Among the various permutations and combinations that were being calculated prior to the 7 May general election, a potentially pro-India government appears to have emerged following the verdict of the British people.
Prime Minister David Cameron’s weakness for India is well known. One of his early overseas trips as leader of the Conservative party and of the opposition was to India in 2006. Writing in The Guardian a day after his arrival in Delhi, he wrote: “I attach the highest priority to Britain’s relationship with India.”
Four years later, he committed his party to a “special relationship” with India in their election manifesto. This time around, the same document asserted the Tories will “build on our (the UK’s) strong relationship with India, push for an ambitious EU-India (free) trade deal and support India’s bid for permanent representation on the UN Security Council”.
By contrast, neither the Labour party nor the Liberal Democrats bothered to make any mention of India in their manifestos whatsoever.
Cameron is the only British prime minister who has publicly criticised Pakistan’s alleged export of terrorism. He did so when visiting India in 2010. He said in a speech in Bangalore: “We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country (Pakistan) is allowed to look both ways and is able in any way to promote the export of terror whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world.”
He was after such remarks forthwith reined in by the Foreign Office and never repeated them on record. Yet, he was merely echoing what his predecessors like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had often conveyed to their Indian counterparts in private.
The UK-India strategic partnership was, in fact, signed in 2004 when Blair was prime minister. But 13 years of rule by the Labour party – with which India historically sensed greater empathy since the Labour government of Clement Attlee granted independence to India in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservatives led by Winston Churchill - failed to reflect the effusiveness articulated by Cameron since he assumed the Tory leadership.
Indeed, in 2009, as Labour’s foreign secretary, David Miliband sparked a furore by suggesting a link between the 2008 terror attack on Mumbai and the long-running Kashmir dispute. He wrote in an article: “Resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders.”
Arun Jaitley, then a spokesman of the Bharatiya Janata Party and now the Indian finance minister, reacted by saying: “In recent years, there has been no bigger disaster than David Miliband’s visit.”
A pro-India British government, of course, does not translate to antipathy towards another country. Since the suicide bomb attacks in London’s public transport system in 2005, the powers-that-be in Whitehall have sought to prevent a repeat by establishing a quid pro quo with Pakistani authorities.
In effect, it means a slightly unhelpful attitude on the part of London when it comes to certain issues of concern to India. An Indian official went to the extent of alleging that in one instance co-operation requested from the UK intelligence services about Pakistan-based elements inimical to India resulted in the latter being tipped off.
At the same time, given India’s ability to absorb British exports and the potential of Indian companies to invest in the UK, there is unlikely to be any hyphenating of India and Pakistan in a Cameron-led Conservative government’s economic policy.
A genuine special relationship between the two countries, though, will only be realised if and when London and Delhi see eye to eye on international political affairs and forge greater co-operation on the counter terrorism front.
The ball is in Cameron’s court!
