Rahul Gandhi, playing with fire

Rahul is repeatedly seeking foreign intervention to help him ‘restore democracy in India’. Is the West or US real exponents of democracy? Can one trust them with India’s security, independence and territorial integrity?

The pearls of wisdom offered by Congress scion Rahul Gandhi to his audiences during his recent visit to the United Kingdom, brings to mind two well-known characters, both ending in tragic consequences, for everyone concerned. Rahul, spurred by his sense of entitlement, personal pique and frustration, did what Shah Walliullah Dehlawi (1703-1762) had done during his times, paving way for India's unfortunate colonisation. Like Don Quixote, an eccentric character from 'The Ingenious Gentleman' - a novel by Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616), Rahul is busy combating non-existent phantoms and demons while tilting at windmills. The dividing line between reality and prejudices, has just disappeared for Rahul.

Addressing the Indian Journalists' Association (IJA) at London on March 4 last, Rahul said, "...The surprising thing is that the so-called defenders of democracy such as the United States and European countries seem to be oblivious that a huge chunk of the democratic model has come under...which is real problem." He went on to state that, "it's not just an Indian battle, it's a much more important battle, a battle for a huge part of democratic people on this planet."

This isn't the first time that Rahul Gandhi has bemoaned the 'demise' of democracy on foreign soil. Speaking to Nicolas Burns, the US Ambassador to China and a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs at the US State Department last April, Rahul had said, "I don't hear anything from the US establishment about what's happening in India. If you are saying partnership of democracies, I mean what is your view on what is going on here..."

Seeking foreign help to fix domestic foes is an old Indian venial sin that has often resulted in disastrous consequences for the country. Shah Waliullah, like Rahul, had a sense of entitlement. The Shah was convinced he was sent by God to serve and lead Muslims of India. Since Rahul considers himself a legit heir to the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, he believes 'he is born to lead Indians' and alone has the right to decide what's good or bad for them. The ones with electorate mandate are usurpers in his eyes.

After the demise of Moghul emperor Aurangzeb in 1707, the Marathas in parts of south, west and central India, Sikhs in Punjab, Rajputs and Jats in Rajasthan gained traction. The despotic Islamic rule was being fast replaced by pluralistic and polycentric dispensation in various parts of the country. Unable to accept the change, the Shah pleaded with Ahmad Shah Abdali to invade India and re-establish supremacy of Islam.

Abdali attacked India in 1761 and received ready help from several local Muslim principalities at Shah Waliullah's instance. The Marathas who confronted Abdali lost what's called the third battle of Panipat. After the defeat, Marathas could never regain their strength fully. The result was when the British forces led by General Lake charged at Delhi in September 1803, the defending Marathas, weakened by Abdali's onslaught, were routed. The titular Moghul emperor Shah Alam-II happily turned into a British pensioner, a willing complicit in colonial takeover of India.

Rahul is repeatedly seeking foreign intervention to help him "restore democracy in India". Is he really that innocent or naïve? Can one trust an alien agency with India's security, independence and territorial integrity? Are the West and America exponents of democracy for real? They are purely guided by their self-interest and colonial mindset.

For decades, the US had preferred an Islamic Pakistan, over democratic India because of its strategic interests. Pakistan has mostly been under army dictatorship since its birth. Even the present 'democratic' regime in Islamabad is remote controlled by men in uniform. The US has had no compunctions in engaging China, irrespective of its authoritarian character laced with Marxism, when it suited its interests.

There is little doubt, Rahul is playing with fire. On March 3, while delivering a lecture at Cambridge Judge Business School, Rahul said, "I mean I have got a Sikh gentleman sitting here. He is from the Sikh religion. And he comes from India, right? We have got Muslims in India, Christians in India, and we have got different languages in India... They are all India... Mr. Narendra Modi says he is not (a real Indian). Mr. Narendra Modi says he (the Sikh guy in the room) is a second-class citizen in India. I don't agree with him."

The idea of Khalistan, which has claimed thousands of innocent lives (both of Hindus and Sikhs), has its origins in the divisive paradigm promoted by a British bureaucrat Max Arthur Macauliffe (1838-1913). (For details, please see my column "We are only fighting against Khalistanis but not against the idea of Khalistan" posted on March 7 last.) Ironically, Rahul was pushing that poisonous agenda on the very land from where it had originated.

When Rahul said "Mr. Narendra Modi says, he, the Sikh guy in the room, is second class citizen", he legitimised what the Khalistanis have been propagating for over half a century. The entire Khalistan trope rests on the myth that Sikhs are ill-treated by the Indian State and are "second class citizens" in the country. It's really ironic that Rahul has ended up as a propagator of the schismatic paradigm which claimed the life of his grandmother and then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Rahul should pay attention to what India-baiter Winston Churchill had said in the House of Commons in 1948. Paraphrasing George Santayana, a Spanish and American philosopher and novelist, Churchill had said, "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." It's obvious Rahul hasn't learnt anything from history.

Why does Rahul feel that democracy has ended in India and can only be resurrected by the West? The fact is, all the four pillars of Indian democracy - legislature, executive, judiciary and media are functioning, the way they have been since the Constitution came into effect in 1950. Nothing has changed except the executive is now more active, responsive to the needs of vox populi and transparent in its dealings. However, there is one more change - the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty and their sidekicks have to live like the rest of the Indians, sans any special privileges. Under the new dispensation, they too are now accountable to law and answerable for their acts of omission and commission. Rahul, a leading light of that 'entitled' class, finds it difficult to reconcile to this change in status.

Before Modi came in 2014 and spoilt the party, the Gandhis were running the show through remote control. The National Advisory Council (NAC) chaired by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi was the real power behind the throne. During that time, NAC decided what the government headed by Dr. Manmohan Singh would do or not. It was an extra-constitutional centre of authority, accountable to none. The Cabinet and Parliament counted for nothing.

Look at the clout Rahul and Priyanka enjoyed during the last regime, without holding any post in the government. In September 2013, an enraged Rahul slammed Manmohan Singh government for bringing an ordinance he didn't like. "I tell you what my opinion on the ordinance is: That it is complete nonsense. It should be torn up and thrown away. That's my opinion," he told the media. Rahul publicly tore a copy of the ordinance. The ordinance was withdrawn, without a murmur.

The Financial Action Task Force, the global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog, has included a case study in its latest report that bears a striking resemblance to the Enforcement Directorate's case against former Yes Bank CMD Rana Kapoor.

In its report titled "Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing In The Arts And The Antiques Market," FATF flagged the example of Mr. A: "Mr. A was managing director and CEO of an Indian bank who misused his position during his tenure. He sanctioned loans of the rupee equivalent of USD 628 million to business entities incurring losses or with negative credit, deliberately violating existing norms and regulations."

The report also refers to a study which "revealed that the suspect bought art of no actual value at a price of USD 2,64,000 from a close associate of a corrupt politician in order to pay kickbacks".

Incidentally, the ED had said in one of its chargesheets that Kapoor had told the agency he was "forced" to buy an M.F. Husain painting from Congress' Priyanka Gandhi Vadra for Rs 2 crore and that sale proceeds were utilised by the Gandhi family for the medical treatment of Congress president Sonia Gandhi in New York. That's the type of 'democracy' the Gandhi clan is missing, and fighting for - at home and abroad as well.

(Mr. Balbir Punj is a Former Member of Parliament and a Columnist. He can be reached at: [email protected])

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of OneIndia and OneIndia does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.