<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Shashi Tharoor </strong><em>lives many lives. United Nations veteran, Parliamentarian and former foreign minister, the suave politician is also the author of about a dozen important works — both in fiction and non-fiction. The 1956-born writer’s latest book negotiates a subject Tharoor has always loved to write about: the future of India. </em>Pax Indica: India and the World of the 21st Century<em> was released last month in Delhi and<strong> BW's </strong><strong>Vinay Dwivedi</strong> posed these questions to Tharoor.<br /></em></p><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Is it true that you read 365 books in a year?</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify; ">(Laughs) Yes, that was a challenge I set myself when I was in school. I decided to read one book every day, cover to cover, for an entire year. And when the New Year came, I had managed 365, mostly not-very-fat books, many of the kind that could be read in a day. To be fair, of course, I cannot claim to have retained too much from them… so I wouldn’t recommend anyone else try it! Better to read for pleasure than to a target.</div><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Do you see yourself as an author first, or a politician?</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify; ">I would say politician, because while writing has for decades now been an essential part of my life, I regard it as something of a second career. My principal focus has always been my official work, first at the UN and now in service of the people of Thiruvananthapuram. To write, I have always had to make time outside the ordinary course: late into my evenings, on weekends and other holidays, and so on (though politics is no respecter of holidays, and weekends in my constituency are usually full!). In fact, for the last three months of writing Pax Indica I was literally sleeping only two or three hours a night, because I had to find time outside my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament to write it.</div><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Who are you targeting as your readers with <em>Pax Indica</em>?</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify; "><em>Pax Indica</em> is meant for the intelligent reader with an interest in India and its place in the world. It is not a scholarly book with footnotes and extensive marginalia that is intended to break new academic ground (although I hope academicians will also find it insightful too). The whole idea is to contribute to public discourse on foreign affairs and to give an overview of how India is poised in the world today. My effort is to trigger animated living room discussions and debates so that foreign affairs becomes a matter of general public interest instead of remaining confined to academic and diplomatic dialogues.</div><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><strong><img width="200" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="200" border="1" align="right" alt="Shashi Tharoor" src="/image/image_gallery?uuid=52903e82-66ae-47db-945d-5b7872fc822e&groupId=219112&t=1344505022879" />How big a role can trade play in improving international relations?</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify; ">Trade has always been one of the cornerstones of human society, and in our times its importance has mounted like never before. There was a time when even the junior-most diplomat in our missions would balk at the idea of consorting with a businessman. But today our Ambassadors see business promotion as part of their core mandate and we see Prime Ministers and Presidents leading massive trade delegations whenever they travel. And the economic cooperation they build most definitely affects international relations. If two countries have a stake in each other’s economies (which translates into jobs, livelihoods, incomes, and so on), they are bound to view each other differently than if they shared nothing at all. Countries become partners through business, they develop a stake in each other, and realise that if instability is promoted or even allowed, they will themselves be the losers.</div><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>We saw that it was under President Bush that the Indo-US bonhomie really began...under President Obama, there have been a few hiccups, for instance, his remarks on outsourcing, the MMRCA deal issue and, now, his ‘outlining’ of trade policies for India — opening up sectors for FDI. </strong><strong>Will it help India if the Republicans came to power?</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify; ">I think we need to remember that in an electoral setting, politicians everywhere tend to make remarks that will appeal to their constituencies. Nevertheless, even when political leanings affect actual relationships, we shouldn’t forget that the US, for multiple reasons, must necessarily be friendly with India today. There is a general direction in which our relationship is growing and even if hiccups, as you put it, appear, the chances that this general trend will be reversed or radically altered is very slim. It is in the US’ interests to be friends with us, and vice versa. And I see nothing inappropriate in President Obama expressing his country’s policy preferences, just as we tell the Americans we want more outsourcing or more H1B visas for Indian professionals!</div><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>We have seen China’s aggressive stance vis-a-vis the South-China Sea. In fact, oil block number 128, which was contracted to ONGC for oil exploration by petro </strong><strong>Vietnam, also fell under the blocks that China National Offshore Oil Corporation put up for bidding. Do we have to reconcile to the idea of getting bullied?</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify; ">No sovereign nation accepts ‘bullying’ and India certainly never will.</div><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>You have said that because of a trade surplus that China has with India, it has more to lose in case there is a conflict. Do you recommend that India continue to maintain a trade deficit with China, as an insurance of sorts...a safety valve, perhaps?</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify; ">Not a deficit, necessarily. But definitely increased trade which, given the nature of our two economies, is highly likely to remain in China’s favour. On the other hand, if we produce something the Chinese really need and buy in vast quantities, it would have the same effect!</div><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Despite the ‘multi-alignment’ approach that you have put forth, we are seeing that India is aligning with the US and in its attempts to please Uncle Sam. Most recently, when it voted against Sri Lanka on the US-sponsored human rights resolution, then, India voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency...again toeing the US line...</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify; ">I disagree strongly that these were “toeing the US line”. Every one of these policy decisions had an Indian rationale, just like those decisions where we did not agree with the US. With Sri Lanka, we had a strong domestic constituency, mainly in Tamil Nadu, in favour of such a vote, and Colombo just hadn’t shown us enough progress in fulfilling their own promises to their Tamil people for us to conclude they had earned our vote. As to Iran, we have no interest in seeing further nuclear proliferation in our neighbourhood. We do have an interest in international legality. Iran chose to sign the NPT of its own free will and having done so, it has an obligation to abide by its provisions. That is the principle we upheld at the IAEA.</div><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Can we afford non-alignment and do we have the will for multi-alignment?</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify; ">The whole concept of non-alignment has changed completely. There are no longer two superpowers to be non-aligned between. Instead, as I first suggested when I was minister, we live in a new world where a single definite disposition or paradigm will never work, for there are far too many players and actors, of varying degrees of importance to us. We must deal with all of them, and they must with us. That is where multi-alignment comes in. So, we can remain with the non-aligned movement, which reflects our colonial experiences, while at the same time participating in the Community of Democracies, alongside the Western countries, since we are a democracy of 65 years’ standing. We belong to the G-77, the global ‘trade union’ of emerging countries. And yet we also remain in the G-20, which is the ‘management’ of the world economy. Multi-alignment is the ability to pursue different objectives with different allies and partners, and the whole world is increasingly oriented towards such a policy.</div><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>To what extent do you think that the current concoction of low-growth and high-inflation is a result of bad policies, or, say, lack of initiatives by this government?</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify; ">There are a number of factors, including external ones. But the Prime Minister is determinedly taking charge and we can expect to see some further initiatives in</div><div style="text-align: justify; ">the weeks to come.</div><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>How would you rate this government’s performance on a scale of 1-10?</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify; ">I wouldn’t presume to assign grades to my own government!</div><div style="text-align: justify; "> </div><div style="text-align: justify; ">businessworldonline (at) gmail (dot) com</div><p> </p>
