Alankrita Anand | The News Minute | June 30, 2014 | 11.16 am IST
Diplomacy has always been categorized under “hard news”. It is about strategizing, lobbying, and striking deals. These jobs are considered high-profile, serious and as mentally taxing.
A news report published in The Times of India on Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj’s visit to Bangladesh was headlined: “Sushma in Bangladesh: Saris add feminine touch to diplomacy”. The story was not about the talks that were held, it was merely a “soft story” accompanying the hard facts of the meeting reported in other news reports.
The TOI story focuses on the exchange of saris between Bangladeshi government officials (all of them women) and Minister Sushma Swaraj. When Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif exchanged gifts on behalf of their mothers, it was termed a sign of warmth and friendship. But when Swaraj and Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina did so, it was about femininity. Why the difference?
In July 2011, the then Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar paid India a diplomatic visit. Thanks to the Birkin bag and the pearls, the Indian media described her most with the word “glamour”. But the word “feminine” did not come up so much in news reports. Does this say something about different standards of “being feminine”?
What then, does the word feminine mean, and are there different ideas of femininity? Does the use of the term “feminine touch”, to Swaraj’s job as the External Affairs Minister of India, imply that the inherent nature of diplomacy is masculine?
This brings us to the question of what is considered masculine. Does it imply serious, no-nonsense, matter-of-fact, professional attitudes? What about alternative masculinities then? Would that again add a different touch to diplomacy?
A look at the civil services personnel in India, reveals that men outnumber women. That is why we have an IAS Officers’ Wives Association and a Forest Officers’ Wives Association. But, despite the superficial gender equality implied by its name, the External Affairs Spouses’ Organization, “aims to foster a sense of belonging amongst the wives of IFS (Indian Foreign Services) officers”.
Clearly, the civil services are a male-dominated profession. But does that necessarily mean that they are a job meant for men and require “masculine” qualities to do well? And when women enter the profession, do they bring feminine attributes to it?
In India, diplomacy or the management of external affairs is currently led by two women - External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh. And they are simply doing their job, not in a masculine way, not in a feminine way; just the job.