Links to U.S. official, academic and business viewpoints on US-India relations.

New Indian Ambassador to the United States, Ronen Sen, Interviewed

India Abroad Print Edition
July 23, 2004, pg. A-21

In an interview with Senior Editor Ramananda Sengupta, the Ambassador-Designate made four important points:

The India-US relationship is not tactical. It is not one of expediency. It's a longer-term relationship. It's a very special relationship.
I will see what can be done to enable the Indian community to play a bigger role in economic development.
My efforts will be to build a relationship which is to the mutual benefit of both countries, based on an appreciation of each other's concerns.
I foresee few areas, if any, where our interests could diverge in a longer-term perspective. I don't see areas of fundamental issues on which we have differences.

RONEN SEN, INDIA'S AMBASSADOR-DESIGNATE SPOKE TO SENIOR EDITOR RAMANANDA SENGUPTA

Ronen Sen was the first Indian to serve as ambassador to three of the P5 nations -- Russia, Germany and the United Kingdom -- and to four of the G8 capitals. In Russia and Germany he served during times of transition and turmoil, as India's first ambassador to Moscow after the Soviet Union's collapse, and as ambassador during the reunification of East and West Germany.

Sen also worked with prime ministers Rajiv Gandhi, V.P. Singh and Chandra Shekhar as joint secretary in the Prime Minister's Office in the 1980's and early 1990's.

Sen, who retired as High Commissioner to the U.K. in April, has since been named Ambassador to the United States, succeeding Lalit Mansingh and is expected to take up his post in early August. He granted India Abroad an exclusive interview -- his first -- after his appointment.

Q. As ambassador to the U.S., what will be your primary focus?

A. It's a multifaceted relationship, to which we attach [the] highest priority. It's not just a relationship between two governments, but between the world's biggest democracy and the world's most powerful democracy. It's a relationship in which many families in both countries have a vital stake.

We have so many people of Indian origin in that country, who in a real sense have made things so much easier, because we have so many ambassadors in different parts of the U.S. who are making valuable contributions in every field of activity -- technology, education, contribution to the economy of that country and the promotion of economic cooperation between our two countries. In the cultural field, in literature, you name it. It is a very special relationship.

My primary effort will be to strengthen that. But in terms of priorities what I would like to stress is my efforts will be to build a relationship which is to the mutual benefit of both countries, in which both have an equal stake based on an appreciation of each other's concerns, on the fact that we have many shared values and interests both in the global context and bilaterally.

Q. People say the so-called Indo-US 'strategic relationship' touted by the Vajpayee government led to unrealistic expectations from both sides ...

A. The relationship is strategic, if you look at it in terms of fundamentals. The core values of democracy, the commonalities I have referred to earlier. I foresee few areas, if any, where our interests could diverge in a longer term perspective.

Given the commonalities it is not a relationship of a tactical nature. It is not one of expediency. It's a longer-term relationship.

Sometimes you have differences, but you have differences within families, between friends, so we have to be mature and build on areas of agreement and try to make efforts to reduce the gap in perception where one does or could have differences.

Q. Do you agree that serious U.S. interest in India/South Asia began after the 1998 nuclear tests?

A. No. China is our biggest neighbor. It is also a nuclear power. The U.S. was aware of our capabilities. They were also aware that we are the first country to take a political decision not to exercise the option. We had the option, the capability to conduct tests before the NPT came into force. But we took a political decision. They knew we are the first country in Asia to construct a nuclear reactor on our own, much before China or Japan.

Of course, after the tests, there was a very constructive engagement, and I must say that engagement played on a broader strategic plane, transcending the subcontinental perspective. That contributed in a significant way to our understanding of each other's positions, and also how we look at things.

Q. You spoke about the Indian American community being ambassadors for India. Are we looking at them for purely economic and intellectual inputs, or is there the hope of using them to lobby for Indian interests in the U.S. political scene as well?

A. We do need some introspection. Why is it that India today, which has the same GDP that China had a decade ago, is perceived in a different manner from the way China was perceived a decade ago? Why is it that the Chinese diaspora played a major and vitally important role in investments in China, while investments from prosperous Indians abroad remained miniscule?

This is despite India's record of honoring all commitments, not reversing policies, and above all having a return on investment higher than most countries which are more favored destinations for investment.

I am not sure what the reasons are. Perhaps there is a flaw in our system, I will try to understand the concerns which prompt such reticence, and see what can be done to enable our community to play a bigger role in our economic development.

