One of the things about Indian society for the past so many centuries is that our collective sense of being a society and the need to defend it is pretty weak. Small number of invaders used to come to India from north west and conquer parts of India. Even smaller number of Europeans came and ruled India for so long by playing one king against other and conquering one place at a time. The primary reason obviously was the lack of a strong central entity (except for some periods) to pool the resources for the defense and place it in proper places (like weak borders). The other big reason was that caste system eventually deteriorated so much so that vast majority of the Indians were not stakeholders in the state affairs. Instead of the whole India sharing the burden people on the borders (like Rajasthan, Punjab, etc.) had to take more responsibility.
One can argue that India was never a unified political entity in recent times. (There were times when Guptas, Mouryas, etc. ruled much of today's India and beyond though.) In modern times, India certainly is not a homogenous nation state like Germany, Japan, or for that matter any nation state. We are more like a European Union, but unlike Europe, without the bitter history of centuries of internecine warfare between different parts of India.
As a nation-state India is not very old. (But for that matter nation-state is a relatively new concept.) India's strategic community (who is a section of the civil society who think for the nation usually without political affiliations and ideologies) is still evolving. Political class in India doesn't have too much sense of the defensive needs of the country either. Military shouldn't be driving defense policy. Fortunately Indian military is a good professional entity and not doing a bad job. But they can never expect (and shouldn't too) to fill in for the civilian leadership.
Of course Nehru was a bit naive on defense. In fact if Nehru has done one major blunder, it was his estimate of the Chinese.
Ideology shouldn't have much of a place when it comes to defense policy, but the policies should still stick with the larger ideals of the society (for eg. colonialism vs. anti-colonialism, offensive outlook/defensive outlook). For example American and British military policies are quite offensive in nature while that of many European states (minus Britain, France, etc.) are defensive in nature (today). Indian liberals and thinking class fail miserably in defining India’s defense policies. Liberals should know that without a strong defense there cannot be a liberal society and state. Liberals can and rightly so can demand a defense policy which is defensive in nature. But that is not the same as a weak defense, as liberals in India seem to think.
Two of the classic mistakes India did was failing to prevent big power involvement in Tibet and Afghanistan. These are buffer areas for Indian defense and India has a legitimate interest to keep them as such. With Tibet's invasion, China and India has a big border. USSR and US coming to Afghanistan (India's neighborhood) was problematic for India from the beginning. It is doubtful whether India could have done too much about this. But the failure is bigger than that (ie. to recognize the issue to begin with). (Perhaps, if SU knew that India would oppose any SU invasion of Afghanistan, things may have been different. Who knows? The whole mess would have been averted in such a case.)
One can argue that India was never a unified political entity in recent times. (There were times when Guptas, Mouryas, etc. ruled much of today's India and beyond though.) In modern times, India certainly is not a homogenous nation state like Germany, Japan, or for that matter any nation state. We are more like a European Union, but unlike Europe, without the bitter history of centuries of internecine warfare between different parts of India.
As a nation-state India is not very old. (But for that matter nation-state is a relatively new concept.) India's strategic community (who is a section of the civil society who think for the nation usually without political affiliations and ideologies) is still evolving. Political class in India doesn't have too much sense of the defensive needs of the country either. Military shouldn't be driving defense policy. Fortunately Indian military is a good professional entity and not doing a bad job. But they can never expect (and shouldn't too) to fill in for the civilian leadership.
Of course Nehru was a bit naive on defense. In fact if Nehru has done one major blunder, it was his estimate of the Chinese.
Ideology shouldn't have much of a place when it comes to defense policy, but the policies should still stick with the larger ideals of the society (for eg. colonialism vs. anti-colonialism, offensive outlook/defensive outlook). For example American and British military policies are quite offensive in nature while that of many European states (minus Britain, France, etc.) are defensive in nature (today). Indian liberals and thinking class fail miserably in defining India’s defense policies. Liberals should know that without a strong defense there cannot be a liberal society and state. Liberals can and rightly so can demand a defense policy which is defensive in nature. But that is not the same as a weak defense, as liberals in India seem to think.
Two of the classic mistakes India did was failing to prevent big power involvement in Tibet and Afghanistan. These are buffer areas for Indian defense and India has a legitimate interest to keep them as such. With Tibet's invasion, China and India has a big border. USSR and US coming to Afghanistan (India's neighborhood) was problematic for India from the beginning. It is doubtful whether India could have done too much about this. But the failure is bigger than that (ie. to recognize the issue to begin with). (Perhaps, if SU knew that India would oppose any SU invasion of Afghanistan, things may have been different. Who knows? The whole mess would have been averted in such a case.)
Have we seen Malayalee intellectuals talking about Indian security inside Kerala? No way. Same with many other states. We take these things for granted. We are not a border state and we have not seen war for so long. But we are secure because some other states are doing their job and the Indian armed forces are doing their job. Malayalees (this is true for every Indian actually) get immensely benefited from being in the Indian union. Being citizens of such a large country guarantees certain security and other freedoms. But the system can only work in the long run if we share the burden evenly among all Indians. We do this in a sense, by joining army, by paying for the defense, etc. But there is certain civic duty too. For example, understanding the difficulties of border states and sharing their pain.
This also requires a strategic sense too. Of course not everybody will be part of that. But at least the thinking class should be part of that. Without that dialogue process, armed forces and central leadership alone cannot carry the whole population to policy making.
Here is an example. Terrorists hijacked IA plane to Kandahar. BJP government conceded to the demands of the terrorists. We can blame the BJP government. But I believe they would have been in more trouble, had the passengers been killed. The reason is that Indians are collectively a very soft state.
Example for a bigger problem: Pakistan started training Khalistan terrorists and Kashmir terrorists some 25+ years back. Indian knew that then. What did we do? What kind of debates did Malayalee intellectuals have inside Kerala then? Were there any debates for that matter?
In fact the debate was limited to a few strategic circles and inside armed forces. But armed forces don't make policy decisions. They are just tools of the state. Of course there should have been some debates inside political circles then. But there was no larger debate (involving for example people like you and me and some others on this forum). What would have been a meaningful response to the problem then? (How would a respectable person react to a goonda’s constant taunts on the former’s family?) Had India escalated the issue then and there, what would have been the situation today? India was too chicken then. Was there any pressure on government to act, coming from the larger society? No. Indian society was too chicken. Peaceful nature doesn't mean we act cowardly. But that is what we did. That is what we continue to do. Today, the problem is way too much bigger.
Our lack of a strategic culture is definitely the reason for the perception that we are a soft state. We are paying very dearly for this perception (this is a reality too though). Otherwise, a small state like Pakistan cannot be planning terror after terror in India and get away with it. Pakistan is literally bleeding India with a 1,000 cuts. It is another matter that India will survive these cuts, but the cancer that Pakistan has may not be cured. But nations should have character too.
Look what the lack of a strategic culture has took India to. India wouldn't dare to send an army to Afghanistan, despite the fact that Afghanistan is India's achilles heel of external security (not that sending an army to Afghanistan will necessarily be good for India - which is another matter). The reason why India wouldn't send army is not because of our peaceful nature, but we are too chicken and we will deal with issues back at home at much bigger scale than do with an army that is intended for such use. We don't have the appetite for some deaths like that. But we will suffer indignities (being impotent to respond to genuine defensive needs which saps the self-confidence of the nation) and dozen times more deaths inside India and risk destabilization and socio-economic growth and even risk our way of living at home.
India has so much more stake in Afghanistan than US does. Yet, India is asking US to stay in Afghanistan. It is true that US's own policies are what has done this damage to Afghanistan and it is perhaps classic justice that US clean up that mess.
Regardless, India comes out as too chicken for these. India is a large state. We should have some national resolve and capability to defend India. I am completely against India using military power to exploit other countries' resources. But when it comes to India's national security, we should be unapologetic about and use force when needed for defensive purposes.
Let me finish this thought by bringing the specific context of Malayalee society and its own security, even though obviously Kerala is only as secure as the whole of India is .
Who is the aggressor in the Indo-Pak situation? Use any standard objective criteria and it is clearly Pakistan. But if we look at the debate about the leftist liberals in Kerala, they either assume a holier than thou attitude or assume neutrality. Neutrality for what? They seem to want to make it as if this whole thing is some Hindu-right wing making and hence they (the leftist intellectuals) don't want to be seen as party to the conflict. Talk about making oneself irrelevant in the debate.
But there is more to it. This is an ostrich mentality. What are the implications for such a passive attitude of the left?
Let us look at the social fabric of Kerala. Kerala has about 24% Muslims, 18% Christians and rest Hindus. Like most Malayalees I am extremely proud of our heritage. There is very little real bad blood between different communities in Kerala. Even though Hindus had some pretty bad caste issues in the past, it would be fair to say that that era is long gone. The perpetrators (higher castes) of this past bad setup are not at all seen as villains today even by a small minority, because at least two generations have passed without that setup and now these higher castes are in fact a bit disadvantaged in Kerala.
Christians in Kerala have a great heritage. They don't have a history of persecuting others or being persecuted. Muslims also have such a great heritage in Kerala. There is very little real bad blood between Hindus, Christians, and Muslims inside Kerala.
Coming back to Kerala's security: What is the biggest threat to Kerala's security today and in the foreseeable future? It is the radicalization of a small number of Muslims. They are not even being radicalized for things that happen inside Kerala. Anyhow, radicalization itself doesn't have any scope in Kerala, regardless of the reasons. It has to be nipped at the bud ruthlessly, but surgically. Any dilly-dallying on that will have disastrous consequences in Kerala. I think a lot of politicians understand this aspect and take this seriously.
