COMMENT 12

AND ANALYSIS
Brendan Simms

The Crest Edition

THE TIMES OF INDIA

Ironclad Lady
With her fixed notions and a firmly-held worldview Margaret Thatcher saved Britain but lost Europe

he United Kingdom has had its share of remarkable twentieth-century prime ministers. David Lloyd George was in many respects the architect of victory over Germany in the First World War. Winston Churchill led the country to victory in the second. Clement Attlee spearheaded the transformation of British society after 1945 with the creation of the welfare state. None of them, however, lent their names to an ism; there would have been something almost un-British about it. All that changed in 1979 with the election of Margaret Thatcher. The outlines of Thatcherism on the socio-economic front are well known: rolling back the frontiers of the state, emphasising individual responsibility, and championing entrepreneurial creativity. Today, the legacy of Thatcherism is ambivalent. On the one hand, Thatcher pulled the country out of the economic tailspin of the 1970s; on the other hand, her war on regulation facilitated the banking extravaganzas that eventually resulted in the ongoing financial crisis. What is less well grasped, however, is Thatchers legacy in foreign policy, which is at least as important and equally complex. After all, the sobriquet Iron Lady was

elevation to the Soviet leadership. In this respect, she played a key role in ending the Cold War. Where Thatcher ultimately came unstuck was in her third principle, which was a preoccupation with German power and a related profound ambivalence about European integration. Thatcher belonged to a generation that had gone through World War II and naturally feared German power and German unification. By the late 1980s, she began to view the growing influence of the European Commission in Brussels not only as an encroachment on the democratic rights of the British people, but also as a vehicle for the reassertion of German power on the continent. This divided her not only from the French, for whom Europe was a device to contain its historical enemy, but also from German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, whose genuine commitment to a united Europe she mistakenly saw as a fig leaf for the reassertion of German power. In 198990, Thatchers commitment to democracy and her fear of Germany were in direct contradiction. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet bloc cleared the way for the German people to express their democratic desire for reunification. Thatcher now expressed concern that a united republic would once again, dom-

AND BROTHERLESS SPINSTERS?

In the course of a high-profile speech Narendra Modi, putative great leader, ended up repeating every female stereotype he condemned, points out Rajyasree Sen

arendra Modi has been a busy man for the last few weeks. And Im frankly surprised that he hasnt lost his voice by now. His first stop on the lecture circuit was the 29th a nnual general meeting of FICCI Ladies Organisation (FLO) in New Delhi this week. So who made up the audience? People from the grassroots level who were trying to break out of the constraints placed on them by tradition and society? Who needed to learn that they could play the roles which their social milieu expected them to adopt that of wives and mothers and also be economically independent ? No, these were women togged up in Satya Paul sarees, pearl earrings, perfectly coiffed hair, and were involved (at least some were) in a business of their own or with others. I might be making a blanket statement, but I can pretty much bet on it that a negligible percentage if that of these women would be making chapatis for their husbands at home. Not while the subalterns were there to do so. The problem when you make three speeches in a day is that you forget to tailor your speeches to your audience. That Modi is a great orator, who doesnt need to fumble through cheat notes is known. It is only expected that he will speak without hesitation, crack a joke or two and not falter. But what of the content? The keynote address was to be on womens empowerment. What was obvious 15 minutes into Modis speech was that only the mother and sister amongst us should be empowered. Bad luck if youre a childless woman without siblings. This speech wasnt meant for you. What is worrying is that a man who claimed that the West views women in India incorrectly, assuming that all Indian women are housewives, seemed to believe the same thing. Analogy after analogy painted women out to be pining for their husbands affections and attention, spending hours trying to make the perfect chapati and when burning their fingers pretending that the burn was worse than it was when their husbands came home from work. Following this analogy, Modi even asked the FLO audience if theyd done the same thing. They giggled and agreed. There

was also a story about how mothers will desert a sari sale to save their child from a burning house. The bizarreness of it all, made you wonder if he knew what he was saying. Did he even realise how brainless he was making women sound? Modi also went on to say that in the 21st century, women are killed before theyre born. While this is appalling, this really isnt news. What he didnt state was that the highest instances of female foeticide in Gujarat have been seen in the states urban areas. We did get another analogy about how families with four sons have been abandoned by their sons. And of families where the eldest daughter has refused to get married so she can look after her parents. The either-or, neither-nor choice was a little absurd. The stated premise of stating these analogies was that women must be protected and they are our future. And while Modis love for the girl child might indeed be genuine, ground realities belie what he said. Since he did give examples from Gujarat for any ill he mentioned, youll realise that his argument sounds a bit hollow. While he said that women should be included in decision-making, look at how only 2 of 19 ministers in his cabinet are women. Also, under his rule, Gujarats sex ratio has dropped even further from 920 in 2001 to 918 in 2011. Yet its not like Modi was averse to mentioning facts. He peppered his speech with examples of the many achievements and measures Gujarat has taken to empower women. All these were passed off as chhota nirnays by Modi. And all are indeed commendable measures. He also seemed to be very pre-occupied with cooking and food. From Jasubens pizza to Induben khakra to Lijjat papad to Amul milk almost all examples of entrepreneurship were related to food. By the end of it, you felt that all that people in Gujarat

did was cook and sell food. Also, poking fun at the Congress and its build-up of the Kalavati incident is fine. But FLO members seemed to think it was very funny when he said that Induben had died five years back, because they burst out laughing. Nice. You felt that at least when the Q & A segment

