OPED: Right on, Ronen

By Arundhati Ghose

Ronen Sen is a diplomat, and one of the best at that. He has also been part of an extraordinary negotiating team, which reasoned, persuaded and cajoled the tough US negotiators over the last two years, to extract from them in the detail what had been agreed to in framework at the highest political levels in both countries. This was to be done within the red lines laid down by the prime minister through his assurances to Parliament, and in consultation with them. Of all the countries in the world, an exception was to be made for only one, India.

Though India alone and steadfastly refused to accept the inequalities of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, technology and other sanctions, imposed at the instance of the US by 44 other countries which had nuclear capabilities, were to be lifted, impacting not only the nuclear sector, but other high technology sectors as well. Thereby, India was to be enabled to participate in the nuclear trade and commerce from which she had been cut off for 30 years.

The team had to achieve this while keeping India’s strategic nuclear programme unaffected. (It is important to remember that it is not just the US that does not approve our nuclear weapon programme, but many of our “friends” in the developing world have refused to acknowledge India as a nuclear weapon state. And of course, China.)Even with India’s inherent strengths, such a task was breathtakingly daunting. It was accomplished by the team, which includes our ambassador to Washington, Ronen Sen, with élan and distinction — as even some of the more graceful members of the opposition parties acknowledged, at first. That there would be doubts, apprehensions and requests for clarification was expected, if only to check whether the PM’s assurances to Parliament had been kept.

However, the reactions, actions and counter-reactions snowballed into a political controversy — where it was not clear, to the public, at least, of whom I am one, whether the intention of the critics was to destroy the deal or the government itself or both. In this politically tense situation, what appears to be a report of a conversation on telephone between our ambassador in Washington and a journalist hit the headlines.As Sen himself has admitted, his comments as quoted were, at worst, “tactless” and general expressions of frustration after the completion of the Herculean job of having finally got the US to agree to undo what they had built up against India over decades. Yet, even if unintended, the comments seem to have caused outrage and offence in Parliament, flippant and occasional though they were. Sen apologised. An infuriated and embarrassed government, already under pressure, reacted sharply.

The speaker of the Lok Sabha promised to look into the matter and to take action if necessary, and privilege motions were tabled. Yet for one more day, Parliament has been stalled on the issue, with MPs baying for blood. What is not at all clear is why this issue should continue to agitate Parliament when it could have been dismissed with words of displeasure as Parliament got on with its job. After all, the media, which were apparently targeted, seem to have reacted more soberly and got on with their job.Sen has been targeted as a civil servant who spoke out of turn, his integrity and loyalty to the country called into question by those who should be among the last to throw stones (he has been called “Bush’s Ambassador”).

But Ronen Sen is no longer a civil servant, he is a political appointee sent to Washington after his retirement from the Indian Foreign Service. Would a mere career diplomat be able to hold up Parliament for two days? Or is this a part of the political attack on the government? Previous ambassadors against whom parliamentary objections were made were also political appointees, and the targeting was by and large on political grounds. So what we are seeing here is not outrage about the conduct of an exemplary diplomat, it is not his blood or his honour being questioned.

That is an inevitable, if unfortunate, conclusion.The strictest norms of behaviour are required from senior civil servants and diplomats. Yet they cannot defend themselves, either in Parliament or in the press. Unfair and unfounded allegations are made, even by parliamentarians, but there is little recourse unless the government defends him or her — unless the behaviour is indefensible, of course.

Who would say that stray comments over the telephone, however embarrassing, amount to indefensible behaviour?On the other hand, as a political appointee, surely he has more freedom to express his views than a career diplomat would have; so why the umbrage? In my experience, career diplomats avoid any commentary on parliamentary proceedings, especially to the press. But again, was Parliament being referred to at all?

The 123 Agreement is after all being discussed with passion, but perhaps without the underlying political agenda, in the press, on the Net, in think tanks, seminars and workshops around the country, and Ambassador Sen, after all, like Parliament, represents these people as well. Shouldn’t our sensitivities have been affected too?

Certainly, the sensitivities of those who pay taxes, and perhaps, even of those who do not, and who have been watching with dismay the stalling of Parliament over what is possibly a non-issue, certainly a trivial one, have been once again abraded, without recourse.