The G-20 is one more opportunity to make noise about Modi being a ‘Vishwaguru,’ much needed for the election battle ahead.
The eighteenth summit of the G20, representing 66 per cent of the world’s population, 85 per cent of GDP, 75 per cent of international trade, producing 80 per cent of pollution, organized by the host government with the elaborate choreography of a Wagnerian opera saw a diplomatic coup by India. Pundits, especially in the West, had confidently predicted that this summit might be the first one to end without a declaration. It is evident that India’s diplomats squared the circle on Ukraine. However, reflection shows that the drafting skills of the host alone cannot account for the outcome.
In the last G20 summit in Bali (November 2022), Indonesia, under Western pressure, invited President Zelensky, who spoke of “G19,” implying that Russia should be thrown out of the group. India stood up to the Western pressure, exerted this time as well, to invite Zelensky and earned brownie points from Moscow.
Paragraphs 8 to 14 of the declaration deal with the conundrum of the war between Ukraine (plus NATO) and Russia. There is no change in the positions of G20 states as reflected in their voting at the United Nations General Assembly and United Nations Security Council. All states are bound to respect the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force for territorial expansion. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is ‘inadmissible’. G-20 is not the forum for resolving ‘geopolitical and security issues’. In view of the enormous human suffering, all efforts should be made to have a cease-fire.
The Black Sea Grain Export arrangement should be revived. In that context, the Memorandum of Understanding between Russia and the U.N. Secretary-General on the lifting of Western sanctions in respect of food and fertilizer exports from Russia should be implemented.
There is no mention of Russia as the invader, which was there in the Bali declaration. We know that Russia suspended participation in the Black Sea Grain Export arrangement because the West did not lift the sanctions. In terms of the language, Russia has gained, and Ukraine has expressed its displeasure with the declaration, saying ‘stronger’ was called for.
Here, there is a factor that most commentators have ignored. In July 2023, Ukraine announced it would export grain without Russia’s cooperation. Russia responded by destroying the port facilities in Odessa port. Ukraine then tried to export to Romania through its ports on the Danube River.
Russia bombed those ports immediately before the G20 started. Ukraine finds itself in a situation of having to stop using the Romanian option. Ukraine hoped that NATO would respond if Russia violated Romania’s territorial integrity. Even after a part of a Russian missile fell into Romania twice, NATO has not taken note of it, though Poland said that Russia had violated the boundary of a NATO member-state.
In short, NATO, or rather President Biden standing for re-election, does not want a direct war with Russia. Therefore, if the Western sanctions on Russia’s export of grain and fertilizer are lifted, Ukraine can restart exports. However, we can understand that Ukraine had to protest for political reasons.
For two reasons, the West conceded more than Russia in terms of language. First, the West has assessed that Modi will get re-elected next year and, therefore, does not want to displease him. Second, if there is no joint declaration, the G-20 gets weakened, and the BRICS and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Council) might gain. The U.S. had once sought membership of the SCO in vain. The West is keen to promote the G20, though it realizes that the Global South might, through the G20, seek a change in the international order dominated by the West.
An important decision taken in Delhi was to accept the 55-member African Union as a full member. In June 2023, India, as chair, wrote seeking concurrence from others. In December 2022, Washington and Tokyo announced their support for the A.U., which had applied formally. The impression given by the mainstream Indian media that Modi ‘discovered’ Africa is rather amusing.
We know more about the menu at the 9th September dinner hosted by the President of Bharat – an important terminological change from ‘India’ – than about the discussions at the summit as the media was kept out. The White House had difficulty explaining to the American press why it could not meet the President in Delhi.
Ironically, a huge International Media Centre was there as part of the Bharat Mandapam constructed for the G20 at Rupees 3600 crore, as divulged by the External Affairs Minister of Lekhi. The total expenditure, as given by her, is Rs. 4254.75 crores. We need to wait for the CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General) for the total.
The Delhi streets have Modi’s face everywhere. A writer had calculated that President Biden could have seen Modi’s face every 50 meters on his way from the airport to Hotel Maurya Sheraton. Will a Right to Know petition will inform us of the total amount spent on placing the face in many places?
President Xi Jinping and President Putin did not attend. Xi Jinping sent Prime Minister Li Qiang. Putin had the courtesy to phone Modi and say he was not coming. Foreign Minister Lavrov represented Russia.
There is much speculation about Xi Jinping’s decision. Perhaps he wanted to send a message to India. China is concerned about India getting closer to Washington. The recent visit to Taiwan by the retired chiefs of the army, air force, and navy to Taiwan might have ruffled China’s feathers. Probably, Xi Jinping did not want to discuss with Modi the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation along the so-called Line of Actual Control. Essentially, China wants a ‘unipolar’ Asia led by it and sees India as the main obstacle.
With 83 paragraphs and 44 annexed documents, the Delhi Declaration must be the longest G20 declaration. We do not know whether all the projects mentioned will be implemented. The G-20 has no permanent secretariat, and it is for the rotating chair to monitor the progress of implementation.
The summit provided opportunities for bilateral meetings. Modi had many, including one with Biden. One important announcement was establishing connectivity from India to Europe through the Gulf. India, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and the E.U. have taken the decision. Within 60 days, officials are to work out the details.
This project is a counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, to which India has taken objection because of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor going through India’s territory under Pakistan’s occupation. It is worth noting that Italy has decided to get out of the agreement signed with China in this regard and that Italian Prime Minister Melloni was thinking of going to China to convey the decision formally. There is a report that she did convey the decision to China’s Prime Minister Li Qiang in Delhi.
Modi handed over the presidential gavel to Brazil’s President Lula da Silva. However, Modi announced that there should be another meeting in cyberspace before Brazil takes over formally in December 2023. That is one more opportunity to make noise domestically about Modi being a ‘Vishwaguru’ at the ‘historic’ G-20, much needed for the election battle ahead.
This article was published on madrascourier.com
September 21st, 2023 | category:domestic-affairs, international-affairs, politics |
domestic-affairs, politics
Manipur Is Burning: Why Are You Silent, Mr Modi?
The tragedy in Manipur shows that politicians who want to capture power will exploit the fault lines & aggravate social polarisation.
It’s said Emperor Nero played the fiddle while Rome was burning. Historians have pointed out that the story is baseless. The fiddle was not there in Rome during Nero’s time, and his favourite instrument was the lyre. When the fire began, he was 35 miles away from Rome. However, it is true that Nero availed of the fire to blame the Christians and started a wave of persecution, the first of many.
It would be wrong to say that the Central Government behaved like Nero, even though the fact remains that the Union Home Minister could find time to go to Manipur only three weeks after the fire started. In short, the fire raged on for three weeks before the fire brigade in the nation’s capital thought of taking note of it. In defence of the Home Minister, it can be argued that the all-important Karnataka State elections merited his attention.
Prime Minister Modi, in his super popular Mann ki Baat on 17 June 2023, spoke about the dark days of the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 25 June 1975. He spoke about the ravages of cyclone Biparjoy in Gujarat. He had no time to say even a word about Manipur, where violent clashes were occurring with the state government abdicating its primary responsibility. Obviously, that upset many in Manipur.
We do not know how many listened to Modi in Manipur. But we do know that about twenty people gathered on the street; after listening for a few seconds, one of them threw down the transistor radio, and they all had the vicarious pleasure of smashing it into smithereens.
The mainstream media, print and electronic, have been telling us non-stop about the forthcoming ‘super summit’ in the White House. However, the atrocities in Manipur have been covered in some measure. The Indian Express of 19 June 2023 mentions the grim total of human beings killed as 120, with 45,000 displaced and 4,000 houses torched. It is painfully clear that Manipur is in a ‘state of nature’ with mindless violence spreading like fire with no government, able or willing, to take action to put down the fire.
