[sacw] SACW | 27 May 02

Harsh Kapoor aiindex@mnet.fr
Mon, 27 May 2002 10:31:46 +0100


South Asia Citizens Wire Dispatch | 27 May 2002
http://www.mnet.fr

__________________________

#1. Pull Back From The Brink - War is no solution (Praful Bidwai)
#2. Our intellectual failure (Manoranjan Mohanty)

__________________________

#1.

The Praful Bidwai Column for the week beginning May 27 [2002]

Pull Back From The Brink

War is no solution

By Praful Bidwai

The roll of war drums is getting louder as India and Pakistan move=20
perilously close to a deadly confrontation. After India's tough=20
diplomatic measures following the May 14 terrorist carnage at=20
Kaluchak near Jammu, there is clamour for "action" in particular, "=20
limited strikes" across the Line of Control. This demand has got=20
louder after Mr Abdul Gani Lone's assassination. However, as we see=20
below, New Delhi would be totally ill-advised to initiate armed=20
hostilities against Pakistan. But can one argue that war is an=20
irrational, extremely risky, dysfunctional option, and still avert=20
appeasing the forces of terrorism?

The short, emphatic, answer is, yes. An armed attack on Pakistan is=20
unwarranted because Kaluchak does not constitute a casus belli=20
(reason for war). Although the Vajpayee government claims to have=20
established the identity of the militants involved in Kaluchak as=20
Pakistanis, it has produced no credible evidence that they were=20
sponsored, or indirectly aided or abetted, by Pakistan's=20
Inter-Services Intelligence. Frankly, it is hard to believe that=20
Pakistan at this stage would engineer such an act (or for that=20
matter, the December 13 Parliament attack). This is not because=20
military-ruled Islamabad has suddenly become a noble, benign or=20
well-intentioned power. It is because of the international setting=20
and the military-diplomatic pressure under which Gen Pervez Musharraf=20
operates today.

When the General, rightly or wrongly, decided to throw his lot with=20
Washington, he greatly narrowed his own freedom of action. He has=20
been compelled to act against militant "freedom-fighters" at the risk=20
of facing the Right-wing mullahs=92 wrath at home. With American troops=20
present in four locations in Pakistan, and participating in active=20
military operations to mop up Al-Qaeda-Taliban members on Pakistani=20
soil, Gen Musharraf would have to be mad or keen to shoot himself in=20
the foot to ask the ISI to embark on a high-risk adventure in Jammu=20
on May 14, just when a senior US diplomat was visiting South Asia.

A more plausible explanation is that the Kaluchak terrorists were=20
anti-Musharraf jehadis. Recent violent incidents in Pakistan targeted=20
at the government and its Western collaborators suggest the=20
same--especially the Islamabad church bombing in March, and the May 8=20
attack in Karachi, killing 11 French technicians. These were=20
calculated to show that jehadi militants are capable of wreaking=20
vengeance upon the Pakistani state.

On rational, informed, judgment, these incidents--including the=20
Kaluchak massacre--couldn=92t have been sponsored by Islamabad. They=20
were probably the work of a "rogue" agency or of terrorist groups=20
bent on provoking a war in order to weaken the Pakistani state, get=20
the Americans out, and spread communal terror in battle-scarred=20
India. This goal may sound grossly unrealistic, even bordering on the=20
insane. But neither the dementia nor the demonic determination of=20
Taliban-style jehadis should be underestimated. These forces of=20
apocalyptic terrorism even wanted to destroy the US!

It would be ludicrously irrational and irresponsible for India to=20
start a war with Pakistan unless there is convincing proof of=20
Islamabad's hand in specific acts of terrorism, and unless all=20
non-coercive diplomatic options are exhausted. It won't do to hold=20
Islamabad generally, vaguely guilty of sponsoring terror. New Delhi=20
has been sloppy in this regard. For instance, its homework on the=20
list of 20 "suspects" has been extraordinarily poor. A majority of=20
the 20 don't live in Pakistan. Only a fourth are charged with=20
involvement in recent incidents. Others, like the Khalistanis or=20
Dawood Ibrahim, have cases going back to the 1980s or 1990s. Even=20
here, the necessary filing of charges in Indian courts has not been=20
done, as required under the law.

