:: Saturday, June 01, 2002 ::

More on the Myopic Media of the US:

This quote is from Norman Soloman's article in Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR):

There was a remarkably myopic -- no, let's not beat around the bush -- there was a remarkably deranged moment on May 28 when Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke voiced concern about the increasing chances of war between the two nuclear-armed states. Why? Because, in order to confront India with additional ground forces, Pakistan was about to pull troops away from its border with Afghanistan and thus weaken efforts against Al Qaeda and Taliban soldiers.

Noting that Pakistani troops at the Afghan border have been "enormously, enormously helpful" to the U.S. government, Clarke worried aloud. "Attention and troops that cannot be focused there because they're focused elsewhere, that's a concern for us because we need as much assistance as possible in guarding that very porous border," she said. Those comments didn't raise many eyebrows in America's newsrooms.

Hello? While events are rapidly careening in the direction of a war that could bring nuclear disaster to the Indian subcontinent, the Bush administration contends that a brake must be applied -- because of the importance of killing Al Qaeda members this summer?

:: Vikash Yadav 11:39 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

On Staying:

"...We've decided we're all staying. We've huddled together, we realise how much we love each other and we think what a shame it would be to die now. Life's normal, only because the macabre has become normal. While we wait for rain, for football, for justice, on TV the old generals and the eager boy anchors talk of first strike and second strike capability, as though they're discussing a family board game. My friends and I discuss Prophecy, the film of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the dead bodies choking the river, the living stripped of their skin and hair, we remember especially the man who just melted into the steps of the building and we imagine ourselves like that, as stains on staircases...."

Arundhati Roy
The Observor

:: Vikash Yadav 10:23 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

The Peacemaker:

As Donald Rumsfeld prepares for his trip to South Asia, I thought he might want to see these figures...

US Arms Deliveries to India 1990-2001: $196,744,000
US Arms Deliveries to Pakistan 1990-2001: $1,068,397,000

The US did not create the conflict in Kashmir, but it certainly has not helped to reduce tensions.

Source: Federation of American Scientists Arms Sales Database

:: Vikash Yadav 10:13 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Consequences of Heavy Shelling:

Mohammad Alam, right, holds his18-month-old niece Shehnaz Akhtar's hand, in a hospital in Jammu, India, Friday, May 31, 2002. Akhtar was critically injured after Pakistani motor shells allegedly landed in Poonch, a border village northwest of Jammu on Wednesday. Cross-border shelling between India and Pakistan killed at least 28 people on both sides since Wednesday, amid international efforts to avert a full-fledged war between two nuclear powers. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

If the only way that people can understand the tragedy of this conflict is through human element stories, I wish more journalists would at least begin to write those stories. How often do even those of us who care deeply about the region hear and dismiss reports of "heavy shelling" along the Line-of-Control? Do we believe that these regular events are not little tragedies? When did we come to accept this situation as normal? Even if there is no war between India and Pakistan, there will be no return to normalcy without a decisive resolution to the Kashmir issue.

:: Vikash Yadav 7:17 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Pyrrhic Victories:

Conrad, your assessment about a nuclear exchange is right on target. The quote below is from Jane's International Security. It makes the same point as you do that a nuclear war is unwinnable in this context, and in fact a the fallout from a nuclear strike could blow back across the border of either aggressor.

"A US Office of Technology assessment in 1993 quoted the dead and injured from a 20 kT warhead dropped on a city to be between 40,000 and 90,000, and for a 1 MT warhead to be between 60,000 and 2,000,000. Considering the population densities in the major Indian and Pakistani cities, it could be expected that the numbers of killed and injured, along with the degree of damage to facilities, would be high and that around 10 to 20 warheads could inflict devastating damage on both countries. In addition, the radiation fallout after an attack could spread several hundred miles.

However, a nuclear strike by either country could well turn out to be a pyrrhic victory since, due to the close proximity of several cities on either side of the Indo-Pakistani border, the resulting fallout could easily be blown back over the attacking country. "

:: Vikash Yadav 6:25 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Re US Media and Evacuations:

The possibility of a nuclear war is a calamity that will almost doesn't bear thinking about. Even a limited exchange of nuclear weapons will devastate northern India and North Indian civilisation, as we know it will probably not recover, for Pakistan I think it will mean the collapse of the state as a viable entity. In India, it too will lead to degeneration and will destroy any hopes of socio-economic development in the near future. The loss of life will be immense: in a sense as we will be unexplored territory - given that a mutual exchange of nuclear weapons has never before occurred in World history it is difficult to imagine such a scenario. Politically I suppose all bets will off, as whole mindsets and our conception of what is possible/not possible will be irretrievably altered. If such an event occurs do not expect any rationality or restraint from many concerned both politicians/policy-makers and the general population: I foresee that such an event could truly polarise communities and opinions in a really vicious manner - it will be the death of the Indian state and society, as we know it. (Such an event is not necessarily something to be mourned but not when it happens in such a fashion and is replaced by something far worse).

People have remarked on the strange intransigence of the US media on this issue. We have talked about this before - I am amazed by the state and nature of reporting of the US media: not just its pandering to certain interest groups (e.g. on the Palestinian issue), or its primarily US foreign policy approach to the world where the it acts almost unreflecting as a vehicle for US foreign policy propaganda - these characteristics are found in the media of most dominant powers in their media coverage of overseas news: both Britain and France are not any different and if you peruse the mainstream Indian press you will receive a distorted view of India's relations with her neighbours. What I find amazing is the excessive concentration of what broadcasters over here call "soft Focus news" i.e. covering issues by not looking at the politics or deeper causes behind conflicts/situations but by instead focusing on the human interest angle, an unhealthy reliance on broad based first-hand generalisations and quick often biased immediate impressions. There is no critical analysis or questioning even of a tokenist nature and really worryingly an almost sycophantic attitude towards govt officials and politicians being interviewed. Only when things start to go wrong (i.e. Americans start dieing) do the media become more critical: whereas from what I can see at least of British media it is assumed that politicians and administrations will always only tell the partial truth and look to their political interest above that of the nation- this is not seen as cynicism merely as they way things are. That is why if you look at most TV interviews with politicians up to the cabinet level and to the Prime Minister himself, the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee is always antagonistic and confrontational (one BBC journalist famously asked a former Home Secretary the same question repeatedly 18 times within the space of 30mins. because the politician was trying to evade the issue - could any American broadcaster dare to give the same treatment to Colin Powell or Rumsfeld on national TV?! Of course I think much of this has to do with the nature of media ownership in the US and Europe and the strong commitment in the UK especially towards having an impartial state broadcaster for radio and TV at least - TV is also very heavily regulated in terms of the amount and kind of news and educational programmes private TV stations have to broadcast. It is notable that in the print media where there is not state organ or much regulation the situation resembles the US with much of the mainstream press, excluding one or two marginal papers, spew out the usual conservative line on foreign policy and domestic issues. But this goes beyond the limitations of the corporate media - some have suggested that there is an element of racism in the lack of coverage of the Indo-Pak tension in the US media; I personally don't think so. I think it has more to do with the small role the sub-continent has played in the eyes of the whole foreign policy and analysis establishment in the US - especially compared to say the Middle-east, east Asia or South America. Trade relations with India have been minimal, until the 1991 reforms foreign investment in India was only a few hundred million dollars annually; the US never had a large number of troops stationed in the region and strategically the area was not near the top list of priorities for the US. Moreover, the Indian NRI community in the US was always small and not as politically active. All this has changed over the last decade with the nuclearisation of the region, the IT boom and the rapidly rising number of young NRI's going to the US and the liberlisation reforms of 1991 which has opened India to more foreign investment and trade: the entry of TNCs such as Coke, IBM and the Enron-Dabhol project testify to an increased awareness of India as a market. But I guess we still have a while before these process have a full impact on media and public consciousness - and relative to the NICs in Southeast Asia and China, India is not as central to US policy; plus I guess we still struggle against the idea of being a starving country teeming with millions of malnourished children - the kind of picture popularsied by pessimists like Paul Erlich. Things are changing but I think for many Americans India is still either something of an economic basket case (ah Kissinger a man who uses adjectives like a meat-cleaver!) or a land of exotic and colourful people. This may seem harsh but you will have a better grasp of the situation than I. The British attitude is somewhat more sophisticated if only because of the large Indian population in the UK there is a greater awareness and the colonial history has meant that apart from language so many of our institutions were shaped by British colonialism one way or another. The shared history also means that there is more knowledge about India in general - the British are a nation much prone to nostalgia and the empire plays an important role in this, India being the "Jewel in the Crown" occupies pride of place in this. In his new book, Ornamentalism, the historian David Canadine actually puts forward a series of interesting arguments about why the Empire was so important to Britain: some of his ideas are intriguing especially in a post-colonial context: namely the key role the Empire played in allowing the British class system to operate by organisng social and political roles for the old landed aristocracy and giving administrative jobs for aspiring lower middle-class men, in buttressing and adding to the grandeur of the monarchy which was held to rule over a whole collection of disparate polities and not just Britain and was therefore shored up as an institution and in binding together the British Isles as one single entity having a mission and a political task in sending out young men to govern the empire and being at the heart of a truly magnificent enterprise. I actually don't agree with this argument but what is interesting is that so many of these institutions collapsed as the era of decolonisation set in: the monarchy has wobbled quite violently lurching from scandal to scandal and voices in favour of republicanism are growing louder, class while contentious is based less on status with the abolishment of hereditary peers, the winding down of the elite public-school system and the eagerness of even conservative Prime Minister such as John Major to declare that Britain is a classless society and lastly the Union has been substantially weakened with the early secession of Ireland and the devolution of Scotland and Wales where Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties have forced the agenda of decentralisation forward. But I digress, however, I do have to say that generally the British media/populace do seem to be more conscious of events elsewhere in the world, though this is almost definitely a legacy of colonial involvement overseas and therefore is something about which I have mixed feelings.

It is a matter of concern that people in the US are so ill-informed about what is going on abroad, and worrying given the real influence the US has; I think this also allows US politicians to get away with a lot simply because unless it directly affects them most Americans seem indifferent/ignorant of what they are up to. This is quite dangerous has recent events have shown, if one hold that the role of politics is to educate its citizens in both good government and the wise use of power this is an alarming trend and should be reversed. As for the evacuation of the US/UK citizens, I can't blame the countries involved for putting the safety of their citizens first and in this case; I think it is justified, as every country should value the lives of its own citizens very dearly. Where one can feel legitimate, anger is the hypocrisy both countries have in their relations to the region. The US for its dubious support of non-democratic regimes in Pakistan and their cynical use of the country to counter Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in the 80's - we are all living with the fallout of this today. The UK too is guilty - there was much mirth when Jack Straw the current home secretary went on his "peace mission" to calm tensions in the region - the UK is one of the largest suppliers of arms to India and Pakistan. British exports of arms runs into hundreds of millions of pounds and pressure has been brought by India that it will stop the multi-billion pound purchase of Hawk trainer jets - on which 2,500 jobs in Britain depend. Needless to say the British govt has not revoked arms export licenses to either Pakistan or India - indeed there was a scandal recently as it emerged that one British company is still selling landmines co0ntravening the recent treaty signed by the UK banning the sale of such weaponry. There is a lot of hypocrisy as Western powers urge calm while they at the same promote arms sales and the biggest arms exporters are of course the very same liberal democracies that are meant to be the voice of reason: the US, UK and France. It is just a shame that India and Pakistan cannot resolve their differences bilaterally as the involvement of external powers in this case will not necessarily be a good solution seeing as they each will have their own agenda to pursue. The leaders of both countries need to wake and hear the voice of reason: it is not in the interests of either country to prolong this conflict any further and to intensify it will be a short road to self-destruction.

:: Conrad Barwa 2:50 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Evacuations:

Both the US and UK have issued statements authorizing (i.e. paying for) their nationals to leave India & Pakistan because of the fear of war. Although the measures will certainly call attention to the urgency of the situation, I worry about the implications of the message. While one cannot fault foreign powers for asking their nationals to leave an area that is on the brink of war, there is something quite callous about these statements that irks me.

US Media:

I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that if a two-party nuclear war occurs, this will be the most significant event in human history and it will signal the begining of a whole new and horrific era in human warfare. While this reality is begining to dawn on the US media, it has remained relatively aloof of the entire situation until a few days ago. Even this week the death of a Washington intern and a helicopter crash on Mount Hood receive the same level of attention as the Kashmir crisis. The US media has tried to explain that this conflict is important because Pakistani troops will be pulled away from the hunt for Bin Laden. It is repulsive to see how the American media is simply unable to discuss an issue that is of major historical importance, but is not about the US. I must assume that the UK and European media is slightly more cosmopolitan.

:: Vikash Yadav 11:49 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Permanent Indus Water Comission Successfully Concludes Annual Meeting:

Isn't it strange that two countries on the brink of war are able to settle their water disputes in a relatively calm and civil manner?

:: Vikash Yadav 7:24 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Assassinations Continue:

AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool

It appears that Zafar Iqbal, a journalist in Kashmir, has been shot in the head by gunmen after his paper carried a story about Indian soldiers helping a family in Kashmir. Coupled with the killing of A.G. Lone, this is a frightening trend.

:: Vikash Yadav 1:13 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Conservative Regimes:

Conrad, I like your typology of conservative regimes (libertarianism, romanticism, nationalism, fascism, right-wing populism). How would you characterise the BJP on this typology? You are correct when you say that the BJP is engaged in a new process of nation building, but they have failed so far despite having all the demographic advantages. One could argue the same point for the Islamicization of Pakistan, although there may have been more "success" in that country.

I should add that in my earlier post on "Police States," I was not implying any support for a matriarchal mode of governance. I just wanted to show the link between conservative thought and efficiency or "economy" in regard to dissent.

:: Vikash Yadav 11:18 AM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

The View from Beijing:

Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, left, talks with Chinese Vice Premier Wu Bangguo Friday, March 22, 2002 in Gwadar, Pakistan at the ground-breaking ceremony of Gwadar Port. AP Photo/B.K. Bangash

An interesting element that has gone unnoticed in the current crisis is the response of China. Pakistan and China refer to their relationship as "all-weather friendship". Even as Christina Rocca was on her high-profile visit to explore ways to defuse the tension between the two countries, Chinese Foreign Minister Tan Jiaxuan appreciated Musharraf's "policy of restraint and constructive engagement in the face of India's refusal to de-escalate and resume dialogue" with Pakistan. The visit of Jiaxuan and the nature of his discussions with the Musharraf regime were being watched keenly in diplomatic circles, particularly in view of reports of a rift between the U.S. and Pakistan on the approach towards tackling the problem of infiltration of Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives.

cited from Frontline,Volume 19 - Issue 11, May 25 - June 07, 2002.

:: Conrad Barwa 10:41 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Re: Police States

Vikash, I totally agree with you that the foreign policy of a state is bound in a number of ways with its involvements in the domestic sphere - the mechanism thorough which this operates in democratic countries where the executive is not clearly separated from the legislature is not always readily apparent. Nonetheless it is a pervasive feature: it is easy to make a case that Nehru's so-called Non-Aligned policy was a reflection of his domestic pursuit of the "mixed-economy model" which was supposed to combine the best of both Capitalism and Socialism while avoiding the excesses of either. Similarly, his foreign policy was supposed to steer a neutral course between the two superpowers and carve out an independent route for Third World counties to take. We all know how this turned out: the complete miscalculation and then unnecessary provocation of the Chinese along the Himalayan border led to the disastrous 1962 war and India was humiliatingly forced to call on American aid, making a farce over the policy of non-alignment. Given Krishna Menon's shenanigans in the UN antagonisng the Americans and Nehru's strange reluctance to criticise the USSR over the invasion of Hungary and treatment of its Warsaw pact allies in eastern Europe but eagerness to attack what he saw as Western imperialism in Egypt and Southeast Asia as well as elsewhere in the developing world laid him open to the charge of hypocrisy and double standards. This is not the place to launch into a exploration of Nehru's foreign policy and where it went wrong (hmmm...where did it go right!) but rather like his attempt to navigate a middle-path in domestic economic and political spheres it ended up capturing the worst of both worlds, rather than the best and failed to derive the advantages that would have accrued from choosing one side more clearly than the other.

Furthermore, there has always persisted until late an unhealthy dose of romantic idealism and Gandhian values in our foreign and strategic policies. Hence our neglect of defense capabilities until the shock of the 1962 defeat and running down of our military resources. All comparisons of Indian and Pakistani as well as Chinese planning reflect poorly on India in defense terms: in particular the human resource management of the Army and the organisational command structure of the military as a whole is abysmally poor. Weapons procurement is a corrupt and dubious process: most infantry units have not even standardised small-arms with some paramilitary units still using rifle of WWII vintage. Few indigenous projects to develop homegrown weapons and equipment complete their tasks on schedule and the products they produce frequently are rejected by the services for poor deign and quality and those that are incorporated still suffer from a high import content. The problems facing the Armed forces are numerous and deserve a separate discussion, just to highlight the salient points they include: poor morale, steady loss of prestige and service conditions including pay vis-à-vis other civilian occupations, neglect of training, excessive use in domestic insurgency operations, shortage of officers and technical personnel and finally a still predominantly colonial mindset in the operational and tactical command structure - especially in the army. Moving onto foreign policy there have been very few isolated cases of successful foreign policy interventions by India even in the post-Nehru era and quite a few disasters: again just to run through a few relations with the newly created nation of Bangladesh soured incredibly rapidly despite the key role that India played in liberating it from Pakistan and both civilian and military regimes in Dhaka have been on poor terms with New Delhi - shocking since one would have thought that this would have been the case of an Indian success story and a strong potential ally in the region.( there was a period of thaw under Gujral's premiership and relations have been improving slowly since) The involvement of both the Tamil Nadu state government and federal agencies in the separatist Tamil movement in Sri Lanka and the complete failure of the so-called Indian Peace Keeping Force dispatched to Sri Lanka led to much unescceary loss of life, failed to accomplish any real objective and was responsible for the assassination of one Prime Minister. Similarly relations with Nepal have frequently been strained, only the control of all major land routes into Nepal has ensured that India has managed to keep some semblance of control over Nepalese resistance but this in itself has led to Nepali resentment towards India and anti-India riot/demonstrations are not unknown in Nepal - all the more surprising given the fact that Nepal is the world's only Hindu Kingdom. This level of antagonism between its smaller neigbours and itself has frequently meant that when the countries in the region do meet under the auspices of SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation) the smaller countries can make a common cause of their resentment of Indian foreign policy and gang up to oppose Indian proposal for regional agreements on security, trade and border issues. (Understandably, of course). The antiquated structure of the External affairs ministry in India with department still devoted to Nehruvian goals such as disarmament and technical co-operation and excessive focus on narrowly diplomatic issues to the neglect of economic and strategic ones has not served India well but again reflects I would argue the ossified and decayed nature of the domestic civil service in India. Both the domestic and foreign counterparts suffered from being basically a replica of their colonial predecessors which were designed mainly for control and coercion of the native population not for the governing of an emerging democracy: with independence all that happened was that the few virtues of the colonial-style bureaucracy such as probity, efficiency and impartiality were themselves eroded.

As you also note dissent was often domestically suppressed by using the pretext of an external threat - this could be Indira Gandhi's sole permanent and rather dubious contribution to mainstream political discourse in India - namely the ubiquitous spectre of the "foreign-hand". Many governments since have always tried to raise this bogey sometimes unsuccessfully against dissidents and critics of the regime. The accusation of being an ISI agent was a good excuse to intern potential opponents; the label of CIA agent was also used. In fact, it is interesting to note that foreign policy followed the explicit prejudices of the different regimes in New Delhi. Under the first period of Indira Gandhi's rule a tilt to the USSR was easily discernible so much so that the Janata Dal government which replaced in 1977 immediately pushed to the right and pursed and openly pro-USA policy mainly to distinguish itself from the hated Emergency regime that preceded it. Of course, this also played a large role in suppressing voices of dissent in Kashmir and was part of the cause of growing alienation of the Kashmiri population from the political process. Though of late it is possible to argue that the Indian polity has become better at coping with ethnic-based opposition and is willing to tolerate the relative fragmentation of the party-system into regional and caste-based groupings; the rise of Hindu nationalism has posited the challenge of dealing with religious difference just at a time when Centre-periphery relations seemed to be improving.

