Indian mis-adventure in Nepal

Indians have a short memory. We have forgotten that before the Green Revolution made us self-sufficient, we led a ‘ship-to-mouth’ existence, surviving on low-cost wheat from the US under PL480 and red wheat fit for cattle from Australia.

It is worth remembering that the wheat under PL480 was low-cost and not free. Yet, given that the reins of power lay with the US, it held those shipments under tight leash, withholding shipment to punish us now and then, say for criticizing its adventures in the Vietnam. Of course the Indian people were outraged and demanded an end to this humiliation. To her credit, Mrs. Indira Gandhi realising that the well-off would survive while the poor, with little idea of the politics behind the grain, could starve, continued with the aid-trade till results of the Green Revolution started coming in.

One would imagine that a Nation which has suffered slavery for over a 1000 years and was reliant (and still is) on goodwill of other countries for many of its basic requirements, would be sensitive to the plight of those other Nations which are poorer than it or in any way, dependent on it. Yet, in classic bully behavior, while India seems to bend over backwards to accommodate powerful neighbours or those who will never be its friend, it wants to play the colonial overlord to its weaker neighbours. Ever since their birth, both Pakistan and Bangladesh have been recipient of India’s benevolence, with the relationship with Bangladesh particularly being a one-way gift street from India. On the other hand, tiny Nepal, a civilizational brother has had to face India’s overwhelming pressure on an ongoing basis.

Imagine a situation where the US or any other Nation tries to dictate India’s constitution to India. Even if flaws in Indian constitution would be as large as a Black Hole, no self-respecting Indian would like to be ‘dictated’ by the other Nation, howsoever close or critical friend it might be.

Much before PL480, in 1950 itself, India had made a formal request for 2 million tonnes of wheat to US. The US Congress was not in sympathy with Indian requests for various reasons, among others, Nehru’s propensity to pontificate, its closeness to China and its stand in Korea. The US Congress dragged its foot leading to an outburst from a feckless Nehru "We would be unworthy of the high responsibilities with which we have been charged if we bartered our country's self-respect or freedom of action, even for something we need badly." Needless to say, the US Congress was miffed. Mercifully, better sense prevailed and Nehru changed his tone after a few days. The grain arrived but Indians rather than thanking the US, resented its actions. In a marked contrast, a much smaller shipment from the USSR was thanked profusely.

When India could not stomach the US attempt to use aid as a lever of policy, just why do we think that Nepal would bear it with a grin?

It is be quite unfortunate that the Nepalese elite has refused to honour its commitments and share power with the Madhesis and Janjatis. Yet, just what locus standi does India have in this issue? We might share close relations with the Madhesis but they are not Indians. Both the hill and plain Nepalese will need to learn how to co-exist. A partisan India will not carry any credibility and will make life only tough for those it professes to sympathise with. Over 40 years back, India intervened in Sri Lanka to protect its Tamil minority. Certainly, the persecution of Tamilians was harsh, in many ways, reflective of a genocidal mindset of the majority Sinhalese. But did Indian intervention benefit either the Tamilians or India in any way? Tamilians today are a smaller and a more scattered minority and India is not seen as a trusted friend by any of the parties in Sri Lanka.

With the Madhesis, the situation is much better in the sense that though discriminated against, they are not persecuted. While discrimination itself is an anathema, are anti-hill feelings so strong that the Madhesi-Janjati would demand a separate state? And if they do demand, can India really afford to support them?

No. It cannot. It should not and it will not.

By its overt and covert act of rejecting Nepalese constitution, India has only made the Madhesi appear even more as a fifth column for India, something which will only harm Nepalese integration. Just how can a democratic nation ignore the fact that in the previous elections, the Madhesi parties were routed and that the current constitution was passed by over 90% of Nepalese lawmakers? If it believes that absence of Madhesi parties invalidate the constitution, it is dangerously parroting the Muslim League and secularist formulae that only a Muslim can speak for a Muslim or a only a Dalit can speak for a Dalit.

While there can be no doubt that the current Indo-Nepalese stalemate is a glaring failure of Indian diplomacy, it is sad that the Indian opposition, rather than offering sage counsel, is rubbing its hands in glee.

