ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Enough with our holier-than-them duplicity

Sizing up the glitterati attending King Hussein's funeral a few weeks back, The New York Times prominently noted the fact that whereas Arab neighbour-states of Jordan were largely represented by heads of dynasties that rule the people, Western and other nations were represented far more by their elected heads. The editorial ended with a gentle piece of advice to the monarchs -- that this charade is unlikely to last long. Interestingly, America was waging another strike on Saddam Hussein at the same time, throwing up a number of old questions.

To most of us in the free world, it is a thin line between a benevolent monarch and a tinpot dictator. Ask the Iraqis, and you'll see what I mean. The sundry Arab states on whose behalf the United States and her allies supposedly went to war are all undemocratic fiefdoms which routinely abuse the very notions of equality that are supposedly enshrined in the American way of life. Across a wide swath of the Arab world, women and religious minorities lead second-class lives, and even the rest live in deference or fear of hereditary monarchs.

So the question presents itself -- how can a nation that supposedly speaks for free citizenship and representative government coddle the dynasties of the Middle East? Here's another -- how can a nation still steeped in racism condemn the violence against minorities elsewhere? Yet another -- how can the US forget the history of the state of Texas and pretend that Kashmir is not a comparable part of India? Isn't it hypocritical to demand that we brown-skinned non-violents give up nuclear weapons?

We Indians have long been accustomed to America-bashing in the press. Pick up any of the magazines and newspapers you consider mainstream, and check out its coverage of the US, particularly American foreign policy. Cries of "hypocrite" and "MYOB" rage to an incessant beat, for the most part. America has nuclear weapons, how dare she ask India to sign the CTBT? America is racist, how dare she speak of our treatment of minorities? Has anyone seen how NYPD treats unarmed black men? Does America not remember the history of Texas and California, indeed much of Mexico? And so on and so forth.

Before we can understand or criticise foreign policy, we must first understand a more basic concept -- nationhood. What do we suppose makes India a nation? Ask that question and you'll get the whole range of answers from British carving knives to cultural homogeneity to shared apathy. It is not straightforward to determine which is actually closer to the truth, but an informative way of understanding nationhood still exists. Sometimes it is much easier to grasp a matter by knowing what it is not.

So let's start by asking "Who does not belong to our nation?" And in answer, let's start with highly identifiable punching bags of our nationalism, namely the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Send them back, rings the cry from the rightist corners. Sure, they weren't born in India, and don't hold Indian passports, but so what? If they're willing to live in dilapidated shanties in miserable conditions and eke out a living, why not just let them do it? Include them in the mainstream, make them take lessons in Indian nationalism and history if we have to, but why send them back?

Two reasons, for the most part -- economic and social self-interest.

Illegal immigration is among the most identifiable of the things that define the world order. There is a hierarchy, and to every person in the lower rungs, opportunity lies in moving up the ladder. To every person in the higher reaches, stability and prosperity depends on preserving that order. That's why there are long lines outside western embassies in the third world, India included. That's why Indian money is not so readily exchangeable on the foreign markets. That's why it probably says "Emigration Clearance Not Required" on the back of your passport. There are classes of people; some are welcome and others are not.

Social self-interest is the natural complement to this scheme of things. If the Bangladeshis were mostly Hindus, or even Buddhists, I suspect we wouldn't have cops in Maharashtra rounding them up. Like all societies, we cast ourselves in particular images, and Hinduism is important to that. One reason for that is the sheer numbers of Hindus in the nation, but an equally important reason, especially among the empowered groups, is the belief that Hinduism protects their freedom; it is easy to find educated Indians who will assert that if the country were overwhelmingly Muslim or Christian, religious tolerance would be much lower.

A nation-state of any sort is based on the idea that those who belong to it are identifiably different from those who do not. Sometimes, our economic self-interest might come into conflict with our ideas of ourselves, and at other times it doesn't. So we build dams within 50 miles of the Bengali or Assamese border with Bangladesh and think nothing of it; but we also brow-beat the Nepalese governments to ensure that the nation kow-tows to our foreign policy. This filters down to main street; hardly anyone makes a big issue of Nepalis who work in India, and have generous access to and from our country, but Bangladeshis? Oh, no.

Hinduism, even Buddhism I think, is allied with our secular notions in ways that even those of us who've never seen the inside of a temple in 20 years find natural. Sri Lankan Tamils -- why, even the few Sinhalese -- who choose to simply get on with their lives in India aren't held hostage to their origins beyond the first few weeks or months. During the years I lived in Pondicherry, it routinely fascinated me to notice that many of the town's (and Auroville's) resident pro-ashram foreigners didn't really live among themselves; instead they had access to that precious commodity -- the mainstream.

If our economic and social self-interest are worth preserving, it follows that others might reasonably hold that opinion too, doesn't it? Self-interest identifies a nation, and nations deal with each other through diplomatic and other channels based on their foreign policies. We have enshrined global exchanges with fine notions of sovereignty. Should the US government have the right to interfere in Kashmir? No, we say? How about Afghanistan? No again, perhaps, but this time we'll look the other way and refuel their planes if they'd like. These shifting postures aren't so much politics as policy.

Sometimes, America chases tyrants and other times she chases the good guys. If we find that to be an unbearable onus on our morality, we accomplish little more than to tie our own hands. If instead we recognise that the global order is founded on self-interest, and further that whereas we scream hoarse about it, this is precisely what we ourselves want at other times, then we can get on with the business of the state and its dealings. Nobody said foreign policy and its execution was a decent business. Maybe that's why the extensive charades of diplomacy have evolved, to lend an aura of polish to an otherwise macabre institution.

This is the American experience -- global actions that are unabashedly based on self-interest, and internal affairs based more on all the things enshrined in various democratic constitutions. For all its shortcomings, any purely objective assessment of our world will have to admit that the United States of America is among the finest nations on the planet. It's not for nothing that there are long lines outside every American embassy in the Third World.

That doesn't mean the US is perfect, but within its borders, from sea to shining sea, as it were, it's nearly as close as it gets. Still, American self-interest will always remain uniquely American. If it was readily merged with Indian interests, there would be no need for India and America as separate entities. So let's not begrudge the Americans a reasonable degree of self-interest, even if we see it to be duplicity.

Tabling resolutions in the United Nations in the name of sovereignty and non-alignment is just so much rubbish. The current posturing over Kosovo is illustrative; what is the message we send out when we co-sponsor resolutions with Belarus that are backed by Russian concerns over the war in Yugoslavia? That we are a non-aligned pacifist nation? Hardly, for Belarus is a Russian puppet-state ruled by a dictator whose dream borders on recreating the Soviet Union, only a fool would think our alliance with him to be non-aligned.

We merely send the signal that the familiar pretence of non-alignment is still clothed in ragged Russian wool. And for what? So that when the war in the Balkans takes a religious angle, Muslims on our streets can protest our embrace of their Orthodox enemy? It's pathetic, even without the consideration, if anyone dare suggest such a sensible thing in the ministry of external affairs, of our own interests. What sort of policy buys brownie points with a fading Russian connection while betraying the obvious interest in allying with the West?

For all our protestations, we remain singularly unable to see that what unites the pro-US nations more than anything else is a foundation in democracy. Practically everywhere in the free world but in India, national governments are aligned with the US, either in consideration of their economic interests or their military ones. As the notable exception to that, we remain country cousins, lacking both a much-needed solidarity with free people and frankly, any influence to speak of with the bloody-minded.

Enough with our holier-than-them duplicity. Self-interest clearly exists, our imperative is to voice it more often and assert our right to pursue it too. Uncle Sam doesn't need to be a punching bag for our cultural and military protestations. The incessant charge that self-interest and hypocrisy are the over-riding hallmarks of American foreign policy can be countered fairly readily. In fact, the answer to that accusation is so simple it can be stated in one sentence. Why didn't we think of that?

Ashwin Mahesh