New Delhi will not be able to convince the international community of=20
its case for military intervention without such clinching evidence,=20
especially in regard to Kashmir, where it itself has a questionable=20
human rights record. Today, unlike during the 1999 Kargil war,=20
Pakistan is not globally isolated. Then, its troops, poorly disguised=20
as "Kashmiri freedom-fighters", crossed the LoC, alarming the world.=20
Today, it's India that's upping the ante under a government which in=20
the world's eyes has lost direction, popularity and legitimacy, and=20
which, after the Gujarat carnage, is looking desperately for rescue.

The Vajpayee government is far too dependent on the US to want easily=20
and openly to defy Washington's call for restraint. Its own=20
role-model here is Israel, which has successfully imitated the US=92=20
"anti-terrorist" excesses by unleashing unspeakable horrors upon the=20
Palestinian people. But Pakistan is not the Palestinian Authority, a=20
weak regime with barely municipal powers. Rather, it is an=20
unbalanced, fairly strong, Middle Power, one with nuclear weapons.

India does have conventional superiority over Pakistan. But this is=20
not of an overwhelming nature, as between Israel and the PA, or the=20
US and Iraq. Besides, Gen Musharraf has a powerful argument for=20
American ears. He can claim his troops cannot fight on two fronts; if=20
the US wants them near the Afghan border, then it should be prevent=20
India from escalating tension on the eastern front.

New Delhi thus faces a predicament. It wants to "settle scores" with=20
Pakistan. Passivity in the face of Kaluchak, after India has=20
ratcheted up the border build-up to high levels, can only lower=20
India's "tough-guy" image and perhaps embarrass the army leadership.=20
But India cannot unleash an attack without risking US displeasure. It=20
seems to be seeking an angry, immature, way out of the dilemma by=20
preparing for "limited war" and "surgical strikes".

The most talked-about plan is either to launch covert operations=20
inside Pakistan or destroy terrorist camps and communication routes=20
in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and hold on to the territory and let=20
Islamabad decide whether to escalate the conflict. This would send=20
the salutary message to anti-India terrorists that they must pay a=20
heavy price for their operations. The hope is that the action would=20
weaken the Musharraf regime, which has already lost some credibility=20
with the referendum, and promote restrained behaviour on its part.

This plan is totally adventurist and fraught with grave danger.=20
Delusional ideas like "limited" war assume that the adversary has no=20
freedom of action. In reality, Pakistan, as much as India, will=20
determine the level of escalation and intensity of the conflict.=20
Given today's balance of power, there exists no mechanism to limit=20
the military force used. India is vulnerable on parts of the=20
LoC--just as Pakistan is. Each can hurt the other considerably by=20
extending, widening and prolonging the conflict.

Any full-scale war in today's circumstances necessarily means Nuclear=20
Armageddon. This is totally, wholly, absolutely unacceptable--no=20
matter what the cause, threat, or provocation. Even if the Vajpayee=20
government gets a nod from Washington to inflict "limited" punishment=20
on Pakistan, it will be hard put to cap the conflict, without losing=20
face. The US will remain the fulcrum or cornerstone of its policy.=20
This government cannot afford to annoy Washington without inviting=20
serious reprimand and paying a high price for crossing the LoC--just=20
as Pakistan did in 1999.

However, we should not underrate the Vajpayee government's capacity=20
for adventurism, brinkmanship and mischief. It is led by men and=20
women who justified the Gujarat carnage and made outrageously=20
communal statements about it (which Mr Vajpayee has altered without=20
an apology--to avoid breach-of-privilege charges). They have created=20
crisis after crisis every few months: the nuclear tests, ICHR=20
textbook censorship, UTI scam, sugar scandal, the Kargil intelligence=20
disaster, underselling of public sector units, the Tehelka scam, Mr=20
George Fernandes=92 disgraceful return to the Cabinet (despite charges=20
against him), the Balco sell-off, blatant rewriting of history=20
textbooks, the Ram temple campaign revival =85

Till May 14, the bulk of public opinion, all of the Opposition, and=20
much of the establishment was united against the government, whose=20
character it saw as untrustworthy, and prone to undemocratic,=20
sectarian and irresponsible behaviour. Are we now suddenly to trust=20
the same bunch of people on life-and-death issues? On using military=20
force before other options have been exhausted? On understanding the=20
profound but painful truth that war's only legitimate aim is not=20
victory, but peace?