On a direct note to your comments on conservative regimes - while I agree with most of what you say, I think we would need to more clearly demarcate the difference between different strains within conservative thought: libertarianism, romanticism, nationalism etc. and between other right-wing philosophies such as fascism, right-wing populism..Also I wonder how you characterise Communist regimes such the Stalinist and Maoist states which were undoubtedly "Police States" and were also responsible for millions of deaths. Furthermore, while the root of this mode of governance may be rooted in patriarchichal structures of dominance - looking at state formation in pre-colonial polities in those regions which still maintained matriarchical societies such as areas of Central and West Africa and the Javanese and Malay Archipelago it is unclear as to whether, matriachcical societies lead to a different pattern of control, part of the source of this mode of governance may originate elsewhere.

:: Conrad Barwa 10:38 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Pakistan's Rallying Cry:

AP Photo/Pakistan Television

" The entire nation is with the armed forces and will shed the last drop of their blood, but will not allow any harm to come to the motherland.... I am a military man. While I do not want war I am not scared of war....However the avoidance cannot come at the cost of compromising our honour and dignity."

Excerpts from General Musharraf's televised address to the nation on Monday 27th May, reproduced from the Guardian 28th May (paper edition). Vikash, you may want refer to my post below on the rhetoric of confrontation between the two countries, in Re: The War on Terror.

:: Conrad Barwa 9:40 AM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Re: China

In a new book dealing with the 10 myths that in Indian defense planning by Pravin Sawhney called The Defence Makeover, the number one myth that Sawhney looks at is the one that China is not a military threat to India. I would assume that one of the reasons that China is keeping quiet is that, assuming the US has stuck to its stance on non-proliferation of nuclear and missile technology, then the source of Pakistan's technology in its missile and nuclear programmes points heavily towards China (and North Korea), what other country could have given Pakistan the help it needed to bridge the technology gap? Given the state of the Pakistani economy and its R&D establishment I am sceptical as to how the Pakistanis could have acquired nuclear know-how so quickly without external assistance unlike the Indian programme which I would argue is mainly a homegrown industry - I haven't read George Perkovich's/Itty Abraham's magnum opus on the Indian Nuclear Project so I will make this assertion tentatively. I don't know the details of this but it would be uncomftable for China if it emerge that it was involved in giving Pakistan access to high-level technology in this area.

Secondly, China too has a vested interest in the region - especially given the fact that it is in de facto occupation of a sizable chunk of India-held Kashmir - namely Aksai Chin, on almost all international maps I have seen this territory is still shown as belonging to India - alarmingly of late in many of the cartographic illustrations being peddled in the British media this area is now no longer shown as part of the Indian republic. Pakistan too has ceded a slice of Pakistani Occupied Kashmir near the Karakoram pass to China in a mutual border agreement. This should show that whatever else the conflict is about it is not purely or arguably even mainly about physical territory - though the Indian side has never acquiesced to the Chinese annexation of Aksai Chin and it is still a bone of contention between the two countries.

On a broader level I am sure that the Chinese would be quite happy to see a continued conflict between Pakistan and India as this would, allow China to pursue a containment strategy towards India and would leave it without a serious rival for Asian dominance. For I am under no illusion should an amicable resolution to Indo-Pak relations be reached - or worse still from China's point of view some sort of formal union or federation between the two; then the attentions of India will be free to wonder north. After all India is the one of the biggest potential rivals for Chinese dominance in the region and the only one that comes close to it in terms of size and numbers: certain long-term conflicts do loom in the horizon - I refer immediately to the Chinese naval exercises conducted in the Indian Ocean and the Chinese refusal to see the Indian Ocean and a sphere of influence for India. Additionally, China unlike India does not have a blue water navy as yet - though plans to develop and build one are well underway. In any case, a united or peaceful South Asia under Indian leadership/dominance cannot but be seen as a threat by China. Which leaves one to wonder strategically, given the immense diplomatic, military, human and economic resources devoted to their border conflicts by India and Pakistan; whether China arguably was the greatest beneficiary of the fallout of partition in geo-political terms

:: Conrad Barwa 7:38 AM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

China:

Have you noticed that the Chinese have been awfully silent during the current crisis in Kashmir. What gives?

