The third edition of The Huddle, The Hindu ’s two-day annual thought conclave, got underway at the ITC Gardenia hotel in Bengaluru on February 9.
Vice-President Venkaiah Naidu will deliver the Chief Guest’s address on February 10. Other prominent speakers at the event include Sri Lanka’s Leader of the Opposition Mahinda Rajapaksa, Home Minister Rajnath Singh, Deputy Chief Minister of Rajasthan Sachin Pilot and Karnataka Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy.
Inputs from Bengaluru bureau
Day One, Saturday, February 9, 2019 The Mysore Hall
9.00 am - 9.45 am - Guest Registration
9.45 am - 9.55 am - Inauguration Mukund Padmanabhan (Editor, The Hindu) R Ravichander (Group President & Regional Director, Yes Bank)
10.00 am - 11.00 am - Inaugural Address - Future of India-Sri Lanka ties - Hon Mahinda Rajapaksa, Leader of Opposition, Sri Lanka Chair: N Ram, Chairman, THG Publishing Pvt Ltd
11.05 am - 11.55 am - The Age of Extremes: No space for the middle ground - Arif Mohammed Khan, Politician Ashwani Kumar, Former Union Minister for Law & Justice Shekhar Gupta, Journalist In conversation with Suhasini Haidar, Diplomatic Editor, The Hindu
11.55 am - 12.10 pm - TEA
12.10 pm - 1.00 pm - Reforms: Time for Version 2.0? Keshav Murugesh, Group Chief Executive Officer, WNS Global Services B V R Mohan Reddy, Founder & Executive Chairman, Cyient Rajat Monga, Senior Group President, Financial Markets, YES Bank Vinita Bali, Independent Director & Former Managing Director of Britannia Industries Ltd In conversation with Raghavan Srinivasan, Editor, The Hindu Business Line
1.05 pm - 1.55 pm - Who is a Bengalurian?: Identities in a changing, cosmopolitan city - Jayant Kaikini, Poet & Writer Madhu Nataraj, Dancer & Choreographer Vivek Shanbhag, Novelist & Playwright Zac O'Yeah, Author In conversation with Vanamala Viswanatha, Academic & Translator
1.55 pm - 2.55 pm - LUNCH
2.55 pm - 3.45 pm - Down the line: Sania Mirza on tennis, motherhood and life lessons - Sania Mirza, Indian professional tennis player In conversation with Veena Venugopal, Associate Editor, The Hindu
3.50 pm - 4.40 pm - A Mixed Legacy: The many facets of Indira Gandhi - Jairam Ramesh, Economist & Politician Srinath Raghavan, Academic & Author Shekhar Gupta, Journalist In conversation with Mini Kapoor, Ideas Editor, The Hindu
4.40 pm - 4.55 pm - TEA
4.55 pm – 5.50 pm - Does the Nation Want to Know – A stand-up act Anuvab Pal, Comedian & Writer
Click here for the full schedule
The Day 1 of The Huddle ends with a stand-up act of Anuvab Pal — Does the Nation Want to Know.
A Mixed Legacy: The many facets of Indira Gandhi
Speakers : Jairam Ramesh, Economist & Politician Srinath Raghavan, Academic & Author Shekhar Gupta, Journalist In conversation with Mini Kapoor, Ideas Editor, The Hindu
Mini Kapoor: There is an interplay of insecurity and leadership with Indira Gandhi. In assessing Indira Gandhi, should we consider her chronologically to make sense of her?
Srinath Raghavan: Politics is about reacting to public events. Personality based assessment can only take us that far. No escaping the chronological order to this. The 1970s is a period of historical transition from Nehruvian period and the India that we now live in. It is difficult for historians to make a considerable judgement on this.
