Monday, February 20, 2012
Shooting the messenger
Marking a rare departure from article-posting on this blog, I’d like to take this opportunity to comment on a discussion originating in the columns of The Hindu, from an article I wrote for the newspaper, published on February 16 2012.
The reason I’ve chosen to offer this comment is because a member of an organisation mentioned in that article, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) has chosen to embark on a bitter tirade against not the article itself but, rather oddly, a conversation that I engaged in on Twitter with one of my colleagues, in which this article was referenced.
I should mention at the outset that in my world tirades per se, especially those based on extreme prejudice and a willingness to manipulate the words of others, do not warrant a reply. However the charges being laid at my feet are, like the prejudice that nurtures them, extreme – I have been accused of being anti-Semitic – and I have no intention of allowing such a libellous suggestion to go unanswered.
The blog post that makes these breathtakingly biased allegations was authored by David Harris (or one of his team), Executive Director at the AJC.
In his entry he begins by quoting the Twitter exchange that I had with my colleague, The Hindu’s foreign correspondent in Colombo, Sri Lanka, R.K. Radhakrishnan. At first mention of our chat, there are no accusations yet. However Mr. Radhakrishnan’s name is misspelt as Krishnan and his designation misstated – he is described as my “foreign affairs editor in New Delhi” – again wildly wrong, indicating a lack of any research (yet another charge levelled at me later in the piece).
Then the core issue, in my view, is given a passing mention and then entirely sidestepped. This is the letter that the AJC wrote to the Indian Ambassador to the United States, Nirupama Rao, on February 12 2012, in which it had the audacity to lay out the following pronouncements to her, on no greater a subject that India’s foreign policy:
“We were deeply troubled by recent news reports of Indian efforts to intensify trade relations with Iran at the very moment that Washington and fellow democracies are applying new economic pressures in the banking and energy sectors to persuade Tehran to halt its pursuit of nuclear-weapons capability.” [My comment: India is a sovereign nation and this is not the business of some lobby group sitting in the U.S.]
“New Delhi is attempting to take advantage of sanctions adopted by like-minded nations for the explicit purpose of preventing nuclear proliferation by a dangerously aggressive regime -- and which could, in turn, trigger an escalating arms race -- in a highly volatile region.” [My comment: This suggests that India is engaging in some sort of anti-West, anti-Israel policies and is also not capable of engaging in responsible foreign policy. This is entirely inappropriate, in my view, and something no Indian political leader or citizen would/should take lying down]
“In light of India's history of support for International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions on Iranian transgressions, and repeated expressions of Indian Government concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions, we are alarmed and dismayed by this apparent move to elevate commercial interests over vital security concerns.” [My comment: Virtually equivalent to saying India is aiding and abetting nuclear proliferation, a charge not grounded in today’s reality, at least not the reality of any nation that has a healthy scepticism for certain hegemonic elements in the West]
In a similar vein Mr. Harris sent me further comments on the letter, upon my request, which I made in order to further examine the motivation of the letter and seek clarifications. I should mention that one clarification that I clearly sought (and one that was referenced in my subsequent tweet to Mr. Radhakrishan, that “no solutions were offered”) was what, if anything, was Israel going to offer India to make up for its loss of Iranian oil should India ever agree to such an outlandish pronouncement?
In that second note Mr. Harris reiterated many of the same messages that the first letter had covered, and he said:
“We believe that India should not be seeking to take advantage of a vacuum created in the Iranian market by laudable steps enacted by the United States, European Union, and likeminded nations.
Why would India act in such a way as to effectively undermine the aims in Iran of its most natural global partners? Why would India, committed to regional and global security, wish to enable a defiant and destabilizing Iran to grow stronger by circumventing new sanctions? And why, in any case, would India seek risky contracts in Iran that may not materialize because of the inherent instability of the situation?”
On my question regarding the course of action India was supposed to follow after it cut off Iranian oil supply lines, he said India could seek its oil from other West Asian nations and:
“I wish that Israel were in this category of energy-exporting nations, and thus in a position to assist... India. That day may come in the not-too-distant future, but..., it is not here yet.”
So, let me get this straight my friends, India is supposed to choke off oil from a friendly nation, which has itself been forced into a corner internationally, and then further grope about the vast swathes of West Asia in a possibly fruitless search for oil? Allow its impressive growth story to peter out? Ignore the potentially catastrophic implications of such actions for all its citizens, rich, middle class and poor?
