2ndlook

Turnaround In Tashkent

Posted in America, Desert Bloc, Indo Pak Relations, politics by Anuraag Sanghi on October 25, 2011
A grim LB Shastri riding with Alexei Kosygin, waves to crowds at Tashkent. (Source - LIFE - Google Books accessed on 2011-10-24 23-55-25; via books.google.com).

A grim LB Shastri riding with Alexei Kosygin, waves to crowds at Tashkent. (Source - LIFE - Google Books accessed on 2011-10-24 23-55-25; via books.google.com).

At Tashkent

After the 1965 War with Pakistan, during the peace talks at Tashkent, India was pushed to retreat to pre-war positions. All territories were returned back to Pakistan. Treatment of Pakistan’s position at parity with India, at Tashkent, disappointed India. Pakistan was not named the aggressor – which further angered most of Indian leaders.

India-Pakistan War – 1965

LB Shastri, India’s combative Prime Minister after Nehru, with none of Nehru’s oratorical skills, was able to surprisingly unite and galvanize the nation behind him. Pakistani media painted escapist and crude scenarios.

The time is not far off when the six-foot-six-inch Sheikh Abdullah will catch the five-foot-two-inch Lal Bahadur Shastri by the neck and take back Kashmir. (Mashriq, Lahore, March 5, 1965)

Within a few days of the war, both the warring parties got bogged down, without spares and ammunition – with international sanctions against both countries. On the diplomatic front, China had been checkmated to paralysis – a position that China adopted in 1971 Bangladesh War also.

India had retaken territory in Kashmir, with Indian armies in sniffing distance of Lahore. After the 1962 debacle against China, India made creditable, though slender, territorial gains.

Call to Tashkent

Tashkent’s Hunuddin Asamov to a pair of wary travelers: Pakistan’s President Mohammed Ayub Khan and India’s Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri wrote in an open letter. “Moreover, we Uzbeks have a saying: If two neighbors have an argument, go to the third, and you will always achieve peace.”

Aleksei Kosygin invited the pair to Tashkent during the height of last summer’s Indo-Pakistani border war. Since then, an uneasy, U.N.-imposed “ceasefire” has been torn almost daily by vicious, small-scale clashes, and both sides have counted more than 3,596 “violations.”

“There is an almost poisonous atmosphere between the two countries,” said a top Shastri aide last week. “To expect any dramatic results [in Tashkent] seems to be rather impractical.” (via Asia: Talk in Tashkent – TIME).
A wary Shastri with YB Chavan listening to Kosygin's opening address. (Image source - LIFE - Google Books accessed on 2011-10-25 10-24-57).

A wary Shastri with YB Chavan listening to Kosygin's opening address. (Image source - LIFE - Google Books accessed on 2011-10-25 10-24-57).

US hands-off

Curiously, this war also coincided with America’s reduction of interest in the region – preoccupied as it was, with a disastrous war in Vietnam.

A few months before the war, the US cancelled visits of President Mohammed Ayub Khan of Pakistan – and subsequently of Indian Prime Minister, LB Shastri.

The US also let Alexei Kosygin upgrade Soviet involvement in the Indian sub-continent. The next US administration, under President Nixon, stood behind Pakistan – a stance that continues till today, for more than 40 years.

Third Party involvements

Most analysis misses how Tashkent changed Indian Foreign policy.

In 1948 and in 1965, India had tried to use the UN for achieving peace with Pakistan. Instead it became a bigger problem. Failed UN and international interventions after 1948 and 1965 wars with Pakistan, the 1962 War with China and the Tashkent declaration, made India change its basic stance. Gone was Nehruvian experiments with third-party ‘interjections’ – couched in words like ‘commitment to UN and world opinion’ – so well spelt out in extract above.

New stance

Instead came a tough bargaining position.

Not just India-Pakistan issues – but all issues are now bilateral. India blocked ‘outside’ help and disallowed foreign ‘interference’ in bilateral matters. Instead of super-powers playing the role of ‘honest brokers’, India decided to negotiate its position with neighbours – alone.

Reverting to its India’s classical position (as in the Jataka tale of monkey and two cats). Instead of the Desert Bloc tendency of using of going to a ‘third-person.’

After Shastri’s death in Tashkent, conspiracy theories abounded. More than a million mourners turned out in Delhi to bid farewell to Shastri on his last journey. Even with little Government attention after his death, Shastri remains a revered figure in India.

And his death at Tashkent, a dark chapter.


Indian Railways – The British Legacy

Posted in British Raj, History, India, politics by Anuraag Sanghi on August 26, 2010

 

Romancing the Raj

Modern Indians carry this rather ignorant impression that Indians railways was a departing gift by the British to independent India. This is especially true of post-Independence, 2nd and 3rd generation Indians, who never travelled or saw the colonial railway system trains.

This impression is aided and abetted by Western media too. Recently, Robert Kaplan writing in The Atlantic gushed how the “British, by contrast, brought tangible development, ports and railways, that created the basis for a modern state” of India.

As though, India could not have ‘bought’ or developed railway technology on its own – from or without the British. After all India has developed a significant air-transport system. Or the comprehensive road network – which is getting further expanded and upgraded.

A further examination of facts exposes a completely different picture about the British claims about Indian Railways also.

Indian Railways

After the boycott of the Simon Commission, from 1927, and the death of Lala Lajpat Rai (Nov 17, 1928), it was clear (especially to the British) that their days were numbered. Britain enacted The Government of India Act, first in 1919 and then in 1935. Facing problems at home and abroad, the significant British interest in India was extraction of remaining wealth in Indian hands.

Elephants were widely used instead of engines - due to engine shortage and easier maneuverability of elephants.

Elephants were widely used instead of engines – due to engine shortage and easier maneuverability of elephants.Click on image for larger picture.

Indian Railway system too suffered  from this approach.  Especially after WWI, the Great Depression  and the currency crisis, starved of investments and renewal, Indian railways suffered.

During WW2, nearly 40% rolling stock from India was diverted to the Middle East. More than 50% of the track system was the outdated metre gauge and narrow gauge. Track systems were nearly a century old. 40% of the railway system went to Pakistan. 32 of the forty-two separate railway systems operating in India, were owned by the former Indian princely states. More than 8000 outdated steam engines were used as motive power – and less than 20 diesel locomotives were in use. Apart from elephants and people – called as ‘hand-shunting’ in Indian Railways lingo.

So much for the British gift of railways to India.

Rampant extraction

The railways run by the Indian princely states became party to the collusive price fixing systems. Like this extract (linked to the right) shows, all the business went to the British engineering yards. To this add the guaranteed returns systems, and what was achieved was something else.

“The guarantee system did not encourage cost control, and, at an average cost of BP18,000 per mile, the Indian railways were some of the costliest in the world. (from Another reason: science and the imagination of modern India By Gyan Prakash, page 165).

Indians took to railway travel – quickly, easily and in large numbers.

Indians enthusiastically took to train travel from the start. This confounded the arguments made by some who suggested that considerations of caste and religion would lead many South Asians to shun train travel because they would not agree to the close personal proximity sitting or standing in the coaches required. Women for reasons of modesty or demands of seclusion were expected to be particularly resistant to rail travel. Others argued that poverty would make travel by train impossible for all but the well-to-do. In the event many of all castes, classes and gender traveled by train. (from Engines of change: the railroads that made India By Ian J. Kerr.).

Even though the poor Indian passenger was more than 80% of the traffic, he was always short-changed.

Third-class passengers quickly became and remained the most numerous passengers and the railroads’ largest source of revenue from passenger traffic. High volumes-87 percent of passengers carried in 1902 traveled in third-class-more than compensated for low fares. (from Engines of change: the railroads that made India By Ian J. Kerr.).

Safety last

Starved of investments and maintenance, the railways infrastructure at the time of British departure was crumbling. Colonial British (subsequently, the Indian also) response was to affix the blame onto the employee at the lowest rung and move onto the next one accident.

Elephant shunting a train on the Bengal-Nagpur railway. Picture quality makes it probably from WWII period.

Elephant shunting a train on the Bengal-Nagpur railway. Picture quality makes it probably from WWII period.

Post-independence India continued with this practice – till LB Shastri called a halt to this. In 1956, the Madras-Tuticorin express plunged into a river when a bridge at Ariyalur (Tamil Nadu) was washed away in floods. 144 (some records suggest 156) passengers died. Shastri resigned from the Union Cabinet – claiming moral responsibility for the railway accident.

This resignation saw LB Shastri become a political legend. This (resignation) also changed the mindset of the Indian Railways. After fresh elections of 1957, one year later, he was re-inducted into the Union Cabinet.

Steadily, over 30 years, Indian railways infrastructure was upgraded. And accidents decreased.

But the problems did not end there. The Great Gift of the British to India, railways was not only a vast scrap heap of metal, but a den of corruption – as documented in the Railway Corruption Enquiry Committee (J. B. Kriplani), 1955. Corruption and safety took another 50 years – by the 1990’s, by when the the entire railway system was modernized and computerized.

What we see today

In 1952, it was decided that IIIrd class passengers deserved fans and light. It took another 7 years to implement this decision. Elephants used for shunting wagons, box-cars, finally got a respite after WDS-4B shunters were introduced by Chittaranjan Locomotive Works in 1969. Safety bars in windows were introduced on night trains in a phased manner over the 1970s. Till then, most trains had open windows leading to passenger-safety issues. Earlier, it meant “getting into a third-class general compartment — through the window, literally pushed in by someone on the platform. Well, now all the windows have a grill provided for the safety of the passengers”.

Extract from A history of modern India, 1480-1950 By Claude Markovits, page 433. Click on picture for larger text.

Extract from A history of modern India, 1480-1950 By Claude Markovits, page 433. Click on picture for larger text.

It took a non-Congress Government in 1977 to change the face of Indian Railways. Prof.Madhu Dandavate, the Railway Minister in the 1977 Janata Government started the railway renaissance in India. 3rd class railway travel was abolished. Wooden-slat seats were abolished. Cushioned 2nd class seating system was made minimum and standard. Train time tables were re-configured. Reservation systems improved. Railways started getting profitable.

The de-colonization of Indian Railways began effectively in 1977 – 30 years after British departure. Symbolically, that was also the year that the Rail Museum was set up. The progress after that has been remarkable. Without going into the merits of safety and comfort, today Indians can travel at significantly lower cost. For a US$5, an Indian can travel for 1000 km – compared to nearly US$100 for 1000 km (gold-adjusted dollars).

All this when only 25% of Indians travel by rail at least once a year.

The benign British

Should we complain so much, if we inherited a decrepit, run down, accident prone, investment starved railway system with outdated technology from the British – though financed by loot from India?

OLD FAITHFUL: An 80-year-old elephant shunting a Railway boxcar in 1945 , Picture courtesy - The Times of India, Dated 27th February, 2010

OLD FAITHFUL: An 80-year-old elephant shunting a Railway boxcar in 1945 , Picture courtesy – The Times of India, Dated 27th February, 2010

Even though it took India 40 years, to modernize the colonial railway system, we should be thankful. Remember, they could have uprooted the rails, and taken away the wagons and engines. After all, Indian Railways was the biggest scrap iron collection in the world at that time.

Till Lal Bahadur Shastri’s resignation – the poor Indian railway-man was routinely blamed for railway accidents – by his British, and later the Indian bosses also.

 

%d bloggers like this: