Q You began as one of the youngest cricket commentators, with Australia’s Sun-Herald hailing you as the “Voice of India,” and Trevor Bailey praising your “precise classical English.” How did you break into commentary, and what were your most memorable moments in the box?
A. Sports commentary came quite naturally to me. When I was at boarding school in St Paul’s, Darjeeling, one of our teachers encouraged us to listen to cricket commentary on BBC World Service Radio. This was in 1963. Frank Worrell was captaining the West Indies in England. It was an electrifying team—Conrad Hunte, Rohan Kanhai, Garry Sobers, Basil Butcher, Wesley Hall, Charlie Griffith, and Lance Gibbs. They won the series 3–1. From that summer, I absorbed the style and techniques of the finest English commentators. I later listened to Radio Australia, too, noting their slightly different yet equally polished approach. TV commentary is far easier than the ball-by-ball discipline of radio. My most memorable experience was providing live commentary during India’s 1983 World Cup win—watching Kapil Dev lift the trophy at Lord’s was unforgettable.
Q. You’ve written extensively on geopolitics. How do you see India’s relationships with neighboring countries evolving—especially as SAARC appears increasingly redundant, impacting trade, culture, and sporting ties?
A. India’s relations with its neighbours are at their lowest ebb. We are virtually without allies. Tensions with Pakistan are near-hostile, relations with China are strained, and the situation with Bangladesh is becoming concerning. The historic special relationship with Nepal has eroded. Ties with Myanmar are fraught, and Sri Lanka appears to be playing India off against China. Only tiny Bhutan remains a steadfast friend.
Q. Is India’s closer alignment with the U.S. straining ties with traditional allies like Russia, now engaging with Pakistan on defense and manufacturing? What could be the long-term implications?
A. After the Soviet Union collapsed, India smartly transitioned from non-alignment to multi-alignment, which worked well. But in 2014, India tilted heavily towards the United States. This alienated Russia, our largest defense supplier, and it shifted to a more transactional relation-ship with us. China, which had been handled diplo-matically since the 1993 peace and tranquility agreement, turned increasingly hostile. Since 2020, Chinese troops have occupied several hundred square miles of territory previously acknowledged as being on the Indian side of the LAC.
Q. Could Trump-era tariffs on China present an opportunity for India in global trade?
A. Trump ultimately had to walk back from the trade war he started with China—it was damaging globally and threatened the U.S. economy. This standoff wasn’t and isn’t an opportunity for India. We simply lack the manufacturing capacity to benefit. I fear India, having yielded too easily to Trump instead of negotiating assertively, may concede too much to the U.S., jeopardizing national interests. For example, allowing U.S. agricultural imports could imperil Indian farmers. The Indian Air Force doesn’t even want the F-35 fighter jets; buying them would be an error.
Q. Having lived in London for nearly 50 years, how do you view the current Indo–UK relationship? Has its relevance faded as India leans more toward France and Germany for defense and commerce?
A. The India–UK relationship has always been a bit awkward—a legacy of the colonial past. It’s a civil and occasionally cooperative relationship, but trust is lacking. As a result, trade ties have underperformed. India now enjoys a stronger political rapport with France, and Germany’s industrial strength offers more meaningful collaboration.
Q. You’ve closely followed cases involving absconders like Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Mehul Choksi. Could these have been handled better—and will justice finally be served?
A. I’ve followed the cases of Vijay Mallya and Mehul Choksi, though less so Nirav Modi. The Mallya matter seems driven more by vendetta than justice. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman stated in Parliament that Indian banks recovered ₹14,100 crore through the Enforcement Directorate by selling Mallya’s assets. However, the tribunal that examined Kingfisher Airlines’ debts placed the liability at ₹6,200 crore. Since Mallya and his associated companies had guaranteed the loans, the banks now appear to hold ₹7,900 crore more than what was owed. Mallya has challenged this alleged overreach in the London High Court, with a hearing scheduled for October.
As for Choksi, he has filed a case in the London High Court accusing a UK-based gang of kidnapping and torturing him in the Caribbean, allegedly at the behest of the Indian government. Interpol removed its Red Corner Notice after accepting that there was credible evidence of this. He later moved to Belgium for medical treatment, where he was arrested this month, apparently at India’s request—although no formal extradition request seems to have been filed yet. European courts, known for strict human rights standards, may view India cautiously. For instance, Christian Michel, a British citizen cleared in Italy’s highest court in the AgustaWestland case, remains in Tihar Jail after over six years without trial. Two recent Indian extradition requests were rejected by British courts. As for Choksi allegedly defrauding Punjab National Bank, he denies the charges, and I won’t comment further on that.
Q. Your book Laid to Rest reflects 30 years of research into Subhas Chandra Bose’s final days. Given the evidence of his death in a plane crash and the location of his ashes in Tokyo, why does the Indian government still hesitate to bring them home?
A. Neither the Indian nor the Japanese government has legal authority in this matter. All rights concerning Bose’s remains belong to his daughter and sole heir, Professor Anita Bose Pfaff. I thoroughly documented Bose’s death in a plane crash in Taipei on 18 August 1945, and traced the preservation of his ashes at Renkoji Temple in Tokyo. These findings were corroborated by files declassified by the Indian government under Modi. The Indian Home Ministry also affirmed in an RTI response that Bose died in a plane crash.
Q. In your latest book The Trial That Shook Britain, you argue the INA trials were a turning point in ending British rule. What made these court-martials so significant—and has the INA received its due in the story of India’s independence?
A. The first and most impactful trial of Indian National Army soldiers in late 1945 backfired spectacularly on the British Raj. It forced the British government to finally accept the principle of purna swaraj, or complete independence—something it had refused since 1929. At the beginning of the trial, the British still envisioned only dominion status for India, with the monarchy as head of state. But by March 1946, Prime Minister Clement Attlee conceded full independence. Advocate Bhulabhai Desai, who brilliantly defended the accused, and Jawaharlal Nehru, who mobilised public opinion across India, were instrumental in this pivotal moment.
Add new comment