A transcript of the interview with Shashi Tharoor, Hon. MP from Trivandrum and Minister of State for External Affairs in the Manmohan Singh government. Thanks to Krishn, my co-interviewer, for transcribing the entire interview. The following interview was first published on his blog, “Krshn’s Communique.”
(Source: Krshn's Communique)
Interviewing the “Indian Indian”, Dr. Shashi Tharoor
One of the most charismatic personalities on the face of the Indian political scene today is Dr. Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State in External Affairs Ministry. With his tweeting habits and the occasional ‘misquoted’ comments has made him a media darling. Me and my friend Pratyush had the opportunity to interview him before he became a representative in the Indian Parliament. The interview was taken in a picturesque palace-turned-hotel in the beautiful city of Udaipur earlier this year in February and has been published in my magazine, my final year project of college. Making this interview public for the first time- the complete transcript. Dr. Shashi Tharoor at his witty and intellectual best before he became a rage in India.
Q. A student journalist, a writer, a diplomat all by the age of 22. How did you manage to put on such an assortment of hats, what was your drive?
A. I am not sure if anybody can fully explain what drives them, it comes from within. I remembers years ago while reading about George Bernard Shaw, he was asked “what makes you write” he said “I write for the same reason that a cow gives milk.” In other words, it inside you it going to come out. And its self-evident. So a part of me says, that I do the things that I want to do because I cant help doing it . Now that’s not the whole of it obviously, various other things come into it. You have to have a talent for something, you have to have opportunities to show that talent and that talent in turn has to be recognized. I am not so immodest as to suggest that a certain amount luck doesn’t come into all of this as well. But the opportunity was that my first story was published when I was 10 years old, a short story by me was first published. There is nothing more exciting and even addictive than seeing your name in print the first time, you keep wanting it to happen. Its like a first kiss. It carried on and I did that right throughout my school days. It also definitely helped that I was an asthmatic child and so the number of opportunities to go out and play with friends, which all of us did as kids, were often curtailed by my inability to breathe properly and keep up, as I had to sit down and huff every few minutes. So you know, that too becomes a factor. But anyway, I saw my name published and it seemed I was getting a certain amount of appreciation in what I was doing so I kept going with that. On the other stuff, the studies front, that was because as a child of middle class parents, parents said, you its great, you have a talent you must write. But, it better be a hobby, no-one makes a living by writing. So they told me to go take exams and sorts and have a normal career, whatever that maybe. The would be happy if I was a doctor or an engineer, or an IAS or IFS. But the whole ambition was that make sure by conventional yard sticks you do that. So, come home finish your homework and ten if you get time you can write, so that was always the case. Because, unfortunately the reality of living in a high zone with a salaried father and a low income, cushioned to rest upon as it were, I naturally always saw that writing was something in addition to, and not in lieu of my studies. That’s why the both tracks were together.
Q. So it was a hobby, and you had a career in it, as well as somewhere else too?
A. I was always good in taking exams. I mean there are many many people who are solid in a number of areas but who didn’t have this talent. Einstein dropped out of school for that sake, he failed in his school. I on the other hand would not claim to ever be an Einstein. But I can come first in some of the things and can come first in class. In our country that opens doors. I got highest rank in school throughout, and when I left school I could join any college I wanted to, as they were happy to have me. St. Stephen’s did not even take my interview, because my marks were so high. So, I basically went through that kind of a track and then carried on in the academic stream and then to a conventional profession. I never gave up, the feeling that evenings, weekend whenever I can get time, I used to write. Again no TV, no computers no distractions, that also helped.
Q. Since you have spoken about the Indian education system, there are a lot of products of the Indian institutes of higher education, who have made their name globally, but somehow the institutes themselves are not that renowned globally. Why is that?
