A Friend Returns to Beijing

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

When Kocheril Raman Narayanan returned to New Delhi from 

Beijing in end—1978, after serving for two-and-a-half years as 

India's first Ambassador to China since the 1962 war, he could 

not have foretold that nearly 16 years later, he would be 

returning to Beijing as the Vice-President of India. Narayanan  

finds a delegation that is visiting China between October 21 and  

28. 

The Chinese have long memories, as witnessed at the royal 

treatment they gave Richard Nixon even after his fall. They will 

not, therefore, forget that since 1969, from within his perch in the   

Foreign Ministry as a career official, Narayanan has pushed for 

normalisation of relations between the two Asian giants. Between 

1963 and 1967, he was Director (China) in MEA, thereafter going 

as India's Ambassador to Bangkok. On his return in 1969, he took 

over as Joint Secretary (policy planning), and promptly began  

initiating studies on how ties could be retrieved from the deep 

freeze. 

Just as in the US it was Richard Nixon’s personal intervention  

that led to ties between Washington and Beijing, in India, it was 

the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi who encouraged a small  

clutch of MEA officials to pursue their goal of a reconciliation it

between India and China. Within the MEA, two lobbies opposed  

this: the West-centric lobby, that did not want yet another

diversion from its efforts at making India a strategic partner of 

the US and West Europe; and the rival Soviet lobby, that 

responded to Russian uneasiness at the prospect of better Sino- 

Indian ties. If officers in the MEA are to be believed, neither 

Foreign Secretary Jagat Mehta nor his successor Kewal Singh 

were enthusiastic about..the efforts at normalisation.

However, support from Indira Gandhi continued, and in

1976 it was decided to take a political risk and announce the

appointment of an Ambassador to Beijing. This was done without

first ascertaining from the Chinese whether they would reciprocate

by appointing an Ambassador to New Delhi. Within the MEA,

opinion was strong that unless such a commitment was first

secured, India should not risk a snub by moving first. However,

the Prime Minister took the plunge and appointed Narayanan to

the post. As it happened, even while India’s Ambassador-

designate to China was in Hong Kong en route to Beijing, the

Chinese Foreign Ministry announced the appointment of an

Ambassador to India. And thus, for the first time in 15 years, top-

level diplomatic ties were resumed.

1977 saw the first defeat of the Congress party in national

elections, but fortunately for the nascent shoots of Sino-Indian

normalisation, the new Prime Minister, Morarji Desai, was as

much committed to the policy as Gandhi. Thus he also overruled

the timidity of a section of the foreign policy establishment and

encouraged the exchange of high-level delegations between

India and China. First a FICCI delegation went, followed by

journalists and then a cultural troupe. The Chinese reciprocated

with delegations of their own.

However, not everybody in the Morarji government shared

the Prime Minister’s eagerness for closer ties with China. Whether

because of his own predilections or because of pressure from

hard-line elements in the former Jana Sangh, the then external

Affairs Minister, A. B. Vajpayee, called off his scheduled 1978

visit to China a week before take-off. The reason? A stomach

upset. Fortunately, the tender state of Vajpayee’s digestion did

not derail the normalisation process, in view of Gandhi’s return

to power in 1980. She had always sided with those who felt that

better ties should not be hostage to a resolution of the border

question, calculating that better ties would, indeed, help in an

amicable settlement (of the border issue).

Another quantum jump in relations took place in 1988, with

the visit of an Indian Prime Minister - Rajiv Gandhi - to Beijing. By

this time, the rot within the USSR was becoming clearer, and

hence the need for a policy of developing ties with other powers.

More than China, the emphasis was on better relations with

Washington, a goal that was brought closer by the visit of Rajiv

Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi to Washington, and their very cordial

reception by the Reagans.

Since that time, an unstated keystone of India’s foreign `

policy has been better relations with the US, a policy that has  

lasted despite the odd hiccup, such as the V. P. Singh government’s 

tilt to Iraq during the Gulf crisis. China also, despite occasional 

public shows of displeasure, has been careful not to provoke

Washington. However, both countries are aware of the utility of 

improving ties with each other and with alternative power

centres such as Europe and South-east Asia. Even Russia, despite

its current propensity to chaos, is a once and future superpower. 

