Whether the agitating employees of the various
embassies alleged that often the staff members were addressed as "bloody
Indians", was accurate or not, is not important. The fact is that the
attitude of the ambassador, whose chauffeur was killed recently near Taj
Palace Hotel, was quite casual. This, however, is not the first time that
India appeared to be a country that can be taken lightly.
Pakistan, which is much smaller and less resourceful
than India, has treated us with virtual contempt since its birth in 1947.
Protest as you like, appeal as you wish, terrorists keep crossing into our
territory at their sweet will. Not many months ago, the Bangladesh border
police had the audacity not only to kill several Border Security Force jawans
but also to carry them on bamboos as if they were shikar animals. Outlook
carried one such picture on its cover.
More recently, software engineers from India were apprehended from their
houses in Malaysia at dead of night. They had not committed so great a crime
as to deserve such humiliation. Even if they were overstaying their visas,
they should have been deported. Would, for example, comparable Chinese
citizens have been treated with such contempt? And if they had been, what
would have been the consequences?
Two years ago, an American plane had strayed into the Chinese air space. The
aircraft was arrested, dismantled, examined to its last nut and bolt. It was
released after many weeks of diplomatic pleadings. There are not many areas
wherein India and China are not comparable countries. Yet, look at the awe
with which Chinese authority is respected. It is, in fact, treated as a
superpower. China enjoys, what Professor Lutwack, the American authority on
strategy, would call an armed suasion. When a country earns the reputation of
being much more powerful than it actually is, the difference between image
and reality is armed suasion. One of his favourite examples is Mussolini's
Italy and its reputation as the most powerful air power in Europe during the
1930s. A key to Mussolini's political stature in his heyday was the
reputation of his air force.
In contrast, India suffers from, what may be called, unarmed dissuasion. What
it means is that the image of the Indian alchemy is much smaller than the sum
total of country's mettle or virtues. Somehow in the eyes of the world, India
appears much less important than it is. The fault, however, does not lie with
the world. If we introspect, we would realise that the only war on the
subcontinent that we have decisively won was in 1971. The Indo-China conflict
of 1962 was an unadulterated humiliation for us. Beyond the subcontinent,
hardly any Indian king or principality has defeated anyone since Chandragupta
Maurya threw out Seleucus, the general whom Alexander the Great had left
behind to rule Bactria. That was 24 centuries ago.
Although people of Indian origin are in a majority in Fiji, yet they have
been pushed aside. The Indian Government was able to use little influence to
see that justice was not brutalised. When Idi Amin expelled Indians from
Uganda, nothing was done by New Delhi. Therefore, it is not surprising that
our country is being taken for granted as a nation which does not react, no
matter how it is treated. The contempt with which the driver employed by the
embassy of Senegal was treated is not an isolated incident.
Why should a foreigner treat Indians better when Indians themselves treat
their own kind so badly? One has merely to read the national dailies to know
how much self-condemnation the country suffers from its own intellectuals and
journalists. The Ministry of External Affairs must accept the responsibility
from the days of Nehru across the decades to now. As far as a layman can see,
the Ministry has done nothing to nurture India's image. However, the fault is
not confined to external affairs but also to levels of our domestic
tolerance. Take, for example, what Husain painted. He has not only portrayed
some Hindu deities in the nude but has gone to the extent of showing Sita
masturbating on the long tail of Hanuman!
The proof of the contempt lies in Husain painting non-Hindu ladies like
Prophet Muhammad's daughter Fatima, his own stepmother Shireen and Mother
Teresa fully dressed. In a panel painting of four leaders, namely, Einstein,
Gandhi, Mao and Hitler, only the last named is painted naked. Nudity is
clearly selective and confined to those whom Husain looks upon with contempt.
No civilisation which tolerates this high temerity can expect respect from
others.