:: Vikash Yadav 12:29 AM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Police States:

Conrad, I believe that you have hit on an important aspect of the conservative philosophy when you state that the BJP seeks to extend its Law and Order objective to the sphere of foreign policy. There is a link between domestic and foreign policy strategy; we must reject the idea that foreign policy transcends partisan bickering. The articulation of a foreign policy vision is in fact drawn from the ways in which the domestic sphere is regulated.

Conservative approaches to governance seem to be informed by the art and science of population control, management, and productivity maximization. This technique or "economy" is descendant from patriarchal structures of dominance over family units. The role of dissent is generally characterized as inefficient or destructive within this mode of governance. In fact, conservative regimes generally have a strong interest in provoking internal and external conflict as a mechanism for discovering, reducing, and eliminating sources of dissent. Of course, one must concede that the techniques of the "Police State" are not simply the monopoly of conservative governments; some of the most horrific examples of police states have occurred under nominally liberal governments.

The only solution is to articulate clearly the principles of an alternative rationality of the state in which dissent is shown to be efficient and productive, particularly in times of crisis.

:: Vikash Yadav 1:31 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Re: War on Terror

The BJP party president's remarks on the need for a permanent solution to the issue of "terror" can be taken to mean several things. On an immediate level we can see it as the knee-jerk predominantly conservative reaction, which fits well into a right-wing agenda - basically extending the domestic Law and Order objective to the sphere of foreign policy. This has obvious sources within a conservative philosophy, which always rallies, round the nation when an external threat is perceived. On a slightly deeper level it can also seen to be an indication of any extremist right-wing political programme which having a totalitarian bent is unwilling to consider any area of political action or contestation outside its own terms as legitimate or to seek a peaceful solution if one arises - indeed the only solution is complete absorption or annihilation since under such totalising regimes no rival ideology or movement can be allowed to survive. Lastly, one can discern a domestic ulterior agenda, as non-performance on the governance front, a troubling economy and internal dissension and unrest can be sought to be overcome by the positing of a greater external threat that will unite the disparate feuding groups within the country and coerce them under the guise of patriotism.

However, I believe there is further, hidden aspect to the rhetoric between the two countries, which is really the unfinished business of partition. Within a Hindutva ideology, partition was a tragedy and represented the vivisection of Bharat Mata (Mother India), given the importance that all such nationalisms place upon the Motherland or Fatherland, the Muslim has done the unforgivable in destroying the "purity" and despoiling Bharat Mata through the Muslim League demand for separatism. On the demagogic level, this chimes well with the vision of Hindus as the victims and wronged party in the history of communal relations. This of course confirms the prevalent suspicions that dominate the Hindutva psyche regarding the Muslim Other as excessively virile, violent, and prone on defiling/desecrating our motherland/our women. Frequent references to acts of destruction committed by Muslim invaders such as Muhammad Ghazni's sacking of Somnath temple and Ghori's desire for Prithviraj's Rajput princess; the BJP has played on these sensibilities cleverly and notions of the supposed Muslim desecration and sacking of temple and other Hindu holy sites as well as the general panic that can be caused by the alleged abduction of Hindu girls by Muslim men have been stoked up to increase communal sensitivities. The rumours of the latter in particular have been the trigger cause of several riots in the troubled state of Gujarat and are much favoured by riot instigators to arouse and create communal mobs. While there is a patriarchical bias at play here - protection of women/protection of the Motherland and the idea that the honour/prestige of the community/nation is bound up with its women who metonymically represent the nation and community as a whole and are the repositories of the honour of their men-folk/citizens. The violation of either is an insult that cannot be tolerated. The trauma that such a communal reading of history presents allows us to regard the remarks of spokespersons for the Hindu right such as Krishnamurthy in a different light. For RSS swyamsevaks and supporters, the creation of Pakistan represents a traumatic act one for which Indian Muslims are held as responsible as the ones in Pakistan. Moreover, given the Hindutva project of Nation-building, premised as it is on the positing of a Muslim Other, an Islamic state such as Pakistan, as an another theocratic static representing an antagonistic religion poses an obvious threat not just in strategic but also in ideological and political terms as well.

