Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
archive: Chow For Thought - Beware of Beijing bearing gifts

Chow For Thought - Beware of Beijing bearing gifts

Posted by Ashok Chowgule (ashokvc@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in)
The Statesman
June 19, 1999


    Title: Chow For Thought - Beware of Beijing bearing gifts
    Author:
    Publication: The Statesman
    Date: June 19, 1999
    
    THE worst conclusion that India can come to following Jaswant Singh's
    all-smiles, two day visit to China is that the Asian behemoth is
    gazing benignly at its neighbour. True, Pokhran wasn't mentioned, and
    panchsheel was, when Singh met his counterpart Tang Jiaxuan. True,too,
    Beijing seems ready to reopen dialogue on a wide range of issues, not
    excluding, at some point, the vexed question of the Indo-Chinese
    border. But none of this happened because Beijing has suddenly
    realised the folly of its India policy. The most hardboiled of all
    foreign policy mandarins, Beijing's diplomats have sussed out that
    their traditionally hostile, and not a little contemptuous,
    indifference towards New Delhi will be counter-productive now for two
    reasons: Kargil and Kosovo. In the former, the absurd Pakistani
    diplomacy and the real Pakistani threats have forced China to distance
    itself from a country it has been not-so-covertly arming over the
    years. When international, including US and UN, opinion has turned so
    decisively against Islamabad, for China to appear pro-Pakistan would
    have been damaging for its self-interests; Pakistan is expendable, at
    least temporarily. 
    
    What is not expendable for Beijing at any point of time is the idea
    that China is the first among equals in Asia. This, after Nato
    intervention in Kosovo, is vulnerable, according to Chinese analysis.
    Nato's bypassing the UN in dealing with Milosevic has alarmed the old
    hardliners, who consider China's right to intervene in Asia as
    sacrosanct. Matters have not been helped by the American proposal for
    extending its security umbrella - diplomatic jargon for battle-ready
    military muscle - in Asia with the cooperation of Japan and Taiwan.
    Beijing has seen this as increasing the potential for
    Kosovo-style,American-led intervention in Asia. That, in turn, has
    made it look for regional allies. India is one of the obvious choices. 
    
    This is why New Delhi must tread carefully while renewing its
    courtship with Beijing. Not having China on Pakistan's side during
    Kargil is a huge advantage and all efforts must be made to keep things
    that way. That such efforts should include keeping George Fernandes on
    a firm leash goes without saying. But equally, New Delhi cannot lose
    sight of the big picture. An alliance with China against "Western
    hegemony" will make many in India misty-eyed, a throwback to the days
    when Nehru and Chou En Lai were building a "new Asia". However,
    matters are not so simple now - if they ever were - and India must
    recognise that China will have little use for it as and when its
    relations with America require improvement for material reasons. China
    and America are bound by economic sinews of dimensions that India can
    barely imagine, so latching on to Beijing too firmly now may not do
    New Delhi much good later. In any case, even if China and the US enter
    a long period of mutual dislike, being identified with Beijing will
    make New Delhi a pariah of sorts in most Western capitals, which
    cannot be in India's interests.
    
    Balancing all these will require some skillful diplomacy on India's
    part and one Jaswant Singh cannot cancel out the many dummies in the
    Ministry of External Affairs. If MEA is nevertheless feeling quiet
    good about itself these days, one needs to say that it took Pakistani
    adventurism of the worst kind for the world to understand India's
    position on Kashmir. MEA has been blabbering about it for years. No
    one listened. And that included China. 
    
    
    ================================================Letters to the Editor: Shivaji Was Not Communal
    
    SIR, - Some of the observations made by RK DasGupta in his letter,
    "Tagore's perception of Shivaji" (8-9 June) are hypothetical and
    cannot be accepted without reservations. I wonder how Prof DasGupta
    says, "He also feared that his readers would construe his ek
    darmarajya pashe as Hindu Dharma rajyapashe. I would like to quote
    another line from "Shivaji Utsav" to prove that Tagore surely had
    Hinduism in mind when he wrote the poem. The line is Dhwaja kari
    uraibi bairagir uttari basan. What religion are uttariya and bairagir
    basan associated with? Is it not Hinduism?
    
    There is no gainsaying the fact that Tagore was a great humanist. But
    in some of his famous poems, I have observed Tagore's definite
    leanings in favour of Hinduism. In "Kripon", he discusses the ways and
    means of realising God. In "Dina Dan", Tagore shatters the myth that
    God can be realised through a pompous display of affluence. And the
    general ambience of the two poems speaks volumes for Tagore's leanings
    in favour of Hinduism. 
    
