India has much to learn from Britain and Germany

Indians who think that we have outdone Britain in all things British — such as mastery of the English language, cricket and the Westminster model — should think again.

Last week’s visit of British Foreign Minister William Hague and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne served as a reminder of much that Indians have yet to learn from the British, especially in the world of diplomacy and international relations.

Britain places high value on the power of commerce. After all, its political and military dominance when Britannia ruled the waves was founded on its trading power. The Gujaratis know this better than many others, which explains their prosperity and success in the UK.

Although the world’s best known Gujarati — Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi — made the British pull out from India, Gujarat and Gujaratis have always been important to Britain; and, that from the standpoint of their national interest. Thus, British national interest, though driven by business, is not limited by it.

In the aftermath of the 2002 riots in Gujarat, the UK joined the rest of the international community in boycotting Chief Minister Narendra Modi. The British government scuttled his plan to visit the UK in 2005 citing the threat to his life and public disorder. Yet in 2012, the British High Commissioner travelled to Gujarat to meet Modi. This cleared the decks for resuming business as usual.

Now that Modi is the Prime Minister, the British would be remembered for being the first to end the boycott of Modi as Chief Minister. This is in the interest of healthy bilateral relations, which London expects would make for better trade and commerce, and improve the chances of India opting for the British Eurofighter aircraft.

At the same time, Britain took care not to ignore constituencies other than business. The announcement, by Ministers Hague and Osborne, to install Mahatma Gandhi’s statue in London’s Parliament Square would generate a lot of goodwill. Even those critical of the UK hastening to do business with Modi would appreciate this gesture.

Further, indirectly but emphatically, the British made the point that justice to the victims of the 2002 riots in Gujarat remains a live issue in Britain. This was done by raising the issue of the three UK nationals who were killed by a mob near Ahmedabad. Hague bringing up this during talks with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj suggests that business as usual with India cannot be taken to mean British should remain silent in the matter of justice for victims of the 2002 riots.

This pursuit of diverse objectives by a government of multi-ethnic Britain is a reminder that, whatever the numbers in Parliament, issues of justice cannot be swept under the carpet; and, it is not in the national interest to do so.

If the British ministers’ visit was instructive at one level, Germany’s expulsion of a top US intelligence operative was an example, at another level, of how even a close friend and ally can hit back in defence of national interest.

Germany is a frontline NATO state and a trusted military, political, economic and diplomatic ally of the US. This did not deter the US from spying on German political leaders and eavesdropping on their conversations. Germany did not take it lying down. It expelled the US spy, and its Chancellor Angela Merkel stressed the need for trust.

In the Modi sarkar, no one so much as murmured displeasure at the intrusive US snooping on India and on Indian diplomatic missions when they met Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, who came to deliver Obama’s invitation to Modi.

In the euphoria of being invited by President Obama, the NDA government let slip the chance to raise the issues of national interest, security and honour, which have soured India-US relations.

The author is an independent political and foreign affairs commentator