The Baffling Mr.Blair

India has a curious ambivalence towards the Great Britain, her former colonial rulers. Sixty-two years have passed since independence; yet we haven’t quite sorted out our feelings towards the erstwhile Raj. On the one hand, there’s a preponderance of Anglophiles in this country—lately transformed into worshippers of Uncle Sam; on the other hand there remains a significant residue of smouldering resentment left over from the days of the freedom movement. 

I believe that a hiatus of sixty-two years should be sufficient for a mature evaluation of our attitude towards Old Blimey. There’s no doubt that the East India Company, succeeded by Queen Victoria’s government, extracted considerable resources from the Indian subcontinent. However, it would be churlish to deny that Britain did give something back. We rode piggy-back on Britain to Western modernism; our infrastructure, and our political and administrative institutions are all derived from the British. Our very mindsets have been transformed partly by the British, and partly by the winds of rationality, individualism and democracy that blew in through the windows opened by Western education.

This is not to suggest that the British were angels of charity; they were here to build an empire and having consolidated their empire, they duly extracted their pound of flesh. Nevertheless,  they built highways, set up schools, universities and medical colleges. Moreover, through the corridor that they opened up, missionaries and societies for public instruction entered the country, and it is undeniable that they play a significant role in disseminating Western science, rationalism, social and political philosophy, and a growing sense  of  nationhood to remote parts of the country.

In the years after independence, we focused single-mindedly on British venality, we demonized our erstwhile rulers. But now perhaps we are secure enough to view our colonial history in a more balanced way. In many ways, we are indebted to the British, whether we like it or not, not least  because of  bestowing political unity on the Indian subcontinent. Never before in recorded history had the subcontinent (even the truncated India of today) been a single political entity. Unity was no doubt imposed by the British for their administrative convenience; nevertheless it produced a sense of political nationhood—a sentiment wholly lacking in pre-British India.

For these reasons, and because Britain was once one the progressive democracies of the West, educated Indians still tend take an interest in the affairs of the United Kingdom.

This brings me, after a long preamble, to my real subject—the mysterious Mr. Blair. Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, popularly known as Tony Blair, was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for 10 long years—from 1997 to 2007. Originally voted in with a large mandate, Mr. Blair managed, in these ten years, to besmirch Britain’s international reputation in a way that few Prime Ministers before him have managed to do.

I’m not referring here to the Right-of-Centre position adopted by Blair in domestic affairs, although that must have come as a rather unpleasant surprise to those who had voted Labour and who may justifiably have been expecting some social reform measures. Contradictory though it may be, it is essentially a domestic matter.

I am referring specifically to Mr. Blair’s curious behaviour with regard to the so-called ‘war on terror’. Every policy undertaken in this sphere seems to have been a carbon copy of the United States’ and I cannot help wondering why.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC in New York, the United States had the sympathy of the whole world. When President Bush ordered retaliatory attacks on Afghanistan, he was supported militarily by the NATO nations, including Britain. But even at this juncture (despite some rumblings of discontent at death of innocent Afghan civilians, including women and children), he had the moral support of a large part of the world.

Iraq, though, was an entirely different ball-game. Bush and Cheney went on a campaign of misinformation, alleging that Saddam Hussein had ‘weapons of mass destruction’, and moreover, that he was itching to unleash these on the West. It has been revealed subsequently that the CIA itself had advised the US administration that no such WMD’s existed. Saddam Hussein, beleaguered and enfeebled by years of sanctions was frantically trying to retain his own position and certainly did not entertain delusions of grandeur of attacking the US.

However, Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld kept on a shrill misinformation campaign. If anyone in the US dared to raise a voice of sanity, he was immediately drowned by cat-calls of ‘pinko’, ‘liberal’ and worse.

The information culled by the CIA was also available with the MI6, and it seems clear that Blair was advised accordingly. Yet, he deliberately cooked up a fraudulent ‘intelligence report’ (which has later been completely discredited) which purported to show that Saddam was in fact in possession of WMDs. On this patently false basis, he committed the British Armed Services to a pointless war in Iraq. He campaigned energetically in support of it.

As we all know now, this whole business of WMDs in Saddam’s Iraq turned out to be a farce. But none of the instigators of the war, including Mr. Blair, has had the decency to acknowledge a mistake. How could they, after all, since the whole thing was a fabrication from start to finish? 

Given that Saddam Hussein was known to be a paper tiger, given that it was common knowledge that there no WMDs in Iraq, the question that arises automatically is why did the Americans and the British (in full knowledge of the ground realities) go through this rigmarole?

 As far as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are concerned, a plausible theory exists to account for their actions. This theory attributes to them three motives: A) to move the attention of the public attention away from misgovernment at home by spreading war hysteria; B) enriching themselves personally by way of kickbacks from American multinationals who had been awarded billion-dollar contracts in Iraq, Halliburton being the most prominent among these firms; C) to secure the vast and rich oil fields of Iraq under an American-sponsored puppet government so that the US could effectively control the flow of fuel-oil for the foreseeable future.

This behaviour, though venal, is understandable—we Indians have more than our fair share of execrable and ruthless politicians.

The actions of the British Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair, however, are not so easily explained. Let us examine a litany of his misdeeds: a) he cooked up a fishy intelligence report purporting to prove that Iraq possessed WMDs; the BBC exposed it as a fraud with the help of a whistleblower; within a few days the whistleblower was dead, supposedly by his own hand (draw your own conclusions); B) he sent thousands of British troops into an unjustifiable war, and was indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of British soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children; C) by his actions, he turned Britain into a target for Islamic terrorists; D) under the pretext of protecting the populace from terrorism, he enacted draconian legislation designed to clamp down on individual liberty and awarding remarkable powers to law-enforcement agencies, including the power to arrest and detain persons without warrant and without recourse to legal assistance; E) He authorised the use of the elite Special Air Services to kidnap British citizen at home, in Pakistan and elsewhere, and handed over these hapless sods to the CIA to be interrogated with excruciating torture, often resulting in death or permanent disablement.

He did all this, and a great deal more, and all of his measures went towards making Britain a less democratic, a less multicultural, and certainly a more dangerous place.Much of this was unnecessary, from a strictly British point of view. His policies resulted in Britain being marked as one of global oppressors of Islam, and therefore fair game for suicide bombings and other terrorist strikes. This seems unfortunate and ironical,given Britain's past record of being a refuge for the politically persecuted of all nations and creeds.

What baffles me is why he did it? As I said before, the motives of his US counterparts, though venal, are at least understandable. But Mr. Blair carried out policies which directly undermined the stability and security of his own nation. For what?

Too, it seems inconceivable that he could do what he did without the support of at least a part of his Cabinet, of the Foreign Office, and the British Intelligence Services. Why did they all collude in the questionable actions of Mr. Blair?

Britain is an old hand at dealing with multilateral problems; it has had centuries of experience. Leave morality aside, it should have been obvious to its seasoned mandarins that the Blair policies would result in Britain becoming a police state, oppressed within, and endangered from without.

 If we were to draw up a hypothetical balance-sheet, it seems obvious that the US has gained something, but that the United Kingdom has garnered nothing but international opprobrium, the unrestrained hatred of Islamists all over the world, the coffins of brave British soldiers slain in a totally pointless war, and a  repressive regime at home. 

This is the enigma of Tony Blair; why did he choose to be unthinking poodle of the Americans, indeed of one of the worst administrations in US history. There may be something in the notion of regaining scraps of past Imperial glory by proxy, but it seems unthinkable that nostalgic hankering would go to the extent of endangering the security of his own country and dunking its prestige in a pool of muck.

So, the mystery remains, the mystery continues. And Mr. Blair, an enigmatic modern-day Machiavelli continues to laugh it all away.

The BCCI waltzes with drugs and WADA

So! The BCCI does it again--cock a snook at the world, that is. The BCCI is the among world's wealthiest sports organizations; certainly, it is the richest cricket association. The BCCI hasn’t hidden its assets like a demure damsel; smug with its overflowing coffers, it has been throwing its weight around for quite a while.

Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with using financial clout. It depends on what it is being used for, and how frequently. Influencing the choice of venue for a match, ensuring that Indian players abroad receive appropriate accommodation and security, for example, are legitimate uses. To be frank, any association with comparable leverage would and do employ it for similar purposes.

But there have been occasions when this power has been misused. One instance is the insistence on the replacement of an umpire on the grounds of biased, allegedly racial, decisions. Indian newspapers have predictably filtered the episode through a parochial lens. However, non-Indian opinion was not so one-sided. It may be conceded that some of the umpire’s decisions were controversial. But this umpire was no rookie, he was a veteran of countless international engagements. Given his seniority, it would have been more seemly for the BCCI and team management to deal discreetly with the Referee and the host country’s association. Instead, the affair was turned into an ugly and very public row about racism. It was not the substance of the issue, but the manner in which it was handled that led people to perceive the BCCI as a bully.

To take another instance, the Indian Premier League of twenty-twenty cricket promoted by the BCCI has raised the hackles of almost every other international cricket association. The ridiculous amount of money splashed around has naturally resulted in many foreign players neglecting domestic engagements and descending on India like a host of flies. Many international cricketing associations have made their displeasure plain. Newspaper columnists have booed and hissed at the tournament, not always out of envy, and not always  without reason.

Leaving aside the question of whether twenty-twenty cricket can be considered a legitimate form at all, the manner in which the tournament has been staged was over-lurid, tasteless –reminiscent of ‘B’-grade Bollywood potboilers from the seventies and eighties.

