When Barack Obama comes calling in early November, he will be visiting a country that is even more conscious of skin colour than his own. The frequent references to “fair skin” in matrimonial advertisements in India’s numerous newspapers has been much commented upon, as also the country’s expanding market for (often toxic) face creams that claim to take nature’s tan away from the skin. In its partiality for fairness (at least so far as skin is concerned), India is not alone.
China is another of those countries where those whose complexions have the milky hue common in Europe are treated more respectfully than the rest, as is also the case in its neighbour, India. Indeed, looking at the dictatorial power of Sonia Gandhi over the Congress Party, one is tempted to ask if the widow of Rajiv Gandhi may have had a much more difficult time in bringing her party to heel had she been born a native of Africa rather than that of a European country. Or, to take another example, would Rahul Gandhi have been much as much a favourite with voters if his skin colour were to approximate that of Tiger Woods rather than that of Richard Gere?
Because of his mixed Euro-African ancestry, the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States has been a transformational event. The fact that millions of U.S. voters of European extraction voted for him in preference to John McCain has gone a considerable distance towards affirming a truth about the U.S.: that this huge country is not “unicontinental” but “quadricontinental” in culture. The American melting pot has given the world not just a vibrant people – of multiple hues – but a composite culture that is a fusion of strands from Africa, Europe, Asia and South America. However, change even in the Obama era seems only skin-deep. The “Establishment” in the U.S. obsessively considers itself and the country to be – in effect – an extension of Europe, the same way as do the ruling structures in Australia, Canada and New Zealand
All four of these latter countries may be termed as belonging to the classical “Anglosphere”, the geopolitical construct ascribed to Winston Churchill and in which ethnicity trumped almost all other qualities. It was the wartime prime minister of Britain who insisted over President Roosevelt’s objections that the freedoms promised in the Atlantic Charter were made to apply only to the peoples of Europe, and not to those in Asia or Africa who continued to be denied liberty for years even after the Allied victory in a “war for democracy”. This was a war in which more than two million Indian soldiers and a further six million auxiliaries had participated, a figure far more than France which could only mobilize a few thousand “resistance fighters” and yet was rewarded by Churchill with a seat at the post-war High Table in preference to India. Had Churchill got his way, even China would not have gained admission to the Big Five in the United Nations Security Council, on the sole ground that the country was not European or neo-European.
With the entry into the Oval Office of Barack Obama in 2009, it was expected that the U.S. would lead the way to what may be termed a “21st century Anglosphere”, the grouping of countries with common linguistic, cultural and – let it be admitted – colonial ties to the same former empire. While this concept has been around for some time, especially since Winston Churchill emphasised the unity of the “English-speaking countries” in the period since Germany launched the 1939-45 world war, what may be termed the “Classical (or Churchillian) Anglosphere” had ethnicity besides the English language as its foundation. Churchill rejected the view (often expressed by Franklin D Roosevelt) that those not of European ancestry had the same claim to the cultural and other traditions of the English-speaking world as the others. However, if we consider the fact that Churchill seldom gave allowance to consistency — for example in embracing an alliance with the USSR, a country whose government he had sought to get eradicated during 1919-21 – if he were alive today he may have accepted the fact that India, a country with at the least 200 million people knowing (one or the other variant of) English, would certainly qualify for inclusion in his treasured club. What is clear is that during his lifetime, Churchill could not free himself of the racial stereotypes that were a driving force behind so much conquest and conflict.
Along with the United States and of course the United Kingdom, India could be the major player in a 21st century partnership of the English-speaking countries. Given that India is still a “work in progress”, a closer association with the the Anglosphere would be beneficial in that it could help to nudge the country’s ruling elites towards the legal and institutional reforms needed for a deepening of our democracy, something the other countries can boast of.
An obvious candidate for change would be the prevailing political party structure in India, each of which is dominated by either a single family or an equally self-perpetuating clique of individuals. Until the Election Commission of India gets mandated to enforce transparent and free elections for party posts in India, there would be zero prospect of an Ed Milliband taking over from Gordon Brown, or a Clinton from a Kennedy and an Obama from a Clinton. Or indeed, a Julia Gaillard from a Kevin Rudd.
Till such a dynamic comes into play, the political system in India will continue to be skewed in favour of family rather than societal interests, with negative consequences for probity and policy.
