Wet Wet Wet: With Barbarians At The Gate

Wet Wet Wet: With Barbarians At The Gate


Tough leaders in democracies use pejoratives when they are frustrated. These are vaguely derogatory, depend on tone to deliver their bite, and not outright swear words. And they target, not just the Opposition, because, after all, it is their duty to oppose; but also fellow party members, colleagues in government, advisers, hangers-on, and allies, particularly in coalitions. In short, anybody, or in reference to anyone, who has the temerity to feel uncomfortable when firm steps are taken to deal with situations. Firm steps that carry risks, electoral risks!

In the long ago eighties, Dame “Iron Lady” Thatcher, a good friend of our own “Indira is India,” used to call a wide range of people, in her own party, elsewhere, in her household, even certain less than forthcoming domestic pets, “wet” and whole collectives: “wets”.

This curious and panic inducing description, particularly in a country given to near incessant rainfall; was liberally used by the grand dame in public and private, in personal audiences with Queen Elizabeth II, and even in parliament. So much so, that it inspired a very popular and melodious British Pop Group of the time, to call themselves wet too, not once, but three times, as in, “Wet Wet Wet”.

Nearer home and present times, it is sometimes the Opposition that does the describing, calling incumbent prime ministers “weak” and “weakest” ; but probably feels a little foolish when the “weak” manage to get their own way in the end.

But not all elected leaders are quite so decorous. President Nixon liberally used expletives to describe a wide range of his contemporaries and situations. He also recorded his performances for posterity, so that all the world could admire his fluency. He was a Mormon, but also a consummate foul-mouth, who probably wanted to be portrayed by history warts and all. And, not surprisingly, that is how we remember the Republican president who delivered the body blow to the “Iron Curtain” with his bold tilt towards China.

Dictators, kings, chieftains, rulers, billionaires, and paupers, for that matter, are often coarse; but they don’t even have to brush their teeth, like Chairman Mao, if they don’t want to; let alone win elections.

But tough, attitudinal leaders in democracies, without benefit of absolute power, do sometimes get a lot done, besides calling people names. And the 1980’s must have been particularly good for tough democratic regimes.

Mrs. Gandhi liberated Bangladesh, to no great lasting benefit, but with undeniable courage, and in defiance of the US. She also crushed the Naxalite movement in West Bengal using the redoubtable Mr. Sidhartha Shankar Ray; all the while calling all sorts of people “elitist” and “anti-poor” herself. The duo used the Emergency, in 1975, to unleash a police and para-military pogrom, to effectively wipe it out.

It was bitter medicine, for a virulent disease, but also resulted, in a political revulsion among Bengalis that saw the end of Congress Party rule in West Bengal; replaced, ever since, for over thirty years, by a ruinous and toxic Communist rule that persists to this day.

But Mrs. Gandhi didn’t let possible political consequences deter her from doing her duty by the country. She did it again, authorising Operation Blue Star in 1984, arguing a terrorist was a terrorist, and a Sikh was a Sikh, and refusing to be confused between the two. She paid for this conviction with her life, but it was a tremendous demonstration of character, and does explain why Indira Gandhi admired Joan of Arc in her often lonely childhood.

Her son, Rajiv Gandhi, as prime minister, put in Mr. SS Ray once again, as Governor, to mop up in Punjab; and also Julio Ribiero and KPS Gill, tough cops both, with a mandate to end the Khalistan movement. This, they most ably did.

Rajiv Gandhi, a soft-spoken gentleman, was moved nevertheless to speak of action that would remind the terrorists, and the Pakistanis who supported them, of their grandmothers: “naani yaad dila denge,”, wagging his finger from the ramparts of the Red Fort, no less.

Mrs. Thatcher, on her part, broke the backs of very powerful Trade Unions, used to domination ever since WWII and pampered by successive Labour Governments. Their version of Socialism wouldn’t have allowed Britain to move into the 20th century, wouldn’t allow closure of industries that were bankrupt, ports without traffic, mines that were spent. It was a difficult path to tread, and Thatcher was expelled from office, eventually, by her own Conservative party, but not before she had brought Britain back from the brink of being a failed state and restoring a little of the once “great”.

Her counterpart in America, Ronald Reagan, called “Reaguns” often enough by disgruntled left-wingers, played a pivotal role in ending the sufferings of Eastern Europe, by finishing what his predecessor Nixon had started.

Reagan ended the Cold War by upping the ante on the USSR with his multi-billion dollar “Star Wars” defense shield, and had no compunctions about calling the Soviet Block “The Evil Empire”. It was Reagan who precipitated the disintegration of the USSR, bankrupting them as they tried to keep up, and forcing the pulling down of the Berlin Wall. Reagan, avuncular and steely at once, was the only one amongst his global contemporaries, who pulled it off without losing any of his popularity.

Today, as we look around us here in India, the epitome of a soft state, bullied by our neighbours, intimidated by multiple pressure groups, reeling day-to-day from the havoc being wrought by Jihadists, Naxalites, “freedom fighters”, communalists of various hue, and other assorted thugs; we might do well to remember Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Mrs. Gandhi did not play ducks and drakes with India’s internal security.

There was then, as there is now, much public debate, much media critique, motivated, narrow, and sectarian politicians pushing their agendas, equally vociferous civil society caterwauling; and just as many accusations of victimisation and persecution of minorities.

Thomas Sowell, an American writer and economist from the 1930’s wrote: “If the battle for civilization comes down to the wimps versus the barbarians, the barbarians are going to win.”

That there are barbarians at the gate is beyond doubt. We must be busy with our understanding of civilisation, but either way, for our survival, we cannot afford to be wimps.

(1,050 words)

10th October 2008
Gautam Mukherjee

Published in print, The Pioneer, Tuesday, October 14th, 2008, as "Barbarians at the gate" and online at www.dailypioneer.com Also see it archived under "Columnists" at www.dailypioneer.com