Unambiguous at the UN

There were no surprises in Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee8217;s speech at the UN Millennium Summit. It was a careful reiteration of known positions on most issues, from terrorism and the perfidy of its promoters, to the CTBT and India8217;s case for a seat in the Security Council. What was new, however, was the tone of controlled yet unambiguous anger that had laced his words, both in his address to the Asia Society on Thursday and his five-minute speech at the UN on Friday morning. Although he did not deign to name the object of his wrath at the UN, only the very uninformed could have missed the direct allusions to Pakistan, or failed to have seen in it a response to Pakistan CEO General Pervez Musharraf8217;s statements, made at the same venue a couple of days earlier. The message sought to be conveyed to the heads of the world8217;s nations was simple and rang true: India was a nation wronged; a democratic, stable, liberal one, whose sincere overtures of friendship were deliberately spurned; one which has had towitness the killing of 30,000 of its citizens in senseless acts of terrorism actively promoted by its neighbour and which could no longer regard this nation8217;s peace posturing with any degree of trust.

Much of this had to be said. Musharraf8217;s attempts to paint India as a neighbourhood bully needed to be exposed and the world alerted to the bankruptcy of his offer of a dialogue with India at 8220;any level, at any time and anywhere8221;. India8217;s commitment to fight international terrorism also required to be demonstrated in unmistakable terms. But, having said this, there is also a sense of disappointment that a millennial message to the world 8212; a moment that allows for acknowledging the possibilities of future change and hope 8212; should have been so mired in the tensions and hatreds of the past, so locked in an impossible hostility. In the process, the prospect of a subcontinental thaw never seemed more distant, more unrealisable, more impossible. In the process, Vajpayee himself lost out on an opportunity to rise above Musharrafian doublespeak and appear a world statesman with a millennial people-centred agenda rather than as a tired and disappointed leader pushed into a regional quagmire. This, after all, was aunique event that brought the heads of 170 nations of the world together and which was meant to showcase a forward-looking vision for the international community.

While the Prime Minister dwelt on many issues, somehow the long shadow of its obstreperous neighbour never seemed far away, whether it was in the reasons cited for India8217;s nuclearisation, or its support of the Convention on the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism, that was sponsored by France. More pity this, given India8217;s strong case for a seat in the Security Council. Vajpayee did, indeed, present the argument for Security Council representation with conviction. He pointed to the need to expand and reform the UN Security Council to 8220;reflect the realities of the 21st century8221; and explained why this country being the 8220;world8217;s largest democracy8221; should rightfully take its place within it.