History, as Eliot says, has many “cunning passages and contrived
corridors”, but there are some alternate pathways which require some
effort to discover. One such—the life of A.C.N. Nambiar—has been
recovered by Vappala Balachandran. Nambiar lived in Europe in the
turbulent decades before World War II, was a journalist for various
newspapers, was an associate of Pandit Nehru and, later, Netaji Subhas
Chandra Bose’s representative in Nazi Germany. Then, he served as
India’s ambassador to Sweden and West Germany. Balachandran retired
as a senior officer in R&AW and was one of the two members of a
committee tasked to look into the Mumbai police in relation to the
26/11 attack.
Balachandran’s book has given us an unusual Indian perspective of
the complicated 1920s and ’30s in Europe. Through Nambiar’s life and
activities, Balachandran etches vividly the rise of Nazism, the German
occupation of Czechoslovakia, the chaos and confusion accompanying the
fall of France and the tumultous period following Netaji’s arrival in
Germany and the establishment of the Azad Hind Office there. He also
gives us a picture of the gritty circumstances in which many of our
freedom fighters lived during the war, especially in its closing period,
when they were hunted by British intelligence.
Into this story he weaves the details of how Nambiar became close to
Nehru, and subsequently his family, at a time when Kamala was ailing
and, accompanied by Indira, had come to Europe for treatment. Equally
fascinating was his relationship with Bose, who he first met in the mid-
1930s and who he tracked to his hideaway in a French village at the
Spanish border in 1941 after his dramatic escape from India. Soon, Bose
was to seek his help in setting up the Azad Hind Office.
Balachandran has, of course, benefited from his own, somewhat shadowy
association with Nambiar beginning in 1980, when he was asked by his
superiors, at the behest of Indira Gandhi, to contact him at his home
in Zurich. He speaks somewhat elliptically of this relationship, which
ended when Nambiar passed away in 1986 in New Delhi. By then,
Balachandran did manage a long interview with Nambiar, but he has also
scoured the files of British intelligence and the Bombay Special Branch
for information on Nambiar and his divorced wife, Suhasini
Chattopadhyay, and marshalled information available from a variety of
sources.
Significantly, the book throws light on the Nehru-Bose relationship.
Nambiar may have been Bose’s deputy, but after independence,
Panditji appointed him ambassador to various European countries and it
was Indira who sought him out. Nambiar was cut off from his own family
and it’s clear from Indira’s letters to him that she loved and respected
him.
The book questions the notion, popularised by a certain class of
people whose political progenitors did not participate in the national
movement, that Bose and Nehru were irreconcileable adversaries. Through
the eyes of Nambiar, Balachandran describes the courtesy that marked
the Bose-Nehru relationship and Panditji’s efforts to help Bose’s
widow Emilie Schenkl after the war.
The one area that Balachandran does not explore in detail is the
allegation, made in some British intelligence documents, based on the
information of a Soviet defector, that Nambiar was a spy working for the
Soviet military intelligence. Perhaps there is not much there to
explore. There is no doubt that Nambiar was a Leftist of sorts; Suhasini
was associated with the Communist Party of India. His own columns in
newspapers reflected his distate for Nazism. But, his importance in the
records comes from his role as an aide to Bose who, it is clear, had a
high opinion of his abilities.
Achievements by themselves do not guarantee a place in history, nor
do notoriety or good deeds. What gives life to the art of history is
the manner in which we constantly interrogate our past to understand the
present, often through the prism of our contemporary concerns.
By that measure, Nambiar’s place would have been secure, as he was
amongst the handful of Indians living abroad who contributed to our
freedom struggle, and was an associate of both Nehru and Bose.
But Nambiar was naturally self-effacing and insisted on living, as the
title suggests, a life in the shadows. So it has taken another person
used to such a life to shine some light on him. Balachandran has made an
enormous contribution by bringing to life a person who would have been
quite content to die in obscurity.
Outlook March 27, 2017
The country’s foreign and security policy has
plunged into a Chakravyuh of its own making. Its major manifestation is
the dead end that we have reached in our relations with China and
Pakistan, our two principal neighbours, who are simultaneously our
principal adversaries and each other’s best friends.
The biggest foreign and security policy challenge that we confront is
the deepening China-Pakistan relationship. These are countries we have
warred and skirmished with, and on their account we have to spend a
fortune on our security apparatus.
Faced with this challenge, one would imagine that the principal aim
of our government would be to seek to break this nexus, which has been
around since the 1960s, by fair means or foul. Instead, however, we have
been witnessing a strengthening of that alliance, especially in the
last two years. As for the government, it is in a world of its own where
it already believes that it is a major world power that can bring its
adversaries to heel through a policy of unrelenting toughness.
In the real world, the choices for India are fairly clear – manage
ties with the countries in question or engineer change in them. Changing
China or Pakistan is too big a task for India to attempt alone. Even
the mighty US has tried and failed. Hoping for change to come is a
non-option, what is needed is a policy to manage the bilateral problems
through dialogue and negotiation in the short term and effecting change
with the help of other likeminded countries in the longer. In essence
this is what India’s policy has been till recently. And it has achieved a
great deal by avoiding a major war with either country, despite our
very serious issues with them.
India rightly believes that the forces against change in Pakistan are
powerful and insidious, but it is still worth pursuing the path of
dialogue and friendship. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s approach towards
Pakistan, at least to the point, a little over a year ago, when he
descended on Lahore to wish Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif “Happy
Birthday”, was in line with this.
It’s not clear what happened thereafter and the same Modi has since
spoken of the need to sanction and isolate Islamabad in virtually every
international forum that he addressed. It cannot simply be the
cross-border attacks which are fairly minor and had been going on since,
at least, 2012. We can only assume that Modi’s desire to make peace
with Pakistan has been overtaken by his need to win the UP election and
thereafter the general election; in both cases, bashing Pakistan and, by
inference, Islamism, plays well with his electorate, as against the
risk of endangering his political capital through instances such as the
Pathankot and Uri attacks.
New Delhi has displayed the same zig-zag pattern with China. In his
visit to Beijing in 2015, Modi made an impassioned plea to his
counterparts to resolve the border issue. But since then, New Delhi has
adopted a strident and sometimes belligerent attitude towards Beijing on
issues that can, at best, be considered trivial – India’s membership to
the NSG and placing Masood Azhar in the UN’s 1267 list. The former
appears to be born out of a sense of entitlement, rather than a real
need. As for the latter, counterterrorism is better off focussing on
eliminating the terrorist, not putting him on some list. Hafiz Saeed has
been on that list since 2008 and it has hardly made any difference to
him or the Lashkar-e-Taiba.
A third issue relates to CPEC which India says it will not condone
because it passes through Gilgit-Baltistan. On the face of it, it looks
reasonable, but in essence it means that New Delhi is offering Beijing a
Hobson’s choice – either accept India’s claim on J&K or abandon
Pakistan. And it is not about to do either, at least not without good
cause.
Defeating the Chakravyuh is not easy, false choices and illusions
block the way, and the belief that only unrelenting toughness will work
with Islamabad and Beijing. Getting out requires a more realistic
assessment of India’s options and a willingness to accept the
international norm that in bilateral ties, you are expected to give
something in exchange for something you want. There are incentives New
Delhi could offer – contracts for Chinese companies, a face-saving role
for Pakistan in Kashmir and so on. At present all that is on display are
disincentives for them. As of now, it would seem that New Delhi is
riding on the hubristic belief that friendship with Washington is its
key out of the maze. But in the US of today nothing will come for free.
Times of India March 4, 2017