Last night (1st February, 2009) after a long time I was reading the short stories of one of my all time favourites – O. Henry. As I said that it was after a long gap that I was reading his stories, and I realized that I still find those stories to be what I would find them in my younger days – ultra-fascinating.
There are several factors that make O. Henry stories (originally named William Sydney Porter) so charming for readers. These factors are, in the language of Wikipedia, “their wit, wordplay, warm characterization and clever twist endings.” Absolutely correct. O. Henry’s mastery of the language and natural ability to give twisted endings to his stories are legendary. Equally captivating is the way he created the main characters of his stories, characters which are so interesting in the way they talk, think and behave. And yes, the subtle sense of humour found in those stories also add a lot to their appeal.
However, personally I feel that the master storyteller’s actual dexterity lay in his ability to find a “plot” in matters and situations that appeared so ordinary and insignificant to other people. At least in a number of O. Henry stories I have found the plot to be based on scenarios or issues that are in no way extra-ordinary, at least apparently. It seems to me as if the gifted writer used to “dig out” a story that lay buried under an ordinary garb, a garb that belied the “story potential” of the situation that the master storyteller would expose to us, with aplomb.
Just think of the plots of the stories like “The Gift Of The Magi”, “The Last Leaf”, “The Cop And The Anthem” and “After Twenty Years”. And you will probably understand what I mean.
O. Henry was a magician of language, a great player of words, and a master of imagination. And above all, he was a great “story digger”, who enabled us to find the striking stories that lie hidden behind petty everyday affairs, of which we ourselves are a part.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Mr. Azad Gupta – The “Betrayer” Of Common Perception
We came to know Mr. Azad Gupta, or Guptaji (as we call him) just a couple of years back. He is a nice gentleman in his early 50s.
Since then he has been our companion every time we (me and my parents, and now my wife) need to go to Railway Station to catch a train. And sometimes it is again he who has kept us company on our way to home from Railway Station after we have come back to Delhi from outside. And he sometimes also keeps us company even when we go somewhere inside the Delhi itself, generally when we visit somewhere for a long time.
Guptaji is very polite and gentle in his communication. Apart from speaking Hindi, he is also fluent in English. And his favourite topic of discussion is spirituality.
Guptaji sent his children (one son and one daughter) to reputed public schools. His son is now studying Telecommunications Engineering at IIT Roorkee, while his daughter is now at class 12. Guptaji is very concerned about the education and career of his children, and discusses the same every time I travel with him.
Fine. But who is this Guptaji, after all?
Well, he is an auto driver. He is one of those infamous auto drivers (known for their rudeness and lack of culture) that we find in Delhi and Noida.
A rare species, right? A Delhite who will read this write up will understand what I mean.
Since then he has been our companion every time we (me and my parents, and now my wife) need to go to Railway Station to catch a train. And sometimes it is again he who has kept us company on our way to home from Railway Station after we have come back to Delhi from outside. And he sometimes also keeps us company even when we go somewhere inside the Delhi itself, generally when we visit somewhere for a long time.
Guptaji is very polite and gentle in his communication. Apart from speaking Hindi, he is also fluent in English. And his favourite topic of discussion is spirituality.
Guptaji sent his children (one son and one daughter) to reputed public schools. His son is now studying Telecommunications Engineering at IIT Roorkee, while his daughter is now at class 12. Guptaji is very concerned about the education and career of his children, and discusses the same every time I travel with him.
Fine. But who is this Guptaji, after all?
Well, he is an auto driver. He is one of those infamous auto drivers (known for their rudeness and lack of culture) that we find in Delhi and Noida.
A rare species, right? A Delhite who will read this write up will understand what I mean.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Funny Oxymorons
1.) As I said before, I never repeat myself.
2.) Clearly misunderstood.
3.) Exact estimate.
4.) Small crowd.
5.) Act naturally.
6.) Fully empty.
7.) Found missing.
