06-21-2006, 12:12 AM
<b>Toy land </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But that is Tharoorâs outlook, what opinion he holds of himself. Why did we plump for him, especially after taking his candidature non-seriously all this while? What is our justification? What do we see in Tharoor that makes him so fit to be secretary general? The governmentâs squeamish, unconvincing response is he has played it long in the UN. But as what? <b>Has he been an exceptionally successful peacemaker, a highly respected weaponsâ inspector, an arms control wizard? In the cutting edge of international diplomacy, what is his contribution?</b>
<b>Zilch. Tharoor has been a highly successful UN bureaucrat, he has played it right with Annan. But there is nothing to suggest he is fit to be UN secretary general. To our mind, he is exceptionally unfit, he is a joke candidate, someone we wonât even make our permanent representative at the UN. In backing such a joke, we have somewhat lowered our standing. It will be very surprising if Tharoor the upstart gets anywhere in the race, and it was a sad day when we supported him.</b>
But why? Why did we back such an obvious non-candidate? If you dismiss the conspiracy theories, Volcker and so forth, our choice becomes even more preposterous. <b>Tharoor, a great self-publicist, sort of pushed himself into the frame, but at bottom, if you look, we have nobody else to back, nobody, so empty is our cupboard of great diplomatists</b>. When you think of a great Indian diplomat, someone who wrenched things in our favour, brought us victory from the jaws of defeat, as they say, does any name surface? Think harder. Blank.
............
We, though, have given the game away even before it has begun. By backing a weak, non-candidate, whose only qualification is he is an Indian, we have shown ourselves for the unthinking, shallow state we are. And it is all a tamasha, fit for nine âoâ clock news, a photogenic Shashi Tharoor making his power rounds in New Delhi, hoping that wings will fly him to the very top of the UN. What a waste.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Zilch. Tharoor has been a highly successful UN bureaucrat, he has played it right with Annan. But there is nothing to suggest he is fit to be UN secretary general. To our mind, he is exceptionally unfit, he is a joke candidate, someone we wonât even make our permanent representative at the UN. In backing such a joke, we have somewhat lowered our standing. It will be very surprising if Tharoor the upstart gets anywhere in the race, and it was a sad day when we supported him.</b>
But why? Why did we back such an obvious non-candidate? If you dismiss the conspiracy theories, Volcker and so forth, our choice becomes even more preposterous. <b>Tharoor, a great self-publicist, sort of pushed himself into the frame, but at bottom, if you look, we have nobody else to back, nobody, so empty is our cupboard of great diplomatists</b>. When you think of a great Indian diplomat, someone who wrenched things in our favour, brought us victory from the jaws of defeat, as they say, does any name surface? Think harder. Blank.
............
We, though, have given the game away even before it has begun. By backing a weak, non-candidate, whose only qualification is he is an Indian, we have shown ourselves for the unthinking, shallow state we are. And it is all a tamasha, fit for nine âoâ clock news, a photogenic Shashi Tharoor making his power rounds in New Delhi, hoping that wings will fly him to the very top of the UN. What a waste.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->