By RSN Singh
15 Aug , 2015
For any cogent action against a potential or a festering problem, the rudimentary requirement for decision makers is to be convinced that there is a problem, and then define its import. This simple prerequisite, nevertheless, eludes India’s decision makers. It is mainly because of our hypocritical propensities. Admittedly, certain amount of hypocrisy is inevitable for the purposes of governance and nation-building, but when stretched beyond credulity, it becomes self-defeating. India has unfortunately fallen into this self-created trap. We have mastered the art of double speak—off the record and on the record. On most panel discussions on television that I have been invited to, the panelists have a set of opinion on camera and another set of opinions off camera. In our bid to be politically correct, we deliberately ignore the obvious. As a result, our internal and external security policy, is more often than not, out of sync with reality, and is rather an effete compromise.
Our hypocrisy begins with the Constitution itself, i.e. with regard to the word ‘socialism’ in the preamble. …B R Ambedkar did not include ‘socialism’ as the preamble … The term was inserted in the preamble during the Emergency
Our hypocrisy begins with the Constitution itself, i.e. with regard to the word ‘socialism’ in the preamble. As per the Oxford Learners’ Dictionary, ‘socialism’ means, “political and economic theory advocating that a country’s land, transport, natural resources and chief industries should be owned and controlled by the whole community or by the state, and that wealth should be equally distributed”. The architect of the Indian Constitution, B R Ambedkar did not include ‘socialism’ as the preamble on the plea, “it is perfectly possible … for thinking people to devise some other form … which might be better than the socialist organisation.”1 The term was inserted in the preamble by a Constitutional Amendment during the Emergency in the 70s. Since then it is binding for every political party to swear by socialism in order to get registered. On 8 January 2008, the Supreme Court ordered the government to respond to a petition, which questioned the validity of the term ‘socialism’ in the preamble. In actuality, when the socialist pattern drove India to the brink of economic collapse, it was compelled to jettison it. We have moved far from socialist pattern of economy—a process that is irreversible. The eminent lawyer Mr Fali Nariman representing the petitioners argued, “it is hypocritical to say that you believe in it when you don’t.”2
The purpose of this article is to delve into the processes and patterns of Indian hypocrisy in historical and contemporary terms, and highlight the hard and uncomfortable realities. Unless we face them squarely, the security problems of India will compound, and the task of nation building will be skewed.
Historical Forces
Continuous and varied interpretation of history and historical events is the most positive attribute of a free society and a nation. In India, which prides itself in being a free democracy, there have been persistent attempts by various establishments to disseminate structured history by manipulating some very obvious and well known facts that reside in the historical consciousness of the people and is part of the folklore. It can be argued that engineering of history is an imperative for a nascent nation-state like India. But, in the long run, truth and facts assert themselves and manifest in social, cultural, and ethnic tensions.
Those who underestimate the power of historical forces may well consider that the formation of Israel, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is nothing but assertion of historical forces. They may also consider that China refuses to be placated despite unequivocal apologies by Japan for its invasion of China in 1937 and the consequent suffering inflicted on the Chinese population during its occupation. South Korea too has also elicited apology from Japan on the World War II issue of ‘comfort women’. The Pope on his own volition tendered an apology for excesses committed by Christian Missionaries in Goa during the Portuguese rule. There is no country in the world, whose history does not have palatable and unpalatable periods. Each has its share of harsh and benevolent leaders. India is no exception. It is when the unpalatable parts of history are glorified that historical forces wreak havoc. Instead, it is by acknowledging them that we can bridge the historical divides, as in the acknowledgement lies regret, and regret paves the way for reconciliation, and social and religious reconstruct.
…took special delight in humiliating Generals and even had suggested that the army be used for farming. He had not learnt a modicum of lesson from the India–Pakistan 1947–48 war.