Jairam Ramesh: From 1966 to 1969, Indira Gandhi comes across as a weak Indira Gandhi. She comes into her own in the latter part of 1969. She is different later, she is in her peak in 1972. A large part of it had to do with the economic and political developments. The seeds were sown in the national mandate in 1972. That is when her problems began in Bihar and Gujarat, which led to the Emergency. Post 1980, she is completely different. There has been a glorious inconsistency in the case of Indira Gandhi unlike Jawaharlal Nehru.
Shekhar Gupta: Pre-emergency Indira Gandhi and Post-Emergency Indira Gandhi... but there is no talk or study about pre-Sanjay Gandhi and post-Sanjay Gandhi. We need better understanding of how Sanjay Gandhi's death affected her; she had changed a lot. A much more complex Indira Gandhi emerged.
Jairam Ramesh: Her ideological pillars in the 60s and 70s vanished from the scene. Only then Sanjay Gandhi enters. To explain why she took sharp ideological position in the 70s we need to go back to the 1950. Politics then was sharp right wing and sharp left wing. It sees the emergence right wing in the congress party. India has its first major forex crsis in 1958... the great Indian consortium, you have the combined might of western power. Nehru begins to lose control of the party.
Srinath Raghavan: In 1973, her perception was that cold war was significantly increasing in the third world. But immediately for her, the Yom Kippur War sees oil shocks. Inflation reaches 33%. She became a Socialist. There was a strong move to nationalise wheat trade and remove middlemen. She faced incredible resistance from Congress ministers who worry their power base is going back. She rolls back. It is a watershed movement, and her advisors start getting more role. It explains 1974 signing of contingency plan to borrow from IMF.
Shekhar Gupta: Then the Allahabad judgment. She had thought Pokhran would turn public opinion, it did not. The dominant theme of Hindi cinema were roti, kapda aur makaan . She didn't know everything; she had begun to misunderstand the scenario. It was tough times; she had not prepared India for the tough times.
Jairam Ramesh: What were the charges she was guilty of? Does anybody in this hall know? When Raj Narain went to court, Justice Ainha exonerated her on four counts and she was held guilty. Of two counts — one is mike and rostrum for the PM was put up by the state administration. The other, Yashpal Kapoor, who was the OSD had drawn salary for about 14 days after he resigned. These were the two counts for which she was held guilty.
Mini Kapoor: Why did she lift the Emergency?
Srinath Raghavan: There are no evidence for any of the theories. She was told by Intelligence Bureau that she'll have a thumping victory. Second theory, things are going bad and it'll be better to take your chances now while you have chances.
Third argument was that Indira Gandhi was uncomfortable to go down the Emergency route — to jail her contemporaries. After all, she saw herself as a radical democrat who could bring sections to vote for the Congress. This contradiction could have caught up.
Jairam Ramesh: She was a democrat. Sharada Prasad, her closest aide, wrote on 20th of July 1974, and describes that it was the RSS factor that was responsible for her action on Emergency. She was a reluctant authoritarian. It was not a well planned strategy. Cabinet was called at 6 am and Emergency was ratified.
Srinath Raghavan: When she did call elections, why didn't she rig the elections? There was hardly any opposition to speak of and opposition believed that elections would be a sham. Why didn't she rig it?
Mini Kapoor: Did she think she had to lose the elections so that she could come to the democratic fold?
Jairam Ramesh: Indira Gandhi was convinced that she would lose when she was deserted by Jagjivan Ram and Bahuguna. She may not be aware of the extent of the loss.
Shekhar Gupta: She knew how to play with the media... still in the late 1970s. One mystery is why she lifted Emergency and why did she sign the Simla agreement.
Jairam Ramesh: It is unrealistic to expect Mr. Bhutto to agree to Line of Control as the International Border. Indira Gandhi's bitterest critic was C. Rajagopalachari. He called Simla agreement a pact of good hope.