A. Well, there are a number of factors. Lets take Stephens, I am convinced that it is one of the best liberal arts colleges in the world. But you don’t have a way of getting international recognition for one institution because in our system, Delhi University has 54 colleges from which St. Stephens is just one. The fact that the teaching, the ethos, the extra curriculars, everything is around the college, doesn’t matter if its international or Delhi University. Secondly we are looking at not only the overall performances but also at things like the facilities and so on. Our own system frankly has a lot be desired in terms where modern education is elsewhere _we have far lesser choices, we have old syllabi and prescribed texts. I remember in my time, I had a 5 pointer, and I was like getting the highest marks in school one assumed, that if I didn’t want to go into the sciences as I had done humanities, I would do economics, as that was seen the next track up. But I wasn’t interest in economics, and even if I had gone into economics, the prevailing dogmas were of socialism. And if you weren’t a subscriber to that point of view, there is no way you could do _or study economics in India. Because the syllabus prescribes a certain point of view. That kind of thing I would be outgrowing slowly, I haven’t looked it more carefully. But, the truth is that in our country, we are extremely bright and gifted people, who sometimes it is said, or has to be said, triumph despite the system rather because of the system. Having said that, one thing I will say. The incredible amount of pressure that we put on our kids at all levels, to get into first grade in school, right up to graduation and then college, admission into colleges, admission at every stage, means that we are given the drive to excel, cause it’s a question of survival. You see a mediocre student in America will get into a fairly good college if other things are going for him-they are looking at a well-rounded class . In our system, you not only have to be able, you have to be very hardworking, just to be able to cut across each of the thresholds. That means given the tools Indians do outstandingly well. I certainly couldn’t believe I was 19 when I graduated from college, I was the youngest student in my graduate school in States. I was 19 when I came out of my undergraduate college. So I saw a bit of a jump, but then I discovered when I was attending the classes and writing graduate papers that somebody who was from the Indian system, it was extremely easy, and the resources available were far greater. Those days in the 70’s _there were no computers but I could go to the library, I had access to material that I could have only fantasized about in my rather good college in Delhi. So as long as the mind had been reasonably trained and the habit of writing, as in India we used to write papers, rather than multiple choice, that was there. While American students older than me were struggling to write term papers, for me it was a breeze, because we were just trained to do that. And I am told that the same applies to IIT kids when they go to America and other meritorious students from India. So because of that I don’t think that you should think negatively about the Indian system because some of the bad habits in the Indian system actually translate very well when it comes to international competition. Even our one of the biggest weaknesses, which is the emphasis on rote learning, the mugging up as we say that, that has some strengths as well. The bad thing is it hampers creativity. You are told to study a certain thing and this is the answer you have to write for the exam. The good thing is. It really sharpens people’s memories. And to this day, at least the people of my generation, I am not sure if its true of yours, are able to quote chunks of Shakespeare, famous poems or famous idioms in English or whatever language, which we can do with ease, as it was drilled into us from a young age. Whereas, in America, even my contemporaries, let alone the other people dont have a clyue becuase they were never taught to learn anything by heart. You see, so you can have too much freedom as well, in the academic space. It’s a balance, there are good things about our system, there are bad things about our system. The bad things about our system particularly involve lack of imagination, lack of freedom of thought, lack of options, lack of choices, lack of resources and so on. The good things about our system include the ability to really press the student, that student has the ability to excel in a certain array, that the students in the west are simply not called upon or challenged to do. So that gives a huge advantage to all of us.
Q. So do you describe yourself as a product of your education received in India or the higher learning in the west?
A. Yes, its India very much.
Q. It is quite startling that in your years of international work, you have retained your Indian citizenship, though you reside much in the west. You keep coming to India, every now and then, why is that?
A. My situation is also very conscious in the sense that, I wasn’t migrating anywhere. I happened to have taken an international job, that put me in different countries in different terms. I did have opportunities obviously, when I studied in America. Many of my fellow students were staying on and getting jobs, but that never interested me. I always saw myself as an Indian. When applied and joined the UN, my first posting was in Geneva, then I was posted in Singapore, then it was Geneva again, then I moved to New York. I went to each of these places without trying to become Swiss or become Singaporean or become American. Why, because it was the job that takes me there, not that country that attracted me. If New York wasn’t UN headquarters, I wouldn’t have gone to New York, its as simple as that. So while I was there, I remember getting offended, whenever people accidentally or inaccurately referred to me as an Indian American, I said I was an Indian Indian and not and Indian American, right now I happen to be in America as my job is here. If tomorrow my job is over, I’ll leave. And that’s what happened, as my job is over, I started spending more and more time in India, and the transition has simply brought me back to my own country.
