If there is a stereotype of an Indian politician Manmohan Singh can hardly be nominated for that role. He is not a misfit but he is sui generis in a political world in which the politician VIP is instantly recognisable and usually conforms to an established and unedifying pattern. Though seen by his political opponents as amiable and “good” he nevertheless continues to puzzle them; and even his colleagues in the government and the Congress party seem to have failed to get his measure. Where others are loud spoken and assertive he is, by an inward compulsion, precisely the opposite. Of political guile there is no trace nor of any talent for it. No surprise then that the BJP-NDA has described him as the “weakest PM,” not so much in a critical vein as in bewilderment.

When asked by him not to see him off at the airport on his trips abroad it was immediately assumed by his associates that the request was a piece of image making. A low profile, so natural in someone like him, is widely regarded as incompatible with leadership. One must be declaratory, aggressive, uncompromising and manipulative. What we have here is a serious conceptual gap between the PM and the political world into which circumstances have thrust him. His standing as a distinguished economist is of course readily conceded, as also his dedicated pursuit of good governance; and as an individual he has been certified by the British establishment as a “thoroughly good egg”, a compliment that popular usage has done little to diminish. Yet he has been frustrated by failures in political management, an area in which the sycophantic attention paid to Sonia Gandhi by self-serving party activists has elevated her to a position that can only politely be called a “mismatch”. Odd that the fact that he doesn’t “belong” is a testimonial of which Manmohan Singh can be justly proud.

US pursuit of dominance

Images of apparently cordial exchanges between Putin and Bush at the World War II victory celebrations in Moscow are, like all carefully cultivated images, misleading. Condoleeza Rice assures Putin that America is not interested in “sub-planting Russian influence in its neighbourhood.” But that is exactly what it is trying to do, as Rice herself has confirmed by her claim that “there is nothing wrong with Washington supporting pro-democracy groups as it did in Ukraine,” by her reference to Belarus as an “outpost of tyranny,” and by her call for a change in leadership in that country. On the one side Rice meets Belarus Opposition leaders and encourages them; and on the other Lukashenko, the Belarus leader, works for reunification with Russia. Simultaneously there is the usual patter by Rice about how undemocratic Russia is and unless it learns to the US line, America will prod the Belarussians into throwing off the yoke of tyranny.

If this doesn’t add up to cold war style what else can it be? It would be far-fetched to say that before all America was entirely un-Bushlike. But there is now a degree of unabashed blatancy in spelling out its aims to which there is no exact parallel in the past. That is the difference between then and now and whether it is a qualitative one or one of degree is anyone’s guess. As for explaining this insane pursuit of dominance one can’t do better than refer to Bush’s backroom motivator Karl Rove and his political philosophy. “Rove doesn’t just want to win,” an observer has said, “he wants the opponents destroyed, to defeat them, slaughter them, and humiliate them.”

That Estonia, Latvia and Nithuania nurse hard feelings against Russia is a natural outcome of the past, just as now much of Asia and the world has similar feelings about America. Yet to exploit this anti-Russian feeling, openly and provocatively, is nothing less than a declaration of hostile intent wholly inconsistent with a true interest in global stability. Putin’s response was to stage a demonstration of military power, hardly comparable to America’s, but formidable enough to be noted. A point underlined by his reminder of the decisive role the Soviet Union played in the defeat of Rezi Germany; but also mischievously down-played by the West’s control of much of the global media.

Laboured laughter

There are few things more painful than seeing or reading about Bush and Laura trying hard to be folksy, good-natured people just like anyone else. Americans love that sort of thing and are not put off by the behind-scene professionalism that stages it. In the latest version of these events Laura cracked jokes about the President, Cheney and Rumsfeld, saying “George’s answer to any problem at the ranch is to cut it down with a chain-saw which, I think, is why he and Cheney and Rumsfeld get along so well.”

Note that much of the laughter this sort of joke raises owes a great deal to the analogical truth about what is going on in the “out there” political world. And in so doing defuses it into something that need not be taken seriously though there has been real chain-sawing. Apparently these “meet the people” occasions are traditionally designed for collective laughter which is then dutifully reported in the national media. Everyone laughs at the same joke at the same time. A joke writer arranges it all, with several rehearsals and with the President joining in with well-timed guffaws.

A joke is normally thought of as something spontaneous but apparently not at the Presidential level. And if there is anything more pathetic than this it must be Blair and Cherie putting on a similar act in the now well known imitative fashion.

Need for a balancing act

Apropos the Boeing-Airbus affair it can surely be taken as read that in the opinion of some, to be superior. A deal is a deal provided it goes through and judgmental reactions by the aggrieved party are no more than that. The French Ambassador was entitled to place his disappointment on record but went beyond the limits of diplomatic propriety by appearing to support a call for an inquiry. It had all the marks of an unthinking outburst of the sort which the West often impulsively adopts in its dealings with an Asian country.

As often there is a hasty backtracking with the usual pleas - as in this case - of having been incorrectly quoted. The foreign secretary handled the affair with professional finesse. Yet when official protests are called for, the EA Ministry ends to dither between playing the thing down and overdoing the indignation.

A nice balance of firmness and restraint, required for example when Malaysia ill-treats Indian citizens, is what is wanted.

Irreversible relations

In the dialogue on the Indo-Pak peace moves the word “irreversible” has surfaced with increasing frequency. Reversibility and its opposite are impossible to measure, and all one can hope for is a very subjective assessment. Experience tells us that nothing political is irreversible. Yet once a trend graduates into a momentum, fuelled by expectations among the people in both countries and reinforced by a positive tide of global opinion, it becomes near to being unstoppable.

There is in this process an irresistible logic of its own which, for example, has yet to be found in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The road map there is riddled with obstacles of a sort from which even the K issue is relatively free. President Musharraf, though insisting with an eye on the home front that this issue is “complex,” that resolving it is crucial to lasting peace, and that Islamabad will continue its policy of “moral, diplomatic and political,” support for Muslim secessionists is nevertheless committed to an ongoing pursuit of a peaceful settlement.

In Manmohan Singh he has a partner whose personal leanings and temperament leave no room for any doubt about his integrity. Beyond all this is the new appreciation on both sides that “doing business” with each other holds the key to progress on the political front. So, with qualifications, “irreversible” is the right word for the moment.

“Good government includes the pursuit of the national interest regardless of theories or ideologies. Good government is pragmatic government” - Singapore’s leader Lee Kuan Yew.