Aurangzeb’s 48 years rule is certainly one of the most unpalatable parts of India’s history for the vast majority, although some historians have been straining themselves to prove it otherwise. In his Maulana Azad Memorial Lecture in Delhi in 1960, the famous historian Arnold Toynbee recalled: “Aurangzeb converted these temples with the deliberate intention of insulting his political opponents—the same intention which the Russians had in building the Orthodox Church in the centre of Warsaw. The purpose of these mosques was to proclaim that even in places most sacred to the Hindus, it was the Muslims who were actually ruling. It needs to be stated, that Aurangzeb had an extraordinary knack of selecting sites for building mosques at the most provocative places”.3 The purpose is not to judge as to whether the historical contention of Toynbee is correct, but nevertheless the same opinion is shared by a majority of people in India. When the majority held view comes in clash with what is seen as government sponsored view, the results are regressive. It is rather amazing that there is a road in the country’s capital in the name of communally sensitive Aurangzeb and not Abdul Rahim Khan, who was an embodiment of synthesis of Hinduism and Islam. We also have a road in the name of the defence minister famous for his marathon speech at the UN General Assembly. He relied too heavily on the ‘power of argument’ rather than the ‘argument of power’—and presided over India’s defeat in the 1962 war. He took special delight in humiliating Generals and even had suggested that the army be used for farming. He had not learnt a modicum of lesson from the India–Pakistan 1947–48 war.
On the other hand, we have renamed all the roads and buildings named after British personalities. This is despite the fact that the organisational and functional characteristics of our state apparatus, i.e. the legislature, judiciary, administration, technical and higher education, armed forces, and the railways is rooted in the patterns bequeathed by the British. In the early 19th century, the then governor of Madras Presidency, Sir Thomas Munro wrote, ‘whenever we are obliged to resign our sovereignty, we should leave the natives so far improved from their connection with us, as to be capable of maintaining a free, or at least a regular, government among themselves’. Later Lord Elphinstone, the Governor of Madras and Bombay Presidencies expressed that ‘the most desirable death for us to die should be the improvement of the natives reaching such a pitch as would render it impossible for the foreign nation to retain the government …’.4 The British colonial period had its own share of good and bad rulers, but they were careful enough not to tread upon the religious and cultural sensitivities of Indians, especially so after the first war of independence in 1857. When popular perception is underestimated, and one set of historical actors are vilified, and other set unfairly eulogised for political purposes, it is detrimental to nation building, as it generates confusion and conflict.
…the Indian leaders during the freedom movement abetted the Muslim nationalism by supporting the Khilafat Movement, a pan-Islamic movement, wherein the Indian Muslims did not have any stake.
There can be no greater travesty of truth and history that all invaders, who came through the northwest frontiers, were assimilated or subsumed in the Indian civilisation. Several military forays that Mahmud Ghazni made into India were guided purely by greed and religious intolerance. He never made India his home. Mohammad Ghauri’s most able General Qutb-ud-din Aybak had sacked Ayodhya in 1193, and later, upon Ghauri’s death declared himself the Sultan of Delhi thus establishing the Sultanate of Delhi, in 1206. A General of Qutb-ud-din Aybak, Bakhtiyar Khilji destroyed the university at Nalanda during the same period. The university had been a seat of learning for nearly 1000 years. Much of India’s thought and research in science, mathematics, astronomy, and literature perished.
The so considered assimilated Mughals imposed Jizya (tax levied from those who did not accept Islam) on their majority subjects only because they were adherents of a religion that evolved and was nurtured in the land that they vied to rule. The Mughals practiced sortof apartheid as well. While Muslim feudals in Mughal India were allowed to take Hindu concubines, the reverse was forbidden. The non-Hindustani lobbies like the Irani (Iranian) and Turani (Turkish) groups in the Mughal court were quite active in power play and intrigues. In that, these groups were entirely guided by their personal interests rather than the welfare and progress of Hindustan. The foundation of the fall of the Mughal Empire was laid by none other than Aurangzeb. Most of his life as a ruler, he spent in conquests and carved out an empire much larger than any of his predecessors. But he also, through his religious bigotry, sowed the seeds of disaffection and disintegration, which asserted itself soon after his death. If he had truly concentrated on nation building, the Mughal Empire would not have been fragmented, and paved the way for the British.
I am of the firm opinion that the 1857 First War of Independence was cataclysmic for the future of India, as it spawned to separate streams, Hindu nationalism and Muslim nationalism, and thus laid the basis of Pakistan. It was nothing but basically an assertion of historical forces. Instead of recognising the reality, the Indian leaders during the freedom movement abetted the Muslim nationalism by supporting the Khilafat Movement, a pan-Islamic movement, wherein the Indian Muslims did not have any stake. That historical forces are still at work is evident in the nomenclature of Pakistani missiles—Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Abdali, Babri, etc. It is evident in the Kashmir Valley, which has been purged of thousands of minorities, and where Pakistan sponsored insurgency and terrorism continues unabated for more than two decades, exacting heavy toll in terms of human lives, economy and development.