As mentioned above, there is reason to fear that the grim toll might be much higher than 120. We are not getting the complete picture with the internet being suspended and for other reasons. For example, Times Now carried a report on 16 June 2023 with the headline titled: ‘Manipur Violence: Fresh Fire in Imphal A Day After 9 killed in Bloodiest Episode Since Unrest.’ A conversation with a retired civil servant from Manipur indicated that the toll was much higher.
We need to bring out a few points keeping in mind the readers outside India. First, there is a widespread impression that inter-ethnic violence is an integral part of the history of Manipur, and hence the current spell of violence is not to be blamed on any one individual or entity. This is cynical.
This spell of violence could have been prevented or at least could have been put down within days if the government in the state of Manipur and the Home Ministry in Delhi had acted responsibly.
Second, the impression that we are witnessing a violent confrontation between the Meiteis and the Kukis is wrong. The confrontation is between the Meiteis and non-Meiteis.
The Kukis have no access to the arms they once had as these are under lock and key under the August 2008 agreement termed ‘Suspension of Operations.’ On the other hand, the Meiteis were able to loot police armouries, with the Kukis suspecting, with the concurrence of the state government.
A brief chronology might help us understand how and when the violence began and how it spread in the absence of responsible action by the governments in the state and the central governments.
January/February 2023
The state government, led by Chief Minister N. Bhiren Singh, began eviction drives in the Churachandpur, Kangpokpi and Tengnoupal districts, declaring tribal forest dwellers as “encroachers.”
March 2023
A violent clash started between the police and the tribals protesting eviction at Thomas Ground in District Kangpokpi. The state government announces a withdrawal from the 2008 Suspension of Operations Agreement. It was a trilateral agreement between the Central Government, the state government, and two armed groups (Kuki National Army and Zomi National Army).
The two armed groups surrendered their weapons, and the dialogue was to start with the state government to give as much autonomy as possible to the tribes, as the state government has always been dominated by the Meiteis, accounting for fifty-three per cent of the population.
The state government had not consulted the Central Government before taking the decision. Its subsequent efforts to get the approval of the Centre failed. At the same time, the Centre did not announce publicly that it was withholding approval, creating confusion.
The Kukis concluded that the autonomous Territorial Council promised as part of the 2008 Agreement was off the table.
April 2023
On 11 April, three churches in Imphal Tribal Colony were demolished by the government, claiming they were on government land.
On 19 April, the Manipur High Court ordered the state government to approach the Central Government within four weeks to grant Scheduled Tribe status to the Meiteis. The Meiteis already enjoy the status of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes.
Obviously, the non-Meiteis resented the verdict.
May 202
On 3 May 2023, the All-Tribal Student Union of Manipur conducted a protest march; violent clashes broke out between the Meiteis and the non-Meiteis, mainly the Kukis. The state government issued ‘shoot at sight’ orders. The Indian Express, in a report published on 7 May 2023, said, ‘concerted attempts by the state government and valley-based civil society organisations set the ground for these riots’ in Manipur.
By 30 May 2023, 260 churches had been burnt, according to Archbishop Dominic Lumon of Imphal. The RSS, the extremist Hindu militant group, is believed to be behind the attacks on the churches.
It is necessary to raise a question or two: Why is it that Prime Minister Modi, who has often spoken about India’s being the ‘mother of democracy,’ keeping silent? Does he hold that such silence is part of good governance?
The right thing to do is to dismiss the state government, put the state under the President’s rule, restore law and order, and seek in parallel negotiated solutions. Perhaps the restoration of the 2008 Suspension of Operations should be revived. Obviously, a stitch in time saves nine.
It is difficult, dear reader, not to recall the Proverbs of Solomon the Wise: ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish.’
We do not expect President Biden to raise the Manipur violence with his honored guest. Biden’s occasionally soaring rhetoric about his mission to promote democracy need not be taken seriously.
In conclusion, the unfolding tragedy in Manipur shows that just as Nero found a ‘justification’ to persecute the early Christians who had nothing to do with the big fire. Politicians who want to capture and retain power by any means, fair or foul, will exploit the fault lines and aggravate the polarisation, real or imagined, that exists in every society.
We note sadly that democracy can be abused by clever leaders to undermine it. Democracy implies an intelligent and eternally vigilant electorate. Can we expect India’s electorate in the ‘world’s largest democracy’ to be intelligent and vigilant enough?
This artice was published on madrascourier.com
June 30th, 2023 | category:domestic-affairs, politics |
domestic-affairs, international-affairs, politics
Mr Modi: Embracing The US Can Prove To Be Asphyxiating
A deeper defence dependence with the U.S. will constrain India’s options. Such a move will be foolhardy.
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘state visit’ to the United States of America from 21 to 23 of June is by all accounts a study in glitz and glamour engineered by the Biden Administration with the First Lady Jill Biden playing a leading role. The Friends of BJP in America exerted their utmost by marching up and down in the cities and by shouting “Modi! Modi!” even when he addressed the Joint Session of the Congress. The media coverage in India was non-stop and irritatingly repetitive. The U.S. media took more notice of Modi this time than during his previous visits.
Modi’s last two visits were in September 2019 and September 2021. In 2019, Modi’s supporters in America had arranged for a rally in Houston, Texas, with President Trump in attendance. Violating protocol, Modi exhorted the audience to vote for Trump again in 2020. President Biden does no longer hold it against Modi. It seems Washington has assessed Modi is going to be re-elected in 2024 and therefore, it is prudent to invest in him.
All successful summits are pre-cooked. Washington sent its senior officials including the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defence, and National Security Advisor, to Delhi prior to the visit. It appears that Washington has worked harder than Delhi to complete the cooking on time.
There was no matter of importance that the two principals had to discuss and resolve differences — if any. That done, they could focus on praising each other, propounding their aspirations, and projecting their world view as they wanted to be projected.
The joint statement — of 6466 words in 58 paragraphs — is one of the longest of its kind. The previous one in June 2016, when Modi was hosted by Obama, had 3771 words. The one issued on President Macron’s visit in 2022 December was only 3254 words.
The joint statement is a study in soaring rhetoric. The two nations ostensibly are “among the closest partners in the world.” The pointed reference to the growing number of Indo-American voters is evident when it says, “The U.S.-India Comprehensive Global and Strategic Partnership is anchored in a new level of trust and mutual understanding and enriched by the warm bonds of family and friendship that inextricably link our countries together.” (Italics added.) Modi has emphasised time and again that he had discarded the hesitations in the past.
Leaving aside the rhetoric, let us look at the concrete items announced in the joint statement.
First: NASA and ISRO will develop a strategic framework for human spaceflight cooperation by the end of 2023.
Second: a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been signed on a Semiconductor Supply Chain and Innovation Partnership. Micron Technology will invest up to $825 million to build a new semiconductor assembly and test facility in India at a cost of $2.75 billion, with India bearing the rest of the cost.
The project will create 20,000 jobs. Another US company Lam Research plans to train 60,000 Indian engineers in semiconductors. Applied Materials, yet another U.S. company, will invest $400 million. All told, the total works out to $3.15 billion out of which India will invest $1.9 billion.
Third: two task forces were created to work together on telecommunications including 5G and 6G, and digital inclusion.
Fourth: a joint Indo-U.S. Quantum Coordination Mechanism has been established.
Fifth: the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Indian Department of Science and Technology will cooperate on 35 research projects.
Sixth: the leaders welcomed Google’s plans to invest $10 billion in the India Digitization Fund. By doing this, Modi has paved the way to turn India into Google’s digital colony.
An observation is called for. In some cases, a firm decision has been taken at the government level whereas in other cases, the two leaders are encouraging the U.S. investors for decisions already taken or yet to be taken.
The most important MoU is the one between General Electric and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) for the manufacture of GE F-414 jet engines in India.
Two things are worthy of notice. This shows the beginning of the end of the technology denying policy towards India. This technology has not been shared with any other country so far.
The second point to note is that the joint venture is with the HAL, much maligned in the media for incompetence and non-delivery when Modi compelled the French company selling the Rafael aircraft to join up with the Ambani company with no competence in the matter. Perhaps, the US might have insisted on HAL as partner. Perhaps Modi has learnt from his mistake?
Incidentally, Adani was not invited to the White House banquet. Once again, we might conclude that Modi can learn.
Coming to the political part of the joint statement, we see that Modi has given away nothing of importance. The reference to Ukraine avoids any criticism of Russia. The call for respect for international law, U N Charter and territorial integrity and sovereignty is not linked with any specific reference to Ukraine.
On Security Council reform, Biden supports India’s bid for a permanent seat and specifically supported India’s candidature for a non-permanent seat for the 2028-29 term.
The formulation on Quad as “a global good” avoids any reference to China. Washington would have welcomed an anti-China formulation; the formulation on the Indo-Pacific also avoids any direct reference to China.
Paragraph 36 says that the two countries “reaffirm and embrace their shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights, inclusion, pluralism and equal opportunities for all citizens.”
In this context, we need to note that seventy-five members of the Congress wrote to Biden on 20 June – one day before Modi’s arrival. The initiative for writing the letter was taken by Senator Chris Van Hollen and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, both Democrats. It said that there have been “independent, credible reports” that reflect “troubling signs in India toward the shrinking of political space, the rise of religious intolerance, the targeting of civil society organizations and journalists, and growing restrictions on press freedoms and internet access.” Biden was urged to take up the matter with Modi.
Biden did not bring up the matter during the official talks. Obviously, the claim in the joint statement about advancing “the aspirations of our people for a bright and prosperous future grounded in respect for human rights, and shared principles of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law” is not to be taken seriously as pointed out by American commentators. For example, in an article in Foreign Affairs (June 16, 2023) by Professor Daniel Markey says:
“If making democratic values the cornerstone of the U.S.-Indian relationship has always been a dubious strategy, today it is clearly doomed—because the very notion of common values has itself come to look fanciful. Ever since Narendra Modi became the Indian prime minister nine years ago, India’s status as a democracy has become increasingly suspect.”
The “world’s largest democracy” has seen an upsurge in violence directed at its Muslim minority, often whipped up by prominent politicians. It is trying to strip citizenship from millions of Muslim residents. It is muzzling the press and silencing opposition figures. The Biden administration, having cast itself as a vocal champion of democratic ideals, therefore finds itself on shaky ground whenever it characterizes the United States’ partnership with India as one of shared values.”
The TIME magazine (24 June, 2023) carries an article by Knox Thames under the caption: The Biden-Modi Meeting Was a Failure for Democracy.
Modi answered a question on treatment of minorities, specifically, Muslims, from Sabrina Siddique, a journalist working for the Wall Street Journal by using disingenuous rhetoric. Contrary to the usual practice, no follow-up question was permitted. Even agreeing to the joint press conference was treated by Biden as a generous concession by the media-averse Modi.
Modi repeatedly referred to India being the fifth largest economy; conveniently, he left out the fact that India accounts for the largest number of poor human beings too.
It will be naïve to believe that Biden honestly believes that he sees Modi as a credible collaborator for promoting democracy and human rights. It does not matter for Biden as he does not care about India’s democracy. He cares about American interests.
Clearly, by hosting an event that could help boost Modi’s popularity in an election year, Biden and the U.S. administration are using India as a pawn to negate Chinese influence on the geopolitical chess board.
Furthermore, by deepening the defence relationship, Biden hopes he might succeed in reducing India’s dependence on Russia for arms — at least over a span of 5 to 10 years.
However, it will not be in India’s interest to have a tight embrace with the U.S. Such an embrace can prove to be asphyxiating. It is better to shake hands rather than embrace. A deeper defence dependence with the U.S. will constrain India’s options. Such a move will be foolhardy.
This article was published on madrascourier.com
June 30th, 2023 | category:domestic-affairs, international-affairs, politics |
domestic-affairs, politics
Where Is The Good Governance You Promised, Mr Modi?
If the Modi government is serious about keeping up promises of good governance, it’s important to focus more on governance and less on optics.
The political temperature has been rising in India. It will continue to rise until the 2024 general elections. The national capital led by the Modi government and his party, the BJP, and its progenitor, the RSS, are in an election mode. The Opposition has no choice but to follow.
After the landslide electoral defeat in Karnataka, the BJP and the RSS have started introspecting. The RSS’s mouthpiece The Organizer has recognized that a combination of Hindutva and Modi charisma would not work at state elections. In a recent op-ed, Prafulla Ketkar, the editor wrote:
"For the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), it is the right time to take stock of the situation. Without strong leadership and effective delivery at the regional level, Prime Minister Modi’s charisma and Hindutva as an ideological glue would not be sufficient. The positive factors, ideology, and leadership are genuine assets for the BJP when the state-level governance is operational.
I should like to coin a new phrase “Hindutva and Moditva” to refer to the failed recipe in Karnataka. It is obvious that the duty of an elected government in a democracy is to deliver good governance without indulging in divisive party politics. Modi did promise good governance in 2014 and 2019."
So, let’s ask some basic questions on two current issues of national importance.
The brave women wrestlers who won Olympic medals have been seeking justice, so far unsuccessfully, from the Modi establishment. Seven women wrestlers claim that they had been sexually molested by the president of the Wrestling Federation of India.
The main accused, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, a sixty-six-year-old politician from the BJP, has been holding the office as president for ten years. A six-time Member of Parliament he has been described as a “history sheeter” by The Print, in 2017. “History sheeter” is an Indian coinage to refer to a person with a criminal record.
The wrestlers protest began in January 2023. It is indeed intriguing that Prime Minister Modi has not mentioned it in his popular Mann Ki Baat (Speaking from Heart), a radio programme listened to by millions of people globally.
The Delhi Police registered First Information Report (FIR) against Brij Bhushan only after the Supreme Court ordered it to do so. The Sports Minister Anurag Thakur has assured the wrestlers, during a six-hour conversation, that the Delhi Police would act by 15 June.
Why is a Union Minister speaking on behalf of the Delhi Police, which has a streamlined system for communicating with the citizens? Perhaps, the need for good media optics before Modi’s visit to Washington due on 22 June has motivated the government to settle the matter?
Another instance of bad governance is the Odisha train accident.
On 2 June 2023, occurred one of the worst of rail accidents in history when three trains collided. The grim toll announced officially is 275. The real toll might be higher. We the public still have not been told how the accident occurred.
There is reason to fear that an elaborate project to mislead the public about the real causes might be afoot. On 4 June, Minister of Railways Ashwini Vaishnaw said, “The root cause of the accident has been identified. And the people who have done it have also been identified.” Intriguingly, the Commissioner for Rail Safety (CRS) constituted a team to investigate the matter only by 5 June. Even if the Minister knew the root cause should he have announced it even before the CRS had started its work?
Without even waiting for a preliminary report from CRS, the Railway Board recommended, and the Government of India ordered the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) to investigate the matter. It is the first time in India that the CBI is investigating a rail accident. If the findings of the CBI and of the CRS are different which one will the Government accept and act upon?
There is a general impression in the capital that the Railways, obsessed with the slow-moving Bullet Train project, and the much hyped about Vande Bharat Trains running at a higher speed, have not paid enough attention to safety.
In this context, an under-reported CAG report published by The Telegraph on 10 June 2023 is worth reading. Briefly, in 2017 Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announced the establishment of Rashtriya Rail Sanraksha Kosh (Railway Safety Fund) with a corpus of Rs. I lakh crore in 5 years. The Government of India was to provide Rs. 80,000 crores with the rest coming from the Railways. However, in 4 years, the total budget allotted was only Rs. 20,000 crores, instead of Rs. 80,000 crores.
The abolition of the Railway budget was a wrong decision taken in 2017. Equally wrong is not having a minister exclusively for the Railways.
