rediff.com
Hi Guest
Log in | Sign up
Skip to content

Putin goes abroad

With the formation of the “new-look” Russian government well in hand, President Vladimir Putin is turning attention to international diplomacy. It is early days for the Putin presidency and, therefore, there is bound to be worldwide interest that Putin skipped the G8 summit in Camp David, but will be visiting 3 countries in rapid succession — Belarus, Germany and France — followed by the “state visit” to China immediately thereafter, which Beijing has pledged to make a complete success. The itinerary gives away Putin’s foreign-policy priorities. 

Why Belarus? The answer is that Putin will make a serious bid to wrap up Russia’s union with Belarus, which has been a low-hanging fruit. The strategic dimension is at once obvious. With the NATO deploying the US’ missile defence system in Central Europe and the alliance’s provocative activism in the Baltic states taken into consideration, Belarus assumes great importance to the Russian strategies. The Ukraine situation is increasingly unpredictable and volatile, too. 
Belarus is already within the Customs Union and will be a key partner in Putin’s Eurasian project. Putin’s visit to Belarus — first “official visit” of his presidency — is consistent with his election pledge that the integration of the former Soviet republics will be Russia’s number one foreign-policy objective. 
The two “working visits” — to Germany and France — within the first month of the Putin presidency show the urgency that Putin attaches to the chartering of Russo-German strategic relationship and the Russo-French cooperation in a constructive direction. Russia counts on Germany and France as moderating voices within the western alliance. 
Besides, Putin is probably about to unveil a profound initiative to build a second Nord Stream gas pipeline. This is entirely a Putin initiative and Nord Stream II can be expected to create a veritable Russo-German strategic axis in the heart of Europe, which has the hallmark of a defining moment in Europe’s history and politics. Simply put, Germany already depends on Russia to meet one-third of its energy needs and the decision by Berlin to abandon nuclear power as a source of energy increases this dependence on Russia. 
Equally, Putin exchanged warm greetings with the new socialist president in Paris, Francois Hollande. Moscow’s big hope will be an independent foreign policy by Hollande that is in sync with the trends toward a multilateral, multipolar world order. (This doesn’t mean an “anti-American” foreign policy, which is far from Putin’s own thinking anyway.) 
Although Russian-French ties have been good during the recent years, Nicolas Sarkozy’s excessive passion for Euro-Atlanticism and his strident policies apropos the regime change in Libya and the Syrian crisis were worrisome for Russia, and introduced discordant notes occasionally. Thus, Moscow is keenly watching France’s foreign-policy moves under Hollande. Certainly, Hollande held his ground despite US/Brtiish pressure on the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan by end-2012. 
He may well take the French policies within the NATO to a less intense engagement. At any rate, Moscow will expect that Hollande will be an influential European voice counselling the West’s cooperation with Russia. It seems highly likely that Putin may invite France to join Nord Stream II, which will make it a “European” project. 
Most certainly, Putin isn’t losing time to add new sinews to Russia’s partnership with two major European powers that have a decisive say in formulating the Euro-Atlanticist policies. Of course he is justified in taking advantage of the “respite” offered by the US presidential election with America’s political class preoccupied with domestic politics. The Putin presidency promises interesting shifts in big power politics, as he maneuvers Russia to play an effective role on the world stage. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , , , .

No comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 27, 2012


Lanka tells off US, Russia supportive

The Sri Lankan Foreign Minister G. L. Peiris might have said it softly in measured words, but the message went home when he chose a media appearance at Faggy Bottom last Friday to say, “I think I should refer very briefly to another deep conviction of ours, namely that a reconciliation process [with Tamils], to be successful, it must reflect the sensitivity to the aspirations of our people, it must have a homegrown polity. It is only then that the people of the country at large will be able to identify this process, which will then come alive in their hearts and minds.” 