Creed of Nonviolence
India can be justifiably proud of using non-violence and passive resistance as cardinals towards attainment of freedom from British colonial rule. It is however also a fact that our independence was the cumulative outcome of other factors and contributions of many players who used methods other than passive resistance.
No decree, no fatwas, no movements by the Muslim moderates and intellectuals has been in evidence against the religious persecution. The pattern of insurgency in Kashmir clearly suggests that there are no causes for it, but only excuses.
In that the contribution of the military is least acknowledged and appreciated. Soon after independence, the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee had confided to one of the state governors in India that the most compelling reason for the British to leave the country was the seeds of disaffection planted by the Indian National Army (INA) and the Naval Mutiny in February 1946 in Bombay. He shared that these developments made Britain realise that their most reliable and ultimate instrument of colonial rule, the armed forces, could no longer be taken for granted. Moreover, the contribution of Indian soldiers was critical towards the Allied victory in the World War II, which provided the Indian leaders a potent and robust plea for the demand of freedom. Despite that, some of the post independence leaders, particularly the ilk of V K Krishna Menon, continued to treat the Indian military with suspicion and lowered its institutional status. It was the same military that was used after independence for integration of some princely states and liberation of Goa from Portuguese rule. It involved use of force or the threat of it. It implies that the weapons of non-violence and passive resistance can only be effective against an adversary, which has collective conscience. Moreover, non-violence is best practiced from position of strength.
Kashmir Problem and Tibet
No other state in the Union of India has bled the country in human and financial terms like the J&K. The part of the state, which is currently under Indian control, comprises the regions of Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh. There is no problem in Hindu majority Jammu and Buddhist majority Ladakh. The problem is confined to the Muslim majority Kashmir, which has been purged of most minorities. No decree, no fatwas, no movements by the Muslim moderates and intellectuals has been in evidence against the religious persecution. The pattern of insurgency in Kashmir clearly suggests that there are no causes for it, but only excuses. This fact is well known and understood, but seldom accepted.
The problem lies in the demography, but any suggestion towards the change in the demographic structure in the Valley, for the enduring good of the state and the people, is considered blasphemous. On the other hand, we do not condemn the Hananisation of Tibet, i.e. the ongoing thrust by the Chinese authorities to settle Hans to achieve demographic preponderance over ethnic Tibetans. The Dalai Lama has cautioned that the Tibetans were the first line of defence for India along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), but the ‘situation may completely change with the huge influx of Han Chinese to alter Tibet’s demographic profile’.5
India and China
China was the aggressor in 1962. It is in illegal occupation of vast tracts of Indian territory. There are commentators on strategy and foreign policy, who maintained that the Chinese aggression had a limited strategic purpose, i.e. to build road communications between Tibet and Sinkiang. Having achieved this, it should have been more accommodative, rather enthusiastic in resolving the border dispute with India, at least in the interest of a hugely beneficial bilateral economic relationship. Instead, it has steadfastly been ambivalent about it, even during the recent visit of the Indian Prime Minister. It is clear that China considers the border issue as a huge diplomatic and military leverage. China facilitated the acquisition of nuclear weapons and missiles by Pakistan. It has been seeking direct and indirect presence in Myanmar, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—to strategically circumscribe India. And yet when an Indian defence minister says that China is the principal adversary, there are huge protests. There has never been a clear answer from the leftists in India with respect to certain questions concerning China. These are:
…land reforms, though very laudable and desirable, cannot be an endless process. They have a lifespan and beyond a certain limit they create far greater problems. Somewhere, the politics of production has to replace the politics of distribution.
Was China the aggressor in 1962 ?
Is China in illegal possession of Indian territory?
Do they support the Hananisation of Tibet ?
Do they condemn the facilitation of acquisition of missile and nuclear technology by China to Pakistan ?
Do they condemn China for one-party rule ?
Do they support religious freedom in China ?
Do they support Chinese activities in India’s neighbourhood ?
Tackling Naxalism
Some 160 districts, i.e. 40 percent of India’s territory, euphemistically referred to as the Red Corridor, has come under the writ of Naxalites/Maoists. Leftwing extremism had been building up over several decades, but was not tackled in the nascent stages. The argument that was bandied was that the problem was owing to the lack of socio-economic development. This was the logic of the government, which in the first place was responsible for it. It has allowed the problem to acquire the character of internecine war.