And now, the Mother of all oxymorons –
Happily Married.
Courtesy – My cousin sister Bibi (Rumela) and my brother-in-law Rahul.
2.) Clearly misunderstood.
3.) Exact estimate.
4.) Small crowd.
5.) Act naturally.
6.) Fully empty.
7.) Found missing.
And now, the Mother of all oxymorons –
Happily Married.
Courtesy – My cousin sister Bibi (Rumela) and my brother-in-law Rahul.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Five Indian Villages Where Sanskrit Is The Everyday Language
I have come to know, from a couple of online and printed sources, about 5 Indian villages where Sanskrit is spoken as the everyday language. Residents of these villages reportedly speak the language during every kind of communication, ranging from holding serious discussions to buying goods from grocery stores to having casual chats with friends.
These 5 villages are –
a.) Mattur or Muttoor (Karnataka).
b.) Hosahalli (Karnataka).
c.) Jhiri (Madhaya Pradesh)
d.) Mohad (Madhaya Pradesh)
e.) Baghuwar (Madhaya Pradesh)
I certainly do not know how far these claims are true. Anyways, I still decided to spread this information through Social Media. This is because I felt that the information might be of use to a scholar (from India or abroad) who is doing some research on a relevant area (such as Sanskrit language, Indian history, etc.)
Besides, I also felt that my fellow Indians who are unaware of these villages might be thrilled to know that such villages still exist in India.
But, I repeat, I am simply forwarding an information that I have found elsewhere, without having any personal idea about its veracity.
These 5 villages are –
a.) Mattur or Muttoor (Karnataka).
b.) Hosahalli (Karnataka).
c.) Jhiri (Madhaya Pradesh)
d.) Mohad (Madhaya Pradesh)
e.) Baghuwar (Madhaya Pradesh)
I certainly do not know how far these claims are true. Anyways, I still decided to spread this information through Social Media. This is because I felt that the information might be of use to a scholar (from India or abroad) who is doing some research on a relevant area (such as Sanskrit language, Indian history, etc.)
Besides, I also felt that my fellow Indians who are unaware of these villages might be thrilled to know that such villages still exist in India.
But, I repeat, I am simply forwarding an information that I have found elsewhere, without having any personal idea about its veracity.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Netaji Subhas Was A Fool
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was a fool. He was one of the greatest morons that India has ever seen.
He was born to a privileged family, and had the golden opportunity to lead a life of comfort and pleasure. He successfully qualified in the Indian Civil Service Exam or ICS (in fact he stood 4th), and got selected for the prestigious ICS, which was one of the top career options of the meritorious youths of that day India. He could have easily went for a life of honour, glamour and power, rubbing shoulders with the top echelons of the British Indian bureaucracy and other elites of the society.
But what the hell did he do? He declined to join the service, and rather joined the freedom movement. Well, even that would have been a great choice, if he decided to join the followers of Gandhi, who used to run their freedom movement by holding agitations and protests in the streets, courting arrests, spending few months behind bars, and resuming agitations and mass protests after being freed. If Netaji joined those youths of Congress (actually he joined, but later quit), then he would have got a good reward after Independence. First, he would have got the honour of a freedom fighter. Secondly he would have been respected as a loyal follower of Gandhi (instead of being despised by loyal Gandhians for questioning the effectiveness of Gandhi's peaceful methods). Finally, most importantly, he would have become a Minister in Nehru's Cabinet after India won freedom. And today, on 23rd January, India would be celebrating his Birth Anniversary with at least some respect, like Corporate Houses giving advertisements paying homage to him, small programmes on TV, etc.
But what did he do? Instead of being a "freedom fighter", he chose to become a "revolutionary". Instead of going for a "peaceful" protest sans violence, he decided to hit back at the British Lion through an "eye for an eye" method, as he felt that was the only language that the proud Colonial masters would understand.
While Gandhian freedom fighters could manage to run their freedom fight from the soil of India itself, Netaji, a revolutionary, had to leave his dear motherland for distant shores. He traveled a lot, several times by risking his life, developed a well-equipped army named Indian National Army or INA (though INA was originally was the brainchild of Rashbehari Bose), and arranged for a all-out military attack against the British. While the development of INA testified his organizational capability, Netaji's diplomatic acumen was displayed by the way he convinced the Nazi Germany and Japan to support India's fight for freedom. He approached Nazi Germany, as he perceived them not merely as a Fascist power, but as an enemy of the UK who could be used in the fight against the common enemy. By approaching Hitler he did not show his endorsement for Hitler's Fascist policies. Rather, it was just a strategic move that displayed Netaji's practical sense and deep political insight. (After all, how many people know that in his first meeting with Hitler he had strongly objected to the anti-India remarks made by the Nazi dictator in his autobiography Mein Kampf?)
Yes, Netaji did a lot for India. It might be so that his endeavour failed to deliver desired results. And it might be so that his plans and strategies were not always flawless. But nobody can deny his commitment and dedication, and the valour and grit with which he tried to fulfill his mission.
But what has he got?
Throughout his life he worked like anything, and then lost his life under ultra-mysterious circumstances. In return all that he has got is sheer ignorance, and even taunting from staunch Gandhi loyalists. My good friend Rahul Bajpai (a die hard fan of Nehru and Gandhi) feels that Netaji's dream of liberating India with the help of German and Japanese armies was "preposterous". He is certainly entitled to his view. But strangely he never finds Nehru's idea of conducting a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir (to find which country Kashmiris want to join) to be preposterous. And he does not find it "preposterous" when somebody says that Gandhi was the only person who drove Britishers out of this land.
Today Netaji's Birth Anniversary does not receive even a fraction of the attention that is attributed to the Birth Anniversary of Rajiv Gandhi. There is no mention of the event in the media (newspaper and TV). And there is only a 2 page mention of his name and works in the school text books. The memory of Netaji has virtually been "banished" from the land that he fought for - India.
So this is all that he got after espousing the life of a revolutionary, that too by ignoring a life of utmost pleasure and comfort. So is it too much to say that he was a fool?
Indians love to read the biographies of revolutionaries from far away lands. But how comfortably they forget the indigenous revolutionaries (like Netaji and Bhagat Singh) who fought for their own land. Netaji, you chose to become a revolutionary for this land? Sorry to say, but you were one of the greatest fools that this world has even seen.
He was born to a privileged family, and had the golden opportunity to lead a life of comfort and pleasure. He successfully qualified in the Indian Civil Service Exam or ICS (in fact he stood 4th), and got selected for the prestigious ICS, which was one of the top career options of the meritorious youths of that day India. He could have easily went for a life of honour, glamour and power, rubbing shoulders with the top echelons of the British Indian bureaucracy and other elites of the society.
But what the hell did he do? He declined to join the service, and rather joined the freedom movement. Well, even that would have been a great choice, if he decided to join the followers of Gandhi, who used to run their freedom movement by holding agitations and protests in the streets, courting arrests, spending few months behind bars, and resuming agitations and mass protests after being freed. If Netaji joined those youths of Congress (actually he joined, but later quit), then he would have got a good reward after Independence. First, he would have got the honour of a freedom fighter. Secondly he would have been respected as a loyal follower of Gandhi (instead of being despised by loyal Gandhians for questioning the effectiveness of Gandhi's peaceful methods). Finally, most importantly, he would have become a Minister in Nehru's Cabinet after India won freedom. And today, on 23rd January, India would be celebrating his Birth Anniversary with at least some respect, like Corporate Houses giving advertisements paying homage to him, small programmes on TV, etc.
But what did he do? Instead of being a "freedom fighter", he chose to become a "revolutionary". Instead of going for a "peaceful" protest sans violence, he decided to hit back at the British Lion through an "eye for an eye" method, as he felt that was the only language that the proud Colonial masters would understand.