Q. You have worked with the UN, now this organization remains the sole international body with a worldwide presence. In the context of the Iraq war, do you think the UN has bee reduced to a mere instrument, for the big powers getting legitimacy for their illegal actions? The Rwandan genocide, the Darfur situation, and the biggest example being the Iraq war. You have been a votary of the UN, and sill vehemently support it, but the image the UN has that, its just a mere stamp?
A. Not at all. Let me explain. First of all, when the American and the Brits wanted to attack Iraq, they went to the United Nations Security Council asked for legitimization, they never got it. The Security Council basically did not respond to that. After 6 weeks of debate, hey withdrew their draft resolution, they could not get enough support to get it through. So your very example, makes the counter argument, that it didn’t do the rubber stamping. It is true, that after the Americans took over Baghdad and had established themselves, they went back to the council to seek legitimacy for the new state of affairs, and that they were given. But you see, fact is why would countries not give them that. They appeared to have completely won and the Iraqi people appeared at that point to have accepted that result. So, it was simply a question of legally accepting a new reality. But, as things began to unravel it was very interesting to see, that the US continuously went back to the UN to get and extension of their authorization to remain. And finally, when it expired last year, the international legitimacy part was over, the US forces are now staying on as a bilateral agreement with the legal government of Iraq. So this is the way in which it unfolded.. Darfur is a different story altogether, there some of the powerful countries actually wanted to condemn Sudan and Darfur, but other powerful countries protected them. And why is it, the U.N. is a mirror of the world. It is an organization of sovereign countries, and these sovereign countries then get together, and decide what is before them. Suppose if there had been no UN, you did not have the UN framework, would anything had been any different in this regard? Clearly the powerful countries would still decide. At least UN gives them a framework within which they can see and explore and consort their policies. If you had no framework, you would have much more of a law with powerful countries doing what they wanted to do. So we should be glad that we have this framework. Again I point out, Dag Hammarskjöld, the 2nd UN Secretary General, had said 50 years ago, that UN was not created to take mankind to paradise, but rather save them from hell. So, the limitations of the UN are easy to point to, no one points out the successes. When so much is done, going back to the cold war and preventing cold war fro turning hot. The invention of peacekeeping as a means of diffusing local and regional conflicts, before they ignite a superpower conflict. The whole work in such areas as passports etc. Everything that no one country or a group of one countries, however rich and powerful they might be, can solve on their own like climate change, terrorism, drug abuse, refugee movements and so many examples, so you do need a body for all this. So to reduce the UN on one issue or 2 issues, when its dealing with a thousand issues is insane.
Q. Sir in 2005, the then Secretary General of the UN Mr. Kofi Annan, headed a report titled ‘In Larger Freedom’, pertaining to UN Security Council reforms. Do you think the current permanent members, especially US and China are amenable to the expansion of the Security Council?
A. I think it’s a challenge for us to take, or continue taking on. It was clear by the following year, in 2006 when I contested, that the reform of the council was not going to happen. And one of the reasons was very normal, that it was not just powerful countries, one might think that the powerful countries don’t want to dilute their power. But is was also all other countries that set not to be gained anything by a handful of other countries becoming more powerful. And for every aspirant for a new permanent seat, there were at least one, and sometimes two or three, who said unko kyu de rahe ho, humko kyu nahi (why should they get the advantage, why not us), called the coffee club. So, the result of that was that, the initial talk of Germany and Japan, the Italians said that “what’s all this talk of Germany and Japan, we lost the war too”. Then you have got the Chinese who were not happy about Japan, Koreans were not happy about Japan, Chinese being quietly unhappy about India, but they didn’t feel any need to oppose us publicly as Pakistan was opposing us strongly and Indonesia to some degree not so publicly. And in Africa we have got the whole issue of, everyone supporting South Africa, so Nigeria and Egypt are getting exercised. and then countries like Algeria were not getting either way, saying why should anybody become first among equals in our continent. So they have not been able to get any African countries to sign on because Africa has got a policy of united approach. And Latin America, Brazil is almost like India in South America, in terms of size and weight, but all the other countries are saying, these guys do not even speak Spanish, why do we want them represent us. So the result is that they are unwilling to find a formula, which is further complicated by the very high threshold which you have to cross. You have to get a 2/3rd majority in the house. And then ratification by 2/3rd parliaments, including all the 5 permanent members. So it has to be a formula, which is acceptable to 2/3rd and is not unacceptable to any of the permanent members. Now such a formula has been elusive. My opinion is that we should go to Obama early on, and say this is the priority for us, help us and as far as we are concerned, we believe that if you take this issue on, you will be able to break the logjam in ways that nobody else could till now.