The Bullet Train project was not the most needed of the Railways. In February 2016, writing in The Frontline, I had pointed out that safety was most important aspect. I wrote:
"In terms of safety, India has the highest rate of accidents causing death and injury. China registered 132 deaths owing to rail accidents from 2000 to 2010. In contrast, as per official statistics given by the Indian Railways, in 2001-02 alone India’s toll was 326. Our record is appalling."
Undue attention to favorable optics for the head of government does invariably detract from the government’s ability to deliver. It’s improbable to expect a sudden change in approach. However, good governance, which Modi promised to deliver in every election campaign, is found wanting.
The people of India deserve good governance. If Modi is serious about keeping up promises of good governance, it’s important to focus more on governance and less on optics.
This article was published on madrascourier.com
June 17th, 2023 | category:domestic-affairs, politics |
domestic-affairs, politics
Lessons From Karnataka 2023
The landslide defeat of the self-declared ‘invincible’ Bharatiya Janata Party by the Congress, that was reportedly ‘sinking’, has stunned India. The entire country seemed to have had a stake in the Karnataka Assembly election.
That stake continues, as the victorious Congress is still struggling to cut the Gordian knot of choosing a Chief Minister with two contenders remaining adamant. We do not know whether either of them, or their ardent devotees, recognise the harm they are inflicting on themselves, and the joy they are giving to the BJP, always ready and willing to snatch victory from the mouth of defeat, through means fair or foul, the fouler the better!
There is a way out of the dilemma faced by the Congress High Command. Incidentally, I have served in Austria, Finland, and Italy. I never heard this expression “the High Command”. One wonders whether the phrase as applied to the Congress and its peers denotes an inherently undemocratic mindset on the part of us Indians.
In the early 1900s, Lord Curzon said, “The Congress is tottering to its fall, and one of my greatest ambitions while in India is to assist it to a peaceful demise.’’ Prime Minister Modi is keen to carry out the task Curzon set for himself.
Modi has reiterated his plans for ‘Congress Mukt Bharat’ and in the process has delivered a BJP-Mukt South India. However, the BJP has not given up South India. It desperately runs after a few Bishops in Kerala where the Apostle St.Thomas landed in A.D. 52.
Recently in Kerala, Modi with the cooperation of some Bishops, addressed a big gathering of the youth. Union Minister of State for External Affairs & Parliamentary Affairs, V. Muraleedharan, who spoke before Modi, told the young that they could have a conversation with the Prime Minister.
He urged them to ask questions. As it turned out, Modi spoke at length and left without waiting for any questions. The young were disappointed.
If the BJP thinks that a set of Bishops would deliver the Christian ‘vote bank’ it is likely to be disappointed. The laity does not take any order from the clergy when it comes to voting. As a wit put it, not even the verger will listen to the parish vicar!
The BJP is introspecting as to what went wrong in Karnataka. Reports indicate there is a realisation that projecting Modi at the cost of local leadership was a mistake. Similarly, the failure to highlight the local issues such as bad roads was another mistake.
Modi’s importing Hanuman Jee did more harm than good. It is believed that an angry Hanuman Jee smashed BJP’s plans to smithereens.
Incidentally, one cannot help noting how a backboneless Election Commission of India watched helplessly this importation of religion into election in gross violation of the code of conduct it has prescribed.
Modi made another mistake. He and Amit Shah told the electorate that unless the BJP is elected with a thumping majority the state ran the risk of duplicating Kerala’s predicament as illustrated in the film ‘The Kerala Story’. The intelligent Karnataka voters knew that it was a worthless propaganda film funded by the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) shot in Madhya Pradesh with exemption from tax.
The Karnataka voters knew that it was a laughable caricature of Kerala. As Modi and Shah were selling the film, the High Court in Kerala ordered correction in the script which originally spoke of “32,000 women from Kerala” having joined the Islamic State. The figure was corrected to three, though the actual number is more than that.
Had the BJP won in Karnataka the BJP and its apologists in the mainstream media would have told us ad nauseam that Karnataka foretold the result of 2024. We would have been told that nothing can stand in the way of the Modi juggernaut.
Modi made a major contribution to his party’s defeat by ordering that there should be a sharp generational change and that new faces should be put up. The order was carried out with disastrous results.
The moot question is whether anyone in the Sangh Parivar would have the guts to tell Modi all this? Lord Acton said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We may add that power insulates itself and absolute power insulates itself absolutely.
However, those who know Modi have claimed that he is capable of calm introspection without external advice and that he would take the necessary corrective action before the 2024 election and in the state elections in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh later this year. Let us wait and see.
The Congress, at time of writing, is finding out that it was easier to defeat the BJP than to choose a Chief Minister for Karnataka. The two contenders, D. K. Shivkumar, President of the Karnataka Congress, and Siddaramaiah, the former Chief Minister, refuse to leave it to the High Command despite an earlier resolution by the MLAs to that effect.
In this context, the Congress High Command might like to look at the procedure of electing the Pope. There was a time when the Vatican witnessed the embarrassing scene of there being more than one claimant declaring himself as the Pope.
To avoid such scenes, the Vatican has figured out a foolproof process. There will be no announcement of anybody’s candidature either by himself or on his behalf. Only the Cardinals below 80 years of age can vote. Each will be given a slip of paper on which he is to write his choice.
If in the first round nobody gets 2/3rd of the votes, the results are read out and the ballot papers are burned with some chemicals to give out a black smoke that comes out to tell the outside world that the process was continuing. As many rounds as required are carried out till one name has 2/3rd or more votes.
Then the ballot papers are burned, this time with appropriate chemicals so that white smoke comes out. Later, the senior most Cardinal announces to the waiting crowd “Habemus Papam (We have a Pope)” as the elected Pope dressed appropriately comes out. There is a story that once upon a time a Cardinal who contested the election and lost came out hurriedly with the vestment inside out and became a laughingstock.
Of course, the BJP with its claim that Bharat is the Vishwa Guru, cannot even think of adopting the above procedure. Essentially, the BJP High Command is so powerful that it does not need to change its procedure.
If the Congress adopts the Vatican procedure the BJP will go to town and say that Sonia Gandhi has imported an Italian procedure and insulted Indians as a whole. However, the Congress can adapt the Vatican procedure in a way that nobody might recognise the history behind it as ignorance of history is proliferating in India and elsewhere.
If the Congress fails to give good governance to Karnataka because the chosen Chief Minister fails within weeks or months, then the BJP will tell the electorate in 2024 that only by giving Modi an absolute majority can India be safe from internal and external enemies. Did Indira Gandhi not come back after she lost her seat in the post-Emergency election as the non-Congress parties fought with each other?
Turning to 2024, the way forward for the Opposition is not a Mahagathbandhan projected as the thermonuclear weapon against Modi and the BJP. Such unity will never be realisable. What is required is unspoken seat adjustment.
Let us take a concrete case. There are three Opposition parties A, B, and C eyeing a constituency where there is a good fighting chance or more against the BJP. Any professional psephologist will find out after due investigations which party among A, B, and C has the best chance. The other two should quietly tell their supporters to vote accordingly.
Another matter is that we as voters are choosing the Member of Parliament (MP), not the Prime Minister (PM). India does not have a system of choosing the chief executive by popular vote. Ergo, who will replace Modi is an unnecessary and illogical question.
This article was written by K.P. Fabian for thw website www.thecitizen.in
Featured image courtesy: www.thecitizen.in
May 17th, 2023 | category:domestic-affairs, politics |
domestic-affairs, politics
A Tale of Two Speeches
‘Cancer’ of partition
Two recent speeches on the partition of India in 1947, one by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and the other by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)President Rabindra Narain Singh remind me of the opening words of Charles Dickens’ immortal work A Tale of Two Cities:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Let us attempt a political parsing of the two speeches.
