news details |
|
|
| A tale of two speeches on and for India | | | Ashok Malik | 2/1/2015 11:26:20 PM |
| On the war against terrorism, George W Bush was categorical. He made no distinction between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Obama's reference to terrorism stood out as representing a different script, a different sensibility
Like many gifted speakers, Mr Barack Obama has this remarkable ability to
address a large crowd and yet make every individual feel he (Mr Obama) is
addressing him or her at a personal level. He did this with aplomb on January 27, when he made a compelling and captivating speech to an Indian audience at Delhi's Siri Fort auditorium.
The speech talked up India and made his Indian listeners feel good about themselves, their country and their collective potential. It touched all the right buttons, right down to cute localisations. Mr Obama began with a "Namaste", referred to Swami Vivekananda and Shah Rukh Khan, Milkha Singh and Mary Kom, Diwali and Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge, the backwaters of Kerala and the banks of the Ganga. He promised the United States would 'help' India achieve its developmental goals. He rounded it off with the line that probably won him the most applause: "And that's why I support a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member."
Mr Obama hadn't put a foot wrong. He had modified his speech to take into account local cultural tastes and sensitivities and tailored his examples and expressions to suit an Indian ear. While he had spoken exceptionally well, he had also told his Indian listeners what they wanted to hear. Hearing the speech, this writer was reminded of the October 2009 visit of President George W Bush to New Delhi. Mr Bush had ceased to be President but had been invited to speak at the Hindustan Times Summit. He was not a popular figure in many parts of the world. It was only his second post-presidential visit outside North America, after a trip to South Korea. Among the policy elite of New Delhi, of course, Mr Bush was popular.
His speech that day was noteworthy. It was similar to Mr Obama's in that it praised India. It was also different in that he used a different idiom, spoke a very different language and delivered his words very differently. Purely as a public speaker, Mr Obama is way ahead of Mr Bush. In the best traditions of great orators - such as Mr Bill Clinton, Mr Tony Blair, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Narendra Modi -Mr Obama can be likened to a religious preacher who sways a throng. In contrast, Mr Bush came across as a folksy conversationalist. If the two had competed in an inter-school debate, there could have been only one winner.
Having said that, a comparison leaves behind a complex question. How does one compare words one wants to and loves to hear with words that are a deeper call to action? Is a good speaker merely somebody who articulates thoughts that are in your subconscious and tells you what you want to hear from him? On the other hand, what does one make of a speaker who remains himself, does not make allowance for localisation and believes you have come to hear him as he is?
Consider three points. First, Mr Bush made zero reference to Indian movie stars, historical figures or heritage and tourism locations. On one or two occasions, he did use some very American cultural and popular imagery, inevitably lost on his listeners even if they got the general message. This didn't take away from the audience's reception of him or its understanding of his argument. In other words, if a foreign speaker refers to Clint Eastwood rather than Amitabh Bachchan, it actually makes little incremental impact.
Second, Mr Bush was accused to representing a unilateralist streak in Republican politics, as opposed to the internationalist sentiment in Mr Obama's Democratic Party. Since the practice of foreign policy has often seen Democratic and Republican Presidents do very similar things, what does such labelling really amount to? Is it a coded term for a "what you see is what you get" leader who remains what he is wherever he goes, and another who is nimble enough to mould himself to immediate conditions, picking up a dozen proper nouns per country and per speech?
Per se there is nothing wrong with either approach. Verbal and cultural flexibility is certainly a welcome attribute, and yet there is something to be said of a "conviction President", to use a moniker often deployed for Mr Bush. In New Delhi in 2009, despite the state of the American economy and the foreign policy challenges he had left his successor with, Mr Bush was resolute. His instincts were where they had always been. He was not going to say things only because others may have wanted to hear him say these.
On both protectionism and Afghanistan, he was blunt. He thought the recovery from the recession wouldn't be easy but warned against import tariffs - in the United States as well as India - and said his instincts were still with free trade.To be fair, Mr Bush was a former President by then and could afford plain speaking that an incumbent President can't.
On the war against terrorism, Mr Bush was categorical. It was an "ideological struggle". He made no distinction between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, hoped the "free world" would not "lose its nerve" and warned "I don't think you can negotiate with extremists". Mr Obama's reference to terrorism on January 27 stood out as representing a different script, a different sensibility: "Around the world, we've seen intolerance and violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to be standing up for their faith, but, in fact, are betraying it. No society is immune from the darkest impulses of man."
There have been instances of American/Western visitors either talking down to Indians, often inadvertently, or seeking to clumsily second guess them. Mr Bush did neither. Asked whether he backed India for a Security Council permanent seat, he said nothing on the lines of: 'Yes, but take responsibility, pay your dues.'
There was no "do this" list. He was straightforward: India was not the problem, the process of deciding which the other permanent members should be was. As such, Mr Bush told his hosts, don't try and do things to win credits for a Security Council seat. Just do what you think is right for your country. The rest will take care of itself. Mr Bush ended to loud cheers, as did Mr Obama this past week. They were saying the same thing to the same country - or were they?
( Courtsey @daily pioneer.com) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
