Caravan News Desk

LONDON — One of the most influential British dailies, Guardian, has carried the following hard hitting editorial. Earlier, on the eve of his arrival in UK, the daily had carried two articles on Narendra Modi’s Hindutva and his divisive polices in India.

His London press conference was reportedly one of the toughest—and perhaps for a self-respecting and “patriotic”, (read jingoist) leader, as Modi wants himself to be seen—and most humiliating encounter with press.

Here is what the Guardian had to say about Modi’s UK visit:

Narendra Modi and David Cameron are Playing Politics in a Globalised World

Long ago there were two countries whose destinies were intertwined by history. Britain’s rule helped make India into a modern nation. India’s wealth and military manpower sustained Britain as a superpower. Admiration and rationality, as well as condescension and racism, characterised a complex relationship which seemed so intimate that many expected it to continue in some form after the sun set on empire.

But those two countries no longer exist. The still mighty Britain that emerged from the war against Germany and Japan has become the modest and puzzled United Kingdom of today, while in India the valuable, if very different, legacies of Gandhi and Nehru have lost potency as political change has brought to the fore men and ideas marginal in 1947, when independence was achieved. Given this alteration in circumstances, it is odd that so much hyperbole, on both sides, should accompany the Indian prime minister’s visit to London.

As Narendra Modi and David Cameron leap from crag to crag of ever more outrageous flattery, one might wish that the affair could have been pitched on a somewhat lower level. Mr Modi insists this is “a huge moment for our two nations”, while Mr Cameron, announcing that 2017 will be a UK-India Year of Culture, claims that “the great partnership between India and the UK extends beyond economic ties to the boards of the Bard and the beaches of Bollywood”. This image of a relationship cemented by cricket, Shakespeare, Madame Tussauds and a joint liking for a good curry is not entirely false, but it is misleading.

The mundane truth is that this trip is basically about seeking advantage in the day-to-day politics of both countries. Mr Modi has been whirling around the world in the 18 months since he took office seeking to woo the 35 million-strong Indian diaspora. He wants their support, and to attract more of their investment and skills back to India. But he especially wants to stand tall in the eyes of the public at home who see him dazzling Indian audiences abroad – audiences that, because of their distance from the politics of the subcontinent, are much less concerned about the issues that preoccupy his critics and opponents at home. He is building up brand India, and they respond to that.

They simply want to welcome a leader who is so loudly blowing the trumpet for the network of communities of Indian origin that girdles the world. Those with business connections also want to gain points that could be very useful later by helping now with the funding and organisation. So Mr Modi includes what is essentially a political rally in most of his trips, packing out Madison Square Garden in New York, the cricket ground in Dubai, andtoday Wembley stadium. The people who listen to him don’t have Indian votes, but there are votes in them for Mr Modi all the same. These successes on the foreign stage help obscure setbacks and controversies in India, like recent electoral defeat in Bihar and the anger over his lukewarm response to the murder of a Muslim accused of eating beef.

This latter is symptomatic of the unreconstructed Hindu nationalism that, not far under the surface and in spite of his references to Gandhi, makes him so different from earlier Indian leaders, even if the Gujarat massacre, where over 1,000 people, mainly Muslims, died, had not been on his record. Whatever the nature of his role there, it happened on his watch. That ought to greatly moderate any welcome offered to him in the UK. But the Cameron government doesn’t want to open that book, because there are votes in this for them as well. They want to erode Labour’s command of the Indian electorate and pull in more support for the Conservatives, particularly as British Indians become more prosperous and potentially inclined for class reasons to move to the right.

There are also the usual trade and investment objectives that British governments have pursued with very limited success for many years, setting target after target and leading delegation after delegation in the hope of an improvement that stubbornly fails to materialise. British investment is high, but a previous Cameron aim of doubling trade failed, with overall trade barely up on what it was in 2010 and the British share of imports falling. The package of agreements to be signed this time may improve matters, but it is from a low base. A better economic relationship with India is desirable, but do we need to pay a high political price for it, or to set it to music as if it was a story of love at last requited?