Q. The Bush administration came up with a criteria. It needs to be a democracy, contribute to the peacekeeping force and have a larger economy. They explicitly supported Japan, but it almost seemed that they were willing to accommodate India as well, in that fold. What will be the change in Obama administration, one can not see that happening. Bush portrayed there open disdain for the UN, they appointed John Bolton as the ambassador, who was an open critic of the UN. Is the regime change in the US going to help matters?
A. It could. It also depends on how effectively we approach them. During the time of the Bush administration we had the so called the G4. Which was Brazil, Germany, Japan and India. We should resonate the G4, and if possible we should informally associate South Africa with it and then we should frankly go, with a new position to the Americans saying we have taken all your criteria into account, we have taken all that. But, this we think is the formula that can work. If you are prepared to sign on this formula and if you indicate your support for it, it would break the logjam because a lo of other countries including American allies have been taking refuge behind America’s indifference. But the longer this indifference continues, the more untenable the council will become, the more anachronistic it will work.
Q. Sir this country’s name US, it just keeps coming up everywhere, in every sentence of this discussion, so definitely we understand that it is a uni-polar world at the moment. But the leading economist Dr. Amartya Sen recently said in an interview, that the current recession will mark the end of US dominion over the world. How far do you agree with that?
A. Well the recession is certainly having a serious impact. But America is capable of creatively responding to the recession, I would not write them off so quickly. They have a tremendous amount of economic dynamism, and they have to make a number of additional mistakes, for it to undermine that much, to the extent that they are negatively affected so as everybody else. So, relative terms they are still top dogs. Secondly, you are finding that despite the recession a lot of people are sending money to America. Right now the US dollar is up not down, the US stock market is down while the US dollar is up, strictly illogical. Why? A lot of people feel the safest place to park their money is American treasuries. So this is not logical, but that’s the way its working. I have great respect for Amartya Sen, he is a friend of mine. He knows more about economics in his one little finger, than I can know in my entire life. So I do not want to say that my views are based on any sound economic principals. Its just my gut feeling. It is too early to write off America. Chinese, for example, are the only serious threat to American dominance. So the Chinese are well on course, on becoming the America’s equal within next 20 years. They have also suffered a set back. 75% of their GDP is dependant on exports. If countries that are importing from China, are not able then they are also in serious trouble. We are hearing reports of young men in China being laid off by factories, wandering back to villages, where there are no jobs. We don’t know what kind of social unrest etc. will be following. So, I think its premature, to either write America’s obituary or to assume that anybody else will come up. We were to have a world war, America will not be the sole superpower , but we are also not going to have a world, where America would be one among half a dozen equal powers. I think, all the signs in my lifetime are that they are going to be a very major dominant player.
Q. Now sir, coming closer home to domestic issues. Do you think the present age of coalition politics, with a significant regional component, is sabotaging the national interests?