The corollary to inner-party democracy would be transparency in political expenditure. Given the absurdly low levels of spending legally permitted in elections, the overwhelming bulk of the moneys spent by candidates come from undeclared sources. These sources are, it is reasonable to infer, far less savoury than those with declared incomes. By refusing to implement electoral reforms, the political class in India is strengthening the influence of such unsavoury elements over the body politic. Candidate Obama spent more than a billion U.S. dollars on his campaign for the presidency, but this expenditure was known to the public, unlike in India, where the expenses of a campaign go unrecorded. A healthy system of laws would allow a candidate to spend as much as she or he could collect, except that each rupee spent should be publicly declared. Further, those found guilty of using undeclared money should be disqualified from getting elected, or unseated once found out. Money power is not evil in a democracy, provided it is transparent.
Another set of reforms that would bring India closer to the rest of the Anglosphere would be those made to its legal system. Although introduced by the British more than a century before they left India, the laws are such that the balance between government and people reflects the relationship between master and servant that existed during the more than two centuries of rule from London. While British law for the British people has much to commend it, the same cannot be said for vast swathes of British law for (non-Dominion) colonial subjects. While distinguished liberals such as Amartya Sen and Sunil Khilnani join almost all Indian historians in crediting Nehru with having force-fed democracy to a heathen populace, the reality is that independent India’s first Prime Minister continued both the system of colonial law as well as the colonial mode of administration, part of the reason why South Korea and China (two countries that were much poorer than India six decades back) are today much ahead of the “world’s biggest democracy”. Nehru cut away at freedoms for India’s citizens, putting in place a vast system of state ownership and privilege that – very substantially – exists to this day, and has been added on to since the Nehru family returned to power in 2004.
Sadly, although Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has often expressed his admiration for British values and traditions and Congress President Sonia Gandhi cannot be accused of hostility to the Anglosphere, neither has done much to ensure that the common citizen be given more autonomy vis-a-vis state agencies. Especially since 2004, the pendulum has been moving in the reverse direction, with several new restrictions appearing that have had the effect of rolling back some of the partial reforms introduced by a Congress government during 1992-94.
Closer contact with the Anglosphere would possibly align Indian institutions and regulations closer to those of mature democracies, rather than resemble those in Haiti under “Papa Doc” Duvalier and “Baby Doc” Duvalier. The magnitude of the failure of the political class in “free” India can be seen from the fact that there are three hundred million citizens of India whose living standards are worse than that of the average citizen of Haiti, and a further five hundred million whose lives are well below internationally acceptable standards of adequacy.
The cause behind this failure is that key elements within the Indian political class understand that their continuation in office hinges on the perpetuation of poverty and ignorance. They would like to see the marginalised and the disadvantaged frozen within their existing lifestyles, all in the name of “protecting culture and heritage”. Such politicians are opposed to the spread of the English language, as they fear that this may result in a less docile population and one that votes in terms of direct interests. Greater contact with the Anglosphere would strengthen those elements within civil society that are working towards greater modernisation. If there are 200 million citizens of India who can get by in English, there are at least 400 million more who are eager to learn the international link language, but have been deprived of this asset by deliberate state policy. By depriving all except those with above average incomes of access to English-language skills, India’s political class has put in place a modern variant of the caste system, where (as in certain epochs) advanced education is a privilege open only to the few, and therefore denied to the many.
Forming a trinity with the U.S. and the UK would not mean the abandonment of the benefits of better relations with players such as China, Russia and Iran. All three are important to India, the first two very much so. While increasing its pool of English-language speakers and reforming its institutions to reflect the values and practices of a free rather than a colonised society, India would also pursue its unique geopolitical interests, even if these be unpopular with London or Washington. It needs to be remembered that the attitudes and policies of what may again be termed the Classical Anglosphere continue to infect much of the policy of countries in this now-obsolete grouping.
Hence, for India to – at the present – enter into a policy of joint efforts with them, especially in locations such as Africa or in some parts of Asia, would harm this country’s interests. In such locations, India needs to go its own way or fashion alliances distinct from those crafted by the Classical Anglosphere countries. In this way, Delhi would demonstrate a different approach to both commerce as well as diplomacy than that of the “developed” world. Other countries that would be natural claimants to membership in a 21st century Anglosphere would be Singapore, later on followed by South Africa and in time, Kuwait and Oman. Apart from the common misfortune of having once been ruled from London, each of these countries has a vibrant (English-speaking) middle class and a moderate social and religious ethos.
When President Barack Obama comes to India, he does so not merely as the Head of State of the country that is India’s top geopolitical priority (followed by China and the European Union) but as the leader of that other populous English-speaking country, the U.S. .It is this essential difference that distinguishes his visit to India from that to China, and not merely the fact that the political system in the Peoples Republic is different from that found in India. Hopefully, President Obama – who has been a quick learner on the campaign trail but has been less nimble once in office – will understand the difference, and seek to build on the Anglospheric commonalities between the U.S. and India. However, thus far the omens from his administration are not promising. More than the liberalism of a Roosevelt,what we see is the patronizing tone of a Bill Clinton,who see India as needing to belong – in perpetuity – to a lower order of nations than the U.S. and its primary allies in Europe.