Forget about taking instructions from some lobby group on the East Coast of the U.S. – this is a cheeky request not meriting discussion by India’s capable, independent foreign policy strategists. If Ambassador Rao even acknowledged the receipt of the letter that was more than the AJC deserved, in my opinion.
All that I have said until this point refers to the main issue at hand, the AJC sending out this message to the Government of India. Of course in my view this would nevertheless be of relevance to our readers, and even if justly provoked by the AJC’s action – as indeed I would surmise they were, given the responses to my article, see the web link provided above – it would be an insight into the thoughts of some lobbyists who claim to represent the broader interest of Israel (although that too, to my mind is a questionable assumption – see here for an account of the AJC’s extreme views as enunciated by a reputed Jewish publication).
Regarding the focus of their criticism, a casual conversation with absolutely no anti-Semitic undertones, Mr. Harris’ blog post quotes me and Mr. Radhakrishnan (but not the full text verbatim). The full conversation we engaged in, publicly available for all to see on Twitter, was the following:
NL; #India can seek #oil elsewhere in West Asia: American #Jewish Committee: http://bit.ly/wsi4Vh #Israel #US #Iran @AJCWashington
RKK: @narlak @AJCWashington Will the Jews lend money to refurbish refineries too?
NL: @RKKrishnan @AJCWashington I sort of asked them about that, the compensating effect, but... ahem... no solutions offered ;)
RKK: @narlak @ajcwashington So, the answer is they don't care if the poor freeze to death or are forced to skip meals. Their Will has to prevail?
NL: @RKKrishnan @ajcwashington Not if Ahmedinejad has something to say about it...
Mr. Harris launches into a full attack on this conversation – entirely ignoring any questions about whether it is fine for them to be telling India to sever economic ties with Iran. Let us leave this criticism at the moment and consider Mr. Harris’ remarks.
First, he says, “the facts were all easily available had either Lakshman or Krishnan been interested. Obviously, they were not.” What facts? Mr. Harris answers: the leading voice that the AJC has been in U.S.-India relations, support for the civil nuclear deal, constructing a school in Gujarat after the earthquake of 2001, and “bringing the Jewish community together” across three countries.
Wait a minute, so in exchange for this “warmth” shown by Israel, India needs to bow to some bizarre diktats of some lobby in the U.S.? How decisive was Israel’s role in the civilian nuclear deal? Was any contribution they made driven by cynical self-interest? Without it would the deal have foundered? And they constructed one school in Guajarat? Just one? Sure, every little helps in such disasters but, I’m sorry my friends, there were numerous other institutions and countries that did far, far more. Please refresh your data on that here (page 5).
Regarding bringing the Jewish community together, sure, that makes a difference to the communities and possibly to the nations, but let’s not overstate our importance here. No single community, regardless of ethnic or religious origin has very often decisively altered the fate of massive, pluralistic, secular nations such as India and the U.S. – their fate is driven by a great many factors far beyond the narrow little analytical framework you have tied them to here. Again, if you wish to examine the factors affecting this enormous social-scientific and historical question please read this book.
Second, Mr. Harris suggests that Mr. Radhakrishnan’s allusions to the poor in India who might face even worse socio-economic outcomes than they already do is a mere deflection of attention away from the core issue, which is that India needs to sever ties with Iran. This to me yet again reveals a complete ignorance of the ground realities that matter to us, to Indians. Have you been to India much Mr. Harris? Seen the plight of the poor, and even the middle classes that sometimes face economic shocks and suffer prolonged results? Easy to sweep them under the carpet from your fancy Manhattan office isn’t it? Well I’m sorry but it’s us journalists, with few stakes in the game of the variety you apparently have, who are unafraid to speak the truth about such matters. And yes, I will make no bones about it, and I am confident I can speak for my colleague too, we care very much more about injustices meted out to the poor in our country over the impact that sustaining India’s ties with Iran would have on some U.S.-based lobby group. So it’s not a “red herring” as you condescendingly put it.
Oh and one stylistic matter here, it actually undermines your argument to use personal attacks and name-calling [“provocateurs”] in what ought to be a civil debate. Use this piece by me as an example of how not to shoot yourself in the foot in that manner.
Third, and finally, Mr. Harris goes after me with a flawed analysis:
In the coup de grâce, Lakshman -- with seeming indifference, if not outright glee -- suggests “the Jews” may not turn out to be a long-term issue, at least if Ahmedinejad has his say.
