The case against is indubitably fiercely strong and, long term interests given preeminence, a most incontrovertible one. I'd enunciate five "pillar" arguments in favor of Peace in the Indian subcontinent;
- The two nations are nuclear-armed.
- The countries are poor, and densely populated, making widespread misery inevitable.
- A war will make matters much worse
- External interference will increase after a war
- Multinational entities and capital will leave the region in droves, and development and commerce will be set back a century.
However, as I said in the beginning, there is constrained logic that makes a hesitant case in favor of a war
- India, maybe unwillingly and even unwittingly, has become one of the global fronts in the "Jihadists" war.
- What happened in Bombay was not an isolated incident, but one of many others to come, and a confrontation is not a matter of "if", but "when" hostilities breakout.
- A limited theater engagement with Pakistan is possible
- This engagement will lead to a fundamental, structural change in the constitution of the enemy, and lead to a long term solution to the problem
- India is the best placed actor on the world stage to deliver this knockout blow, and would receive broad based support from the comity of nations
The summum bonum guiding this determination will be the likelihood that a world post war will be better than the world before it. India must go along with such a plan like don Quixote-- in a false belief in its manifest destiny to destroy a chimerical enemy. India must go in knowing it is sacrificing its preeminent interests to "save the world."
The real need here is to fight corruption, build strong institutions, and build an India where all share in prosperity, and opportunity is not limited to the privilaged. That will mean the populace gets over its hysteria, abandons petty differences, and moves decisively to build a modern polity.
Unfortunately, blaming and attacking an easily hated enemy is the easier. Sphere: Related Content
Posts
5 comments:
Well against indo pak war reasons are true and applicable to both countries, but for war, i is obviously biased..Pakistan is front line state in war against terrorism, jihadists have been an approved idea in Soviet war, always this is connotation that changes
I am certain Mumbai attacks bear far reaching consequences, but still i beleive Indian Government has something to do with it a to win in Elections and not let the BJP to come
Limited engagement or adventure can destroy the whole arena of sub continent; why to invite dilebrately destruction as obviously Pakistan will retaliate IF a little adventure is initiated even
i partially disagree will not lead to any solution war has never been a solution; Pakistan can wage its forces to eastern boarder dragging them out from western boarder.. Pakistan is victim of terrorism already but Talibans i guess have capability to create mess in region
to win a support from international community, one needs solid ground not only an established support on basis of cliches like big economy, strong nuclear power, UN SC membership, etc etc.. Pakistan has been loyal in war against terrorism, support can come also from Islamic countries .. hostality should be avoided
Rubab,
Thank you for your comments. I do stand corrected if you find me biased. Please know that I acknowledge that possibility-- and, for that reason, appreciate your feedback.
As far as the suspicion that the Indian government's complicity is concerned, I question that possibility only because the BJP is peceived to be the stronger of the two on defence.
War is NOT a solution. However, its possibility or impact can force fundamental change. In that sense, it is at best a neccessary evil, but mostly not even that.
I wonder if what you think of the belief, one also entertained by me, that the Pakistani Army has been forced to become political because of the absence of land reform in that country, and that a greater dissemination of democracy would both require, and ensure, an appropriate restoration of neutrality to this institution (the Pakistani Army).
Finally, while the US has used Pakistani society's supply of militancy, is it possible that the tendency toward fundamentalism exists on account of structural realities of the country-- poverty, illiteracy, inequality, and theological zeal? I mention the last because many a South Asian nation has the first three, but absent the vigrous zeal of Islam, most poor nations don't produce militancy as easily.
If that be true-- and you and I don't have to agree to that-- then the very institutions of Islam will need to be conciously refashioned in Pakistan.
I like the thoughts in the last para; I don't believe media reports and haven't had the time to evaluate everything myself; however, do you really believe, India can build like you hope and still sustain this population? If so, does the central cabinet, elected by the farce called democracy out here, ever have the mandate to do it? I mean this country is in total chaos! Everybody acts as they feel right. There's no common purpose whatsoever. And some, will inevitably argue at this point that A War generates that common purpose!
Whats really needed is a paradigm shift in Governance. Also, there needs to be a hardcore campaign to weed out all traits of colonialism, from the sewage.
Sandip, I would treat the sentence "everything is in total chaos" as a central stipulation in what follows. I do this because as I read your comment, everything in it seems to either support or provide evidence to that assertion, or to be supported by it.
I agree with that statement. Wholeheartedly,
In the longrun, what India may need is enduring public ethos, inspired by a persuasive value.
This is, in a sense, the "Avataar" model of public policy.
Budhdha promoted the "perusasive value" (PV) "decent servility", of freedom through renunciation, and an ethos of nonviolence took root. The Brits imposed the PV of "deserved servility" and an ethos of colonial servitude took shape-- as you correctly point out.
PVs are " what we stand for" statements or ideas. In the US "opportunity for the pursuit of happyness" seems to be the PV.
These PVs are like the mission and vision statements of corporations, the orthodoxys of religions, or the battle-crys of movements (communists have used "egalite" deceptively for long)
War can supply a pretty unequivocal, existential PV. Do you think these PVs are sustainable?
Sandip,
to continue with the thread of reasoning sparked by your observations.
It follows from the central stipulation that "everything is in chaos," that "Whats really needed is a paradigm shift in Governance."
The reason I am such a fan of that statment is that it puts a stake in the ground. Far too many people obfuscate and dither. Taking an intellectually consistent stance is as unique as it is valuable.
In my mind, that thought throws up the question "what determines the fundamental character of a government?"
Is it stated idealism of the constitution, the pervading and unstated social norms, is it the value our mothers teach us, or the religious beliefs of the masses?
In my past comment, I invoke a new construct-- the "Persuasive value" that the people are in the thrall of.
Secular sources, like a constitution or a war can provide, or institutional ones, like motherhood, seminaries, or government can. Akbar invented a religion just so he can acquire purchase on the hearts of his subjects and drive them to unity. Alexandre the great and Ashok both found their followers despirited when the exultation of martial conquest subsided. Ashok found a second wind with religion (Budhdhism,) as did Harshavardhan and Gandhi.
What will supply this "PV" to todays Indians?
What PV would you propose for modern Indians?
Looks like you'd like this Persuasive Value to
1. inculcate social discipline
2. Private enterprise
3. anything else?
Post a Comment