[Assam] From ToI

[Chan Mahanta]

** Tsk, tsk!

cm

_______________________________________________________________________________



Blair's spin doctor spills beans on Indian waiters, PMs
30 Jul 2007, 0038 hrs IST,Rashmee Roshan Lal,TNN

Did you know there are more Indian waiters in Britain than there are 
coal miners?" Tony Blair was asked in September 1994 by one of his 
high-flying researchers Peter Hyman.

It was two months since Blair had become the youngest Labour Party 
leader since World War II. Hyman's question presumably reflected the 
profound changes in late 20th-century Britain. Blair was desperate to 
change his moribund party and drag it out of 18 years in the 
political wilderness. Hyman, who became one of Blair's favourite 
advisors, presumably asked his question to point to Blair the 
geography of the change he must embrace.

Thirteen years from the day Hyman asked the question, the past is a 
different country. As is Britain. Blair has departed Downing Street 
after a decade as Labour's longest-serving PM. A new PM is in office. 
Blair's former aides have scattered like leaves in the wind. One of 
the most prominent of these, former spin doctor Alastair Campbell, 
has published extracts from his diaries. The volume, titled The Blair 
Years, finally hit stands in India.

And so we finally learn what PM Blair and his golden guys and girls 
really, really thought about India in the 10 years they colonised the 
PM's office and the British political landscape. Going by Campbell's 
diaries, the answer is very little, if at all. Despite all the recent 
rhetoric about a new special relationship between India and its 
former imperial master, Campbell's diaries make clear that Blair's 
office, if not all of Blair's Britain, hardly thought about India, 
except by default.

According to Campbell's account, Blair and Britain were forced, 
post-9/11 to acknowledge India's needs vis-a-vis Pakistan for 
face-saving Western tokens and gestures signalling New Delhi's 
importance and influence.

In October 2001, says Campbell, Blair was on his way to Islamabad to 
firm up plans with the West's new best friend, Pervez Musharraf, for 
invading Afghanistan. New Delhi was not on the prime ministerial 
itinerary. "We had a real problem with the Indians over the planned 
visit to Pakistan," writes Blair's spin doctor, "Vajpayee was on the 
phone, totally adamant that if TB (Blair) went to Pakistan without 
also visiting India, it would be a real disaster for him. He 
(Vajpayee) was normally so quiet and soft-spoken but there was both 
panic and a bit of anger in his voice".

Later, Campbell describes the "two bugs" found in the British PM's 
Delhi hotel room and notes, "we decided against making a fuss". 
Campbell fulminates at some length about the "valet, Sunil" he is 
assigned for the Delhi stopover, complaining that "he just would not 
leave me alone...I was beginning to wonder whether he had been put 
there either by the (Indian) spooks or a paper".

Soon in January 2002, and Campbell is once again recounting the 
low-key theatricality of the UK-Indian relationship. Campbell's 
memories of this passage to India appear to be dominated by Blair's 
decision to wear a Nehru jacket.

"Hopefully it would be seen as showing respect (to the Indians)", he 
writes. And then he damns PM Vajpayee with faint praise, describing 
how Blair "pushed hard but got very little change out of Vajpayee. He 
was holding out for a lot more from the Pakistanis. He was pretty 
shrewd and his total lack of embarrassment at long silences was a 
real strength".

As a miniature portrait of Indo-British relations six years ago, 
Campbell's sketchy recollections of the stop-start bilateral rhythm 
offer an unedifying picture. There is British suspicion and Indian 
supplication; "mystical" Indian silences and wordy British lectures; 
there are unmemorable banquets in the Hyderabad palace, prying 
natives and clumsy Indian intelligence moves. All of this larded with 
streaky bits of Indian tub-thumping and British mantras on South 
Asia's need for stability.

In the end, of course, it is significant that Campbell mentions India 
barely half-a-dozen times in this account of the 10-year period in 
which India's relations with its former master visibly and 
conclusively changed. The significance may lie more in what he does 
not say than what he does.