That, however, seems very much in the future. In the case of 

India, hemmed in by a dominant superpower unsympathetic to

its independent strategic ambitions and, if certain US officials are 

to be taken seriously, to its very integrity as a unified country,  

national interest dictates better relations with the merging 

superpower on our northern borders. This need is further

enhanced by the Benazir Bhutto policy of aiding subversive 

movements within India. 

It is anybody’s guess as to the demons the Pakistan Prime

Minister is hoping to exorcise by her covert war on the Indian

state. It could be an expatiation of the suggested Bhutto guilt in  

the vivisection of Pakistan. For it is on record that General Yahya 

Khan ignored the results of the free election held in Pakistan 

years ago because, had he accepted the results, Sheikh Mujibur

Rahman and not Zulfikar Ali Bhutto would have been the Prime 

Minister of (united) Pakistan. Mr Bhutto's tacit encouragement 

to the brutal army crackdown in East Pakistan fuelled the

separatist movement in what is now Bangla Desh. Thus it could 

be that Benazir Bhutto seeks to make up for this smudgy

historical record by attempting yet another vivisection, this time

of India. 

Keeping China friendly is an essential component in India’s 

defence against Pakistan’s war. Apart from this, the other 

advantages of closer ties are cooperation in science and 

technology; more joint ventures between the two countries and 

a better understanding of how China has opened up its economy 

to foreign investment without surrendering sovereignty over

crucial decisions. Closer ties with China would also help in the 

integration of India with the rest of Asia. In its partly West

centric and partly Soviet-centric orientation, the country’s foreign  

policy mandarins neglected the country’s own backyard, with 

the result that India is not a major player in any Asian grouping .

except SAARC. 

Despite murmurs that it is choking off India’s strategic  

independence by ’underfunding' the nuclear and missile

programmes, the Narasimha Rao government has in fact taken 

significant steps to improve its ties with the rest of Asia. Apart

from the present Prime Minister’s visit to China itself in 1993, 

there have recently been trips to Viet Nam and Singapore, with

more Asian visit in the pipeline. According to policy planners,

the present Indian prime minister is as committed to better Sino-

Indian ties as Gandhi, Morarji Desai and Rajiv Gandhi were.

The Vice-President, therefore, goes to a country with whom

ties are steadily growing, the major remaining irritant being (on

India's side) the sporadic public activities of the Tibetan refugees

on Indian soil, and (on China’s side) the arming of Pakistan.

During his week-long stay, the Vice-President is expected to meet 

with `China's President, Prime Minister and other leaders confident

that the policy of rapprochement has wide support at home. A 

far cry indeed from the lonely days of the late 1960s, when 

suggestions for India-China friendship faced an atmosphere

made hostile by memories of the 1962 war. 

Run, Don't Crawl - Need for Action, Not Rhetoric

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

First impressions may not always be the best ones, but they last. 

While in many other democracies, incoming administrations

seek to push through major changes in emphasis during the first 

100 days, in India this has not been done except by P. V.

Narasimha Rao, who 44 years after independence began turning 

India away from the 1,000-year clasp of the Mughal-British-

Nehru patriarchal state.

Inder Kumar Gujral's entry to his present post was due to the

coincidence of his excellent relations with both V. P. Singh and

Sitaram Kesri. However, once in, his touch faltered. The first

hiccup was his acceptance of almost the entire Deve Gowda

team, thus confirming the impression that the change-over had

been because of a personality clash between Deve Gowda and

Sitaram Kesri. As a result, the incoming Prime Minister's authority 

over his team got diluted.

Headhunters will testify that the time for tough negotiations

is before an employment contract is signed. Once duty is joined,

efforts to substantially improve conditions are usually futile.

Neither Mulayam Singh Yadav nor C. K. Moopanar boasted the

acceptability to the Singh-Kesri duo that Gujral had. The other

alternative, Chandrababu Naidu, declined to follow Deve

Gowda’s example of exchanging a safe regional perch for an

unstable national one. Thus Gujral could have driven a much

harder bargain before accepting the offer to head the government.

