I was reminded of this when Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar recently said, “The West has a bad habit of commenting on others. They somehow think it is some kind of God-given right. They will have to learn only by experience that if you keep doing this, other people will also start commenting and they will not like it.”
Henry Kissinger, famed former US Foreign Secretary, was once asked about US hypocrisy in the World Trade Organization. He responded, “Oh. that’s terrible.” Then he added, “But if you can get away with it, that ain’t so bad.”
I was reminded of this when Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar recently said, “The West has a bad habit of commenting on others. They somehow think it is some kind of God-given right. They will have to learn only by experience that if you keep doing this, other people will also start commenting and they will not like it.”
As an Indian, this made me cringe. In effect, Jaishankar rejected free speech and criticism as “a bad habit” and warned critics of consequences. To me this was the anti-thesis of democratic values. But it is in line with the government’s approach to paint foreign criticism as a Western plot with a colonial mindset to sully India’s reputation.
Jaishankar implied that till now people had avoided criticizing the West, but would retaliate if the West persisted in criticizing others. Sorry, which planet are we talking about? Did Indians not lambaste Western colonialism during the independence movement? Did we not refuse to align ourselves with the West in the Cold War, opting for non-alignment instead? Did we think commenting on apartheid in South Africa was a bad habit? No, we viewed criticism of others as a fundamental right. We have always done it and will always do it. So will others, whether we like it or not.
Indians are masters in argumentation and have a thousand opinions on everything under the sun. We do not need permission from God or government for commenting on others. Jaishankar warns that if the West persists in criticism, India will retaliate and “they will not like it.” Sorry, but the West views Indian criticism as not just acceptable but welcome, as a fundamental part of democratic values. The many Western institutions measuring freedom and human rights—such as Freedom House, the Cato Institute, Fraser Institute, V-Dem—- are delighted when criticism increases and are dismayed only when critics are muzzled.
Some foreign critics may indeed have a colonial mindset, but the overwhelming majority of Britons were born after colonialism ended in India. Look at the current British rulers. Rishi Sunak, a practicing Hindu of Punjabi origin, is British Prime Minister. Can he be accused of a colonial mindset? Look at the other brown and black members of the British ruling classes—Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London; Humza Youssef, head of the Scottish national Party; Suella Braverman and Preeti Patel, current and former Home Ministers; Kwasi Kwarteng, former Chancellor of the Exchequer. They hardly represent a colonial mindset. On the contrary, they seem to represent the theme “The Empire Strikes Back.”
In the USA, Kamala Harris, with a Jamaican father and Indian mother, is Vice President. Nikki Haley and V. Ramaswamy are in the race to get the Republican nomination to run for US President. Earlier Barack Obama became the first black President. Is this evidence of diversity or white prejudice? One of the Democrats in the House of Representatives that moved a motion asking India to observe human rights in Kashmir was Pramila Jaypal. Is she plotting India’s downfall? No, she wants the best for India and thinks India is not getting that.
Jaishankar’s father, K. Subrahmanyam, was a famous foreign affairs expert, and an old friend and colleague of mine. As Editor of The Economic Times, I hired him to write on foreign affairs. He later moved across the hall to The Times of India. What would he have thought of the notion that commenting on others was a “bad habit?” He would proudly have declared himself a habitual offender. Indeed, he was an addict!
At the newspaper’s morning meetings, he would constantly lash out at the hypocrisy, racism, and bullying of foreign powers, ranging from the USA to Russia and Pakistan to the UK. He bubbled with fury at these countries and sometimes wanted to write three or four times a week. I asked him how he found so much to say on so many topics. He replied that he watched BBC every day, and that made him so angry that he had loads to say.
At cocktail parties I watched Subrahmanyam slam Western diplomats on their hypocrisy and indeed racism in saying India was not fit to join the nuclear club. He was blunt and unyielding but did not scream or lose his temper. Subrahmanyam did not pretend to be in a moral ivory tower. He would not stand for India being discriminated against by the nuclear club. But, provided India was made a member of the club, he was happy to discriminate against Pakistan and all other aspirants. Hypocrisy? Of course. But, in Kissinger’s words, if you can get away with it, it ain’t so bad.
Nobody doubts Jaishankar’s vast skills as a diplomat. But when it comes to bad habits, I prefer those of his father.
This article was originally published by The Economic Times on May 02, 2023.