Srinath Raghavan: (On 1971 war and Simla Accord) Americans had made it clear that any move to roll over West Pakistan will be taken seriously. The strategy instead would be to consolidate victory in East rather than do anything on the Western front. Expectation is different in Simla agreement — convert Kashmir from international to bilateral one. The permanence of LOC was not in consideration. The assumption was eventual settlement would be along the LOC. It is anachronistic to assume that Indians wanted whole Kashmir, they could have got it.
Srinath Raghavan (On most salient point of Indira Gandhi legacy): Green Revolution. Hands down. If not for this, Indian troops would be in Afghanistan because of our reliance on the US. On economic policy, big businesses loved Emergency — labour dispute and inflation lowered. Economic data supports this as private investments rose. There is a big economic change during this time. Her attitude towards organised labour is antagonist. She can't even be called a socialist. Big businesses loved this. In the 80s, Dhirubhai Ambani even hosted a dinner for her when she won the election.
Jairam Ramesh: One distinctive contribution to politics is to bring environment into the mainstream. She made ecology the central driving theme of her governance. It was not Nehruvian. Media was not sensitive to it then. Ecological balance as a measure of development continues to be her legacy.
Shekhar Gupta: We have had a long discussion, but we have not mentioned her contribution to internal security.
She was new and very weak, she used Air Force in Mizoram. She did it in 1966. She fought the Nagas. First Naga Peace Accord was in 1975. Election of Assam, we really hated her. She forced the election on Assam and many people died. But there was a strong impulse... if she had not held the elections, oil would not go out of Assam. She took the risk, which went out of control. Within the same 15 months in Punjab. In June of 1984, I don't believe that any method other than what she did would have worked. She had the courage and knew the risk of going there.
With those two actions, she contributed to India's internal security in a manner no leader could have.
Ramchandra Guha speaks as a member from the audience. There was an authoritarian aspect to Ms. Gandhi's concern to environment. She could kick out the adivasis. What was another great achievement is the love for science and space which she got from Nehru. Her greatest failure was the cultivation of dynasty in Indian politics. There is now no major party without dynasty. One in five is from a political family in parliament. Dynasty spread because Congress party, the party of the independence struggle, did it.
The session ends.
Down the line: Sania Mirza on tennis, motherhood and life lessons
Speakers: Sania Mirza, Indian professional tennis player. In conversation with Veena Venugopal, Associate Editor, The Hindu
Tennis player Sania Mirza in conversation with Veena Venugopal at The Huddle in Bengaluru on Saturday.
Sania Mirza: Tennis was not a career option for me at all. It was a process, against the odds. It kept happening and only when I was 12-13 years of age that I realised this is what I want to do in my life. My parents have been an integral part of my team. However, it's not just them. It was 10 years of struggle, grind and sacrifice that went behind my first victory in the junior Wimbeldon. It was destiny. You have to work hard towards it, towards your goal.
Sania Mirza: People talk about me being the first to do a lot of things... but it is very very hard. Tennis is not a sport of the sub-continent. It was a transition where we learnt by trial and error; made decisions based on what we saw. It was a tough phase (to go to the international space). The transition period is the toughest for any athlete.
Veena Venugopal: When you started winning the big games, how did you balance the natural game and performance pressure?
Sania Mirza: I stopped reading the newspapers. Sorry, I know I am at The Hindu event. You learn to become thick skinned. I grew up in the limelight. I had to learn to deal with pressures. I am really stubborn and I will do what I believe is right.
I had three surgeries. After surgeries your body parts change, it's never back to how it was. I would have loved the training that I had when I was 13-14 when I was 8. When you push your body to the limit, you are always playing catch up.
You have to gear yourself up and adapt to the changes. I have played against Martina Hingis in singles when she came back after her retirement. We had mutual respect. For me, she has been the best partner and for her, I am the best partner. I felt complete after winning the doubles title. I won the title on my wedding anniversary.
As sports people, we are very greedy. When I won Grand Slam, I would want to win more Grand Slams.
I was controversies favourite child because of my skirt, T shirt etc. It was a phase when the media was also growing about 15 years ago. I have had a love-hate relationship with media. I was worried for my sanity... first trolling used to happen in media, now in social media.
You have to become thick skinned. If you are not thick skinned, you are not going to survive. For me trolls are just hilarious. They are like the biggest losers. They are sitting behind laptops and phones and feel so powerful. I have to feel sorry for them. I find trolls quite amusing. Trolls are cowards, they are powerless. I take it (trolling) as a compliment. Probably, they are doing it because they are not in my position.
I will play for my country and not for anybody. Me and Mahesh [Bhupathy], he is one of my best friends and our families too. Me and Rohan [Bopanna] also played and we still do. Hopefully, playing the next Olympics looks realistic again. After the last Olympics, I was not sure about playing again.
Everybody should play a sport, not just cricket. Sports is a great equalizer. Tennis is like a reality TV sport. It is raw in emotion. Where else do we swear ourselves and celebrate? Sports teaches us, not just me. Not just as a girl, but as a human being. We see everybody as a human being. When we go to Olympics, we stay under the same roof and together. Sports teaches you to keep trying even after losing.
We are a country of a lot of people. We need to have more people making it to the top. I do regret that there isn't any system to promote players to the top level. We are doing better as a country in different sports, but in tennis we are not quite there.
It helps to marry a sportsman. We have issues like take the towel off, shoes off etc. But it's great to be married to someone like him. We have other issues... like he has not seen the baby for a long time.
Why can't my son be a doctor? Just because he is son of sports people, why should he play cricket or tennis? He will probably be a journalist. He will be whatever he wants to be. He is just three-months old. I just want him to be a good human being.
Realistic possibility for comeback is by the end of the year. My conditioning training is coming in the next ten days. Now that I have lost weight, I do tennis specific training. I am 32 years old, I am not so young as a tennis player. But I would die if I did not try. Tennis is my life, it has given me everything. I still have it in me.
My advice to youngsters is not to play to be come a star but to play for the love of the sport. Don't play for the fame. You just have to be good to earn bread and butter for anything.
Steffi Graff was someone I looked up to. I am still star struck when I look at her. She is so comlplete. She is really a good example of people having it all.
It was mostly my parents, who were my solid pillars.
We are not competing with cricket. No sport can compete with cricket in India. Tennis has grown by leaps and bounds. We are not competing, millions want to watch cricket, but not tennis. Though hockey is our national game, how many watch? Out of four pages of sports, it will be nice if we don't have three and a half pages of cricket.
She suggest Star Network to start a channel for tennis like Star Cricket .
The session concludes.
Who is a Bengalurian? Identities in a changing, cosmopolitan city
Speakers : Jayant Kaikini, Poet & Writer. Madhu Nataraj, Dancer & Choreographer. Vivek Shanbhag, Novelist & Playwright. Zac O'Yeah, Author .In conversation with Vanamala Viswanatha, Academic & Translator.
(From left) Zac O'Yeah, Madhu Nataraj, Vanamala Viswanatha, Vivek Shanbagh, Jayant Kaikini at The Huddle in Bengaluru, February 9, 2019
Vanamala: A Bangalorean - the definition is complex, versatile. We are not here as urban planners or social scientists. We have our own unique perspective coming from humanities. Beneath the fashionable story of diversity is exclusion.
Vanamala: Bangalore is different from Mysore, which was the cultural capital. Historically, Bangalore has been diverse. One wave in the 1960s when PSUs came to the city; the second wave decades later that brought in multi-ness. Borders within the city have become porous. The city has grown and growing. What is the nature of the change?
Shanbhag: The change that I have seen is not just in terms of infrastructure... trees cut, lakes have gone. One of the swabhava of Kannadigas and Bangaloreans is linguistic tolerance. You can immediately experience it the moment you come to Bangalore from any part of India. None of us in the panel have Kannada as the mother tongue, but we consider ourselves Kannadigas. One of the finest Kannada poets, Bendre, spoke Marathi at home. It is this, which I feel is changing. People who moved from other parts made Kannada their own.
