His popularity among a majority of people back home as well as some admirers in other countries notwithstanding, Japan’s right-wing, nationalist prime minister Shinzo Abe has managed to antagonise sections at home, neighbours like China and South Korea, and ally US since his re-election in December 2012.
No apologist for his country’s role during World War II, Abe has taken a series of steps to restore ‘Japan’s pride’, arguing that 70 years after the conflict, Japan has the right to act as a ‘normal’ nation. He has bolstered his view with a visit on December 26 to the Yasukuni shrine, which hosts deified souls of military personnel killed in action, along with those of 14 Japanese Class A war criminals; declared the ‘Restoration of Sovereignty Day’ to mark April 28, 1952, the day when the Allied occupation after wwii ended; reinterpreted Article 9 of Japan’s post-war constitution to change its pacifist nature and brought in a highly controversial national secrecy law.
These, along with Abe’s measures to rejuvenate the country’s moribund economy, enjoy a significant support among Japanese—almost 60 per cent by a recent count. But they have also raised concerns all around: in Japan, and especially in China and South Korea, where there are fears that Abe’s nationalism may lead to a revival of Japan’s militarist past.
“While it is premature to say that Japan is turning towards militarism, Abe does glorify its wartime past, undermine civic liberties, and has boosted security capacities—it is natural that he is regarded with great suspicion,” says Koichi Nakano of Tokyo’s Sophia University.
As India prepares itself to fete the Japanese PM as the chief guest for its Republic Day celebrations (January 25-27), it is perhaps pertinent to ask if Abe’s rise is in India’s interest. The chief guest is carefully chosen and usually indicates growing ties between New Delhi and the visiting dignitary’s country. India’s willingness to deepen its ‘global and strategic ties’ with Abe’s Japan is being keenly followed.
Japan remains a major international player with economic clout and a hi-tech knowledge base, and many see potential in closer India-Japan ties. The Japanese are already committed to mega infrastructure projects in India, like the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor and the proposed Bangalore-Chennai corridor. Moreover, New Delhi can use Abe’s visit to revive their under-performing Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and enlist Tokyo’s support for the India-Mekong Corridor and for joint projects in Myanmar.
Japanese officials point out that the Abe visit before the impending polls, in the light of the fact that the next government will not be headed by Manmohan Singh, is significant. There is no denying that much of Abe’s keenness to build strong ties with India is also being played out in the backdrop of the ongoing turf war between Japan and China in East Asia.
Opinion in India is, therefore, divided over the extent to which New Delhi should go in redefining bilateral ties with the current Japanese regime. Some experts advise using this opportunity to not only strengthen bilateral ties but also to frame a regional security architecture that is presently non-existent in Asia. Others say that India should continue with an equidistant policy and not get enmeshed in the Sino-Japanese rivalry.
“Asian security is now so interlinked that what happens in the East China Sea or the South China Sea tends to have a direct impact on India,” Hemant Krishan Singh, former Indian ambassador to Japan, argues. He says that “in terms of Asia’s balance of power and stability, Indo-Japanese relations will be most consequential”.
Though most other Indian commentators also see Abe’s visit in the backdrop of the tussle for supremacy in East Asia, they are sceptical about India playing a decisive role in it. “India is a minor player in this whole exercise,” says Srikanth Kondapalli of jnu. “But if India is realistic, it should be happy since it’s an opportunity for economic development.” Kondapalli also points out that in the past Japan played an active role in China’s economic growth. Even as the two countries are bitter regional rivals, there are nearly 90,000 Japanese firms operating in China. In comparison, India hosts about 2,000 Japanese companies.
There is no doubt that Abe’s presence will act as a catalyst in toning up bilateral ties and widening areas of India-Japan cooperation. But a cautious India, with huge stakes in an East Asia that also houses China and South Korea—two key investors and trade partners—will not do anything dramatic to create a fresh storm in the Indo-Pacific region.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
If a storm is building in the Indo - Pacific region, neither India nor Japan is the author.
India, as usual, is holding the begging bowl, ensconced in diplomacy.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT