The Fernandes factor

For so long have we lived with a narrow, inflexible and unimaginative definition of the national interest that we are no longer open to new ideas, thoughts and strategies. In security and foreign policies, consensus and consistency are today’s buzzwords. We have had seven prime ministers in less than a decade and they have maintained the same “consensus”. That makes us feel smug, and the denizen of Roosevelt House (the US Ambassador in New Delhi) comfortable, but it has its downside.

Foralmost a quarter century since the Pokharan test, not one new idea has emerged in our grand strategic thought, barring the change forced by the end of the Cold War. It is a bit sad not merely because this is the land of Kautilya and Arthashastra but also because we have in our system politicians, soldiers, academics and analysts of the highest calibre and experience. Yet see our MPs “debate” the strategic and foreign-policy issues in Parliament and parrot the same old lines again and again, the inanity of it all cutting across the proverbial party lines.

Or watch our analysts and grand strategists. In many years of living on the margins of the security seminar circuit I have rarely seen two Indians differ substantively. Some might say it with better articulation or with greater passion. But the point is always the same. You see the kind of unity, sense of common purpose and understanding that our cricket and hockey teams could do with. A few who dared to differ have been pilloried and blackballed. So theyhave a pacifist seminar circuit of their own. In this circuit as well, no new thinking emerges because no two persons differ. Thank God for the Pakistanis and the Americans. At least they have different points of view, so there is somebody for us to argue with.

This is not the way a mature, confident democracy with pretensions to a role on the international stage conducts its strategic debate. Open the pages of the journals produced by our premier think-tanks and you find the same points made over and over again by different interlocutors in the alleged debate. When everybody within the think-tanks agrees on everything which is the same as the government policy, and the media not merely agrees with it but applauds it, it is time for India to get worried. For a democracy with so much intellectual talent it is awful self-denial.

If the wisdom inherited by us is indeed the ultimate truth on issues of grand strategy, if no change or departure is ever going to be possible without violating the holy“consensus”, why don’t we just go ahead and incorporate it in the Constitution? Think of the money and time that will then be saved as we shut down our think-tanks, suspend all parliamentary debate and ban newspaper columns on the CTBT, NPT, FMCT, CWC and other such horrendously boring acronyms. Our readers won’t complain.

This is where the Fernandes factor comes in. Why must anyone who dares to differ immediately become suspect in terms of national interest? Just because he has a different view on the Sri Lankan Tamils, or the Burmese democratic movement, Kashmir or Tibet, we are not inclined to trust him fully with the national interest. Why can’t we pause for a moment and think that perhaps he nurtures these beliefs because, in his worldview, these further, rather than diminish, the national interest?

You can differ with him on these fads, as I do, but don’t cast aspersions on his nationalism. In a diverse, liberal system we must learn to respect this diversity of thought as much as we value ourpluralism in other areas. Mrs Gandhi played this game to perfection. Anyone who dared to question any aspect of her foreign or security policy was promptly declared anti-national. So she walked the path of national disaster unquestioned on issues such as support to Sri Lankan guerrillas, Operation Bluestar and the pro-Moscow tilt even after the invasion of Afghanistan. Many in the BJP took their cue from her and there was so much vicious tattle about the way George Fernandes handled Kashmir affairs as the minister in charge of the state while his own party’s governor Jagmohan was following a policy more to the BJP’s liking. None of us ever bothered to listen to his point of view before rejecting it as romantic nonsense. We wondered as to which side he was on ours or Pakistan’s as he criticised the army for human rights violations, advocated policies to kick-start Kashmir’s economy and a dialogue with its people. Now he is our defence minister.

After fifty years of freedom, we must acquire the confidenceto understand that those who think differently on such crucial issues also probably do so because they have the national interest as close to their heart as we, the chronic conformists, do. I learned this small lesson many years ago when among our foreign policy hacks it was almost the rule to prefix the expression “pro-Indian Congressman” with the name of Stephen Solarz. He wore Jawahar jackets, rosebud and all, and was the only American of consequence who said things we Indians liked to hear on Kashmir, terrorism and Pakistan. But at a relaxed, informal meal in Washington one evening Solarz put himself in perspective: “You make a mistake by calling me pro-Indian. I am pro-American. It is just that I believe a better relationship with India is in my own country’s interest.”

What will happen to a senior MP here if he were to advocate a more aggressive opening out to Washington? All of us, from the media to the Intelligence Bureau, would begin to look at his travel records and dossiers to find out whenexactly he was “compromised” by the CIA. This kind of narrow-mindedness is the hallmark of banana republics and Communist states and it is a great pity that we have similarly condemned ourselves to conducting our strategic battles from frozen positions. One maverick like Fernandes won’t change all that, but he could make us pause and think and open up the debate on what best serves our national interest.