The ghosts of 1962 are back to haunt India yet again before a make or break general election. And the credit goes to Australian journalist Neville Maxwell, better known for his hostility toward the Indian narrative of victimhood in the 1962 Indo-China war.
Maxwell suddenly felt a pang of conscience for keeping to himself a leaked copy of the classified Henderson Brooks-Bhagat committee report for far too long. The report authored by two senior military officers was supposed to be an internal assessment of the tactical and logistical deficiencies in the army that caused the humiliating rout in 1962. However, it assumed political overtone after the officials allegedly exceeded their brief to investigate the role of the political leadership, a very rare phenomenon in any functioning democracy. Perhaps, this explains why Maxwell, an overt apologist for China, was deeply pessimistic about the prospect for democracy in India. The nation today is indeed intrigued to find that the extreme right-wing nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leadership and a professed leftist Maxwell are on the same wavelength on political and strategic issues.
Like the opposition BJP and its cohorts, Maxwell too believed that the Congress was responsible for everything that ailed India. He was convinced that Indians were emotionally ready to reject parliamentary democracy because of Jawaharlal Nehru’s follies. “The government and the governing party have lost public confidence and belief in themselves,” wrote Maxwell. The BJP, in its lust for power is ready to stoop to any level even if it means denigrating India’s first Prime Minister Nehru and his vision of preserving the country’s unique diversities at all cost. Nehru’s commitment to strengthen the bonds of unity runs counter to the ideology of crude Hindu majoritarianism propagated by opposition prime ministerial aspirant Narendra Modi and his ideological mentors. Therefore, it is not surprising that a methodical campaign to induce popular disapprobation of a political stalwart like Nehru among a large section of populace has gone on for years together. But what alternative did Modi and those who have been at the forefront of Nehru bashing delivered to this nation? Nothing. Apart from crony capitalism that has effectively replaced creative capitalism in Modi’s Gujarat and a decisive shift toward an aggressive Hindutva agenda. And everybody in India is aware of the consequences of Hindu fundamentalism that has culminated in horrible riots, subjugation of hapless ordinary Muslims and worst of all, the destruction of Babri Mosque.
Coming back to Brooks report, the BJP lost no time in exploiting the Maxwell-given opportunity to pit Sardar Patel, India’s first Home Minister against Nehru. They cite a Nov. 7, 1950 letter written by Patel to Nehru to buttress their point in which the then home minister had expressed his frustration at India’s handling of the Tibet policy. But then, not many are aware that Patel was among those who persuaded Nehru to stay on in office in 1958 because Nehru had made up his mind to quit politics after completing a bruising decade of premiership. Had Patel been so convinced of Nehru’s inefficiency, as Modi would like us to believe, why would he request Nehru to reconsider the decision of quitting? In fact, Patel realized that Nehru’s statesmanship was urgently needed to nurture a plural multi-party democracy like India.
True, Nehru did err in trying to impose his idealistic spirit on every foreign policy decision when national interest demanded flexibility and pragmatism. But can a man be blamed and guillotined for things beyond his control? Surprisingly, Nehru is being targeted by the BJP for his “Forward Policy” initiated in 1960s. And what exactly was this policy all about? It encompassed a host of initiatives including covert logistical support to the Tibetan rebellion, putting diplomatic pressure on China and setting up forward military outposts to preserve the sanctity of the northern boundary, which Beijing has been disputing for long. Even the most diehard supporter of Narendra Modi will be baffled by the BJP’s criticism of Nehru’s aggressive moves aimed at carving out a permanent border with China.
Does the BJP, having experience in national governance, not know the complexity of the border issue? A very senior official of the Vajpayee government who was involved in border negotiations had admitted privately that the Indians inherited a nation without a recognized boundary in the north. Though the McMahon and Johnson Lines were delineated, there was no formal stamp of approval on the projected alignments. By pillorying Nehru for petty political reasons, the BJP is effectively acknowledging Maxwell’s contention that China is the aggrieved party in the Sino-Indian territorial impingement. Can such a political force be accepted as the sole repository of nationalism, as claimed by former Gen. VK Singh? Besides, Modi is befooling the people of India through his meaningless rhetoric on the border dispute. There has been a spurt in Chinese aggression because Britain has revised its Tibet policy in 2008 to abandon the 1914 Simla Accord on which New Delhi’s territorial claim is based. Therefore, the BJP-created hullabaloo is completely misplaced.
India has taken remedial steps like establishment of a special force consisting of Tibetan guerilla fighters to foil Chinese expansionist designs. Moreover, infrastructural network along the border with Tibet has also been strengthened significantly, including the reopening of the strategic Daulat Beg Oldi airstrip. Brooks’ report, one must understand, is a technical assessment of the army that is beyond the common man’s comprehension. Instead, the government must announce a comprehensive declassification policy to avoid any unnecessary fiasco in future.
Email: [email protected]
