Mentally not fully Indian: Rajan, Subramanian; is anyone safe from Swamy's hypocrisy?

BJP MP Subramanian Swamy’s extreme self-righteousness seems to drive him to suspect others of diabolic intent. Nothing else can otherwise explain his characterisation of RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan as “mentally not fully Indian.” This is the charge that Swamy has also implicitly flung at chief economic advisor (CEA) Arvind Subramanian. Firing multiple tweet-missiles, Swamy doubted the patriotism of Subramanian – because he had advised the United States government on certain policy options which could have militated against India’s interests. Perhaps Swamy is a classic example of the hunted deciding to become the hunter in reaction. More than three decades ago, there were many in Delhi – journalists and politicians included – who used to, rather uncharitably and unforgivably, describe Swamy as a CIA agent. Their reasons were as simplistic and puerile as Swamy’s are in labelling Rajan and Arvind Subramanian as mentally not fully Indian. After completing his PhD in economics from Harvard University, Swamy joined the faculty there – a testament to his brilliance – and subsequently returned to the capital to join the prestigious Delhi School of Economics. He was opposed to Delhi’s then dominant ideological flavour of Socialism, favoured the US over the USSR, and was hostile to the Congress. His detractors, in their petty superiority, didn’t think that Swamy could have thought out his own ideological position. They said that he prescribed a certain line because he was a CIA agent, through whom the Americans were working to promote their own interests in India! [caption id=“attachment_2707764” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File photo of Subramanian Swamy. Reuters[/caption] Ironically, three decades later, it is Swamy who has taken to doubting the integrity of brilliant NRI minds, who have returned to India to work for its progress. A similar case could well be made against the irrepressible Swamy, for a variety of reasons. In 2014, for instance, WikiLeaks – a website renown for outing government records – dumped a tranche of secret diplomatic cables into the public domain. Among these documents was one that dated to 1977, when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had already called for the Lok Sabha elections in March. Nobody had ever thought that Indira would risk an election, as she was ensconced in power because of the Emergency imposed on the country in 1975. The inability to explain Indira’s decision set the rumour-mill to work overtime. The consensus was that she was seriously ill, and wished to pass the baton to her son, Sanjay, after the election, which she believed the Congress would sweep. The WikiLeaks cable had an American state department official asking his Embassy in Delhi to check on the veracity of the information regarding her failing health. The WikiLeaks cable cited Swamy’s name as one of the sources from whom the state department learnt about the reason behind Indira’s decision to call for the election. It said, “Subramanian Swamy suggested to (US) Department officer ten days ago that he heard Mrs. Gandhi was prompted to set the March election date because she wanted to square things away in view of her ‘failing health’.” Is the conversation between Swamy and the US diplomat proof of his disloyalty to India? Congress spokesperson Sanjay Jha thought so. He tweeted to describe Swamy as a “CIA agent”, but was quick to tender an unqualified apology as soon as he was served a legal notice. This was because neither WikiLeaks nor the leaked diplomatic cable had described Swamy as working for the CIA. Exchange of gossip is as a much part of Delhi’s life as it of Washington’s. Yet, by the same token, it is sheer calumny on Swamy’s part to doubt Rajan and Subramanian’s loyalty to India or to suggest that they are incapable of grasping the palliatives the Indian economic needs because, well, they are “mentally not fully Indian.” Both Rajan and Subramanian are Indian passport holders, studied and taught abroad, as is Swamy. In fact, in 2011, Swamy was scheduled to teach two summer economics courses at Harvard University, before the faculty voted to drop them – as a result of the scandalous piece he wrote for the newspaper DNA, the text of which is no longer available on their  website . So, until 2011, it could have been said that Swamy had relatively enduring links with the US. Should this become a ground for us to suspect that he might have extra-territorial loyalty? Obviously not. Perhaps a more pertinent question to ask is: What does the phrase “mentally not fully Indian” mean? Who is mentally fully