Are we to let BJP leaders pretend that India is the US, and therefore=20
should emulate it by unilaterally launching armed action against=20
Pakistan just as America avenged September 11? Are we to suspend all=20
our critical faculties and allow jingoistic nationalism to overwhelm=20
us?

It is bad enough that the government has expelled Pakistan's high=20
commissioner. This is no more than an expression of anger. But=20
terminating diplomatic contacts with Pakistan, while begging the US=20
to side with us, is no way of resolving any issues that matter. One=20
sincerely hopes that this is not followed by other thoughtless=20
measures such as abrogating the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. This=20
would be illegal. Besides, the World Bank, on whom this government is=20
dependent for soft loans, guarantees that Treaty. The alternative=20
logical course would be to take the "cross-border terrorism" issue to=20
the United Nations, and to make imaginative proposals like joint=20
patrolling of the LoC under neutral UN supervision. In any case,=20
"limited war" is no option. It represents insanity.--end--

_____

#2.

The Hindustan Times
Monday, May 27, 2002=20=20
=20=20=09=20
Our intellectual failure
Manoranjan Mohanty

As the Gujarat carnage continues to haunt the democratic conscience=20
of most Indians, it is time we reflected on how we landed in this=20
situation. Perhaps it has something to do with our intellectual=20
failure to evolve a democratic consciousness in the realm of culture.

It is an irony that although some of the best social science works in=20
contemporary India have been produced in the disciplines of history=20
and cultural studies, they may have unwittingly provided an=20
intellectual ladder to what has emerged as communal fascism in=20
present day India. In our country one stream of thought promoted=20
modern, rational and secular viewpoint in such a way that the=20
practices of popular culture were pushed to an inferior place. The=20
counter trend was the critique of modernity which celebrated=20
indigenous culture in a monolithic way paving the way for the rise of=20
Hindutva.

Interestingly, both the trends acquired State patronage at various=20
points of time, and what is more, both had the backing of global=20
forces throughout. The outcome today is a virulent form of cultural=20
fundamentalism operating a modern State and a global communication=20
system.

Nehru's strategy of building a secular, democratic society was a=20
carefully balanced initiative. It put in force an Indian model of=20
modernity that introduced advances in sciences and technology in the=20
cultural settings of India.

It allowed a thorough critique of those elements of India's culture=20
which did not conform to the values of equality and justice. Thus,=20
several social reform measures were initiated under the Indian=20
Constitution to uphold the rights of Dalits and adivasis. Respect for=20
autonomy and dignity of all cultural, linguistic, religious and=20
ethnic groups was part of the Indian democratic experiment. Nehru=20
translated them into practice in the early years of the republic.

As electoral politics acquired a new calculus in the Seventies, the=20
Nehru model underwent serious alterations. During the late Sixties=20
and early Seventies, State policy lost the balance of the Nehru years=20
and we saw the emergence of authoritarian methods of promoting=20
secularism. The imposition of the Emergency couldn't be justified=20
either in terms of a pro-poor economic agenda or secular education.=20
This is when secular historians and social scientists played a major=20
role under State patronage.

Interest in the study of culture and religion has taken a back seat=20
in the Indian educational curriculum. Not only that, most Indians=20
were ill-informed about the course of Indian history, they knew very=20
little about their own region's history. Study of religion was almost=20
a taboo. We all grew up with prejudices about various religions.=20
Every educated Indian knew more about European history than about=20
Indian history.

At a time when this lacuna in the Indian education system was=20
discovered and debated in the Seventies, the educational=20
establishments defended the existing education system as a secular=20
and scientific programme. Thus, Nehru's modern democratic agenda gave=20
way to a new agenda of State-sponsored secularism, which became the=20
target of severe criticism.

Meantime, a critique of modernity emerged as a worldwide intellectual=20
trend in the Seventies. It was partly grounded in the crisis that=20
capitalist countries in the West faced during that period. As they=20
began to recover in the late Seventies, both trends - assertion of=20
the rational modernist path of development and its critique -=20
continued to flourish.

