Pranab Mukherjee's visit to RSS HQ explained

Jawed Naqvi in The Dawn

TWO lobbies were clearly worried by a photograph that was clicked during the swearing-in celebrations of the Karnataka anti-BJP coalition. It showed Congress leader Sonia Gandhi locked in a rare embrace with Dalit leader Mayawati. The picture had other leaders who were opposed to the Modi-led BJP government basking in the glory of the Karnataka victory, but the hugging of the two women was a defining moment. Insidious advisers to the Congress leadership had stalled their coming together in the past.

Among the understated reasons was the stark reality that some of the Gandhi family’s upper-caste advisers also happened to be conduits for the mercantile lobbies based in Mumbai. The photograph threatened both, the tycoons and their caste protégés adorning the upper houses of legislatures, where those who cannot win the Lok Sabha or assembly polls are given a cosy perch, not just in Congress.

There is a brouhaha about former president and former Congress minister Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh headquarters. It’s surprising why no one has linked the visit with the Karnataka photo. Mukherjee is an educated Brahmin, flaunting the requisite links with Mumbai businesses, which could be a temptation for the RSS leadership to sound him out.

It is possible of course that the nudge for the meeting came from the mercantile club in Mumbai. It has acquired the habit of late of playing kingmakers. Remember how hard they had lobbied with the RSS to make Narendra Modi the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate? 

They finance other parties too, not the least the Congress party. But there is a silent caveat here. The Congress that forms the government or heads a coalition should not offer the prime minister’s job to a Gandhi, and we have had two such non-Gandhi Congress prime ministers to press the point.

-----Also Read

The Marwari hegemony of Indian Media

-------

There is a history to this reasoning and the Gandhi family has been pitchforked as the villains, or the heroes, depending on where you are vis-à-vis crony capitalism. Jawaharlal Nehru had no love lost for the mercantile leaders whom Gandhiji otherwise saw as the trustees of a free India. Nehru put their biggest icon in jail for fraud. (R.K. Dalmia’s close friendship with Mohammad Ali Jinnah may have been an added allergen.)

Then came Indira Gandhi. She nationalised the cabal’s ‘usurious’ banks and also locked up several of them under the draconian Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, the law she passed just before the 1975-77 emergency.

Mr Mukherjee recently chronicled his political innings from 1980 onwards. That marked the post-emergency return for Indira Gandhi who was looking vulnerable after her traditional left supporters deserted her over the emergency. Mr Mukherjee’s proximity to the Mumbai tycoons is well documented in books that predictably did not make it to bookshops. He became a darling of the media as her finance minister, the same media that is celebrating his visit to the RSS headquarters although he said perfectly liberal, pro-constitution things there. When Mrs Gandhi was killed, Mr Mukherjee reportedly saw himself as her natural successor, a thought resented by her family friends.

Rajiv Gandhi arrived to throw the ‘moneybags off the backs of the Congress workers’. He sent Mukherjee into political oblivion. The tycoons, however, swung into action. Every inch of media space they owned was harnessed to tarnish the young prime minister with financial scams. His death brought the cabal and Mukherjee back into the heart of Indian politics, both firmly embraced by Narasimha Rao.

One more twist followed. When Rao lost the elections in 1996, he handed over the Congress presidency to Sitaram Kesri, a canny grass-roots Congressman. The change was accepted by the Gandhis who saw in Kesri a better chance of getting to the bottom of Rajiv’s murder mystery than Rao had delivered. Also Kesri shored up two prime ministers with the help of communists.

I remember asking him at a news conference why he had taken the unusual step to ally with Dalit leader Mayawati in 1998. Did he see her as an asset as a woman leader, or was she a potential Dalit ally? Kesri exploded with joy. Both, he yelled. We don’t know which of the Congress rivals locked him up in the bathroom subsequently and handed the leadership to a still reluctant Sonia Gandhi, who had evidently not yet recovered from the shock of her husband’s assassination. Mukherjee was part of the group, or perhaps its leader, that went after Kesri in what can only be described as a palace coup. Kesri saw himself as a Gandhi loyalist and didn’t know what hit him. He died from the shock.

It is said that the Mumbai club has applied a financial squeeze on the Congress party for flirting with state leaders they do not control. This could be a blessing in disguise for the party. It could bring the Gandhis close to crucial leaders like Mayawati, Arvind Kejriwal, Lalu Yadav and Mamata Banerjee who have to fend for themselves financially.

