A WORLDVIEW exclusive:

India Notebook

by

Inder Dan Ratnu

(Fall 2000)

Express your opinions on the Message board

Get Your Free Email!

Get Headlines: Top NewsSportsBusinessLocal Entertain Politics Comics Tech.

Search the Web:

Travelocity BEST FARE FINDER
	Check YOUR low fares now! Departing from... Atlanta Boston Chicago Dallas/Ft Worth Las Vegas Los Angeles Miami New York City Orlando Philadelphia Phoenix San Francisco Seattle Washington DC More Cities

WORLDVIEW Home

Web Village Home Page

Vietnam: Facts and Figures

NOTES ON THE 20th CENTURY: Historical essays

FREE PAGE: Links to free coupons, games, software, and information

THE LIBERTY LIST: Bill of Rights links, discussion, news

TERRAPLANE MALL: Books, clothing, electronics, music, and more

Find this:    any language EnglishChineseCzechDanishDutchEstonianFinnishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianIcelandicItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianNorwegianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSpanishSwedish

Find A Person:

More by and about Inder Dan Ratnu:

Perspectives on India, Installment 1: "Charans and Churchill"

Installment 2: "Democrat's Pilgrimage," Heart Burning in Pakistan."

Installment 3: "Prevalence of a Poetic Position," "Clinton v. Churchill

Also:

President to Visit India

Preparations for President's Visit

Diplomatic Issues facing Clinton during visit

Clinton & Chelsea in Jaipur (w/photos)

The Afterglow

Plus:

See Inder's weekly column, Indian Ink, @ Tulevision.com

Get headlines, sports, weather, & stock info 24 hours a day with WORLDVIEW

These days, everyone in India seems to be singing the praises of either President Clinton and the United States, without realizing who has brought about the recent groundbreaking change in the attitude of the USA towards India and how it was done. It was not the Prime Minister of India, the President of India, the Indian ambassador to the USA, or the American ambassador to India. If any one person in India is to be given credit for bringing about this U-turn in the attitude of the United States towards India, it is Mr. Jaswant Singh, the Foreign Minister.

Mr. Singh has brought about this sea of change, a world of difference singlehandedly through some of his personal qualities, which he has been in command of since his early days as a child. He is a Rajput by community, and his family is considered to be one of the most respectable and noblest families in the Western Rajasthan. Nobility is right in his blood. Very soft spoken in his address to others, Mr. Jaswant Singh always uses a highly respectful word of his local language, "Hukum" (which is the equivalent of "sir" or even "your excellency") for almost everybody, even to persons of far younger age. He is an intellectual and well-read person whose statements are always balanced, statesmanlike, full of wisdom, and at times quite bold and analytical as well. He is not a leader on a level with other Indian politicians or ministers -- most of whom are experts in executing transfer orders of Govt. officials and even making money by foul means. Unlike the others, he has one quality rarely found in Indian politicians: honesty. In this regard he resembles his patron, the Prime Minister of India Mr. Vajpayee, although many of their rivals might dispute it and would relish the suggestion of shades of dishonesty and hypocrisy chasing them. But in Indian politics, which has been characterized as a "coal mine," both of them are considered to have maintained a relatively spotless career.

I have had the honor of knowing Mr. Jaswant Singh personally for over a decade, ever since he almost immediately attracted my attention as a fine English orator in one of the Houses of the Indian Parliament which I was attending in the capacity of an official attached to a Union Minister. I wondered then who this wonderful orator was, and much later I came to learn his real identity. In fact, I had the honor to be a "favorite" of his father-in-law, the late Col. Mohan Singhji Bhati. Mr . Bhati, a brother-in-law of the late ruler of Jodhpur Maharaja Ummed Singhji, hardly ever addressed me by my actual name. Instead he always called me "Baajisa," a local word which meant "grandfather sir" (see my previous article in this series, "Charans and Churchill"). Frankly, although I did not deserve the epithet, I did like his typical address and accent -- himself a grandfather calling me grandfather! I understood very well the history, the implication, and the depth of this extraordinary term.

It was through Col. Mohan Singhji Bhati that I learned that Mr. Jaswant Singh was Bhati's son-in-law, the husband of his third daughter Sheetal Bai (Kalu). Mr.Bhati himself was a nice, lively person and was a retired Army officer, who had the privilege of being personally known to the first PM of India, Jawahar Lal Nehru, whom Mr. Bhati always referred to as "Neru." A former major of the Indian Army, Mr. Jawant Singh belongs to a renowned village, "JASOL" of Barmer district of Western Rajasthan. He hails from a "Thakur" family, which is the equavalent of a "Lord"family in England. His forefathers were Nobles of Marwar (Jodhpur) State, and Mr. Singh by his very speech and appearance is unmistakably a gentleman of the first order. Anybody who comes in contact with him cannot help being struck by this trait more than any other. In fact he is not a "politician" type at all as we normally define this term here in India -- namely a man who could play tricks and do the works of others for the sake of earning votes or pleasing his voters, taking undue advantage of his position and authority. By contrast, Mr. Singh is a person who would be a spokesman for what is right and decent. He believes in raising the voices of his electorates/constituents in Parliament rather than doing their PERSONAL works, which is the trend among most politicians in this country and which prompts others to sing the songs of their so-called "magnanimity," "generosity,"and even "greatness." He is more of an intellectual kind of person. Decorum and dignity are his watchwords.

Best of all, he is a great democrat, and is under no illusion about himself and entertains no euphoria about the old feudal order in spite of being from this class. When I visited his house (located just behind the PM house) back in 1989 for the first time at the invitation of his wife (who considers me a brotherly person), I complimented Mr. Singh for his modest yet beautifully maintained house. If I remember the words correctly, I said " Sir, YOUR HOUSE is startlingly beautiful." The reply I received took away the ground from under my feet. The rumbling, thundering, rolling voice responded - "Inder Dan Sa" (an extraordinary affectionate touch in the address in local Rajasthani language), this is not MY HOUSE. This is a Government accomodation which they would take away from me in few years, Hukum." I was utterly baffled by his simplicity, humility, and lovely manners. He almost "owned" me there and then.

The owner of a prominent forehead ,very prominent bristling eyebrows like Churchill's, and the deepest voice among all the political leaders/Parliamentarians of India, Mr. Jaswant Singh is a person of great manners and grace. Highly sophisticated yet extremely soft spoken, Mr. Singh almost owns a negotiator across the table or the person he comes in contact with. I didn't know about his additional quality of boldness until recently, which he used it while facing the Americans without offending them in any way. His command over the English language and his profound comprehension of the national and international issues not only put him ahead of his other colleagues, but also earned him the post of Foreign Minister. Back in 1989, when I returned to my home after my first visit to his house, I told an inner voice of my heart to my wife and children: "Jaswant Singh Sa will one day become either Defence Minister or Foreign Minister of India." I told the same thing to my patron, the late Col. Mohan Singh Bhati, who smiled away the suggestion while thanking me for the good will. It was the time of Rajiv Gandhi, and BJP (the party of Mr.Jaswant Singh) had only two Members in the then over 550-Member House. My suggestion amounted to a very tall claim indeed, given these numbers and the fact that Mr. Singh was a relatively new member in the party heirarchy. But I seriously meant it, as I had recognised the qualities in Mr.Singh's personality. This was precisely what happened almost 10 years later: Mr. Singh became Defence Minister in the first Vajpayee Govt. (which lasted for only 13 days) and one and half years later in the present cabinet the Foreign Minister -- straight, with no any other post in between. My children at times do compliment me for this absolutely accurate prediction, which I had made solely on the basis of the qualities Mr. Singh commanded.