The ideological moorings of the Naxalites, who are essentially extremist offshoots of leftwing parties, was not viewed with concern for political reasons. The very tools of socio-economic development – railways, post-offices, schools, hospitals and industries are being targeted by the Naxalites. It is a truism that under the circumstances, and given the level of control and violence, wherein the writ of the government does not operate, no socio-economic development is possible, without the restoration of a requisite stability in the affected areas. The advocates of socio-economic development in the current scenario, have no formula as to how development projects can be undertaken as the naxalites are opposed to it. As to how much the Naxalites are interested in socio-economic development, at the present juncture of Naxal movement, is best illustrated by the example of a village Sabdo in Bihar.
A couple was engaged in path-breaking social work in the village. The lady was herself a part of the Naxalite movement for some years and then left it to devote herself to social work. The couple managed to open new schools, conducted adult literacy programmes, trained the women folk in cottage industries, built-up irrigation channels by galvanising the people, introduced commune farming, organised dowry-less marriages, and demolished cast barriers. As a consequence, the social and economic prosperity of the village increased manifold. Eventually, the Naxalites felt that the couple was weaning away their constituency, and murdered them. Few years back, the Naxalites tied up the ex-Air Chief D A La Fontaine in his house Andhra Pradesh, where he had chosen to settle down after retirement. His belongings, including his personal weapon, were stolen. He even remarked whether the intruders were Naxalites (revolutionaries) or dacoits.
In the vast swathe of the Red Corridor, there are different paradigms in operation. The only common thread is ideology. The leaders exploit existing and imagined grievances, their biggest tools being propaganda and indoctrination, which the administration was failed to counter by way of action and counter propaganda. A very senior police officer from the Madhya Pradesh cadre had revealed a few years back that his innovative attempts to expose the ideological hypocrisy had met with astounding success, but for some reasons were not pursued by his successors. For the top and middle level Naxal leadership, it is an industry as well. So many leaders of the Naxalite movement after acquiring wealth have deserted the movement or have been replaced, a phenomenon that continues.
…with respect to Bihar, commentators continue to harp on the hackneyed theme on lack of land reforms. They do not realise that there is almost no surplus land holding in the state…
To begin with, the hot spots of leftwing extremism were some areas of Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal. Some areas in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Bihar and U.P. joined the bandwagon much later. Most analysis and solutions to tackle the growing menace does not reflect the local facts and situation on ground. For instance, with respect to Bihar, commentators continue to harp on the hackneyed theme on lack of land reforms. They do not realise that there is almost no surplus land holding in the state, i.e. beyond sealing limits. There are negligible numbers of land sealing cases in the courts. They also choose to ignore the fact that agricultural land holdings below an optimum level, is economically non-viable.
Kerala is a case in example. Land reforms in the state were initiated by the communist government in 1957. It was in fact the first communist government to have been elected in a multi-party democracy in the world. Recently, the principal secretary of industries in Kerala proposed that the land-reforms law be repealed because it stymied the growth of agriculture and industry due to extreme fragmentation of land.6 The proposal was subsequently vehemently criticised by the Chief Minister. In the early 70s, the Naxalite movement that originated from West Bengal and which had assumed alarming proportion was defeated by use of force, which many considered to be excessive.
Nevertheless, normalcy and the writ of the state were restored. Despite the success of comprehensive land reforms initiated by the CPI (M) led West Bengal government, Naxalism has again become a cause of concern to the state government. Allegedly, the Naxalites had lent their armed weight behind those opposing the acquisition of land at Nandigram for industrial purposes. In this, there are two clear messages.
Most leaders since independence have claimed to be the champions of the poor, and yet poverty persists.
First, that land reforms, though very laudable and desirable, cannot be an endless process. They have a lifespan and beyond a certain limit they create far greater problems. Somewhere, the politics of production has to replace the politics of distribution. With the current surge in Indian economy and emphasis on industrialisation, the politics of production, if not pursued, will add to unmanageable tensions in the society. Naxalism or leftwing extremism has to be tackled in face of this reality, for which time is running out. The menace of Naxal or Maoist violence has to be defeated by every counter-violence means that the State has at its disposal. Failure to do so will result not only in further worsening the condition of the people inhabiting the Naxalite controlled areas in socio-economic terms, but will also permit the menace to rapidly consume other parts of the country.
