Any kind of change is an inherently necessary component of political life, and even if every nation has access to all of its resources, these continue to rehearse diplomacy in its modern guise.
Huglomacy, a relatively recent expression, has entered the complex political sphere. Recently. It clearly outlines a more modest approach to the age-old custom of bowing down to powerful nations.
In its most fitting basic form, this favoured term of diplomacy remains equipped with the adequate art and usual practice of managing unpretentious relationships.
How can it be simply left to add that the peaceful resolution of thorny political issues can be achieved through norms of specified agreements between countries?
It surely entails attaining positive objectives and preserving all constructive bonds. It needs rigidly a logical dialogue, considerate compromise, and much-stressed other non-violent means.
In its relatively clear ambit, a new strong term, huglomacy, has come to define a form of understanding of the political world.
Though Congress MP Jairam Ramesh has raised a demand questioning "huglomacy" with the US President Donald Trump. The MP also said that PM Modi must break the silence on whether our country bore the brunt of losing fighter jets during the recent conflict.
We do not want a substitute batsman, he quipped. It becomes rather apparent that the term huglomacy has been coined wisely to measure the results of the four-day-long conflict between the two neighbouring countries.
Few countries have followed what chills in the luxury of surfacing huglomacy at all. Considering the situation, the plus-size, high-end huglomacy boasts of a cleverly coined word that persists and expands with all its diplomatic qualities.
Comments
Post a Comment