The strictest norms of behaviour are required from senior civil servants and diplomats. Yet they cannot defend themselves, either in Parliament or in the press. Unfair and unfounded allegations are made, even by parliamentarians, but there is little recourse unless the government defends him or her — unless the behaviour is indefensible, of course. Who would say that stray comments over the telephone, however embarrassing, amount to indefensible behaviour?

On the other hand, as a political appointee, surely he has more freedom to express his views than a career diplomat would have; so why the umbrage? In my experience, career diplomats avoid any commentary on parliamentary proceedings, especially to the press. But again, was Parliament being referred to at all? The 123 Agreement is after all being discussed with passion, but perhaps without the underlying political agenda, in the press, on the Net, in think tanks, seminars and workshops around the country, and Ambassador Sen, after all, like Parliament, represents these people as well. Shouldn’t our sensitivities have been affected too? Certainly, the sensitivities of those who pay taxes, and perhaps, even of those who do not, and who have been watching with dismay the stalling of Parliament over what is possibly a non-issue, certainly a trivial one, have been once again abraded, without recourse.

The writer was India’s permanent representative to the UN in Geneva and is currently a member of the PM’s Task Force on Disarmament and Non-proliferation