Quality Development
The lack of basic development in many areas of the country has led to regional imbalance as well as tensions. It is the single most contributory factor for the rise of regional parties, and demand for separate states. Since the regional parties do not share the national perspectives of the mainstream parties, the task of policy making and national integration suffers. Most leaders since independence have claimed to be the champions of the poor, and yet poverty persists. They advertently and inadvertently propagated the idea that to be wealthy is sin, but never hesitated in spending crores of rupees on their election campaigns, and amassing phenomenal wealth. Their hypocrisy and resultant policies restricted the upper mobility of the masses. In the 80s, the eminent jurist N A Palkhivala in his book We the People has said that every rupee that the shareholder earns, the government stands to gain eight rupees. India did make a ‘U-turn’ with regards to its economic policies in the early 90s, not out of conviction, but because of the looming prospect of bankruptcy. Meanwhile, a generation had suffered and given rise to discontent manifesting in class-based and caste-based politics.
Our approach to human development in terms of health, education and opportunities had an invidious impact on the social fabric of the nation. If Apollo hospitals are good for politicians, bureaucrats and the upper strata of the society, then various governments should have made efforts to replicate the same quality of healthcare for common people. Similarly, if English medium schools, colleges like St. Stephens, universities like Oxford, Cambridge and Stanford are good for the children of those, who are responsible for governance, then similar pattern of education, should have been introduced throughout the country. It is acknowledged that the ideal paradigm as suggested cannot be achieved in a matter of few years, but the despicable part is, that the intent has been missing. Instead, we see the tendency to cut-to-size or level those institutions, which have acquired a reputation for excellence like the AIIMS, IITs and IIMs.
The pitfalls of this statistical approach are best illustrated in the case of Kerala, which has 100 percent literacy, but woefully incommensurate economic development and employment.
The approach of various governments towards health, education and development – has been one of statistics, i.e. number of schools, percentage of literacy, number of dispensaries and hospitals, and kilometers of road and railway network. The pitfalls of this statistical approach are best illustrated in the case of Kerala, which has 100 percent literacy, but woefully incommensurate economic development and employment.
Basic development, in which we have already far lagged behind, is not enough. With the revolution in communications and corresponding increase in aspirations of the people, there will be newer tensions within the country if quality development is not undertaken. This can only be achieved, if the government, unlike in the past, gives wholehearted support and encouragement for contribution in health, education and development by the private sector and the NGOs in the remote areas of the country. For too long, we have viewed private entrepreneurs as financial sharks, even as the government machinery siphoned off large chunks of public money allocated for development.
Energy Security
About 30 percent of India’s energy requirement is met by oil, and nearly 70 percent of that is imported, and as per the Center for Strategic and International Studies, it could increase to 90 percent by 2025. In the last decade, petroleum consumption in the country has more than doubled. Coal accounts for more than 50 percent of India’s energy needs and 70 percent of the total electricity produced. Though India has the third largest coal reserves (estimated 90 billion tons) in the world after US and China, at the current rate of consumption, as per some estimates, it may not last for more than 50 years. India’s electricity consumption is projected to increase by 10 percent every year till 2020. If India is to sustain a GDP growth rate of nine percent, it must at least triple its primary energy supply and quintuple its electrical capacity. In energy consumption India is likely to surpass Russia and Japan by 2030 and become the third largest consumer after US and China.7
It is true that India is a hugely energy deficient country especially with regard to oil and gas. It is also a reality that import dependence on energy does provide leverage to the exporting countries like OPEC. We cannot afford to forget the OPEC triggered oil crisis in 1973. For importing countries like India, the counter leverage lies in diversifying sources of energy and its pattern of consumption. Every drop in our energy basket, every initiative towards energy addition does matter. Nuclear energy is an important source. France realised it much early. Most of its electricity is derived from nuclear power plants. The rapid depletion of fossil fuel reserves has compelled many nations to emulate the French example. Even an oil and gas rich country like Iran is investing in nuclear energy programmes despite formidable diplomatic hurdles.
Even an oil and gas rich country like Iran is investing in nuclear energy programmes despite formidable diplomatic hurdles.
The leftists and others, who have been opposing the Indo-US nuclear deal fail to suggest any effective ways to meet our burgeoning energy demands. The states where leftists are in power, are the most energy deficient states in the country. In terms of Gross Annual Per Capita Consumption of Electricity, the national average is 631.41 kWh, while it is 380.61 kWh in West Bengal, 424.13 kWh in Kerala, and 190.62 kWh in Tripura.8 Consequently, these states have lagged in industrialisation and economic development. They overlook the US–China nuclear deal signed in 1984 (operationalised 14 years later), but are hell bent to thwart the Indo–US nuclear deal. It does not matter to them that leading nations of the world including Russia favour the deal. In all probability, they would have altered their stance, if China had unequivocally supported the deal. Those who oppose the deal forget that its not just about the US, but it requires the concurrence of 44 other countries in the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG). They say that deal will make India mortgage its sovereignty to the US in perpetuity.
