:: Friday, June 27, 2003 ::

Advani's Other Yatra: The Loha Purush Rides Out


Advani last visited Washington in January 2002, soon after the December 13 attack on the Indian Parliament. This time, Advani claimed that his discussions with the US were not Pakistan-centric. "Last time, it was focused almost entirely on terrorism, and my visit certainly seemed to be Pakistan-centric", he said, but "this time it is not so". It is being claimed that with Advani’s spearheading the visit to the "superpower" nations, India is coming of age. No longer is India being slotted as a nation obsessed with its neighbour. No longer is India soliciting Uncle Sam’s muscle against Pakistan. Instead, Advani claimed, the USA. is "earnestly endeavouring to recognize India as a major power". It was the US, we were told, which was courting India to get us to send troops to Iraq. ‘Global’ issues like Iraq, not ‘local’ ones like Pakistan, dominated the talks; so clearly, India has been accepted into the ‘Band of Brothers’ of the global ‘major powers’. Or has it?

Looking back on Advani’s visit to the US and UK, what is the net impact? We need to ask some serious questions about the results of this new foreign policy turn. Has India’s profile really been enhanced? Was it really India’s profile vis a vis the world or merely Advani’s vis a vis Vajpayee’s that was in urgent need of a dose of enhancement?! Such is the silly season speculation that dominates the chattering classes of Delhi and Mumbai.

Despite all the claims to the contrary, it was clear to most observers, that Advani, whether in Washington, Chicago or London, had not ceased to harp on Pakistan. Over and over, he reiterated that India and the US were "threatened by the same source" of terrorism, that Pakistan was the"epicenter of terrorism". But all his jingoistic utterances on Pakistan failed to generate a suitable echo from the American or British establishments. Contrary to the interests of India’s dignity and sovereignty, the BJP-led administration has always sought to obtain American mediation in bilateral disputes, by asking them to reprimand Pakistan. But Advani’s visit failed miserably even in the BJP’s own pet objective of getting the ‘third umpire’ US-UK to declare Pakistan ‘out’.

Back in India, the US Ambassador Robert Blackwill has delivered snub after snub. Asked whether the US concurred with Advani’s view that Pakistan is the ‘epicentre’ of terrorism, he said, "We are not going to associate ourselves with any particular articulation" In reply to whether the US believed Musharraf was nurturing terrorists, he said, "This is a matter of judgment … he has been a close ally for us. Some 500 Al-Qaeda activists have been apprehended with the assistance of Pakistan". Musharraf, visiting London hours after Advani, has loudly reiterated his own positions, and certainly there were no public expressions of disapproval from Blair. Now, Musharraf will visit the US where, Bush himself will play host to Musharraf at his Camp David retreat.

On the question of sending troops to Iraq, the Vajpayee govt.’s barely concealed eagerness is raises serious questions about India’s sovereignty and long-cherished principles of anti-imperialism (in terms of official policy if not practise). On this question too, Blackwill has put the BJP govt. in its place. He has said there is "no shortage" of countries willing to send troops to Iraq. If India were to send troops, India "would not be doing the US a favour", in fact it would be "doing itself a favour", and so India should bear the costs of troop deployment.

In both the US and UK, Advani’s visit was greeted with vociferous, if small protests by Indian groups. In Washington, several groups under the banner of ‘Coalition to Support Democracy and Pluralism in India" submitted a letter to American authorities asking them not to hold dialogue with Advani who was guilty of orchestrating communal violence against India’s minorities, as well as gross violation of human rights. Protest placards were displayed which proclaimed "Advani is India’s Hitler". In London, a determined protest was held at a reception hosted by NRI businessmen for Advani. The protest was called by the South Asia Solidarity Group, and supported by several anti-war, anti-communal, Asian women’s and workers’ groups. Protesters held banners and placards and shouted slogans such as "We remember Gujarat Genocide – LK Advani has to Go!", "LK Advani, We Say – Don’t Sell India to Bush and Blair!", "No Indian Troops in Iraq, No US Bases in India!" and "Not In Our Name – No Indian Troops for US-occupied Iraq!" The protesters distributed leaflets and their slogans penetrated the venue, forcing the chief guest Advani to enter through the back door under a heavy police escort. South Asian and Indian protesters also condemned Advani’s meeting with David Blunkett, the British Home Secretary, where the agenda was British-Indian cooperation to cut down on asylum seekers. Even Blair reportedly told Advani that there were 2,500 asylum seekers from India, a number which would be "expected from a dictatorship, not a democratic country like India". Blair and Advani together are of course trying to brand asylum seekers from India as ‘bogus’. The whole issue of Asylum-seekers, is in British political discourse, really coded euphemism for the more volatile issue over race and race relations.

On the whole, the sole "achievement" of Advani’s visit has been to lower India’s prestige in the world by failing to honour the Indian Parliament’s resolution that took a decidedly skeptical view over the Iraqi invasion. The main fruit of Advani’s foreign venture has been to signal the willingness of the BJP-led administration to become join the list of American client regimes in Asia. A regime that is looking for a ‘respectable’ cover to send troops to help in the colonial occupation of the nation of Iraq.


:: Conrad Barwa 12:40 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

More Rumblings on Indian involvement in Iraq: The Saffronist Machine Creaks into Action:

The topic of Indian troops being dispatched to Iraq cropped up yet again yesterday as journalists quizzing the Deputy Prime Minister and BJP hard man LK Advani were treated to some more meandering statements on the possibility that India would be directly involved with a post-war occupation of Iraq:

Whether Iraqis want Indian troops in their country or not is one of the issues that will inform the decision about sending troops to Iraq, the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, said today. Another question that would have to be settled before a decision was taken was when an Iraqi administration would be in place, he said. Mr. Advani was responding to questions from journalists, en route to Ahmedabad by a special plane to attend two functions today. To a question on whether a decision to send the troops was imminent, he said that there were "lots of factors" to consider. The two which concerned the Government most were "what do the people of Iraq feel about this and what are the plans for restoring an Iraqi administration?" Asked how the Government would ascertain Iraqi opinion in the absence of a representative administration, Mr. Advani said that a team of four Indian military officials was in Iraq and a "direct report from there" was awaited.

Asked whether the Government was inclined to send troops to Iraq, Mr. Advani said that it was in India's interest to "have a presence in that region". "It will be good for us and good for Iraq," he added. Asked whether the Government had not considered reconvening Parliament to consider the issue, he said "our disapproval of American action is there". Source : The Hindu News Service, New Delhi, 21st June.

This pushes some credibility, one wonders how "four military officers" will be able to determine with any real impartiality of efficacy the 'feelings of the Iraqi people' and why Indian troops would be anymore welcome than say their American or British counterparts. The obvious fact that delegations of military specialists may not be the best way to gouge how the civilian populations feels about such a sensitive issue would be worth exploring if it was not for the casual disregard with which the NDA government has shown legitimate elected institutions elsewhere domestically. This time Advani seems to be mistaken on both counts as it remains to be seen how it would be 'good for Iraq' for Indian troops to be sent there, the problems with how there could be any benefit to India have already been explained. But some of the fog on this issue was cleared when it emerged that:

The U.S. administration, including President George Bush, is in favour of India getting a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, the Deputy Prime Minister, L. K. Advani, said today.
In an informal chat with reporters en route to Ahmedabad, Mr. Advani said during his interaction with the American leaders recently, even Mr. Bush had said, "I feel that India should get a permanent seat." He, however, asserted that the proposal to send Indian troops to Iraq had "nothing to do" with the Security Council membership. Source: Press Trust of India, 21 June, Ahmedabad

Ah well that is all right then; one can't help wondering if there was not some first aid treatment on hand for those journalists present who might have suffered from potentially fatal bout of hysterical laughter at this response; quite obviously there is not even an attempt to cover up the thinking at work here. Earlier we were told that the quid pro quo for Indian involvement in Iraq would entail US pressure on Kashmir that would supposedly release the need for the several hundred thousand Indian troops and paramilitary forces tied down there and so the logic goes – a few thousand troops committed to US efforts in Iraq would be a worthwhile price to pay; now that realism has dawned on this fantasy the new one of a UNSC is being dangled as the carrot. Of course according to Saffronist predictions, the Indian nuclear tests of 1998 should have guaranteed the road for a UNSC seat for India; unfortunately the immediate nuclear riposte of Pakistan at Chagai and the heightened rivalry, the Kargil episode and Chinese coolness put paid to these fond hopes. It is reassuring to see that no matter how inhospitable international conditions are to these cherished ultra-nationalist dreams; they persist in recurring.

Meanwhile the buck passing continues as no one in the NDA wants to take responsibility for making a final decision on the issue and delay it by awaiting for the PM who is currently on an official visit to China, to return before making a final decision. Surprisingly the enormity of this move seems to have sunk in as even the gaffe, prone and grandiose fantasising usual suspects such as George Fernandes have decided to keep quiet on the issue for the time being; it is disturbing that the only voice of sanity comes from the ultra-nationalist Shiv Sena which strikes a note of caution over the whole affair. This is perhaps, less surprising as it seems given that the NDA, despite it tough rhetoric in the end shies away from taking action that matches its public pronouncements; and is actually in policy terms cautious about external military commitments. Some would say this is due to a balanced and reflective approach to foreign policy, a less generous estimation would be that the BJP talks itself into position whereby it cannot hope to match expectations generated and allows them to die a quiet a death as possible.


:: Conrad Barwa 11:50 AM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

India Sells Out Tibet to China:

Well, it finally happened... India has abandoned Tibet to the Chinese. This is immoral and it is near-sighted. It is a sad day in history.

:: Vikash Yadav 9:57 AM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............