Family Nostalgia 

Nostalgia about the days of the Nehru family—when India

crawled along at a growth rate of three per cent and the

corruption-breeding controls system dug in—was not going to 

lift Gujral’s rating. Rather than lapse into sentimental

remembrances, what is needed is the hard-headed formulation

and implementation of policies designed to push up growth

from the seven per cent bequeathed by Rao to the 10 per cent that

China has shown to be possible. Step one is the rapid dismantling

of the web of procedures and permissions that chain Indian

companies. Step two is to remove the restrictions on the setting

up of service industries.

Sadly, instead of diminishing in critical areas regulations

have grown. While Murasoli Maran acted as a reformer during

the Gowda period, in the Gujral era he appears to be using

restrictive regulations for reasons not transparent. Beni Prasad

Verma is doing likewise with communications, while both R. V.

Paswan and C. M. Ibrahim are working hard to ensure that local

transport infrastructure remains inadequate.

While a certain amount of personal diplomacy may be

necessary for the continuance of the UF ministry in office, it

needs to be remembered that survival is by itself not the

objective. The goal has to be increased growth. If it is expected 

that US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will appreciate

that the world has changed somewhat since Papa Korbel's time

and not harp on the same Kashmir mantras as were used then

by the US and the UK to kill any incipient move by India to forge

strategic links with the rest of the democratic, English-speaking

world, one expects the Gujral team to go beyond old policies in

formulating solutions to domestic economic problems.

Appeasing Game

Today's Nehru family loyalists are not just those who flock to 10

lanpath, they are also those political parties that seek to push the

economy back into the regulatory cage of the pre-1991 period.

Unless the Gujral government passes legislation freeing industry

and services from such cords, it will not be fulfilling its promise.

At present, it appears to be more a Surjeet than a Gujral

government, at least in regard to economic policy.

For the sake of a few thousand state employees, the UF

partners appear prepared to sacrifice the long-term interests of

the rest of the country, just as the right-wing swadeshi lobby

wants to coddle controls-friendly sections of domestic industry

at the cost of the consumer. Elements of both saffron and scarlet

are united in promoting Mughal-British-Nehru style restraints

on honest and efficient enterprises, thus encouraging units that

profit through sleaze and connections. Unfortunately, the UF

government has thus far gone along with such views rather than

implement reforms that will lower bank interest rates and attract

greater investment in infrastructure and other key sectors.

The Communists (and Mahathir Mohammed) have a point:

that pure speculation needs to be curbed. However, this is

possible through the market, as Singapore has demonstrated in

the housing sector. There, punitive capital gains taxation is

levied on houses sold within three years of purchase. India can

also have a system whereby steep capital gains taxes get levied

on shares or houses sold within 180 days of purchase. On a

sliding scale, those sold after 18 months should escape this tax.

This would attract the genuine investor while keeping most

speculators out. However, such measures are different from

those that choke off investment altogether, which is what the

China and Pakistan lobbies in India want the government to do.

Lack of Leadership

On August 15, robust speeches were made about "cleansing the

country of corruption". To show that little has changed, all that

needs to be done is to examine the Foreign Investment Promotion

Board (FIPB). In the Narasimha Rao period, the PMO would

block or clear projects on opaque and arbitrary grounds. Today

the same process continues. Files move swiftly, then crawl, then

stop, then mysteriously speed up again. Unless the FIPB is made

transparent and guided by objective procedures, investment

flows will continue to be a trickle relative to the potential.

However, just as in the case of the (frozen) PSU reform or the

(lack of) moves to simplify laws and procedures, here too

rhetoric seems all that is on offer. Another ministry more

concerned with blocking than with promoting growth is the

ministry of environment. It has been killing or freezing projects

with a vengeance. The eco-fundamentalists who seek to push

India back to the agrarian age appear to be ruling the environment

ministry, with negative consequences for growth.

One reason why there appears to be a glut of politics on the

front pages may be the lack of initiatives to prod the country

onto the 10 per cent growth track. Should Gujral put his job on

the line and shame his team into bringing forward the policies

and legislation needed tu achieve this, he may find the doubts

about his survival dissipating. Such a course is the only one

consistent with the pledge he took on August 15, 1997 - to

fashion a system free of graft that will give a better life to the

prior. Both aims are linked, and need a focus by the UF

government on development rather than politicking.