No nation, when the security situation so demands will be dissuaded by externally imposed constraints. India did not bother about the world opinion, when it conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, and then series of tests in 1998. It is ironical, rather crass hypocrisy that some of those who opposed India’s nuclear tests are objecting to the Indo-US nuclear deal on the grounds that it will compromise our nuclear sovereignty, and foreclose all options of nuclear testing—which is not true. The other argument is that the share of nuclear power as a consequence of the nuclear deal will increase marginally from the present level of three percent. Firstly, this is as per existing parameters and therefore subject to change. Secondly in the Indian context, even a two or three percent increase is substantial in terms of benefits. As regards their objections to the cost factor—all technologies with passage of time become cheaper, and nuclear technology is no exception. The realisation of the thorium route is not definite and still some years away. It is nobody’s case that it should not be pursued simultaneously. Former scientists from India’s nuclear establishment after having minutely perused the provisions of the deal, have supported it. Do we doubt their credibility and patriotism?
…even if one percent of the nearly 20 crores Muslims in India get radicalised, consequences for the country would be disastrous.
Islamic Terrorism
It would be no exaggeration to say that Hindustani Muslims are the best Muslims in the world. This is due to the synthesis forged in the cauldron of Indian culture. For those who repudiated it, and were seduced by the idea of Pakistan—the results are there for everybody to see. It is also true that some Muslims are now falling victim to the wave of Islamic fundamentalism, sweeping the world. Islamic terrorism is a bi-product of Islamic fundamentalism. The frequency of violence by jihadis is increasing. Logistics and base support is being provided by those in India, who are sympathetic to the terrorists and have ideological affinity with them. The Indian security establishment has been battling Islamic terrorism for more than two decades. It continues to exact heavy toll on human lives and has phenomenally raised the cost towards the security of the nation. Its worst manifestation is that it has made the young generation in India suspicious and cynical of a segment of own countrymen, as well as about our national will to tackle it. But our politicians and some intellectuals take umbrage over the term ‘Islamic Terrorism’.
Terrorism cannot be purged from the country unless the policy makers are unanimous in defining its religious, cultural and social import. Otherwise, even if one percent of the nearly 20 crores Muslims in India get radicalised, consequences for the country would be disastrous. We, therefore, in the interest of the country, and also the Muslims of India, must demonstrate our resolve to insulate India ideologically and physically from Islamic fundamentalism. It is a well-known fact that the epicenter of Islamic terrorism is in Pakistan. In the current circumstances, the US and its allies are engaged in busting that epicenter. To that extent, Indian security concerns has coalesced with that of the US. National interest and strategic prudence demands we use this historical opportunity to lend our might in back–rolling the phenomenon that has hurt us more than any other country in the world.
A message should have been delivered that under no circumstances, was India going to brook a compromise of its strategic interests in its interface with Bangladesh.
India and Bangladesh
Historical forces are dynamic. The secession of East Pakistan and emergence of Bangladesh was ascendance of linguistic and cultural nationalism over religious nationalism. A linguistically and culturally homogenous Bangladesh having been achieved, the crisis of identity vis-à-vis India’s West Bengal, has again given rise to religious nationalism. Its manifestations are increase in the influence of Islamic fundamentalist groups and religious political parties. The country has become a matter of international concern as a source and facilitator of Islamic terrorism. Its marginalisation of minorities and anti-India posture over the years has been overlooked by India with which it shares 4100 kilometer boundary.
For too long, we basked under the glory of successfully ensuring the liberation of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) from Pakistan, even as the new country embarked on a course inimical to Indian interests. We should have candidly admitted that India’s assistance to Bangladesh freedom struggle was predicated on congruency of India’s strategic interest with that of aspirations of the people in East Pakistan. A message should have been delivered that under no circumstances, was India going to brook a compromise of its strategic interests in its interface with Bangladesh.
We however fail to effectively upbraid Bangladesh when—minorities continue to be purged, Islamic fundamentalism is being exported, demographic assault is still being orchestrated, and Indian insurgents are being provided assistance and safe havens. We now have a situation wherein illegal migrants from Bangladesh have become the deciding factor in many electoral constituencies in the states bordering Bangladesh, especially Assam. Some border districts in India are witnessing unprecedented growth in mosques and madrasas.
