Modi
Must Re Engage And Shape The Historic Changes In West Asia
Saeed Naqvi
“Jup raha hai aaj maala ek Hindu ki Arab
Barhaman zaade mein shaan e dilbari aisi
tau ho
Hikmat e Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru ki
kasam
Mar mitey Islam jispey kafiri aisi to
ho”
Arabs are chanting the name of a Hindu,
Just look at the heart winning prince among
Brahmins,
Behold the statesmanship of Pandit
Jawahar Lal Nehru,
World of Islam lies at the feet of this
non believer, free of sins.
There is a great deal to despair about
Nehru’s legacy, but another occasion for that. Here, the poet is spot on,
eulogizing India’s first Prime Minister as he led the newly independent nation,
charting a course that was more or less equidistant between the power blocs.
In effect New Delhi leaned more towards
Moscow because it happened to be geographically nearer home. Also, in the early
aftermath of decolonization, socialism, not capitalism, was the fashionable creed.
That free enterprise was required as an ingredient in the early stages of
nation building was recognized. What was accepted, therefore, was a “mixed”
economy.
As leader of the non-aligned and the Afro-Asian
bloc, Nehru was more equal than others, even above Gamal Abdel Nasser. The
grouping consisted of 52 Muslim countries too. In all of these Nehru and India
were respected a notch above the rest – Indian civilization trumped religious
differences.
There is an exquisite irony involved in
the verse I have translated at the outset: it was written by Raees Amrohvi, a
Pakistani. It was composed at an early stage of our relations when a compulsive
hostility was not the guiding principle of policy towards each other.
There are several points to note here.
Despite the fact that Pakistan was a theocratic, Islamic republic, there was no
Pakistani leader Raees could think of and which the Arab world was familiar
with. The national movement under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership had boosted
Indian prestige way above religious denominations. It is the cobwebs of our
minds which have allowed Hindu-Muslim complications to multiply.
Groupings did come up which were hostile
to India but these did not derive strength from an Islamic bond. For instance, New
Delhi cast a wary glance on the Ankara, Teheran, Islamabad axis. But neither
Ataturk’s Turkey nor the Shah’s Iran (or even Ayub Khan’s Pakistan, for that
matter) were attached to Islamism. It was an American sponsored axis in the
context of the cold war.
It is generally not recognized that
Organization of Islamic cooperation was a grouping of pro west Muslim states
which, under Western prodding, tried to embarrass New Delhi on issues like
Kashmir. This was almost always neutralized by deft diplomatic handling. At the
Casablanca summit of the OIC in 1995, Prime Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao
allowed Kashmiri leaders like Moulvi Mohammad Farooq to attend the summit.
Their attendance was not even noticed by the summiteers.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990
caught India in a bind. The departure of the Soviets from Afghanistan caused
the spare, Jehadi energy to turn upon Kashmir. Jobless Jehadists also found
their way to Egypt, Algeria and beyond. West’s sponsorship of Jehadism in
Afghanistan in the 80s is still extracting a heavy price.
American triumphalism after the Cold War
expressed itself in the biggest military expedition since the Second World War.
Operation Desert Storm in February 1992 was followed by the occupation of Iraq
in April 2003. Between these dates was 9/11 leading to the occupation of
Afghanistan in November 2001.
These developments were accompanied by saturation
TV coverage. The newly created global media beamed images mornings and evenings.
The world watched in its drawing rooms the defeat of societies like Afghanistan
and Iraq and a relentless targeting of terrorism, with Muslims in primary
focus. This became part of 24X7 TV in India as well. Islamophobia infected
India too. That is why the Gujarat pogrom of 2002 was India’s first communal
catastrophe boosted by a global anti Muslim atmosphere.
The altered world situation did warrant
a total recasting of foreign policy. But instead of reordering foreign policy
according to its lights, New Delhi allowed an impression to grow that it would
follow American lead in foreign affairs.
In this frame of mind, New Delhi agreed to
the proposition that it would help the US administer the Kurdish north of Iraq.
Ships were loaded with military hardware, troops were in readiness to travel to
northern Iraq. New Delhi was willing to partner the US in the occupation of
Iraq. Yes, it is true.
Only Prime Minister, Atal Behari
Vajpayee kept his counsel. He was opposed to the expedition and he made his
opposition known in his own way. On April 9, 2003 he saw Saddam Hussain’s
statue being pulled down in Baghdad’s Firdaus Square. Vajpayee drew a
conclusion exactly the opposite from his cabinet. On April 18, he arrived in
Srinagar. Remember, after the December 13, 2001 attack on Indian Parliament,
Indian and Pakistani forces were in a posture of collision. But he surprised
everybody by holding out his hand to Pakistan. An awesome power has arisen, he
said. All local quarrels must be ended for greater regional cooperation.
Not only was Manmohan Singh not able to
demonstrate comparable spine, he turned out to be the most obsequious of all
Prime Ministers, even after the unipolar-world-moment had passed.
This is the state of play when Prime
Minister Narendra Modi takes charge. So far he has sketched a balanced design
in Foreign Affairs. He must also place West Asia on his radar because this
vital part of our near abroad is in rapid change. A new West Asia is emerging.
We must engage at the highest level and help shape this change, taking heart
from Raees Amrohvi’s optimism many moons ago.
# # # #
No comments:
Post a Comment