Jinnah Revisited-Fostering Insecurity in Minorities

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999) 

Sometimes, the nature of the fight so destroys the prize that it is
not worth winning. Several prosperous businesses have been
ruined by litigation, leaving the "victor" only a shell. While
elections are, by their nature, contests, there are limits beyond
which a healthy campaign should not go. The style and substance
of the current campaign has been such that it could be at the cost
of stability in India.

During the 1940s, M. A. Jinnah argued that Congress rule
would imply the subjugation of the minorities. This created a
fear psychosis among the Muslim intelligentsia. After 1947,
Muslims have neither been subjugated in India, nor have they
been protected in Pakistan. Jinnah’s sectarian logic has penetrated
deeper into the Pakistan polity, separating Baluch from Pashtun
and Sindhi from Punjabi. Today, in India, there is once again an
organised effort to create a polarisation between different
religions. A message is being disseminated that the BJP's coming
to office will cripple minority rights. The "secularists" are thus
using Jinnah's language to score points in the battle against the
BJP.

Crippling Burden
This election has been caused by the Congress' attempt to
dominate the next government. Should its tally fall below 160,
the gamble will have failed. Apart from the Rs. 950 crore direct
cost of the election campaign and the (estimated)
Rs. 750 crore spent by political parties, there is the cost of the
policy vacuum till a new government is sworn in. A modest
estimate for such losses would be approximately Rs. 5,000 crore.
Thus, the direct cost of the 1998 elections to taxpayers is in the
region of Rs. 6,700 crore.

More has been lost as a consequence of the legislative
gridlock created by MPs during the last Lok Sabha session. The
hopes for a more Indian-friendly regulatory structure vanished.
Will such behaviour continue into the l2th Lok Sabha? The
campaign signals are not encouraging for those who are looking
forward to a time when politicians will deliver results rather
than abuse.

Today, the Congress has restricted its all-India campaign to
three individuals: Sonia Gandhi, Rahul and Priyanka. Thus the
credit for the Congress' performance will flow to Gandhi and her
children alone. This is unexceptionable. What is not is the
message of the party's star campaigner: that the very future of
India is at risk if her party's principal opponent comes to power.
Vote BJP and risk civil war, is the message. This has been
amplified by reminding voters that Mahatma Gandhi was shot
by an RSS sympathiser. This is similar to blaming an entire
community for the murder of Indira Gandhi.

Historical Wrongs
Today, many "secular" campaigners are trying to create the
same insecurity in the Muslim mind as was created by the
League during the 1940s, after the British began helping Jinnah
as a consequence of Congress non-cooperation in the war effort.
The harm done by such divisive messages will linger long after
the votes have been counted.

True, the BJP has a lunatic fringe that believes in correcting
historical wrongs by the kind of vandalism evident on December
6, 1992. However, within the saffron fold, opinion appears to be
growing that only a country where minority rights are protected
is safe for the majority. Instead of seeking to integrate the BJP
firmly within the secular mainstream, its rivals are trying to
perpetuate the distrust between that party and the minorities.
While this may bring in some extra votes, it is likely to undermine
social harmony. The experience in BJP-ruled states indicates that
power has tempered the saffron brigade’s sectarian impulses.
National office may further moderate the BJP and its allies into
(for example) effectively abandoning moves to introduce a
(largely western) uniform civil code, or to abrogate Article 370.

By seeking to restrict the BJP to the sectarian space that it is
seeking to escape from, the "secular" groups are, in fact, harming
their cause. Fanning insecurity among the minorities will retard
progress towards a fully integrated society. Just as economic 
populism goes against public interest, so does political populism
of the kind now being used against the BJP. Tomorrow, the very
parties trashing the BJP may need the help of the saffron brigade
in getting crucial legislation passed. Polarising the Indian political
spectrum and through this the voters into mutually exclusive
and hostile segments can only promote a separatist agenda.

