There is something ludicrous about the well-meaning plea, directed at the British government, to harangue Narendra Modi. It arises from the assumption that the prime minister of Britain can simply dictate to the prime minister of India. Modi, as a number of commentators have noted, has a lot to answer for. But the protesters urging David Cameron to hold him “accountable” seem to be neglecting the fact that Britain, given its terrible history in the subcontinent, is not the ideal candidate to lecture India. Moreover, Modi is unlikely to cede the moral high ground to someone who is just as compromised. Why, for instance, would he allow himself to be hectored on his country’s internal matters by a British prime minister who has generated international turmoil by gratuitously plunging Libya into chaos?
This is why Jeremy Corbyn’s private meeting with Modi tomorrow is so important. Corbyn has long been a trenchant critic of Modi. In 2013, as the Foreign Office began making overtures to Modi after having snubbed him for more than a decade, Corbyn signed a parliamentary motion calling on the British government to reinstate its diplomatic boycott of Modi, “given his role in the communal violence in 2002 [in Gujarat] that claimed the lives of hundreds if not thousands of Muslims”.
On Thursday, as Modi delivered a speech to parliament, Corbyn was not present in the royal gallery. This prompted Keith Vaz, the British-Indian Labour MP, to tell the Sun that he was “disappointed” with Corbyn. “If the British prime minister can make the time to listen [to Modi],” Vaz said, “Jeremy can.”
But in seeking a private audience with Modi to raise concerns about growing intolerance in India, Corbyn is doing something no other foreign leader has done. It helps that Corbyn is immune to the usual charges hurled by hyper-nationalist Indians at critics of their country. Not only is Corbyn free from the slightest taint of prejudice, he is a longstanding friend to India. One of his intellectual mentors, the late Jewish-American writer Mike Marqusee, was a tireless champion of India who introduced Corbyn to the country and its history. Long before he became prominent at home, Corbyn could count among his international admirers the late Captain Lakshmi Sahgal, a freedom fighter and contender for India’s presidency. Corbyn has strong links to Indian workers’ associations, and he is a recipient of the prestigious Gandhi Foundation international peace award.
Accustomed to being fawned over by foreign leaders, Modi will find himself being confronted by a man with a well-established reputation for moral authority. But Corbyn must go beyond religious bigotry. He should challenge Modi on his government’s curtailment of the movement of Greenpeace activists, the ecological devastation being caused in the name of “economic reforms”, and the displacement of ancient communities to clear lands for corporations. Corbyn should be wary, however, of appearing to lecture Modi, who, for all his ills, is the legitimately elected leader of the world’s largest democracy.
Ultimately, it is the Indian electorate who will decide Modi’s fate. And if the results of the recent elections in Bihar are anything to go by, a formidable opposition to his rule is already crystallising across the country. It needs no external spur.
Still, if only to make up for the flattery lavished on Modi by Barack Obama and Cameron, Corbyn should remind him of the values enshrined in India’s constitution – a document drafted by a formerly “untouchable” man that promises every Indian, no matter what his or her ethnicity, religion or political inclination, equality and social justice. If Modi trashes it, India will be Pakistan by another name.
