Premium
This is an archive article published on October 28, 2011

Advice on advisories

Why are Central ministers tying themselves up in knots over a routine travel alert?

Five countries — the US,the UK,Canada,Australia and New Zealand — had issued travel advisories to their citizens which the Union external affairs and tourism ministries have taken strong exception to,protesting their lack of proportion and the unfair damage they will do to India’s tourism and hospitality industry. Australia has refused to withdraw its advisory,with Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd dismissing Union External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna’s concern by calling the advisory “routine”. Travel advisories,indeed,must be “proportionate” and “carefully modulated” as Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai says. But Krishna and Tourism Minister Subodh Kant Sahay appear to be working themselves into a state of high indignation and picking up a fight for little more than populist reasons.

Several governments are legally bound to regularly inform and advise their citizens on foreign travel,and often an advisory is necessitated by insurance companies. Coming as they do during a festive season,the advisories in question are based on India’s internal state of alert. Yet,the incident does highlight an important concern. Advisories can greatly hurt tourism and business sentiment,and it’s important that Delhi focus on its long-term and severely incomplete task at hand. India must demonstrate competence in articulating issues related to internal security. Till such efficiency comes to pass,Delhi courts the danger of dealing with situations like this one on the basis of nationalist sentiment,rather than an informative update on threat perceptions. Information management — putting out facts,and doing so credibly — is central to curbing the impact of ill-advised advisories.

However,the manner in which the ministers have taken up the issue is another disturbing indication of how the UPA government has begun to function. Matters,like this one,which could at the most require bureaucratic follow-up are made the stuff of populist headlines on TV by the political bosses — leaving bureaucrats ample space to hold forth freewheelingly on matters of policy.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement