They were all there. A president, a prime minister, an ex-prime minister and an ex-secretary of State, politicians from ‘the neighbouring country’, ‘Captains of Indian Industry’, and — widely accepted by all as the star attraction — a party president. This was the two-day Leadership Initiative of the Hindustan Times that seems to get better every year.
Natwar Singh’s opening gambit — I-am-so-old-and-you-are-so-young — was vintage Natwar. “When I joined the Indian Foreign Service you were not even born” was what he actually told his Thai counterpart and left quite a few in the audience examining their fingernails. Ultimately, the joke can be said to have crashed. We were then taken on a tour d’horizon of India’s stellar role on the global stage.
The Two Aruns— Shourie and Jaitley — were brilliant as usual. One was disarmingly incisive and the other politely aggressive. Our friend from the Left had to retreat in a hurry. One could not agree more with Shourie’s definition of secularism: you can never deny or concede to one group what you cannot deny or give to another.
Henry Kissinger, the 20th century Metternich, was appropriately grave as he spoke of the dangers and challenges facing the world. He spoke of the threat from the rise of radical Islam and the dream of these Islamists to establish a Caliphate. He spoke of a strategic shift from the West to the Asian continent and India’s role in the emerging world order. Kissinger also spoke of Indo-US relations running on parallel tracks. That precisely has been the problem because parallel tracks sometimes run in opposite directions. And when they run in the same direction they only seemingly converge in the distance. Will the convergence of Indo-US relations also remain a dream or an illusion? Almost every one seems to want a more meaningful partnership with the US. Yet, one wonders if there can ever be an equal partnership between unequal partners.
It was a pleasure listening to John Major. He made one exult as he spoke eloquently of an India that has gone and of an India that is to come. Both Kissinger and Major spoke about Iraq but neither had a satisfactory explanation about what went wrong in Iraq, yet both held out hope for more democracy in the region. It is difficult to understand how a failed experiment can be repeated elsewhere and easy to fear that such a replication can only mean more trouble for the world.
Both Kissinger and Major invited India to sup with the rich and powerful at the high table. Of course, one day we will sit under the Baccarat chandeliers and muse about global issues with those who would be our peers then. Only, our leaders would be careful to have read the fine print on the invitation card because conditions would surely apply.
But most definitely the person who drew the loudest applause was Sonia Gandhi. It is one thing to deliver a speech to an informed audience, but it is definitely more difficult to take on questions from such an audience. And Imran Khan had chucked a bouncer at her right at the beginning but she negotiated that one elegantly.
Khan, who is yet to make a mark in politics and is still remembered more as one of world’s all-time cricketing greats, was pitted against the veteran Farooq Abdullah. Considering the state of Pakistani politics, it is doubtful if Imran will ever be remembered for his politics. In his debate with Farooq, Imran spoke of taking the wishes of the people of the entire state of J&K into account through an independently supervised election as the only solution. This is one of the many ideas floating around. But it does appear odd that this suggestion is being made by persons whose own countrymen can only have khaki dreams.
The enigmatic Altaf Hussein, founder and leader of the MQM, was another attraction. He told the audience of the agony of the Mohajirs in Pakistan and how many would want to do another hijrat back to India,
of how Pakistan had been a disappointment for many of them and, how the Partition was a mistake. Yet the only ones who applauded him for this were his own supporters who had come from all over the world to meet him in India. Most of the Indians in the audience remained subdued. Altaf told us that Musharraf was sincere in his plans to bring peace to the subcontinent and India could trust him. But apparently Musharraf is only selectively sincere, because Altaf himself has no plans to go back to his country of birth just yet. Also on display were his considerable histrionic talents, skills that have enthralled his own followers in Pakistan and elsewhere to total worship of their leader.
Mukesh Ambani, Nandan Nilekani, Kiran Majumdar Shaw and Subir Raha then shared their dreams for a vibrant, triumphant India. Their confidence and can-do spirit was both inspiring and infectious. But as they and others take us on the High Road to prosperity the government would have to do its bit. It is not enough to have all our villages internet connected in two or three years. Our villages also need hospitals, schools and roads. A beginning has been made and the vision of one government is not necessarily the nightmare of the next.
The country’s infrastructure development has to be geared to a 50-year or even a 100-year plan; we must go massive, we must learn to think big, we must do it now, otherwise our progress will be like traffic on Delhi’s Ring Road — perpetually lurching at high speed from one road block to another. We need ports where the waiting period compares to that in Singapore, airports that compare in efficiency to that in Frankfurt and highways of the kind in France and Germany that will smoothen all traffic all the way in or out. And we need uninterrupted electricity and water supplies.
We also need an attitude of mind to match the vision for a resurgent India, something that is flexible, broad and visionary even though all of us cannot be a J.R.D. Tata or a Dhirubhai Ambani. This is something which neither the average Indian bureaucrat nor the politician possesses; both have only short and uncertain tenures that are increasingly dependent on the whims either of the chief minister or the electorate. Long-term thinking, planning, supervising or even thinking on any macro-scale is rare. They are no longer equipped for it. Perhaps the government should restrict itself to laying down national priorities and leave the implementation of mega-projects to the private sector.
Modern governments need to provide only law and order to its citizens, stability of investments and currency; and along with the private sector, ensure provision of electricity, water, health and education and collect taxes to provide these services. But even good governance and a thriving private sector will not be enough unless we have a robust civil society, a society where it is understood and accepted that one person’s freedom is circumscribed by the other person’s rights. What India needs also is a market place that gives back to society what it takes out, governments that do not merely legislate but empathise and a community that debates openly what it needs and what it can do to improve itself.