While Gandhian freedom fighters could manage to run their freedom fight from the soil of India itself, Netaji, a revolutionary, had to leave his dear motherland for distant shores. He traveled a lot, several times by risking his life, developed a well-equipped army named Indian National Army or INA (though INA was originally was the brainchild of Rashbehari Bose), and arranged for a all-out military attack against the British. While the development of INA testified his organizational capability, Netaji's diplomatic acumen was displayed by the way he convinced the Nazi Germany and Japan to support India's fight for freedom. He approached Nazi Germany, as he perceived them not merely as a Fascist power, but as an enemy of the UK who could be used in the fight against the common enemy. By approaching Hitler he did not show his endorsement for Hitler's Fascist policies. Rather, it was just a strategic move that displayed Netaji's practical sense and deep political insight. (After all, how many people know that in his first meeting with Hitler he had strongly objected to the anti-India remarks made by the Nazi dictator in his autobiography Mein Kampf?)
Yes, Netaji did a lot for India. It might be so that his endeavour failed to deliver desired results. And it might be so that his plans and strategies were not always flawless. But nobody can deny his commitment and dedication, and the valour and grit with which he tried to fulfill his mission.
But what has he got?
Throughout his life he worked like anything, and then lost his life under ultra-mysterious circumstances. In return all that he has got is sheer ignorance, and even taunting from staunch Gandhi loyalists. My good friend Rahul Bajpai (a die hard fan of Nehru and Gandhi) feels that Netaji's dream of liberating India with the help of German and Japanese armies was "preposterous". He is certainly entitled to his view. But strangely he never finds Nehru's idea of conducting a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir (to find which country Kashmiris want to join) to be preposterous. And he does not find it "preposterous" when somebody says that Gandhi was the only person who drove Britishers out of this land.
Today Netaji's Birth Anniversary does not receive even a fraction of the attention that is attributed to the Birth Anniversary of Rajiv Gandhi. There is no mention of the event in the media (newspaper and TV). And there is only a 2 page mention of his name and works in the school text books. The memory of Netaji has virtually been "banished" from the land that he fought for - India.
So this is all that he got after espousing the life of a revolutionary, that too by ignoring a life of utmost pleasure and comfort. So is it too much to say that he was a fool?
Indians love to read the biographies of revolutionaries from far away lands. But how comfortably they forget the indigenous revolutionaries (like Netaji and Bhagat Singh) who fought for their own land. Netaji, you chose to become a revolutionary for this land? Sorry to say, but you were one of the greatest fools that this world has even seen.
Friday, January 22, 2010
A More Effective Handling Of Post-Disaster Scenario
I was just watching these pictures in the newspaper, that how the hungry people in earthquake-devastated Haiti are fighting with one another for the food items being taken there as part of relief packages. They are also trying to snatch money and other valuables from one another, not always out of criminal psyche or greed, but to overcome the ruinous loss (of money, home, etc.) that they have suffered.
Actually such things happen in every place after it gets affected by a devastating calamity – flood, earthquake, tsunami, etc. I can still remember that few years back there was flood somewhere in India, and I was watching a TV news clipping that Indian Air Force planes were air-dropping food baskets there. I still remember that I was both shocked and moved by the scene of how people were fighting with each other for those food packets, despite the fact that all of them were seemingly from good families.
A thought has been there in my mind for quite some time, and I will love to share it today.
Why do we keep the victims of a calamity in the affected region itself, without evacuating them from the same? (I have noticed that the evacuation usually takes place only if there is any threat of further calamity). Isn’t it better to take them away to a place where they can have a more-or-less normal life, only to bring them back when the restoration process has brought back the affected region into normal condition?