Indeed, this is a well-known position that Colombo adheres to. The “additionality” needs to be noted, however. Peiris was saying this in the US state department building in the presence of his American counterpart as they were going in for their meeting. Peiris added that in Colombo’s perspective, “any realistic process of reconciliation must focus upon economic factors.”  
Peiris’ rejection of the US pressure tactic bilaterally and through the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva was self-evident. Interestingly, Clinton didn’t respond. Later, the state department gave a spin that Peiris presented to Clinton a “serious and comprehensive” plan for implementing the recommendations of the commission appointed by Colombo.
There is food for thought here for New Delhi as well. Colombo has successfully blunted the US’ diplomatic  assault. From Washington, Peiris headed for Moscow on a working visit. Of course, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov didn’t mince words when he told Peiris, ” We [Moscow] believe, attempts to force international investigation on Sri Lanka without the sovereign state’s permission and bypassing the UN Security Council are absolutely wrong, they also contradict our aspirations in the human rights sphere.” 
Incidentally, while announcing Peiris’s working visit, Russian Foreign Ministry highlighted that the bilateral dialogue has “intensified recently” and that the visit was “destined to fuel the bilateral contacts in different spheres.” It went on to identify military-technical cooperation as one of the “most promising lines of our partnership.” The strong Russian support came after the rejection by Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa of the US calls to close army bases in the northern Tamil provinces of Sri Lanka. 
Sri Lanka is also on the agenda of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, being a “dialogue partner” of the regional grouping. Conceivably, Peiris’s working visit to Moscow also related to the forthcoming SCO summit in Beijing on June 6-7. It will be interesting to see if the SCO summit declaration, which is customary, dilates on cooperation with Colombo. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Military, Politics.

Tagged with , .

2 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 24, 2012


Obama at crossroads on Iran

The United States President  Barack Obama literally finds himself at a crossroads on Iran where, as the poet Robert Frost wrote, two roads diverge in a yellow wood. Of course, he can’t travel both and “be one traveller”. The big question is whether he will take the grassy road which “wanted wear”, the one less travelled by, which as Frost found out, could make all the difference. 


By the weekend, it was becoming apparent that Obama was nearing the crossroads on the Iran talks. The talks were slowly, steadily, unmistakably gaining traction, disproving detractors and snipers. Now comes the confirmation as the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency Yukiya Amano returned to Vienna on a rainy, windy day after a surprise trip to Tehran.

He confirmed that the IAEA and Iran have reached accord on UN inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites. Even the Guardian, which said many a unkind thing about Iran in the past, admits that the “mood music is changing.” Reporting the big news Amano brought, Guardian commented, ” A tome of cautious optimism has crept into the flurry of diplomatic activity taking place in the shadows ahead of the Iran ncuelar talks in Baghdad on Wednesday. For once, it looks as if there is a real prospect of launching serious negotiations.”   

Obama gambled and won. But now comes the hard part. He needs to press ahead. To embark upon such high risk diplomacy in a dicey election year is an extraordinary feat. Vultures are flying above in the skies looking for carcasses on the landscape of US-Iran standoff, which is littered with bleached bones. The US Senate passed unanimously a resolution on Monday urging Obama to impose new sanctions against Iran, underscoring that the Israeli Lobby is doing the utmost to torpedo his initiative on Iran. 

What a bizarre coincidence that the venerable senators voted within hours of Amano’s productive talks in Tehran! Will history repeat itself? There have been occasions in the past, too, when the US and Iran like strangers in the night exchanged glances, but only to move away. Obama faces the single biggest foreign-policy challenge of his presidency on how to proceed with Iran. The curious part is that he first needs to fight and win a battle at home before he ventures abroad. 

Iran’s chief negotiator Saeed Jalili just flew into Baghdad disregarding a raging dust storm sweeping through the Iraqi capital earlier today. Will Obama take the untrodden path at the talks between the P5+1 and Iran in Baghdad on Wednesday? At the moment, ironically, it is the Iranian side which is displaying the audacity of hope. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , .

No comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 22, 2012


How to make China lend quicker, in secrecy

Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the prestigious American think tank Council of Foreign Relations wrote last week that the Barack Obama administration has quietly “altered its plans to move some US security resources from an unthreatened Europe to an uncertain Asia… administration leaders realized they had gratuitously offended European allies and gratuitously provided Beijing’s hawks with ammunition to argue that America was formally and openly instituting a policy of containing China. The Obama team’s minds were surely jolted when so many privately expressed unhappiness about the provocative public pivot.” 