Shanbhag: Bangalore's problems, we think, is due to IT. When they moved in from other parts of the country, rapid changes happened. Not enough time nor any support given to these people to form a connect with Kannada. Even in English medium schools, the children spoke in Kannada. It is not so today.
Vanamala (in Kannda to Madhu Nataraj): You have lived in Bangalore for 30 years. What is your opinion?
Madhu: Many times when people ask me how it is to be a Bangalorean, I feel very much like Alice in Wonderland. I have seen a Bangalore that was idyllic. We would book a movie ticket 2 weeks in advance, wait 3 months for a movie to release. You could go to a 500 year old temple in the morning and go to a kutcheri and in the evening, go to a performance by Sting. When i came back to Bangalore from NY, the audience accepted me. The purists ostracized me. Bangalore allowed me a space to be creative. Artists may drop other cities, but not Bangalore. The audiences here are more welcoming and open-minded.
Zac OÝeah (take on change in Bangalore): I've been here 27 years and been walking a lot on the streets here. Bangalore to me has always had the same characteristics of a cosmopolitan city, just as it were when it was set up 200 years by the Brits as a cantonment. Things are changing rapidly, from day to day. Landmarks to navigate are going. From "Take a left at the banyan tree", it's become, "Take a left where the banyan tree used to be." As a writer, it is difficult to write about a city that changes must faster than it takes to write a book!
O'Yeah: In three years that it takes for a novel, the whole city is torn down and rebuilt! Peculiar thing about Bangalore. In other cities the old part of the city remains the same. But in Bangalore, they'd even tear down the Eiffel to rebuild if they could. Anybody you meet, can speak 4-5 languages. I'm fascinated by the multi-lingual people in the city. Won't find it any other city.
Jayanth Kaikini: (on differences between Mumbai and Bangalore): In Kannada, we convert the tongue into a mother. The language is a mother.
Mumbai was a liberating place for me. Everyone from India came for work. It is clean, minimalist living that has by default become spiritualistic. It is a cosmopolitan city with a collective mind. Each micro (area) reflects the macro. Bengaluru is in the process. It is evolving towards this. This can be seen in night bus journeys: family talks in English while boarding in Bangalore. Stop for dinner, it is groggy English-Kannada. And by the time it reaches the villages, it is Kannada. There is a cultural jet lag. The same is in the reverse journey. A real cosmopolitan urban place allows anonymity and freedom. Strangers talk to strangers. Bangalore is heading to this. Not yet there - it is still a confused place. There is little pride in Kannada among the aspirational class: Kannada papers hidden and preferred for English. Idli and Kannada food being sidelined for North Indian food. All metaphors for the lowering of pride in Karnataka. In Mumbai, Marathi went through this. Eventually, evolved into a larger thought of the city. Kannada will go through that too.
Vanamala: Migrants into Bangalore, not just from outside, but even within Karnataka, there is an influx. There is a flip side to Bangalore's welcoming culture and accommodating spirit. But what is happening to Kannada and Kannada speaking people or those who have recognised Kannada as a dominant language. is it justified to say that local people are feeling undermined by the growth of Bangalore?
Vivek: It is true that there is a growing feeling of this kind. For a long time, the best Kannada teaching centre was the one run by Tamil Sangham.
Zac: There has to be a differentiation between being a Kannadiga and being a Bangalorean. I've been breathing the same polluted air, drinking the same poisonous water, eating the same food colourant in gobi manchurian. I have Bengaluru in my lungs and bloodstream. But not being Kannadiga doesn't make me any less Bangalorean. It is about the love for the city, and I view the city as my ailing mother now.
Madhu: We missed talking about the resilience of a Bangalorean.
The session concludes.
Reforms: Time for Version 2.0?
