Observations on the Scottish Referendum on Independence

Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer
 

While voters in Scotland rejected independence from the United Kingdom in a referendum on Sept. 18, by about 55 to 45 per cent, on a turnout of about 85 per cent of the electorate, this is not the end of the story.

First, the result: Even though the Yes side was defeated, it shows the power of national identity. After 307 years of being part of a larger state, almost half the population of Scotland voted for sovereignty, giving the lie to those who claim that peoples in liberal democracies, unlike oppressed minorities in brutal dictatorships, don’t ever need or want their own countries. (Are you listening, Stéphane Dion?)

Second, the leaders of the political parties at Westminster have promised the Scots “devo max” – greater devolved powers for the Scottish parliament. Scotland, like Quebec, will eventually become a virtual de facto state.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister and leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, while conceding defeat, maintained that the 1.6 million people who voted for independence showed the “depth of yearning” for the political powers promised to Scotland by British political leaders to stave off disunion.

“Scotland will expect these to be honored in rapid course,” Salmond insisted. “We now have the opportunity to hold Westminster's feet to the fire on the vow that they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland.”  He himself, though, has resigned his position.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has agreed. He has stated that new laws would provide Scotland with greater capacity relating to taxation, public finances and welfare. 

Already, starting in 2016, the UK will reduce taxes by 10 per cent for Scots, allowing their government to replace that fiscal space with its own taxes. That latest change came under the Scotland Act of 2012. Further  powers will soon be added to these.

Third, with Scotland, and potentially Wales, becoming the equivalent of sub-units in a federation, with extensive powers, the result will require completing the circle, so to speak. (Northern Ireland is a different matter altogether.) 

The only national entity in the United Kingdom now without its own legislature is England itself, a situation that needs to be rectified. There will have to be, as Cameron himself put it, “English votes for English laws,” in other words, preventing Scots at Westminster from voting on legislation affecting only England. 

Cameron has indicated that plans to empower Scotland should be linked to constitutional reform in England. English nationalism will grow, and “Britishness” will decline. 

Peter Hain, a Labour Party legislator who has served as secretary of state for both Wales and Northern Ireland, said that “We need to recognize the reality that the United Kingdom should have a federal political structure with a constitutional arrangement which defines the demarcation of powers between Westminster and the rest of the United Kingdom.

So an English assembly may be in the offing, to create a situation of symmetrical federalism. The Westminster government may in the future deal with little more than foreign affairs, defence, and other supra-national matters.

Those visiting London next summer may see more English flags (the Cross of Saint George) and fewer Union ones.

Henry Sr

Israel Walks a Tightrope Between Russia and Ukraine

Henry Srebrnik, [Calgary] Jewish Free Press
 

When it comes to its foreign policy towards Russia and Ukraine, Israel walks a diplomatic tightrope.

The Jewish state must take into consideration all kinds of factors: its relationship with both countries, one of them a great power; its alliance with the United States, which strongly backs Kyiv in its struggle with Moscow; and the effect of its policies on the situation of the still substantial Jewish communities in both of the former Soviet states.

This has led to some uncomfortable situations. 

A Defense Ministry-approved deal to sell drones to Ukraine was vetoed by a Foreign Ministry special panel amid fears Russia would disapprove, Israel’s Channel 2 reported on Sept. 15. Jerusalem was concerned a drone sale to Ukraine would anger Moscow.

When Russia annexed the Crimea in March, Jews in the region were divided in their attitudes. Most Crimean Jews, Russian speaking, supported the move, while those in Ukraine were opposed. Jews in Russia on the whole supported the move.

The 193-member UN General Assembly on March 27 passed Resolution 68/262 by a vote of 100 to 11 to denounce the Crimean referendum that paved the way for the absorption of the peninsula into Russia. Another 58 countries abstained, while the remaining 24 did not vote.

Israel did not take part in the vote, using a strike by staff at its Foreign Ministry as a pretext for the abstention. 

“Our basic position is that we hope Russia and Ukraine will find a way as quickly as possible to normalize relations, and find a way to talks, and to solve all the problems peacefully,” remarked Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman at a Jerusalem news conference in April. 