There has to be an enabling culture for the radicalization to happen. In Kerala's case this is almost all external factors. The influence of dogmatic (so-called pure) Islam in some gulf countries affect some. For example, a Saudi Arabia kind of Islam simply don't have a place in Kerala society. There is no reason to beat around the bush on this aspect. The Islamic traditions in Kerala in my opinion are more sophisticated than the ones in many Arab countries. Wahabis may think ours is impure, but that is their problem (of indoctrination).
The other enabling factor is a push by Pakistan to infiltrate into Malayalee Muslim society. Of course it will be a dream for Pakistan to get some Muslims there to do their bidding, because Kerala is the total antithesis to Pakistan's very existence.
In fact the above two forces are one and the same force which if not checked has the potential to do irreparable damage to Kerala.
All it takes for Pakistan is to be able to recruit a few hundred Muslims in Kerala and they conduct a few dozen bombings and other activities. The dialogue in Kerala will change so dramatically then. People will be looking whether the next person sitting in a bus is a Muslim or not, whether a traditionally dressed Muslim is dangerous or not and all kinds of such things. That may very well be the end of an era of 1,000+ year harmonious existence of Islam in Kerala. Of course that will also mean our (each and every Malayalee) standard (a lot of mental comforts) of living will come down dramatically.
It is pretty much impossible for Pakistan to recruit a lot of Malayalees to do the former's bidding within a few years. But if Pakistan is able to continue their project for several decades uninterrupted, without us doing anything to do about it (that hits at the source), anything is possible.
Basically the background war that Pakistan has been waging on India for the last 25+ years has a corrosive effect on India including Kerala. If Malayalees think that this is not going to impact us directly and take a passive attitude, they are sadly mistaken.
Who is the aggressor in the Indo-Pak situation? Use any standard objective criteria and it is clearly Pakistan. But if we look at the debate about the leftist liberals in Kerala, they either assume a holier than thou attitude or assume neutrality. Neutrality for what? They seem to want to make it as if this whole thing is some Hindu-right wing making and hence they (the leftist intellectuals) don't want to be seen as party to the conflict. Talk about making oneself irrelevant in the debate.
But there is more to it. This is an ostrich mentality. What are the implications for such a passive attitude of the left?
Let us look at the social fabric of Kerala. Kerala has about 24% Muslims, 18% Christians and rest Hindus. Like most Malayalees I am extremely proud of our heritage. There is very little real bad blood between different communities in Kerala. Even though Hindus had some pretty bad caste issues in the past, it would be fair to say that that era is long gone. The perpetrators (higher castes) of this past bad setup are not at all seen as villains today even by a small minority, because at least two generations have passed without that setup and now these higher castes are in fact a bit disadvantaged in Kerala.
Christians in Kerala have a great heritage. They don't have a history of persecuting others or being persecuted. Muslims also have such a great heritage in Kerala. There is very little real bad blood between Hindus, Christians, and Muslims inside Kerala.
Coming back to Kerala's security: What is the biggest threat to Kerala's security today and in the foreseeable future? It is the radicalization of a small number of Muslims. They are not even being radicalized for things that happen inside Kerala. Anyhow, radicalization itself doesn't have any scope in Kerala, regardless of the reasons. It has to be nipped at the bud ruthlessly, but surgically. Any dilly-dallying on that will have disastrous consequences in Kerala. I think a lot of politicians understand this aspect and take this seriously.
There has to be an enabling culture for the radicalization to happen. In Kerala's case this is almost all external factors. The influence of dogmatic (so-called pure) Islam in some gulf countries affect some. For example, a Saudi Arabia kind of Islam simply don't have a place in Kerala society. There is no reason to beat around the bush on this aspect. The Islamic traditions in Kerala in my opinion are more sophisticated than the ones in many Arab countries. Wahabis may think ours is impure, but that is their problem (of indoctrination).
The other enabling factor is a push by Pakistan to infiltrate into Malayalee Muslim society. Of course it will be a dream for Pakistan to get some Muslims there to do their bidding, because Kerala is the total antithesis to Pakistan's very existence.
In fact the above two forces are one and the same force which if not checked has the potential to do irreparable damage to Kerala.
All it takes for Pakistan is to be able to recruit a few hundred Muslims in Kerala and they conduct a few dozen bombings and other activities. The dialogue in Kerala will change so dramatically then. People will be looking whether the next person sitting in a bus is a Muslim or not, whether a traditionally dressed Muslim is dangerous or not and all kinds of such things. That may very well be the end of an era of 1,000+ year harmonious existence of Islam in Kerala. Of course that will also mean our (each and every Malayalee) standard (a lot of mental comforts) of living will come down dramatically.
It is pretty much impossible for Pakistan to recruit a lot of Malayalees to do the former's bidding within a few years. But if Pakistan is able to continue their project for several decades uninterrupted, without us doing anything to do about it (that hits at the source), anything is possible.
Basically the background war that Pakistan has been waging on India for the last 25+ years has a corrosive effect on India including Kerala. If Malayalees think that this is not going to impact us directly and take a passive attitude, they are sadly mistaken.
No comments:
Post a Comment