HVK Archives: Imperialism in pink
Imperialism in pink - The Indian Express
Kuldip Nayar
()
12 May 1997
Title : Imperialism in pink
Author : Kuldip Nayar
Publication : The Indian Express
Date : May 12, 1997
Two days before sweeping the polls, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at an
election rally that Great Britain owed it to its rule over India to settle
Kashmir. He was, no doubt, making a last-minute effort for wooing the support of
the Pakistanis settled in England. But while doing so, he has enunciated a
principle that an imperialist power, despite the passage of time, does not change
its mind-set.
As coincidence had it, I was in Amritsar when I read Blair's statement. This is
the city where the British had the distinction of exhausting all their bullets on
some 10,000 people huddled in a walled space on April 13, 1919. General Dyer was
then teaching the natives a lesson for raising the demand for independence.
Such are the rich traditions of the Raj which the new British Prime Minister
throws at us to remind us of its 'obligation' to settle Kashmir. Let him not stir
up memories because the entire country is littered with the residues of brutality
and crime the British committed during the rule of 150 years.
I hope that the Labour government, if not the party, would be more circumspect in
its observations and actions. Throwing at us the obligation of an imperialist
power may be goading Indians to a situation where, on the 50th year of
Independence, they would be recalling the hanging of revolutionaries, the firings
on the innocent and the sufferings of thousands of people in jails, particularly
the notorious one at the Andaman.
But I sympathise with Blair who is ,guided by some of his elders in the party 10
far as India is concerned. He was 36 when the Ministry of External Affairs
sponsored his tour to, India. That is an impressionable age. He learnt about
Kashmir from Gerald Kaufman, then the shadow foreign minister, who was his
companion during the trip. Kaufman's bias against India on Kashmir is well known.
A substantial number of voters in his constituency are Mirpuris.
It is not India's case that the Kashmir problem did not exist. In fact, it has
conceded even in the Shimla agreement, signed after India's victory, that 'a full
settlement' on Kashmir was yet to take place. But it was made clear then that the
problem was bilateral. Lately, America has understood the position and it has
stopped demanding a third-party intervention. Great Britain should also do so.
Some Labour leaders continue to harbour the impression that Kashmir, being a
Muslim majority state, should go to Islamic Pakistan. They forget that India has
120 million Muslims, more than the population of Pakistan. At the time of
Independence, the princely states were given the option of acceding either to
India or to Pakistan. The then Maharajah of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, a
Hindu, wanted to stay independent. But when Pakistan's regular and irregular
troops attacked the state, he decided to sign the Instrument of Accession with
India.
The accession was also endorsed by Sheikh Abdullah, a Muslim leader of the largest
popular party, the National Conference. In fact, Jawaharlal Nehru insisted on the
ratification of the Instrument of Accession by the Sheikh before accepting it. The
Sheikh was approached by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan, twice before
partition to join Pakistan but he said no. He preferred secular India.
Blair may not be aware that the plebiscite in the state was not demanded by the
United Nations but was offered by Nehru. He stuck to it till 1954 when Pakistan
accepted US arms and became a member of CENTO. A new situation was created. It
was not Nehru who went back on his offer. It was Pakistan which became part of
the Cold War and sided with America to change the very environment in which the
offer was made.
The Shimla agreement in 1972 superseded earlier agreements. One operative clause
is; "That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful
means through bilateral negotiations or by other peaceful means mutually agreed
upon between them." Pakistan has violated the agreement by fomenting trouble in
the Valley through training Kashmiri youths, sending arms and funds and
encouraging fundamentalism.
Still New Delhi has laid no condition for holding talks. What India is defending
in Kashmir is not territory alone. It is fighting to preserve the principle of
secularism which sustains the Indian democratic structure. India did not accept
partition of the subcontinent on religious grounds. Nor will it now accept the
demand that a Muslim area can secede from the Union on the basis of religion.
The Conservative government had come to appreciate India's stance. So had the
Labour leadership despite the prejudice of a few MPs. Blair should not allow
their view on Kashmir to prevail.. They may wreck the Indo-British relationship
which has in the past gone through ups and downs. After the visit of President
Venkataraman in 1990, a close understanding came to develop. For Blair to stoke
the fires of differences is unfortunate.
The liberal British are a dwindling lot and whatever their number, they are less
vociferous than before. It is ironic that democratic socialism was born in the UK.
It was a country where ideals of egalitarianism thrived. I think the absence of
men of stature outside the system has made the British dependent on mediocre
politicians. There are no bright ideas, no intellectual debate. On TV one watches
puerile discussions by experts of limited intelligence and politicians of dubious
conviction. Thinkers, if there are any, seem to have been pushed into the
background.
Blair may well redeem the British. He, is dedicated and dynamic. He wants to
turn a new leaf. But if he remains lost in the thickets of the 'obligation' of
the raj, he may fail to pull the country out of the illusions in which it lives.
When I was in London, Labour had the image of a centrist party. Now it is
right-of-centre. At times it looks as if Labour is wearing the discarded cloths of
Conservatives. To defend its own independent views on solving the country's
problems would mean entering into all, altogether different debate. Harking back
to imperialism will not do.
Back
Top
|
