& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

SUNDAY POUCH

Meet the Indian diplomat
**We have to see that our national interest is not compromised in any way. We must be able to persuade the Indians through cogent arguments, quoting precedents and referring to good practices round the world, to get the best result.***
Diplomacy in India can be traced to the times when the great epics, Ramayana and the Mahabharata were written. The Bhagavat
Gita, which is also a sacred book of the Hindus, is a fine tutorial on diplomacy. The text here is a battlefield dialogue between Arjun the warrior and Krishna, the Vishnu incarnate, who was the chariot driver.
Krishna tells Arjun how one's speech should have the following qualities: "it should not disturb the mind of the listener, should be precise, should be truthful as far as possible, pleasing to the ears and if need be of some utility to him." Truth is not shown as the highest virtue. Rather the premier place goes to the need that it should not cause distress to the listener. Precision and good language are therefore part of any Indian diplomatic dialogue.
In the fourth century BC the political analyst Kautilya in his Arthashastra said that what produces unfavourable results is bad policy. A policy is to be judged by the results it produces. To him diplomacy is an art which need not concern itself with ideals. It must achieve practical results for the sovereign.
When the Mughals came to India, the Rajput clans used diplomacy to appease them. Thus, when Emperor Akbar proposed to marry a Hindu Rajput princess, jodhabai, who was the eldest daughter of the Raja of Amber, she was persuaded to give her immediate consent. This cemented the bonds between two different races and religions. The Indians also used pompous social festivals like the traditional "Rakhi" ceremony to tie the knot of fraternity among monarchs. Recall how Raja Man Singh of Gwalior also gave the irresistible classical singer Tansen as a "gift of appreciation" to Emperor Akbar. It was to gladden the heart of this powerful sovereign, who could otherwise be a
difficult proposition. Diplomacy is, therefore, deep inside an Indian's psyche. Its centrepiece is tolerance and conciliation.
Fast forward to present day India. The diplomats from that country are the scions of these great traditions. They pursue their national objectives now with greater sophistication and better negotiating skills. Their canvas has expanded not only to include the neighbouring states of South Asia but the world at large.
It may, therefore, be interesting to meet such an Indian diplomat who also doubles as a negotiator. The person is usually a complex and highly imaginative individual. His behaviour is influenced greatly by his cultural values. At times, this may lead him to be inconsistent in his behavior. On his own, he is very aggressive. But as a part of a team he tends to be passive and demure. Then he does not
express any views, unless it is a part of the consensus which was reached earlier with other members of his negotiating team. But his rich imagination expresses high aspirations. He may also join in creative problem solving.
Indian culture is hierarchical. Top down decision is the norm. A subordinate diplomat rarely differs with his seniors. He would at most disagree with the nature of the decision or the way it is being implemented. One cannot, therefore, expect maverick behaviour from him.
The Indian negotiator sometimes has an exceptional ability to analyse. The rapid growth of software industry in India would not have been possible without such a skill among the Indians in general. This also means that he is discerning and is able to quickly find flaws in the arguments put forward by the opposing side. India is
perhaps one of the most nationalistic places on earth. The diplomatnegotiator is, therefore, sensitive to advice from foreigners. He will then react quickly as his sentiments are easily aroused.
The Indian diplomat often takes a subjective view of time. He does not feel the same sense of urgency in solving bilateral or multilateral issues as other country's negotiators. He has what can be called more of a "being" than a "doing" attitude. For this he may be labeled as a foot dragger.
An Indian diplomat always seeks a lot of information. He will subject this information to a lot of analysis before he draws up his line of argument.
When you start negotiating with an Indian diplomat on any matter, he will at first express his reluctance to accept your proposal. He will try to squeeze you as much as possible. He will negotiate for months or even
years to get the best deal. Eventually, you will get so tired negotiating for the last 5% that you could eventually agree with him.
Finally, contractual or treaty obligations do not have the same sanctity with him as with others. The Indian diplomat usually operates in a somewhat chaotic environment. There are political uncertainties, judicial delays, nationalistic concerns, sensitivity of state governments etc. This suggests the need for flexibility. So, given a chance an Indian diplomat would prefer open ended obligations.
Now, with such unconventional behaviour, how should we negotiate with the Indians? How do we engage them and find mutually acceptable solutions on substantive matters such as the determination of land and maritime boundaries, peace at the border, or sharing the waters of
the common rivers? Given the political will on both sides, we must know how the behaviour of the Indian diplomat would impact the outcome of any negotiations. First, we must understand that any negotiation process with India will necessarily be long and time consuming. Second, contractual obligations of India cannot always be taken seriously. The matter of implementing the Indira-Mujib Accord and the signing of the accord on Teesta are just two of the many cases where the Indians acted in a casual way in implementing their commitments. A changed situation on the ground may also tempt Indians to request fresh negotiations. In that case, it would be wise for us to introduce new parameters, each time there is a shift by them, in meeting international obligations. Harsher conditions could be laid down to desist them from taking recourse to casually postponing the implementation of agreements.
Third, the Indian perception of fairness is often different from that held by a Bangladeshi negotiator. This could be quite disturbing. Fairness in deciding contentious issues usually has two dimensions — the outcome and the process. On either count, we could find ourselves in the lurch. So we have to see that our national interest is not compromised in any way. We must be able to persuade the Indians through cogent arguments, quoting precedents and referring to good practices round the world, to get the best result.
In the end we need to induce the Indian side to relax their rigid stance. They must be encouraged to work in tandem to produce win-win outcomes.
Frank Lloyd Wright is reported to have once said: "I know the price of success — dedication, hard work and an unremitting devotion to the things you want to see happen
For Bangladesh, this is the dictum that may see us through our relations with India, for the time being.
The writer is a former ambassador and a regular commentator on contemporary issues.
E-mail: ashfaque303@gmail.com