Rajnath Singh asserted that the partition of India on religious lines was a “historic mistake”. “Pakistan”, he said, “wants to break India by terrorism and other anti-Indian activities.” Quoting Martin Luther King Jr., the Defence Minister said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Dear reader, I for one agree entirely with Rajnath Singh. However, political parsing requires us to raise one or two questions. One, who all wanted partition apart from Jinnah? Two, who all fought against partition? We shall answer these questions after looking at the second speech.
The VHP president said that the “cancer” of partition is still there and we need “chemotherapy”. Incidentally, as Rabindra Nath Singh is a medical doctor we should take his prescription seriously.
The partition was meant, Rabindra Nath Singh pointed out, to remove the afflicted part from the body politic. Some Muslim “brothers” remained in India. Hence, the body politic is still not free from cancer.
“The 20 crore” Muslims cannot be asked to leave India. “All I am saying is Muslims should live with us, like several rivers merge into Ganga and then together flow as Ganga only. There is no such thing as Ganga-Jamuni tahzeeb.”
How does chemotherapy work? By attacking churches, Mother Teresa’s Sisters, by staking claim to mosques? Is that what the doctor is prescribing? If not, we shall be glad to hear from him what exactly he has in mind.
The reference to Ganga is intriguing. Does he mean, in plain English, that non-Hindus are second class citizens? If he means that, we should request him to read the Constitution once again.
The first prominent political leader to advocate the partition of India on the basis of religion was Lala Lajpath Roy. In 1925, he wrote to C.R. Das, advocating the division of India on the basis of religion.
“I am not afraid of the seven crores of Indian Musselmans but seven crores plus the armed hosts of Afghanistan and Central Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Turkey will be irresistible.” In fact, Rai uncannily predicted the partition lines two decades before it occurred.
As the historian Tara Chand puts it,” The partition of India was not the product of the fertile imagination of the Muslim undergraduates of the Cambridge University, nor even poet Iqbal’s fancy, but the brainchild of a hypersensitive Hindu stalwart.”
We may add a correction. It is not the partition, but rather the idea of partition, that was the brainchild of the hypersensitive Hindu.
The actual partition occurred because of the given correlation of forces in post-World War 2 India. To put it succinctly, in any triangle any two sides together are longer than the third side. Since the British establishment and the Jinnah-led Muslim League worked together, both publicly and secretly, more secretly than publicly, there was nothing the Congress could have done to stop it.
There is one more point about the partition that is often lost sight of. Jinnah resented Gandhi’s rise in the firmament of Indian politics. When Gandhi declared Nehru as his “political heir”, Jinnah concluded that he would never become the Prime Minister of India. He sulked and went to England. While there, he concluded that by re-entering politics, he could divide India and be the supreme leader of a part of India. Churchill collaborated with Jinnah secretly.
Yet another point is that the British military had identified the Soviet Union as the emerging adversary and concluded that Pakistan would give the West a foothold on its territory to keep an eye on the Soviet Union. As we know the spy plane U-2 flown by Francis Gary Powers working for the C.I.A. took off from Peshawar in May 1960 before it was shot down by the Soviets.
The RSS and the Sangh Parivar did not count politically when India was divided. In any case, Savarkar had pledged his allegiance in writing to the Raj, and he and his acolytes were fighting the Congress and not fighting for independence.
They wanted a carbon copy of Pakistan, they did not get it in 1947 and the 1950 Constitution spelt out an India, secular, modern, with scientific temperament, and deeply committed to promote social harmony, social justice, and holistic development of all cutting across the divide of religion, language, caste, and other barriers.
We should note that in 2021 they are confident of re-writing the Constitution in deeds if not in words and reaching their goals.
With the above background, we understand better the disappointment of the VHP about some “Muslim brothers” remaining in India in 1947. His words about the difficulty of sending away “20 crores” of Muslims validates our statement that the ruling party in India of 2021 had wanted way back in 1947/1950, India to be a carbon copy of Pakistan.
The VHP president’s simile of the Ganga needs parsing. He wants the non-Hindus to submit themselves to be second class citizens, to put it in plain English. He wants Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism to be the tributaries of ‘Hinduism’.
A correction is called for, not of Hinduism, but of Hindutva, a deformed version of the former. In fact, Hindutva has to be surgically removed from Hinduism. Dear doctor, heal thyself first!
Prime Minister Modi spoke in Kashi of Shivaji and Aurangzeb. “Whenever an Aurangzeb comes along, a Shivaji rises.” Modi said that Aurangzeb was an invader from outside India. Little did he know that he and Aurangzeb were born in the same village in Gujarat!
To go back to Dickens. We shall know whether India is going to be a carbon copy of Pakistan when the state election results come out in 2022. It is for the voters to choose.
January 27th, 2022 | category:domestic-affairs, politics |
domestic-affairs, politics
The Infamous Farm Laws: Waterloo For Modi?
The public discourse on the farm laws, even in government-friendly print & television channels, has demonstrated the inability of the laws’ defenders to advance arguments that convince the alert citizen.
No. This abrupt U-turn does not resemble a Waterloo. It is more like Napoleon’s disastrous Russian campaign that preceded the Waterloo by three years. The perhaps unexpected, but not necessarily inexplicable, U-turn by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, convinced of his infallibility, with his entourage not daring to tell him what he does not want to hear, raises a number of questions in the mind of the alert citizen.
She might look for answers in the mainstream media, print and television. She will be disappointed as a good part of the media, run for profit, desperately dependent on advertisements from a government that can easily intimidate them, if necessary, by unleashing the investigative agencies, do not dare to raise such questions.
Let’s start with a political parsing of the speech that marked the U-turn.
"Our government brought in the new laws with good intent, full sincerity and complete dedication for the welfare of farmers, especially for small farmers, in the interest of agriculture and the country and for the bright future of the poor in villages. But we have not been able to explain to some farmers such a sacred thing, which is absolutely pure and for the benefit of the farmers, despite our efforts."
Questions:
1. Are the farmers so lacking in intelligence that even after ministers explained to them–over a period of four months, in as many as 11 meetings–they could not understand the immense benefits that the Modi government wanted to bestow on them?
2. Are the ministers lacking in articulation to put across the list of benefits? If the ministers are not articulate enough why didn’t Modi himself invite the farmers to his residence on Lok Kalyan Marg?
3. Who drafted the laws, the law ministry? Did they seek inputs from outside the government? If so, from whom and why?
Obviously, any law should provide a fair arrangement for dispute settlement. In the case of these laws, the government is the final authority and the farmer cannot go to court. This provision flagrantly violates the doctrine of separation of powers, a pillar of the Indian constitution as well as of others in democratic countries.
There is one more atrocity that has not been highlighted by the government-friendly media:
"No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or the State Government, or any officer of the Central Government or the State Government or any other person in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder. – The Farmers’ Produce Trade And Commerce (Promotion And Facilitation) Act of 2020."
Was the portion granting immunity to “any other person” drafted by the law ministry, without inputs from the corporate lobby? Who decides whether the act is in “good faith”? Is there a similar provision in any other piece of legislation?
What was the need to proclaim an ordinance in June 2020, and why was the Union Parliament denied the chance to scrutinise the bills? Is it not an established convention that such important bills should be sent to a Select Committee for detailed examination?
This writer leaves it to the reader to figure out the answer, only pointing out that it is part of the style displayed in the case of the infamous demonetisation and the ill-starred lock down, apparently without any forethought or preparation.
As former minister P Chidambaram has asked, why was there no Cabinet discussion or decision before the U-turn was announced? At the time of writing, senior bureaucrats are burning the midnight oil to produce a cabinet note to justify the U-turn.
What has been the cost–political, economic, and social–of these hastily passed bills? Why is it that responsible bodies– such as FICCI or CII–have not yet thought of working out the economic cost?
Why did Modi wait for 670 farmers to die before making a U-turn? As Varun Gandhi, the BJP Member of Parliament urged the Prime Minister, how about paying Rs.1 crore to each of the bereaved families and sending them each a personal note of apology from the Prime Minister?
Let’s turn our attention to some related questions. The general consensus is that the U-turn was done to take care of the state elections in U.P. and Punjab. That is understandable. After all, politics, as practised in India, is all about capturing power and retaining it as long as possible by all means, fair or foul–fouler the better.
However, observers are not certain that the intended electoral benefits will follow. Of course, by taking the U-turn Modi may have stopped losing electoral ground. He is unlikely to regain the lost ground in Punjab or western Uttar Pradesh.
The public discourse on the farm laws, even in government-friendly print and television channels, has demonstrated the inability of the laws’ defenders to advance arguments that convince the alert citizen. A minister of state has said he could not understand why the laws are called black; only the ink is black, he claimed facetiously. However, the defenders should not be blamed as they were defending the indefensible.
We need to debate the merits and demerits of ‘Modi’fied India. In this context, dear reader, I do recommend Aakar Patel’s just published book The Price of the Modi Years.
The U-turn as pointed out earlier does not necessarily mark or forebode a Waterloo. But it is comparable to the Russian misadventure. It is for the alert citizen to decide whether to deliver a Waterloo in 2024 or not.
Three years separated the Russian disaster and the Waterloo. Who can look “into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not?”
This article first appeared in The Citizen.
June 30th, 2021 | category:domestic-affairs, politics |
international-affairs, politics
How China Outsmarted The U.S. At The World Health Assembly
It is now clear that the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has sustained a major diplomatic defeat at the hands of the Chinese President, Xi Jinping. What happened at the 73rd session of the World Health Assembly, the 194-member decision making body of the World Health Organisation (W.H.O.), held virtually on 18 – 19 May 2020, has to be seen from two angles.
First, in the context of President Trump’s unsuccessful attempt at finding a scapegoat as he rightly stands charged rightly for his monumental failure to deal with the contagion and his fear, not entirely unfounded, that he might not get re-elected in November this year. Second, from a more historically relevant perspective of a rising China and a declining U.S.
What is striking is that Trump had good cards, even a few trumps. However, despite having had a weaker hand, Xi Jinping, finessed to perfection in diplomatic bridge, trumped Donald Trump.
The U.S. accuses China of not being transparent – or prompt – in transmitting information on the developing situation. Furthermore, the U.S. also accuses the W.H.O. of being China’s “puppet.” Had China and the W.H.O. acted right, the U.S. argues, the contagion could have been contained before it became a pandemic.
That the U.S. case is strong will be seen from the annotated timeline below:
8 December 2019
Cases of pneumonia of unknown aetiology detected in Wuhan, a city of 11 million.
30 December 2019
Dr. Li Wenliang who raised the alarm on social media was rebuked and, later, silenced by the Mayor.
31 December 2019
China formally informs the W.H.O. of cases of pneumonia of unknown aetiology. China added that “there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission.” Instead of digging deeper into the question of such transmission, the W.H.O. remains unconcerned and uncurious, a dereliction of its responsibilities.
13 January 2020
The first case of infection outside China recorded in Thailand.
14 January 2020
The W.H.O. tweets that there was “no clear evidence” of human-to-human transmission. This was the height of irresponsibility as there was a case in Thailand. What did the W.H.O mean by “clear”? The current entry on the W.H.O. website for 14 January 2020 is disingenuous:
The WHO’s technical lead for the response noted in a press briefing there may have been limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus (in the 41 confirmed cases), mainly through family members, and that there was a risk of a possible wider outbreak. The lead also said that human-to-human transmission would not be surprising given our experience with SARS, MERS and other respiratory pathogens.
18 January 2020
The Mayor of Wuhan hosts a banquet for 40,000 families and the virus goes viral. His reason for silencing the young doctor is clear.
20 January 2020
Beijing wakes up and sends Dr. Zhong Nanshan, 83, virologist, to Wuhan. He goes on national television saying there is clear danger of an epidemic, confirming human-to-human transmission.
Didn’t the W.H.O. Representative in China report this to the Director General in Geneva?
22 January 2020
Lockdown begins in Wuhan. The W.H.O. Emergency Committee meets for two days and decides to meet again after 10 days to consider whether a global public emergency should be declared. This is deplorable abdication of responsibility.
28 January 2020
The W.H.O. Director General visits Beijing. Was he seeking permission before declaring an emergency?
30 January 2020
The W.H.O. declares a global emergency. (It should have declared a pandemic.) Furthermore, the W.H.O. declares there should be no ban on travel to and from China. This is criminal irresponsibility.
11 March 2020
The W.H.O. declares a pandemic. By then, the Hubei province had 67,773 cases and 3,046 deaths; the total for China was 80,955 cases and 3,162 deaths. Was it necessary to wait for the death toll to cross 3,000?
To go back to the diplomatic showdown, all that U.S. had to do was to put out a clear timeline. Instead, Secretary Pompeo stated that he had “enormous evidence” proving China’s culpability. The more he repeated it, without sharing the evidence, the less credible he sounded.
Donald Trump also repeated charges against China, threatened to stop paying the contribution to W.H.O., and wanted an investigation into its handling of the matter. His threat to cut funding enormously weakened his case.
We did not hear much from the professional diplomats as the Secretary and the President spoke all the time.
Watching the diplomatic bungling by Washington, Xi Jinping planned his moves. On day one of the Assembly, he addressed the gathering and offered $ 2 billion to support the developing countries, including the ones in Africa, to deal with the contagion. Trump on his part wrote a harsh letter to the Director-General of the W.H.O., giving an ultimatum: Put your house in order or the U.S. might walk out. It was a rambling letter, with hardly any professional input. If he had a case, Trump should have addressed the Assembly.
Trump’s attack on the W.H.O. had an unintended, but easily anticipatable consequence. We do not know for sure, but it is possible that the European Union resorted to Machiavellian tactics. It came out with a draft resolution that called for a “plan for an evaluation, to be conducted in consultation with Member States at the earliest appropriate moment, on lessons learnt from the international health response to COVID-19, addressing the long-term consequences on health, in order to assess, in line with the statement made by G20 leaders, gaps in pandemic preparedness with a view to establishing a global initiative on pandemic preparedness and response capitalizing on existing structures and programmes to align priorities in global preparedness.”
Australia came out in strong support of Trump’s stand and consulted with the EU and stiffened the language by adding the words, “an impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation including using existing mechanisms, as appropriate, to review experience gained and lessons learned from the WHO-coordinated international health response to COVID-19.”
China initially opposed the draft resolution, but it joined the growing number of supporters and extracted drafting changes. The word “impartial” is missing from the text as proposed by the Chair and was unanimously adopted. There will be no inquisition into the role of the Director-General as the Assembly “requested” him to conduct the evaluation.
Coming to Taiwan’s request for restoring its observer status, 15 microstates wrote to the W.H.O. proposing discussion on Taiwan’s request. Even before the General Committee was to consider it, realising the lack of support, Taiwan withdrew its request. Everyone noted that though Pompeo had publicly supported Taiwan, Washington did not extend formal support, one more indication of Beijing’s growing diplomatic clout.
In short, Xi Jinping’s victory was complete, and he can address the party congress with enhanced self-confidence, unlike Trump who finds that his rival, Joe Biden, has more support right now.
Coming to the larger question, the United States had seen an adversary in U.S.S.R. even before World War II ended in Europe. Such a perception was partly responsible for the ill-begotten Cold War. When it ended, it was said in U.S. that Japan had won the Cold War, implying that Japan was the new economic adversary. For many years, even before Trump came into office, there had developed a consensus among the U.S. think tanks that China was the new adversary. Incidentally, China could not have risen so fast but for the Nixon visit in 1972.