There are so many issues here that I don’t know where to begin. I suppose with the most glaring, obvious logical fallacy that Mr. Harris has committed – just like every previous statement in my discussion with Mr. Radhakrishnan, my reference about Mahmoud Ahmedinejad having his say was about certain Jewish lobbies’ attempts to have India sever its ties with Iran – not about the Jewish people! How could you miss this? Did you miss it? Or was it wilful “confusion?” I will leave you with the benefit of doubt on that question Mr. Harris, but please get your logic right this time, I am not anti-Semitic, I did not refer to any Iranian having his say with the Jewish or Israeli people, but I did mean, and most vehemently so, that I very much expect the Iranian establishment to stand up for its relationship with India. Similarly I expect India to do so, and we can watch whether events unfold as per your or my predictions in this regard.
The second problem with Mr. Harris’ attack on my remark – I did not use the word “Jews,” because I do not use it generally, and I do not approve of its use. The way Mr. Harris has made his remarks, however, very much implies that I did say that, and that, Mr. Harris, is a rather shameless use of verbal sleight-of-hand.
Finally, who said anything about “long-term issues?” By this point Mr. Harris is in the realm of complete make-believe, serving up fancy phrases that had never in these conversations been uttered. I rest my case.
However, lest you seize upon this blog entry by me as yet another excuse to go about making wild allegations I would like to leave the AJC with one parting thought: do not think the reading public is so unsophisticated that they will be swayed by your battle-cry of “anti-Semitism.” Anti-Semitism, history and the present teach us – as I am sure you well know – is an abhorrent quality.
Yet when anyone makes the allegation of anti-Semitism every time a fair criticism is levelled at that person (for example for espousing a misguided and ultimately futile foreign policy prescription for another proud nation) – then it is the very person making the accusation of anti-Semitism who is disrespecting the history behind that horrendous phenomenon.
I will finally reiterate that I thought it necessary to make these remarks to clarify my view of the rather nasty allegation levelled at me. While I will not be responding further in a public forum on this matter and make a spectacle of what I consider a serious issue, I am more than happy to engage in a discussion on this with you, the AJC, or anyone else in a private channel.
Narayan Lakshman
The reason I’ve chosen to offer this comment is because a member of an organisation mentioned in that article, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) has chosen to embark on a bitter tirade against not the article itself but, rather oddly, a conversation that I engaged in on Twitter with one of my colleagues, in which this article was referenced.
I should mention at the outset that in my world tirades per se, especially those based on extreme prejudice and a willingness to manipulate the words of others, do not warrant a reply. However the charges being laid at my feet are, like the prejudice that nurtures them, extreme – I have been accused of being anti-Semitic – and I have no intention of allowing such a libellous suggestion to go unanswered.
The blog post that makes these breathtakingly biased allegations was authored by David Harris (or one of his team), Executive Director at the AJC.
In his entry he begins by quoting the Twitter exchange that I had with my colleague, The Hindu’s foreign correspondent in Colombo, Sri Lanka, R.K. Radhakrishnan. At first mention of our chat, there are no accusations yet. However Mr. Radhakrishnan’s name is misspelt as Krishnan and his designation misstated – he is described as my “foreign affairs editor in New Delhi” – again wildly wrong, indicating a lack of any research (yet another charge levelled at me later in the piece).
Then the core issue, in my view, is given a passing mention and then entirely sidestepped. This is the letter that the AJC wrote to the Indian Ambassador to the United States, Nirupama Rao, on February 12 2012, in which it had the audacity to lay out the following pronouncements to her, on no greater a subject that India’s foreign policy:
“We were deeply troubled by recent news reports of Indian efforts to intensify trade relations with Iran at the very moment that Washington and fellow democracies are applying new economic pressures in the banking and energy sectors to persuade Tehran to halt its pursuit of nuclear-weapons capability.” [My comment: India is a sovereign nation and this is not the business of some lobby group sitting in the U.S.]