The United States was not happy with Israel. “We were surprised Israel did not join the vast majority of countries that vowed to support Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the UN,” U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said at a briefing after the UN vote. 

Historically, Jews have less than fond memories of Ukraine, traditionally a hotbed of anti-Semitism. In 1648-1649 the Cossack Hetman Bogdan Chmielnicki led a peasant uprising against Polish rule in the Ukraine which resulted in the destruction of hundreds of Jewish communities and the deaths of at least 100,000 Jews. 

After the First World War, Symon Petliura’s Ukrainian nationalists, fighting the newly-formed Soviet armies, were involved in pogroms that killed about 50,000 Jews. And during the Holocaust, Nazi death squads, and their Ukrainian collaborators, murdered 900,000 Jews.

The radical elements of Ukraine’s far-right nationalist politics, which rose to the fore during Ukraine’s overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych in February, are also working in Russia’s favour.

Russian anti-Semitism was less virulent. As well, those Israelis with long memories recall the Soviet Union’s role during the struggle to establish the state. 

Moscow voted for UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in November 1947 to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, recognized Israel de jure almost immediately in May 1948, and allowed its allies to provide arms to the new country.

As well, the Soviets in December 1948 voted against UN General Assembly Resolution 194 on the so-called “right of return” of Palestinian refugees to their homes.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, a hawk, is himself Soviet-born. He comes from Chisinau (Kishinev), in Moldova, and is the founder and leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, whose electoral base consists of immigrants from the former USSR. 

Lieberman, who immigrated to Israel in 1978, lives in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim. He admires Russian President Vladimir Putin, and in December 2011 appeared with him just days after a contested legislative election in Russia. In turn, the Russian leader visited Israel in June 2012.

 “We are very happy that people from the Soviet Union build such a brilliant political career,” said Putin in 2009, when Lieberman was first appointed to the position by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Speaking to a group of rabbis from Israel and Europe in July, during the latest Gaza war, Putin told them that “I support Israel's struggle, which is intended to protect its citizens.”  (After all, Putin has his own terrorists to worry about, in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and elsewhere.)

Of course America remains Israel’s lifeline, its main economic, ideological, and political ally. Still, in the final analysis, Israel, as a beleaguered state now surrounded on virtually all sides by chaos and violence in neighbouring countries, must hedge its bets. 

In a Middle East that is exploding, Israel can’t depend on just one great power ally. The recent Gaza war, and the different approaches to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, has exposed rifts between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, on Sept. 16 Ukraine’s parliament passed legislation to grant special status to the rebellious east as part of a peace deal, hopefully a war with Russian-backed separatists that has killed more than 3,000 people.

It grants three years of self-rule, including the election of local councils, in parts of the war-torn east and calls for local elections in November. It also allows for local oversight on court and prosecutor appointments and local control of police forces. And it gives the region the right to use Russian as an official language.

Israeli diplomats may now have less to worry about.

Kenya is a Tense Country of Rival Ethnic Groups

Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer

Many Prince Edward Islanders know about Kenya through the work of Farmers Helping Farmers, a group founded in 1979 that is involved with various small-scale agricultural projects in that country, particularly in Meru.

Another PEI group, the Mikinduri Children of Hope Foundation, which started in 2003, provides dental and medical care in nearby Mikinduri.

But Islanders may not be aware of the larger political context in Kenya, one that can be quite unsavoury.

This is, after all, a nation where the president has just narrowly avoided being tried by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

Kenya’s 45 million people are so diverse that the largest ethnic group, the Kikuyu, makes up less than a quarter of the total. Altogether, there are 42 tribal entities, including the Luyha, who comprise about 14 per cent of the country; the Luo, at about 13 per cent of the population; and the Kalenjin, at 12 per cent.

Ever since Kenyan independence in 1963, politics have been characterized by ethnic tensions between the larger groups. “Tribalism” is a curse, and especially intense has been the rivalry between the Kikuyu, the Luo, and the Kalenjin.

Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya’s first president, was a Kikuyu, and his hostility towards Oginga Odinga, a Luo chieftain, was legendary. In 1969 Odinga was arrested after the two verbally abused each other publicly in Kisumu; at least 11 people were killed and dozens were injured in riots. Odinga was detained for two years.

Kenyatta led the country until his death in 1978. His successor, Daniel arap Moi, a Kalenjin, was seen as a compromise. He withstood an abortive army coup in 1982, and remained in office until 2002.

Kenya’s third president, Mwai Kibaki, a Kikuyu, was elected that year. Despite his pledge to tackle corruption, some donors estimated that up to one billion dollars was lost to graft between 2002 and 2005.

The December 2007 presidential election pitted incumbent Kibaki of the Party of National Unity against Raila Odinga, a Luo and the son of Oginga Odinga, heading the Orange Democratic Movement. It led to one of the worst outbreaks of violence in Kenya’s history.

The election was strongly marked by ethnic rivalry, with Kibaki gaining support amongst his own Kikuyu and neighbouring groups like the Embu and Meru in central and eastern Kenya. Odinga built a coalition which included the Luo along with the Luyha in western Kenya, Kalenjin in the Rift Valley, and Muslims along the Indian Ocean coast.

Three days after the vote, the Electoral Commission declared Kibaki the winner, with 47 per cent of the vote against 44 per cent for Odinga. As Odinga had been leading by several hundred votes after the second round of counting, his loss was met with furious accusations of election rigging.

This triggered widespread and systematic violence, resulting in some 1,500 deaths and the displacement of over 500,000 civilians, particularly in the Rift Valley, with its longstanding land disputes between the Kikuyu and Kalenjin. Many of the displaced never returned to their homes.

Kenya’s police forces were also implicated, with reports suggesting that they were responsible for almost 40 per cent of civilian deaths, especially in Nairobi and Kisumu.

Things calmed down after Kibaki and Odinga struck a power-sharing deal in March 2008 and formed a national unity cabinet.

The Kenyan government took further steps towards ensuring that widespread violence would not occur in future presidential contests. A new constitution, approved by referendum in 2010, devolves some authority to local governments, paves the way for land reform, provides a bill of rights, strips the presidency of certain powers, and limits the use of patronage.

As a consequence, the 2013 election was free of violence and resulted in victory for Uhuru Kenyatta, the son of independence leader Jomo Kenyatta, over Odinga, who ran a second time. (Kibaki could not stand again because of term limits.)

However, in 2012, six Kenyan politicians, including the future president, were ordered to stand trial by the International Criminal Court in the Hague, accused of links to the 2007-2008 post-election massacres. But the charges against Kenyatta collapsed a few weeks ago after prosecutors admitted they lacked evidence.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, said that Kenya – now ruled by Kenyatta -- had not handed over the bank and phone records the court was demanding, leaving it without a case before the scheduled Oct. 7 start.

Israel Walks Tightrope Between Russia, Ukraine

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian
 

When it comes to its foreign policy towards Russia and Ukraine, Israel walks a diplomatic tightrope.

The Jewish state must take into consideration all kinds of factors: its relationship with both countries, one of them a great power; its alliance with the United States, which strongly backs Kyiv in its struggle with Moscow; and the effect of its policies on the situation of the still substantial Jewish communities in both of the former Soviet states.

This has led to some uncomfortable situations. 

A Defense Ministry-approved deal to sell drones to Ukraine was vetoed by the Foreign Ministry amid fears Russia would disapprove, Israel’s Channel 2 reported on Sept. 15. Israel was concerned a drone sale to Ukraine would anger Russia.

When Russia annexed the Crimea in March, Jews in the region were divided in their attitudes. Most Crimean Jews, Russian speaking, supported the move, while those in Ukraine were opposed. Jews in Russia on the whole supported the move.

The 193-member UN General Assembly on March 27 voted 100 to 11 to denounce the Crimean referendum that paved the way for the absorption of the peninsula into Russia. Another 58 countries abstained, while the remaining 24 did not vote.

Israel did not take part in the vote, using a strike by staff at its Foreign Ministry as a pretext for the abstention.