Let’s pause and think for a moment. While the BCCI goes merrily trampling over all opposition, let’s remember where its power comes from. It comes from us, the cricket-mad spectators-- at the grounds, or glued to television screens. If we stop watching cricket on TV, if we stop thronging the stadiums, advertising revenue will disappear, and BCCI’s hot-air balloon will collapse. Should we do it, should we at least raise a gesture?

I believe we should. Technicolor extravaganzas like the IPL do nothing for first-class cricket, for grass-roots development of cricket in the country. The enormous sums that are generated  could be channelled into creating infrastructure and supporting young players, particularly in small towns and in parts of the country where cricket does not have much of a footprint--the North-Eastern States, for example. But this has not happened, nor is it likely to happen, if the past record of the BCCI is anything to go by. Where does the money go? Part of it, of course, goes to the players. The rest disappears into the cavernous pockets of politicians.

But there’s a limit to self-indulgence, or ought to be. Refusal of drug-testing is a new low, even for the execrable BCCI. Every other country has endorsed it. Almost every established sport in the world, be it the institutionalized sports of athletics, gymnastics, racing, swimming, archery and so on, or the more commercialized games like tennis, basketball, soccer, American football or baseball has a well-established regime to guard against drug-abuse. In what way is cricket different? And why exactly should Indian cricketers be exempt?

To place things in perspective, let’s look at more celebrated instances of bullying. The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Hence it merrily kidnaps citizens of other nations, imprisons and tortures them, throwing the Geneva Convention to the wind, all in the name of “the war on terror”. At the same time, it winks at Pakistani terrorists operating against India, and when India begins to howl too loudly, mumbles something about ‘militants’ and ‘bi-lateral understanding’.

The United States also has steadfastly refused to sign any international ecological treaty; it has steadfastly refused to reduce its level of consumption and carbon emission.

All these are facts known to anybody with even a cursory interest in international affairs. On many of these issues, Western public opinion, even the opinion of the more liberal segment of the US public, is severely critical of United States policy. We Indians too are piously and righteously indignant against this bloody-mindedness on the part of the United States. Yet, the US cares not a fig about this hostile public outcry. Why, do you ask? Because it CAN.

Yes, and there lies the crux. Just as the US is a bully because it can afford to be, the BCCI believes that, since it is fat to bursting with money filched from Indian citizens, it can afford to ignore international norms.

It cannot be allowed to do so. The US bullying , at least, is in the field of realpolitik, where power is the traditional currency. The BCCI’s business is sports, where, nominally at least, the ideals of fairness and justice are celebrated. To bully and wrangle on an issue as delicate as drug-testing is to play with fire. The  message this will transmit to Indian sportsmen in all other fields will be that ‘enhancing’ performance with drugs is acceptable, is legitimate. And the entire world around us will believe our sportsmen to be as corrupt as it already believes our politicians and civil servants to be.

What does the BCCI have to hide, after all?    

The Trend of Late Marriages

Postponing marriage plans until careers are on a firm footing is a trend that has been steadily intensifying since the early nineteen eighties. By the nineties, late marriages had become the norm in the Indian metropolises, and the trend was well on its way to establishing itself in the smaller towns and suburbs. Now, it's become the de facto standard for the whole of urban India.

Print and audiovisual media, bolstered by advertisers, have successfully posited the Western, primarily urban American, lifestyle as the most desirable. The hallmarks of this way of life are individualism and high consumption levels. The first goal of the young Indian urbanite today is to reach a certain threshold earning-level so as to acquire the paraphernalia of riches that will certify him or her as a ‘success’ in the eyes of their peers. The focus on career is therefore understandable.

Women are accessing higher and technical education, and entering the workplace, in much larger numbers than before. Independent working women are less likely to succumb to familial pressure to marry at an early age. They are also pickier in their choice of mate.

These factors have pushed up the average marrying age. Whether this is positive or negative depends on point of view. Tradition-bound observers bemoan the loss of ‘Indian values’, denounce ‘loose morals’ and generally criticize this trend as a harbinger of societal chaos. However, in this increasingly inter-connected world, change is inevitable. Moreover, it now seems that despite adopting certain Western role models, Indians have not allowed Western mores to completely wash out many aspects of Indian social culture. This, I believe, is testament to the resilience of Indian culture. We adapt but are not wholly overwhelmed.

From the feminist point of view, this trend is wholly positive since it allows women a greater share of the workplace, and a stronger say in their own destinies. Empowerment of women has lent them confidence and assertiveness. Since society is a sum of its parts, this development has undoubtedly enriched Indian social life.

When both marital partners are mature and confident, they are less likely to have unrealistic expectations of each other; they are also more likely to allow each other greater personal freedom. Finally, late marriages are likely to produce fewer, but better-cared for offspring. As we all know, the burgeoning population has been a millstone around India’s neck. A trend that helps to reduce population growth is definitely beneficial to India’s future.

In sum, therefore, I would commend the trend of late marriages as a positive development.