Many commentators are now outrageously claiming that the Nepalese were unhappy with Indian demands that Nepal revert to being a Hindu Nation. Can those worthies provide even a single piece of evidence to back such claim? It was in fact, the Nepalese public which had forced their politicians to consider such an act. Something which was considered a given till September 7 quite mysteriously did not happen, much to the dismay of vast majority of Nepalese. It will not be an unreasonable conjecture that the same Mani Shankar Aiyyar, now berating Modi for interfering in Nepal would have berated Nepal, if horror of horrors, it had become Hindu again!

With bombastic statements from Indian journalists quite common (they are of course secure in the knowledge that anyone attempting to point out their falsehoods would be dismissed as a troll, an Internet Hindu or a Sanghi), many have claimed that the current crisis is the worst ever in Indo-Nepalese relations.

One can only admire their brazenness in ignoring the Rajiv Gandhi dictated economic blockade which ostensibly was on account of Nepalese buying cheaper Chinese arms though the Nepalese versions claim that the blockade happened on account of King Birendra declining Mr Gandhi’s breakfast invite and more because of the Nepalese barring his Christian spouse from visiting the Pashupatinath temple!

Very clearly, we have learnt nothing from our past misadventures.

In these times, let us please remember the pragmatism of Mrs. Gandhi in face of US’s adventurism on PL480. Like the Indian elite then, the Nepalese elite now will not be troubled by Indian economic blockade. It will be the millions of poor Nepalese, with who we share a common religion, a common culture, a common heritage and above all, common ideals of human existence, who will be harmed.

Let better sense prevail!

China is Goliath but is India David?

Once the Indian leadership realised that the Chinese were indeed ‘teaching them a lesson’, Jawaharlal approached the Formosa (now Taiwan) leadership with an offer which he felt they could not refuse. A Indian recognition of Formasa as the ‘real China’ followed by an International campaign to back this recognition to the hilt. Formosa expressed thanks and regretted the ‘inconvenience’ which Indians had been put at by the Red Army. It added, however, that if Indian support was in expectation of Formosa’s support in the border fracas, it was bound to be disappointed. The Nationalist Government, which saw itself as the legitimate ruler of China, considered the core middle kingdom and adjoining provinces of Mongolia, Manchuria, Sinkiang, Formosa and Tibet as Chinese lands and hence there was no question of supporting any alien Nation which undermined, in their views, territorial integrity of the Chinese Nation.

Such is National consensus on territorial integrity among the Han that Taiwan has till date not relinquished Chinese claims over Mongolia. While the People’s Republic of China has recognised Mongolia as an independent Nation, it was under severe duress, when China was but a shadow of its powers. Nothing stops China from renewing its claim and annexing Mongolia once Taiwan reintegrates with the mainland. If single-minded obsession with territorial integrity were the benchmark for National pride, then the Han Chinese are definitely the most proud of all nationalities inhabiting the Earth. Just take the example of Tibet. A vast land of a pacifist couple of million trampled and contained by a bellicose bully which is 1200 million strong. Little chance that Tibetans can regain their autonomy or at least the way they would have wanted. Yet, China ensures that most Nations do not play host or their leaders do not grant any audience to the Dalai Lama. Any transgression of this code is met with demarches and diplomatic sanctions. One may wonder – what harm will the powerful middle kingdom suffer if some leader does meet the Dalai Lama? After all, there is neither any organised resistance movement against the Chinese rule nor does the Lama seek independence. And even if there were such a movement, what chance would it have to succeed against a mighty, determined Nation? Still, rather than taking any chance and ignore any activity which might fan separatist fires, China prefers to err on the side of caution and punishes the transgressors of its territorial integrity in the harshest possible ways.

What is the lesson for India?

For one – India is not China. It never was, and it never will be. For all those self-deluded individuals/organisations which hyphenate India with China or talk of inanities such as Chindia, if nothing else, the recent visit of the Chinese President should be enough to serve as a wake-up call. A salivating gentry was waiting with breathless expectations on what ‘gifts’ would China come bearing – a USD 100 Billion FDI, technology for high-speed trains, support for a permanent seat on UN security council, a border settlement! Is it a relationship of equals or even near-equals when one of them is so clearly the seeker?

Two – Indians do not value territorial integrity inspite of having suffered invasion after invasion in the last two millennium. We have had but one Chanakya who understood the need for securing our frontiers. After that, it was only the invaders – the Khiljis, the Mughals and later the British, who realised that a Nation vulnerable at its edges cannot ever be in peace. The British in particular, whatever their end objectives be, ensured that India was at its widest and most secure from foreign invasions in a long long time. But, after independence, the naïve Indian leadership, in constant affirmation of their ‘statesman’ image, goaded by the ‘peace-at-any-cost’ brigade, has somehow confused ceding of land with diplomacy. In each of its encounters with its neighbours, from Sri Lanka to Maldives, from Myanmar to Bangladesh, from China to Bhutan and of course Pakistan, we have ceded land, either voluntarily or under force. Today, we are a witness to China shrinking our frontiers through the very Chinese method of ‘creeping acquisition’ – slowly claim land pasture by pasture, prevent Indian activity in what was hitherto undisputed Indian land, deepen ingress into Indian territories so that more and more of the frontiers become ‘disputed’ and consequently, a non-go area for the India army.

In the last few decades, each time a Chinese dignitary visits, we have had border transgressions, each more serious than the other. But, so thick is the skin of Indian establishment that an ex-diplomat, who runs an influential blog on foreign policy, blamed the Indians for ‘provoking’ the Chinese. More seriously, a sort of consensus is developing that any border settlement with China should be maintenance of status quo, i.e., India retaining Arunachal Pradesh and ceding Askai Chin and the trans-Karakoram area to China. Such thoughts are fraught with immense dangers for our Nation on account of multiple reasons. One - unlike India, China takes a long term view of its territories and any piece of land, which was ever under the Chinese, is seen as being part of their Nation forever. Hence, an abdication of Chinese claims over Arunachal does in no way prevent future Chinese from staking claim. This becomes even more likely when one considers the stance of Taiwan over Mongolia. Two, Indian claim over Askai Chin is historically more valid and legally more tenable than compared to its claim on Arunachal, or at least large parts of it. The lands of Arunachal were ceded by Tibet to British under the Shimla agreement. This settlement was never accepted by the Chinese for they refused to recognise Tibet’s right to negotiate as a sovereign Nation. On the same lines, India has always recognised China’s sovereignty over  Tibet with Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in his characteristic search of validation, gratuitously recognised Tibet Autonomous Region as an integral part of China. Now, if Tibet was never a sovereign Nation, how can its act of ceding lands to India be considered valid ? On the other hand, the lands of Askai Chin were overrun by Dogra armies and administered by kings of Jammu & Kashmir and hence are more validly ours. Third, what will India gain other than tenuous peace at the cost of sacrifice of land? Is this lasting sacrifice for at best, a temporary reprieve, worth it?

The callousness of us Indians can be gauged from the mere fact that an official memorandum between Government of Gujarat and China contained a map which showed Askai Chin and Arunachal as disputed. Nothing highlights our selfishness better than the constant refrain of industrialists that increasing trade will force China to mellow down. The reality is that this trade is skewed heavily in favour of China and its imbalance has only magnified in the last few years. If anyone has to feel the pinch of an interruption in trade, it is the Chinese as they will lose a vast market for this finished goods. Yet, all the economic logic has not prevented China from strengthening its claim to what it feels are its core National interests. Indians on the contrary, ever so happy to save money, are aghast at the mere prospect of a stoppage of cheap Chinese goods from flooding our markets.

Given our vacuousness, the stance taken by Narendra Modi, while not substantial, is a welcome improvement from the vapid conduct of the previous NDA and UPA governments. Even as our home minister parroted the shameful UPA line that Chinese transgressions are but a result of different perceptions of border (wonder why India does not transgress, if this be the case), the Government allowed Tibetan refugees to demonstrate against the visiting dignitary and made pointed references to the border dispute. Yet, the same Government succumbed to Chinese pressure and withdrew from Chumar. In a case of callous oversight, India yet again recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet in the MoU signed on the new route to Kailash Manasarovar.

While the very nature of our people ensures that India can never be China, we need to be wary of this forceful Nation which has defeated us in both the armed encounters we have had with them (eighth and twentieth centuries). At the same time, Indians need to appreciate those qualities which have ensured that except for small intervals, China has stood like a colossus in the community of Nations. Developing a sense of territorial integrity and National pride would be a good beginning.

Poriborton - a mere change of face is not enough

With successive Indian Governments not exactly having set the Ganga on fire with their list of accomplishments, the 6 year NDA Government (1998-2004), was not really a bad deal for India. If nothing else, that Government did nothing which created a social fissure or economic meltdown. Yet, the Government failed to get re-elected. The reasons vary as per biases of the observer. For the secular fundamentalist, it was on account of the Gujarat riots, for the statistician, an outcome of alliances, for the socialist, a backlash against capitalism and for many committed BJP supporters, an apathy which held them back for voting for the party.

This intermittent blogger has previously argued that the seeds of BJP’s downfall had been sown in between 1998-1999 itself and that the NDA’s return to power in 1999 General Elections was more of an incidental event rather than an affirmative reward by the public. The reasoning is simple – the BJP lost vote-share as compared to 1998 and rather than breaking new ground, like it had done in between 1996-98 and earlier in between 1989-1991, its footprints had reduced. Moreover, unlike previous occasions, when a war or a large internal security issue had resulted in an electoral surge for the party seen as being best placed to secure the Nation, the Kargil War could help the BJP only retain its tally of 182 seats.

While the non-BJP/anti-BJP camps may offer different viewpoints, the reasons behind BJP’s denudation was obvious. The people who had voted for the BJP all through the 90s had not done so for love and fresh air alone. They had done so in hope of a break from the past, a new model of governance and a hope of having a ruler who could walk the talk. Yet, what did we have? A Prime Minister who made the obnoxious Nehruvian consensus his own! A party which seemed determined to desperately woo those who seemed even more determined to hate it and a polity which continued to rule the way it had for the previous half-century! Unfortunately, it was not the BJP alone which paid a price for acting like those proverbial pigs in ‘Animal Farm’, who, having dispossessed the oppressor, aped the latter and became one of them. More than the BJP, it was the Indian Nation which got punished in form of a decade long debilitating rule of the UPA.

So much so from the past!

But why to rake up these painful memories when we have a BJP Government at the centre today led by a charismatic individual who single handed has won a majority for the party?

This digging up of the past is important for while early, not only is the BJP is acting like those who it has defeated, it is showing signs of yet again succumbing to the need of getting accepted by those who have nothing but disdain for those who make the BJP what it is. If this assertion seems to verge on hyperbole, let’s consider the following:

• Commencing dialogue with Pakistan even when the ground reality of its support to terrorism has not changed
• Effecting an individual driven change in rules of service for TRAI
• Changing railway fares through an executive order rather than the budget
• The PM’s ostensible views getting communicated through whispers and leaks
• Proposal on easing Visa restrictions on Bangladesh, forget about clamping on illegal migration
• Government’s inclination to press ahead with enclave swap, Teesta water treaty with Bangladesh
• Continuing with UIDAI
• Little movement or even statement of intent on corruption cases involving the previous dispensation, sons-in-laws

More ominously, those very experts, who had warned of apocalypse if Modi were to come to power, are now sending messages of reassurance that the new dispensation’s adventurism has been replaced by pragmatism and life will continue as it was before May 26, 2014. After all, for these experts, anyone who lights candles at the Wagah border is certain to warm cockles of their bleeding hearts.

True, the India society has become accustomed to a slow pace of change. Yet, the masses who voted in droves for Modi, did not do so with a hope of having a saffron Congress in saddle. If a vote for Modi was an endorsement of what he had come to embody, it was an even stronger rejection of the past. A vote for Modi was a vote in hope of a better tomorrow, not a fatalistic acceptance of a little more of the same of the last decade. 

The BJP may complaint that the public is not allowing them a honeymoon period. But why should the public do so? If a Government enjoys fruits of power from day 1, it has to be accountable from that day. True, there is a time for build up but that gestation period should not end up un-nerving the public, particularly when the early signs of poriborton are more of the same. Anyway, in this world of instant communication, which incidentally the BJP should understand, having tapped its power only recently, there will be little patience shown by those who got swept to voting booths on the promise of a positive change. 

Lest the BJP feel that it being treated unjustly, let it remember that human beings are designed to judge more strongly those who they have trusted. Vengeance for trust broken is high – ask Aam Aadmi Party. A BJP seen as getting back on its promises will be wiped out even more comprehensively than the Congress. While that fate may be five years away, we have critical assembly polls happening later this year. For a government whose legitimacy was questioned on shallow grounds of vote-share, a loss in the polls would be a serious setback, indicating that the surge of support for Modi/BJP was but a temporary anomaly. The polls are for BJP’s taking. What it needs to do is to simply walk its talk and if that seems difficult, at the very least, not commit those acts which it had opposed, while in opposition.

For the sake of the Nation, let us hope that what are now being seen as disturbing signs turn out to be false alarms and that the BJP does deliver what it has promised.