MEA culpa

The relatively mild remarks by the foreign minister of one of the less influential members of the European Union are the ostensible provocat...

The relatively mild remarks by the foreign minister of one of the less influential members of the European Union are the ostensible provocation. But the Ministry of External Affairs8217; tirade about the 8216;utilisation of Indian media by foreign leaders8217; amounting to 8216;interference8217; in India8217;s 8216;internal affairs8217; has obviously been brought on by something more than what Finland8217;s foreign minister said on Gujarat in an interview to this paper a few days ago. The MEA8217;s prickliness may be explained by any or all of the following 8212; the findings of an EU team, previewed in this paper, comparing the Gujarat carnage with apartheid and Germany, 1930; the leaked UK high commission report a few days ago estimating the number of dead in the state at more than double India8217;s official figure; or US Secretary of State Christina Rocca8217;s terming of the killings as 8216;horrible8217; earlier. Whatever the reason, one thing is certain. The MEA sounds overly touchy. Ever since the terrible violence began in Gujarat, this periodic lashing out, now at the media at home and then at the visiting dignitary from abroad, only reinforces the impression of a government avidly hunting for scapegoats when it is not determinedly burying its head in the sand.

The Indian government8217;s attempt to ward off the international gaze from the large-scale mess Narendra Modi has presided over in Gujarat may have been a futile exercise at any time. In a post-September 11 world, however, it is an impossible task. Washington8217;s war on terror has brought with it a brand new focus on the subcontinent. The US-led coalition has trained a keen eye on developments in this region. In turn, India has also been heard with greater attention abroad on issues like Islamic jihad, that have assumed more international resonance than ever before. In such a world, it is inevitable that Gujarat8217;s tragedy should play out on television screens around the world and provoke editorial comment in sections of the international press. And that visiting foreign dignitaries should have an opinion they may wish to express. While these positions may not be entirely informed and though they may reflect the long-nurtured stereotype, they require a more mature response than what the MEA has summoned so far. To raise the bogey of an endangered sovereignty, or to rebuke the media from doing its work, betrays a churlishness that does not behove a democracy as confident and secure as India ought to be.

The MEA8217;s reaction strikes a dissonant note for another reason as well. Over a month after it began, violence continues to rage in Gujarat. Narendra Modi8217;s government has not been able to either quell the violence or repair the damage through relief and rehabilitation. In this context, the government must appear less agitated about what the world is saying and more concerned about the administration8217;s continuing failure to bring an end to the bloodletting in the state. Thwarting the international gaze will neither retrieve India8217;s lost moral ground on the international stage nor alleviate the gloom that is spreading into the rest of the country from Gujarat. Only a concerted effort to improve the situation in the state will do that.