The world's reaction to Gujarat

By Muchkund Dubey (The Hindu)

CONSIDERING THE magnitude of the atrocity perpetrated, and even now rampant, in Gujarat, the international reaction to it can be regarded as subdued. There was hardly any reaction for almost a month after the eruption of violence. Friendly foreign Governments were hoping India would not take too long to control the situation. When that did not happen, some of these Governments were obliged by their laws and pressure of public opinion, to react, but their reaction was confined to expressing co

ncern and sorrow and hoping that the situation would be brought under control.

The visiting Swiss and Finnish Foreign Ministers expressed disquiet over the situation and conveyed their countries' concern to their Indian counterpart. The Canadian Minister of Inter-Governmental Affairs, also on a visit to India, in a noble humanitarian gesture, expressed his eagerness to participate in the peace march on Gujarat organised by the Defence Minister. In the British Parliament, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, expressed his Government's "deep concern about the deaths and injuries on both sides of the religious divide in Gujarat". The joint statement issued at the end of the last meeting of the E.U. Council of Ministers contained only one line on Gujarat, expressing concern at the "sectarian violence". The United States' reaction was by far the most restrained.

Why has the international reaction to the Gujarat carnage been on such a low key? Essentially, the Governments of the Western and Islamic countries, which concern us most, have come to recognise India's great potential as a major player in the world and have admiration for and faith in Indian democracy. Like the vast majority of Indian citizens, these Governments have also come to believe that whichever Government is in power in India will uphold the fundamental democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution, which include the defence of secularism and non-discrimination against and the protection of the minorities. These Governments have not so far brought themselves to believe that this trust has been betrayed by the Vajpayee Government. Given India's record of democracy and their stake in the country, they are still prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. The other major reason for the subdued international reaction is the preoccupation of the U.S. and its principal allies with the global campaign against terrorism and that of most of these countries with the Palestinian issue.

Unfortunately, the Government of India's response to this minimum-must reaction of Foreign Governments has been totally out of proportion, unjustified and self-defeating. The External Affairs Ministry is reported to have refused, or at least unduly delayed, giving an appointment to local E.U. Ambassadors to make a demarche of an innocuous character on this matter. The E.U. was then obliged to issue a demarche to our Ambassador in Spain, the current E.U. President. The Ministry refused to call it a demarche on the basis of the puerile and specious arguments that a demarche is issued only when the Ambassador concerned is summoned and not when he goes on his own to the local Foreign Office, and that no demarche can be issued on a subject lying essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a state. When a similar demarche was issued at the recent Senior Officers' meeting between India and the E.U. Troika, the Ministry thought it necessary to come out with the explanation that it was the Indian side which raised the issue and that it refused to accept the paper on the subject sought to be handed over by the E.U. delegation.

The statement issued by the Ministry on April 24 was an epitome of diplomatic over-reaction. The concern and sorrow expressed by some foreign countries cannot be regarded as "contradictory to well-established norms of diplomacy", and even less so, as an "intrusion on India's domestic turf". There are numerous occasions when well-meaning and friendly foreign Governments have expressed concern, more in anguish rather than as a protest, at developments in the domestic spheres of another foreign country. India itself has expressed concern over such developments, particularly in its neighbouring countries. To characterise the mild and expected reactions of some of the E.U. member-countries as "injurious to the friendly relations that exist between India and E.U." is indeed self-defeating.

No doubt, the leaking out of the internal reports of the local missions of some of the E.U. member-countries trangressed the norms of diplomatic practice. That is why when the Indian External Affairs Minister brought it to the attention of his British counterpart, the latter promptly regretted the incident. It was legitimate to have protested against it. However, one would have wished the Ministry's statement to have remained confined to the leakage issue.

There is no evidence that there was a leakage of any internal report of the E.U. as a whole. Therefore, the lumping of the E.U. with individual European countries in the statement was most unfortunate. Besides, the substance of the internal reports leaked out by some foreign missions does not add anything to the reports carried by the national media and those submitted by individuals, their groups and institutions of unimpeachable integrity and authority, including the National Humans Right Commission, who visited the scenes of the Gujarat carnage.

The Prime Minister's observation at the function in New Delhi on April 25, to mark the end of the celebrations of the 2600th birth anniversary of Lord Mahavir, that "we do not need to learn from others what secularism and pluralism are all about" is a typical exercise in political rhetoric and hypocrisy.

The Government of India simply cannot ignore the international implications of the Gujarat carnage. Hiding behind the doctrine of domestic jurisdiction on the quintessentially universalist issue of human rights is neither convincing nor of much use. A major recent change in the world situation, particularly after the end of the Cold War, has been the recrudescence of democracy and the universal acceptance of the values of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Given the heritage of Gandhi and Nehru and with our nearly half-a-century of democratic tradition, we had thought this had put India in a tremendously advantageous position vis-a-vis other developing countries, particularly some of our neighbours. The vantage position of India in the comity of nations now seems to be in jeopardy under the BJP-led Government at the Centre.

The discussion at the Senior Officers Meeting between India and the E.U. Troika demonstrated that the E.U. has no intention of making a big issue out of its demarche. It will be only too relieved if the Indian Government restores normalcy in Gujarat, thus making it possible for it not to pursue the issue further.

Of much greater concern is the possibility of India coming under the bilateral pressure of major Western countries and Islamic countries if the violence in Gujarat continues. However, this can also be managed, though at some cost. The principal concern should be what the carnage is going to do to our own society. If the forces which have unleashed violence in Gujarat are not controlled, the most disastrous consequence will be the nation divided and at war with itself; and its priorities in the economic and social fields relegated to the background.