If, like Kejriwal, Rahul Gandhi goes for crowd funding instead of leaning on crony tycoons for support, he might become a richer, cleaner leader. But before that, he must do with the current potential ‘Congress Syndicate’ what Emperor Akbar did with his regent Bairam Khan or Nehru did with his detractors clothed as advisers. They could be sent to work with the masses under a new Kamraj Plan to borrow from the Congress history.

Above all, it was Mayawati’s sacrifice and not ambition that has reaped rewards for a rejuvenated opposition. Rather than aim to become prime minister, Rahul Gandhi would do well to watch out for deserters, no matter how educated they are, while embracing the game-changing picture from Karnataka.

Javed Akhtar on subversive poetry

Imran Khan - Where the Past is always Present

Nadeem Paracha in The Dawn


A few years ago in a TV interview that he gave to the former England cricket captain Mike Atherton, Imran Khan kept insisting that he didn’t dwell much on the past and was more focused on the present and the future. Yet, he often loves talking about how under his captaincy the Pakistan cricket team won the 1992 World Cup in Australia. His many fans on social media continue to upload highlights of the final in which Pakistan defeated England to lift the cup. They are always quick to remind Khan’s detractors of this feat, even though, most probably, many of them were still in their shorts at the time or not even born.

This does not in any way take away their right to celebrate that famous win. After all, this is one memory Khan frequently talks about. But why this particular memory of a man who claims to never think much about the past? Simply put, because the constant celebration of this memory serves his political standing and appeal best, whereas many other bits of his past do not. Or so he believes.

When Atherton wanted him to comment on his youthful past as a ‘playboy’ and someone who loved to party, Khan kept insisting that all this was in the past, much of which he didn’t even remember. Yet, during the course of the interview, he did quite clearly remember many other bits of the same past. But these were the bits which did not reflect badly on the kind of wholesome image that he and his supporters have been trying to construct of him as a politician and possible future prime minister.

A young supporter of Khan’s party, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI), began to regularly email me right after he had cast his first-ever vote during the 2013 election. He still writes to me. Whereas his emails up until late last year were mostly about why he thought Khan was the best candidate for the PM’s job, his last two emails (one sent in February of this year and the other in April) were rather critical of the leader he once so admired.

I seldom respond to his emails, but in April I did, asking him what Khan had done to anger such a passionate follower. His reply: “Khan has made fools out of thousands of passionate supporters like me by continuing to accept close-minded people in the party. I was wrong. He is anything but progressive and I am tired of proving that he is.”

When I shared this with a journalist colleague of mine, he said, “This email is about that long-held, million-dollar question: why is Khan so attracted to the most ‘reactionary’ breed of people?”

I have met Khan only once, when as a 15-year-old schoolboy I managed to shake his hand outside the dressing room of Karachi’s National Stadium in 1982, soon after he had destroyed the Indian batting with his vicious in-swingers. Khan was anything but “reactionary.” And I believe he isn’t one even now. I remember I was quite excited when he decided to join politics in the early 1990s. But in this act lies the answer to the ‘million-dollar question’ that my colleague is trying to crack.

The reality of him being a charismatic ladies’ man or playboy with awesome cricketing skills was perfect for his sporting career which attracted some of the first lucrative sponsorship deals offered to a Pakistani sports personality. But the moment he decided to take the plunge to join the volatile world of Pakistani politics, he became just too conscious of this image.

From sounding like a dynamic cricket captain with some sharp insights about the game, and a brooding icon of lifestyle liberalism, he suddenly began to sound like a middle-aged man who, for the first time in his life, had read the standard Pakistan Studies book. If that wasn’t enough (it wasn’t), he made it a point to publicly declare that he had rediscovered his faith. I’ve always wondered why most folks who go through spiritual transformations have to announce it publicly? Shouldn’t it be a matter between the Almighty and them? I think it should, unless, of course, like Khan, one has a colourful past which he thought would become a burdensome baggage to carry into politics.

Khan’s understanding of his own country’s society is rather simplistic. It’s black and white, based on that intellectually lazy cliché of this society being entirely conservative. Had that been the case, he would have never been such a star during his cricketing days. As a cricket star, he never tried to overtly defend his lifestyle or even hide it. He didn’t need to. This was Pakistan, not Iran or Saudi Arabia.

But once Khan decided to see the same country as a politician, to him it suddenly started to look like a place no better than Somalia — but one which had millions of pious men and women exploited by a corrupt elite and khooni (who allow bloodletting) liberals, awaiting an equally pious but slightly more dashing messiah.

What about his own well-documented khooni-liberal past? Reading Pakistan Studies books and hiring wise spiritual tutors wasn’t going to cut it. Thus began his attraction towards what my colleague believes are “reactionary characters.” It began with former ISI chief Gen Hamid Gul, who till his last breath was still romancing the 1980s Afghan jihad.

Gul imparted some wonderful tips on the art and science of politics to Khan. This inspired Khan to often declare that he was no ‘brown sahib’ but then, just as often travel to London in a tuxedo. One day he returned with a rich Caucasian lady as wife. Gul was livid. It didn’t matter to Gul that Khan had converted her to Islam. Her father was a Jew. And that was that.

But all said and done, Khan was still quite a ladies’ man. He was, however, distraught to discover that, like Gul, some of his pious countrymen weren’t amused. So off he went to now praise the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI). In the early 2000s, he described it to be the most enlightened political party, even though there is every likelihood that he spent more time talking about it with then JI chief, late Qazi Hussain Ahmad, than reading any of the many books JI’s founder Abul Ala Maudidi wrote.

But Khan’s past continued to pop up. So even more was required to bury it for good for the benefit of the people of the pious banana republic he now wanted to save. So out came statements against US drone attacks, and against the Pakistan military’s operations against the extremists. These were coupled with very public exhibitions of the fact that Khan was now regularly saying his prayers like a true faithful.

Drone attacks, he said, were being prompted by dastardly liberals who were fake liberals and he was the more genuine liberal because he was against war, but one who enjoyed hunting in the rugged tribal areas with the rugged tribesmen who he proudly explained came from ‘a warrior race.’

And it went on. And it goes on like a vicious circle. The more conscious he becomes of a past he still so desperately wants to suppress, the more he ends up patronising ‘reactionary characters’ to the utter bemusement of his more urbane supporters. Radical clerics, populist motormouth TV personalities, rabid conspiracy theorists, hate-spouting bigots — he is willing to play footsie with them so he can finally prove that he has become the most pious, honest, God-fearing man to ever walk the scorched grounds of this banana republic.

Khan, I’m afraid, has become a parody of the Khan he once wanted to construct after he joined politics in 1995. Through whatever form of wisdom he crossed paths with during that period, it made him decide to loathe his past. And yet, ironically, it’s a past without which Khan would have even struggled to become a member of the country’s cricket selection committee, let alone become the chief of a major political party.

Four years of Achhe Din - Modi feels we have let him down miserably

G Sampath in The Hindu

My dear friends and loyal readers, please join me in congratulating ourselves on four fantastic years of Achhe Din. I hope that is the correct spelling of ‘achhe’ and it’s not ‘achhoo’ as my autocorrect is suggesting. My father says the right spelling is ‘chee’ but I think he is editorialising.

So wherever you are, whoever you are, extend both your arms — don’t feel shy, this is a time to celebrate — and pat yourselves on the back. If you can’t reach your own back because you are too fat, do it using your social media handle, or the handle of your trishul. But do it for sure — because you deserve it.


A ridiculous notion

You silly goose! Deserve it my foot! I was just joking, to see how seriously you take me. And you all are really patting yourselves on the back?! This has to be the height of self-delusion. Do you people really believe the credit for all that India has achieved in the last four years goes to each one of you? I am asking a genuine question here and I want a genuine answer: are all of you megalomaniacs? Did you really think each of you is collectively responsible for the progress of this great nation? I am shocked to hear that you would entertain even for one second such a ridiculous, blasphemous notion. Never forget that all the good things happening in our country right now is because of one man — and we all know who that is.

What makes me really sad is that all of you got four years — four entire years — to fulfil every one of our beloved Prime Minister’s dreams. And yet, you have let him down so badly. Each one of you. True, the Indian economy is still growing at 12.7% per annum, we are still creating 4.2 crore jobs every year, and farmers are so happy that they are giving away milk and tomatoes for free. It is also true that we have eliminated corruption through demonetisation, achieved 200% tax compliance through GST, and deposited ₹15 lakh in the bank account of every Indian who worked in the IT Cell for a minimum of 56 days.

