The apprehensions of those who doubt or wonder whether it would be ‘functional’ for our leaders to conduct their dialogues with their foreign counterparts in Hindi are unfounded
After the summary scan of the recent round of the Prime Minister’s foreign interactions (September 27 & October 4, Saturday Special Op-Ed), the present column would like to shift attention to the two dozen plus “strategic partnerships” of the country, a little studied subject despite its obvious importance and potential for illuminating some facets of our strategic culture.
But next time perhaps, continuing for the moment on an aspect touched upon earlier but not fully due to space limitations — namely, weaknesses in the national translation and interpretation institutional infrastructure servicing the top leadership’s external interactions.
This merits attention even without the additional demands placed on it by the Prime Minister and External Affairs Minster’s welcome break with the practice of speaking to foreign leaders in English — in routine pursuit of ‘excellence in action’ (yogah karmasu kaushalam, that is the motto of the higher bureaucracy). But especially so because of that overdue change, which has brought a whiff of fresh air — a gust actually — and opened up a whole new arena for national reflection and introspection. A paradigm shift would seem to have been effected quietly, whose substantive significance has not received the attention it deserves.
It must first be stated, in this connection, that the apprehensions of those who doubt or wonder whether it would be “functional” for our leaders to conduct their dialogues with their counterparts in Hindi are unfounded. So are the reservations of those who use the distorting prism of the domestic debate, of imposition of Hindi over non-Hindi speakers. Neither holds any water whatsoever. (Else Russian, Chinese, Japanese and many other country leaders might have quit the game long ago!) Nor are there any other grounds for misgivings on this score.
The point to be appreciated rather is that use of your own language in high-level foreign interlocution lends dignity to the interaction as nothing else can. Always, but especially so in interactions with the English-speaking world, which (no prejudice here) also happens to be one that carries a chip on its shoulder. Talking in the language of the interlocutor invariably entails, often subtly and unbeknownst to us, the burden of constantly having to measure up to the intellectual constructs and frameworks of the other. Such voluntary abdication of one’s own (mental) world undercuts the very notion of “sovereign equality” of nations that is the basis, and bedrock, of dignified international interaction.
It can be argued, of course, that English is no longer an alien language in a post-colonial India that has shed the historical inferiority complex marring preceding generations. One that has outgrown its colonial origins (and struck roots in its Indianised forms) and is now simply a medium of exchange. And a pretty useful one at that, in a hugely multi-lingual nation like ours.
Well, yes and no, in the opinion of this columnist. In the domestic context, maybe yes (with some caveats to ensure that Indian languages are not placed at a disadvantage permanently, structurally, for competing with it on a level playing field — as they regrettably are at present). But not so in the international context, where projection of an authentic national personality is a must — in high-level interactions, above all.
It may be expedient for lower-level diplomats to make use of the fortuitous, if ironic, legacy of felicity in the English language to national advantage in their day to day interactions at the functional level, especially in multi-lateral settings. But in high-level interactions, it is the other way round. A lasting impression has to be made in an encounter that rarely lasts long! Psychological sizing up of your opposite number, that the opportunity of a face to face meeting affords, is the essence of the interaction even more than the content communicated, which is on fairly predictable lines much of the time. The pauses that intersperse the meeting during breaks for translation/interpretation afford an opportunity to gauge non-verbal cues and body language better than otherwise; a feature that cuts both ways though, naturally.
The issue of interest from the standpoint of this column thus is not the desirability of use of Hindi or Gujarati or any other Indian language in the external context, which cannot be disputed, but how well the rest of the “system” in the country, i.e., its permanent establishment, can be said to be serving the political leadership of the day in the above mentioned perspective, of national renewal and rejuvenation.
It is commonly presumed — naturally — that the “system” ensures faithful reproduction of all official material, oral or documentary, bilingually (in Hindi and English) at a minimum, and multi-lingually (covering both foreign and other Indian languages) as warranted from occasion to occasion. Some examples from the Chinese President’s visit, visible in the public domain, would, however, seem to bid caution in this respect.
Four versions of one document — the PM’s Press Statement during that visit — are taken up as a kind of case study: the remarks, as actually delivered (in Hindi), the Hindi (text) version on the PMO’s website and their English (text) versions on the PMO and MEA websites, labelled A, B, C and D respectively for ease of reference.