Similarly, for Pakistan created as an Islamic state, founded on the belief that it would not be possible for Muslims to live in a secular state dominated numerically by Hindus; the very existence of even a democratic and secular India in a state of communal harmony is a threat - for the legacy of Nehruvian India and the commitment to secularism means that India and Pakistan are engaged in very different projects of nation-building and ones which are not necessarily compatible. I wonder whether it is possible for Pakistan to have a successful India on its doorstep where a genuine secular democracy allows minority communities to live peaceably alongside the dominant Hindu one - for if this were to actually happen then it would mean that Jinnah's original conception of the two nation theory would be untenable and would retrospectively undercut the very ideological and philosophical basis for the creation of Pakistan - the secession of Bangladesh already dealt a blow to this edifice. I would argue that as long as Pakistan continues to see itself as an essentially Islamic state, created to protect the South Asian Muslim minority from the persecution of the Hindu majority then this contradiction will persist - even more troublingly it suggests that it is directly against the interests of Pakistan as an Islamic state to see the Indian nation-building project succeed. Of course given the relatively recent resurgence of the Hindu right it is possible to argue that such a project has been thrown off target and been replaced by another project of nation-building along Hindutva lines and that long-term events have proved Jinnah right - the Hindu majority could not be trusted to not abuse their electoral/demographic advantages to attack the minorities specifically the Muslims and that the two-nation theory was justified. While there is some merit in this view, I think the failure of the Hindutva parties to gain a parliamentary majority at the federal level, despite the fact that they should be easily appeal to over 70% of the electorate and the mediocre, if not downright non-performance of Hindutva governments and coalitions both at the federal and state level have not given Hindutva parties the electoral dominance that opponents have feared. The regionalistion of the party-system in India and the rising ethnic and caste based movements and parties have also undercut notions of a monolithic Hindu community that all two-nation theories presuppose. The same is true of Pakistan, religion was not a strong enough bond to prevent the bloody secession of East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, and Pakistan is still plagued by ethnic conflict. Yahya Khan the general put in charge of suppressing the Bangladeshi insurgency, earned the name "Butcher of Baluchistan" for his violent suppression of the Baluchii revolt in the 1960's during which an estimated 30,000 Baluchiis were killed. The MQM representing the Urdu-speaking Mohajirs who emigrated from northern India to Pakistan in the aftermath of partition have not been incorporated into the new Pakistani order have resorted to guerilla warfare in Karachi leading to thousands of lost live over the last ten years. Their leader has recently gone on record as saying that the creation of Pakistan was a "blunder and a mistake". Resentment towards Punjabi dominance of the bureaucracy and the military has led to simmering conflict between the majority Punjabis and the Sindhis and Pathans in the other provinces. These as well as the unhappy experience of prolonged military rule and short-lived civilian governments have also put a question mark over the nation-building venture in Pakistan based on an exclusive religious identity - to say nothing of the persecution of Christians community and dissident sects such as the Ahmadiyyas.

The strength of religious nationalism to provide a sustainable basis for nation-building in both India and Pakistan has been eroded therefore from within and are under pressure to present a viable alternative; this plays a part I believe in the use of conflict for political purposes by extremists in both countries as it serves as a tool for legitimacy and also prevents the emergence of an alternative order in the opposite country which could challenge the basis of religious nationalism. Strange as it may seem, both Hindutva and Islamic fundamentalists would rather face each other across the border rather than face a secular/non-religious regime on the other side: the first scenario offers a comforting mirror image of uncompromising fundamentalism in the eyes of the Other which buttresses each sides own conception of the self, while the latter scenario shows only the dark abyss with no corresponding, comforting reflection.

:: Conrad Barwa 10:43 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............