As Sen himself has admitted, his comments as quoted were, at worst, “tactless” and general expressions of frustration after the completion of the Herculean job of having finally got the US to agree to undo what they had built up against India over decades. Yet, even if unintended, the comments seem to have caused outrage and offence in Parliament, flippant and occasional though they were. Sen apologised. An infuriated and embarrassed government, already under pressure, reacted sharply. The speaker of the Lok Sabha promised to look into the matter and to take action if necessary, and privilege motions were tabled. Yet for one more day, Parliament has been stalled on the issue, with MPs baying for blood. What is not at all clear is why this issue should continue to agitate Parliament when it could have been dismissed with words of displeasure as Parliament got on with its job. After all, the media, which were apparently targeted, seem to have reacted more soberly and got on with their job.

Sen has been targeted as a civil servant who spoke out of turn, his integrity and loyalty to the country called into question by those who should be among the last to throw stones (he has been called “Bush’s Ambassador”). But Ronen Sen is no longer a civil servant, he is a political appointee sent to Washington after his retirement from the Indian Foreign Service. Would a mere career diplomat be able to hold up Parliament for two days? Or is this a part of the political attack on the government? Previous ambassadors against whom parliamentary objections were made were also political appointees, and the targeting was by and large on political grounds. So what we are seeing here is not outrage about the conduct of an exemplary diplomat, it is not his blood or his honour being questioned. This is an inevitable, if unfortunate, conclusion.

... contd.