Nehru’s India, Trump’s America

Tomorrow the country would celebrate Jawaharlal Nehru’s birth anniversary. The official participation, if any, would be only perfunctory. And, so be it. We as citizens ought to remember and recall how this man almost singlehandedly nurtured a democratic culture to go with our constitutional arrangements — against the grain of our hierarchical social structures. He set up good precedents for good manners among the political class, in particular a protocol of civility and decency among opponents.

Our debt to Nehru becomes all too obvious in contrast to what happened in America during and after the 2016 presidential election. Donald Trump pulled off a stunning victory, but that outcome brought protesters out in the streets. A peaceful transition of power is one of the primary hallmarks of a successful democracy. The loser accepts the verdict as much as does the winner. The Americans have been found to be wanting on that score.

In contrast, the transitions of power in India have been without any kind of protest or violence in the streets. In 1977, when the people voted Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi out, there was no reluctance whatsoever to make way for the new Janata crowd. Similarly in 1980, the Janata Party leaders displayed admirable equanimity in vacating offices. Likewise, wonderfully smooth transitions took place in 1989, 91, 96, and 98.

For the first time, a sour note was introduced in 2004. Sushma Swaraj and Uma Bharti declared that they would shave off their hair by way of protest if Sonia Gandhi became Prime Minister. The country was spared a prolonged bout of partisanship when Sonia Gandhi made way for Dr Manmohan Singh.

In 2014, when the voters gave a comprehensive mandate to the BJP and its prime ministerial mascot Narendra Modi, the Manmohan Singh regime quietly and with becoming dignity made way for the new rulers. No one protested in the streets and no one cried foul play. 

That was and remains the strength of Nehru’s India. Trump’s America appears to be in a bad spot. 

Last week, television channels managed to create a first-rate scare. Delhi was choking itself to death on bad air, they screamed all day long. And, as is the compulsive itch, the ill-informed reporter and the barely-informed anchor joined forces to manufacture a confrontation: first between the Centre and the Delhi government, then between Delhi and Haryana, and, even better, between Delhi and Punjab. A sizeable section of the electronic media merrily went after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. And, he, in turn, did what he knows best: accuse the others. The region’s politicians swallowed the media bait and began the familiar blame-game. It provided “copy” for the day. 

Even a high school student knows that the climate change and its causes and remedies cannot be tackled by this or that state alone and that solutions can be found and implemented only in a collective manner and in partnership between the Centre and the states. The smog or any natural calamity does not stop or begin at the Haryana-Delhi border. Yet, there is no relief from the politicians framing the issue in an inter-state rivalry. 

The smog crisis only reminded us of our collective vulnerability. No one is immune from viruses. Borders are becoming fictional barriers. And that should be a sobering thought for all those hotheads who glibly talk about a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. If the burning of stubble in Haryana can make life so miserable in Delhi, just think what a nuclear exchange would do to life in Lahore and Amritsar. No scientist or general can assure his nation’s leaders or citizens that the fallout of a nuclear exchange would remain confined on either side of the boundary. 

A week before the votes were counted in the American presidential election, an elderly couple came to visit The Tribune office and insisted on seeing the Editor-in-Chief. Mrs and Professor JR Daniel were invited in. The “professor” came straight to the point: he had a “scoop”. He thought The Tribune should be the first newspaper to print that Donald Trump had won the presidency. He also intimated to me that he had already shared the news with Donald Trump.

Professor Daniel was kind enough to give me a copy of the email he had sent on August 3, 2016, to the American presidential candidate, informing him that “GOD has appointed you President of USA in White House.”

I did not feel like telling him that in June, 2016, I had already written a piece, “Bracing for a Trump Presidency”. 

I had only my understanding of the American history and politics to help me in my analysis. He had all the authority of the Christian faith behind his prediction (Romans 8:31. If God is for US who can be against US!!!). I am not sure if the Trump campaign took Professor Daniel up on his offer to let them buy the first 10,000 copies of his book titled Oh! My Darling America. I could not figure out his denominational affiliation, but his invocation of the Bible suddenly made me think about the role of religion in the American political discourse. “The religious right” has provided the most vocal and the most fanatical elements in the Trump coalition. 

After Donald Trump’s victory, I went back to a very insightful book, Kevin Philips’ American Theocracy. Philips had meditated on the role of “radical religion” in the shaping of American domestic and foreign policies. Written in 2006, after George Bush’s emphatic victory in the 2004 election, Philips observed that “strong theocratic pressures are already visible in the Republican national coalition and its leadership, while the substantial portion of Christian America committed to the theories of Armageddon and the inerrancy of the Bible has already made the GOP (the Republican Party) into America’s first religious party.” 

Because so much attention was focused on Donald Trump’s eccentricities and idiosyncrasies, we failed to realise that most of his Republican rivals themselves were so deeply beholden to “theocrats” who engage in battles — to quote Philips —“over sex, life and death issues, church-state separation, and the global contest between good and evil.” These “religious right” groups stayed firmly in the Republican column. The Hillary Clinton campaign never educated the Americans on the dangers of this creeping “theocracy”; instead, it focused on Donald Trump’s personal inadequacies.

These “radical religion” groups remained active, angry, aggrieved and animated in their dislike of Barack Obama for occupying the White House for eight years. Now, these same people can be expected to have their presence felt in the American approach to the non-Christian world — notwithstanding the joy some “American Hindus” are reported to have felt. 

England is on a cricket tour of India. It needs to be noted that in the English XI playing the first Test at Rajkot are four very, very non-English sounding names: Haseeb Hameed, Moeen Ali, Adi Usman Rashid and Z. Ansari. The first three also have very non-English looks. 

And, we have not heard any objections from the Shiv Sena!

Ever since Naseer Hussain captained the English team more than 10 years ago, it is common to find players of South Asian ancestry donning the MCC cap. But four out of eleven? To the extent national teams do represent a nation’s temper, the composition of this visiting team tells us something. Brexit or no Brexit, England would not be able to shed so easily its multicultural richness.

There is still hope for England. 

Before the frenzy of old and new currency notes took over on Tuesday, we were being subjected to the breathlessness of smog. Some were able to find humour in this alarm-mongering. 

But coffee can be consumed on consecutive days. Do join me.

kaffeeklatsch@tribuneindia.com