’s written by a full time politician, probably a ‘writer’s virtue’ has succeeded here!
Atul Kumar Thakur
October 20, 2012, Saturday
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kashmir Monitor,dated on October21,2012)

Diplomat in Conversation!

Diplomat in Conversation!
Mr. Sudhir T. Devare joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1964 and served in India’s Missions in Moscow, Washington and Yangon. While serving in the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations in Geneva, he was the alternate delegate to the Committee on Disarmament. He has also served as Consul General in Frankfurt, Germany and was India’s Ambassador to the Republic of Korea (1985-89), Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia (1992-94), and Indonesia (1994-98). From 1998 till his retirement from the I.F.S in June 2001, he was the Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi. As Secretary, he dealt with India’s bilateral as well as multilateral economic relations and was closely associated with the ‘Look-East’ policy and the evolving relations with the Asia-Pacific. He was the Leader of the Indian delegation at the senior official meetings of India-ASEAN Dialogue Partnership, ASEAN Regional Forum, BIMST-EC, Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation and others. He was a Member of the National Security Advisory Board of India in 2002-03. He was a Visiting Professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2002 and was the Vice-Chairman of the Research and Information System of Developing Countries (RIS), New Delhi. He has authored India and Southeast Asia: Towards Security Convergence (2006) by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, (ISEAS) Singapore and Capital Publishing Co. Delhi and A New Energy Frontier: the Bay of Bengal region published by ISEAS, Singapore (2008). He is currently the Director General of the Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA) New Delhi. Recently we had a long conversation at historic Sapru House on diverse issues related to the Indian foreign policy…edited excerpts are…

Q: - How do you see the change in dynamics of Indian foreign policy? Especially, in the context of our traditional allies in South East Asia, Arab and Central Asian countries?

A: - Indian foreign policy has undergone a consistent evolution since 1991; end of Cold war and subsequently, the collapse of U.S.S.R and emergence of new States besides India’s own liberalisation of economy left huge impact from the policy perspectives. Moreover, post 9/11, strategic consideration pushed India for greater collaboration with U.S against the international terrorism. For the first time, U.S acknowledged India’s long suffering from the terrorism; it was indeed remarkable from the strategic point of views. Besides, India still continuing strengthened co-operation with the likeminded nations, to enhance its security safeguard.

India maintains functionally smooth relations with all the countries, last year representatives of the all five Member nation of UN visited India…so the dyamicism has broadened our ties in foreign affairs. Post Cold war, a realization grew that India should give greater attention towards South East Asia, that popularly known as “Look East Policy”. Even in historical terms, South East Asian nations remained our close allies albeit the interruption of Cold war resulted in the kind of distance for twenty years. 1990’s saw good rapture; now our relations are excellent, both at the bilateral level with the nations of the region and through ASEAN. Free Trade Agreements {FTA} and close defence co-operation with the ASEAN nations are epitomes of our diplomatic stronghold in the region. My book, India and South Asia- towards Security Convergence, argues that India entered in comprehensive treaty that leading towards convergence. So things are going on good course though much has to be done ahead. ICWA is a steering organisation in India on ASEAN dialogue, since last year we took many initiatives in this regard and also hosted a meaningful Conference on India-ASEAN dialogue, which made positive impacts.

Central Asia has been a promising region in all the terms, our ties was on peak during Soviet Union era, though the collapse of U.S.S.R in 1991 necessitated to engage the each separated States individually. Connectivity is a big problem in this region, so we are facing limitation in our closeness. We have traditional presence in the Arab world, and that’s based on trust and fine engagements. India has consistently supported to Palestinian cause and its legitimate aspiration but we shall not interfere in their domestic affairs. Though, India is open for talking to these nations, if they feel such need.

Q: - Does India’s emergence as an economic/strategic power influencing its conventional relationship with the neighbouring countries?

