London celebrations

Not our man in London: The Tribune India


Rajesh Ramachandran

On closer inspection, all the panegyrics – the mother of all parliaments, the womb of democracy, the model of Westminster – ring ridiculously hollow. Of course, no one ever told the British king that his democracy was showing. It wasn’t until Rishi Sunak was appointed (or selected) to the Prime Minister’s office that it dawned on the world that the mother of all parliaments had always left only white children to hold her hand. The famous Westminster pattern was meant to protect white privilege, and yet rogues in the old colonies copied it, again, to preserve white privilege, because this pattern offered the old master the opportunity to tinker with newly freed slaves. .

A person of Indian origin who obtains a political office abroad is more a handicap than an advantage in advancing the interests of India.

It is indeed a pity that an institution whose history dates back to the 13th century has never allowed a person from a minority community to run the house. So any discourse on diversity, often funded by UK NGOs, should now begin by explaining why it took Britain so long to have diversity at 10 Downing Street. And this question leads to another, more relevant one: why now? Why should a nation that prides itself on its customs, traditions, wigs, and robes suddenly have to give it all up for a dark-haired man professing a “beastly religion”? The answer could only be that it is in Britain’s interest to have Sunak as prime minister. Only those with a good ear on London soil can tell us exactly what special interests Sunak serves.

But there is no doubt that he was chosen to serve the interests of white privilege or Western consensus. After becoming prime minister, Sunak pushed all the right buttons. He pumped up Zelenskyy, snubbed Putin, promised to counter China’s “evil influence” and appointed an anti-immigration interior minister. So why it should be Sunak and not another white MP remains a mystery. Does this appointment have anything to do with a course correction in the British or Western perspective on their loose grip on India?

The fear of China’s rise has obviously restricted the circulation of London-headquartered instruments of global finance capital, and they would obviously have far fewer takers in an emasculated Europe, especially after Brexit. In this context, the best possible market to make money from is the poorly regulated but bottomless Indian market.

Despite the devastating demonetization of the informal sector and the Covid lockdown inflicting untold suffering on the poor, the Indian market is bouncing back like a ping pong ball. With almost every other slightly upper middle class Indian family sending their wards to the West for higher education, it would seem that Central India has an average disposable income of around half a crore of rupees. So it makes sense for a nation of traders to have a brown man to sell their wares.

The takeaway from the hype over the elevation of a beef-eating, cow-worshipping opportunist as Britain’s new prime minister is that there is nothing to celebrate for Indians. In fact, if Sunak is a Churchill worshiper, like most other conservatives, India has reason to worry when dealing with a seemingly dark-haired person on the other side of the table. The disregard of the British government – which included Sunak – for Indian territorial integrity was on full display last year when it hosted the Khalistan referendum in London.

Interestingly, even the grandsons of former colonial collaborators – like the one who gave General Dyer a saropa or the false witness in the Bhagat Singh trial – are still celebrated by the British establishment. Until recently, a letter from one of the grandsons of these former collaborators could fetch an asylum visa for a regular immigrant in the UK or Canada.

This week marks 75 years since the first war against India by Pakistan. According to ADC Narendra Sarila of Mountbatten, this had been predicted by General Leslie Hollis of Churchill’s war cabinet a good five months earlier, in May 1947. Well, it couldn’t have been predicted without the idea was engineered by the same group that wanted Kashmir to join Pakistan against the will of its people. The burden of history is so heavy that it is hard to expect anything dramatically positive from a party-led government that shamelessly created the circumstances of the Bengal famine that killed three million people – half the death toll in the Jewish Holocaust.

While dealing with brown people across the table Indian politicians need to remind their counterparts that they need to lock up and deport Indian visa violators who overstay but at the same time they need to understand that their asylum policy has been exposed as a way to reinforce religious secessionism in India. Also, Britain should cease to be a safe haven for Indian fugitives. Let businessmen buy residences in the UK, but not for the purpose of finding a hiding place to enjoy the fruits of bank failures and fraud.

With the example of Kamala Harris, it should now be clear to Indian politicians that a person of Indian origin obtaining political office abroad is often more of a liability than an advantage in advancing the interests of India. India in this country. A politician, by definition, is at the mercy of his constituents, his colleagues, his accomplices and the media. So even a hint of disloyalty to local mores can end a career. No wonder the United States still hasn’t elected a president or vice president from a minority religious group or even an atheist; all since 1789 seem to have taken the oath with one hand on the Bible.

India, on the contrary, was truly democratic and inclusive until, of course, the BJP decided not to have Muslim ministers in the Union Cabinet. Just 20 years after partition, which created a separate nation for Muslims, India had a Muslim president. According to the Westminster model, this would amount to asking King Charles to convert!