A. I wouldn’t put quite so directly as that. I certainly am not a very big fan of coalition governments. I have said this in my articles, for a very simple reason, I think it promotes governance by the lowest common denominator. Because what it does is, it means you can’t take any policy initiative unless 20 different netas have signed on to it. In the old days, there was collective cabinet responsibility. That is if somebody disagreed, once the collective cabinet had decided, party discipline, cabinet discipline meant that it would continue, and the government could implement the policy. Today if one decides he actually has an impact of blocking at one policy, and two or three more reject it then the policy cannot be implemented as it was initially conceived. Now this kind of thing, it seems to me, is already a luxury in many democracies. But in very affluent, industrialized countries, maybe the basis is so high it doesn’t matter. I our case, or challenges are still so enormous as a developing country that we need decisive action, to move things forward. So that is my main argument. I am not against smaller or regional parties, because after all in a democracy, any means of articulating the interests of a group of people in our country is legitimate. I will much rather see they do that by becoming a regional party than becoming a guerilla movement. As far as I am concerned, please go ahead. If you are going to say to people ‘vote for me not because I’ll do something for you but because its time people from us were in power. Vote for me because of my cast, vote for me because of my origin’ that thing will become limited after a while. We saw it in the famous case of Lalu Yadav. He won 2 elections on that message, but by the third election people were saying bijli, sadak, paani and I think that, he himself is now focused on accountability, in his role at the Railway Ministry. So it may be a part of maturation of our politics. People will become more accountable. But I certainly want to encourage people, to think nationally and to vote for national parties, that will have national interests at heart. Because India is more than the sum of the states. There is a larger idea in India, that you must have a national vision to promote and then protect.
Q. Do you think India should trade the Westminister Model of governance for a Presidential Model?
A. I have said so, and that view is not very popular in our country, so I should probably stop saying so, as it has zero support. I am giving you all the arguments why, I think it will be more effective. I think it is a particularly British perversion to elect a legislature that will perform the executive. The result is that you get legislatures, legislators who are not qualified to form the executive, whose principal virtue is that they are electable not that its able. So, I don’t quite see the logic of that. Whereas I do believe the separation of the part, that elect a legislature to hold the executive accountable and direct the laws, and hold the executive to go out and work and implement changes in the country for a fixed period of time, so that they are no constantly looking over their shoulders to see how to stay up. In fact I was saying to Manmohan Singhji recently, that in my view the one advantage of the unusual arrangement between him and Soniaji is that, for once the Prime Minister has more time to focus on governance than on sustaining himself in governance. So the problem really right now is that, that is for us a genuine challenge.
Q. Sir, there are people in India’s right who overtly opine that Hindutva is a synonym form Indian Nationalism , do you share he assessment? And do you believe that it can pose as the greatest threat to Nehru’s idea of secular India?
A. Yes I certainly believe that and in my writings I have given the arguments very eloquently. Indian nationalism is a nationalism of the Indian idea, it is not based on either language, region, religion, caste or whatever, for the simple reason that we are looking at a country with such rich diversity, that there is no one particular kind of identity that alone can claim to be more Indian or more truly Indian than any other. And that’s the great magic of us. As I said last night (at Maharana’s facilitation ceremony) you can be many things and one thing . When hindus, who after all are speaking for a faith that accounts for 81% of the population, see that’s the whole kind of nationalism. First of all, they are excluding the rest 19%. But they are also excluding a rather a large number of people, who are not the followers of their kind of Hinduism. I am a believing Hindu, I am very proud to be a Hindu, but my Hinduism has nothing in common with the intolerance and bigotry of these people. I feel that even though I may have read the holy books only in English translations, that my understanding of what I have read from the Upanishads or the Bhagvat Gita and so on, would be completely Greek to Pravin Togadia or such others. To me its not only not nationalistic, its actually genuinely anti national. And in fact, as an Hindu I will even argue that it is un-Hindu. Because Hinduism is a faith, that has traditionally never had any notion of heresy, you can believe practically anything and be a Hindu. it’s a very broad based, tolerant, eclectic faith, it has tremendous capacity to observe different ways of looking at the world. And those are strengths, those are not weaknesses. The people of the Hindutva persuasion are seeing our greatest strengths as our weakness, and they are trying to make us more like the Semitic faiths. Clear doctrine, rigid rules.
Q. But don’t you believe that, because of the centuries of invasion of the Afghans, the Mughals the need to assert individual identities and even the cultural homogeneity because of the globalization has a lot to do with this resurgence, this need to shout out loud from the roof tops and say that you are a Hindu and that India needs an identity of its own and not just become…..