Coming to China, the Middle Kingdom is convinced of its superiority over the rest of the world. Under Xi Jinping, China has not been reticent about its plans to co-equal U.S. and later to overtake it. Hence, the basic ingredients of confrontation between the two remain. The probability of them dividing the world into two zones is slim, though it cannot be ruled out.
There is a big difference between the Cold War days and now. The Soviet Union had, and its successor Russia, has a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) relationship with the U.S. Trump is trying to change that and gain superiority, but his chances of success are slim.
Moreover, there is a difference in the new world order. while the Soviet Union was never an economic rival or threat to the U.S., China is.
In conclusion, both U.S. and China know that economically they are Siamese twins. We might see varying degrees of cooperation and confrontation in the future. China is unlikely to have a MAD relationship with U.S. in the near future. But madness on either side could end up destroying the world as we know it.
The Chequered Brilliance by Jairam Ramesh : Book Review
I READ Jairam Ramesh’s The Chequered Brilliance practically non-stop, despite its intimidating length, mainly because of its lucid style, impressive logic and sound chapterisation. As I finished reading, I was reminded of Thomas Carlyle’s (1795-1881) words: “No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men.” Of course, this view of history is not cent per cent right. One is reminded of Pierre Goubert’s Louis XIV and 20 Million Frenchmen that gives a polar opposite point of view. Reflection will show that both Carlyle and Goubert are partly right.
One can say with confidence that anyone seeking to find out more than what is generally known about India’s march towards independence in 1947 and how India under Jawaharlal Nehru formulated and followed a foreign policy based on a good deal of out-of-the-box thinking should read this book.
The title of the book has been chosen carefully, foreshadowing the ups and downs in the life of an exceptionally gifted human being. When V.K. Krishna Menon started speaking for India on the world stage, the world listened, and therefore, the establishment in the West started a cottage industry of demonising him.
Some in India obediently joined in. Why did the United States want to demonise him? Because he was seen as “dangerously persuasive”. That is what the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) told MI5 of the United Kingdom. The MI5 even seriously considered assassinating Krishna Menon when he was High Commissioner in London and there were hints that he might be called back to New Delhi to join the Union Cabinet. MI5 feared that his entry into the Cabinet would carry enormous risk for the West. Fortunately, the agency reconsidered the matter. This is revealed in the book Defence of the Realm (2009) by Professor Christopher Andrew of Cambridge University.
Prof Andrew was commissioned to write the history of MI5 for its centennial in 2009. He was given complete access to its archives. India’s Intelligence Bureau (I.B.) was established in 1887. Did anyone think of publishing its history in 1987?
As a people, are Indians willing and able to look at their past with a degree of scientific objectivity without falling into the temptation of misusing the past by manufacturing fake history for settling scores in the petty political debates disfiguring the present? A sensitive reader of the book under review cannot but help raise such questions.
Jairam Ramesh has dedicated this book to his wife Jayashree who passed away before it was completed. The author narrates the life story of Krishna Menon with a command over some family issues, all the more remarkable, as we do not know whether the author who was eight years old in 1962 and 20 in 1974 when Krishna Menon died, had ever met him.
The two quotations used before the text opens are the most apposite. The first quote is that of Indira Gandhi: “A volcano has been extinguished.” The second is from K.P.S. Menon, the first Foreign Secretary of free India who had a less than cordial relationship with Krishna Menon: “But, the glow of the lava which poured out so copiously and brilliantly from it… would long remain in the memories of men and annals of history.” Is it not intriguing that Indira Gandhi and K.P.S. Menon, should have both thought of a volcano in their tribute?
Jairam Ramesh has divided the text into two sections, pre-1947 and post-1947, with seven parts, in all 21 chapters, and A Final Word. We start with A First Word, less than four pages, summarising the life and work of Krishna Menon. “He finds significant mention in histories of the negotiations over nuclear disarmament, the struggle against colonial rule in Africa, the emergence of Cyprus, the campaign against apartheid in South Africa and the crisis in Congo.” There is at least one notable omission in this list. Krishna Menon played a pivotal role in the ceasefire in the 1954 Korean War, the 1954 Geneva Conference on Indochina, and the 1956 Suez Crisis, to name a few. However, the omission is not significant as the author has meticulously covered all this in this well-researched book.
The first chapter is about the Vengali family. Krishna Menon was born on May 3, 1896, in Calicut (now Kozhikode), where Vasco da Gama set foot in May 1498, eventually leading to the capture of Goa by the Portuguese. In 1961, Krishna Menon played a crucial role in putting an end to the Portuguese rule in Goa.
Strangely enough, he was fixated on astrology and asked his sister, Janaki Amma, to send him a horoscope reading before he left London in 1952 on completion of his term as High Commissioner. The horoscope said that he would be “mentally agitated”, though there is no “danger of being unbalanced mentally”. For once, astrology was right.
Chapter 2 is titled “Annie Besant’s Protege (1918-1930)”. Krishna Menon got his Bachelor of Arts degree in economics, political science and history in 1918. He joined the Theosophical Society the same year. He taught at the National University in Madras, started by Annie Besant with Rabindranath Tagore as its first chancellor. In 1924, Annie Besant sent him to England where he joined the London School of Economics (LSE), remaining there for 10 years. Frida Laski, wife of Harold Laski, quipped that “Krishna was a chronic [perpetual student] at the LSE.” He got a BSc degree with first class honors in 1927 and later an MA in Industrial Psychology in 1931 from University College, London. He returned to LSE, registered for a PhD, which he did not complete. But in 1935, Krishna Menon got an MSc degree in economics for a thesis on English Political Thought in the 17th century.
Role in freedom struggle
One of the reasons, he did not complete his PhD is that from 1934 Krishna Menon was engrossed in political campaigning in the U.K. for India’s independence. Chapters 4 to 8, in all 258 pages, give us a detailed account of his contribution to India’s struggle for independence. Krishna Menon’s contribution is not all that well known, and the author has made a singular contribution to historiography.
Krishna Menon took over as India’s High Commissioner on August 15, 1947, and held that post until July 15, 1952. We get more than a glimpse of Sardar Patel’s dislike for Krishna Menon. Nehru appointed him as High Commissioner despite Patel’s misgivings. It is not clear why Patel did not like Krishna Menon. But it appears that Patel had, without evidence, concluded that he was close to communists, if not one of them. Patel had wrongly concluded that the U.K. and the U.S. were working at the United Nations against India on the Kashmir issue because they saw India as “too close” to Russia.
Krishna Menon lived an ascetic life even as High Commissioner. He did not draw a salary for more than six months. In April 1948, he wrote to Nehru saying that the annual salary for the High Commissioner was about £ 3,000, but he wanted to take only the living wage, say between £350 and £650. The bureaucracy wanted this matter to drag on and raised the absurd argument about a “constitutional difficulty” in having an unpaid High Commissioner. In December 1950, an exasperated Krishna Menon told Nehru that he would not draw any salary.
Jeep scandal
Everyone must have heard about the so-called “jeep scandal”. But how many of us know that Krishna Menon had not benefited financially from the deal? The transaction was made in 1951. Some persons holding high office, suffering from Krishna Menon phobia, manufactured a “scandal”. On August 24, 1954, R.P. Sarathy, Director of Audit, Defence Services, sent a “most secret” 18-page note to Nehru fully exonerating Krishna Menon. The same Sarathy had signed the 1951 audit report damning Krishna Menon. In any rational polity the matter should have ended. But Krishna Menon’s foes continued with their vicious campaign for years, assisted by a compliant media.
British intelligence, with its visceral hatred for and fear of communists, convinced Prime Minister Clement Attlee that the High Commission was a den of communists and that what the British government told Krishna Menon might reach the communists. Obviously, Attlee, who had known Krishna Menon for years, should have known better. But he swallowed the MI5 capsule hook, line and sinker. (Incidentally, we may recall that Attlee played a dirty role in the partition of India as narrated by Narendra Singh Narela in his book The Untold Story of India’s Partition.) Finally, the British High Commissioner in India conveyed to Nehru that sensitive matters would be conveyed only through him and Nehru accepted. Krishna Menon protested to Nehru and, as Jairam Ramesh says, he was in the right.
