In another example of the US media’s apparent reluctance to give due weight to the full range of international affairs, there seems to have been relatively little reporting about Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s visit last week to Ukraine when he offered to be a peacemaker. This was the first visit to Kyiv by an Indian premier in modern Ukrainian history, and it came little more than a month after a trip by him to Moscow.

It also came after Ukraine’s undeniably daring and successful major incursion in to Russia that has created a new and different dimension to the war. In view of this, Modi’s offer to President Zelensky has become all the more significant, not least because after his July visit to Russia he had been heavily criticised by Zelensky for meeting Putin and being photographed hugging him - particularly at a time of deadly Russian strikes, including one on Kyiv’s biggest children’s hospital which resulted in heavy casualties. As Zelensky said at the time, he was “disappointed to see the leader of the world’s largest democracy hug the world’s most bloody criminal”.

Clearly, however, Ukraine considers it could be advantageous to engage with an ally of Moscow. So, when they met last Friday, the two leaders had apparently overcome their differences, and Modi had managed to placate Zelensky sufficiently for the Ukrainians to give him a warm welcome and to create the conditions for him to come up with his offer to mediate.

India’s stance on this should be viewed against the background of the nation’s famed non-aligned approach to geopolitics that it judges to be in its overall interests. This has served it well for decades, as the world’s most populous nation (having recently overtaken China) and its fifth largest economy.

It is therefore unsurprising to see Modi seeking to cultivate his country’s relationship with both Russia and Ukraine in this way. He is signalling that while India has strong relations with the former - apparently partly in order to help bring pressure on China as its main Asian rival - his country also wants to be on good terms with Ukraine and thus continue to maintain close and constructive relations with Western countries. He wants to achieve that without having to placate them, not least as a counter balance to China given the West’s capacity and willingness to try to keep China in check.

Thus, India is working closely with the West while maintaining good relations with Russia. It should also be noted that Russia is India’s major supplier of oil – thus helping Moscow’s war economy at a time it has been hit by Western sanctions - and of arms and defence equipment.

To the annoyance of the West, India recently has done little more than regret and deplore publicly, on humanitarian grounds, the war and loss of life in Ukraine while declining to blame and condemn Russia specifically for its invasion, bombing campaign and ongoing conflict. At the same time, India calls for all countries to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations worldwide. It therefore continues to express concern about the Ukraine war and is pushing for diplomacy and dialogue to end it.

As a country, therefore, that enjoys close relations with both Russia and Western countries – and now Ukraine as well – it sees itself as uniquely well positioned to be a peacemaker. Of course, as is well known, India does not like other countries mediating in relation to its own internal issues like the Kashmir dispute with its history of tension and conflict.

But it regards the Ukraine war as an international issue and thus quite different in nature – and what it is offering is to provide a bridge between the parties rather than to interfere in another country’s affairs.

In addition to reasserting its policy of non-alignment, it seems that India also wants continually to ramp up its bilateral engagement with what are considered by many as the big four of Europe – Britain, Germany, France and Italy. Moreover, reportedly, it is looking for greater trade and investment in relation to countries in eastern Europe like Austria and Poland which explains in part why Modi was in Poland before travelling by rail to Ukraine from the latter.

Thus, as already mentioned, it seems that the Indian prime minister regards his country as a mediator which is well placed at least to initiate peace talks through diplomacy and dialogue. Reportedly, Modi said to the Ukrainians that he had told Putin firmly that territorial and other disputes could not be settled on the battlefield. He had also urged Zelensky to sit down for peace talks with the Russians to end the fighting and bring about a lasting peace.

To many observers, the Ukrainian offensive into Russia has changed its strategic position to such an extent that Putin might now be encouraged, or even forced, to negotiate. So the timing for some sort of intervention by India is probably propitious – and the ending of this terrible and unnecessary war of already two and a half years could finally be in sight, however distant that prospect might still seem. If so, perhaps the balanced diplomacy, pursued by India as a non-aligned nation, will have paid off.

Is it too early to hold new British government to account?

While in a democracy a strong and vibrant press is charged to hold government to account, it is essential for the so-called Fourth Estate to remain at all times fair and objective and be seen as being truthful, reasonable and accurate. That applies as much in Britain as here at home in The Bahamas where everything a government undertakes should be under proper scrutiny on behalf of the tax-paying public.

This thought struck me forcibly when studying the latest reports and assessments in the UK press of the new British government’s performance since its overwhelming victory in the general election on July 4. While prime minister Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government is still finding its feet after less than two months in office, the right-wing press, in particular, is already on the attack with a vengeance. The honeymoon period, during which Starmer and his colleagues were widely praised for their handling of the recent riots, appears to be over already as the same people are now being criticised by some as being “clueless and cowardly”.

Some in the UK press are saying that, following a long period of Tory rule, the wave of optimism in the country about a new political era following Tony Blair’s landslide victory in 1997 has been absent this time. They say this is because of the lack of a sense that this year’s election result really reflected the popular will, despite Labour’s landslide victory and substantial majority.

In an earlier column after the election, I explained that Labour won only 34 per cent of the vote in a generally low voter turnout. But, because of the relative success of other smaller parties who came first in more seats than usual under Britain’s “first past the post” electoral system, Labour were able to win two thirds of the seats in the House of Commons with only one third of the vote.

Some in the press are even saying that this year’s election result was one of the most perverse in British democratic history. But to counter this, it should be emphasized that the elections were well organised and conducted with copybook efficiency in a calm and peaceful environment with no violence so that, in many ways, it should serve as a model for other countries to follow.

Nonetheless, with free speech and a free press any government will find itself open to criticism – and it is important for those in power and authority to engage in a dialogue rather than hide behind false, manufactured barriers which is what authoritarian leaders and despots do.

The press are saying already that the latest polls are showing that more than 50 per cent of people in the country think it is on the wrong track under Starmer’s new government which appears to be staggering from one crisis to another. It has, they say, lost credibility as it allegedly shies away from the notion that it is free enterprise that grows the economy and pays for public services.

Already, state bureaucracy and the so-called diversity industry are growing. But the major complaint I have seen is that the government is already capitulating to the unions by giving in to unrealistic inflation-busting pay demands by public sector workers while threatening higher taxes and placing too great an emphasis on divisive identity politics. Its worst decision so far is said to be withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance for pensioners instead of tackling benefit fraud that is much needed. What is more, nothing has been announced so far about how to deal with illegal immigration – apart from renaming it “irregular”.

The principal fear being voiced by many is the danger under a socialist government of returning to the chaos and crisis of the 1970s in Britain. This turbulent decade was characterized by skyrocketing inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment and low growth (called by economists stagflation). Historians describe the decade as one marked by “a pervasive sense of crisis and discontent with few parallels in our modern history”. It was said to be a uniquely drab and depressing period culminating in what was called the winter of discontent in 1978-79. Britain was on the brink of bankruptcy and was forced to go to the International Monetary Fund for a loan.

In the modern world most of this seems barely credible. It is hard to think that today’s politicians could knowingly allow it to happen again. But the press needs to be there to keep them up to the mark.

The silly season across the pond

With the month of August nearly at an end, I am tempted in today’s column to repeat what I wrote in August last year about what is often termed in Britain “the silly season”. With apologies for what might be deemed idleness on my part, I accordingly now return to the subject.

In Britain, the silly season was a period during the summer months when frivolous or inconsequential stories appeared in the mass media because of a lack of other so-called serious news. The height of the silly season was August when Parliament was in recess, schools were closed and many people were on vacation.

In Europe, so many things close down for August – except of course in holiday destinations - as people leave the cities for their annual vacations. They do not return until the first week of September. In France, this is called “ la rentree” which signifies that the long summer holidays have come to an end, and it’s time to return to work, to the office, to school and normal life.

Amidst a slowdown in activity, however, newspapers still had to fill the space normally devoted to political and economic news. So there was a mischievous temptation to float stories which made readers doubtful of their authenticity but were sufficiently plausible to make them wonder whether the content might just be true. The scope for such tales was endless, and some writers delighted in deliberately misleading people in a subtle fashion designed to intrigue and confuse in equal measure.

Such practice accorded with the traditional British sense of humour and was seen as harmlessly amusing. But, alas, it seems to have died away in the modern era of instant communication and the 24/7 news cycle when everything can be readily checked on the internet – and, as people have a habit of saying, more’s the pity.