A: - India’s capacity has considerably gone up in principally immediate neighbourhood. Around 70-80% of SAARC nations economies are influenced by the India, so significant happenings here leave substantial impact on neighbours. In terms of commercial/educational/service potential, India stands with a crucial position for its neighbours; so India must be taken into good light and its rise should be seen positively. Since India became a nation, it always forwarded its best support for neighbour’s prosperousness, though it’s worrisome that our trade volume is still much smaller with our neighbours in comparison of China. Here measures are immediately needed to broaden the trade relations in neighbourhood, and that must be started with the adequate investment in these countries; this will be helpful in forming the atmosphere of goodwill.

Q: - How India should approach on Nepal’s ongoing stalemate?

A: - India closely monitoring the ongoing political development in Nepal. We have genuine concern with our most trusted neighbour, so we always need a peaceful and stable Nepal. India supported Maoists in the mainstream politics and their consolidated efforts for Constitution making. As once again, Maoists are heading the coalition government under the premiership of Baburam Bhattarai, we are hoping positive time ahead in our relationship. India always has been and is open for help.

Q: - Should China be taken more diplomatically or India should rather compete it economically in Nepal and Pakistan?

A: - China’s action mustn’t endanger our legitimate bilateral security interest with both these countries…until the rubicon has not crossed; there is no need to hype such involvement.

Q: - What’s the official stand of India on Non Aligned Movement {NAM}? Strategically, should India retrieve its earlier closeness in ties with Russia?

A: - NAM remains a key cardinal principle of Indian foreign policy, but it needs not to be seen in blocks, as Cold war doesn’t exist now. It has historical importance, as the basic ideals of NAM reflect our consistent opposition to the colonial ironies. As a leading member and the world’s largest democracy, India will continue to sideline those anomalies for better equality on international platform. We will keep playing crucial role on the matters of importance at multilateral level negotiations…world need a voice, India offers that along with Brazil and entire participants of BRICKS. So, with a different shape, NAM remains relevant. As far as India-Russia relation is concerned, NAM plays practically no role; we have other intrinsic commonness in our outlook besides a very closely shared historical past that plays rather cornstone of our relations. Our collaboration in defence and science-technology is still touching high sphere, now with the enhanced capacity, India is equally crucial for Russia.

Q: - What should be the India’s next course of action in Srilanka, Myanmar and Bangladesh?

A: - After the end of LTTE's dissemination in Srilanka, there emerged some contentious issues, like the presence of large numbers of refugees created by long civil war in the country. India keeps pressing Srilankan authority for the welfare of Tamils. Economically, both nations are on fine course, yet India will be concerned for Tamils who have been badly affected by the parochial ideas of LTTE and consistent ignorance by the Srilankan authority. We have old links with Myanmar that reached in closest terms during our shared struggle against the colonialism…unfortunately democracy couldn’t sustain there for long and Military rule’s shaky treatment with Aung San Sui Ki created bad feelings. Though India kept engaging Myanmar government, they have recently introduced a formal democracy, following that, visit of our foreign minister and high level envoy Nirupma Rao and their meeting with Aung San Sui Ki shows a positive development. Myanmar’s connectivity with ASEAN is crucial for us. With Bangladesh, we are working closely and many outstanding issues are being resolved now. Bangladesh has shown great action in extraditing top ranked ULFA leaders; and moreover also showing goodwill in other directions as well. We have high regards for our bilateral relations and bond of sharing.

Q: - It’s quite intriguing to observe the mix reaction of Pakistani Air force following the end of military aid from U.S…will the China leverage Pakistani Army in same way as till recently U.S did? What would be its implications on India-U.S relations and India’s interest in Afghanistan and north-west frontier?

A: - Pakistan seems to remain a close partner for U.S, even U.S had reduced military aid to Pakistan but it will not affect their ties too much…it should be taken in long perspectives only. China is an all weather ally of Pakistan, so their level of co-operation can be easily anticipated. Ofcourse, Pak-U.S relations have implications for India and in the specified regions particularly, but for now, there is little possibility for big change in geo-strategic scenario.