It must be remembered that the survivors of a calamity experience a horrific time in the affected place, surrounded by a mount of dead bodies (and the foul smell emitted by them), shattered houses and buildings (such as in the case of an earthquake), acute lawlessness in the absence of police and other law enforcement agencies, etc. Restoration of normalcy takes time. And till then these survivors go through an ultra-harrowing time, sometimes even falling to death due to factors like hunger, thirst, contagious disease, brawl over relief, etc. And when somebody dies of such factors, it actually adds to the toll caused by the actual devastation.
So I have a humble suggestion for the Government of India. I feel it should identify 3 to 4 spots in India, scattered over various parts of the country and are uninhabited or sparsely inhabited. Now the government should develop those spots into temporary shelters for the survivors of calamities like flood, earthquake etc., the survivors whose city or village has been devastated by the calamity. The government can set up small houses or tents with all the basic arrangements that we need for our daily life, medical centers with doctors and nurses, a community kitchen with cooks, an adequate stock of food grains, etc.
Now, the moment a place in India gets devastated by a calamity, the government should evacuate the survivors from that place, and take them by air (or whatever) to any such “shelter spot” which is nearer to that calamity-affected region. The survivors will have a ready and easy access to a normal life, with food, a roof over head, medical infrastructure, etc. On one hand the government work on restoring normal condition in the affected region. And till that happens, the survivors will enjoy a normal life elsewhere, without suffering from a nightmarish experience that can haunt them for the rest of their lives. In fact, a quick escape from that affected place will help them overcome the trauma more easily, while a stay in that place amidst the destructions caused by the calamity will leave them with a permanent memory that they will fail to shed off in future. The government may be unable to save its citizens from the devastations of a calamity, as it is sometimes difficult to detect its arrival beforehand and evacuate the people from that place. But it can certainly save us from experiencing the post-devastation trauma that inevitably follows every calamity.
Bringing the survivors to a “shelter spot” will also ensure that a seriously injured or otherwise ill person gets a proper medical attention. It is very difficult to offer proper medical treatment to people in the makeshift hospitals in calamity-affected regions. Rather it is significantly easier to look after such people in a proper medical centre in a “shelter spot” that is in perfect condition.
The “shelter spots” should also ideally have psychologists and trauma counselors, who will help the survivors to overcome the terrible shock of losing everything overnight. There should also be some arrangements of entertainment, like music, which will also play some role in helping the hapless people forget or absorb their shock.
It is ridiculous that the people of a calamity-affected region will spend their nights under open sky, with hungry stomachs and among foul smell emitted by dead bodies lying around them. And their fellow citizens from other regions will watch their plight on TV, while having dinner in their cozy and comfortable drawing rooms.
Actually such things happen in every place after it gets affected by a devastating calamity – flood, earthquake, tsunami, etc. I can still remember that few years back there was flood somewhere in India, and I was watching a TV news clipping that Indian Air Force planes were air-dropping food baskets there. I still remember that I was both shocked and moved by the scene of how people were fighting with each other for those food packets, despite the fact that all of them were seemingly from good families.
A thought has been there in my mind for quite some time, and I will love to share it today.
Why do we keep the victims of a calamity in the affected region itself, without evacuating them from the same? (I have noticed that the evacuation usually takes place only if there is any threat of further calamity). Isn’t it better to take them away to a place where they can have a more-or-less normal life, only to bring them back when the restoration process has brought back the affected region into normal condition?
It must be remembered that the survivors of a calamity experience a horrific time in the affected place, surrounded by a mount of dead bodies (and the foul smell emitted by them), shattered houses and buildings (such as in the case of an earthquake), acute lawlessness in the absence of police and other law enforcement agencies, etc. Restoration of normalcy takes time. And till then these survivors go through an ultra-harrowing time, sometimes even falling to death due to factors like hunger, thirst, contagious disease, brawl over relief, etc. And when somebody dies of such factors, it actually adds to the toll caused by the actual devastation.
