22 December 2013, 06:57 PM IST
It is the season for disproportion. First the Americans decided to arrest a senior member of the Indian consulate in public and subject her to among other indignities, a strip search. Then the Indian side, much to the approval of all the political parties and media, retaliated by removing security barricades in front of the American Embassy, in effect reminding the Americans that they could not take their safety in India for granted.
At the heart of the matter lies the decision to criminalise behaviour that asked to be understood with some sensitivity. The face-off is the result of a mismatch between two different contexts, both in terms economic and cultural. It is possible to dismiss these and argue in an absolute sense that a clear violation of American law took place, and the law of the land acted without making any exceptions. Allegedly, visa fraud was committed, the nanny in question was paid wages way below the legal minimum and made to work hours that were inhuman and this led to the diplomat's arrest.
Viewed from this lens, the Indian outrage merely underlines several Indian shortcomings in this area. For one, it highlights the fact that domestic labour in India is an unregulated area, and one where exploitation is the norm rather than the exception. It also points to the excessive regard that hierarchy is held in India, and reveals a comfort with a feudal mindset which believes that rules are meant only for the ordinary and that the privileged need not comply. Overall, there is reason to lecture India on what is wrong about its reaction, and that is precisely what a section of the international media have done.
And while all of the above is true, it would be a mistake to characterise this only as a sign of Indian touchiness and its double standards. For the American action is rooted in a smug assertion of its own worldview that must get challenged. The setting of $4500 as the minimum salary that must get paid is a reflection of American affluence more than its sense of fairness. If one were a private citizen in the US, then clearly it is American prerogative to set this benchmark, but when it applies to foreign diplomats who do not have access to American salaries, then the notion of fairness becomes more complicated. It then becomes, in effect, the price that is extracted for the poverty of other countries when they have the temerity to employ anyone in the US. Also, different cultures have different norms in the treatment of domestic staff and while that certainly does not justify physical abuse, it does call for a more measured and context-sensitive reaction to perceived infractions, particularly when dealing with foreign embassies.
The argument that the law is an inflexible being that does not care for who the offender is makes for sound theory but dodgy practice particularly when a diplomat is involved. Had Khobragade been designated as a diplomat with full immunity, she could have got away with much more. Given that in dealing with international consulates, which is by definition an intermediate cultural space, there are grey areas that need to be respected, it would have been more sensible of Attorney's office to be more well, diplomatic.
In a larger sense, the reason why the American action is perceived to be provocative is because it is a part of a foundational hypocrisy that America is blind to but the world sees only too well. At one level, the US talks endlessly about the equality of all human beings and the need to uphold the rights of each individual, no matter who they are and at another there is a deep and implacable belief in the superiority of the American individual and of the fact that American interests legitimately override the rights of everyone else in the world. Terrorism has affected many countries in the world, including India but somehow 9/11 seems to have America the right to flout any international law in the name of safeguarding its own interests. Whether it comes to spying on world leaders including its own allies or violating all human rights in setting a facility like Guantanamo Bay, the American disregard for the rights of others is there for all to see. Could an American diplomat, for instance, have been treated in this way is a similar violation of the law occurred in a country like India?
The fact is that this fundamental power asymmetry is such a fact of life that everyone is expected to be practical about America's special place in the world . But when this special self-regard is rubbed in the face of another country, like it was in this case, by taking an overly self-righteous view of an infraction, then a reaction is not unexpected. It is true that the Indian reaction is way over the top but that does not make the reaction itself invalid.
The idea of diplomacy itself seems to have taken a knock for diplomacy is the fine art of substituting action with gestures and words. Instead of the blunt instrument of action, which generates very few options, diplomacy invents an intermediate dictionary of possibilities, which allow for nuanced responses and a gradual escalation of temperatur. Both sides here seem to forsaken the language of diplomacy for the crude flourish of action. The stand-off is but to be expected. One country believes that it owes the world no explanations while the other is convinced that the world owes it reparations for nameless injustices done to it in the past. If being friends is about being able to show one's worst side to each other, Indo-American friendship is on solid ground.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
The diplomacy of disproportion
Dengan url
http://osteoporosista.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-diplomacy-of-disproportion.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
The diplomacy of disproportion
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
The diplomacy of disproportion
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar