By Anirban Mukhopadhaya
The “handshake spat” on the cricket field during the ongoing Asia Cup has highlighted what is becoming more and more commonplace — the rows caused by departure from protocol. This is certainly not the first such departure in the field of sport. Recently, there was a similar incident at Wimbledon when Belarus’s Victoria Azarenka and Ukraine’s Elina Svitlona did not shake hands after their fourth round match. This seems to be a growing trend, not only in the world of sport but areas such as politics and international diplomacy as well — breaking with convention and protocol and justifying it as an expression of some kind of righteous emotion. While this is not about who is right and who is wrong in such cases, it is perhaps time to revisit the raison d’être of the many conventions and protocols that govern our formal interactions.
A senior diplomat told me years ago why conventions and protocols remain “paramount” when sovereign entities interact with one another. In the unequal, uncertain and potentially anarchic environment that we live in, while it may be tempting, especially for the dominant party in an interaction, to give vent to unconventional or even arrogant behaviour, what restrains both individuals and national representatives is the sobering thought that there can be other situations in which the proverbial boot is on the other party’s foot. This is the amoral principle underpinning many of our existent conventions.
Take the Vienna Convention, for example, and what it lays down for the treatment of diverse groups such as diplomats on the one hand and POWs (prisoners of war) on the other. The guiding mantra of all such dispensations is rooted in the concept of reciprocity: Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you — or as they have already done unto you. You treat the diplomats and POWs of other nations, even openly hostile ones, with dignity and restraint, in the hope and expectation that they will behave likewise where the roles are reversed. This hope and expectation is then enshrined into a treaty, memorandum of understanding, convention, contract. The documentation of such understandings is in turn expected to increase the chances that the parties involved will comply with them. Laying down protocols — detailing the processes and actions to achieve the goals of these understandings — is intended to further boost these chances. In time, in a multipolar world, such conventions and protocol become the basis by which even the “underdog” in a given situation can reasonably expect a certain minimum in the kind of treatment that he receives from the “victor”, even as it sets limits to the imposition of this victor’s will.
However, this carefully designed construct begins to crumble in a world tending toward the “unipolar”, in which one or a few parties ranged on one side have, or perceive they have, overwhelming power over all others. Such situations can instigate the decision-makers of the “victor’s” side to try to dictate terms at will to those perceived as being the vanquished or weaker party. It becomes fashionable to give this tendency a systemic philosophy, that of being “transactional”. You tend to become transactional when you believe that the other party has no means at present, or in the foreseeable future, of handing you a “blowback”. You are encouraged to seek the very best immediate “deal” with scant regard for future consequences; you don’t believe there will be any. As far as the future is concerned, you simply adopt the famous Keynesian line — “In the long run, we shall all be dead!”
This is the mindset we have seen exhibited over and over again in the course of human history. Whether it is was the signs that said “No dogs and Indians” outside the pucca-pucca sahibs’ clubs in colonial India, or the more muted but equally pointed message conveyed by placing chairs around the visitor’s side of the presidential table in the Oval Office for the European Union representatives, the signal is loud and clear.
The problem with this approach is short and simple. Experience shows that at some point it just does not work. The victor fails to account for the fact that the underdog, even when beaten, may continue to act “sovereign”. In some cases, as with tariffs, he may just choose to take the “pain” and plan for future gain, or again, he may visit you with “blowback” — export bans on critical materials you need. He may well decide that while it is dangerous to be your enemy, it is “fatal” to be your friend and look for new alliances.
Thus, you may find yourself in circumstances where you are in full control, with only the situation being out of hand. If nothing else, protocol can perhaps serve as a reliable predictive foundation for “civilised” human interactions as we understand them. Perhaps that is why the diplomats among us never cease to chant “praise be to protocol”.
The writer is a former IAS officer
