Friday, Jun 01, 2007

Listening to Shashi Tharoor recently for almost two hours made it easier for me to understand why he lost the race last year to succeed Kofi Annan at the United Nations. Losing the contest does not mean, however, that he is less qualified than South Korea's Ban Ki-moon to hold the Secretary-General's post. In fact, Ki-moon's gaffes in handling tricky matters shows Tharoor could have been a better choice. But as is universally known, UN members do not offer the top post to a person purely on academic merit or diplomatic experience. The concept of "merit" itself is a questionable one here. The process of finding someone to head the world body involves politics, power play and, more importantly, Washington's whims and wishes. Tharoor knows that better than others, not merely because he until recently served as the UN undersecretary-general for communications and public information.

So when people in India complain that Tharoor could not become the UN Secretary-General because the issue was not decided on merit, they are simply showing a lack of understanding of international realities. Tharoor himself replies that the UN job is not about representing India or any one particular country. Still, he does not appear very enthusiastic in embracing the more acceptable international personality that would make him respond to the demands of the top UN job. On the other hand, his passion for what is India should please Indians. When he gave a talk on "What it means to be an Indian," at the Indian consulate in Dubai a few weeks ago, Tharoor showed why he is a splendid scholar and an eloquent orator (Tharoor loves alliteration). He presented a macro idea of India in an inspiring speech and was greeted with a standing ovation at the end of it.

In his words, India is more than the sum of its parts. There is no single standard or fixed stereotype that can define India or Indians. Twenty-three major languages, thousands of dialects, 85 political parties, billion-plus people, home to a variety of ethnic, cultural and religious groups, the country is like a thali rather than a melting pot. India is not just a country it is an adventure. It can be maddening and chaotic. Nothing can be taken for granted about India. The country could hardly have survived without its pluralism. A man who does not even understand the national language Hindi can still rule India. Hindi is not even the language of the majority of India. HD Deve Gowda's becoming prime minister was a startling example of India's pluralism.

There is not much that one would find disagreeable in those statements. On Indian nationalism, Tharoor believes the idea has "worked in practice but not in theory". You can be a good Muslim, a good Keralite, a good Hindu and a good Indian all at the same time.

When newly independent nations opted for authoritarianism to achieve development, India chose multi-party democracy after it gained independence from Britain. The contemporary India is faced with crucial debates, guns versus butter, globalisation versus national identity. While highlighting the social dichotomy of high economic growth, he said the globalisation should be embraced and dispelled fears about "Coca-Colanisation".

Not every foreigner (read Westerner) with a briefcase should be seen as the thin end of the imperial wedge, Tharoor argued. Citing the benefits of integrating globally, he said India's problem is "not too much globalisation but too little of it".

Foreign capital is not threatening India but creating opportunities. Poverty has declined 0.8 per cent each year in the last 8 years. On the cultural front, Tharoor says Indian popular culture can compete with America's Baywatch and burgers.

Many Indians take pride in the fact that the country is a nuclear power and can produce long-range missiles. Tharoor wants to tell them that hard power alone is not enough. The Soviets discovered that in Afghanistan, Americans discovered it in Vietnam and are now discovering it in Iraq. He said India has to develop economically.

The old view of India being a land of snake charmers and sadhus (holy men) has changed and foreigners are beginning to see the country as a land of software geeks. Tharoor says India is playing its second innings at the world stage and it is "acquiring a place in international imagination." He provided an interesting thought on China, a country many Indians and Westerners see as a rival to India. Tharoor cautioned again India seeing itself as a counterweight to China as people in the West talk about it.

Well-meaning

Tharoor is a well-meaning person, frank and forthright in his views. When he tells you what it means to be an Indian, it certainly opens your eyes to the vast and varied world within India's borders.

Born in London in 1956, he has lived a great part of his life abroad. However, that has not made him less Indian. For such a man, becoming the UN chief would have meant diluting his Indianness or putting on hold his relentless passion for India.

Asked about the Iraq war and the UN's failure to stop it or the well-documented UN inaction after the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon, he could respond only in mild diplomatic terms. A question from the audience offered him an opportunity to jump off the fence. You cannot be always coy and academic about an ugly conflict like Iraq. If Tharoor could become as articulate and passionate about such global issues, maybe people outside India would root for him to become the next UN chief.

Gulf News 2007. All rights reserved.