Speakers : Keshav Murugesh, Group Chief Executive Officer, WNS Global Services. B V R Mohan Reddy, Founder & Executive Chairman, Cyient Rajat Monga, Senior Group President, Financial Markets, YES Bank, Vinita Bali, Independent Director & Former Managing Director of Britannia Industries Ltd. In conversation with Raghavan Srinivasan, Editor, The Hindu Business Line
Raghavan Srinivasan: Bengaluru changed a lot during the post-reform period. Have we achieved what we sought to achieve in the first place?
BVR Reddy: Reforms are a continuous process. We have definitely achieved a lot post liberalisation, but we can achieve more and do better. Regulators like SEBI, TRAI have done well. We need to put a framework by asking what we need to do next.
Vinita Bali: Some goals have been achieved, our rate of growth post liberalisation has doubled after 1991 liberalisation. We have a decent rate of growth of 7-8% in the last decade or so. Our growth story has come mainly from domestic consumption. But, we need to look at Human Development Index. Health care and education are very critical areas. Our labour laws do not help the labourers whom its supposed to protect. Need to find solutions for employment rather than just depend on GDP growth. We are not a global player and we need to look at our role.
Keshav Murugesh: I am in agreement with other panelists. We did not wait for the government to announce schemes. We created businesses out of gaps. 35% of people working in our business are women, they have have taken our business to tier 2, tier 3 cities. We are creating a new future skilled platform in IT which will skill four million people. Not just new people, but also the ones in employment.
Srinivasan: GST has knocked off a lot of government rebates. In Korea, 98% of manufactured sector had skilled training. But, in India the percentage of formal skilled is very small.
Reddy: Wipro and Infosys are training people not because the government is not doing it. They are doing it out of passion. Incentives will not help industries to grow. Two major requirements are infrastructure and talent. Employability is around 30%. This is because of lack of learning. If only 50 per cent of the seats are filled, we have infrastructure lying idle. Faculty is in poor shape. Skill levels are improving once people enter the industry by taking up apprenticeship.
Vinita Bali: Agriculture contributes very little to the GDP compared to the population engaged in. Farm income is not growing at 8%. There is no way you can make a decent living out of agriculture. Unless we look at agriculture, we will end up only treating the symptoms. Farm-loan waivers treat only symptoms. Out of 800 million people who sleep hungry every night, 200 million live in India. We are not seeing where reform is needed. A lot of food is lost in storing, stocking etc. PDS system has failed for a variety of reasons.
Srinivasan: We need to focus on agriculture, healthcare and education.
Bali: Embed social responsibility in the business module is better than the CSR policy currently in vogue.
The session concludes.
The Age of Extremes: No space for the middle ground
Speakers : Arif Mohammed Khan, Politician, Ashwani Kumar, Former Union Minister for Law & Justice, Shekhar Gupta, Journalist, in conversation with Suhasini Haidar, Diplomatic Editor, The Hindu
(From left) Ashwani Kumar, Arif Mohammed Khan, Suhasini Haider and Shekhar Gupta at The Huddle in Bengaluru, February 9, 2019
Khan: We must never forget that in India, concept of time is not linear but circular. History keeps repeating itself, if we don't learn the lessons of history that it wishes to teach us. For billion of years, human beings have been actuated by emotions, passions and that has deeply affected DNA and attitudes.
Gupta: If you are arguing in nuances, you have already lost the argument. Critics of Modi would say today is worse than the Emergency. If that were the case, I would be in jail and The Huddle would not be happening. If you say there are problems, questions to be answered, don't call journalists anti-nationals. It''s the question of not choosing to enter any side of the bunkers.
Gupta: Between 2011 and now, India has bought 90 million automobiles. Since 2011, 27 cr. Indians have been pulled out of poverty. Nuanced argument with facts is becoming very narrow. The debate has shifted from parliament and op-ed pages to TV.
Khan: Go back to history. In the name of religion, what kind of extremism, hatred. In Europe, it was between two sects of Christianity. 16th century. In Delhi, the emperor killed his brothers, jailed his father... We have all these examples from history.
