There is no just or fair master plan for life

By K. Natwar Singh


From the very beginning, humankind has been divided between the haves
and
the have nots, the powerful and the weak. One could add any number of
fields
of human existence and list the iniquities which make life comfortable
for
the few and an endless grind for the many. Equality, fraternity,
liberty.
Three magical words that failed to deliver. Equality! R.H. Tawney, the

British economic historian (1880-1962) considered the doctrine of
equality
of opportunity an essay in blasphemy — “equal opportunities from
becoming
unequal.” There is no fair or just master plan for life which is truly
fair
or just. Democracy was to be the panacea, the universal cure for all
that
blights our lives. It is, alas, dysfunctional in many lands — quite
often
the bad guys win.

We must always keep in mind that the invisible wings of angels flutter
only
over the chosen few. For most, the traffic lights on the avenues of
life
turn red. Today, there is a divide in our country which is not on our
radar
screens. The linguistic divide, between those who speak, read and write

English and those who do not. A very small fraction of our population
uses
the English language. But this small number constitutes the Indian
Establishment — the Central government, the Supreme Court, the English
media, CEOs of the corporate world, the scientific and IT communities,
universities and the Planning Commission.

This Establishment is influential, powerful and makes policy. It makes
laws
for those who do not know English. The uncomfortable reality is that
the
President of India speaks to the Prime Minister in English. This is
nothing
new. Jawaharlal Nehru could only speak to S. Radhakrishnan in English.
Gandhiji and Rajaji could only communicate in English. Even today the
deliberations of the Congress Working Committee are largely conducted
in
English. In Parliament too, English is used more than any other Indian
language.

Indians writing novels in English make vast amounts of money. Writers
in
regional languages do not.
Hindi, Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu newspapers sell more than the most
widely
read English papers, with readership running in crores. But they do not
have
the impact on policy as much as they should. I doubt if Dr Manmohan
Singh
reads any Hindi paper. The reports of the Central intelligence
agencies are
all written in English. The Establishment is thus more than mildly
elitist.
When one comes to R&D, science and technology, medicine, software,
English
is the medium. Thus, very large numbers remain outside the magic
circle.

In this respect India and the European Union have something in common.
A
multiplicity of languages. I distinctly remember the formidable and
legendary Lee Kuan Yew telling Mrs Indira Gandhi that China would
surpass
India because the former was a unilingual nation. Similarly, in his
view,
the European Union will never overtake the United States for the same
reason. The world will not learn Hindi, Bengali, Tamil or any other
regional
language. Does that mean all Indians must be proficient in English, not
just
one or two per cent? I don’t have the answer, but the linguistic divide
does
exist. We have a serious problem. It’s not going away.

The United Nations has a new Secretary-General. He has selected one of
our
best diplomatists as his chief-of-staff. Vijay Nambiar is the right man
for
the job. He has the right temperament. He is also fluent in Chinese. A
real
asset at the UN: sound of judgment and a model of discretion, he will
be of
immense help to Mr Ban Ki Moon who presides over a flabby, inefficient,

uninspiring and near unmanageable outfit. The UN, unfortunately, does
not
lead. It ought to. The US is not only indifferent, but full of
undisguised
scorn for the UN.

The Preamble to the UN Charter has one or two sentences which resonate:
“We
the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding
generations
from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold

sorrow to mankind...” The new Secretary-General, I have no doubt, has
prepared his list of priorities for urgently reforming the UN, which
needs a
radical transformation of the methods of its functioning. Rhetorical
inflation is an ailment well known at the UN. It is unlikely to be
contained. Neither is there any escape from contagious and widespread
mediocrity.

We can only hope for enlightened reasonableness, good will and an
integrated
vision. The virtues of mutual understanding should never be undermined.

These should be part of the Secretary-General’s vision. One interesting

tit-bit relating to the UN. When the first Secretary-General, Trygve
Lie of
Norway retired in 1952, both the US and the USSR were willing to
support Dr
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan to succeed the Norwegian. Jawaharlal Nehru
left the
decision to Radhakrishnan who, after a night’s deliberation, turned it
down.
Nehru’s comment was that he was both glad and sorry — narrated by S.
Gopal
in his masterly biography of his father, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.

K. Natwar Singh is a former minister for external affairs