The historical forces are bound to reassert themselves at some stage, irrespective of the legitimacy some historians and sociologists may later labour to confer.
The increasing deployment of Indian security forces on the Indo-Nepal border is an unfortunate development, as the border between the two countries, despite problems of common nature, has been known for its tranquility and openness…
India and Nepal
India shares a unique relationship with Nepal due to the sheer strength of historical, cultural, linguistic and religious bonds between the people of the two countries. Of the approximate 23 million population of Nepal, more than nine million Nepalese reside in India. The Indian Army has approximately 35,000 Gorkha personnel serving in 38 Gorkha battalions and one artillery unit. There are also many Gorkha personnel serving in the para-military forces of India. The uniqueness of this relationship was sought to be destroyed by the Maoists. The Maoist insurgency in Nepal compelled India to deploy the ‘Shashtra Suraksha Bal’ (renamed Special Services Bureau) and the Border Security Force (BSF) in sensitive parts along the 1751 Kms long Indo-Nepal border. The increasing deployment of Indian security forces on the Indo-Nepal border is an unfortunate development, as the border between the two countries, despite problems of common nature, has been known for its tranquility and openness, and contributed much to amity, fraternity and shared development. The Maoists in Nepal have dealt a huge blow to this special relationship, which transcends the confines of the nation-state.
Even as we insist on the Indian template of democracy in Nepal, we ignore the fact that Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia practice authoritarianism in varying degrees. Due to historical, sociological, religious and geopolitical reasons, not all states in the world are given to the Westminster template of democracy. In the case of Nepal, if the King stood discredited, so were the politicians. Since 1990, no government in Nepal has lasted for more than two years due to political infighting and internal collapse. If the King or the monarchy is blamed for repression, the Maoists in Nepal used brutal methods to subdue or eliminate those whom they perceived as class enemies. The state security forces were subjected to the worst kind of criminal treatment for carrying out their duties. The Maoists have destroyed much of the infrastructure in the areas under their control. They are now demanding that their militant cadres be absorbed in the security apparatus of the country.
It is attributed that India was one of the parties that brokered the deal between the political parties and the Maoists. As the deal was brokered to accommodate the Maoists, its partake in the future power structure was tacitly and inherently assured. The ushering of the democratic process in Nepal was therefore based on a flawed premise. The deal has not stopped the Maoists from engaging in anti-India tirade and harassing Indian businessmen. In a sovereign country, the country’s army (Royal Nepal Army) is confined to the barracks at the insistence of Maoists, who by no standards are legitimate political entity as yet. The interim legislature was to be only a temporary arrangement for paving the way for elections to the Constituent Assembly, which would then decide the nature of political system to be adopted. The elections are to be held in April 2008. The Maoists however have revealed their real intentions. They appear not too confident about their electoral fate and therefore have made preposterous demands, which were to be decided by the Constituent Assembly, as a precondition for participating in the elections. They have held threats time and again of reverting back to violent ways, if their demands are not met. There is complete disenchantment with the Maoists in the Terai region of Nepal, which accounts for half the country’s population. The Madhesi movement by the people of Terai is increasingly acquiring militant overtones. Some of the activists in the region have been demanding a separate state due to their marginalisation in politics and administration. Under these circumstances, the prospect of a free and fair election to the Constituent Assembly seems an extremely difficult proposition. From all indications, it can be averred that the Maoists under no circumstances will sit in the opposition, thus, belying the very edifice of democracy.
…there are commentators in India, who maintain that the IPKF was a failure. They never appreciate that this was the first occasion when India in its legitimate security interests projected its power outside its boundaries.
Nepal has been a monarchy since the last 200 years. Its complete obliteration, that the Maoists are demanding, is bound to create a vacuum, which unknown and untried forces will rush in fill in. Given the historic, religious and social links, India had ample leverage over the monarchy. It was very much possible to compel the monarch to effect changes that would have brought peace and stability. Towards that we could have strengthened the dispensation of the day to deal firmly with the Maoists. No doubt, it would have taken some years. Today, we have a situation wherein the monarchy has been rendered defunct, the political conduct of Maoists is uncertain; the political parties are in disarray, and the Madhesis, i.e. half the country’s population, is restive.