A number of discrepancies between the four versions are found, two of which are described below:
(i) On the all important, and sensitive, “difficult questions”, PM began by saying (literal translation, ex-post facto) that “I have expressed concern at the incidents on the border. And said that it was necessary to resolve them.” However, the latter sentence does not figure in the English versions (both C and D), which run as follows: “I raised our serious concern over repeated incidents along the border” — i.e., without any mention of the second sentence about the necessity for them to be resolved.
(ii) PM’s remarks in that paragraph ended with the sentence “We should settle the boundary question soon.” This (crucial) sentence was missing (altogether) in B and C initially (on the day of the Press Conference). Though it was there in D, it was mentioned at the end of the next paragraph (on lAC clarification); not where it ought to have been, before it.
The omission in B and C was made good later, upon telephonic intimation of the omission to PMO that afternoon, but at the wrong place in C (same mistake as in D). So it remains on the websites till today.
These gaps and inaccuracies are non-trivial, to put it mildly. At the very least, they betray poor professionalism and a certain casualness of approach in serving the political leadership that cannot be condoned.
In substantive terms, the altered juxtaposition they make dilutes the emphasis of the PM, and importance attached to the unresolved boundary issue by him — without question the heart of the interaction with the Chinese; one on which he may have expended much valuable time and energy, it can reasonably be surmised. And have the potential of making mincemeat of diplomatic strategy (if similar shoddiness would have been in play in the formal talks and in one-on-one confidential meetings). That’s no minor disservice to the exertions of the highest executive of the country and loss for the nation.
There are other differences between delivery and text put out ex-post facto (not circulated in advance, which would have been excusable as such circulated texts always have to be checked against delivery anyway), and Hindi and English versions, which cannot be discussed within the limitations of a newspaper column. Though these omissions/alterations would not be termed serious mistakes, the issue is not the gravity of the error but why there should be any such error at all! They cannot all be attributed to the difficulties inherent in translation. (Each language has its own syntax and idiom, as a result of which it frequently does not admit of 100 per cent accurate rendering in the other; not, in any case, with natural flow.) Allowing for that, and also for the severe time pressures under which the personnel concerned have to operate during high-level interactions — generously, as a former functionary himself, and not gingerly — this columnist can still not be sanguine about the slips.
Surely the “system” should be able to do better than that, in this day and age of digital technology. If this is the condition in respect of English and Hindi languages, on which perhaps individuals with felicity (in both) abound in the country, what would be the state of affairs in respect of other languages, where the numbers immediately come down to a handful, and in some cases even less IJ It is particularly important to maintain records of conversations, etc, with exactitude in case of China, and have a flawless system of accountability in place needless to add, given the repeated misunderstandings with that country throughout independent India’s interaction with its enigmatic, and now also formidable, neighbour to the North.
More than individuals with requisite language felicity, the question is one of “systems”, or the lack of them, and institutional mechanisms in the country being woefully weak — all round, in all fields, not just translation. The notorious “chalta hai” attitude, disdainful of a painstaking approach to problem-solving in a long-term perspective and content with tiding over one’s own tenure somehow, has to (be made to) make way for some real “excellence in action”.
The PM had reportedly stressed collective capacity and coordinated action in his initial interactions with senior civil servants in the Union Government, cautioning against the habit of neglect of institutional capacity building amid pursuit of individual prowess. (Sage counsel, stemming from long years of familiarity with careerist approaches, no doubt.) That should get priority attention backstage now, after the flurry of front stage activity, taking nothing for granted.
And it is not just on a firefighting basis, on the immediate (tactical) plane, but for the long run too — as part of statecraft. In depth understanding of neighbours, vital for “strategic management” of the nation’s fortunes, requires digestion of all material that is publicly available, in their media and literature etc., as a basic minimum. Suggestions made in an earlier column for concerted efforts to quickly boost Chinese language felicity, within the “system” and without, as well as for intensifying the nation’s gaze on China, would seem to bear repetition in this context.
Watch this space to get another perspective next fortnight.
The writer is former Ambassador of India to the UN and other International Organisations in Vienna, Austria, Ireland and Vietnam. At present, he is Adjunct Faculty, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore