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!

No Banana Republic, we are an Animal Farm

The more things change, the more they remain the same!

Animal Farm is one of my favorite books. Of the little I have read, this book contains amongst the sharpest of satires. While funny in patches, I find Animal Farm to be a dark book. Dark because it talks of futility of hope, of how the masses get cheated again and again. Long back, Bharatmuni had codified the structure of fictional narratives. As per Natyashastra, each tale had to have a hero, a villain and unsurmountable odds. Yet, the tale could have no ending but a happy one. Not surprisingly, each of our ancient and not-so-ancient tales has good vanquishing evil. If not absolutely happy, at the very least, the closure is with hope of a better tomorrow.

Books like Animal Farm and 1984 run against the very basic grain of a kavya. Yet, they are probably much closer to life. After all, have not a vast majority of masses been born, have lived and died in misery with no ‘happy ending’ for them. Still, against all our awareness of stark realities, we like to be hopeful for it is probably the hope of a better future, if not for us, for our future generations which keeps us going. This may precisely be the reason why, while enjoying tales like that of the ‘Animal Farm’, we still like to believe that those are but flights of fantasy and reality can never be that bleak, that harsh!

As humans, we laugh at ostriches for burying their heads in sand in face of danger. We get amused when pigeons close their eyes when scared of snakes, thinking that the snake can no longer see it. But, these are simply base reactions driven by an urge for self-preservation. Among human beings, while children may close their eyes when scared, ‘mature’ adult may adopt a mode of denial, refusing to accept what stares them in their eyes, breathes down or grasp them by their necks. Some others, who are more directly impacted, react even more strongly and start believing that the tormentor is not really a tormentor but is doing what he is doing for a greater good.

If and only if, life was as it is hoped!

This intermittent blogger has previously criticised Arvind Kejriwal for betraying the hope of a people who were looking for a systemic change. This blogger, while being an unabashed Hindu Nationalist, has in his previous posts displayed an uneasiness with Narendra Modi. Yet, this same person had voted for the BJP and was ecstatic when results were out, simply because any alternative seemed better than the shame of a Government which had been ruling India for the last decade.

While the vote against UPA remains valid, what has been validated even more strongly are the reservations against Narendra Modi. What did India vote for? Among many other things, a promise for vyavastha parivartan, where Nation comes first, where the Government governs for the benefit of people, where old elites are trashed into dustbins of history, where a citizen is empowered enough to mould his/her own future.

But, what have we got? A thespian who only talks - in acronyms, alliterating, gloating on his supposed greatness, all the while searching for a new stage to perform? Arvind Kejriwal is condemned for indulging in theatrics and achieving little in his 49 days in power. While Arvind is justifiably condemned for having cheated the public, if the same standards of measuring output get applied, Narendra Modi’s government comes out much worse.

For a set of people who believed that UPA polluted India by its very existence, finding humungous merits in the latter’s acts has been amazingly easy. Be it the bigger issues like Aadhaar, Direct Benefit Transfer, Land-swap agreement, GST, disinvestment, FDIs in certain sectors, recovery of black money, nuclear deal with US or relatively smaller issues like declassification of the Henderson Brook Report on China War, Justice Mukherjee’s report on Netaji’s disappearance or investigation of cases of corruption (including those involving the Nation’s son-in-law), the Modi-led BJP has both spoken and acted precisely like its predecessor. And we are not even talking of going back on core agendas like Kashmir. From talking of a Congress-mukt Bharat, we now have the reality of Modi sharing toast with Sonia Gandhi on a high table. Well, the Vajpayee Government always offered Sonia Gandhi respect and space far more than what was constitutionally required. Modi is simply carrying on with the tradition. And had not the ruler pigs in Animal Farm later made peace and partnered with those very humans they had rebelled against?

How morally bankrupt this Government is if after opposing UPA’s policies for the last 1 decade, it adopted them in a duration less than what it takes us to blink? On top of the chain of turnarounds, this Government is too smug, too arrogant, too drunk on its power, to offer even a fig leaf of an excuse for its countless turn-arounds! Today, if it really believes that all its U-turns are for the benefit of the Nation, then why was it stonewalling and protesting against UPA on these very moves? Is not then, as the Congress alleges, the BJP equally responsible for the rut India was in, for the last few years? Which U-turn are we looking at next? A 'Promotion of Communal Violence Bill' because it is good for the Nation? Many of us would argue that the BJP became aware of realities once it came to power. That it is in fact a testimony to its greatness that it is carrying on with those policies which it had opposed. This argument does not hold any water for 1. the Indian Parliamentary system co-opts the opposition through various committees and standing groups where all details of any proposed legislation are analysed, 2. any bill is presented much before it is debated and even the Government of the day explains all provisions of any bill to the opposition, and 3. BJP leaders are no babe in the woods having been in power and in public sphere for years. And if they are, they are unfit to govern!

For decades, the Sangh Parivar and its various offshoots have detested Nehru (for all the right reasons, I would add). While they opposed Gandhi initially, in the last two decades or so, he has been incorporated in their phalanx of venerable National icons, to some extent out of expediency, but more because the Sangh does articulate the same thoughts as Gandhi on issues like Indian culture, conversions, morality, economy, etc.

