India has recorded phenomenal mushrooming of think tanks, with a 120% increase in their numbers in the past three years. As per global rating agency, India currently has 507 think tanks, narrowly surpassing China. USA with 1,871, tops the list. Notwithstanding the quantitative growth, we lag in qualitative terms, particularly regulatory frameworks for discussion and dissemination of information and more importantly, follow up is lackadaisical.
The problem has been compounded by live social and electronic media coverage. It has resulted in statements made by senior armed forces hierarchy being utilised to whip up TRP fuelling controversies. Recently, very incidental remarks by the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) have attracted unwarranted attention. Unfortunately, net result is that audience hang on to few controversial bytes, forgetting the core issues.
Top brass in pre-social media era had the luxury of protection of Chatham House Rule, which applied to deliberations, wherein participants were free to use ideas and information but without attribution. This rule was designed to enhance freedom in articulation and enable discussions on controversial ideas. Anonymity promoted some new and seemingly outlandish projections, later finding acceptability after debate. The rule originated in June 1927 in premier think tank, Royal Institute of International Affairs, based in Chatham in London.
While on the verge of extinction, it is worth recounting the edict, “When a meeting or part thereof is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.” The rule was conducive for compliance for print media, as editors could exercise discretion. Currently, even newspapers are constrained, to ‘keep up with Joneses’, of digital media.
It is indeed worrying that on two occasions, The ministry of external affairs (MEA) has chosen to contradict CDS’s very relevant remarks. The first instance was when his suggestion to engage with the Taliban, while answering question in Raisina Dialogue in 2018, was dubbed by MEA as his personal opinion. In all probability, we have maintained some back channel or ‘track-two’. The current situation is forcing us to accept ‘realpolitik’ of dealing with the Taliban. In effect, it is proving that CDS was not wrong. Much touted strategy of ‘not engaging’, besides being undiplomatic is both impractical and counterproductive. It also doesn’t cater for situational dynamism, with shifting goal posts.
In second instance, peripheral remarks of CDS during discussion on Higher Defense Management at IIC got unnecessarily highlighted. He alluded to possibility of convergence between Sinic and Islamic civilizations, as predicted by Samuel Huntington, in his widely acclaimed seminal theory. These remarks were again discounted by diplomats, to assuage Chinese hierarchy, on the eve of parleys.
Diplomats on both occasions could have been more discreet by invoking Chatham House rule, reiterating that what is stated in think tanks is essentially part of academic discussion. More importantly, remarks in these instances were not related to central theme of deliberations. The view points articulated by the Generals are curated by institutional bodies, like Perspective Planning Directorate, manned by selected officers. These invariably go through three to four levels of scrutiny. They are certainly not ‘off the cuff’ variety.
Within the services, it is often the Army brass, which attracts controversy. Perception gaps are indicative of absence of inter-ministerial coordination. COAS, probably as abundant measure of caution referred to MEA bulletin, in recent conclave. It will be important, if ministry pro-actively pushes information rather than usual bureaucratic ploy of introducing vetting by MEA, thereby adding another link. Public disowning of remarks of Army hierarchy is demoralising for juniors and sends negative message. It needs to be avoided.
It is indeed baffling that Chinese sensitivities trigger such knee-jerk response. Diplomacy is based on quid pro quo, it is high time they are told to stop blatantly trampling ours. Even more worrying is not being able to put across to Chinese that concerns on collusion with Pakistan are real and subscribed by large section of knowledgeable security professionals.
Soldiers often get caught up in ambiguity of grey zone due to their binary approach. Diplomats on the other hand are trained in art of balancing. Our first exposure to this dichotomy was a talk by then foreign secretary in Staff College in 1989. We were enthralled specially with liberal dose of anecdotes. Next day, Admiral Raja Menon gave us reality check. We were asked to write down five new things learnt. He allowed us the liberty of collaborative, syndicate solution. We couldn’t write any thing beyond ‘Panchsheel’, which we had learnt in high school.
Most relevant lesson learnt was that art of telling stories is critical component of public speaking, specially to steer clear of controversies. It is no wonder that in conclaves and TV debates, diplomats fare much better than veterans. It is different matter that diplomats leave most debates open ended. It will be apt to recall an old maxim: diplomat saying yes means may be, may be implies unlikely, and if diplomat says no, he is not a diplomat. For soldiers, it is yes for yes, no for no and may be means he is getting politicised.
Demise of Chatham House Rule will lead to more ‘in-camera’ debates. It is already sprouting culture of captive think tanks defeating their very raison d’etre. Events in Afghanistan and testimony of Gen Mark Milley underscore the need to give due credence to military viewpoint. Suitable correctives need to be applied for meaningful discourse.
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEMail
"discourse" - Google News
October 31, 2021 at 06:28AM
https://ift.tt/3pTnoTC
Public discourse by top brass in social media era - Times of India
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
No comments:
Post a Comment