Nor can anyone deny that today, white people in different parts of the world look at brown Indians with more respect than ever before. Foreigners are so much in awe of our Prime Minister that when they translate his speeches they add five extra paragraphs free of charge. After 60 years of Dark Ages under the Congress, today every Indian village has woken up to light and Paytm.


Four great feats

In fact, Modiji routinely achieves in any given week 100 times more than what Nehru accomplished from 1947 to 2014. But the pseudo-sickular Indian media that has sold out to the hate-Modi industry simply won’t show them to the Indian public. If you think I am being too harsh, I’ll give you just four examples of Modiji’s historic achievements, all from the last one week, which have been completely blacked out by the paid-cum-stung media.

I’m betting you didn’t know, for instance, that for the first time in India’s 30,000-year-history, an orchid was named after an Indian Prime Minister when the Singapore government decided to name a beautiful Indic orchid that produces upright inflorescences up to 56 inches long, ‘Dendrobrium Narendra Modi’. Or that Modiji became the first Indian Prime Minister to visit a Mariamman temple in Singapore. Were you aware that the IAEA has hailed the achievement of electrifying all Indian villages as the greatest event in the history of every energy, including physical, kinetic, potential, sexual, and weed energy? Or that for the first time in India’s history, an Indian Prime Minister purchased a Madhubani painting in Singapore using a RuPay card? Do you know how many Madhubani paintings Nehru bought using a RuPay card, either in India or in Singapore? Zero. That’s right. If Modiji and Nehru were to settle things between them through a tennis match, Modiji would win by an innings and 545 runs.


The one thing we couldn’t do

That’s the kind of Prime Minister we’ve been blessed with the last four years — someone who not only works 23 hours a day but never boasts about it in his own words. In return, he had only one small request for all of us: a Congress-mukt Bharat. And I’m sorry to say, as a nation, we have failed miserably in this.

As the Karnataka elections and the recent bypoll results showed, not only is India far from being Congress-mukt, the entire Opposition is ganging up against one man. And you all are sitting quietly and watching like Gandhiji’s monkeys? After all that he has done for you, if you can’t even ensure another five years of Achhe Din in 2019, I must say you are not fit to remain in this country. I suggest you pack off to Pakistan and while you are there, don’t forget to watch ‘Veeradi Veera Wedding’ with your jihadi grandmother.

The Age of Perversion

Tabish Khair 

 

We exist in a world where capital has become an obsession. And we are the perverts of free-floating ‘god-like’ capital

The period we are living through has been dubbed an Age of Fundamentalism, of Extremism, of Intolerance, etc. These are all appropriate descriptions. But if I had to choose a tag, I would call it the Age of Perversion.


An overbearing perversion

I do not use ‘perversion’ in its ordinary sense of ‘deviation from normal or accepted behaviour’. Simple deviation is not sufficient (and not necessarily bad) if it is not of an obsessive nature. What characterises a pervert is not the choice of a different option, but an obsession with only that option. The hallmark of an overbearing perversion is that no matter what one says, the pervert sees it only in terms of his/her obsession. Examples? Here you go.

A Muslim girl is raped in a Hindu temple, which causes justified outrage in many Hindu circles, but seems to leave some circles untouched. These miraculously untouched people not only make excuses but even point a finger (without any evidence) at Muslims, or, what they associate with Muslims, Pakistan. A post on Facebook states that Muslim clerics rape with impunity in their institutions. Apart from the wide sweep of its xenophobic purview — and I say so without denying that there can be serious problems in all male-controlled institutions, whether Hindu, Muslim or non-religious — I am shaken by the obsession of the person. No matter what the evidence, such a person can only blame ‘Muslims’. This is a perversion.

Versions of this exist elsewhere too. Go online and look at what many Islamists — who form only a small percentage of Muslims, just as Bhakts form only a small percentage of Hindus — have to say about the U.S., the Central Intelligence Agency, or Israel. No matter what happens, they point a finger at one or all of these three usual suspects. As their easy accusation is far in excess of any evidence, what this indicates is a perversion. Or look at hardcore Republicans: they are capable of blaming even the sinking of the Titanic on either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, or both! This too is a perversion.

