(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)
After 500 years of domination over the earth, the Caucasian races
are finding it difficult to adjust to a universe in which the lesser
breeds challenge their supremacy. The first blow was struck in
1947 by India, which forced out the British through non-
cooperation and a no-tax campaign. Finally, the colonisers had
to accept the inevitability of withdrawal in an environment in
which fewer and fewer local quislings obeyed their orders.
Indian independence from British rule ignited a firestorm against
European colonisers, which led to their withdrawal from most
colonies by the 1960s. Today, only a handful of entities such as
Diego Garcia and the Falklands remain under western suzerainty.
Turning Point
However, of the four white supremacist immigrant countries,
only one has thus far come under a genuinely multi-racial
administration. This is South Africa, where Nelson Mandela’s
emergence has ensured a fairer share in both power and wealth
for hitherto-colonised races. The other three countries still retain
administrations dominated by Caucasians; moreover, they have
put in place immigration regimes that prevent a sufficient inflow
of citizens from Asia, Africa and Latin America. These countries
are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Just as South Africa
once was, they need to be the target of an intemational campaign
to ensure that their racial mix more correctly reflects international
reality.
It is not a coincidence that it is the Australians, New
Zealanders and the Canadians who served as the shock troops·
for the Caucasian races recently when 'low-caste' India matched
’high-caste' technology, and had the gall publicly to demonstrate
it on May 11 and again on May 13. The rhetoric used by these
three countries brought back memories of a century ago, when
the intellectual progenitors of the Axworthys and the Downers
were inventing justifications for the continued exploitation of the
'lesser' breeds.
Sadly for such individuals as Jamie Rubin, who made
disparaging remarks about Indian leaders, the world has changed
somewhat since the first half of this century. If India'; accession
to freedom on August 15, 1947, marked a turning point in
international relations, then so did the two rounds of tests in
May this year. Pokhran-II showed that a country that had been
starved of access to sophisticated technology by the US and other
western powers, could by its own efforts catch up to them.
Unlike the "Pakistani" bomb - which is a China-created device
and whose detonation was intended to help persuade India to
retrace its path of technological advancement - the Indian nuclear
and missile programme is indigenous. Not accidentally,
"international opinion" (which is how the BBC describes the US-
UK perspective) tacitly condoned the decades of Sino-Pakistan
collaboration, while continuously striving to force India to "cap,
roll back and destroy" its nuclear and missile programme.
Should a genuine non-proliferation treaty get negotiated -
one that blocks transfer of strategic technology between borders -
India can be expected to sign up. However, it cannot accept any
slowdown in its drive to become a technological superpower.
The more the United States, the United Kingdom and other
countries try and impose an international caste system that puts
India in the role of Ekalavya, the greater will be New Delhi’s
motivation to challenge the policy of technological apartheid. In
this, Beijing can soon be expected to become an ally, as also the
fiercely nationalistic post-Yeltsin Russia that is waiting to be
born. The Gulf and even Pakistan can in course of time be
expected to sign up, as can the peoples of countries that were
former colonies. Within South America—notably in Mexico and
Brazil—there is a new pride in indigenous culture.
Racial Tolerance
This is the strategic alternative in the event of the Caucasian
powers attempting to destroy the Indian economy—and with
that the country’s unity—through sanctions. However, there is
no doubt that this is a less attractive alternative than a strategic
alliance with the democracies of the western world. Western
society today is very different from what it was during the
colonial era. Extensive travel and generous immigration policies
in much of Europe and the United States have resulted in a
change in societal attitudes. Despite the skinheads, the dominant
mood in major western countries such as Britain, France and
Germany is racial tolerance.
Even during the struggle against colonial oppression, many
of the most active participants were themselves Caucasians.
Annie Besant, Madeleine Slade and others come to mind. Today,
that liberal trend is slowly elbowing out the racists, though in
some sections of the media, attitudes of caste superiority remain
strong. Media commentators, however, are not half as offensive
as Robin Cook or Madeleine Albright, both of whom evidently
believe themselves to be schoolteachers ordering around a
cowed set of truant children. Thanks to such "diplomats", the
western world may forfeit as an ally a country that is the Mother
Civilisation of the West’s cultural inheritance.
Far-reaching Results
However, there is an Indian saying that there can be true
friendship only between equals. If President Clinton truly feels
that nuclear weapons are an abomination in the emerging
century, he should initiate steps to follow his own advice to
India, and unilaterally destroy the US strategic arsenal. It is
ludicrous to hear the president of the world's most weaponised
country preach abstinence, just as it is to hear the BBC fulminate
against "immoral" India, when they have yet to mention that
Britain (who perhaps faces a strategic threat from France) is a
nuclear-weapon state, and therefore as culpable. Should the
western powers continue their current tirade against this country,
then New Delhi cannot be blamed for turning away from
cooperation with them to a policy that returns to its anti-colonial
roots.
The events of the coming years will have incalculable
consequences on the future international balance of power, for
they will determine the strategic direction taken by an India that
will inevitably take its pride of place in the international order.
No comments:
Post a Comment