Iran and India, yesterday and today

There is a Persian saying which in translation reads thus: The unspoken word is your slave, the spoken word your master.



In normal times this is excellent advice. In Iran at the moment, normal times do not exist. For the first time in 30 years the election of the President has been publicly challenged. Mir Hosain Mousavi and his supporters have not accepted the verdict. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated his opponent by 11 million votes. Even the most ardent critic of the Iranian regime must concede that it is virtually impossible to get an 11-million majority if the election was rigged.


The Iranian political-cum-religious establishment is very powerful, very secretive. Vital decisions are taken behind closed doors. The word of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini cannot be ignored. One may disagree with him in private, but public criticism is not permissible.


In the last 25 years I have interacted with all the top Iranian leaders. Former Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, and Mr. Mousavi, who was Prime Minister. I was the first Foreign Minister to have had an audience with the newly elected Mr. Ahmadinejad in September 2005.


I first met Ayatollah Ali Khomeini in 1982 in Tehran in my capacity as Secretary-General designate of the seventh Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit that was to be held in New Delhi in March 1983. What the great man wanted Indira Gandhi to do was simply not possible. I conveyed to him with great politeness what I was authorised to place before the supreme leader. I told him very gently that as an Indian I valued our age-old relations with Iran. Millions of Shias lived in India. Iran’s impact on our literature, cuisine, dress, language and architecture was appreciated and recognised by the people of India. However, as chairman-designate of the NAM summit, Indira Gandhi had certain constraints. Diplomatic proprieties, which could not be overlooked.


After hearing me the supreme leader spoke with warmth about Iran’s relations with India. He nevertheless asked me to convey to the Prime Minister what he had earlier told me. I respectfully told him that I would faithfully report to Indira Gandhi the views he had expressed regarding the Summit.


On my return to New Delhi I briefed the Prime Minister on my meeting. She said: “You did the right thing.”


In September 1986, the NAM summit was held in Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe. Rajiv Gandhi had inherited the chairmanship of NAM after his mother’s death. He was to hand over the office to President Robert Mugabe in the afternoon session. The opening session was presided over by the Prime Minister. Yasser Arafat made a blistering attack on Iran.


Ayatollah Khomeini was leading the Iranian delegation. An Iranian diplomat let it be known that his supreme leader would exercise his right of reply to Arafat’s “unfounded allegations.” Without delay I informed the Prime Minister what the Iranian leader proposed to do. The Prime Minister immediately called a delegation meeting: Shiv Shankar Menon, K.R. Narayanan, H.Y. Sharada Prasad, and myself. Rajiv Gandhi would still be Chairman in the afternoon before passing on the baton to the President of Zimbabwe. The Iranians told us that the supreme leader would exercise his right of reply before Rajiv Gandhi handed over charge to Mr. Mugabe.


“What do I do? If the Ayatollah insisted on speaking, the whole atmosphere of the summit would be vitiated.”


I remember distinctly what I suggested: “Ask for an immediate meeting with the Iranian supremo. He will, in my judgment, listen only to you.”


I was dispatched to meet the great man. Let me add that Ayatollah Ali Khomeini has a magnetic personality. If one is eye to eye, you blink first. I said: “Sir, the Prime Minister wished to meet you urgently.” The answer came: “He is welcome.”


Rajiv Gandhi too had uncommon charisma. It was fascinating to listen to and watch that unusual meeting.


The Prime Minister placed his problem before the Iranian leader frankly and gracefully. I do not recall the exact words of the Prime Minister, but the gist I remember: I have come to you not as Chairman of NAM, but as the Prime Minister of India and Iran’s well-wisher. I need your cooperation.


“What can we do for you?” The Prime Minister placed his problem before the Ayatollah. If Iran exercised its right of reply, then under NAM rules Arafat could ask to speak again. Iran could do the same. That would inevitably create a confrontational situation, which should be avoided if the summit was to succeed.


After a deliberative pause the answer came. “We cannot say no to the Prime Minister of India. We shall not exercise our right of reply.” Here is real grace and diplomatic large-heartedness. The summit was saved by Iran and India.


The Ayatollah is still the supreme leader. The West and Israel would be unwise to take him on.


I have related this memorable episode to highlight the fact that the Iranian leader is no run-of-the-mill leader. He is supreme, subtle, sophisticated, deeply religious, whose authority and power cannot be challenged. He matters. The others are mere subordinates, with one or two exceptions.


Of course, the present situation in Iran is causing concern, both among its friends and formidable foes. The whole world is watching. Iran is a very big player in the Muslim world. It is also a nuclear power-designate. The Gulf states must be more worried, so also the whole of West Asia.


Of course, India faces a major dilemma. This is where mature diplomacy is needed.


What should India do? Publicly, say nothing. It is an internal matter of Iran which also has international ramifications. Wait and watch. No action is also action.


Remember the unspoken word