“Our basic position is that we hope Russia and Ukraine will find a way as quickly as possible to normalize relations, and find a way to talks, and to solve all the problems peacefully,” remarked Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman at a Jerusalem news conference in April. 

The United States was not happy with Israel. “We were surprised Israel did not join the vast majority of countries that vowed to support Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the UN,” U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said at a briefing after the UN vote. 

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is himself Soviet-born. He comes from Chisinau (Kishinev), in Moldova, and is the founder and leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, whose electoral base consists of immigrants from the former USSR. 

Lieberman, who immigrated to Israel in 1978, admires Russian President Vladimir Putin, and in December 2011 appeared with him just days after a contested legislative election in Russia. In turn, the Russian leader visited Israel in June 2012.

 “We are very happy that people from the Soviet Union build such a brilliant political career,” said Putin in 2009, when Lieberman was first appointed to the position by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Of course America remains Israel’s lifeline, its main economic, ideological, and political ally. Still, in the final analysis, Israel, as a beleaguered state now surrounded on virtually all sides by chaos and violence in neighbouring countries, must hedge its bets. 

In a Middle East that is exploding, Israel can’t depend on just one great power ally. The recent Gaza war, and the different approaches to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, has exposed rifts between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, on Sept. 16 Ukraine’s parliament passed legislation to grant special status to the rebellious east as part of a peace deal, hopefully ending a war with Russian-backed separatists that has killed more than 3,000 people.

It grants three years of self-rule, including the election of local councils, in parts of the war-torn east and calls for local elections in November. It also allows for local oversight on court and prosecutor appointments and local control of police forces. And it gives the region the right to use Russian as an official language.

Israeli diplomats may now have less to worry about.

Vukovar is a Microcosm of Conflict in Post-Yugoslavia

Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer

The collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s led to warfare throughout the country, as Croats, Kosovar Albanians, Muslim Bosniaks, Serbs, and Slovenes all fought each other for control of territory. Seven sovereign entities would emerge by 2006.

The 1991-1995 Croatian war for independence from Serb-dominated Yugoslavia claimed some 20,000 lives. While the Roman Catholic Croats declared themselves a sovereign country, minority Orthodox Serbs in Croatia opposed the secession and, at the least, wanted Serb-populated regions, such as the Krajina and eastern Slavonia, to remain Serbian.

The Serb-controlled regions in 1991declared themselves the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and its government engaged in a war for ethnic Serb independence from the newly-formed Republic of Croatia.

In August of 1991, Serb forces launched a full-scale attack against Croatian-held territory in eastern Slavonia, including the city of Vukovar, on the Danube River.

By the time Vukovar fell three months later, at least 2,000 defenders were dead and it had been virtually destroyed. After its surrender, hundreds of soldiers and civilians were massacred by Serb forces and at least 31,000 civilians were deported from the town and its surroundings. The damage to Vukovar during the siege has been called the worst in Europe since 1945.

While the rest of Serbian Krajina was recaptured by Croatia in 1995 in Operation Storm, which was finalized by the Erdut Peace Agreement, Vukovar remained in Serb hands until 1998 when it was peacefully reintegrated into Croatia through UN auspices.


Between 300,000 and 350,000 Serbs were relocated as a result of the 1991-1995 war.  Approximately 220,000 Croats had previously been displaced with the establishment of Serbian Krajina in 1991.

During the decades of Communist rule in Yugoslavia, Vukovar had been showcased as a model “Brotherhood and Unity” city where Croats and Serbs could live in harmony. The secularisation of the city attempted to stem the ethnic and religious animosity that had led to mass murder during the Second World War.

The lands of both the Orthodox and Catholic churches were nationalised, religion was removed from the education system, church marriages were no longer considered valid, and the public role of both clergies was curtailed.

But it all unravelled as Yugoslavia fell apart. On both sides, nationalists mobilised religious heritage, motifs, and practices, as vehicles for their ethnic movements.

Today, Vukovar remains a city on edge and real peace remains elusive. The battle for the city continues through memory wars, conflicts over dual language signage, and ethnically divided education.

Incidents involving Croats and Serbs occur regularly, and public spaces have become identified by the ethnicity of those who gather there. Even coffee shops are identified as Croat or Serb. The city is a cauldron of mutual animosity.

