B.RAMAN
The misgivings entertained till now in the West regarding
the advisability of doing business as usual with Shri Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of
Gujarat, are showing signs of subsiding.
2.That is the message that comes out loud and clear
from the visit of Mr.James Bevan, the British High Commissioner to India, to
Gujarat on October 22,2012. Till now, the UK was following in the footsteps of
other European Union countries in avoiding any governmental, including
diplomatic, interaction with the Government of Gujarat in general and Shri Modi
in particular. This policy of avoidance of interaction was a sequel to the
widespread communal riots in Gujarat in 2002 and the deaths of three Muslims of
British origin in the State during the riots. This policy of avoidance of
Governmental interactions did not, however, stand in the way of British
investors---of Gujarati as well as non-Gujarati origin---investing in Gujarat.
3. The decision to end the policy of avoidance of
Governmental interactions was announced by Mr.Hugo Swire, a Minister in the
British Foreign Office, some weeks ago. While announcing the decision, he said:
“ This will allow us to discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest in
Gujarat. We want to secure justice for the families of the British nationals
who were killed in 2002.” It was in pursuance of this announcement that
Mr.Bevan visited Gujarat.
4. Among those he reportedly met during his visit
were Shri Modi himself, Ms. Kamala Beniwal, the Governor of the State, and
Mr.Arjun Modhvadia, the President of the State Congress. Reading between the
lines of the statements and observations of Mr.Bevan, two significant points
are evident.
5.Firstly, the UK continues to attach importance to
the question of human rights in Gujarat. Secondly, it decided to resume
interactions with Shri Modi and other members of the Gujarat Government because
it sees no reason to blame Shri Modi personally for the violations in 2002. The
British move is a clear indication that the British Government no longer feels
that alleged sins of commission and omission of Shri Modi contributed to the
massacre of the Muslims in 2002, as alleged by his detractors.
6. Sections of the Muslim community of
sub-continental origin in the UK have strongly protested against the British
decision. It is significant that the British High Commissioner went ahead with
his visit to Gujarat despite these protests. This shows that the British
Government took its decision after a careful consideration of its implications
and there is little likelihood of its reversing the decision under pressure
from its Muslim community.
7.Mr.Bevan has also been quoted as saying that the
British Government took the decision on its own without prior consultation with
the Governments of other EU countries.
There is an element of surprise that Mr.Bevan undertook the visit during the
current election campaign in Gujarat, but he did not seem to be worried that
this could be politically misinterpreted in India.
8.The only other EU country which has officially
commented on the British decision is Germany. Its officials have been quoted as
saying that Germany would wait till the elections to the Gujarat Assembly are
over before examining the matter.
9.It is likely that after the State elections,
other EU countries may follow the British example. The ultimate attitude of the
US is not yet clear.
10. If the British decision is followed by other EU
countries, it will pave the way for the end of the diplomatic avoidance of Shri
Modi followed by the EU countries since 2002. If the US also joins, it could
lead to a collateral strengthening of the Prime Ministerial claims of Shri
Modi.
11. While Shri Modi has a very good record as the
Chief Minister, what stands in the way of his prime ministerial aspirations is
his image as non-secular among political elements outside Gujarat and the
diplomatic avoidance by the Western countries.
12.With the seeming beginning of the end of the
policy of diplomatic avoidance, only the mental reservations still in India outside
Gujarat about his credentials as a pan-Indian and all-community leader will stand
in the way of his aspirations. But if the BJP, under his leadership, fights the
next elections to the Lok Sabha unitedly
and scores a significant victory, it may be difficult for other political
formations in the NDA coalition to oppose the acceptance of Shri Modi as the
post-2014 P.M. ( 23-10-12)
(The writer
is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi,
and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate
of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter @SORBONNE75)
5 comments:
taniesFI simply fail to understand the hysteria that this issue has created in India. The UK is doing it for its own economic or political interests. Personally I think money talks and in this case it is doing it very well and eloquently. Why are we getting so hyper about it?
Doing business with Gujrat is also doing business with India is how I look at it.
DK Cooper
Sir, are these European countries seeing the leadership famine in Congress / UPA in general - given that most of them are under cloud of scams, and that the had-been-great-hope Rahul Gandhi turned out to be a dud?
UK even had working relationship with Md. Gaddafi after Lockerbie bombing. I am not equating Gaddafi with Modi. I am just reminding author to not overemphasize the significance of any unavoidable circumstances....Indians should make up their own mind for their own interest irrespective of what other countries do or don't.
All rulers of Middle East and some African and even Asian countries are not secularist and still UK USA and other countries keep relations with them. Till 1961 even USA was racist.
Real politik at work, Mr raman. I expected no different and more real politik: no political party will give up chance 4 government because of Modi. Not even Germany! Don't forget Modi is no Hitler.
Post a Comment