A. Well what’s wrong with out identity being made up of many identities? For me the answer is yes we should have an uniquely Indian approach. So our’s should be, in fact an example to this globalizing world. Of our approach that says that the best way in India, is also the best way for the world. Which is to say people have their identities, how ever they perceive them, provided they live in harmony with other identities, and they do so under the carapace of a common Indian identity, or in broader sense, common human identity.
Q. Indian inc. including the Indian bigwigs like the Ambani’s and the Tata actually went on to say that Narendra Modi would make a good Prime Minister. How would you react to that?
A. Look, the business people are clearly racing purely on the basis of who has given them a friendly business environment in his state. But, a Prime Minister incarnates much more than a lets say a friendly Business Minister. Interestingly in the British cabinet, there is actually a job called Business Secretary. Now I would be very happy to have a Business Secretary in our government, whose whole job is to make a friendly business environment. Bu I would find it very difficult to accept, the notion of a Prime Minister, who has presided, without an apology, over the kind of carnage, the kind of bigotry, the kind of hatred, the kind of tragedy that we saw in Gujarat in 2002.
A. Look, the business people are clearly racing purely on the basis of who has given them a friendly business environment in his state. But, a Prime Minister incarnates much more than a lets say a friendly Business Minister. Interestingly in the British cabinet, there is actually a job called Business Secretary. Now I would be very happy to have a Business Secretary in our government, whose whole job is to make a friendly business environment. Bu I would find it very difficult to accept, the notion of a Prime Minister, who has presided, without an apology, over the kind of carnage, the kind of bigotry, the kind of hatred, the kind of tragedy that we saw in Gujarat in 2002.
Q. Talking of extremism, how do you read the unfolding crisis in Afghanistan and Pakistan , and Is effects in India? Do you think that there is a realistic possibility of Taliban gaining active control over Pakistan in near future?
A. I think the danger is certainly there. Because we have seen that the Taliban has essentially been given control in the SWAT valley, which is only about 100 miles or 160 km from Islamabad. So you are not talking about something, that is that far away. If Taliban were ruling in Chandigarh, people in Delhi will have to worry, its as simple as that. Having said that, there are also some counter arguments in Pakistan, though it looks like a failed state, it does has some very strong institutions the strongest institution being the army. But they also have a bureaucracy, they have a parities of state in Punjab, Sindh and to some degree in Balochistan does operate in function, and thus one could argue that they have the capacity to reassert themselves. So its not tomorrow that they are going to collapse as a country. Having said that, we also know Pakistan is an artificial creation. There is very little holding them together, except an ideology that’s based truly on Islam. That didn’t hold them together in 1971, when they lost East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. So, a repeat of a Bangladesh situation, where Islam feels insufficient to hold this new polity together, can be seen as an hindsight, which happens as a logical continuation of the fundamental flaw, in the nature of the creation of that state. So, I am not prepared to become complacent about Pakistan. My big worry, is of course much more, what will happen in Pakistan will have effect on us. So far we have found that, there is almost no particular internal arrangement in Pakistan, that is good for India. If the military are in power, that means they have no checks upon their desire to cause mischief, whether it is Zia Ul Haq sending support for terrorists and militants in our country, whether its Kargil. And then, when civilians are in power, in fact Kargil happened when Nawaz Sharif was in power. We found that civilians were either too weak to prevent the worst or sometimes they are anxious to outdo the chauvinists in the populist appeal to the worst elements of national patriotism by being hostile to India. So, we have a sort of, permanent menace on our borders. Made up of people whose principal reason for existence is that they are not us. And its principal justification seems to be hatred of us, which they described to the west as fear of us. I keep saying, what is this Pakistani fear based on? I can’t say this if I am in he government, but as a private citizen I say, look they have nothing that we want. There is nothing Pakistan has, that India wants to take. So, why should they claim to be afraid of us. And yet they mange to convince so many in the west that they have designs on them. So the result is that the military in Pakistan today has the largest share of the country’s GDP of any country in the world. Its he largest institution in Pakistan and its astonishing. In India we are used to a situation where the state has the army, but there the army has the state. So we are obliged to be very attentive. Sorry that was not a very precise answer to your question, but you know why one can’t say much more than that at this point of time.