Q: - Do you think, now time is conducive for India to pitch strongly a permanent in UN Security Council? Should India fix a balance between its traditional foreign policy with the newly strengthened alliances?

A: - India, overall regard its right to be in UN Permanent Council, as it has always subscribed the ideals of UN. So, India naturally deserves permanent membership. It will be our thirst in the days ahead…now; we are expecting all positive moves from both the U.S and China!

Q: - What’s your view on the India-U.S Civil nuclear deal? What’s true meaning of new twist on non waiver issues? Are we heading on the right path for our energy requirements…especially after FUKUSHIMA incident?

A: - It’s indeed a positive development and must be regarded as our diplomatic achievement that secured the recognition of matured Indian position on all nuclear questions all along. We have well guarded nuclear establishment, so shall be sanguine about the future.

Q: - How Arab uprising should be seen…as democratic upheavals against the west supported autocracy or series of revolt, generated by the local causes? What will be its impact on India, and the world at large?

A: - Unrest is localized and against the western domination to some extent. India is closely watching the scene, however welcome the mass aspirations for democracy. Some of the movements are less bloody; those could be listed in positive category.

Q: - India’s opportunity in Libya and Arab world?

A: - India has good relationship with the Arab world including of Libya, so has big stakes in peace making process inside these regions.

Q: - Will inclusion of India and Pakistan in Shanghai Cooperation Organisation {SCO} make any constructive development in bilateral ties?

A: - It seems ambiguous. SCO may not influence bilateral ties but sure will leave sound impact in the regions of Central Asia. So, overall it’s a welcome development. Only SCO meetings shall not be considered as end in bilateral ties.
Atul Kumar Thakur
August 29, 2011, Monday, New Delhi
Email: summertickets@gmail.com

Pablo Neruda and India

Pablo Neruda,Communist with ideas and a poet, diplomat and humanist by deeds was among the most profound voice of twentieth century-this great man from Chile have been always supported the cause of freedom and justice throughout his life and succeeded in unprecedented way in his prolific inter-cultural activities. In 1927, Neruda became the Chilean Counsel in Rangoon and spent next five years in the eastern countries that infused in him a concern for repressive colonialism in Indian Sub-continent; obviously as an ardent revolutionary, he stood with the Indian Freedom Movement and participated in A.I.C.C meeting in Kolkata {1928}. That was a chunk of gesture from him for Indian Freedom Movement albeit he did much more covertly for that historic struggle-his next visit almost took twenty two years later, when he arrived in India in 1950, the condition was entirely changed since it was now an independent nation.

Alas! Than the world politics was on the crest of lethal ideological encampment and being revolutionary were indeed used to possess a far reaching effect-so, circumstances in that phase, have compelled him to led an exiled life in Europe albeit that didn’t restrain him to be a leading name during the cold war year.He awarded with Noble peace prize for his initiatives for peace-non-alignment was a fascinating interference for him besides he had great vision for close India-U.S.S.R ties for balancing the power equation in world politics. He often called a “Soldier of Peace” for his die-hard commitments for peace and ends of ideological monopoly-knowing his temptation, famous French Scientist Juliat Coori induced him for visiting India and meeting with Nehru for tracing the ground of peace movement during the high intensity of cold war. Scientist C.V.Raman was the next person to met but before that he stuck through a terrible frisking exercise at the Mumbai Airport by Custom and Police officials-a witness of freedom movement received with such humiliating treatment in the hands of officials who treated him as a suspect and worst even, his Passport and Shoes were not spared to be ceased.

