I was fortunate to have had an audience with Sathya Sai Baba on two occasions. The first time was in the winter of 1971, when I was in Bangalore with the prime minister of Poland. Mohan Lal Sukhadia, Karnataka’s governor at the time, narrated a few “miracles” of Baba and later arranged for me to go to Whitefield. I returned with the ashes that Baba had conjured. The second time was at a friend’s house in New Delhi. I never became a follower, but always admired and respected this holy man who provided solace to so many people all over the world. It is India’s genius to give birth to people with exceptional transcendental powers.
Now from the sublime to the mundane. You’ve got to hand it to the Chinese for practising such a sure-footed foreign policy. In 1997, Hong Kong changed hands. It returned to the mother country after being a British colony for 99 years. Mao Zedong’s China could have terminated the lease any time after October 1949, when the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established. Britain was in no position to take on the PRC. Hong Kong figured nearly at the bottom of China’s immediate priorities. It never gave up its claim on Hong Kong. Mao and Deng Xiaoping decided to wait so that once the apple was ripe, it fell in Beijing’s lap.
No drastic changes have been enacted in Hong Kong in the past 16 years. Capitalism and communism share the same bed. This embrace will continue till 2047. China thinks in terms of centuries, not five-year plans.
Let me provide some historical masala here. In 1962, the United Nation’s (UN’s) Committee on Decolonisation prepared a list of colonial territories, protectorates, dependencies and trust territories. Since Hong Kong was a British colony, the Committee was within its rights to include Hong Kong in the list. The Chinese delegation objected. It argued that Hong Kong was on a lease to the British, and it was part of China, so the Committee could not, and must not, include it in the list. The UN accepted China’s point. Clearly, China plays the waiting game. This also applies to our border dispute. China is in no hurry. The status quo suits that country.
I have given this background to highlight the finesse with which the PRC handles diplomacy. At the end of the BRICS summit in Sanya, a statement was issued which, among other things, mentioned that Brazil, India and South Africa deserved to play a greater role at the UN including the Security Council. The statement was not India-specific. Nor did it refer to permanent membership. Yet, our officialdom went lyrical: “China supports India.” To put it mildly, this reaction was immature and misplaced. India will become a permanent member only when the five permanent members agree on a package before the UN charter is amended to enlarge the Security Council. The sensible thing would be to practise dignified restraint and avoid exuberance.
A few weeks ago, I asked in this column: Does India have an Arab policy? So far it appears that it does not. Has the ministry of external affairs (MEA) deplored, if not condemned, the brutality that Presidents Bashar Assad and Ali Abdullah Saleh continue to inflict on the people. Jawaharlal Nehru had unambiguously declared that India would not sit quiet when freedom and liberty were endangered. Who is minding the MEA diplomatic shop when the prime minister is on his all-too-frequent jaunts. Is it S M Krishna?
The level of the national political dialogue is going down. Unseemly name calling, verbal overkill and unbridled point-scoring, at a time when vital issues are at stake, are most lamentable. Anna Hazare is the latest whipping boy of one or two of the Congress “worthies”, who persist in their folly even after the Congress president has praised, not denigrated, Mr Hazare. Efforts are afoot to block the horizon of civil and social societies. It’s time to put an end to the odour emanating from certain political dens.
Tailpiece
Indira Gandhi is often presented as a solemn and severe person, and is rarely given the credit for her sense of humour. Her information adviser for 16 years, the late Sharada Prasad, had an impressive stock of jokes and amusing stories.