A country cannot flourish unless its basic interests are kept
above party politics. If these are sacrificed so as to get a few extra
seats, then "victory" will lose its charm. Communal hatreds and
caste prejudices are the enemies of a just society, and all political
parties need to work against rather than exploit such tendencies.
Similarly, terrorism affects every citizen. The bomb that takes
only the life of a Hindu while sparing a Muslim has not been
invented yet. Thus, it was distasteful to watch even terrorist acts
being viewed through political eyeglasses. Should evidence be
secured further linking the Coimbatore blasts to the ISI, that
organisation can claim- on the authority of the Congress
President—that it is innocent.

Gujral Style
If the extremists in the Sangh Parivar need to be condemned for
their efforts at dividing citizens on sectarian grounds, so should
those "secularists" who follow Jinnah's policy of creating
insecurity in the minorities. Democracy implies coexistence and
consensus. In the past, any tactic was acceptable to beat a
political rival, be it helping Bhindranwale in Punjab or Ghising
in Darjeeling. Today Mufti Mohammed Sayeed has become
almost a front for the Pakistan—centric Hurriyat in condemning
Farooq Abdullah, while Nagaland's S. C. Jamir has ensured his
continuance by means as questionable as those used in Kashmir
in the past. Campaign l998’s high—decibel "secular" campaign,
which effectively places the B]P as worse than the ISI in the list
of India’s enemies, reflects this trend.

After the campaign, the BJP and the Congress party will need
to cooperate on issues of national concern, be they economic or
security related. Hopefully, in such a situation, the current
exclusivist rhetoric will be replaced by attitudes better suited to
a democracy. For this, we need I. K. Gujral's style rather than that
of Sitaram Kesri.

China's Emerging Fault Lines Spell Trouble

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

That the tune is called by the individual paying the piper is

demonstrated by the chorus of voices across the world defending

the Communist party’s rule in China. In the US, several former

secretaries of State are now on Beijing's payroll, usually through

Chinese or Southeast Asian companies linked to the Communist

party of China and its powerful offshoot, the People's Liberation

Army. While CCP-PLA fronts are rare in Singapore and Taiwan,

in Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia many overseas Chinese

business persons have allowed themselves to enter into profitable

arrangements with CCP-PLA fronts.

Those involved in operations such as trafficking in drugs or

weapons are increasing. Entire governmental structures—such

as in China’s allies Myanmar and Pakistan—have developed

networks to ensure cultivation, processing and transport of

narcotics, with the profits being shared between them and their

hidden principals. It is one of life's ironies that a country that

suffered the most at the hands of opium traders now hosts

several individuals who are active in sending this and other

noxious substances to the US and the EU, the most lucrative

markets.

Thanks to the reality that in Pakistan, China and Myanmar,

the defence forces are above what little law exists, there are no

checks on the army vehicles used for transporting narcotics to

the China-Pakistan, Myanmar-Thailand and the China-Myanmar

border. 

The China lobby has cleverly equated the regime in Beijing

with the Chinese people, when the reality is that Jiang's men

have about as much sanction from the second as Mobutu had

from the people of Zaire. China is home to one of the great

cultures of the world, and despite the hell the country has gone

through, that tradition has remained. In interaction with the

Chinese people, whether in Singapore or in Shanghai, their

warmth and humanity are patent.

However, the years of Communist rule have created fault

lines, not within the Chinese people as such but within the ruling

structures. It is ·these fault lines that may trigger unstable

behaviour in the Chinese state. Even today, the leaders of the

CCP and the PLA who are in their 60s or 70s or even the late

50s—are much more moderate towards the external world than

some of their rhetoric would suggest.

It is no accident that the 1970s witnessed the emergence of

a policy of engagement with the capitalist world, chiefly the US.

The cadres who were in their 20s and 30s when the People's

Republic of China got established in 1949 were by the l970s in

their 40s and 50s. These cadres had seen the turmoil between

1949 and 1970, and wanted stable relations with the outside

world. They were in no mood for crusades, unlike cadres who

had spent their own formative years witnessing the "impossible"

feat of defeating Chiang Kai-Shek's armies, and who consequently

were in favour of "bolder" policies, as seen during the Korean

war or the conflict with India.

The post-1949 cadres got control in the 1970s over most of the

echelons that determine the chemistry and direction of policy. By

2001, cadres who were in their formative years during the 1960s

will begin to dominate the ruling structures in China. These are

likely to have attitudes vastly different from the present top

leadership, for two reasons. The first is the fact that they would

have cut their attitudinal teeth in the turmoil of the Great

Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. The second is that

they would be the offspring of the One Child policy.