I am certain that in all high-profile meetings such as that between Mr. Singh and the Americans, the qualities of the person who negotiates is very crucial. The words in which he/she presents the case and the way those words are delivered are vital factors in influencing the other side. In both of these Mr. Singh reigns supreme. He not only impresses the chief negotiator but also the entire team by his words and manners. I do not have even the slightest doubt about it. This was why he could succeed. Yes, events in Pakistan and the attitude of the Pakistanis also helped reinforce the position of Mr. Singh in proving his assertions right from time to time. But he has brought about this extra-ordinary rapproachment with the United States without in any way compromising on the Indian stand about nuclear non-proliferation, and without antagonizing Russia or even China. He managed to keep China almost neutral during the Kargil conflict. As a matter of fact, his visit t o China on the eve of Kargil conflict helped preserve in China an attitude that could rather be interpreted as "pro-India," in sharp contrast to her traditional policy.

I shall not be surprised at all if one day Mr. Singh becomes the PM or President of India. Nor shall I be surprised if someone someday calls him a "great statesman." It would be a misfortune of Pakistan if she failed to take advantage of the presence of this extraordinary statesman at the summit of India's foreign affairs. The Pakistanis would not get a better person to deal with. There are thousands of Sodha Rajputs still living in Pakistan, among whom there might be near or distant relatives of Mr.Singh himself . Or at the very least, he knows more people in Pakistan than his other colleagues in the cabinet except maybe Mr. Advani (also Khorana), who is himself labeled "Pakistani" by many in India since he was, like the former PM Mr. Gujaral, borne and brought up in Pakistan -- precisely the same way as Mr. Nawaz Sharif and General Musharraf were born and brought up in India .

Mr. Jaswant Singh may be very close to the Prime Minister Mr.Vajpayee and may be very popular among foreign dignitaries, but he is not as popular among the rank-and-file of BJP party back in India. On the contrary, among the common ranks of BJP -- a party which came to power following a long, protracted struggle by its zealot cadres -- Mr. Singh is considered a "back-door entrant." Many of his colleagues are certainly jealous of the position he enjoys due to what they believe is an undue patronage of PrimeMinister Vajpayee, who considers Mr.Singh indispensable and irreplaceable. If left to Mr. Vajpayee, he would almost certainly make Mr. Singh the PM or the President of India. I would not be surprised at all if Mr. Vajpayee one fine day in a tactful way declares him his successor. In that case, the possibility of BJP breaking apart into neat two parts is a very real one, since to the irrepressible Mr. Advani (another contender waiting in the wings) and his staunch supporters which make the party rank-and-file, Such an appointment might be absolutely indigestible and intolerable.

####

Before we settle the question as to who is the person of the twentieth century, we should discuss what makes this century so extraordinary compared to preceeding ones in the history of mankind. I believe that it is due to three major explosions (over and above the much-acclaimed and often-cursed fourth one -- the explosion of the atomic bomb): the explosion of population; the explosion of knowledge: and last but not least, the explosion of freedom. All three are quite comparable in proportion to the fourth, both in scale and implications. These are the three explosions that have transformed the world -- transformed it from a backward, illiterate, uneducated, disease-ridden, colonial and imperialist world to a forward-looking, free, literate, democratic, educated, scientifically advanced, awakened, modern world.

All three explosions were complimentary to each other -- that is, each one escalated the other two in a compounding manner. And all three have taken a decisive leap forward during the latter half of the twentieth century because of a decisive monumental landmark at the middle of it: the end of  World War II, resulting in decisive victory for the forces of FREEDOM. This is where Winston Churchill came into the picture of these three major explosions. He sparked the explosion of freedom during the Second World War, and the ripples and sunami waves of this explosion reached nearly all the corners of the world either in the form of liberation itself or the awakening of people towards this concept. This in turn triggered off the other two explosions, thus making the twentieth century a special one for mankind over all the previous ones. Thus we find that the role of Churchill has been pivotal in this process of explosions that gave wings to the progress of mankind.

In the earlier half of the twentieth century the progress made in these fields was only marginal and confined to a handful of nations, but what happened during the latter half is simply phenomenal, particularly in respect to the explosions of freedom and knowledge. Churchill virtually exploded the idea of freedom while "defending" it during the great war; consequently, it spread beyond the bounds of those who had made it their prisoner since the inception of humanity by contradicting the ancient concept that might was always right . Churchill, in his relentless war of words during the Second World War, served to awaken the conscience of both the oppressers (including the British themselves)and the oppressed . He "freed" people who fell victim to Nazi tyranny as well as he freed freedom itself from a handful of nations to spread throughout the world. He raised the consciousness of  the rest of the world toward the concept of freedom by demonstrating how vital it was for an island people that they were ready to sacrifice everything they had to defend it against a mighty continental conqueror, and that they could go to any length while doing so .

So-called knowledgeable people offer a long list of persons, particularly politicians, to be considered for the title "Person of the Century," including even Hitler, Stallin, Lenin, Mao etc. who through their so-called "great" philosophies -- all of which in fact championed the force of arms over free will -- led great masses mostly to their doom or slavery of one kind or another. In my opinion, there are but three finalists for this coveted title: Einstein, Gandhi, and Churchill. But a serious thought to the details would soon oust the first two from the ring, leaving the last -- the master jollyman, the master of literature and the master advocate of the cause of freedom in the field.

Any one who offers the name of Roosevelt for this title, whether he be the incumbent President or the future President of the United States, is doing so more out of partisan political considerations or patriotism than out of any real substance. Churchill is too heavy when compared to Roosevelt. Or else they simply do not know how to weigh. One ground is enough to rule out this title to Roosevelt: that he seriously conceived the idea of actively engaging and squarely confronting the destroyers of freedom only after Pearl Harbour, when the USA was actually attacked by Japan . It may, however , be  recalled that Churchill had mooted the idea of waging a war against tyranny far before Britain was actually attacked by Hitler, but Britain under Chamberlain was reluctant. Yet Churchill's apprehensions were proven right when Germany finally attacked Poland, and the British had no option but to toe the line so often advocated by Churchill by declaring war against Germany .

First of all , let us consider "the transformation of the world" aspect as given above. The contributions of Gandhi and Einstein in giving this vital turn TO THE WHOLE WORLD were significant, but that of Churchill is simply "irreplaceable." Mahatma Gandhi's contribution toward the independence of India is very significant indeed, as he did show a way, a superfine way, to break the shackles of slavery. It was an ideal but could not be adopted for practice by the most of the leaders of those who were oppressed. It served as a beacon of light and something worth admiration, but could not practically be wedded to the day-to-day fight for freedom in most parts of the world, although no one could question the exaltedness of the method. Therefore it could not be harnessed to "extricate" the peoples and nations except for India, blacks in the United States during the Civil Rights Movement, and maybe South Africa (with regard to the last, many would even dispute this claim, citing instead the rising tide of armed liberation and armed resistance to the oppressors).

Einstein's contribution in advancing human "understanding" of the forces of nature, toward  creation of time, space and cosmos is unparallelled . But again, he cannot be credited with a contribution to the "transformation" discussed above or the three major explosions that triggered it -- although his contribution to the fourth one is enormous.

The contribution of Britain as a nation to the development of the world is well acknowledged. And Britain would be simply written off by the world because of her imperialist exploits were it not for three persons: Newton , Shakespeare and Churchill. In other words SCIENCE , LITERATURE,  and FREEDOM have redeemed Britain in the eyes of the civilized world. All three of the aforementioned persons are the symbols of these three fields respectively. Churchill did have something to contibute to the fields of Newton and Shakespeare (with respect to the latter, a very significant one), whereas neither Newton nor Shakespeare had anything to do with the field of Churchill beyond using it for the benefit of the enhancement of their respective fields. In this sense also, Churchill stands unparallelled .

####