Mr. Charan Singh has sprung a surprise. He has emerged as a champion of the Zia regime, which he only recently charged with sending Pakistanis into our Punjab to foment Hindu-Sikh trouble, and of the concept of non-alignment which his chief bete noire (Mr. Nehru) had sired. In this rather unfamiliar role he has an experienced ally in his net and one hopes loyal deputy, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, who appears to be genuinely fond of the military junta in Islamabad. But it is not particularly important whether one or both of them have spoken out of conviction or out of calculation of some gain – some Muslim votes in the poll they think is likely to take place soon. The pertinent fact is that they have lent powerful support to the Pakistan government’s charge that Mrs. Gandhi’s and Mr. PV Narasimha Rao’s statements on the current upheaval in the neighbouring country constitute an interference in its internal affairs. Indeed, they have gone much farther than Islamabad. They have said that Mrs Gandhi has shaken the very edifice of the non-aligned movement. How ridiculous can one get!
It is not for us to say whether Mrs. Gandhi has spoken in support of the struggle for democracy in Pakistan out of genuine concern for the well-being of the people there or out of the electoral consideration of wanting to distract attention from her government’s failure at home. We do not even know whether she is in fact planning an early election to the Lok Sabha. But on three points there can be little scope for doubt. First, once the issue has been joined between the forces of liberty and the military junta, especially the present one wanting to brutalise the people by imposing on them not only martial law but also forms of punishment which must offend the susceptibilities of any modern person, this country owes it to itself to come out in favour the former. Secondly, Mrs. Gandhi has done precisely that on behalf of this country, her government’s labored explanations notwithstanding. There is scope for genuine differences on whether the prime minister herself should have spoken or whether she should have left it to others. But judging from the performance of Mr. Charan Singh and Mr. Vajpayee, she might not have been too wrong in drawing the conclusion that opposition leaders would not rise to the occasion. Thirdly, Pakistanis on both sides of the fence have seen Mrs. Gandhi’s statement to be what it is – moral support for those who are risking their lives for the sake of liberty. While Islamabad has condemned it, opposition leaders in London have welcomed it.
Many of us in India have a passive view of foreign policy. Such an approach perhaps comes naturally to us. So we find whatever excuse comes handy. At the government level we should, we argue with ourselves, keep quiet about Soviet and US interventions in their backyards” because we cannot afford to annoy the superpowers, especially the Soviet Union partly because it is extremely sensitive to criticism and partly because we depend on it for our military hardware. It does not even occur to us that this show of pusillanimity does not and cannot win us anyone’s respect and that often it is a convenient cover for lack of diplomatic skill. For it is possible for skilful diplomacy to protect the country’s interests and honour at the same time. But there can be a case, a fairly good one, for not extending ourselves to areas where we do not count for much – eastern Europe and Latin America, for example – and by that reckoning West Asia as well. For let us face it, the Arabs do not care all that much for us. But surely this passive approach cannot apply to our immediate neighborhood if only because developments there have a direct impact on us.
The Chinese have said in the past that India was trying to be a sub-superpower under Soviet auspices. This was part of their anti-Soviet campaign on the one hand and of their plan to cover up their own ambitions in Asia, including South Asia, on the other. But is there any good reason why India should not wish to be the most important regional power? And what does it mean to be a regional power if it excludes the desire to influence developments in neighbouring countries? Again there can be differences of opinion on how this influence is to be acquired and exercised. But that is a different issue from a crude interpretation of non-alignment which would equate it with passivity. In the context of developments such as the one in Pakistan now, even silence is a form of intervention – on the side of the military junta and its barbarities. So would silence have been in respect of recent events in Sri Lanka – on the side of the perpetrators of anti-Tamil programs. And whatever the gain and losses in foreign policy, democracy and humanity cannot prosper within India itself amidst such apathy. It should shame Mr. Charan Singh and Mr. Vajpayee that Mrs. Gandhi and not they should stand up for both democracy and humanity in respect of Pakistan.