Gelb commended this rethink on the Pentagon’s so-called “pivot” to Asia because in any case “if the US were to be in trouble or require help, it is unimaginable that India, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Turkey, or whatever country would actively back Washington with money and arms. The US can count on only the Europe Plus group.” 
One caveat to Gelb’s argument is about the capacity of Europe Plus to come to the the rescue of the US in a near future. Another caveat could be that if the US is in serious trouble today and needs back-up with money, its rescuer would be most likely China. 
An exclusive Reuters report suggests that the Obama administration is putting China as its “money manager” in a privileged status. China will be the only country that can sidestep Wall Street and lend directly to the US Treasury! Howzaat?  
The Obama administration apparently rewrote financial rules whereby China’s Central Bank can go straight to the US Treasury and buy government bonds in a unique proceedure ignoring the Wall Street middlemen so that the confidentiality of the transactions will remain strictly between Washington and Beijing and, furthermore, Beijing won’t have to pay commission to the Wall Street banks! Even Japan doesn’t enjoy such a privileged status. 
Now, how do you “contain” the goose that lays the golden egg? Aren’t we all duffers who were sold out on the US’ “pivot” to Asia? Hmm. This Obama is a smart man. The Reuters story is here. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , .

6 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 22, 2012


Obama upset over Pak supply routes

The Russians have a favorite saying, “Where is the bumaga?” Maybe, NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen and US president Barack Obama never heard of it. Bumaga, by the way, means the sheet of paper in Russian. The wise people that Russians are, they staunchly believe that a happening on the diplomatic plane can be taken as conclusive only when matters are drafted, vetted, duly signed and sealed on paper as a document.

Both Obama and Rasumssen thought they could hold up an invitation to Pakistan president Asif Zardari to the NATO summit in Chicago to bait Islamabad to agree to the re-opening of the NATO’s transit routes via Pakistan, which were shut down almost 7 months ago. They were right insofar as how could NATO possibly invite to its celebratory event a country that shut its door on the alliances’s supply routes to a war theatre where it is bleeding heavily? 

Pakistan duly obliged by indicating at various levels that a reopening of the NATO’s routes is on the cards. And Zardari duly received Rasmussen’s invite (and is indeed in Chicago at the moment). However, now it appears that the understanding, if any, on the reopening of the transit routes wasn’t put down on the bumaga. Which means it is no more than a line in the sand. 

The US commander in Afghanistan John Allen already speculates that it may be “days or weeks, I don’t know” before the bumaga is penned. He also seems to have dark forebodings; he has underplayed the significance of the Pakistani transit routes. Allen is parrying. 

The ground reality is that NATO’s exit plan is critically linked to the availability of the Pakistani routes. It will be a “logistical nightmare” for NATO if the Pakistani routes remain closed. Obviously, Pakistan knows this. The hitch seems to be over the transit fee, which Pakistan has proposed as a modest figure of 5000 dollars per vehicle. (It used to be 250 dollars earlier). 

Bit Obama isn’t amused. He is asking why such a big amount is to be paid when the US is already generously giving aid to Pakistan. It’s a good point. But Obama forgets that he is also refusing to apologise for the massacre of the Pakistani troops in an air strike last November or to respect Pakistani sensitivities regarding the drone attacks. There is a price to pay in such circumstances. 

What happens now? At any rate, Obama shouldn’t have taken matters to a personal level by snubbing Zardari and refusing to have a “bilateral” with him on the sidelines of the Chicago summit. The Pakistani government needs all the money it can get from Washington to work on a good budget for the forthcoming financial year, which also happens to be an election year in Pakistan. But its dilemma is that the re-opening of the NATO’s supply routes will be a very unpopular move and may prove costly politically at the election.
On the other hand, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta thinks it is “not likely” that US would agree to pay a higher transit fee. Equally, Pakistani military has withdrawn to the barracks and maintains calmly that this is not their cup of tea and it is for the civilian government in Islamabad to decide whether to reopen the transit routes or not. Having said that, there is a lingering suspicion that the military may also be quietly encouraging the “Islamist” opposition to the reopening of the NATO’s routes.
Ultimately, this is at its core a game of brinkmanship, as both the US and Pakistan jockey for advantages and Pakistan knows the US is running against time, what with the serious phase of the “transition” in Afghanistan commencing already by September. Clearly, the fracas at Chicago isn’t helping matters.
Meanwhile, such a high drama is bound to have its sideshow. Even as the NATO banquet gets under way in Chicago in a few hours from now, all eyes will be on another banquet in Islamabad tonight, which Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani is hosting for the visiting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 
Erdogan is on a mediatory mission that harps on the need for consensual politics in Pakistan. It is an uncertain mission, but if Erdogan succeeds in convincing the Pakistani political class about the meed to work shoulder to shoulder to handle national issues (such as the NATO’s supply routes), Obama would be a collateral beneficiary. This is the least Erdogan could do for Obama at the moment. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , , , .

No comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 21, 2012


Putin, Obama and Noah’s cats

Over all these years since 1975 when I reached Moscow on my first assignment in the former USSR, I was privileged to watch from the sidelines many a Russian-American high level exchange. The learning curve will never end, but in the run-up to the exchanges, especially summit level meetings, what often came to mind was a cute little “Biblical” story about Noah and the cats. 

While travelling in the Arc, Noah could hear that the pair of cats kept snarling and he could understand their tension after barely escaping from the deluge of the Great Flood. So, finally when the waters receeded and the dry land appeared and Noah and the animals left the the Arc to repopulate the Earth, he was stunned to see half a dozen kittens trooping out. Thereupon, the male cat turned to Noah and taunted him, “You thought we were fighting?”
Thus, the decision by Russian President Vladimir Putin to drop out of the G8 at Camp David became a topic of animated discussion, the consensus view being that the Russian leader snubbed his American counterpart Barack Obama. When Obama decided soon after to skip the APEC summit in Vladivostock, it seemed a “tit-for-tat”. 
Of course, I remembered Noah’s Arc. But it was easy to judge why this sound of snarling was misleading. To judge that Putin was snubbing Obama, there needed to be some empirical evidence, which was lacking. On the other hand, just before his inauguration as president, the US national security advisor Tom Donillon was deputed to call on him — Putin received him at his residence in Moscow suburbs — and hand over a letter from Obama proposing a new phase of US-Russia cooperation. 
More important, Putin is just embarking on what is arguably going to be the most daunting phase of his entire political life — navigating simultaneously on twin tracks the transition of the archaic Russian political system and the innovation of the stagnant economy, while also keeping the inevitable social turbulence within a reasonable threshold. In my judgment, Putin has a clear sense of priority as regards his legacy in Russia’s modern history — and quixotically tilting at the windmills in the West is the last thing on his mind. 
Equally, Obama, if he wins a second term, can be trusted to give his best shot at addressing the US-Russia reset more imaginatively than in his first term when he was under constraints of various kinds. Obama also has his priorities cut out for him, and he senses Russia could be a valuable ally in a difficult world; at any rate any lingering “enemy” image of Russia amongst cold warriors in the US is a problem for them alone to come to terms with. 
The fundamental contradiction is over the US missile defence system. It isn’t going to be easy to reconcile. Indeed, Putin will assert Russia’s status and role as a great power, and the global strategic balance is crucial to this matrix. On the other hand, the US has never come this close to making a serious bid for nuclear superiority. Statesmanship of the highest order is needed to reconcile the US agenda with Russian aspirations. Much is unclear, starting with the prime-hour question as to Obama’s prospects of securing a second term. 
Thus, on balance, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev appears to have fulfilled his mission to Camp David. He put to use his warm equations with Obama to ensure that the US-Russia reset remains on track. The picture of the two statesmen sitting on a bench in a park in the Camp David retreat and having an intense conversation conveys a lot. Medvedev apparently handed over to Obama a letter from Putin outlining “Russia’s priorities in the foreign policy course.” This looks like a cat-fight, isn’t it? 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics, Uncategorized.

6 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 20, 2012


Obama jostles with allies and friends

Looking back at this time last year when United States President Barack Obama pitched high hopes on hosting this weekend two gala summits — G-8 summit in Camp David, followed immediately by the NATO summit in Chicago — what strikes the eye is how much the world has changed. Obama intended to showcase his stature as a world leader in a spectacle of spread over 4 magnificent days in May when spring has arrived, within a fortnight of the formal launch of his re-election bid. Even a gifted politician could miscalculate.

