You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
Perhaps I am drawing the wrong conclusion but the coincidence seems worth noting. The only interesting piece of news last week was the nomination by the Indian government of Shashi Tharoor as its candidate for the post of secretary general of the UN.
The election is due in October and if he is elected, Mr Tharoor will become the first Indian to hold the post. Not just that, either. India would have broken with an important tradition whereby the job goes to small countries. Not just that, either. India would have annoyed it neighbours, Sri Lanka and Thailand who too are thinking of putting up candidates of their own. And not just that, either. Indian would have embarrassed the US which will be in a quandary now after all the bhai-bhai talk.
Fit subject, then, for some good leader writing, right, for everyone to wade in and have a go? Wrong. Of the larger (and sensible) newspapers, three did not write and one waffled. The absentions came from the Hindu, Hindustan Times and Pioneer. The waffler was the Indian Express which, instead of talking about the decision to field Tharoor, talked about the need to reform the UN! Why bother to write all, then?
I can only wonder why these editorial decisions were taken. My guess is that they may have something to do with the fact the Left, the Congress and the BJP have all supported the decision.
Only three important papers commented on the decision - the Telegraph, the Deccan Herald and Business Standard.
The Telegraph summed it up nicely. "There is an old joke that defines mixed feelings as seeing one`s mother-in-law driving one`s new BMW over a cliff." The implication was clear, as was the snide contempt for Tharoor in what followed. "…he is currently the under-secretary (communications)… he is an accomplished writer. His curriculum vitae makes him an excellent candidate…but there are certain critical factors that lace the optimism and the hope…(but) India `s support to Mr Tharoor may have been somewhat premature."
The Deccan Herald was the only one to give a list of the other candidates. "Other contestants include South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon, Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai and Sri Lankan diplomat Jayantha Dhanapala. It is still too early to gauge Mr Tharoor`s chances…some UN members view Mr Tharoor through the lens of his association with Mr Annan. These countries are likely to prefer a candidate from outside the ranks of the UN staff… Along with convincing UN members, India will have to win the support of all five permanent members of the Security Council."
The Business Standard said the candidature "would be a significant personal gain for the candidate but what would India have gained?... UN reform as a reason for putting up an Indian candidate is a non-starter… Could it be, then, that as Pakistan has suggested India has given up hopes for the next couple of decades of becoming a permanent member of the Security Council? The country is entitled to ask, what`s cooking or what has been cooked? Why the sudden announcement? Is it linked to something else? If so, what? What does India expect to gain, especially if it means incurring the displeasure of Thailand, Sri Lanka and others? Would India not have been better off supporting an Asian candidate from a smaller country? India should have acted differently. Sometimes, dignity and eventual gains lie in restraint."