Gupta: Human civilization has moved forward. Just because something happened in the past, doesn't justify a less bad thing happening today. Human civilization has to look ahead.
Ashwani Kumar: Moderation is the unceasing ground. Instead of middle ground, the word should have been moderation. The hiatus between the rich and very poor continues to stare us in the face. The quest for a better society is absolutely imperative. The quest for middle ground is an unceasing quest.
Suhasini: Why is moderation not an exciting idea? Why is it not politically convenient to be moderate?
Gupta: Because it suits us, we embrace wrong methodologies that lead to wrong policies. If you want to be in a debate, you have to be thick- skinned. Politics driving change or change driving politics... it is chicken and egg. The world today is run by alpha males. The challenge of those in public debate is to be patient. Neutrality is not the middle ground. Moderation is not the middle ground.
Kumar: Moderation will always be middle ground. There is an argument to come to the middle ground and talk to the base.
Suhasini: Language of our discourse has become harsh.
Khan: When I refer to history, it is not to justify what is going on today. I am not subscribing to the view that there is no space available for the middle path. Language, yes. Human beings essentially have survived. The basic thing is to control selfishness. The best way, according to Indian philosophy, is doing good to others. What goes around comes around.
Suhasini: Social media was ultimate democratiser. However, there are people in silos.
Gupta: Once you create a public sphere and democratise debate, you can't put these conditions. What is dangerous is lynch mentality. Today, you can actually unleash mobs. People in public debate are known faces. These are drawing physical dangers. Twitter thrives on hate all around the world. If only they were to not allow anonymity, a lot of vile things will come down. What has social media done to journalists? It has given journalists in public debate to be in touch with audiences.
Khan: None of us is responsible for actions of our ancestors, but we are responsible for memories their actions have created. If we forgtt the memories, the actions will haunt us. Maulna Azad's predictions on Pakistan, 99% came true. About India, his predictions, took a longer time. The seeds are sown in history.
Kumar: Social media is going to be the key factor in the manner in which we run democracy.
Gupta: Is social media the villain? All political parties have mainstream media. Society has to be vigilant and a debate has to be on. Today there is sufficient diversity of media, diversity available on social media as well.
The session concludes. There will be a 15-minute tea break.
Future of India-Sri Lanka ties
Mahinda Rajapaksa, Leader of Opposition, Sri Lanka, begins his address.
Mahinda Rajapaksa, Leader of Opposition, Sri Lanka; N. Ram, Chairman, THG Publishing Pvt Ltd; N Ravi, Publisher, The Hindu Group of Newspapers; Mukund Padmanabhan (Editor, The Hindu); and R Ravichander (Group President & Regional Director, Yes Bank) at the inauguration of annual thought conclave The Huddle 2019, in Bengaluru on February 09, 2019.
"I believe that sharing ideas and learning from one another is key to understanding each other. India and Sri Lanka are one family, with shared cultural values. And with any family, the journey is not always smooth. Visits of the Buddha and later disciples are landmark moments in Sri Lanka's history. Then, Mahatma Gandhi's influence on national thought process. I see these as part of our relationship.
On the bilateral relationship, there have been good times and not so good. But it is important for both countries to understand the trends that impact both countries and best explore them to our mutual benefits. Both our countries have experienced the threat and terror of a few who work for their selfish motives. In the 80s, the LTTE found save haven in India and claimed the life of Rajiv Gandhi, killed 1500 soldiers. It was a troubled time in our bilateral relationship. The mistakes we have made, we learn from them. And move towards a future where mistakes are not repeated.
Click here for the full text of Mahinda Rajapaksa's speech
Two major breakdowns in our relationship happened in the 1980s and 2014. In the 70s, our ties reached a high. Both Prime Ministers had a personal friendship. I'm 1979, Moraji Desai said problems inherited from colonial past had been resolved. We've entered a new era of cooperation. Post-Independence, relationship between India and SL was good despite having contrasting ideologies: India being secular and socialist: SL being right wing and Pro-West. Nehru even convinced USSR that Ceylon was a sovereign nation.