Anyhow, he managed to enter in his destined Hotel-later had a meeting with Vijaya Lakshami Pandit and received assurance for world peace movement. Further, he came to Delhi-had meeting with different groups-like of Writers, Philosophers, and Artists etc-that was the only solace for him in that visit. But his euphoria suddenly disappeared when he was called on dinner by the Ambassador of Chile, Juan Marin- he informed him about the apprehensive concern of Indian government regarding his activities.Despite such stodgy advances, he remained patient enough and moved for a meeting with Nehru in his office-he warmly reminded him about their previous meeting, yet he received a cold approval; next, he given the Juliat Coori’s later to him and asked about his message-Nehru’s next sleepy reply was “I will answer to this letter”. The only less dry proposal from Nehru was-What can I do for you? Against the nature, hurt Neruda replied that visiting monuments of splendid Tajmahal was on my wish list but now returning to Europe from first possible flight is my only priority.Although when he backed to Hotel, officials informed him about the state sponsored trip for Agra but it was too late till than-after sixty year of his last visit, it still haunts, why a cultured person like Nehru shown such dry gestures for a great visionary? Might be, he was passing through a very rough physical, political or emotional phase but in no way, it was justifiable! It was stoutly unfair to treat Pablo Neruda on the basis of contemporary communist movement in India.

Despite such bad and scratchy experience during last visit to India, Neruda surprisingly voted for Nehru as a member of panel in “Lenin Peace Prize” only five years later…indeed he succeeded as a great visionary and well wisher of Indian causes by broadly ignoring the stodgy treatment of last visit. Nehru’s treatments for Neruda were emerged from the internal feud between Indian state and confused Communist movement…whatever was the reason, it was inappropriate from both the diplomatic as well as personnel standard. A nation like India which has shaped on a historical legacy of great courtesy for its well wisher, probably lost a ground in the case of Neruda albeit he as a person and a poet have secured a permanent place in Indian peoples mind and heart which is a true respect for him and his bond for India… of course, Pablo Neruda was aware about that bright side from his loving India.
Atul Kumar Thakur
March24th2010 {Wednesday}
New Delhi
atul_mdb@rediffmail.com

Material Planks in India-China Relations

India-China seems very similar in many trajectories like both countries had faced monarchy and later western imperial pressure in the past but surprisingly they emerged with entirely distinct ethos. China opted for socialism along with classical way of statecraft and diplomacy where words used to obfuscate the real intention; like its projected insistence on border issues which creates complexities in relationship with India.
Most strikingly China didn’t recognize the Mack Mohan line (Excerpted from its official minutes) and further kept denouncing the promises made by their statesmen like Zhou Enlai and others on strategic mutual agreements with Indian authority.

Consequently there never formed a unified perception on India-China relationship either in India or China. So, at least initial years showed very gloomious outcomes for both the country just after successful experiments with their respective mode of political system in late nineteen forties. Its matter of fact that apart from its dubious standing on foreign policy China has been showing a deliberate progressive development in their internal governance under visionary leaderships that stimulated the growth pattern of its economy.
Albeit these not remained consistent in equitable manner following an institutionalized pattern of corruption and denial of basic rights like freedom of expression and independence of press or fourth estate as it is called usually.

Unfortunate Tienmen square incident was much at par with such repressive state policy; China’s internal conditions are very different and fragile from an outsider’s perceptions of its might and prosperity. Today China facing huge resentment of its civil society and media over the atrocities they impose on rudimentary natural rights; an alluring example being vivid in my mind how peoples acted differently from Chinese government.
Recently China’s Central TV (CCTV) came under the fire and very outlandishly there was huge joy among the media persons including staffers of this state owned Tele Vision since they became overloaded with its biased view with the government authorities.

Chinese authorities out rightly denied such basic rights and any other similar claims like introduction of multi party democracy in socialistic pattern; a senior party leader had recently refuted such any propositions in near future.
So, China have very stringent consideration on its own insistence both at home and the world; such impatient with others view presents major hurdles for any constructive maneuvering.
Case is somehow very different in Indian side where its immaculate ethos has very strong constitutional backups with absolute democratic formulation which radically marked its difference with dogmas of Chinese system.

