There were three distinct Britains I encountered during a week-long visit that coincided with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first visit to that country since he assumed charge 18 months ago. That’s not surprising since there must be another score of Britains that I have never encountered, nor am likely to. The three Britains I refer to is in the context of India.
The first is what might be called the British Establishment — mainly, but not exclusively white and most well educated, but not necessarily all Oxbridge. To many Indians familiar with imperial and burra sahib stereotypes, the picture of the British Establishment still remains largely negative. They are perceived to be aloof, cliquish, too class conscious and generally disdainful of ‘foreigners’ — characteristics we have gleamed by believing that Britain is still the land of Downton Abbey. I am not suggesting that these attitudes have disappeared ever since the Empire gave way to the cosmopolitanism and correctness of the European Union. However, there has been a pragmatic realisation that unless the UK plugs into the new centres of economic growth, it has no future.
Consequently, the UK-US ‘special relationship’ which grew out of America’s crucial help in overcoming Hitler’s threat has evolved into a vibrant economic and cultural partnership. There are no doubt little Britons who complain about the crassness that Americanisation has brought to Britain’s popular culture, but most of this is non-antagonistic. Britain doesn’t even mind being regarded as the newest American state since that relationship has yielded handsome returns in terms of money, jobs and opportunities.
likewise, for all the carping over the over-submissiveness demonstrated during Xi Jinping’s visit, the British Establishment has been pragmatic enough to realise that China has to be assiduously courted as long as its economic graph moves in an upward direction. It was for not for nothing that Napoleon called the English (and I would definitely include the Scots who benefited most from the commerce of Empire) a “nation of shopkeepers.”
It’s that same spirit that was in evidence during the Modi visit. The British Establishment walked the extra mile to woo India and demonstrate their areas of competence — and they still have many. They wanted it to be a dream visit — not necessarily because they are enamoured of Modi (some are and some aren’t) but because they see the Indian Prime Minister as a symbol of the forces that are propelling India. Britain literally rolled out the reddest of its red carpets — speech to Parliament, overnight stay at Chequers and lunch with the Queen. I believe they banked on Modi to respond positively because, unlike the Nehrus, Gandhis and ever Manmohan Singh, this PM doesn’t have to live down an overweight of western cultural influence. For Modi, a PM born after Independence, the British Raj is history. By looking at Britain as an economic partner, he responded in full measure to whatever Cameron had to offer and more — without squeamishness.
The second Britain I encountered was the ‘liberal’ Britain, with its formidable control over the levers of intellectual capital. It is wrong to believe they hate India, they don’t. What they do like is to pity India and shower it with dollops of victimhood. What they do hate, however, is the idea of money (not money itself) determining global relations. What is important for them is an India that can be converted into a focus of indignation — caste violence, oppression of minorities, truncation of democratic space, et al.
In recent months they have got an overdose of ammunition that confirms what they believed even before the first EVM had been pressed in 2014: that Modi’s election would be (at least for them) an aesthetic disaster. Now, with the Indian intellectuals up in arms, actually protesting against their marginalisation from the power structure but pegging it on two tragic killings, they finally found a cause. The protests that greeted Modi on arrival in london had nothing to do with the agenda of his visit. So they tried to force that agenda on an unwilling British Establishment which was looking to sell British competence to India.
What I found particularly curious was the insistence of london-based British academics and activists that UK investment in India be tied to its human rights record. In addition they wanted Whitehall to monitor India’s human rights and link it to investments.
I think that these bleeding hearts actually believe that British investments are an euphemism for old-style aid which came with strings attached. No wonder they were asking: why is Modi coming to BritainIJ
They also believed that Britain was well placed to monitor India’s human rights, rap the Government on the knuckle when it failed the test and, maybe, reimpose the Queen-Emperor’s rule if things got truly out of hand. There was a time when the British Establishment believed that the natives weren’t fit to rule themselves. Now that belief has been passed on the international fraternity of left imperialists — the stage army of the good.
The third Britain I encountered was the diaspora. It celebrated Modi with gusto in Wembley partly because they view the PM as an inspirational figure for all peoples of Indian origin but essentially because they are experiencing an explosion of self-pride. In earlier decades being Indian — regardless of what passport they held — was seen as something that was somewhat of a disability. No longer. The rise of India as an economic powerhouse has rubbed off on their self-esteem. The process began much before Modi was PM but he focussed those impulses with an energetic wooing of the diaspora. The 200 or so young volunteers who worked untiringly to make the Wembley event a success reflected this new connect of the home with the homeland.