So accepting a Belgian award violates Indian interest, but receiving oil coupons from Saddam Hussein's regime merits political embrace? Quo vadis, 'nationalist' politics?

Foreign awards have a strange way of turning up in Indian politics. In 1998, contesting for the Amethi parliamentary seat in Uttar Pradesh as a BJP candidate, Mr Sanjay Singh addressed a convocation of local Brahmins. It was an important meeting as Mr Singh, a Rajput, was trying to win over Brahmin voters who had traditionally backed the Congress. He was keen to emphasise his Hindu identity and sensitivity to faith-based concerns.

At one point in the meeting, Mr Singh got a little carried away. He said his family had a long history of devotion to tradition and that one of his ancestors had made many attempts to liberate Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya. Impressed by his valour following one such battle, the British, Mr Singh said, had awarded his ancestor the Victoria Cross.

It was, of course, complete rubbish, though it made for a good parish-pump election meeting line. Nevertheless, the cachet of overseas recognition was obviously seen as useful enough by Mr Singh -- who has since re-joined the Congress -- to establish his, or his ancestor's, credentials. It probably didn't get him a single extra vote, but he won that election in 1998.

From the comic to the ridiculous is a short journey; yet, it too ends with a former MP from Amethi. The controversy over Ms Sonia Gandhi receiving the Order of Leopold from the Government of Belgium is so silly that it can perhaps be matched only by claims of a Victoria Cross for the Battle of Ayodhya.

Nevertheless, the Election Commission has issued a notice to Ms Gandhi. Habitual litigants and PIL abusers have begun to celebrate. Cut-and-paste e-mail campaigns have begun to do the rounds. The Belgian Order is named after Leopold I. His son, Leopold II, was responsible for savage colonialism in Africa, in Belgian Congo (now Zaire). As such, Ms Gandhi's critics have concluded, there is inherent "immorality" to acceptance of the award.

Let us extend that logic a little. Alfred Nobel not only invented dynamite -- which must have killed millions by now -- but also, just over a century ago, owned the arms company Bofors. Therefore, is every Indian who accepts a Nobel Prize actually condoning corrupt arms deals and India's best-known defence bribery scandal?

At a more serious level, has Ms Gandhi's acceptance of the Order of Leopold really questioned her "commitment to the nation" and "shrouded" her "allegiance and devotion to the nation", as an enthusiastic BJP spokesman claimed the other day? Ms Gandhi has a million faults and her party deserves to lose the next election for a million and one reasons, but surely a Belgian bauble cannot be the defining parameter?

Awarding foreign leaders with national titles and honours is, frankly, part of normal diplomatic business. Governments do this all the time; India does it, too. Often the awarding Government is sending a signal not to so much to the individual recipient as to his or her country; it is to indicate that bilateral relationship has reached critical mass. Treason and loyalty cannot be tested by acceptance or rejection of such awards. They require sterner scrutiny.

Indeed, there is a curious instance from the BJP's backyard, that of an individual its leaders have shared political space with in recent months and who was part of a party rally in Rajasthan only a week ago. Mr Natwar Singh, former Minister for External Affairs, was indicted by an international inquiry for accepting free or heavily subsidised oil shipments from the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and re-selling these in the global market.

The Paul Volcker Committee's report has been taken very seriously in some other countries. People have had to lose their jobs or face criminal investigations. In the case of Mr Natwar Singh, some fairly damaging material related to him, his son and friends of his son was unearthed. The implications are worth considering.

When Iraq was attacked by the United States in 2003, Mr Natwar Singh was vocal in opposing it. He was instrumental, for instance, in getting Parliament to pass a resolution criticising the American action. After the Volcker report, it stood to reason that he was not a disinterested party. He was seeking to direct the course of Indian foreign policy to help a man and a regime that had financially benefited him and done his family illegal favours.

Yet, there is no "shroud" over his "commitment to the nation" and "allegiance and devotion" to it. In a few months, the BJP will probably support Mr Natwar Singh's Lok Sabha campaign, and try and help his son win election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly.

As for Ms Sonia Gandhi, she must be disqualified, at once. She is a traitor, just as, one presumes, Mr Natwar Singh is a patriot. Quo vadis, 'nationalist' politics?

Courtesy: www.dailypioneer.com, February 19, 2008