What has happened to so many people in our age? Why has there been a decided increase in what can only be seen as obsessive perversions?

One can point to the nature of the Internet — the easy circulation of ‘alternative facts’, unmediated by any real expertise and effective counterchecking. But this is more symptom than explanation. Surely, there is something in us as an age that predisposes us towards such obsessive perversions, so that we seek on the Internet (and elsewhere) only ‘facts’ that suit our singular version of the complex reality out there? What is this ‘something’? Why has it become so extensive that it is changing the political character of entire countries?


The nature of capital

The main explanation is the nature of capital, especially now, when capital is no longer embedded, as it was under classical capitalism, in production and labour. The ‘freer’ capital gets from human labour, the more of an obsession it becomes. If 19th century critics (and even some conservative defenders) of capitalism had warned against the tendency of capital to impoverish other human values and relations, then, today, we have crossed that threshold. Everything has been ‘capitalised’, and capital, unlike money, is no longer just a medium of exchange or a social relation. It seems to be all there is under neo-liberalism. It seems to exist on its own. It is everywhere and nowhere. It reproduces itself. It dominates everything else. It obsesses.

This fact lurks under the surface of governmental actions in all countries, ranging from the U.S. and India to China. Governments defend, primarily, the interests of capital, even by cutting services and causing problems to citizens. Donald Trump’s government is currently being accused of running up trillions in deficit by providing huge tax cuts to the top 5%, and then trying to balance that deficit by cutting necessary services available to the other 95%. But versions of this ‘balancing’ act exist in almost every country in the world: as long as free-floating ‘capital’ is happy, governments can live with their (dirty) consciences, and probably win the next election!

We exist in a world where capital — diminishingly connected to labour and production and no longer primarily a medium of exchange — has become an obsession. It has reduced everything else, usurped the world. We are the perverts of free-floating ‘god-like’ capital. And this is our ‘natural’ state; we cannot really question it. We internalise its structures — and transpose them. Is it a surprise, then, that so many of us succumb to placebo perversions?

The other, smaller explanation is the nature of politics today. Given the kind of world we live in, politicians, operating on quasi-democratic platforms, prefer to cater to the perversions of their voters, which are easier to use as enticement: offer the pervert a titillating picture of his perversion, and you can lead him by the nose. Hence, we have politicians who put all the blame on one obsession – the CIA, Israel, Iran, Russia, Nehru, the Pope, immigrants, Muslims.

Tangled in Brexit, the Tories are failing their business supporters

Patience Wheatcroft in The Financial Times


The single market is absolutely vital to Lucas,” declared Brian Pearse, chairman of the engineering group. “We have to be very much a global company.” Deeply concerned by the seeming hostility of much of the Conservative government’s attitude towards Europe, Sir Brian cancelled Lucas’s donation to the party. 

That was in 1995. Much has changed since then. Lucas industries now trades only as an offshoot of a German company. Since 2000, legislation has demanded that shareholders should approve corporate donations to political parties and such donations are effectively outlawed for quoted companies. But the issue of the UK’s relationship with the EU remains troublesome. On Tuesday it will reach another crisis point as the House of Commons votes on whether to avoid the hardest of Brexits. 

Sir Brian feared the government was not listening to the concerns of business 20 years ago, but in recent years the sound barrier seems to have become almost impenetrable. Business has been cast as the political pantomime villain. In July 2016, as she set out her personal manifesto for party leadership, Theresa May attacked “unscrupulous bosses” and “corporate irresponsibility” and was adamant that: “Under my leadership, the Conservative party will put itself completely, absolutely, unequivocally at the service of ordinary working people.” The trade union bosses of old would have applauded the resurrection of such “us and them” language. 

It has become commonplace for ministers. Only this week, Michael Gove was roundly condemning “crony capitalists who have rigged the system in their favour and against the rest of us”. The secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs managed glancing references to the water industry and sustainability in his speech to the Policy Exchange think-tank, but it was largely a tirade against the corporate world. 

Few would argue that modern capitalism is without failings. From the financial crisis of 2008 to the collapse of Carillion (according to the National Audit Office, this will cost the taxpayer at least £148m), colossal mistakes have been made. Executive remuneration is widely, and not unjustly, perceived to be unfairly generous. That perception has been the driving force behind the rise of populism on both sides of the Atlantic. It is a big reason why the UK is mired in a potentially disastrous breach from Europe. 

Yet, for all its inadequacies, business remains a force for good. Politicians on all sides are now loath to even whisper such a thought. Business leaders, conscious of the zeitgeist, have not been keen to make the defence case publicly for fear of being shot down as stooges for the transgressors. So their efforts towards being responsible corporate citizens go unremarked, except in annual reports. Businesses are still perceived as using charitable giving as a cover for securing tickets for the opera rather than providing training and jobs for ex-offenders or breakfasts for children in deprived areas. Apart from the small matter of wealth creation, business today has extensive involvement in education, fosters volunteering among its staff and generally, in the interests of longer term survival, endeavours to keep its customers happy. 

Politicians, however, tend to make a distinction between big business, equating it to crony capitalism, and plucky entrepreneurs who deserve support and encouragement. Knowing this, most big businesses ask little of government beyond a stable environment, an educated and skilled workforce, effective infrastructure and a degree of regulatory and legal certainty. That enables them to get on with creating jobs and generating tax revenue to keep the country going. 

Traditionally, they have found the Conservative party the most supportive of these needs, although the Blair administration, with its embrace of free markets, was an exception. What now causes real concern is that the May government also confounds the norm. According to Paul Drechsler, president of the CBI employers group: “There are more anti-business Conservatives in the party than at any time in recent history.” Fortunately, he adds, there have been enough in the cabinet, including the prime minister, “to do just enough to prevent immense damage so far”. 

But significant damage has already been inflicted. The long-delayed decision over a third runway for Heathrow means that transport links to foster trade with China, for instance, will be inadequate for many years to come. The difficulty in obtaining visas for skilled workers is a problem for business, just as it is for a National Health Service desperate to recruit doctors. 

Above all, though, we face Brexit. It is glaringly apparent that the government triggered Article 50 and the process of EU withdrawal without any inkling of the implications. What was true for Lucas in 1995 is even more the case today, when business has integrated European supply chains and multinational workforces. Without the frictionless trade that membership of the single market and customs union provides, our economy will shrink drastically. 

For many months, business leaders tried to get that message across to government but they could barely get over the threshold of Downing Street. Only as they have become more vocal, and the difficulties of engineering a smooth Brexit become apparent, have some ministers begun to pay attention. 

Mrs May would not wish to be perceived as making the Conservatives the party of business, but perhaps there is just time for the government to realise that unless business thrives, everyone will suffer.

We Scots have kept our kilts but shed our historical myths – a process sadly lacking south of the border

Ian Jack in The Guardian


I had never heard of the game called “welly wanging”, but there it was on the News at Ten this week – in a report by the BBC’s home editor, Mark Easton, on the traditions that give the English regions their splendid variety. The report showed some people, probably children, throwing gumboots in a field – the competitor who threw a boot furthest was the winner. It was things like this, Easton said, that made Yorkshire different from other places, which had their own traditions that were just as special to them. Some morris dancers appeared, and a man in a Tyneside pub talked about how collective hardship had forged the Geordie identity, these days manifested in a love of Newcastle United Football Club and an equal hatred of its rival in Sunderland. It all felt flimsy and sad – that “regional identity” should amount to this rickle of bones.

FacebookTwitterPinterest A welly-wanging contest in an English village. ‘So far as I can tell it dates all the way back to AD2010.’ Photograph: Alamy.

The last colliery in the north-east closed in 2005, while the last shipyard on the Tyne launched its last ship in 2006, though those masculine industries had ceased to employ significant numbers long before. The north-east is poor, but then so are many other de-industrialised parts of the United Kingdom; hardship and heavy industry alone can’t explain its particular difference. As for “welly wanging”, so far as I can tell it dates all the way back to AD2010.

Thinking of Newcastle, I thought of my late mother-in-law, who lived and died there: a sweet and clever woman blessed with good humour (“This is my last territorial demand in Europe,” she might say, requesting a cup of tea at bedtime), who in her forgetful days asked me the same set of questions more than once. “What’s your tartan? Isn’t there a Jack tartan? Have you never worn a kilt?”

My answers puzzled her – “I don’t know”, “I hope not”, “Not ever” – more by their brevity than anything else. I feel sorry for my irritation now. My explanation, that I came from a Lowland family, and had no entitlement to tartans, clearly didn’t wash. Having glanced through the window of more than one kilt emporium, she knew that the enterprise of the Scottish tourist industry had allotted a tartan to almost every surname in an old British telephone directory, often by deciding that a common Lowland name such as Taylor was really a “sept”, or subdivision, of a Highland clan such as Cameron. The clans ruled the roost.

Oddly, given that Jacks lie thick in the graveyards of the Black Isle, my surname didn’t then feature on these lists. (It does now; the Clan Jack Society registered a new design with the Scottish Register of Tartans in 2012.) But I didn’t at all regret the omission. What I found impossible to tell my mother-in-law, without making a priggish meal of it, was that the whole rigmarole of clans and tartans, sometimes known as Highlandism, was largely confected in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that any reality it might be connected to was far removed from the one most Scottish people knew; and also that this feudal, claymore-wielding “identity” obscured a true history of achievement that had once made a trousered Scotland important to the world: Adam Smith, James Watt, Keir Hardie, the Forth Bridge and so on.

It could have been a long speech, and tedious to the listener. I grew up hearing versions of it. Tartanry had many enemies in Scotland, particularly inside a socialist movement that was keen to establish a more class-based and less fanciful view of history. It fought what amounted to an underground campaign against figures such as Bonnie Prince Charlie and the music hall singer and comic Harry Lauder, who with his kilt and curly stick presented a caricature of Scotland at home and abroad.  

Kilts in the 1950s were still worn mainly by Scottish regiments and public schoolboys, and often regarded by the rest of us as a middle-class affectation. Mocking evidence came from new scholarship that the kilt’s modern form – the “small kilt” – had been invented in the 1720s by a Lancashire Quaker and ironmaster, Thomas Rawlinson, to dress the workers at his Highland smelter. In the first half of the next century, the Anglo-Welsh Allen brothers printed the first colour illustrations of tartans – inspired, they said, by an ancient but never produced manuscript – that showed how different clans and families had adopted their distinctive patterns at least as early as the 16th century.

Hugh Trevor-Roper gave an entertaining account of these developments in his contribution to The Invention of Tradition, a collection of essays edited by his fellow historians Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger and published in 1983. “The creation of an independent Highland tradition, and the imposition of that new tradition, with its outward badges, on the whole Scottish nation, was the work of the later 18th and early 19th centuries,” he wrote combatively and, as it turned out, to no sartorial consequence. (Thirty-odd years later, nine out of 10 Scottish bridegrooms get married in the dress devised by the ironmaster Rawlinson.)

But his words were part of a general revaluation of Scottish history that did have a political effect. Scottish nationalism became less backward-looking, less romantic, less in thrall to fancy dress and myth. What too few people recognised – I include myself – was that no similar process was happening south of the border. England clings to history. Its view of its glorious past – as, for example, the begetter of parliamentary democracy and the lonely bulwark against Hitler – remains unmodified and may even have recently intensified. No myths have been shed.

The results are apparent in opinion polls about national identitycommissioned by the BBC, which led this week to Easton’s nightly appearance on the evening news. Welly wanging turned out to be a catchpenny sideshow, a misleading overture to more serious surveys of the states of mind of England, Scotland and Wales. All kinds of differences showed up, some unsurprising: fewer people in Scotland said that they felt “strongly British” than in England or Wales; the percentage of people in Scotland who strongly identified as Scottish was larger than the percentage in England who strongly identified as English, or as Welsh in Wales.

But the most marked contrast between England and Scotland was optimism. In England many more in the 20,081 sample said the country was better in the past (49%) than it would be in the future (17%). In Scotland, more people believed it would be better in the future (36%) than it was in the past (29%). The pollster John Curtice attributed this difference to two kinds of nationalism – defining English nationalists as those who said they were English and not British (one sixth of the sample in England), and Scottish nationalists as people who supported the SNP. More than two-thirds (70%) of English nationalists said the past was better; only 16% of Scottish nationalists felt the same. Only 8% of English nationalists felt “strongly European”; among Scottish nationalists the figure was 44%.

And so the quickening current sweeps our raft towards the waterfall, and the bones of Sir Francis Drake at its bottom.