In September 2013, the Croatian government implemented its Constitutional Law on the Rights of Ethnic Minorities for the city. The legislation allows for minorities to have their language used for official purposes if they make up more than a third of a city’s population.

Since ethnic Serbs constitute 34.8 per cent of Vukovar’s population of 28,000, according to a 2011 census, signs in both the Latin and Cyrillic scripts were introduced. Croats use the Latin alphabet, while Serbs use Cyrillic script.

Respect for minorities’ rights was a key condition for Croatia to join the European Union in 2013.
But tens of thousands Croatians demonstrated against the introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet on street signs. Some signs were torn down, others were smashed with hammers, while protesters clashed with the police. Cyrillic, they contended, “is the symbol of Serb aggression.”

Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic’s centre-left government condemned the “chauvinist violence,” saying it would not take down signs in Cyrillic in Vukovar, as the “rule of law must prevail.”

The Danube, which once served as the city’s link to the wider world, is now the border between Serbia and Croatia, and Vukovar itself remains just as divided.

Gulf State of Qatar Remains a Puzzle

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

There are countries that are known to punch above their weight. One of these of late has been the Gulf state of Qatar.

It’s a tiny country of 11,571 square kilometres jutting out from the Arabian peninsula into the Persian Gulf, its only land neighbour Saudi Arabia. Most of its population is composed of guest workers; only 278,000 of its 1.5 million residents are Qatari citizens.

Qatar is a puzzle. On the one hand it has embraced modernity: Doha is a dazzling city of luxury hotels and skyscrapers – when completed, the Dubai Towers will be 1,434 feet in height -- and a center for global business. 

Qatari-owned al-Jazeera has become one of the most influential television networks in the world and currently has a total of 82 bureaus around the globe, the second largest number of any media company after the BBC. It now has millions of viewers worldwide, including in North America.

The FIFA World Cup, soccer’s greatest spectacle, is scheduled to take place in Qatar in 2022. It will be the first World Cup in the Middle East. 

Yet Qatar follows the strict Wahhabi Sunni form of Islam found in neighbouring Saudi Arabia and it remains an absolute monarchy – the Consultative Assembly created in 2003 has very limited powers. 

It has been ruled since the 19^th century by the al-Thani family (although as a British protectorate between 1916 and 1971). The current emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, has been in power since 2013, when his father, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, abdicated in his favour.

Thanks to oil and natural gas revenues, Qatar today has the highest per capita income in the world. And it is using its money shrewdly to buy influence throughout the Middle East. Among other things, it plays host to Khaled Meshaal, the political leader of Hamas, and supports the Muslim Brotherhood with money and political assistance.

In 2011 the emirate sent hundreds of troops and tens of millions of dollars in weapons and aid to the Libyans fighting Moammar Gadhafi, including those with Islamist ties, such as the 17 February Martyrs Brigade, one of the most influential rebel formations. Its air force was also involved.

Qatar has also been the most prominent regional opponent of the Assad regime in Syria, and has given generously to those fighting the Shi’ite regime in Damascus. In February 2012, Qatar’s then Prime Minister, Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, stated that “We must do all we can to help Syrian opposition, including supplying them with arms, in order to defend ourselves.”

Last year Qatar used a shadowy arms network to move at least two shipments of shoulder-fired missiles to Syrian rebels who have used them against Assad’s air force. In April 2013 U.S. President Barack Obama warned the Qataris about the dangers of arming Islamic radicals in Syria, including Jabhat al-Nusra. But this has clearly continued.

Doha supported Islamist organisations and Muslim Brotherhood-led administrations, including that of Egypt’s former president Mohammed Morsi, during the Arab Spring. Qatar gave refuge to many Brotherhood members who were pushed out of Egypt after Morsi’s downfall, most notably the controversial and highly influential Egyptian sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Egypt has demanded his extradition.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Aug. 24 accused Qatar and Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood of spending millions of dollars to spread chaos in the Arab world.

