I have just returned from a trip to France to co-chair the annual Indo-French literary salon. The occasion gave me an opportunity to interact with a large number of people, both in literature, and outside. There is considerable interest in this European capital on what is happening in India, and surprisingly, people are quite well-informed on even the minutiae of the fast moving political developments back home. Those who spoke to me were not necessarily from the official establishment, but people from different walks of life, including old India lovers, academics, and young entrepreneurs watching carefully what India has to offer.
I have isolated two issues, not only for their frequent reiteration, but because of their importance.
Firstly, the French are watching carefully the rise of Narendra Modi and the actions of the new government led by him. This interest is not without admiration, but is also laced with a great deal of curiosity. What does the new dispensation mean for India? What kind of man is Mr Modi? What does this mean for the development of the Indian economy, and the new opportunities for foreign investors?
But there is also concern. Several of my interlocutors wanted to know what will happen to the social consensus that has been one of the foundations of the Indian Republic. Will the delicately woven centuries old plural tapestry of India unravel? Are tensions between people of different faiths likely to exacerbate? Will the Bharatiya Janata Party insensitively pursue its Hindutva agenda, and what would be the consequences if it does? How will the BJP deal with some of the more rabid communal elements in the Sangh Parivar? What is the reality of the campaign of “love jihad”? Will the “moral” brigade of the Sangh Parivar run riot? Will Hindi be imposed across India? Will Sanskrit now be made compulsory, and how will Indians respond to this evangelical fiat? There were even trite questions on whether meat will be banned.
In responding to these questions I was guided by the cardinal principle that internal political differences are best voiced within India. For instance, to several questions on what the creation of a separate ministerial responsibility for the propagation of yoga means, I ventured to say that yoga was a great civilisational asset for India, and any focused attempt to popularise it within India, including in schools, and to ensure its spread abroad, is a good step. At the same time I added that I remain confident that yoga will not be seen within a narrow religious prism, nor will it be used to push a communal agenda.
My central takeaway was that to a great many people abroad who are watching us carefully, India does not merely represent the sum of its immediate political developments, or the aggregate of its current economic policies. It is seen as a civilisation, with myriad strands and vibrant diversities, a crucible of over a billion people, whose viability is both a cause of admiration and a test for composite democratic societies everywhere. Any attempt to tinker with this remarkably syncretic entity will cause foreboding, including among hard-nosed political scientists and economists and corporate players. When, at the recent World Hindu Congress, Ashok Singhal, president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad said that after 800 years Hindu rule is back in India, his statement is likely to create consternation not only in India but also abroad.
A second issue in the minds of people was the rise of China, and collaterally, the state of India-China relations. Of course, China is a bigger power than India, both territorially and in terms of gross domestic product and military hardware. It is today the world’s largest manufacturer, the largest exporter, and by the end of this year will overtake the US in purchasing parity power terms as the world’s largest economy. China and India are both seen as the new stars, not only in Asia, but on the global stage. The fact that they have an unresolved territorial dispute, and frequent skirmishes along the border, was seen partly as proof of the continuing rivalry between the two Asian giants.
Europe, as part of its own history, tends, I think, to see the rise of nations in hostility or rivalry terms. But, Europe has also succeeded in forging the largest and most powerful collective in the world, transcending political and economic boundaries, in the form of the European Union. Will China and India contribute to global stability, or will their jostling for primacy be a cause of instability in the world, was the sub-text of the questions in this area. China was seen as the more aggressive and ascendant power, but India’s strengths, including most overtly in being a democracy, was mentioned.
In India, we often become completely absorbed in our insular politics. We forget that the world is watching India too, and with renewed interest every passing year. That observation has percolated to the lay person as well. This ceaseless evaluation must require us to pause, and to evaluate our own actions beyond merely the prism of immediate political machinations.
There is more at stake than just the transient highs and lows of internal politics. On the front line is the image and substance of what India is and what it stands for. The communications revolution has put us on stage as never before. And, occasionally, transcending our presumptions about ourselves, it is good to expose ourselves to the hopes and concerns about us beyond our borders.
Author-diplomat Pavan K. Varma has been recently elected to the Rajya Sabha