Where Obama went seriously wrong is, ironically, in underestimating the crisis in Europe, while his saving grace is that he succeeds in shoring up that one front that he probably least expected to hold, namely, Afghanistan. To stretch the irony, the European crisis that may spill over into the US politics in the coming months — economic slowdown in Europe may well cross the Atlantic and engulf the US before the November election — but Obama can be virtually sure of a bipartisan consensus in the domestic arena regarding his pledge to extend the Afghan war beyond 2014. (Whether he will indeed redeem the pledge, if elected for a second term, becomes a completely different story.) 
The US’ European allies customarily lend a hand to build the hype of G8 or NATO summits. But the leaders in  Berlin, France or London — leave alone Rome, Athens Madrid — seem rather indifferent, almost irritated about the weekend’s distraction that they could have done without. The heavyweight, Germany, is entering high turbulence in domestic politics with Chacellor Angela Merkel’s government facing the threat of a meltdown. 
The inescapable reality is that the US figures only peripherally in the European debate, and Washington has scarcely any leverage over Europe’s fiscal emergency. Obama finds himself on an awkward spot incapable of steering the course of events or influencing developments, while being petrified about the deluge if the floodgates get opened swarming the US’ prospects of recovery. 
In any case, what is G8 when China, South Korea, Australia, India, Turkey and Brazil can do without it? Bruce Jones of Brookings said nicely that G8 is a body that’s a “little bit betwixt and between.” Out of the magnificent spectacle promised by Obama this weekend, G8 seems destined to end up as a whimper. 
On the other hand, NATO summit promises to be dynamic. The agenda includes the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan and the “transition” scenario as well as international security in the midst of the economic crisis. 
Obviously, the US’ European allies are eager to push for the exits in the war in Afghanistan. Obama will restrain some of them, including France. Second, Obama needs to persuade the NATO allies to cough up 1.3 billion dollars to match the US’ contribution to the 4 billion dollar kitty that is to give the financial underpinning for maintaining an Afghan army in the post-2014 period. When it comes to money, Europeans may show reluctance, but 1.3 billion dollars for the 27 NATO partners out together is not a big deal. The NATO summit golds no mysteries. Obama’s address to the (American) nation from the Bagram air base on May 1 said it all. It is one of those curious situations where the foreplay — signing of the US-Afghan strategic pact —  was actually the real act. 
The tantalizing part of the summit lies elsewhere: how far will the summit (read Obama) push the envelope on the ballistic missile shield [BMD] without Russia. A BMD without Russia will no doubt be a game changer. Russia is, understandably, bristling. But Russia is still hoping that the NATO’s decision on ABD will not be a game breaker. 
Obama will, in all probability, tread softly, knowing he is treading on Russian sensitivity. And this is also what a whole lot of them want — Frau Merkel, Monsieur Hollande, Erdogan Bey, et al. So, Russia keeps its fingers crossed. 
The decision to depute Dmitry Medvedev to go to the US just ahead of the NATO summit in Chicago to have a candid chat with Obama (who professes much warmth toward him) at the Camp David retreat is one of the smartest things Vladimir Putin took in his first week at the Kremlin. Beneath the veneer of “strategic defiance”, he keeps the US-Russian reset on a pragmatic course. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics, Uncategorized.

Tagged with , , , , , .

1 comment

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 18, 2012


A voice from inside Quetta Shura

Kathy Gannon of Associated Press goes back a long way to almost where it all began in the 1980s in the Afghan civil war, and she began reporting from the rim of the volcano. Trust her to have got through to the Taliban’s Quetta Shura to someone who is “one of the most powerful men” within that council — Agha Jan Motasim. The AP interview with Motasim gives a rare insight into the wheels within wheels of what passes for the Taliban movement — or rather, what it has become through the tumult of these 2 decades behind us.


The Taliban have 3 demands: release of all Afghan prisoners languishing for years in Guantanamo Bay and Bagram; removal of their names from the United Nations “blacklist”; and, recognition as a political party. Pray, is it too much to ask for in a lifetime?