Even when SL was engaged in a war against the cruelest terrorist group in the world, India's relationship was friendly. India's understanding was a key factor in eliminating terrorism.
In 2014, the second major breakdown. The government changed in India. Working relationship between the governments changed. Lack of communication between the parties seemed to have led to this situation. Communication is a vital factor that can make or break relationships. Misunderstandings of the '80s and 2014 could have been avoided with communication.
On India's dealing with SL, here's my suggestion: If the outgoing party has given recognition to a working relationship with SL, then the incoming party should also give the same recognition. Changes in government have serious consequences for relationships and for both countries.
Strong mechanism at country-country level should be in place to clear any misunderstanding that may pop by from time to time. As long as countries understand the foundations of the relationship, nothing can be done to jeopardise the relationship. National security, social well being, political stability, economy, international transport will play a key role between the countries. National security is important given the destructive forces that have operated and will come up in the future.
Mahinda Rajapaksa, Leader of Opposition, Sri Lanka, speaks at The Huddle 2019 in Bengaluru, February 9, 2019
We've a mutual obligation to ensure security of each other because we are geographically close. Maritime security has become an issue. It will be an important aspect of a well formed strategy. Vibrant, on-going dialogue will ensure each other's national security. It should transcend normal dialogue process. Strong political leadership is a key factor for a stable relationship.
N.Ram asks: "If you were to return to power are you confident that what you put forward here can be implemented?"
Rajapaksa: "I think so. If we have two strong leaders in both countries."
N. Ram: "How has the change from India wanting to be actively involved, affected the perceptions of Tamil community in SL?"
Rajapaksa: Tamil community opposed the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) first, before the Sinhalese, as they faced the problems first. After that left, the issue was internationalised. When it should've been between us.
N. Ram: You are credited with ending wars and building infrastructure. There is some dust left to clear with the Tamil community.
Rajapaksa: People can be satisfied, but not politicians. My problem is that.
N. Ram: You had three weeks as Prime minister. Perception here was that there was not much for you or the party. Why did you accept the Prime Ministership?
Rajapaksa: We managed to break the two-third majority in Parliament. I think it is a good thing.
N. Ram: You stood by SLFP, even when they were in difficult times. Now you are in a leader of any other party, but continue to hold membership of the SLFP.
Rajapaksa: The president of the new party is someone else. But they consider me the leader.
N. Ram: Have you fixed any economic goals for the next 20 years?
Rajapaksa: Last two years, the economy has stagnated.
N. Ram: The coming presidential election?
Rajapaksa: Unfortunately, I can't contest, so have to find a good candidate. This candidate will win. I will amend Constitution after this candidate wins.
Session begins with the lighting of the lamp by Mahinda Rajapaksa, Leader of Opposition, Sri Lanka; N. Ram, chairman, THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd.; N. Ravi, publisher, The Hindu Group of Newspapers; Mukund Padmanabhan, editor, The Hindu; and R. Ravichander, Group President and Regional Director, Yes Bank.
Yes Bank Group President R. Ravichander: "In India we're fortunate to have a paper like The Hindu that contributes to the nation's growth by putting forth accurate and balanced views. Huddle is a congregation of great minds, and culmination in action. Huddle will bring together people that hopefully will result in ideas that take the nation on the right growth. I have an uncanny feeling that by sundown tomorrow, we'll be dangerously close to being wise."
The Huddle will feature 15 sessions and about 35 speakers over the two days and showcase some of the brightest minds from the world of politics, business, academics, sports, entertainment and the arts. These sessions, which are interactive, are conducted before an invited audience.
The Huddle this year features a host of key political figures and commentators who will share their perspectives on the evolving political landscape of India.