While such views were certainly present in the George W Bush team, they were on more than one occasion overcome by the recognition of the U.S. President and his key advisor Condoleezza Rice that India merited a status and rights at least the equal of Japan and Germany, if still not that of Britain and France.
What are the prospects for a 21st century Anglosphere evolving?
Looking at the approach of the new British government, they are good. The significance (of India being the second-largest English-speaking country after the U.S.) has not been lost on David Cameron. When the new prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland came calling recently, he made his acceptance of this new reality transparent. Unlike many of his predecessors, Cameron did not talk down to his Indian interlocuters, but instead openly saw them not just as equals, but as representatives of a power that international geopolitics with its matrix of threats and opportunities has made a mandatory ally of the U.S. and the UK. Should Barack Obama return to the promise of his campaign and free himself of the Clinton legacy,he too could act as the prime mover behind a new alliance of English-speaking democracies. For this, he would have to fend off efforts by his bureaucracy to restrict the avenues of cooperation with India.
In short,President Obama would need (in this regard) to follow the example of George W Bush, who saw India as a country kindred to his own, and who battled his own Euro-centric bureaucracy in seeking to remove some of the restrictions that had been placed on technological and other exchanges with India. This despite the fact that his first Secretary of State, Colin Powell (the author, together with Vice-President Cheney, of the disastrous lurch towards the Pakistan army after 9/11) was more European than the natives of that continent, seeing India as a lesser power than the much smaller countries of that continent. Both Bush and now Cameron have shown that despite being conservatives, they have moved beyond the mindset of the “Churchill School” and have accepted that the only way for the Anglosphere – and indeed the entire European continent – to retain its global primacy is in a close alliance with India. In short, rather than getting nostalgic about the 19th century Anglosphere,they have accepted and indeed embraced its 21st century evolution in a way that Barack Obama still has not.
Several who ought to know better are dismissive of India’s Anglospheric links, and want to dilute them. Despite the fact that Jawaharlal Nehru was culturally far more British than he was Indian (or perhaps because of this), very little was done during his time to broadbase English-language education in India. Indeed, Nehru’s govermnent seemed to be preparing the way for the abandonment of English, a step that his successor, Lal Bahadur Shastri, wisely refused to take. If India is both united as well as an economic success story, the credit goes to Shastri for having ensured the continuation of English, and subsequently to P V Narasimha Rao for having introduced the first shoots of comprehensive economic liberalisation in the economy.
Subsequently, apart from 1998-2000 (the first two years of the Vajpayee government), very little has been done to move forward the process of liberalisation. Indeed,the UPA period in particular has seen a return to the regulatory mindset of the Nehru era, with imm
ense additional discretion being given to state authorities, and zero efforts at reform of the administrative structure to remove graft and enhance efficiency.
Thus far, President Obama has shown little indication that he understands the immense potential in the Anglosphere connection between India and the U.S.. Unfortunately, a significant section of the “Thought Leaders” within the Democratic Party are wedded to the “Eurosphere”, seeing the U.S. as an extension of the European Union. For such individuals, it would be difficult to factor in the chemistry that is evolving in the rest of the world, which is probably why they continue to use the faded – and failed – nostrums of the past in fashioning policies for the present. Should he follow the lead given by George W Bush and now by David Cameron and accept that India is an essential component in the alliance architecture of the English-speaking world,he could yet transform U.S.-India relations.
If, on the other hand, he comes to India as a follower of the paternalistic legacies of Bill Clinton, he would stand in the way of fashioning an alliance that not only the Anglosphere or the Eurosphere but all democratic countries would find of significant assistance to their efforts at progress.
India needs to go a long way before the people of this country enjoy the freedoms – and of course the lifestyle – of their partners in the U.S. or the UK. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has less than four years to ensure that the shackles of colonial law and administrative methods get removed from a country whose people can take the rate of economic growth to 15%,if only their own government did not perpetuate (private and public) monopolies and impede the kind of education needed for modernisation. The next month will show if Barack Obama understands the significance of India as the second- biggest English-speaking country on the planet (and soon to become the biggest, provided constraints on modern education get diluted). If he does, it would greatly assist India’s own honest and far-seeing Prime Minister in his lonely efforts at kicking off a second stage of reform, this time with a capital R.
M.D. Nalapat is Director of the School of Geopolitics at Manipal University, and a regular contibutor to Gateway House.
This article was exclusively written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. You can read more exclusive content here.
For interview requests with the author, or for permission to republish, please contact outreach@gatewayhouse.in.
© Copyright 2010 Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized copying or reproduction is strictly prohibited