“New Delhi is attempting to take advantage of sanctions adopted by like-minded nations for the explicit purpose of preventing nuclear proliferation by a dangerously aggressive regime -- and which could, in turn, trigger an escalating arms race -- in a highly volatile region.” [My comment: This suggests that India is engaging in some sort of anti-West, anti-Israel policies and is also not capable of engaging in responsible foreign policy. This is entirely inappropriate, in my view, and something no Indian political leader or citizen would/should take lying down]
“In light of India's history of support for International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions on Iranian transgressions, and repeated expressions of Indian Government concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions, we are alarmed and dismayed by this apparent move to elevate commercial interests over vital security concerns.” [My comment: Virtually equivalent to saying India is aiding and abetting nuclear proliferation, a charge not grounded in today’s reality, at least not the reality of any nation that has a healthy scepticism for certain hegemonic elements in the West]
In a similar vein Mr. Harris sent me further comments on the letter, upon my request, which I made in order to further examine the motivation of the letter and seek clarifications. I should mention that one clarification that I clearly sought (and one that was referenced in my subsequent tweet to Mr. Radhakrishan, that “no solutions were offered”) was what, if anything, was Israel going to offer India to make up for its loss of Iranian oil should India ever agree to such an outlandish pronouncement?
In that second note Mr. Harris reiterated many of the same messages that the first letter had covered, and he said:
“We believe that India should not be seeking to take advantage of a vacuum created in the Iranian market by laudable steps enacted by the United States, European Union, and likeminded nations.
Why would India act in such a way as to effectively undermine the aims in Iran of its most natural global partners? Why would India, committed to regional and global security, wish to enable a defiant and destabilizing Iran to grow stronger by circumventing new sanctions? And why, in any case, would India seek risky contracts in Iran that may not materialize because of the inherent instability of the situation?”
On my question regarding the course of action India was supposed to follow after it cut off Iranian oil supply lines, he said India could seek its oil from other West Asian nations and:
“I wish that Israel were in this category of energy-exporting nations, and thus in a position to assist... India. That day may come in the not-too-distant future, but..., it is not here yet.”
So, let me get this straight my friends, India is supposed to choke off oil from a friendly nation, which has itself been forced into a corner internationally, and then further grope about the vast swathes of West Asia in a possibly fruitless search for oil? Allow its impressive growth story to peter out? Ignore the potentially catastrophic implications of such actions for all its citizens, rich, middle class and poor?
Forget about taking instructions from some lobby group on the East Coast of the U.S. – this is a cheeky request not meriting discussion by India’s capable, independent foreign policy strategists. If Ambassador Rao even acknowledged the receipt of the letter that was more than the AJC deserved, in my opinion.
All that I have said until this point refers to the main issue at hand, the AJC sending out this message to the Government of India. Of course in my view this would nevertheless be of relevance to our readers, and even if justly provoked by the AJC’s action – as indeed I would surmise they were, given the responses to my article, see the web link provided above – it would be an insight into the thoughts of some lobbyists who claim to represent the broader interest of Israel (although that too, to my mind is a questionable assumption – see here for an account of the AJC’s extreme views as enunciated by a reputed Jewish publication).
Regarding the focus of their criticism, a casual conversation with absolutely no anti-Semitic undertones, Mr. Harris’ blog post quotes me and Mr. Radhakrishnan (but not the full text verbatim). The full conversation we engaged in, publicly available for all to see on Twitter, was the following:
NL; #India can seek #oil elsewhere in West Asia: American #Jewish Committee: http://bit.ly/wsi4Vh #Israel #US #Iran @AJCWashington
RKK: @narlak @AJCWashington Will the Jews lend money to refurbish refineries too?
NL: @RKKrishnan @AJCWashington I sort of asked them about that, the compensating effect, but... ahem... no solutions offered ;)
RKK: @narlak @ajcwashington So, the answer is they don't care if the poor freeze to death or are forced to skip meals. Their Will has to prevail?
NL: @RKKrishnan @ajcwashington Not if Ahmedinejad has something to say about it...
Mr. Harris launches into a full attack on this conversation – entirely ignoring any questions about whether it is fine for them to be telling India to sever economic ties with Iran. Let us leave this criticism at the moment and consider Mr. Harris’ remarks.
First, he says, “the facts were all easily available had either Lakshman or Krishnan been interested. Obviously, they were not.” What facts? Mr. Harris answers: the leading voice that the AJC has been in U.S.-India relations, support for the civil nuclear deal, constructing a school in Gujarat after the earthquake of 2001, and “bringing the Jewish community together” across three countries.