Q. Sir, you are a cricketing buff we know. What would be the repercussions of the attack in Lahore on Sri Lankan cricket team? Not only on Pakistan but on the wider Indian sub-continent.
A. That’s not very pleasant unfortunately. Because its very clear now that the impact of the Lahore attacks first of all, has been on cricket in Pakistan that no foreign cricket team is going to travel there. But it has also created a lot of anxieties about travelling to India. Everyone knows that India is not Pakistan, but everyone knows that India is next to Pakistan. And if the kind of people who do Mumbai, can do something in Lahore, what is preventing them from doing it in Mohali or Delhi or whatever, that’s the big fear. Now, this is what lies behind the current imbroglio over the IPL. Because, would not have to worry so much about the security. but in the wake of Mumbai first and then Lahore, many cricketers will hesitate to come, unless they have guaranteed assurances of security. Now interestingly in India, our security of such events has been very good, so far there has never been any incident. So far the only incident that we can think of is the stupid time in early 90’s when the Shiv Sena activists dug up the pitch in Mumbai. And that was the kind of thing that could have been prevented if we just had security, one day before in the ground. But what people are worried about is the direct life and limb of the players, and for that we have a pretty good record in terms of being able to organize ourselves, to keep control. So my feeling is at this stage, a lot depends on the IPL being able to assure these foreigners, that in addition to normal security precautions there will be extra special security provided by the state. And the state can only provide that, if they are not taking people for the election duties. That is the picture at this moment.
Q. Now sir, a personal question. Your non-fictional writing mainly pertains to politics only, but comes process that even in fiction, you can not get over the political thought process. Is that a conscious choice? Also, along with the obstinacy in theme your writing pattern is repetitive at times, with you using certain phases again and again. Is that a creative block?
A. (laughing) On your first thing, your answer is absolutely correct. It is very much a conscious choice. I write because I have something to say. And what I have to say, is about the things that matter to me. And a lot of these fundamental political issues matter to me. The reason for repetitions is twofold. First, I am modest enough to say, I should not assume that anything that I have written earlier has been read. And worse, even if it is read, it is remembered. Secondly, I also feel as a writer, if I am making an argument it should be complete in itself. Lets say for example if you look at the first essay in ‘Elephant, Tiger and Cellphone’ about the Indianness 80% of that, I am not exaggerating and I say so, that 80% of that essay, consists of ideas that have already been expressed in ‘India- From Midnight to Millennium’, and in many cases I have used the same words. Now obviously, you are entitled to point out that this is repetition, and you would be right. But, the problem is, there are a large number of people who will pick up ‘Elephant, Tiger and Cellphone’ have never picked up ‘India- From Midnight to Millennium’. And to think will miss out, on a fundamental restatement of my premises as to where am coming from, for all the other stuff that follows. If I do not repeat myself, it is easy to write a preface as to read this book as a companion novel for ‘India- From Midnight to Millennium’. and suppose people don’t. and the fact is you are of a certain age, though perhaps you have read this, there may be many people who are coming into this sort of book reading now, who may read this (Elephant, Tiger and Cellphone) as first book of mine they are reading, before they know anything about me. And frankly, because it’s a collection of pieces. It will already look a bit scattershot. In fact, there was only couple readers who were upset. This book is all over the place. Where is the coherent message and argument, such coherence thus comes from that introductory essay, therefore even that will not be apparently enough for them. So if that wasn’t there, it will look even less coherent. So these are the challenges. Now, I have to say in my defense that you will also find things that are quite dissimilar. For example the ‘Nehru’ book or you look at something like my novel ‘Show Business’, there is nothing in those books, that has appeared anywhere else. So, judge the work by its own integrity. And, in my view I genuinely felt that some of this may not have been sufficiently complete without some repetitions. So I was conscious of repetitions, it was not so accidental or forgetful on my part, that I keep saying the same thing. And in speeches my repetitions, I jokingly call them recycling, I make a quick judgment that I am speaking to an audience where 80 to 90% would have not heard me before, I feel free to repeat everything I have said. About the thali metaphor, I can’t tell you how many people have come up to me and said wah kya bole aaj aap. But the truth is, for you guys who have heard this before “this guy has nothing new to offer”
Q. You have started a new company named the Afras Ventures. Can you share with us, what does the nme actually means, and what does the organization do?
