HVK Archives: The fernandes factor
The fernandes factor - The Indian Express
Shekhar Gupta
()
April 4, 1998
Title: The fernandes factor
Author: Shekhar Gupta
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: April 4, 1998
If you wished to be cynical, as is easy to be in this city, or
uncharitable, which is tempting when talking of an MNC bashing
socialist, you could say that George Fernandes' only
qualification for the defence minister's job could be that he has
been a life-long loose cannon, albeit of a high calibre. But
leave your prejudices aside, and a different picture might
emerge. What may emerge, in fact, is a new perspective of what is
national interest, how it is and should be defined and who can
he trusted with it.
For so long have we lived with a narrow, inflexible and
unimaginative definition of the national interest that we are no
longer open to new ideas, thoughts and strategies. In security
and foreign policies, consensus and consistency are today's
buzzwords. We have had seven prime ministers in less than a
decade and they have maintained the same "consensus". That makes
us feel smug, and the denizen of Roosevelt House (the US
Ambassador in New Delhi) comfortable, but it has its downside.
For almost a quarter century since the Pokharan test, not one new
idea has emerged in our grand strategic thought, barring the
change forced by the end of the Cold War, It is a bit sad not
merely because this is the land of Kautilya and Arthashastra but
also because we have in our system politicians, soldiers,
academics and analysts of the highest calibre and experience. Yet
ice our MPs "debate" the strategic and foreign policy issues in
Parliament and parrot the shrine old lines again and again, the,
inanity of it all cutting across the proverbial party lines,
Or watch our analysts and grand strategists, In many years of
living on the margins of the secure seminar circuit I have rarely
soon two Indians differ substantively. Some might say it with
better articulation or with greater passion But the point is
always the same. You see the kind of unity, sense of common
purpose and understanding that our cricket and hockey teams
could do with. A few who dared to differ have been pilloried and
blackballed. So they have a pacifist seminar circuit of their
own. In this circuit as well, no new thinking emerges because no
two persons differ. Thank God for the Pakistanis and the
Americans. At least they have different points of view, so there
is somebody for us to argue with.
This is not the way a mature, confident democracy with
pretensions to a role on the international stage conducts its
strategic debate. Open the pages of the journals produced by our
premier think-tanks and you find the same points made over and
over again by different interlocutors in the alleged debate. When
everybody within the think tanks agrees on everything which is
the same as the government policy, and the media not merely
agrees with it but applauds it, it is time for India to got
worried. For a democracy with so much Intellectual talent it is
awful self-denial.
If the wisdom inherited by us is indeed the ultimate truth on
issues of grand strategy, if no change or departure is ever going
to be possible without violating the holy onsensus=94, why don
we just go ahead and incorporate it in the Constitution? think of
the money and time that will then be saved as we shut down our
think tanks suspend all parliamentary debate and ban newspaper
columns on the CTBT, NPT, FMCT, CWC and other such horrendously
boring acronyms. Our readers won't complain.
This is where the Fernandes factor comes in. Why must anyone who
dares to differ .'immediately become suspect in terms of national
interest? Just because he has a different view on the Sri Lankan
Tamils, or the Burmese democratic movement, Kashmir or Tibet, we
are not inclined to trust him fully with the national interest.
Why can't we pause for a moment and think that perhaps he
nurtures these beliefs because, in his worldview, these further,
rather than diminish, the national interest?
You can differ with him on these fads, as I do, but don't cast
aspersions on his nationalism. In a diverse, liberal system we
must learn to respect this diversity of thought as much as we
value our pluralism in other areas. Mrs Gandhi played this game
to perfection. Anyone who dared to question any aspect of her
foreign or security policy was promptly declared anti national.
So she walked the path of national disaster unquestioned on
issues such as support to Sri Lankan guerrillas, Operation
Blustar and the pro Moscow tilt even after the invasion of
Afghanistan. Many in the BJP took their cue from her and there
was so much vicious tittle about the way George Fernandes
handled Kashmir affairs as the Minster in charge of the state
while his own party's governor Jagmohan was following a policy
more to the BJP's liking. None of us ever bothered to listen to
his point of view before rejecting it as romantic nonsense. We
wondered as to which side he was on ours or Pakistan's as he
criticised the army for human rights violations, advocated
policies to kick-start Kashmir's economy and a dialogue with its
people. Now he is our defence minister.
After fifty years of freedom, we must acquire the confidence to
understand that those who think differently on such crucial
issues also probably do so because they have the national
interest as close to their heart as we, the chronic conformists,
do. I learned this small lesson many years ago when among our
foreign policy hacks it was almost the rule to prefix the
expression "pro-Indian Congressman" with the name of Stephen
Solarz. He wore Jawahar jackets, rosebud and all, and was the
only American of consequence who said things we Indians liked to
hear on Kashmir, terrorism and Pakistan. But at a relaxed,
informal meal in Washington one evening Solarz put himself in
perspective: "You make a mistake by calling me pro-Indian. I am
pro American. It is just that I believe a better relationship
with India is in my own country's interest."
What will happen to a senior MP bore, if he were to advocate a
more aggressive opening out to Washington? All of us, from the
media to the Intelligence Bureau, would begin to look at his
travel records and dossiers to find out when exactly he was
"compromised" by the CIA, This kind of narrow-mindedness is the
hallmark of banana republics and communist states and it is a
great pity that we have similarly condemned ourselves to
conducting our strategic battles from frozen positions. One
maverick like Fernandes won change all that, but he could make
us pause and think and open up the debate on what best serves
our national interest.
Back
Top
|
