I quote certain portions of a report found on one of the news-websites today:
“New Delhi: External Affairs Minister S M Krishna today found himself in a controversy over his extended stay in London to watch a Wimbledon match but maintained the expenditure incurred during those two days were paid out of his "own pocket."
Mr. Krishna had gone to the UK on June 29 and had official talks with British Foreign Secretary William Hague till Thursday. But Krishna, who was staying at the posh Bentley Hotel, stayed back and watched the Wimbledon men's singles semi-final between Novak Djokovic and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga on July 1.
As reports emerged that his extended stay was at the cost of taxpayers' money, Krishna told reporters that he was an avid tennis fan "but the fact is that two days, the Indian exchequer paid for my stay in London but for the subsequent two days, I think it was borne out of my own pocket. I think that should straighten the record."
The Minister also pointed out that he was "the life-long President of the All Indian Lawn Tennis Association and I am also the President of the Karnataka Tennis Association. So, it is nothing unusual for a visiting dignitary or a visiting Foreign Minister to peep into Wimbledon and take a feel of it……”
Before the television brought live action at the other three Grand Slams into the living rooms in India in recent decades, the Wimbledon had been dearer to most of the tennis-lovers in India. Mainly because of India's links with, and easier accessibility to, Great Britain. It must have been a tradition to witness cricket matches at Lord's and Oval, and the tennis matches at the Wimbledon. While Cricket is a passion for most Indians, Tennis is a passion for many Indians. Passion for a game like Tennis never goes away. Our present President had been a Table Tennis player of fame. I doubt whether she gets the chance to enjoy the game these days; it will be a pity if she doesn't. Tennis is so enchanting a game that one easily remains charmed for life. Little wonder, Shri. S.M. Krishna, the External Affairs Minister, himself a Tennis player, tried to 'peep' into the Wimbledon, while on a diplomatic visit to the UK. I can imagine how painful it must have been for him to pluck himself away from the Wimbledon after that momentary 'peep'. Anyone else in his position would have easily succumbed to the thought, "What the hell", and, with careless abandon, stayed back, or 'overstayed', not only in the UK, but at the Centre Court or the Court Number One, or between them, at the Wimbledon, until curtains finally came down on the second Sunday.
Being the External Affairs Minister, or any other minister for that matter, does not in any way whatsoever, deny a politician his legitimate right to pursue his interest in sports and games. On the contrary, I would have loved to see the External Affairs Minister earning a hard fought victory in a spirited game of tennis as much as over the opposition in heated parliamentary debates. What is the present brouhaha about? The External Affairs Minister, like any other minister, is answerable to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. But, unlike a government secretary, the External Affairs Minister of the Country should have the liberty to change his plans at short notice. When he has the power to change his plans, at no point of time does his stay become 'overstay'. Unless, of course, the host country considers so. An External Affairs Minister continues to be the External Affairs Minister, whether he is at the Whitehall, meeting the British Prime Minister, or he is at the Wimbledon, watching a Tennis match. Various foreign dignitaries are often found at the Wimbledon. Some of them are ardent tennis lovers, obviously. Diplomatic relations can develop and strengthen at the Wimbledon too. An imposing, near-summit-level conference of one hundred personnel may fail to produce the desired result; but a few hours together at the Wimbledon might do the trick. In our own part of the world, cricket-diplomacy has been much more effective in cutting the ice that had kept relations between countries frozen for years. Whether the External Affairs Minister managed to give a worthwhile number of diplomatic hand-shakes at the Wimbledon, is not relevant; he may have, he may not have. Diplomatic victories are rarely won within the time one tennis match lasts.
The whole thing has to be viewed at a different angle: the External Affairs Minister of the second largest country in the world by population, the sixth largest country by area, and the tenth by GDP, found the Wimbledon worth visiting. That in itself was a great diplomatic exercise. Witnessing a Wimbledon tennis match in person was not a clandestine operation and was not motivated by greed for personal profit. The minister shouldn't have to bear the expense for the days of his 'overstay'. If he has to, then he will have to look over his shoulder for everything he does; it will eventually reduce him to the level of a mere secretary. The External Affairs Minister should be emphatic. Any minister should be, for that matter. The present controversy is an example of negative journalism. The terms, “taxpayers’ money” are frequently invoked, often without justification. A section of the media seems to see more comfort in creating sensational news by maligning people than in having a broader view. In India, we take pride in the freedom of the press. While we hate many things the press does, we respect its liberty to do them. The present controversy is one such thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment