Opinion Reinventing the Raj

If London and Delhi do need to recast their relationship,Cameron seems just the right interlocutor for India. Unlike his post-modern political rivals in New Labour,who could not resist the temptation of telling India how to solve its problems,Cameron brings both realism and enthusiasm to the project of building a “special relationship” with Delhi.

Any suggestion of the Raj as a template for the proposed special relationship may irritate the nationalists at home and embarrass our guests from London. But Dr Singh broke that taboo five years ago this month when he spoke at Oxford University.

Underlining the many positive legacies of the Raj,Dr Singh cited Mahatma Gandhi’s hopes for a productive post-colonial partnership between Delhi and London. Asked in 1931,during a short stay at Oxford,on whether India would distance itself from London after independence,Gandhi said,“The British Empire is an empire only because of India. The emperorship must go and I should love to be an equal partner with Britain,sharing her joys and sorrows. But it must be a partnership on equal terms.”

Dr Singh also referred to the decision of India’s first prime minister,Jawaharlal Nehru,who took India into the British Commonwealth against much criticism in Delhi. Nehru explained his decision by underlining the “free basis” of the political cooperation he visualised with Britain.

India should not deny itself a beneficial engagement with Britain “simply because in the past we had fought and thus carry on the trail of our past karma along with us. We have to wash out the past with all its evil.”

Despite the optimism of India’s founding fathers about a future relationship with Britain, Delhi and London steadily drifted apart. The Cold War,the Anglo-American tilt towards Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir,India’s drift towards the Soviet Union,and the steady erosion of economic links removed all foundations for a partnership — equal or otherwise.

It is only the end of the Cold War and India’s outward economic orientation that opened the doors in the early ’90s for renewing a serious bilateral engagement. Much has happened in the last two decades,but a lot remains to be done on bringing the British and Indian economies closer.

Beyond trade and commerce,Dr Singh and Cameron should focus on liberating the bilateral ties from the political constraints that have prevented a genuine security cooperation since the proclamation of a strategic partnership in 2005.

One important obstacle to stronger political ties had been Labour’s condescension towards India. Whether it was Robin Cook’s “values-based foreign policy” or David Miliband’s emphasis on addressing the “root causes” of anti-India terrorism,the Labour governments could not mask their itch to meddle in India’s disputes with Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir.

If Cameron can bury the ghost of Kashmir,once and for all,he will remove an important source of lingering Indian distrust of Britain. That should,in turn,open the door for Dr Singh to explore the prospects for long-term security cooperation between Delhi and London in pacifying the turbulent lands between the Indus and the Hindu Kush,which have become the source of a great national security threat to both the countries.

Through much of its history,the Raj was obsessed with the security of its northwestern frontiers. Six decades after the dissolution of the Raj,that frontier is the world’s epicentre of violent extremism.

A reconstituted Raj would involve Delhi and London looking beyond the question of a few arms sales. (A widely expected deal on the supply of additional Hawk jet trainers was signed in Bangalore on Wednesday.) Dr Singh and Cameron should try and define the framework for a strong bilateral defence partnership.

That security vision in turn must have two elements. On the question of “ends”,the emphasis must be on returning India and Britain to the Raj tradition of keeping the global commons secure and open for all. This would involve India and Britain pooling their resources to keep open the sea lines of communication in the Indian Ocean and beyond. It should also include joint efforts to counter the growing threats to cyberspace,so critical to the functioning of international society and the world economy today.

Then there is the question of the “means”. As Britain cuts its military expenditure,downsizes its armed forces and limits its political objectives amidst a big resource crunch at home,India should take the opportunity to propose a comprehensive partnership between the defence industries of the two countries.

Creating a policy environment for greater private sector investment in each other’s arms production would help sustain the defence industrial base in Britain,its expansion in India and their eventual integration.

For all the talk of “decline” in London,Britain would want to keep punching well above its weight in world affairs. A strong partnership with India should help Britain prolong its place at the global high table.

India on the other hand needs partners who can ease its path to a larger international role. The people,resources and institutions of Britain are India’s welcome force multipliers. Delhi and London,then,have every incentive to pool their resources — in other words reinvent the Raj — for mutual benefit.

raja.mohan@expressindia.com