The royal visit in 1997 seemed jinxed before the Queen even landed on Indian soil.
The Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, currently on his eight-day long India visit, has been treading water since he arrived in New Delhi Friday. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not yet met him or posted any welcome tweet.
There is a strong buzz that the Modi government is snubbing Trudeau for the latter’s perceived support to the Khalistani separatist movement in Canada, where the Sikh diaspora is a big vote-bank for the leader of the Liberal Party.
In his column in the Indian Express, foreign policy analyst C. Raja Mohan has expressed concern over the fact that Trudeau’s visit could possibly end up intensifying the problem, and turn out to be “the worst diplomatic disaster in India since Queen Elizabeth’s visit in 1997”.
What happened in 1997?
The India and Pakistan tour in October 1997 was the Queen’s first public engagement since Princess Diana’s funeral just weeks before. Planned to mark the 50-year-anniversary of independence of the two countries, it would be the Queen’s third visit to India. The newly formed Labour government was eager to smooth sensitivities over the colonial legacy, which is why the itinerary included a visit to Jallianwala Bagh, the site of the massacre in April 1919.
A 1997 article by The Economist, titled “A scolding from Mother India”, explains the change in UK’s foreign policy.
When the Indian government had extended the invitation for a royal visit, the Conservative Party was still in power in the United Kingdom. But when the time for the visit came around, the Labour Party was in the middle of reasserting themselves as a party for the people.
The UK’s Kashmir policy at the time was a result of this, as the Labour Party was sympathetic to the idea of ‘self-determination’ in the region and supported a plebiscite in Kashmir, which was directly opposite to the Indian position on Kashmir.
The Queen and her entourage visited Pakistan first, which is where the first gaffe was committed. Robin Cook, the new Labour foreign secretary, reportedly told Pakistani journalists informally that Britain would “take up the issue of Kashmir with India” and help mediate the conflict.
His comments sparked outrage in India. Then Prime Minister I.K. Gujral, who was in Egypt at the time, responded in anger: he called Britain a “third-rate power” at a gathering of intellectuals in Cairo. His description was a reference to a statement Lord Curzon had made in 1901, when he said that as long as the British ruled India, they would be the greatest power in the world. “If we lost it, we shall drop straight away to a third rate power,” he said. Curzon was then the Viceroy of India.
The royal contingent scrambled to do some damage control. Cook said that he had never made those comments, and in response Gujral said that he hadn’t either.
The Queen’s arrival in India was marred by Sikh demonstrations in central Delhi against “the British army’s ban on the wearing of turbans”. On 13 October, the Queen referenced the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in a state banquet address. “It is no secret that there have been some difficult episodes in our past — Jallianwala Bagh, which I shall visit tomorrow, is a distressing example,” she said. Many parties did not think that it was an adequate apology, while other parties thought her statement was contrived, the New York Times reported. I.K. Gujral had said earlier that year that the royal party need not even visit Amritsar.
“Given the bitter memories, such a visit was bound to raise, particularly in the context of a highly interventionist British foreign policy, heeding Gujral’s remarks would have in fact saved Elizabeth and her nation considerable embarrassment. Robin Cook, like others, chose not to listen,” Frontline reported.
“The Queen is doing everything she can to make India like her. But so far it does not seem to be working,” The Independent reported on 13 October, 1997.
It didn’t work for the remainder of her trip, either.
On the next day, 14 October, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh went to Amritsar to pay obeisance at Jallianwala Bagh, where she bowed her head and placed a wreath at the memorial.
British estimates put the death toll of the massacre at 379, while Indian estimates say that there were thousands of deaths. On his way out, Prince Philip stopped to ask an official on the total number of dead. He reportedly called the death toll of 2,000 “exaggerated”, saying that the high number must include the number of wounded as well. He also apparently added that his source of information was General Dyer’s son, with whom he was in the navy.
The next day, the Queen woke up to angry Indian headlines back in Delhi. The Hindu said there had been a “whiff of the Raj”, while The Indian Express said “the colonial attitude lingers on”.
The next leg of the tour was in South India, where the royal contingent was met with lukewarm responses, compared to previous visits. A fight between reporters broke out at the Chennai airport as the royal aircraft prepared to take off, and was unfairly blamed on the Chennai Police. Frontline reported that the fight was instigated by a photographer at The Daily Telegraph who “evidently believed white people, unlike ‘natives’, do not need security permits”.
All in all, the royal visit in 1997 seemed jinxed before the Queen even landed on Indian soil. The same sense of foreboding is hanging over Justin Trudeau’s visit, and one must hope that he takes a leaf out of the Commonwealth book and learns from past mistakes.
Let us wait and watch…how Trump Jr. Is welcomed.
He clearly stated it is only business visit ..not a state visit
He is looking for nearly 100 projects in Kolkata and Gurgaon.
In a sense these visits are expressions of appology, it can be judged from their facial expressions. We must grow as father of a culture.
India should shake hands with those who are troublemakers to Canada, Britain and China and encourage them in a bit for tat.
THAT IS CALLED A TIT FOR TAT