All this has strained relations with the Saudis and other Gulf states, for whom the Brotherhood is anathema. Months of tension between Qatar and its neighbours came to a head in March when Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates withdrew their ambassadors.

As a major supporter of Hamas, Qatar has been instrumental in providing funds to the group. In October 2012 then Emir Hamad visited Gaza, where he announced a $400 million aid program to the Islamist organization. And Qatar has allowed Meshaal to live in luxury in Doha after he left Damascus in 2012 as the Syrian civil war intensified.

On Aug. 21 Meshaal and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met with the Emir in Doha to discuss the Gaza war, and Meshaal praised “the brave posture adopted by Qatar and its political leadership” on the Palestinian cause. 

Qatar Charity, a non-governmental organization (NGO) founded in 1992, has pledged 25 million Qatari riyals (about seven million dollars) for Gaza at the Forum of the International Popular Committee to Support the Gaza Strip, held in Istanbul recently.

India Changing Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi

Henry Srebrnik [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer

It’s now been four months since the Indian general election propelled Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) into power in India.

The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance won 336 of the 543 seats in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of parliament. The BJP itself gained 31 per cent of the popular vote and 282 constituencies.

The governing Indian National Congress, the party of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, led by Rahul Gandhi, was handed an historic defeat. Its United Progressive took just 58 seats, 44 of them Congress wins, and just 19.3 per cent of the overall vote.

In 20 of India’s 36 states and federally administered union territories, Congress did not manage to win a single seat.

While Congress lost 162 seats, the BJP’s landslide victory saw it increase its share of seats by 166. The party and its political allies now form the largest majority government in India since 1984 election.

Modi, a Hindu nationalist who promotes the idea of India as a cultural and religiously Hindu nation, also served as the chief minister of the state of Gujerat from 2001 to 2014. 

His controversial tenure in that state, which adjoins Pakistan, included his alleged complicity in the mass violence between Hindus and Muslims that swept Gujerat for three months in 2002.

According to official figures, the riots resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus; another 2,500 people were injured, and 223 more were reported missing. At the height of the killings, as many as 125,000 Muslim took sanctuary in refugee camps.

But Modi’s image since then has changed and by this year he was being touted as a pro-business administrator at the helm of a corruption-free government in Gujerat.

To attract foreign investment in Gujarat, Modi had made visits to countries such as China, Singapore and Japan. Under his rule, Gujarat has attracted such foreign corporations as Ford, General Motors and Suzuki, which have set up factories in the state.

Modi won a commanding victory in the election in large part by promising to restore high economic growth to India. An advocate of the free market, Modi has announced that he will be shutting down the Planning Commission of India. Created in 1950, when India’s rulers hoped to create a socialist economy, it’s detractors referred to it as a “Soviet-style” relic.

In July, Modi’s Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, presented the new government’s budget to Parliament. The government pledged to open the defence and insurance industries wider to foreign investors, bring in tax reform, improve the country’s inadequate infrastructure and support manufacturing to create more jobs.

India’s foreign policy is also evolving. Under Nehru and Indira Gandhi, the country followed a policy of non-alignment, one tilted towards the Soviet Union. Now the country is more interested in pursuing trade.

At the end of August Modi set off on a five-day trip to Japan, which is now India’s number one foreign development aid donor. In Tokyo, heand Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe signed a defence agreement laying the groundwork for deepening bilateral military exercises, weapons procurement and production, and transfer of technology.

Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, came to see Modi in early September to sign a deal to supply uranium for India's nuclear reactors. And China’s leader, Xi Jinping, will arrive towards the end of the month.

Was this election also the end of the political dynasty that led India to independence in 1947 under its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rahul’s great-grandfather? Rahul’s own father Rajiv, and grandmother Indira, were both also prime ministers of India, and his mother Sonia serves as president of the Congress Party.

To be fair, Rahul Gandhi inherited the mantel of an outgoing nine-year-old Congress coalition government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which was besieged with allegations of widespread corruption and weak leadership, the lowest economic growth in a decade, and rising prices.

“It is our responsibility to save this country from such a government,” Modi declared during the campaign. “We cannot leave India helpless and must restore the faith of a billion citizens.” He has his work cut out for him.