06-29-2006, 11:54 PM
<b>Why should India back Shashi Tharoor</b>? -T V R Shenoy
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>A rational Indian foreign policy would have had Delhi sit back and wait for each of these parties to approach it.</b> The post is a meaningless bauble but one may as well reap a little goodwill by promising to support one or the other. This, of course, is precisely what the Chinese are doing!
Instead, by rushing to back Shashi Tharoor, India has pitted itself against several smaller nations. Pakistan is mulling over the candidacy of Maleeha Lodhi, a cheeky thumbing of the nose by entering someone who is not just an Asian but also a woman. (As noted above, no woman has ever been secretary general.) <b>The Arabs will probably rally around the Jordanian prince </b>if one should enter the fray, and it could also be a way of expressing American gratitude for Jordan's help in hunting al-Zarqawi.
<b>The ASEAN nations will probably back a Singaporean nominee. SAARC will be split between India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka</b>. (And I wouldn't put it past General Musharraf to stir trouble by the grand gesture of withdrawing his nominee in favour of Sri Lanka!) Everyone will approach Beijing for support, and Delhi's foreign policy shall, once again, be shown up.
The most optimistic estimate I have heard of <b>Shashi Tharoor's candidacy is that he has a 30 per cent chance of winning.</b> But that is missing the point; I abhor this Indian obsession with the United Nations itself. I have had nothing but contempt for the body since December 7, 1971 -- the day when the General Assembly voted 104 to 11 against the Indian position during the Bangladesh War. (When the secretary general was the South Asian U Thant!)
<b>Indira Gandhi ignored it, choosing to pursue Indian national interests. How I wish we had someone who possessed her cold-blooded analytical skills in Delhi today!</b>
..................
Indian interests won't be advanced if Shashi Tharoor wins the election; they will, however, falter should he lose. I come back to my original question: Who sponsored his nomination, and what was the rationale offered?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>A rational Indian foreign policy would have had Delhi sit back and wait for each of these parties to approach it.</b> The post is a meaningless bauble but one may as well reap a little goodwill by promising to support one or the other. This, of course, is precisely what the Chinese are doing!
Instead, by rushing to back Shashi Tharoor, India has pitted itself against several smaller nations. Pakistan is mulling over the candidacy of Maleeha Lodhi, a cheeky thumbing of the nose by entering someone who is not just an Asian but also a woman. (As noted above, no woman has ever been secretary general.) <b>The Arabs will probably rally around the Jordanian prince </b>if one should enter the fray, and it could also be a way of expressing American gratitude for Jordan's help in hunting al-Zarqawi.
<b>The ASEAN nations will probably back a Singaporean nominee. SAARC will be split between India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka</b>. (And I wouldn't put it past General Musharraf to stir trouble by the grand gesture of withdrawing his nominee in favour of Sri Lanka!) Everyone will approach Beijing for support, and Delhi's foreign policy shall, once again, be shown up.
The most optimistic estimate I have heard of <b>Shashi Tharoor's candidacy is that he has a 30 per cent chance of winning.</b> But that is missing the point; I abhor this Indian obsession with the United Nations itself. I have had nothing but contempt for the body since December 7, 1971 -- the day when the General Assembly voted 104 to 11 against the Indian position during the Bangladesh War. (When the secretary general was the South Asian U Thant!)
<b>Indira Gandhi ignored it, choosing to pursue Indian national interests. How I wish we had someone who possessed her cold-blooded analytical skills in Delhi today!</b>
..................
Indian interests won't be advanced if Shashi Tharoor wins the election; they will, however, falter should he lose. I come back to my original question: Who sponsored his nomination, and what was the rationale offered?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->