New Labour’s old obligations

I think the absence of men of stature outside the system has made the British dependent on mediocre politicians. There are no Webbs, Tawneys or Laskis today. There are no bright ideas, there is no intellectual debate. On TV one watches puerile discussions by experts of limited intelligence and politicians of dubious conviction. Thinkers, if there are any, seem to have been pushed into the background. It is ironic that democratic socialism was born in Britain. It was a country where ideals of egalitarianism thrived. But now racial discrimination and exhortations to go it alone to meet the imperatives of economic liberalisation and privatisation have drowned the voice of equality in every sphere.

Whatever the time at his disposal, Blair may try to do two things. One is to mitigate the damage he has done to his personal and his country’s image on Iraq. He may approach the Islamic world indirectly and start taking more interest in West Asia. Since Palestine is the key to the region, he may want to placate its people and criticise Israel more directly. He knows that whatever he says or does regarding Iraq will carry no conviction but if he can win the confidence of the Palestinians, he may to a great extent repair his image among Muslims.

The reason why he did not support President George W. Bush on Iran was the realisation that this might further irritate the followers of Islam. Blair is also conscious of Britain’s economic interests in West Asia. In coming days when Europe tries to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear programme, London may be seen to be fiercely supporting Tehran’s right to develop nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes.

The second thing that Blair would want to pursue is to liberalise the British economy further, without offending labour unions and the left wing within his party. He has already negated the influence of radicals in the Labour Party and convinced the rank and file to even adopt Thatcherite economic reform. This is also one of the reasons why the Conservatives are struggling to portray themselves as a credible alternative to Labour. But Blair has still to move farther towards the right in order to develop new markets to create more jobs. How far he can push Labour is going to be Blair’s test. He also sees Europe as a competitor and therefore may try to span the distance between London and Beijing. He will pay more attention to India, with which Britain is familiar and with which it has traded for decades. But London’s predicament is that New Delhi is also expanding the services sector, Britain’s strong point.

Difference of perception between Britain and India on Kashmir have been reduced because London is no longer seen to be pro-Islamabad. But I recall when Labour was in the wilderness it toyed with the idea of an independent Kashmir. The party’s shadow foreign secretary, Gerald Kaufman, was the main exponent and 15 years back he brought Blair to India on a trip which New Delhi financed. Blair was taken in by Kaufman’s ideas and it took him some time to strike equidistance from India and Pakistan. I don’t think the Labour government will try to involve itself in the Kashmir issue because it has realised that New Delhi is staunchly opposed to third party intervention.

There is, however, one way for Blair to win hearts in India, by return the hundreds of Indian antiques kept in the basement of the Victoria and Albert Museum. The Nehru Gallery, opened during my tenure, displayed only 4 per cent of what Britain had appropriated during its rule. It was Blair who initiated the idea of returning the Elgin Marbles to Greece. Why not Indian relics, besides the Kohinoor?