The Hindu : Centre should not be extra-sensitive

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Apr 24, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Centre should not be extra-sensitive

By K.K. Katyal

NEW DELHI APRIL 23. The Indian Government has a point when it rejects foreign interference in its `internal affairs' or objects to the use of the media here by visiting dignitaries for statements against the host country. But the expression of ``concern'' over the Gujarat developments by the Finnish Foreign Minister, Erkki Tuomioja, in an interview during his stay here last week, does not attract any of these charges. By no stretch of imagination it could be called utilisation of the Indian media by foreign leaders or `interference', as suggested by the officials here.

This was a conspicuously mild remark compared to what the media in the rest of the world had to say while reporting and commenting on the killings in Gujarat or, for that matter, on the Ayodhya-related events. New Delhi may be able to shut out adverse remarks by visiting foreigners by invoking the doctrine of non-interference but could it control or influence the highly damaging projection and coverage of the Indian scene by the media abroad? The pictures on television relayed by scores of channels around the world, every hour for days — of `trishul'-wielding `kar sevaks' in Ayodhya or of `holy men' appearing at press conferences for semi-religious, semi-political statements — served to project India as a medieval land, blotting out the pictures of a modern country with huge strides in information technology or space development. The Gujarat carnage and the inflammatory statements by sections of the majority community, known to enjoy the patronage of the ruling party in the State, had all but scuttled our campaign against the jehadi fundamentalists based in Pakistan and the terrorist violence perpetrated by them in India. With what face could New Delhi criticise religious fanatics elsewhere when a variant of them has been active with deadly seriousness, in its backyard?

A better course for the foreign office would be to take effective steps through its missions abroad to reiterate India's commitment to secular values, without a cover-up on Gujarat. There could not be any defence for the carnage in the State but there were positive aspects that could be focused upon, like the response of the various institutions — the judiciary, the press, the National Human Rights Commission. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, most of our diplomatic missions abroad, especially those in Washington and London, it is clear, did not rise to the occasion. Similarly, it is easy to blame the diplomats based here for the damaging leaks, but were effective steps taken to brief them and provide them whatever explanations were possible?

By blocking the expression of views by visiting dignitaries New Delhi could delude itself into believing that it has succeeded in protecting the people here from negative influences but what about the rest of the world where the name of India is mud? The British High Commission here was also in the news because of the report of its officials after a visit to Gujarat. How authentic was the information that found its way to the press was not clear but no report of any diplomat or agency on Gujarat could be palatable to the establishment. The U.K. High Commission seems to have the knack of attracting attention for ``leaks''. Some time ago, the reported remarks of a BJP ideologue, Govindacharya (that the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, provided a mask for the party's `Hindutva' agenda) had caused an uproar.

The ``concern'' by the Finnish Foreign Minister represented the reaction of the world community which, in some cases, was far more severe. The Scandinavian countries, as was known, had reacted with conspicuous sharpness to some of the developments in India, notably the nuclear tests of May 1998. In an interview to this correspondent earlier this month in Helsinki, the Finnish Foreign Minister stuck to his ground on the nuclear issue. He did not accept the view that the controversy over the subject was a thing of the past. Similarly, while showing a ``great understanding of India's concerns on terrorist activities and violence,'' he stressed the importance of the rule of law (in the drive against terrorists). There is no reason to be extra-sensitive over the utterances of visiting dignitaries and foreign diplomats. Quite often, their case could be easily demolished on the ground of hypocrisy and double standards. At times they tend to lecture us and have to be ignored or rebuffed but, on occasions, they may be making a valid point.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Wake-up call in France

Shuffling the same pack

Gujarat and Parliament

Adivasis and the genocide

Centre should not be extra-sensitive

A quintessential liberal