A. Well actually, I wish it could be Africa and Asia put together, showing my global interests. But the truth is, its not. What happened was, when I left UN, or actually before I had left and was just deciding to leave, I was approached by a number of potential employers we can say. One set of offers came from the academic world. I felt I was no ready for the ivory tower. The other set came from the multi national corporations trying to expand in India. And I felt I couldn’t go from being Mr. UN to being Mr. Walmart or whatever. And the third was this gentleman, who was an Indian, in fact from Kerala had been working in Dubai for the past 17 years, this chap is called Mr. Nand Kumar Radhakrishnan, who has an existing company called Afras, so that’s where the name came from. And Afras in his case is an Arabic word for mare, a female horse. Nothing more significant than that. And he said to me, “I know what I am doing would be of no interest to you”, as he is a major dealer in pipes, fittings in oil and gas industry in the middle east, I have no interest in that. But he said “look, I have abroad for 17 years, you have abroad internationally for 29 years. Isn’t it time we gave back to India?” And that was the argument I was receptive to. So I aksed what he meant, and he told “that if you and I get together, with my business savvy and your visibility and access in India, we can start new ventures in India that can get going.” So that’s how Afras Ventures was born. I only gave him 2 conditions, first I said I only want to do things that can help change people’s lives, I was not really interested in business as business, in any case I have no background for that. And he said that was no problem. And second I said, I can only give you half of my time. In the other half I have to continue with my writing, my speaking and all of that. And he said no problem to that either. So it has been a very good arrangement. So, the first venture e actually started, though we looked at a number of things, and had a number of meetings as well on various fields, before we set up a serious project. So far the only thing that is up and running, is the Afras Academy for Business Communication. Which is a school of the techno park in Trvandrum, that trains people in business communication skills. So we have the state-of-the-art facility, we have an American executive director, who made her career in training foreign doctors to be understood by American patients in the New York hospital system. So that’s he kind of technique pace and delivery, intonation emphasis etc. A part of problem with our kids, is when you get beyond the big metros, that they come out of these second tier towns having learnt English only in books. They know the science, they know the math, they know the IT but they don’t have the confidence to express their ideas. And when they do speak, they do so in an accent that is incomprehensible to the outsiders.
Q. Sir, we heard strong rumours and this morning the Indian Express in Delhi, said that you are contesting on a Congress ticket from Trivandrum. Is it true?
A. Yes, I have certainly shown my willingness to the Congress Party, which is the only national party with the kind of bision that I am prepared to share, and I feel it is the party which is right, in a number of the key issues facing the country. Particularly, need for economic growth. Country has to grow if it pays attention to the bottom of the national population. Secondly foreign policy, robust, independent and at the same time realistic foreign policy, that has geared to the needs of the Indian people. And third of course, the preservation of the India’s democratic pluralism. And you may have noticed I keep referring to pluralism rather as secularism. But pluralism in the sense of a land with all these different identities with which we have a chance of flourishing together. So this my view is what Congress Party stands for and I have signaled to them that I am quite willing to work with them in these elections. Obviously, untill and unless they have formally given me a nomination I can’t say anything more. But, it should be a matter of days. By principal by tomorrow or day after (tomorrow) there should be a decision coming out, because the elections are just over a month away. And I certainly am looking forward to an opportunity to put my feet where my mouth is. That is, I have been talking and thinking and writing about politics, let me see if I can be a successful member of active politics.
Q. Sir, if you get elected one portfolio, that you would like to handle and one major policy change you would like to make in that ministry?
A. There is no politician worth his salt, who already says he wants to be a minister. These are in the hands of the government. First and most important duty of an M.P. is to represent his voters. So if I am the candidate from Trivandrum, my first and most important objective, and the difference I want to make, is to help change Trivandrum, make Trivandrum more of a global city. And bring sort of resources and things to make Trivandrum into a worthy showcase of the state of Kerala. So that’s all my ambition as at this stage. Beyond that I don’t see whoever will be the new Prime Minister, I am hoping my party will provide the Prime Minister.