Wait a minute, so in exchange for this “warmth” shown by Israel, India needs to bow to some bizarre diktats of some lobby in the U.S.? How decisive was Israel’s role in the civilian nuclear deal? Was any contribution they made driven by cynical self-interest? Without it would the deal have foundered? And they constructed one school in Guajarat? Just one? Sure, every little helps in such disasters but, I’m sorry my friends, there were numerous other institutions and countries that did far, far more. Please refresh your data on that here (page 5).
Regarding bringing the Jewish community together, sure, that makes a difference to the communities and possibly to the nations, but let’s not overstate our importance here. No single community, regardless of ethnic or religious origin has very often decisively altered the fate of massive, pluralistic, secular nations such as India and the U.S. – their fate is driven by a great many factors far beyond the narrow little analytical framework you have tied them to here. Again, if you wish to examine the factors affecting this enormous social-scientific and historical question please read this book.
Second, Mr. Harris suggests that Mr. Radhakrishnan’s allusions to the poor in India who might face even worse socio-economic outcomes than they already do is a mere deflection of attention away from the core issue, which is that India needs to sever ties with Iran. This to me yet again reveals a complete ignorance of the ground realities that matter to us, to Indians. Have you been to India much Mr. Harris? Seen the plight of the poor, and even the middle classes that sometimes face economic shocks and suffer prolonged results? Easy to sweep them under the carpet from your fancy Manhattan office isn’t it? Well I’m sorry but it’s us journalists, with few stakes in the game of the variety you apparently have, who are unafraid to speak the truth about such matters. And yes, I will make no bones about it, and I am confident I can speak for my colleague too, we care very much more about injustices meted out to the poor in our country over the impact that sustaining India’s ties with Iran would have on some U.S.-based lobby group. So it’s not a “red herring” as you condescendingly put it.
Oh and one stylistic matter here, it actually undermines your argument to use personal attacks and name-calling [“provocateurs”] in what ought to be a civil debate. Use this piece by me as an example of how not to shoot yourself in the foot in that manner.
Third, and finally, Mr. Harris goes after me with a flawed analysis:
In the coup de grâce, Lakshman -- with seeming indifference, if not outright glee -- suggests “the Jews” may not turn out to be a long-term issue, at least if Ahmedinejad has his say.
There are so many issues here that I don’t know where to begin. I suppose with the most glaring, obvious logical fallacy that Mr. Harris has committed – just like every previous statement in my discussion with Mr. Radhakrishnan, my reference about Mahmoud Ahmedinejad having his say was about certain Jewish lobbies’ attempts to have India sever its ties with Iran – not about the Jewish people! How could you miss this? Did you miss it? Or was it wilful “confusion?” I will leave you with the benefit of doubt on that question Mr. Harris, but please get your logic right this time, I am not anti-Semitic, I did not refer to any Iranian having his say with the Jewish or Israeli people, but I did mean, and most vehemently so, that I very much expect the Iranian establishment to stand up for its relationship with India. Similarly I expect India to do so, and we can watch whether events unfold as per your or my predictions in this regard.
The second problem with Mr. Harris’ attack on my remark – I did not use the word “Jews,” because I do not use it generally, and I do not approve of its use. The way Mr. Harris has made his remarks, however, very much implies that I did say that, and that, Mr. Harris, is a rather shameless use of verbal sleight-of-hand.
Finally, who said anything about “long-term issues?” By this point Mr. Harris is in the realm of complete make-believe, serving up fancy phrases that had never in these conversations been uttered. I rest my case.
However, lest you seize upon this blog entry by me as yet another excuse to go about making wild allegations I would like to leave the AJC with one parting thought: do not think the reading public is so unsophisticated that they will be swayed by your battle-cry of “anti-Semitism.” Anti-Semitism, history and the present teach us – as I am sure you well know – is an abhorrent quality.
Yet when anyone makes the allegation of anti-Semitism every time a fair criticism is levelled at that person (for example for espousing a misguided and ultimately futile foreign policy prescription for another proud nation) – then it is the very person making the accusation of anti-Semitism who is disrespecting the history behind that horrendous phenomenon.
I will finally reiterate that I thought it necessary to make these remarks to clarify my view of the rather nasty allegation levelled at me. While I will not be responding further in a public forum on this matter and make a spectacle of what I consider a serious issue, I am more than happy to engage in a discussion on this with you, the AJC, or anyone else in a private channel.
Narayan Lakshman
# posted by Narayan Lakshman @ 8:24 PM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