The Cultural Revolution cadres ran riot over established

structures, humiliating elders and peers with impunity. This

upheaval engendered in its participants a contempt for formal

laws and structures that has got manifested in today’s China,

where the "law" is often what the local party boss wants it to be.

Once such a regulatory vacuum gets established, it is difficult to

shake off in the absence of democracy. And unless laws are

placed above the persons who administer them, there is likely to

grow an arrogance of power among those in high office.

This lack of protection by laws—as distinct from individuals—

is what makes investment in China an act of faith. In certain

circumstances, of economic slowdown affecting investment and

exports, the cadres may regard expropriation to be more profitable

than forbearance. In the "Cultural Revolution" psychology, even

unreasonable blows against an opponent are justified.

Apart from such a mindset, bred in the turmoil of the 1960s,

another factor that merits attention in China is the psychology

generated by the One Child policy. Many of these single

children—especially males—have grown into overconfident

adults intent on getting their own way, and liable to get nasty

when they don’t. Today such individuals have begun to permeate

the ruling structures in China, with their aggressive attitudes

intact.

So long as the going is profitable business-wise, such cadres

will remain in line. However, two tendencies are operating that

may bring hard times for the Chinese Communist party's Red

czars. The first is the battering of stocks in the region. Many of

the shares that have seen their values plummet are those in

which the top cadres have, directly or through fronts, made

major investments. The cadres may view this not as a market

reaction, but as a conspiracy against them, and move closer to

the retaliation mode.

The second downpull factor for Beijing is the emergence of

India. The China lobby in New Delhi has been working hard to

make the subcontinent an unattractive destination for investment,

by pushing for restrictive laws and by encouraging PILs and

agitations against major projects. However, the fact remains that

India is almost as big a market as China, and indeed a much

better one for the skills needed to compete internationally.

Just as China has been cutting away at lower-value producers

in Southeast Asia, soon India may take away markets from

Beijing. This will see fresh roiling within the cadres. The fault

lines sketched above—the emergence to high office of cadres

having a combination of the One Child and the Cultural

Revolution mindset—may in future generate more adventurist

policies from Beijing. Such policies will find a fertile atmosphere

in the incestuous intrigue characteristic of non—democratic

bureaucracies. It is not the present top leadership of China that

India and South—east Asia need to worry about, but the generation

that in the coming decade will replace them, If the 1970s

represented a fire-break in the psychology of the cadres that ruled

the People's Republic, the next decade may see another, this time

not so benign.

Indutva-Moderation the Key to Harmony

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

Balasaheb Thackeray, who has asked for a national monument to be built at Ayodhya, has moved closer to the country's ethos than those who seek to set up a house of worship there that would exclude 15 per cent of the population. Just as Indian epics are watched on television by people of different faiths, so should the birth—place of Lord Ram follow the “Palayam” example. This is the locality in Trivandrum where a mosque, church and temple coexist in close proximity with each other. The Nehruvians despised Indian epics as unworthy of attention in school curricula. They relegated Lord Ram to a religious ghetto, forgetting that his example was relevant to all. If the universality of his teachings is accepted, then a national monument will have greater empathy with his example than one which admits only a part of the population of his beloved land. While the invaders from Persia, Turkey and Central Asia who colonised India a millennium ago were aliens, those from here who converted to the new religion were not. These individuals have as much claim to the ethos of Lord Ram as do the rest. The Nehruvians followed the British example of distrusting the majority community, hemming it in with restrictions. As a reaction, many Hindu organisations fall into the error of abandoning the country's traditions in favour of the Pakistan model, where only one creed is regarded as superior, and the others are discriminated against judicially, socially and electorally. Indeed, it is not just non-Muslims who suffer in Pakistan. So do Shias, Ahmediyas and those Sunnis who do not come from Punjab province.

Economic Progress

By their agenda of seeking to demolish two more houses of worship and replacing them with temples, certain organisations here are copying the Pakistanis or the south Afghans in their exclusivism. Thackeray is spot on: what the country needs is economic progress. This can take place only in an atmosphere of social harmony, where no segment feels discriminated against.

