Links:
Back to the Confederation |
WHAT HAVE I GOT AGAINST INDIA?
The answer, I am glad to say, is nothing. So, why do I describe the India of the 22nd century as a semi-fascist superstate?
Well, for various reasons.
- The story needed a villain.
- The candidates for villainy that I knew in my childhood are either already out of the picture (say the Soviet Union) or, in my humble opinion, still in the picture but unlikely to be by 2148 (say, the People's Republic of China).
- Indeed, I can't believe that any of the present world powers will still be viable candidates by the mid-twenty second century.
- India, on the other hand, almost certainly will be a superpower by then. And long before then — possibly even in my lifetime. It has the resources, it has the people, it has nuclear power and it's already on the up.
Do I believe India will be quite as unpleasant as I make it out? Well, no, but see (1) above. I do believe that any powerful nation finds itself making certain moral compromises to stay on top, and strong, hard men tend to float naturally to the top of the system. Throughout the novel I make clear the distinction between people like Krishnamurthy and people like his superiors: both patriots, both wanting India to come out top (nothing wrong with that) but differing sharply in their ideas of how to go about it. They despise each other but they also need each other.
And that, I'm afraid, is life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
