'Don't escalate, tone down rhetoric. It endangers lives.' This politician has a unique view on the Galwan encounter. He was once the PM!

On 15th June 2020, there was an encounter between India and China on the Ladakh border near Galwan. As many as 20 Indian soldiers were killed (China did not release its details).

The central government was silent for some time. Then, along with their supporters, they began to spread this narrative:

Had we not been really strong and powerful, China would have invaded us.

Some opposition parties also assured all support to the government. Other opposition parties spread a different narrative. They criticised the government for not preventing what happened, and said they should be tougher.

Essentially, they were both giving one impression:

The situation is way way serious and we want to ‘give it back’ to China as powerfully as possible.

In such an atmosphere, one could easily be dubbed as anti-national. So political leaders were extra careful to give such an impression whatever they were saying. But that is not so for all political leaders…

“Social media retribution is of particular concern. Government should take steps to check this...There is a feeling among our fellow citizens that we are engulfed by hostile nations. It is the duty of the political leadership to ensure that such anxiety is quelled with proper information. It is important to keep the nation informed at all times. Underplaying certain developments and overstating certain information may be a bad strategy in the long run..."

– H. D. Deve Gowda, former prime minister and senior leader of the Janata Dal (Secular).

Deve Gowda’s Janata Dal (Secular) (JD(S) ) is an opposition party. Yet, when he targeted the government, he did not try to show he was more patriotic than them. He felt India should try to stop further chaos rather than try to outwit China. He also felt the government should inform the opposition (and public) what was going on. He felt it was dangerous that the armed forces were being politicised. He said:

A senior serving military officer and a senior serving diplomat should make a detailed presentation to opposition leaders on the ground situation, and progress of talks. Only with this information could there be a meaningful exchange of ideas between the government and opposition leaders. Most of the information that is now available to us is from media, and it cannot always be trusted as accurate. The demand here is not for classified details, but truthful information…. In order to ensure that we do not escalate matters, I sincerely urge that nationalist rhetoric should be toned down. This is not the time for language of provocation and revenge. Media outlets spreading fake information and cheap rhetoric endangers the lives of our soldiers and diplomatic staff.

In recent times, there is an effort to politicise the armed forces. That is dangerous. They should be allowed to remain a professional force... [then] they will advise the government of the day fearlessly and correctly…. [I]t is important to institute an enquiry on the deaths of the soldiers in the Galwan Valley, and know exactly what led to the tragic events.

It is true that the government did not inform clearly. For example, on 19th June, we learnt that China released 10 Indian soldiers. That means that they had captured them earlier. Indian government would have at least suspected that their soldiers were captured, even if they didn’t know for sure. India has been having talks with China over the border issue. If they informed the public (and the opposition) what transpired through the talks, we would know more about how serious the situation is getting. 

In spite of being in the opposition, Deve Gowda did not try to gang up with opposition leaders to stay safe. He gave advise to them as well.

I would also urge my colleagues in the opposition not to use intemperate language. This is the hour for co-operation. Domestic politics and national security interests cannot be equated. Having said this, I do not mean we should not question the government. It should be done keeping in mind that there are larger issues at stake.

This really needs to be said. It is true that the government also uses intemperate language. Even so, the opposition can set an example of alternative behavior. Right now, they are virtually copying the government’s “national rhetoric” sentiment.

For example, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi asked why the Indian soldiers were unarmed. The fact is that the two nations have an agreement not to use arms on that border. Both India and China respected the agreement which should be highly appreciated.

Regarding Chinese products:

Regarding Chinese products, Deve Gowda said:

“The government should also not encourage reactionary language of economic boycott. Its implications are deep. We should be guided by pragmatism.”

It is important to note that there is virtually no end of demand for Chinese products. If India stops importing, China can easily sell those products elsewhere. So China won't get very affected, and yet India will have to live without so many products. Right now, India is largely dependent on China in getting RT-PCR test-kits. The virus will go out of control if the country doesn’t have sufficient test kits.

A look back:

Deve Gowda was the Prime Minister of India from 1st June 1996 to 21st April 1997. The Congress had supported the Janata Dal (the parent party of JD(S) ) to keep out the BJP. The condition they gave Janata Dal, was that they would choose the Prime Minister. They chose Deve Gowda based on the fact that he did not know much English or Hindi. Not knowing these languages, he wouldn’t gain popularity among the upper class and the North Indians. Therefore, he would not be a threat to Congress in future elections.

Language can be a factor in your ability to present your good work. However, it is not necessarily a factor of how well you can work.

Knowing his take on the Galwan encounter, the country's relationship with neighbours during his regime.

As Prime Minister, Deve Gowda spent significantly less money on defence. His priorities were on economic development. It is true that cutting military expenditure may be dangerous. But we must remember that a substantial portion of it goes in showing off ‘What we Indians can do’ when they don't need to spend all that  much to stay safe. Deve Gowda did continue to spend a reasonable amount of money on defence. He just didn’t spend too much.

Spending less on defence, can also make a better relationship with other countries. In the 1990s, India’s exports to China and Pakistan were highest during his regime.

See the full statement made by Deve Gowda on Twitter:

H D Devegowda @H_D_Devegowda · Jun 19

My statement on the India-China Border issue in the backdrop of the Prime Minister’s meeting with opposition leaders.