    Besides, I cannot accept Prof DasGupta's contention that neither
    Shivaji nor Guru Nanak has advanced the cause of Indian unity.
    Directly, they might not have advanced the cause of our unity.
    
    But indirectly the two great men posed the greatest threat to the
    invincible Mughals and shook the very foundations of the Mughal
    Empire. Without the destruction of the Mughal Empire, India could
    never have been united under British rule.
    
    Again, it is nothing but a travesty of justice to dismiss Shivaji as
    communal. In spite of being a devout Hindu, Shivaji had a deep respect
    for the other religions, including Islam. He employed Muslims in his
    army. Besides, he made it obligatory on the part of his followers not
    to destroy mosques and to desecrate the Quran.
    
    Now that the Shiv Sainiks are behaving fanatically is hardly
    surprising. After all they are the direct descendants of the notorious
    Bargis who made occasional forays into the Bengal countryside causing
    anxiety to peace-loving people. Even mothers in our childhood composed
    lullabyes about the Bargis to frighten us into sleep.
    
    
    Yours,
    
    DIPANKAR PATTANAYAK.
    Langalberia
    
    ===============================================Sir, - Quite predictably, KR Malkani's letter (28-29 May) has
    generated fruitful correspondence. In his rejoinder (Tagore's
    Perception of Shivaji), RK DasGupta has raised the issue of Shivaji's
    communal approach to the question of Indian unity. His letter is
    one-sided and does not have a word of criticism of later Moghuls who,
    reversing the policy of their predecessors, adopted an intolerant
    line. Resistance movements were organised by Guru Gobinda Singh in the
    Punjab and by Shivaji in Maharashtra at a time, to quote the opening
    line of a Tagore poem from his collection Katha, "when Aurangzeb was
    smashing India into smithereens". They were inspired by the spiritual
    and human ideals they imbibed from their Sikh and Hindu teachers, Guru
    Nanak and Samarthi Ramadas. 
    
    DasGupta writes that "Were the poet alive today, he would have said
    that Shiv Sena founded on the birthday of Shivaji, descends from the
    religious mentality of the adversary of Aurangzeb and is therefore, a
    factor of disunity". Kafi Khan, the Court historian of Aurangzeb seems
    to differ. In his History of India (written in Persian) we read as
    follows:
    
    "He (Shivaji) made it a rule that, whenever his followers went
    plundering, they should do no harm to mosques, to the Book of God, or
    to anyone's women. Whenever a copy of the Holy Quran came into his
    hands, he treated it with respect, and gave it to some of his Muslim
    followers".
    
    As for the charge, based solely on external rather than internal
    evidence, that Shivaji Utsav is not a spontaneous outburst of the
    poet's appreciation of the hero, we may point out that happily this
    poem is not the solitary Tagore poem glorifying Shivaji. Seven years
    earlier in a poem to be found in Katha, mentioned above, he narrates
    the story of his initiation in saffron. This poem is also relevant to
    an understanding of Tagore's idea of dharma in the specific context of
    Shivaji's aspirations, and not what he philosophically meant by it in
    his later years.
    
    As goes the poem Pratinidhi, one morning Shivaji sees his guru Ramadas
    begging from door to door. So shocked is he at the contrast of his
    lifestyle and that of his guru that he sends a message to him gifting
    away his kingdom to him. Guru and disciple meet and they mutually
    agree to exchange their respective roles of beggar and king. At the
    end of the day Ramadas tells his disciple "now that you are my
    servant, do my bidding. Take back your kingdom. But rule it on my
    behalf as the representative of a beggar. Exercise Raj-dharma but know
    it to be my job that you are doing. Possess kingdom but let it not
    possess you. Here are my yellow robes and my blessings for you. Let
    the yellow robe of the detached beggar be your banner".
    
    The point in summarising the poem is that here Tagore in verse after
    verse builds up Shivaji's image of a self-defacing Yogi -- the common
    threat linking his earlier and the later poem on the Maratha hero;
    while Shivaji Utsav lays emphasis on the political ideal of freedom
    and social responsibility, Pratinidhi focuses on the ethical value of
    service and sacrifice. Together they complete the image of the Indian
    concept of Rajarshi.
    
    
    Yours,
    
    ATANU SARBADHIKARI.
    Narayanpur (North 24 Parganas).
    



Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements