HVK Archives: Labour theory of value
Labour theory of value - The Telegraph
K. P. Nayyar
()
6 May 1997
Title : Labour theory of value
Author : K. P. Nayyar
Publication : The Telegraph
Date : May 6, 1997
As Tory Blair walked into 10 Downing Street shortly after noon on Friday following
his meeting with the queen of England, an unlisted fax machine in his ground floor
private office started rolling out a message on Indian government letterhead,
conspicuous by its Ashoka pillar emblem. It was a one-page felicitation message
for Blair from the Indian prime minister, I.K. Gujral, one of the warmest
congratulatory messages to ever be sent by South Block.
Gujral broke with protocol and tradition in sending the message directly to 10
Downing Street to make sure that his would be the first felicitation message to
reach the new British prime minister. The speed with which the Indian government
acted to ensure this message would reach the new British prime minister just as he
assumed office has been matched only by the assiduousness with which Gujral has
wooed Blair from the time he became a diffident Labour frontbencher in the house
of commons almost a decade ago.
It was in 1990, when Gujral was external affairs minister in the V E Singh
government, that Blair was in New Delhi as shadow employment secretary He came
here as part of a Labour Party delegation led by his senior peers. Gujral was
impressed by this unconventional Labour member of parliament and went out of his
way to make Blair comfortable on his first visit to India.
It was not just Blair from among the emerging Labour leaders whom Gujral welcomed
and spent time with in subsequent years when both he and Labour were out of
office. Gerald Kaufmann, John Smith, Robin Cook the list is long and a striking
contrast to the way the P V Narasimha Rao government, which had put all its eggs
in the Tory basket, dealt with Labour. Gujral was almost alone among Indian
politicians in giving Labour leaders the respect they deserved as the United
Kingdom's primary opposition party
Now that the Tories have been swept out. of power, India House, home to the Indian
high commission in London, has been telling the ethnic media in the UK that India
was not alone in cozying up to the Tories during their 18 years in power The
argument is logical, but not entirely true. In 1992, during the United States
presidential election, the Tory prime minister, John Major, made clear his
preference for George Bush over his Democratic rival. Bush was defeated by Bill
Clinton, but Clinton never forgave Major. In their first term in office, the
Clinton administration built enduring bridges with the opposition Labour Party
These will stand the Americans in good stead now that Blair is in 10 Downing
Street for what many believe will be at least a decade. The Indian foreign policy
establishment is also taking heart from the fact Jammu and Kashmir has not figured
in the Labour Party manifesto. But it is premature to rush into any conclusions
on this account.
Without doubt, Blair with his huge majority in the house of commons and his
promise of a new dawn would like to make a difference in office in all areas,
including foreign policy. Already, the new foreign secretary, Robin Cook, has
said in his first interview in office that the Labour government intends to pursue
a "vigorous role" in world affairs, particularly within the Commonwealth.
Unfortunately, there are few areas in which Labour can actually make a difference:
the party is as divided as the Tories over Europe and Britain cannot follow a
course that is very different from its Western allies on any major international
issue. At the end of the day, Kashmir is a low cost foreign policy initiative
where Labour can make a splash. If this happens, it will also satisfy the large
Pakistani community which stood by Labour through thick and thin during those long
years when Blair's predecessors were out of office and in the wilderness.
Islamabad has used its resources in the UK during those difficult years to focus
on Asian problems which are close to Labour thinking. It has mobilized the Asian
community on such issues as the declining national health service, unemployment
and racism. Such a campaign has brought all Asians together, cutting across their
origins and delivered the Asian community on a Labour platform. Preliminary
assessments suggest that 50 to 60 marginal seats have been delivered to Labour by
the Asian community, with Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis et al voting for
Blair's leadership.
During these years the Indian government, on the; other hand, spent its resources
on outmanoeuvring the Pakistanis on Kashmir. Not only in the house of commons,
but also in city councils and other local bodies, India House built up a strong
body of opinion against the Pakistani position on Kashmir. Unfortunately this has
been done largely with a view to creating a favourable impression about India
House on Indian public opinion, while Pakistan has effectively built up a lobby
for itself through groundwork on issues that affect all Asians. No one should be
surprised if in demanding their pound of flesh for such enduring support for
Labour, the Pakistanis now pressure Blair and his ministers to question Kashmir's
instrument of accession to India.
If it happens, it would be a case of history repeating itself. As in the case of
Tory UK, India had built up a good working relationship with the Republican Bush
administration after the end of the Cold War: The Bush administration had even put
Pakistan on the terrorism watchlist. Then the Democrats came to power in
Washington and the Pakistanis were able to persuade the US assistant secretary of
state, Robin Raphel, to publicly question Kashmir's accession to India.
While India can live with US doubts about the legality of Kashmir's accession, any
such questioning by the UK could strike at the roots of Indian assertions that
Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India.
Britain was a party to everything that went on in this country in the run up to
Partition. If the UK government were to question the legality of Kashmir's
accession to India, it could open a Pandora's box. A lot of countries all over the
world could be persuaded to change their position on Kashmir. It could pave the
way to realizing the Pakistani ambition of internationalizing Kashmir all over
again.
What is needed is for India to swiftly go beyond the niceties of Gujral's
felicitation message to Blair dwelling on the gestures of the past. He must send a
high level envoy, perhaps a senior cabinet minister, to London to impress upon the
need for the UK to exercise caution on Kashmir.
Rather than put across the Indian case on Kashmir, the envoy must make it clear to
Blair and Robin Cook, that any meddling by the UK in Kashmir now can only be
counterproductive: that it can damage the initiatives launched by Gujral as part
of his neighbourhood policy to bring down the temperature between India and
Pakistan and work out a new equation between the two neighbours.
There is yet another reason why Gujral must immediately do this. He has invested
so much in Labour both while in office and out of it that any setback administered
by the Blair government on Kashmir can cause lasting damage to Gujral's image as
an efficient manager of Indian foreign policy.
Back
Top
|