There is evidence of a renewed strategic reach by China, including the talk about extending the railway linkage from Tibet into Nepal. Nepal poses the most rudimentary test of our strategic culture and foreign policy, and in that we seem to be badly failing.
India and Sri Lanka
The unity of Sri Lanka is absolutely essential for India’s security. An Eelam (separate Tamil state) in our backyard would translate into two counties, with two sets of external postures, in competition with one another. The two states will attract different sets of international players in the strategically located island country in the Indian Ocean, having one of the most convenient ports and harbours, located on the major Sea Lanes of Communication.
The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was inducted to ensure the unity of Sri Lanka by enforcing the negotiated settlement between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil separatists in 1987. The LTTE reneged on the deal and unleashed violence on the IPKF. The Indian Army suffered more than thousand killed, but had subsequently adjusted to the insurgency environment, and had turned the heat on the LTTE. A disconcerted and cornered Prabhakaran colluded with President Premadasa and ensure the withdrawal of the IPKF from Sri Lanka in 1990. Yet, there are commentators in India, who maintain that the IPKF was a failure. They never appreciate that this was the first occasion when India in its legitimate security interests projected its power outside its boundaries. As to how dangerous was the fallout of the situation in India was vindicated by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi by LTTE suicide bombers.
The shortage of officers in the army is also partly on account of our hypocrisy towards the country’s security and the armed forces.
Many types of devolution package offered by Chandrika Kumaratunga, envisaging virtual autonomy for the Tamils in Sri Lanka was rejected by the LTTE. It was very obvious that with Prabhakaran at helm, there was no scope of a negotiated settlement. Any settlement can be suicidal for Prabhakaran, as his followers would question him as to why the same was not accepted earlier, and where was the need to get so many people killed, if there was to be a climb-down from the avowed objective of Eelam. Therefore, since the LTTE is uncompromising, the only solution to the problem is military. Towards that, we have done little to bolster the military capabilities of Sri Lanka barring few token gestures due to our self-inflicted ‘domestic compulsions’. We ignored the reality and kept insisting on negotiated settlement, but allowed extra regional powers like Britain, Norway and Japan to be the arbiter. And by not providing the requisite military support, we compel Sri Lanka to tap other sources like Pakistan and China, to our discomfiture. As someone who has closely watched all operations in Sri Lanka since 1995, I am of the firm opinion that a military solution to the problem, is now achievable, as the LTTE has split and its fighting prowess has attenuated over the years, while the once ceremonial Sri Lankan armed forces have emerged as a battle hardened and effective entity.
Conclusion
Hypocrisy in governance prevents sound and timely decision making; places unnecessary and undesirable hurdles in national development; lowers national prestige; gives rise to cynical and self-serving polity; generates clash amongst state institutions; deepens class, caste and regional divides; perpetuates corruption; negatively impacts on national character; and finally restrains the process of nation building. When popular perception is in confrontation with the stance of the state and aspiration of the masses outstrips the state’s ability to deliver them—the situation becomes volatile.
The manifestations of this in the Indian context can be seen in peoples’ distrust of government machinery; perpetual politics of redistribution leading to caste war like situation; violence over land acquisition for industrial projects; politicisation of the police and undesirable constraints on security forces; the phenomenon of growing insurgencies and Islamic terrorism; export of instability by India’s neighbours; haughty posture of China vis-à-vis India; lack of quality development; and energy crisis etc. The shortage of officers in the army is also partly on account of our hypocrisy towards the country’s security and the armed forces. Even as the governments find it politically correct to praise the armed forces, successive regimes have done nothing to enhance its institutional status and self-esteem. For the elite, a career in the armed forces is good and noble, but not for their own children.
First Published in January 2008
Notes
Gurcharan Das, article on : Let’s stop living a lie, Times of India, 27 January, 2008.
Ibid.
http://www.organiser.org/21jan2001/news6.htm
Philip Mason, The Man Who Ruled India, (New Delhi, Rupa and Co, 1985), introduction p.xiii.
Shishir Gupta, article on : ‘We are India’s first line of defence but Han influx a grave threat: Dalai Lama’, The Indian Express, 22 January, 2008.
R Krishna Kumar, article on : The Land Question, Frontline, 18 January 2008.
http://www.cslforum.org/india.htm and http://www.cfr.org/publication/12200/indias_energy_crunch.html
Source : http://www.inrnews.com/realestateproperty/india/ infrastructure/per_capita_power_ consumption_i.html
© Copyright 2015 Indian Defence Review
No comments:
Post a Comment