On May 14, 1952, Krishna Menon wrote to Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Janaki Amma and some others of his intention to leave this world. The originals of these letters are in the archives and one might assume that they were not dispatched. All this strengthens the view that Krishna Menon was more sinned against than sinning.
Korean War
Jairam Ramesh’s account of his resolution of the prisoners of war issue in the Korean War is a study in brevity and accuracy. At one stage, Dean Acheson of the U.S., accused Krishna Menon of siding with the communists and, four days later, the Soviet Foreign Minister, Andrey Vyshinsky, called Krishna Menon “a stalking horse” for the U.S. Years later, Acheson would write of the “Menon Cabal” that included Lester B. Pearson (Canada), Selwyn Lloyd and Anthony Eden (U.K.), and R.G. Casey (Australia), “making life difficult for him”. As the author points out, Krishna Menon had divided the West.
I have found out, to my distress, that more than one political science faculty member in India is innocent of India’s role in the ending of the Korean War.
Let us look at another of Krishna Menon’s diplomatic triumphs. On April 24, 1954, Nehru read out a statement on the situation in Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) in Parliament. Nehru rarely read out from a note. Since the matter was important, he read out the note containing a six-point formula that Krishna Menon had drafted.
On April 28, 1954, 19 states met in Geneva, to discuss Korea and later Indochina. India was not among the 19. Two days after the start of the Geneva Conference, Nehru and Krishna Menon went to Colombo to attend a “mini summit” of Asian powers with Burma (Myanmar), Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Indonesia and Pakistan. That summit endorsed Nehru’s six-point formula on Indochina.
The Geneva Conference on Indochina started on May 8 and for a while it was meandering. Krishna Menon reached Geneva on May 23, partly at the invitation of British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, of course with no mandate to take part in the formal sessions. He worked “behind the scenes”. Miraculously, on July 20, an agreement was announced in Geneva based on Nehru’s six-point formula.
Interviewed by the Press Trust of India in Geneva, Krishna Menon said, “I am an old fool. I am here only as a tourist; just a bystander. If people, ask to see me or come to see me, well that’s very nice.” What disarming humility from a man portrayed as arrogant, incorrigibly arrogant, by the media!
Incidentally, hardly any book on India’s foreign policy narrates in any detail this incredible diplomatic tour de force by Krishna Menon. These days, some commentators wistfully speak of India’s mediation between Saudi Arabia and Iran or between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Is there an equivalent of Krishna Menon? He had a serious shortcoming as a diplomat: He had not mastered the art of invariably suffering fools gladly. After all, there is an abundant supply of them. But seldom was Krishna Menon surpassed in the art of squaring the circle.
In 1961, Krishna Menon took the lead in liberating Goa. In a riveting account, Jairam Ramesh demolishes the myth that Krishna Menon acted without Nehru’s orders and presented him with a fait accompli. However, as regards the timing, Krishna Menon wisely told Nehru only after the action had begun. The U.S. Ambassador, John Kenneth Galbraith, was working overtime to prevent the liberation and meeting Nehru too often.
The year 1962 was crucial. The chapter is correctly titled as “The Glory and the Fall (1962)”. The author gives an exceptionally absorbing account of Krishna Menon’s landslide victory over J.B. Kripalani, president of the Indian National Congress in 1947, in the North Bombay Lok Sabha constituency in March 1962. Krishna Menon called on Kripalani at his residence after the result was declared. The reader will wonder what has happened to good manners these days among politicians.
Fighter aircraft deal
Krishna Menon was the third Indian to appear on the cover of Time magazine after Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru. Despite strident opposition from President John F. Kennedy, who roped in British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, the Air Force and the Ministry of External Affairs, Krishna Menon pressed hard and signed the MiG deal with the Soviet Union, a landmark achievement as it provided for transfer of technology and manufacturing in India. There was a good deal of correspondence between Nehru and his Defence Minister. Once again, the reader will be tempted to think of the ease with which another Prime Minister decided on the purchase of Rafale aircraft from France without the knowledge of his Defence Minister.
The author deals insightfully with the 1962 Sino-Indian war. What is striking is that all those who made a cottage industry of hating Krishna Menon found a heaven-sent opportunity to foist upon him the entire responsibility for the humiliating military debacle. Krishna Menon did make mistakes. He had discounted the threat from China. If the Indian military was caught lacking in arms and equipment, the primary responsibility is that of Finance Minister Morarji Desai who put the Defence Ministry on a tight budget.
Mao Zedong decided to strike taking into account the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The good work done by Krishna Menon in defence production had not yet borne fruit. He established the Defence Research and Development Organisation in 1958, overcoming opposition from service chiefs. As former President R. Venkatraman, who was Defence Minister from 1982 to 1984, put it, the good work done by Krishna Menon bore fruit in the 1965 and 1971 wars.
When Lal Bahadur Shastri succeeded Nehru as Prime Minister, he wanted to send Krishna Menon as High Commissioner to London. Shastri did not want him in the capital. President S. Radhakrishnan called in the British High Commissioner to find out whether the U.K. would accept him. Prime Minister Harold Wilson was far from willing. Incidentally, the author seems to have taken care not to point out the irregularity, to put it mildly, of a head of state seeking agreement for the appointment of his ambassador.
The last four chapters of the book are devoted to Krishna Menon’s life after resignation as Minister. He tried to get back to Parliament, but the Congress refused to nominate him. He won as an independent candidate with Left support from Midnapore (Bengal) in 1969 and from Thiruvananthapuram in 1971.
Krishna Menon started his legal practice and engaged himself with Bertrand Russell and the World Peace Council. One celebrated case was that of Kerala Chief Minister E.M.S. Namboodiripad who was convicted by the Kerala High Court for saying that “Marx and Engels considered the judiciary as instruments of oppression… and even today… judges are guided and dominated by the class hatred….” Krishna Menon defended the Chief Minister in the Supreme Court, but lost the case. The court held that nowhere had Marx and Engels specifically said that about the judiciary.
The author does not forget to give us a glimpse of the women Krishna Menon was romantically close to. He lists seven.
Krishna Menon, who had advocated nuclear disarmament with religious zeal, was ill and in hospital when Indira Gandhi carried out the the peaceful nuclear explosion on May 18, 1974. He summoned her to his hospital bed and voiced his disapproval of the PNE. He passed away on October 6, 1974.
Indira Gandhi, speaking in Parliament at a meeting in honour of Krishna Menon, went down memory lane. What she said about the boundary dispute with China is significant: Had the solution which he had proposed on behalf of India in the 1950s for the India-China situation been accepted, a great deal of hardship, waste and suffering would have been avoided.
The author elaborates that in the 1950s Krishna Menon advocated a negotiated settlement on the basis of India accepting China’s claim in the West and China accepting India’s claim in the east. Nehru was “broadly supportive” but could not carry some of his senior colleagues with him.
The Jana Sangh’s Motherland saw a Voltaire in Krishna Menon, “full of wit, often pungent… The best-read politician, and with all his faults, a clean man.”
In the last chapter titled “Life after Death (1974-)” we are told about what his contemporaries thought of him, and the biographies and the academic work on him. The reader will be stunned by the Teutonic thoroughness of the author.
The photographs and cartoons add value to this exceptionally well-written book on a personality of abiding importance.
The book ends with “A Final Word’. “I have always believed that a good biographer should, for the most part, ascertain, not assert. Mine was not to vilify or deify” (emphasis added). The author has been true to his word.
Ambassador K.P. Fabian is Professor, Indian Society of International Law, Distinguished Fellow, Symbiosis University.
The above article written by Ambassador K.P. Fabian was initially published on Frontline Magazine
