Does personal integrity extend only to not taking bribes? or does it require the Prime Minister to stand upto power centers that are inimical to the interest of the nation?
Dr Singh has weakened India's position in international fora on more than one occasion. Sharm el-Sheikh is a case in point. Copenhagen was another. The recent shocking resignation of Shyam Saran on Feb 19 seems to point to a similar direction. Mr. Saran, the PM’s special envoy on climate change has been "permitted to demit office" from Mar 14.
What caused this? An attempt has been made to explain this in terms of protocol. Shivshankar Menon, his junior in the foreign service was elevated to Minister of State level, while he was not. This does not seem to be the whole story. Commenting on this, the Hindu writes:
“Whatever the trigger, Mr. Saran is the second high-profile climate negotiator to exit the stage after crossing swords with the United States. Last December, the Philippines government sacked its chief negotiator, Bernaditas Castro-Muller, in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit, a move civil society groups said was taken to please Washington.”
Within two days of Mr Saran quitting, Mr Dasgupta, one of India's top negotiator on climate change too put in his papers. Mr Dasgupta reportedly said:
“I find it shocking that (Jairam) Ramesh (Minister of state for environment) has asked US-based Arvind Subramanian to consider various options available to us so that we will have the new formula ready by the time the Bonn round of talks start in May this year. These options are not being discussed by Indian climate change experts, but are being referred to an international group. Is this how foreign policy on such a crucial issue is being addressed?” When asked, however, he refused to say if in his opinion this was being done due to pressure from the United States.
Clearly, India is giving up its well-grounded negotiating position to take up one that is suitable to the USA and one that will likely impose unjustified conditions on India.
An alternate viewpoint, expressed by MJ Akbar, postulates that the reason lay in the substantive disagreement between the PM and him. Shivshankar Menon was appointed NSA and not Shyam Saran, because the Prime Minister decided that Shivshankar Menon was, intellectually and temperamentally, closer to his line of thinking on Pakistan. MJ writes:
"Dr Singh knows he is taking huge risks. He has deliberately underplayed hard evidence from Indian intelligence that Pak-based, anti-Indian terrorist organisations continue to get active support from the Pak military, and that they are not non-state actors. Pakistan’s Army chief, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has reiterated, in his latest doctrine, that India remains the pre-eminent threat to Pakistan, implicitly justifying the military’s support for the second arm of his country’s response to India, the terrorist network."
So why is the risk worth taking? It is not for any Indian PM, except if viewed from the eyes of US policy makers. Senator John Kerry has described the resumption of the Indo-Pak dialogue as “critical to the United States”, and suggested that the Indian initiative is an extension of the new India-US relationship.
So we dutifully troop off to "talk" to Pakistan, though no one knows about what!
Whatever the view you favour, it appears that India's position vis a vis the US is now similar to that of the British under Blair - that of the lapdog!