Indian? Swamy’s elder daughter, Gitanjali, is married to Sanjay Sarma, who teaches at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It would be interesting to inquire from Swamy whether he considers them mentally fully Indian. Is Swamy circumspect in talking to his daughter and son-in-law, fearing they might ferret away information useful to the US? After all, Swamy is a Rajya Sabha member and a senior leader of the BJP. In a diverse country such as India, it is absurd to even attempt to define who is truly Indian, mentally, in appearance, or both. I learned this the hard way in the days following the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. The newspaper I was working for back then had sent me to Bihar, to figure out whether a person of Italian origin, Sonia Gandhi, would be acceptable to people as prime minister. For those few days, Congress leaders were clamouring to have Sonia lead the party. So there I was sipping tea at a shack, surrounded by villagers deep inside rural Bihar. They said that they were going to vote for the Janata Dal, not the Congress, as the latter didn’t earnestly support OBC reservations – which the VP Singh government had decided to introduce a year ago. You can’t ever accept Sonia Gandhi as Prime Minister, can you, I asked. They looked puzzled. Because she is a foreigner, I suggested in the hope of prompting them. One of them immediately responded: “For us, even you look like a foreigner.” He pointed to my jeans and shirt to emphasise his point, triggering uproarious laughter all around. You realise that there exist several ideas of who is Indian at the ticket counter of historical monuments – where foreigners have to pay a higher rate for admission than Indians. It isn’t uncommon to have officials sidle up to challenge Indians about their citizenship. They make their assessment on the basis of the dressing sense, the colour of skin, and whether or not the speech is accented. Then again, Swamy’s phrase should have special resonance in Britain, where Indians cheer the cricket team of their erstwhile home, even against the English team. It had once provoked former English captain Nasser Hussain to write, “I really cannot understand why those born here, or who came here at a very young age like me, cannot support or follow England. Following England has got to be the way.” Should these cheering Indian-origin Brits be banished from important public offices because they are, well, mentally not fully English? Should Meghnad Desai be stripped of his lordship, as his interest in India is more than just passing? Think of Indian Americans who cheer Prime Minister Narendra Modi every time he addresses a function in the US. You could say they are mentally, to varying degrees, Indian even though they have accepted the American citizenship. Imagine a red-neck conservative demanding that American universities shouldn’t hire people such as Rajan or Arvind Subramanian, who are mentally not fully American, as they skip to India every now and then to assist in its rise. In hindsight, it seems logical, and inevitable, why Swamy has become the flag-bearer of the Hindutva brigade. For one who has coined the phrase – mentally not fully Indian – Hindutva ideologue VD Savarkar’s theory of who is Hindu must have a special appeal. Savarkar said a Hindu is one whose fatherland and holy land is India. It is why his loyalty to India will never be suspect – and that of a Muslim or a Christian will be, given that their holy land is in West Asia. Rajan and Subramanian are both Hindus. Yet, Swamy doubts their patriotism and makes innuendos about their extra-territorial allegiance. It tells you that the suspicion inbuilt into the Hindutva ideology against Muslims and Christians turns its adherents paranoid. They see enemies all around them. Is this why Swamy has taken to rail against Rajan and Subramanian, as constituting a prototype of the Fifth Column? Legal luminary Ram Jethmalani will surely have a different take. In a piece penned for the Indian Express in 1998, he said this of Swamy, “True, democracy must take in its stride even dangerous megalomaniacs like him, but equally the people must know what they are dealing with. This diseased insect cannot be disinfected. He has to be crushed and carefully incinerated. It is not enough to throw him into the gutter. That is his natural habitat. There he will grow and flourish.” Jethmalani was undoubtedly harsh on Swamy. But Swamy has been no less, in his description of people he abhors, Rajan and Subramanian included. (Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist in Delhi. His novel, The Hour Before Dawn_, has as its backdrop the demolition of the Babri Masjid. It is available in bookstores.)_