However, while Gandhi has been co-opted, his most toxic and disastrous ‘gift’ to the Nation, Jawaharlal Nehru still remains (ostensibly) a hated figure for the Sangh. A second member of the dynasty who is hated by the Sangh Parivar, is Indira Gandhi, but in patches. The Indira of 1980-84 was not the strongly ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ Indira of 1969-77 but someone whose actions were much more to the liking of the Hindu right. It was not without reason that RSS volunteers worked primarily for the Congress(I) and not the Vajpayee led BJP in the 1984 polls. Nonetheless, the legacy of Indira (1969-1977) is too strong to overlook and is the very anti-thesis of many principles the Sangh Parivar stands for. Hence, she continues to be abhorred for her authoritarianism, her acts of weakening the edifice of institutions, in fact of the Nation, of her corrupt regime, of her cultivation of the very anti-Hindu Left, her socialism and of course, the emergency.

Strangely though, for all their visceral hatred for Nehru, Sangh/BJP leaders take great pride in recalling that Nehru had identified a young Vajpayee as a future Prime Minister and puff with pride when any of them get called ‘cast in Nehruvian mould’ or having a ‘Nehru like vision’. As such, may be it is not quite so surprising to see that the ‘chosen one’ of this very Sangh Parivar is emulating its two supposed pet hates. Like Nehru, our current Prime Minister believes that the world is his stage. And like the gullible public then believed that India’s international standing was because of Nehru, today too, people are getting drunk of a non-existent potion of India’s ‘enhanced’ stature in the world. Nehru allowed his personal predilection for communism overrule National interests. Here, Modi's government leaks info that Sujatha Singh was removed because she refused to keep the issue of Kim Davey (Purulia arms-drop) aside when dealing with Denmark. Why is that important? Because Modi had invited the Dane Prime Minister to Gujarat and his no-show on account the MEA's pressure on Denmark to resolve the Davey issue was a personal insult to Modi! So, non-arrival is a personal insult but hosting a fugitive and refusing to hand him over, is not? How so Nehruvian! 

Like Nehru, who seemed to believe that India was his personal fief and made unilateral concessions to other Nations, our current Prime Minister too seems to believe that the path to ‘statesmanship’ and a possible Nobel lies through being magnanimous with the Nation’s assets. What else can explain the unseemly haste in acceding to US demands on the nuclear deal, on food protection, on intellectual property rights, on cheap drugs for millions of poor? Maybe I am in a hopeless minority, but I could only cringe when the Indian Prime Minister seemed a tad too eager to appear ‘close’ to a lame duck POTUS without adequate reciprocation from the latter. How can then Obama be criticised for gratuitously sermonising on how should India be as a Nation? Nehru is the only Prime Minister who contributed to the sartorial taste of India. Now, after 50 long years, we have a Modi kurta to give company to a Nehru Jacket. Nehru was supposed to have his clothes laundered in Paris (maybe an archetypical tale meant to indicate Nehru’s deracination and taste for luxury). Our current Prime Minister is one up. Never to appear sans designer clothes, he now gives company to figures as illustrious as Hosni Mubarak in wearing suits embroidered with his name!

As regards emulating Indira Gandhi, does authoritarianism ring a bell? Still, for her legion of followers, India maiyya could do no wrong. For the countless Modibhaktas, at least on social media, Modi is a god who can do no wrong.

In any other land, a Prime Minister claiming that only 'personal chemistry' between leaders matter and 'commas and lines on papers do not', would have been laughed off. Strangely, while much attention has been focused on the Prime Minister's fashion sense, hardly any analyst has commented on the inanity of that particular statement. Seriously, how can an Indian Prime Minister even think that way when so many times have we been led on the garden path by more realistic foreign leaders?

I still believe that India is great Nation, that in spite of all its challenges and dysfunctionality, it is land blessed by the divine, by the presence (both past and current) of great souls. Why then do we have the type of rulers we have? And can we, the people escape blame for our rulers? How can Modi alone be blamed? Adulation is heady and self-serving. The sight of those hundreds of thousands of commoners thronging grounds in searing heat to see him, chanting his name with frenzy, wearing his masks, would make all but the really great feel that yes, I am indeed the messiah! Even now, when the last eight months of Modi rule has yielded little but song and dance, talk and more talk, people enamoured of Modi find little fault in their leader. Each U-turn gets rationalized and defended, at times with passion of fresh converts to the cause. And as far as the mainstream media is concerned, till the time the issue is Hindutva/secularism, there is little to find fault in the Government. In the run-up to General Elections 2014, on Modi being presented as an outsider to the Delhi establishment, this blogger had observed that if a person associated with the Delhi power structure for three decades and who also happened to be a 4 term Chief Minister could be termed as an outsider, then there would be hardly any ‘insider’ in the system. Sadly, I don’t find any joy in feeling vindicated.

We, the people, who have invested our hopes in Modi have a moral duty to be vigilant and ensure that our leaders don’t digress from those promises which made us vote for them. Our Nation will become great, we will become successful, not by defending the indefensible but by being demanding, questioning and forcing our leaders to perform. If we don’t, and continue to believe that all acts of our leaders are for our good, our fate will be no better and in all likelihood, much worse than those creatures of the proverbial Animal Farm.