This is the debate that HT has commenced and one hopes it grows stronger with time.
Source : Hindustan Times 19th Nov 2004
Natwar Singh’s opening gambit — I-am-so-old-and-you-are-so-young — was vintage Natwar. “When I joined the Indian Foreign Service you were not even born” was what he actually told his Thai counterpart and left quite a few in the audience examining their fingernails. Ultimately, the joke can be said to have crashed. We were then taken on a tour d’horizon of India’s stellar role on the global stage.
The Two Aruns— Shourie and Jaitley — were brilliant as usual. One was disarmingly incisive and the other politely aggressive. Our friend from the Left had to retreat in a hurry. One could not agree more with Shourie’s definition of secularism: you can never deny or concede to one group what you cannot deny or give to another.
Henry Kissinger, the 20th century Metternich, was appropriately grave as he spoke of the dangers and challenges facing the world. He spoke of the threat from the rise of radical Islam and the dream of these Islamists to establish a Caliphate. He spoke of a strategic shift from the West to the Asian continent and India’s role in the emerging world order. Kissinger also spoke of Indo-US relations running on parallel tracks. That precisely has been the problem because parallel tracks sometimes run in opposite directions. And when they run in the same direction they only seemingly converge in the distance. Will the convergence of Indo-US relations also remain a dream or an illusion? Almost every one seems to want a more meaningful partnership with the US. Yet, one wonders if there can ever be an equal partnership between unequal partners.
It was a pleasure listening to John Major. He made one exult as he spoke eloquently of an India that has gone and of an India that is to come. Both Kissinger and Major spoke about Iraq but neither had a satisfactory explanation about what went wrong in Iraq, yet both held out hope for more democracy in the region. It is difficult to understand how a failed experiment can be repeated elsewhere and easy to fear that such a replication can only mean more trouble for the world.
Both Kissinger and Major invited India to sup with the rich and powerful at the high table. Of course, one day we will sit under the Baccarat chandeliers and muse about global issues with those who would be our peers then. Only, our leaders would be careful to have read the fine print on the invitation card because conditions would surely apply.
But most definitely the person who drew the loudest applause was Sonia Gandhi. It is one thing to deliver a speech to an informed audience, but it is definitely more difficult to take on questions from such an audience. And Imran Khan had chucked a bouncer at her right at the beginning but she negotiated that one elegantly.
Khan, who is yet to make a mark in politics and is still remembered more as one of world’s all-time cricketing greats, was pitted against the veteran Farooq Abdullah. Considering the state of Pakistani politics, it is doubtful if Imran will ever be remembered for his politics. In his debate with Farooq, Imran spoke of taking the wishes of the people of the entire state of J&K into account through an independently supervised election as the only solution. This is one of the many ideas floating around. But it does appear odd that this suggestion is being made by persons whose own countrymen can only have khaki dreams.
The enigmatic Altaf Hussein, founder and leader of the MQM, was another attraction. He told the audience of the agony of the Mohajirs in Pakistan and how many would want to do another hijrat back to India,
of how Pakistan had been a disappointment for many of them and, how the Partition was a mistake. Yet the only ones who applauded him for this were his own supporters who had come from all over the world to meet him in India. Most of the Indians in the audience remained subdued. Altaf told us that Musharraf was sincere in his plans to bring peace to the subcontinent and India could trust him. But apparently Musharraf is only selectively sincere, because Altaf himself has no plans to go back to his country of birth just yet. Also on display were his considerable histrionic talents, skills that have enthralled his own followers in Pakistan and elsewhere to total worship of their leader.
Mukesh Ambani, Nandan Nilekani, Kiran Majumdar Shaw and Subir Raha then shared their dreams for a vibrant, triumphant India. Their confidence and can-do spirit was both inspiring and infectious. But as they and others take us on the High Road to prosperity the government would have to do its bit. It is not enough to have all our villages internet connected in two or three years. Our villages also need hospitals, schools and roads. A beginning has been made and the vision of one government is not necessarily the nightmare of the next.
The country’s infrastructure development has to be geared to a 50-year or even a 100-year plan; we must go massive, we must learn to think big, we must do it now, otherwise our progress will be like traffic on Delhi’s Ring Road — perpetually lurching at high speed from one road block to another. We need ports where the waiting period compares to that in Singapore, airports that compare in efficiency to that in Frankfurt and highways of the kind in France and Germany that will smoothen all traffic all the way in or out. And we need uninterrupted electricity and water supplies.
We also need an attitude of mind to match the vision for a resurgent India, something that is flexible, broad and visionary even though all of us cannot be a J.R.D. Tata or a Dhirubhai Ambani. This is something which neither the average Indian bureaucrat nor the politician possesses; both have only short and uncertain tenures that are increasingly dependent on the whims either of the chief minister or the electorate. Long-term thinking, planning, supervising or even thinking on any macro-scale is rare. They are no longer equipped for it. Perhaps the government should restrict itself to laying down national priorities and leave the implementation of mega-projects to the private sector.
Modern governments need to provide only law and order to its citizens, stability of investments and currency; and along with the private sector, ensure provision of electricity, water, health and education and collect taxes to provide these services. But even good governance and a thriving private sector will not be enough unless we have a robust civil society, a society where it is understood and accepted that one person’s freedom is circumscribed by the other person’s rights. What India needs also is a market place that gives back to society what it takes out, governments that do not merely legislate but empathise and a community that debates openly what it needs and what it can do to improve itself.
This is the debate that HT has commenced and one hopes it grows stronger with time.
Source : Hindustan Times 19th Nov 2004
0 comments:
Post a Comment