Apart from a 25—year freeze on the Kashi and Mathura disputes, even in Ayodhya care should be taken to work out a solution that has the consent of all major groups. The events of December 6, 1992 damaged social stability and affected the country's equity in regions such as the Gulf and South-east Asia. It was no accident that the pace of reforms slowed soon after the bitter harvest of the Babri demolition.

Greater attention to the precepts of Lord Ram would have reinforced the trueism that two wrongs do not make a right. Even should the Babri Masjid have been built on the ruins of a demolished temple, that is no justification for repeating the crime of the invaders by a second pulldown. The virus of religious exclusivism needs to be exorcised from Muslim, Christian, Sikh and Hindu organisations, so that the composite culture of this land is celebrated rather than mourned. Such a development is one of the two pre-conditions for rapid economic growth. The other is the evolution of a post—Nehruvian governmental structure that frees Indians from the restrictions of the colonial period. 

Basic Tenets

By, in effect, belittling the Indian ethos articulated by Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Abu] Kalam Azad in favour of an outlandish amalgam of Fabian socialism, Marxism and European royalty, Nehruism, in fact, nourished communalism rather than weakened it. In particular, it drove many within the majority community o believe that the new regime regarded them with as jaundiced an eye as the Mughals and the British did. Also, during the Nehru era the Mughal-British restrictions were added on to Mahatma Gandhi had pointed out to the AICC in 1947 itself that "Controls are responsible for much of the corruption that is rampant today". Fortunately, he was not alive to witness the extent of his mistake in assuming that "After me, Jawaharlal will speak my language". Restrictions proliferated, and as a result by 1997 a Swiss diplomat estimated that $ 80 billion were held in Swiss banks by Indian nationals. While other countries have recovered some of the loot taken abroad by their citizens, in India W. N. Chaddha and Ottavio Quatrocchi have so far been able to escape.

That, of course, is Nehruism. Tough laws on paper and zero enforcement, except on the politically inconvenient. Such people are hounded even if they are innocent. An example is Haryana, where a graduate of the Nehru school is bankrupting his state by pretending that alcohol does not exist. Of course, this policy puts cash into the pockets of officials and politicians, rather than into the exchequer the way "immoral" schemes such as the VDIS or the legalisation of liquor will. Another example of the continuation of the Mughal-British—Nehru policies comes from Kerala, where the CPM government has proposed legislation to take over all major Hindu temples. Quite apart from the CPM's claim to being an atheist organisation, it is difficult to see the logic in singling out one community’s religious places for state control when churches and mosques have (correctly) been left free. It is this anti—majoritarian definition of "secularism" that has fuelled an inflow into Hindu exclusivist organisations. Sadly, the religious exclusivists, the Nehru school graduates and the Left have many basic tenets in common. All shy away from the catholicity of outlook that is needed to create the medium in which growth can thrive. Instead, they accept the Afghan-Pakistan model of intolerance. In its place, they need to heed the new reasonableness of Thackeray, or the words of Atal Behari Vajpayee, who understand the centrality of social harmony to this country’s progress. Respect for India will not flow from a repeat of past barbarity but from the rise of national income to a reasonable level.

Core Traditions

Hopefully, the government that emerges out of the 1998 polls will continue the shift away from Nehruism and fashion a system that regards Indians as mature enough to take their own decisions. If those belonging to this subcontinental race can be considered mature in countries such as the United States or the United Kingdom (where they have outperformed the rest), then why not in their homeland? As a part of such a 21st century focus, the new government needs to actualise India’s nuclear weapons potential. True, there will be sanctions and protests from followers of Neville Chamberlain in the US and the EU. However, in a few years these countries will realise that the Indian Ekalavya is no longer willing to cut off the nuclear thumb, and will take its place as the equal of the other five nuclear states. Only then will India be able to give a significant contribution to its future democratic allies in a possible future confrontation against fundamentalist or hegemonist states.

Rather than follow Afghanistan, Pakistan and other exclusivist states in their fanaticism, India should remain true to its core traditions and stress the Indutva that make this land of Mother Teresa, Abdul Kalam and Baba Amte unique. To do otherwise would be to besmirch the memory of Lord Ram.