In India, it took contrasting forms - a secular viewpoint was upheld=20
by those intellectuals and political forces who were determined to=20
fight Hindu communalism. In the Eighties, with the rise of the BJP,=20
the campaign against communalism acquired urgency.

So, it became difficult to provide a critique of this brand of=20
secularism while defending democratic secularism. Simultaneously, the=20
critique of modernity emerged as a powerful intellectual trend=20
patronised by western foundations which occupied increasing space in=20
India's intellectual map.

Critics of modernity became the intellectual supporters of most of=20
the people's movements. The development projects of the Indian State,=20
especially the big dams, steel plants and mining projects, which=20
caused massive displacement of people and destroyed the environment,=20
became the targets of many social movements. Thus, modernity was=20
equated with a notion of development associated with a centralised,=20
authoritarian State. It is this milieu which asserted the right to=20
culture and right to seek alternative paradigms of development.

The movement for alternatives had enormous democratic significance=20
just as rational and secular education had laid foundations for a=20
democratic outlook. But the critique of modernity and development=20
presented a perspective on indigenous culture in nearly glorious=20
terms. These intellectuals pursued a methodology that did not=20
differentiate between democratic and undemocratic practices in the=20
indigenous culture. In the quest for 'cultural confidence' and=20
'authenticity' of indigenous culture a trend of homogenisation and=20
monolithic construction took shape. Hindutva, the contemporary=20
ideology of communalism, is a product of that process.

While the modernist enterprise degenerated into mechanical=20
rationality and authoritarian politics, the cultural reaction built=20
the image of a grand Indian tradition obliterating pluralities of=20
cultures. While the former put European enlightenment as its model,=20
the latter created a Vedic parallel. Those who attributed the=20
modernist project to the Indian State under Nehru and Indira Gandhi=20
have now to reckon with the fact that the same State promotes the=20
project of Hindu rashtra. Perhaps the State was amenable to both.

Both Gandhi and Nehru have been used to promote the hegemonic=20
projects of different groups. Gandhi, for an uncompromising=20
commitment to the values of Indian civilisation and religious=20
harmony, and Nehru, for an uncompromising commitment to secularism=20
and modernity. What is however forgotten is their uncompromising=20
commitment to democracy, to equality and freedom of individual and=20
cultural groups.

Nehru constructed the history of India from this vantage point of=20
diversity of cultures and religions constituting a dynamic=20
civilisation that continued to evolve. Gandhi emphasised the periodic=20
upheavals which churned Indian civilisation from Buddha to=20
Vaishnavism to the cults and reform campaigns of the 19th century.

It is a dynamic concept of history characterised by the struggle over=20
interests and values, which informed the thinking of both Gandhi and=20
Nehru. Both continued to evolve their perspectives during their=20
lifetime and were creative thinkers and leaders of the first order.

The post-Independence intellectual generation has been guilty of=20
either turning their ideas into dogmas or ignoring them altogether.=20
The modernists' appropriation of Nehru and culturalists'=20
appropriation of Gandhi have prevented us from creative intellectual=20
endeavours which could relate rationality with culture, recover=20
democratic legacies of the civilisation, and relate people's=20
traditions of one region with people's traditions in other regions of=20
the world and subject them all to critical tests.

Our intellectual failure lies in falling into either the trap of=20
mechanical modernism or monolithic culturalism. It's not enough to=20
talk about scientific temper if you do not talk about democratic=20
rights and plurality of people's traditions. Building a just and=20
egalitarian India as a multicultural, multilingual, multireligious=20
society has to be a part of a democratic process involving struggles,=20
constructive work and dialogue and not an authoritarian imposition=20
through agencies of the State. Such an imposition has now backfired=20
with the Hindutva forces imposing a Hindu rashtra perspective through=20
the same agencies.

What we need at this moment of agony is to introspect as to why=20
India's intellectual agenda has slipped into either mechanical=20
modernity or monolithic culturalism producing authoritarian and=20
fascist forces now creating a havoc in our society.

(The writer is Professor of Political Science at Delhi University)

--=20
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996.
To subscribe send a blank message to:
<act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|=
//\\|//|//\\|//