Politicians anywhere must defend themselves against the world. The problem in India is that they have requisitioned diplomats to perform the dirty task. And most admit it isn’t an edifying experience. "I am just hoping all this will pass quickly. It is like being stuck in a bush full of thorns," says a senior diplomat. Another confesses to having had sleepless nights. "My conscience troubled me after reading about Gujarat. But what option do we have? We either defend the government or we resign."
Perhaps it would have been better to keep quiet, if the situation had been handled professionally. MEA press releases have only turned diplomats red with embarrassment. Sample the comment that came a full week after media reports first appeared that the EU had issued a demarche on Gujarat: "Our ambassador has already conveyed to the Spanish foreign office our views on their so-called ‘demarche’. We do not consider there is room for any ‘demarche’ to us on Gujarat by a European Union that seeks to play to the public gallery." The statement was denying the MEA’s earlier claims that the EU hadn’t issued a demarche.
Diplomats are disgusted at having to defend the indefensible. "When we colleagues sit together and talk about it, there is a sense of disgust. I used to think civil servants are apolitical, now I am convinced we are amoral as well," quips one diplomat. He and others are aghast at the hypocrisy inherent in the absurd drama the nda government has been enacting. For instance, MPs want to know what steps the government is taking to counter the beating India has taken over Gujarat. This diplomat remarks acerbically, "All they are worried about is image. Isn’t it ironical that it is they who have refused to disengage from their political embrace of Modi? All these questions should be flung at Modi, he should answer them."
Modi is only part of the problem. Indian diplomats also blame Prime Minister Vajpayee’s Goa speech for their unease. They particularly describe two of his statements—"if there had been no Godhra, the tragedy in Gujarat would not have occurred"; "wherever there are Muslims, they do not want to live in peace"—as "shocking". Though Vajpayee subsequently clarified that he had been quoted out of context, diplomats are not convinced. "In whatever context you read them, it is a tacit justification of Gujarat. How do you defend him—and the country—before western countries?" The MEA’s defence has only invited hate mails. One irate writer thought Modi should be tried for crimes against humanity, and the MEA for vigorously defending him. Such criticism riles because no other wing of the government has been asked to defend Modi and Gujarat. One incensed diplomat demands, "Shouldn’t somebody from the home ministry be defending Gujarat? Why is the MEA being made the scapegoat? It is these guys who started the problem. How are we involved? Why should we be left holding the baby?"
Nor has foreign minister Jaswant Singh led from the front, lending his baritone to deflect some of the flak. He seems quite content to lie low, much to the chagrin of diplomats. "Earlier, at the drop of a hat he used to meet the media. Have you noticed there hasn’t been a single public comment from Jaswant on this issue?"
Diplomats feel their task could have been made easier had the big bosses conducted strategy sessions to evolve a consensus over the method of defending the government. At best, there have been only private consultations and verbal decrees.
Such knee-jerk reactions are perilous in this age of information boom. As one diplomat posted abroad points out, "We do get a line from Delhi which we put out regularly. But on Gujarat, all that western journalists have to do is go to Indian newspaper websites to hear the other side. Basically, we have two competing Indian versions of the same event. This hasn’t made our jobs easy."
Perhaps that’s why the government did not televise last week’s parliamentary debate over Gujarat. Really, as one diplomat put it, "Shame has no spin"—and the government knows it.