Q. How about using people of Indian origin in powerful positions in the U.S. to lobby for Indian interests?

A. I used to do it in Britain, where we have a vibrant community of Indian origin. Where actually this is happening, where 13 members of the House of Lords are people of Indian origin ... five members of the House of Commons, more than 200 councilors, mayors, not in small cities, but in large ones like Coventry. We have a permanent undersecretary of state, the secretary of an important ministry is a person of Indian origin, we have an economic advisor to the prime minister, we have the youngest scientist to have been knighted, so we have all of that.

I'm sure it's the same in the U.S. If we get more people involved in standing for political office, not aspiring but standing and winning, you know, people becoming congressmen, hopefully senators and mayors and in their own way contributing to society, that's the best contribution you can make to our relationship.

Look at Kalpana Chawla. She was proudly wearing an American flag on her uniform, but her roots were in the village in Haryana, where she came from. So it's not a relationship where you have a conflict of interest or loyalties, we have similar values. I don't see areas of fundamental issues on which we have differences.

Q. But people of Indian origin in the UK and U.S. differ in terms of interest in India. The PIO in the UK are interested in culture and entertainment from India, while the PIO in the U.S. are interested in political and economic activities.

A. That has changed. People of Indian origin in politics in the UK have intervened in a number of issues affecting India. They represent their constituencies. A number of them are from constituencies where there are hardly any people of Indian origin, zero in some cases. But they have been elected in their own right. What you are referring to is [relevant to] a generation ago.

Take Vodafone, the world's largest mobile operator. It's CEO Arun Sarin is of Indian origin. As much as New York, London is a global financial center, a global media center, and a global entertainment center. Indians are in prominent positions in all these sectors.

I am sure that in a few years, PIOs will be number one among ethnic groups in the UK in terms of economic well-being. They will remain an important asset in Indo-British relations, just as people of Indian origin are playing a vitally important role in adding greater content and dynamism to Indo-US relations.

Q. How would you classify our relations with Russia?

A. Excellent. I was there during the initial stages of the transition, when the Soviet Union broke up, Russia and the other states of the Commonwealth of Independent States emerged. But while the old system has been dismantled, another one was not put in place. It was sort of emerging, evolving, and the process continues.

If you see the nature of change, it is very profound, and the process will continue, on a most conservative estimate, for another generation. It was an extremely challenging assignment. When I went there first there were misconceptions in both countries about each other. Many people in India did not fully perceive the changes. Many thought Russia was a pale shadow of the former superpower and it was tied to the apron strings of the United States. That in terms of not just ideology but also orientation, it was exclusively focused on the West.

It was a false perception. There was a false perception among many people in Russia also about the relationship with India, which was considered part of the ideological baggage of the past. It was later that people realized this relationship was not based on ideology.

In fact, it was held forth as an example of excellent relationship between States pursuing different socioeconomic paths to development and that the relationship was based on shared interests and mutual benefit, which remained valid despite changes. Then the relationship evolved, the balance was restored.

Q. Restored, as in?

A. After 9/11, international terrorism came to the forefront of the post-Cold War challenges but these had been identified very clearly in a joint statement, which we had with Russia in 1993. We had identified that the post-Cold War threats, particularly aimed at pluralistic states [multilingual, multi-religious, multiethnic ones], would be posed by religious extremism, international terrorism, in conjunction with illegal trafficking in narcotics, and also from secessionist movements being sponsored from outside. But it took the international community time to realize our concerns on international terrorism and related issues were not regional but global.

Q. Do you speak Russian fluently?

A. I speak conversational Russian. Considering the amount of time I spent there, my Russian should be better. I was in Moscow in the late 1960's, early 1970's, then in the early 1980's, and then in the 1990's, as ambassador. I have served in every capacity, starting from third secretary, second secretary, counselor, minister and then as ambassador in different times, totaling about 13 years.

I don't count myself as an expert. I thought I was an expert when I was there for one year, but the longer I was there I found that it was impossible to generalize or make unqualified statements on any aspect of Russian society. I remain a student of Russian studies.

Q. How big is the Indian population in Russia?

A. There are few Indians in Russia today, but the numbers are increasing and will increase with the growth of economic content of bilateral cooperation. There were distortions caused by the rupee trading. It took time to adjust to realities. Nonetheless, Russia remained a trusted and reliable partner in terms of defense cooperation and both sides could further benefit by closer economic cooperation, especially in the energy sector. The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. investment of around $1.7 billion in Sakhalin represented a good beginning. I found genuine goodwill towards India in Russia.

Q. So all stories about Raj Kapoor's popularity are true?

A. Absolutely! He was by far the most popular foreigner or foreign actor in that country.

Q. You worked closely with Rajiv Gandhi during your stint in the PMO.

A. I dealt with foreign affairs, defense, science and technology. I was earlier secretary to the Atomic Energy Commission.