What was obvious 15 minutes into Modis speech was that only the mother and sister amongst us should be empowered. Bad luck if youre a childless woman without siblings. This speech wasnt meant for you
began, the ladies would rise to the occasion. Ask him why if he was all about womens empowerment, he felt that he could refer to Sunanda Tharoor as a 500-crore girlfriend and whysex ratios in Gujarat had worsened. But no such luck. He instead got asked the vital question: You are such a strong personality and so disciplined, what is your weakness? Then there was the bit about how the Congress had left so many potholes in Gujarat, which was repeated the next day in Kolkata, as Modi took a potshot at the Left. It must be tiring to have to deliver so many speeches in a span of 36 hours. And, of course, therell be spillovers. But if you cant figure out what you need to talk to your audience about, its better not to talk. While Modis heart might indeed be in the right place when it comes to the ladies, he would have done himself and his audience a favour if hed realised how irrelevant his speech was to the gathered audience. And how it drove home the fact that according to Modi a womans identity is connected directly to home and hearth and to the male members of her family. Theres no place in the Modi scheme of things for all us brotherless spinsters who dont cook. I The writer is with Newslaundry

bestowed on Thatcher not by British miners or Thatchers many other domestic opponents, but by the Soviet press in the mid-1980s. It reflected her reputation for toughness on the military and diplomatic fronts, particularly in the joint effort with US President Ronald Reagan to strengthen the Wests nuclear defences during the Cold War. Thatchers uncompromising struggle against Irish republican terrorism earned her the undying hatred of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Her most complete victory came in the 1982 Falklands War, when she dispatched a British task force at considerable risk to expel an Argentinian junta from the Falklands Islands. Thatchers relations with her partners in the European Economic Community were more pacific, but the leaders of continental Europe nevertheless feared the vigour with which she represented British interests in Brussels. After decades of drift and decline, Thatcher re-established the UK as a major force on the international scene. Three interlocking but not always mutually reinforcing impulses drove Thatchers foreign policy. First, the Iron Lady hated dictators and bullies of any kind. And her opposition to the Soviet bloc was informed by a deep sympathy for the dissident movements in such places as Czechoslovakia and Poland. Underpinning this hatred of dictators was the second impulse that drove Thatchers foreign policy: her passionate commitment to democracy. Thatchers close relationship with Reagan was based, above all, on their shared belief in economic liberalisation at home and democracy promotion abroad, at least in the Communist world. Despite her reputation for inflexibility, Thatcher often showed remarkable imagination. She was the first Western leader to recognise the importance of Mikhail Gorbachev, whom she defined as a man we can do business with even before his

The sobriquet Iron Lady was bestowed on Thatcher not by British miners or Thatchers many opponents, but by the Soviet press in the mid-1980s. It reflected her reputation for toughness on the military and diplomatic fronts
inate the whole of Europe. For a time, it seemed as if she would team up with Gorbachev and French President Francois Mitterand to prevent it. It was only with difficulty that the United States and her own advisers persuaded her to accept the inevitable. Nearly 25 years later, as Europe struggles with its sovereign debt crisis and the ever-widening gulf between Berlin and continents periphery, Thatchers concerns seem less far-fetched. Her failure of imagination in the 1980s was to insist on the renationalisation of the powers drifting toward Brussels, rather than allowing for the different European countries to buy in to the project of integration democratically, through the creation of a single electoral and political space. Of course, the resulting loss of British sovereignty would have been unacceptable for Thatcher and indeed for the British people. But such a program would at least have given London a positive agenda toward Europe, instead of its half-in, half-out approach of the past three decades. I The writer teaches at the University of Cambridge Copyright: Foreign Affairs; www. foreignaffairs.com

YOUR SAY

WIT'S END

AJIT NINAN

Munnabhai he aint
The article Pardon me? (Comment, March 30) read: Dont deny Sanjay Dutt mercy just because he is famous. In India, where thousands of undertrials remain in jail just because they cant furnish the bail amount, giving someone a pardon just because he is a star and so-called good human being will not set a great example. If our film industry is to pronounce these verdicts then what is the need for a judiciary or a supreme court. The very fact that so-called intellectuals jump into human rights issues of convicts whereas law abiding citizens are butchered without a second thought is alarming. We must learn to spare a thought for victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators Gagandeep Sharma, via email

Magnus opus soon?

The article on Magnus Carlsen (The Black Knight, Sport, April 6) was very informative. At a very young age, Magnus Carlsen has achieved what no one has so far. A staggering 2900 plus ELO rating points is no mean achievement. We can see why hes been praised by so many experts former champions. His rise to the top has indeed been phenomenal. The World Championship challenge to Vishwanathan Anand is likely to be by far Anands biggest test. Carlsen is renowned for his fast and innovative moves. On the other hand, Anand has mellowed with age and experience. The next World Championship, which should be held in Chennai, surely promises to be a thriller. Aniruddh Pawaskar, via email

Smile at the service

Congratulations to you for focussing on a neglected and exploited section of society (Maid Of Honour, Cover, April 6). There is no protection under our labour laws for this unorganised sector. However, it is indeed refreshing to note that the winds of change have started blowing for these household workers. With the government hardly stepping in to improve their lot, it goes to the credit of their employers and some NGOs to bring cheer and some sort of vertical mobility in their lives. It is a paradigm shift in the relationship between saheb and naukar. After all, in todays vroom life where is the time for the doubleincome parents to wield the broom also? Obviously, it also pays to keep your maid in good humour. V J Pant, via email

Send in your feedback and suggestions to: crestfeedback@timesgroup.com