So I have a humble suggestion for the Government of India. I feel it should identify 3 to 4 spots in India, scattered over various parts of the country and are uninhabited or sparsely inhabited. Now the government should develop those spots into temporary shelters for the survivors of calamities like flood, earthquake etc., the survivors whose city or village has been devastated by the calamity. The government can set up small houses or tents with all the basic arrangements that we need for our daily life, medical centers with doctors and nurses, a community kitchen with cooks, an adequate stock of food grains, etc.
Now, the moment a place in India gets devastated by a calamity, the government should evacuate the survivors from that place, and take them by air (or whatever) to any such “shelter spot” which is nearer to that calamity-affected region. The survivors will have a ready and easy access to a normal life, with food, a roof over head, medical infrastructure, etc. On one hand the government work on restoring normal condition in the affected region. And till that happens, the survivors will enjoy a normal life elsewhere, without suffering from a nightmarish experience that can haunt them for the rest of their lives. In fact, a quick escape from that affected place will help them overcome the trauma more easily, while a stay in that place amidst the destructions caused by the calamity will leave them with a permanent memory that they will fail to shed off in future. The government may be unable to save its citizens from the devastations of a calamity, as it is sometimes difficult to detect its arrival beforehand and evacuate the people from that place. But it can certainly save us from experiencing the post-devastation trauma that inevitably follows every calamity.
Bringing the survivors to a “shelter spot” will also ensure that a seriously injured or otherwise ill person gets a proper medical attention. It is very difficult to offer proper medical treatment to people in the makeshift hospitals in calamity-affected regions. Rather it is significantly easier to look after such people in a proper medical centre in a “shelter spot” that is in perfect condition.
The “shelter spots” should also ideally have psychologists and trauma counselors, who will help the survivors to overcome the terrible shock of losing everything overnight. There should also be some arrangements of entertainment, like music, which will also play some role in helping the hapless people forget or absorb their shock.
It is ridiculous that the people of a calamity-affected region will spend their nights under open sky, with hungry stomachs and among foul smell emitted by dead bodies lying around them. And their fellow citizens from other regions will watch their plight on TV, while having dinner in their cozy and comfortable drawing rooms.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Need Of The Time – Environmental Diplomats
There was a time when a country’s diplomats were mainly focused on political and military relationships with other countries, like pitching for either military co-operation (for example in a case of a possible war with another country) or voice of support on international podia while discussing an international issue (for example the Kashmir issue for India and Pakistan).
Yes, bilateral trade and commerce also played a crucial role in diplomatic negotiations. In fact, that aspect of diplomatic negotiation has been there for several hundreds of years. The Consulates of a country (like the US and British Consulates located in various Indian cities) are actually focused on fostering business prospects of their country in the “host country”.
However, the liberalization and globalization of the world resulted in the emergence of a special breed of diplomats, named “Economic Diplomats”. They are the diplomats exclusively focused on all the economic aspects of diplomacy and foreign relations, such as pitching for funds and aids from international organizations (WTO, IMF, etc.), identifying their respective countries’ business opportunities in other countries and charting out necessary roadmaps to tap the same, etc. Economic diplomacy is now a specialized wing of Statecraft, with almost every nation having a pool of expert Economic Diplomats.
The emergence of Economic Diplomats was the result of the dynamic character of Diplomacy, which is understandably very receptive to the changes in world affairs. And it is this dynamic characteristic of Diplomacy that is today signaling the need of another specialized wing of Diplomacy – Environmental Diplomacy.
The global warming has become a hot issue, highlighting the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emission. This has subsequently resulted in a “national compulsion” for every country to explain its stand/problem/view on climate change and emission issues. And this has further resulted in the need to develop a pool of efficient and expert Environmental Diplomats, who are able to present their respective countries’ views on international podia.
And I suppose that India is at least somewhat lagging behind on this score. I think this came into light during the recent Copenhagen Summit, where the India delegation was sometimes failing to present its views effectively (though of course there were stiff and shameless opposition from the developed nations). I also feel that India failed to develop a united stand with other like-minded developing nations, thereby creating a strong pressure on the developed nations.