In its part India have been sharing very patient relationship with China though always gained complex and improper reply in their deal, so it’s remain a daunting task for even an expert to completely comprehend the transcendences of China’s world view. Explicitly Chinese authorities on many instances shown its uneasiness over India’s emergence in recent decades as they respectively supposed themselves more developed in economic and strategic terms, so never want any comparisons with India since they found only U.S.A, Japan and erstwhile U.S.S.R as their optimum comparable force.
China performs dubious role in foreign policy not only with India but its acknowledged partners like U.S.A as sometimes its called for G2 (China and U.S.A) as drive of aggressive foreign policy but also soonly refuted it.

Even despite being too much integrated with American economy China could visualize the fall of Wall Street as great news and see all such troublesome outcomes as an opportunity and a shift of Geo-economic scenario , so dealing with China indeed requires a cautious approach to handle such fluctuating policy. It’s completely outrageous policy of China where they wish to rise albeit refusing to trust others standing at their feet.
At every level of diplomatic move its foremost challenge before India to constructively engage China in their relationships that may be possible through harmonization of nationalism in both the country. Also both country needs to comprehend their power since conditions are now more balanced as a feeble India and mighty China like of ground realities are no longer exists. So China couldn’t undermine India now and think for India to breakup as they think in 1960’s as many complexities of power equations are becomes historical now.

China-Pakistan equations are another issue that bears great implications for India-China relationship because India seen at center locus by the Chinese government during framing its propensity of strategic ties with Pakistan. China puts their best commitment for Pakistan and India remains the strategic determinant for this albeit it’s also a counter reality that despite such efforts Pakistan is more dominated by the U.S.A than China since their Arm forces sustain on U.S dollars instead of Chinese Yuan.
On the issue of border problem with India, it would be quite asymmetric to conceive that it’s an outcome of India’s position on Tibet instead these policies started long before the Tibetan stalemate. Indeed Tibet should be a matter of concern more for China than India because of historical and geographical similarity but India let continue playing their humanitarian role with the sufferers of Tibet.

China recently professed that Dalai Lama has no role to play in peace negotiation which means now he ceased to be the representative of Tibetan peoples that is in itself a showpiece of China’s fragile and confused policy on such crucial matters. India has firm standing on its foreign policy which allowed it’s to show genuine concern to strife ridden peoples besides it’s also striking co-incidence that historically Tibetans has always showing their faiths in outsiders, so Indian role on Tibet must not acknowledged and confused as an act of intrusion.
Internal scenario of China presents confused and fudged picture for outsiders since hardly it’s provide impartial circumstances of introspection; noted author and journalist Prem Shankar Jha’s book on China “Managed Chaos” vehemently unleash such fabricated trends of Chinese development.

Despite all such odds India and China can strive for good deals on economic co-operation, it’s evident from historical enquiry that economic co-operation has reversed the chronic political stalemate between many countries. Besides both has superb presence at world politics and facing many common challenges like terrorism, economic slowdown, communalism etc, so at numerous level both countries has options for better co-operation that must finally up heal the Asian growth.
India’s bid for permanent seat in United Nations Security Council is a crucial issue where China’s constructive intention could boost the Indian claim which may ushered into a new paradigm of relations.

Both countries are highly integrated to world economy and can move for great symbiotic ties by manipulating Indian software expertise with Chinese hardware edge. India must keep availing the mid path theory of Confusias and Buddha…. Consensus is possible even between the stark divergent sides.
Like India’s first Prime Minister Mr. J.L.Nehru who once gifted with a Panda from Chinese president Zhou Enlai in his China’s visit, some months later Zhou Enlai visited India than he got a healthy dog from Mr. Nehru; but real story is ahead when Mr. Nehru visited next time to China he asked for well being of his gifted dog… reply of Zhou Enlai was it was quite tasty. These means diversions can make things more interesting like these unusual incidences.

Atul Kumar Thakur
September 8th2009, New Delhi
atul_mdb@rediffmail.com