Author: T V R Shenoy
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: October 31, 2003
URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/31flip.htm
India was incredibly unlucky in
the leadership she received in the immediate aftermath of Independence.
Jawaharlal Nehru was a man with little experience of administration even
at the purely municipal level, a rich man's only son who had never been
confronted with the need to earn a living, leave alone to provide for a
family.
In fact, the root of many -- some
would say most -- of the problems we face today are thanks to decisions
made by our first prime minister.
It was he who chose to refer the
Kashmir issue to the United Nations, a decision he made against the advice
of Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel. It was he who chose to stand by in
silence as Communist China invaded Tibet (ironically invoking rights claimed
by the emperors) in 1950.
On November 7, 1950, the Sardar
wrote to Nehru to challenge the basic assumptions of his foreign policy.
'For the first time in centuries,' he warned, 'India's defence has to concentrate
itself on two fronts simultaneously... In our calculations we shall now
have to reckon, apart from Pakistan, with Communist China in the north
and the northeast.'
But the Sardar was a dying man --
he would pass away a little over a month later -- and Nehru continued unfazed.
The last restraints on Nehru had
been removed by the Sardar's death, and now the mistakes started coming
in thick and fast. Socialism was enshrined as the official policy of the
ruling party at the Avadi session of 1955, inaugurating an era that would
stifle private enterprise and encourage corruption. Linguistic states would
follow a year later. India's defences would be ignored, leading to decay
in what had been, immediately after World War II, one of the best, most
professional armies on the planet. Article 356 would be invoked to pull
down the first elected Communist ministry in Kerala...
Thirty-nine years after his death,
it is hard to think of a single policy inaugurated by Jawaharlal Nehru
that would meet with acclaim today. But enough about the mistakes of the
past. Is there anything that can be done to rectify the errors even now?
Some small steps have been taken
to rectify the disasters of socialism (though the Congress continues to
enshrine that perfidious doctrine). I am afraid it is far too late to halt
the cultural genocide taking place in Tibet; at best, we can continue to
offer sanctuary to the few who succeed in crossing the mountain passes
as they flee from Chinese terror. But do we, even now, have a strategy
to deal with Pakistan, specifically to deal with the Kashmir issue?
There are two myths that continue
to bedevil any attempt at a serious analysis of the relationship with our
meddlesome neighbour. First: increasing people-to-people contacts will
put pressure on the respective governments to improve relations. Second:
ameliorating matters should be an easy task given the shared culture.
Who says the people of Pakistan
have any influence on their rulers? Not a single ministry has lasted its
term of five years, going back to Liaquat Ali Khan. Power in Pakistan does
not rest with the multitudes but with the armed forces, the feudal elements,
some bureaucrats, and a section of theocrats. Remove the thought of India
as a threat and what justification do the generals have to wield power?
Second, what shared culture are
we talking about? True, some Punjabis have a little in common with their
neighbours. But what of the rest of India? What does a Tamilian share by
way of language, clothing, or cuisine with Pakistanis? Yet the ISI is as
much a threat to Chennai as to Chandigarh. As General Musharraf once candidly
admitted, 'We hate each other!'
That is what makes the latest Indian
gesture to Pakistan seem so quixotic. It is certainly not a vote-catcher;
I recall the Congress taking out a float in 1999 that mocked the prime
minister's bus trip to Lahore. So either this is a well-timed ploy to attract
applause elsewhere (especially in Washington), or it is a genuine move
for peace.
Either way, Islamabad has little
to lose by taking India's proffered hand. The generation of Indians to
whom a unified country is a living memory shall not be with us much longer.
Pakistan would do well to seize the opportunity before a generation comes
to power whose only memories are of war. Will the generals agree, or will
they be as myopic in their own way as Jawaharlal Nehru?
