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