Q. You have a science background?

A. No. I was totally, you might say, ill-equipped for my job in terms of educational qualification or background. I was the youngest secretary to the Atomic Energy Commission in the late 1970's. I learned while on the job and appreciated the fact that our atomic energy, space and other programs involved integrated work in different disciplines, and also that upgradation capabilities in industrial sectors were involved. This helped me when Rajiv Gandhi undertook several initiatives involving eminent people.

Q. Like Sam Pitroda?

A. There were a number of talented advisors. Pitroda was definitely there, and he played a leading role. Initiatives were taken in different areas -- space, information technology, biotechnology. Some people think what happened in the IT sector happened because the government was not involved. This is not just simplistic but misleading. It was a deliberate decision not to proceed step by step and give protection, but to throw oneself in the deep end of the pool; to leapfrog different stages of development and achieve excellence in areas where the basic capital was human capital. It was a totally different approach of a very young prime minister.

Q. So these were Rajiv Gandhi's ideas?

A. Oh yes. He chaired several discussions on these subjects which went on into the early hours. His approach was to develop high technology which would transform the lives of all sections of society, helping empower the poorest. Remote sensing and improved communications meant, in practical terms, facilitating distance education, telemedicine, women (not men!) having to walk less to fetch drinking water, natural disaster warnings, meteorological data and resource mapping to benefit farmers and fishermen. These efforts were not fully appreciated.

He was referred to as 'Computerji' in a negative sort of way. Today, when some of these initiatives are showing results, people have realized these were not elitist but meant to benefit the country as a whole.

Q. How was Rajiv Gandhi as as person?

A. Some people who did not have the privilege of knowing him felt he could be imperious and impetuous. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was a very warm human being, a very caring and sensitive person. He inspired enthusiasm and confidence and had a vision for the future of India. He was very much Indian, in the sense he was not identified with any region, caste or creed. His vision, his mission, his passion, was for India as a whole, and he was supremely confident in our future as a nation.

Q. You were involved in the Rajiv Gandhi-Benazir Bhutto talks in 1989. What was that like?

A. Yes, I was sent as a special envoy, to meet a number of heads of government in our neighborhood and elsewhere. During that period we made a good beginning in relations with Pakistan, a breakthrough in relations with our largest neighbor China. It required considerable conviction and courage to break the long phase of inertia in these relationships. These initiatives had positive implications for the common man.

Q. Who sometimes expects miracles ...

A. Let us look at what happened in 1987. We faced the worst drought of the century. We had problems in Punjab, in which a neighboring country was involved. We had some incidents in border areas with China. A large number of our troops were deployed in Sri Lanka. The implementation of the Pay Commission report had a major impact on our Budget. Our foreign policies, security concerns, domestic and economic policies are interlinked, and the initiatives taken in the areas of foreign and security policies benefited the common man in India more than most people realize.

Q. Did you accompany Rajiv on more than 100 trips abroad?

A. That's an exaggeration. I was with him during about 140 bilateral summit level meetings, abroad and in India, apart from multilateral meetings.

Q. Are there special moments that stand out in your memory?

A. Oh, there are several. It is difficult to single out an event. Rajiv Gandhi's rapport with U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr., and with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, was remarkable. His meetings with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping and other leaders during his visit to China were also memorable.

Q. Tell us things one didn't know about you.

A. My full name is Ronendra, which means 'victorious in war'. I was born in Pune, Maharashtra, in April 1944. After that, we moved, and stayed in different parts of India. I was in Pune, in Mumbai, in Jabalpur, which is bang in the center of India.

My father retired in 1956. I stayed with my first cousin in Jabalpur, and went to Kolkata, and graduated from St. Xavier's College. I appeared for the Indian Foreign Service and was selected. Since then, I have been on the move, to different countries.

I joined [the IFS] in 1966 and retired in April. I have spent more than 38 years in service.

I have had fairly challenging assignments, alot of it because I happened to be in a particular place at a particular time. I spent a lot of time in Moscow, and I had a fascinating time.

My wife, Kalpana -- I wouldn't have managed without her -- helps me in my job in terms of social and other engagements. She has done a lot of work with the adult literacy program in India. She will continue to do that when we get back finally from the U.S., or doing something for -- I wouldn't say charity -- but making some contribution, not just [to] adult literacy but literacy overall. Our daughter Mita is an environmentalist, a consultant to the United Nations.

Q. Do you have a message for the Indian American community?

A. I send my warm greetings and good wishes to India Abroad's readers, and through them to the vibrant Indian community in the U.S. I am proud of their achievements and look forward to working closely with them and with other friends and well wishers of India to further strengthen Indo-US relations.