(Editorial of The Star of the East Vol. 3 No. 1)
1981 has come, with little fanfare and much foreboding. In India
the twin recognition, on the one hand that Mrs. Gandhi is unlikely
to come up with any major realistic programme for ameliorating the
situation of poverty and injustice, worsened by fresh outbursts of
human cruelty, widespread government corruption, and general
indiscipline in the nation and on the other that there is no alternative
in sight to Mrs. Gandhi that could be any better deepens the prevail-
ing gloom and catalyses the latent cynicism of the Indian middle
classes. This in turn leads to a further disintegration of values in the
nation.
Mrs. Gandhi may be doing better in handling foreign policy
than in solving domestic problems. The dangers are many and not
all of them imaginary. A nuclear armed Pakistan can, with the help
of allied forces, start a rumpus in Kashmir with unpredictable conse-
quences for national security and integrity. There is some reason to
believe that outside forces are involved in fomenting communal riots,
and in making the North-East problem beyond conciliatory settlement.
America, starring Ronald Reagan, may turn out to be no more
disastrous in fact than a Wild West movie. But then, if the Indian
Ocean becomes the place of concentration for U. S. naval and nuclear
forces, India may have difficulty sleeping. In a crunch, some of that
“ force de frappe” can be used as a tool of “diktat” telling India
what to do in Kashmir or the North-East, as once happened during
the Bangladesh crisis. India, (along with Vietnam, Kampuchea and
Laos), seems to be in danger of being punished for refusing to line
up with the west, following all other nations in East Asia, including
the People’s Republic of China. Mrs. Gandhi understands this as
well as anybody else in India, and may have already taken measures.
The visit of Brezhnev to India, which the media in India as well as
elsewhere sought to depict as unproductive, may have had more signi-
ficance than these vested interest defending newspapers are willing to
concede.
The concern about the Reagan regime, which, thank God,
cannot last beyond four years, is not limited to India. His victory is
widely acknowledged as a slap in the face for the American liberal
tradition — a definite swing of the pendulum from the liberal East
coast to the conservative Mid-west and the insular Far-West. Mr.
Reagan and his colleagues have far fewer inhibitions than better-
informed Americans about the once-inspiring dream of a great and
powerful America as leader of the west, champion of democracy,
defender of the free world, and crusader against ungodly communism.
In any case Reagan’s bid to win back the leadership of the world
through a posture of Wild West toughness can be no more realistic
than Carter’s costly claim to set the world right through simple
honesty and straightforwardness in diplomatic relations. Reagan
will soon learn what Carter took a little longer to learn— that the
American President is neither omnipotent nor able to make all
decisions on his own even in domestic matters.
The point for India is two-fold — first that Reagan has openly
expressed his desire to increase the strength and duration of America’s
military presence in the Indian Ocean and second that he knows even
less than Carter did about our problems in India; nor has he so far
shown any signs of special friendship for India. Not that India has
any particular reason to prefer the cow-boy hug of Reagan to the
much berated bear-hug of Brezhnev. The realities of the situation
are so obvious even to such an anti-communist figure as B. J. P.
leader Vajpayee; we need the help of the Russian bear to ward off
the sharp claws of the American eagle. But there is perhaps another
side to it. The USSR has few friends on whom she can rely in Asia
as much as on India. And Mr. Brezhnev has left Indians in no doubt
that for the Russians, support of Mrs. Gandhi is even more important
than supporting the communist parties of India, in order to express
that reliance upon India.
Naturally this reality can be used by interested parties to argue
that India is deviating from the Non-Aligned path. Such arguments
come in very handy for those interests in the world who desire to
drive a wedge between the USSR and India, as well as to Two-third
world interests jealous of India’s leadership in the non-aligned move-
ment. What they forget is that non-alignment by no means implies
equidistance from the great powers. Non-alignment is a refusal to
commit oneself to support one side or the other and an insistence
that each issue will be settled on its merits and not on the basis of
which of the great powers is on which side. If the non-aligned
decisions tend to agree more often with the policy objectives of the
USSR than those of the USA, this means that there is more conflict
of interest between the Two-third world and the market economy
countries than between the former and socialist countries.
One bit of cheering news in the New Year has been the release of
American hostages in Iran. But does this ending of many months of
misery for the hostages mean also that Iran has finally made up its
mind that any price is not too high for getting the spare parts and
the additional arms necessary to win the war with Iraq? Does it
mean that Khomeini has decided, by force of circumstances, to follow
the path of the Shah in totally lining up with the west? It is possible
that the American ploy of making Iraq attack Iran has really worked.
It has more than secured the release of the hostages. A multi-million
dollar market has been opened up for the western arms trade, which
in itself is a big boost to a sagging western economy. An almost
comparable market in both Iraq and Iran has been provided by the
need to repair the oil installations that have been damaged by war.
Obviously the Russians do not want openly to side with Iraq,
for fear of pushing Khomeini into the bosom of the West. But will
Khomeini himself last? Are there not generals waiting in Paris to be
crowned in Teheran by the Americans? And what would a Pakistan-
Iran axis in league with the West and China mean for the security of
Kashmir and communal harmony between Muslims and Hindus in
India? Mrs. Gandhi and India’s very sober foreign minister Rao
seem to be aware of these questions, though their efforts to reconcile
Iraq and Iran stand little chance of succeeding.
The heavy arms build-up in the Indian ocean is justified by
America on the assumption that the vital interests of the American
people are buried in the oil-fields of the Gulf area, and the charge
that Russia’s move into Afghanistan is a first step towards the take
over of West Asian oil fields, which would give the USSR a strangle-
hold on the Western economy and on the Market Economy system
as such.
As far as Afghanistan itself is concerned, events go to show that
the forces for socialism in that peasant land of warring tribes have
less influence on the minds of the Afghan people than the vibrant
emotions of “Islam in danger” or “life and death struggle of belief
against unbelief” spread by sophisticated propaganda interests, speci-
ally trained in Pakistan to use Islamic feelings as a most effective
anti-socialist weapon.
We do not want to play the game of the World Astrologers
Conference recently gathered together in India, nor to take their
word that the Third World War will not come this year. If there is
a third world war, it can come only as the result of a wrong decision
on the part of the leaders of the two leading powers. Such an error
is even more likely this year than the next. For in a year’s time,
even Reagan would have understood the harsh realities of a nuclear
war, which despite arguments to the contrary, can neither be conta-
ined nor won. If the folly of being armed to the teeth as counter-
productive in terms of national security is realized on all sides, there
is nothing other than the fact that the arms race and arms trade are
profitable to a small group of powerful people, to stop the world
from beginning to disarm, and to use the resources so saved to solve
the problems of poverty and injustice all over the world.
Unfortunately in India the debate among intellectual circles
seems preoccupied with non-issues like Parliamentary versus
Presidential system of Government. Since everybody thinks that the
debate is part of Mrs. Gandhi’s scheme to introduce again a dictator-
ship in the country, opposition intellectuals get into such great fury
that they affirm without batting an eyelid that the present system is
working quite well. There are three points (among others) at which
the present system fails miserably (a) its inability to mobilise the
masses for social production with justice and equity; (b) the enor-
mously expensive character of the election machinery which lets even
leftist political parties become enslaved to the money-bags and their
interests; and (c) the odious practice of defection and changing of
parties by legislators elected by the people on a particular party plat-
form. The Presidential system would help only in the third point,
but would make little difference in the other two areas. A Presiden-
tial system has the advantage that the President would not have to
spend all his (or her) time trying to stay in power. Elected for four
or five years, the President can devote the time not for ensuring
political survival but to get something done.
Whether President or Prime Minister, to infuse a little discipline
into the Government and into the political system in India today is
hardly possible without taking the risk of assuming powers whicn can
be used also to suppress certain fundamental rights like protest
demonstrations or newspaper criticism. The fact of the matter is
that the people sometimes feel that the protesters and the newspapers
are also putting their own interests before the interests of the nation
and especially of the poor. In India it is quite possible to organize
protests, provided one has someone to pay the bill (this applies even
to the recent farmers’ agitation), ^nd most of the English language
newspapers in our country are run by moneybags in their own
interests and in the interests of their affluent readers and advertisers.
A general reduction in the number and volume of protest demonstra-
tions may turn out to be healthy for the economy. And what our
English language newspapers say cannot always be taken as the voice
of the people.
Which set of risks should we take — that of going on as we now
are, drifting into anarchy and chaos, or accepting a measure of disci-
pline, knowing fully well that the day may not be far in the future
when discipline turns into authoritarianism and the people’s protest
energies would have to be turned full blast against that authoritaria-
nism? It is somewhat unfair to forget that Mrs. Gandhi’s ordering
a general election in 1977 was a democratic act — whatever her own
motives might have been — a democratic act which freed us from
oppressive authoritarianism. It was not the Janata party that libe-
rated us, it was the people’s vote which was allowed to be exercised
and was accepted without demur.
Once that process of expressing the people’s verdict through free
and democratic elections can be exercised periodically every four or
five years, the difference between Prime Minister and President is
simply that the latter has political security for one term and does not
need to concentrate all effort on political survival.
Mrs. Gandhi is perhaps one of the few persons around in Asia
capable of world leadership. In fact, she is much better and fairly
unerring in her judgments about international relations than about
domestic issues. A little peace, through the Presidential system, may
give her a better chance to do something creative in international
relations as her father trained her to do. On the domestic front,
only the hand of God working in totally unconceived ways, can open
up a glimmer of hope.