And the reason behind India’s not-so-effective Environmental Diplomacy is probably the Indian government is not precisely considering the domain expertise while selecting its Environmental Diplomats. There have been a number of IFS and IAS officers who are responsible for defending India’s environmental views and policies on the international arena. Unfortunately, many of them are not that expert in the field as they are supposed to be to effectively executive their responsibility.
Just one example is enough to establish that the Indian government has been unnecessarily biased to the bureaucratic community while choosing “members” of its Environmental Diplomacy team. Who is our Chief Climate Negotiator? Mr. Shyam Saran, our former Foreign Secretary.
There is no doubt that Mr Saran is a brilliant and talented person, who unarguably deserves crucial positions in the Government. But does he hold that level of expertise in Climate Change issues, which our Chief Climate Negotiator is expected to have? Well, I do not think I am sure.
I hope the Indian government is aware of the fact that Environmental Diplomacy is a specialized wing that should be handled only by people with strong domain expertise and skills. And I hope that the government is working towards the development of a well-qualified team that will be successful in defending our environmental views and policies on the international arena.
Yes, bilateral trade and commerce also played a crucial role in diplomatic negotiations. In fact, that aspect of diplomatic negotiation has been there for several hundreds of years. The Consulates of a country (like the US and British Consulates located in various Indian cities) are actually focused on fostering business prospects of their country in the “host country”.
However, the liberalization and globalization of the world resulted in the emergence of a special breed of diplomats, named “Economic Diplomats”. They are the diplomats exclusively focused on all the economic aspects of diplomacy and foreign relations, such as pitching for funds and aids from international organizations (WTO, IMF, etc.), identifying their respective countries’ business opportunities in other countries and charting out necessary roadmaps to tap the same, etc. Economic diplomacy is now a specialized wing of Statecraft, with almost every nation having a pool of expert Economic Diplomats.
The emergence of Economic Diplomats was the result of the dynamic character of Diplomacy, which is understandably very receptive to the changes in world affairs. And it is this dynamic characteristic of Diplomacy that is today signaling the need of another specialized wing of Diplomacy – Environmental Diplomacy.
The global warming has become a hot issue, highlighting the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emission. This has subsequently resulted in a “national compulsion” for every country to explain its stand/problem/view on climate change and emission issues. And this has further resulted in the need to develop a pool of efficient and expert Environmental Diplomats, who are able to present their respective countries’ views on international podia.
And I suppose that India is at least somewhat lagging behind on this score. I think this came into light during the recent Copenhagen Summit, where the India delegation was sometimes failing to present its views effectively (though of course there were stiff and shameless opposition from the developed nations). I also feel that India failed to develop a united stand with other like-minded developing nations, thereby creating a strong pressure on the developed nations.
And the reason behind India’s not-so-effective Environmental Diplomacy is probably the Indian government is not precisely considering the domain expertise while selecting its Environmental Diplomats. There have been a number of IFS and IAS officers who are responsible for defending India’s environmental views and policies on the international arena. Unfortunately, many of them are not that expert in the field as they are supposed to be to effectively executive their responsibility.
Just one example is enough to establish that the Indian government has been unnecessarily biased to the bureaucratic community while choosing “members” of its Environmental Diplomacy team. Who is our Chief Climate Negotiator? Mr. Shyam Saran, our former Foreign Secretary.
There is no doubt that Mr Saran is a brilliant and talented person, who unarguably deserves crucial positions in the Government. But does he hold that level of expertise in Climate Change issues, which our Chief Climate Negotiator is expected to have? Well, I do not think I am sure.
I hope the Indian government is aware of the fact that Environmental Diplomacy is a specialized wing that should be handled only by people with strong domain expertise and skills. And I hope that the government is working towards the development of a well-qualified team that will be successful in defending our environmental views and policies on the international arena.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