Of course, there are “hardliners” within the Taliban family. But then, they are there everywhere — be it in our life at home, or away from home. It’s a human trait. Why be obsessive about it and give it a centrality it doesn’t deserve? Isolate it; we could tell the Haqqanis some day, as Dante wrote, “Consume within thyself with thine own rage.”  

The overpowering sense of Motasim’s remarks is a sense of exhaustion, like in the Uncle Tupelo song “Looking For A Way Out” — when you find you can’t somehow / make it like all the rest / you won’t need to scrounge around for someone else / torn between the unknown / and the place that you call home / and the life that you want but have never known… Read the AP dispatch here.

Posted in Military, Politics.

Tagged with , , , .

No comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 17, 2012


Taliban’s deathly blow to Karzai

The killing of Arsala Rahmani, former minister in the Taliban regime, in Kabul earlier today aims at weakening President Hamid Karzai just when he was getting the upper hand on the Afghan chessboard with the signing of the strategic pact with United States and began emerging as the lead figure in any peace process. It is the most serious blow to Karzai after the elimination of former president Burhanuddin Rabbani. 

Rahmani was even more ‘valuable’ than Rabbani, as he was one of the Taliban. He knew Taliban’s mentality, how they worked, how they could be engaged. He knew their weaknesses and strengths. Karzai consulted him closely. Arguably, Karzai and Rahmani were kindred souls, both having been Taliban officials. Rahmani is virtually irreplaceable. The tone of the ISAF statement betrays the sense of loss for the US military command as well. 
The brazen way in which the US is forcing the pace on the establishment of military bases in Afghanistan and creating a fait accompli — and Karzai’s collaboration or acquiesence with it — is bound to be challenged by the Taliban and such a contestation would even have the tacit support of some regional powers. Besides, the US and Karzai are working overtime to split the Taliban movement — and seem to be making some headway already, creating confusion within the Quetta Shura — and in this risky enterprise, Rahmani would have played a key role.
Obviously, Taliban struck back. But equally, Rahmani’s killing coincides with the steady easing of the chill in US-Pakistan ties. The consultations of the US commander John Allen with Pakistan army chief Ashfaq Kayani in Rawalpindi seem to have gone well and the sides are tackling the reopening of the transit routes for NATO convoys via Pakistan. The upswing in the US-Pakistan equations at any point would be a matter of disquiet for Karzai, and Rahmani’s murder today adds to it. 

Posted in Politics.

Tagged with , , , .

No comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 13, 2012


Farewell to a President

Nearly a million people braving a dust storm and shower assembled at the Ram Lila Grounds in New Delhi on May 10 to attend a farewell function to Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who will be laying down the office of President in a few days. Dr. Radhakrishnan, paying a tribute to the President, said that just as Bharatha ruled the country with the image of Sri Rama in his heart, so too did Dr. Rajendra Prasad live and work with the ideal of Mahatma Gandhi in his heart. Prime Minister Nehru described Dr. Rajendra Prasad as the symbol of the great “synthesis between the old values and the new world of science.” A farewell address eulogising the services rendered to the nation by Dr. Prasad both before and afer Independence, and wishing him long life and good health was presented by the citizens of Delhi.
The above is a news report that appeared in The Hindu newspaper 50 years ago on May 11, 1962. It is so very painful to read it today when our political class is scouting around for a new president and weighing the pros and cons of the candidate; Should he be a politician, a Muslim, or at the very least a rocket scientist? 
Imagine a farewell at the Ram Lila to honour our incumbent President Pratibha Patil, with Vice President M.H. Ansari and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh addressing 10 lakhs patriotic Indians who gathered there of their volition “braving a dust storm and shower” to pay respect to a great Indian. If it is not possible that such a thing can happen today, let me ask those who elected our incumbent president 5 years ago, with all the humility at my command as a commoner: ‘Why not?‘ 
Alas, the only constants today are the dust storm and shower that ransack the Ram Lila Grounds in the month of May. How much has India changed! The wonder that was India, isn’t it? The Hindu report is here.

Posted in Politics.

Tagged with , , , , , .

No comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 12, 2012