भारत और हम

Here I am sitting in Geneva, writing about India and us. Ironic? Not the way I see it. I ask myself why I love my country because I'm not nationalist nor a patriot. In fact, the very concept of nationality is alien to me. That's what leads me to saying I simply love everything the world has to offer. I love India no more than I love many other countries in the world. I view humans as humans... individuals in control of their own circumstances. Nationalities are political boundaries drawn as territorial demarcations... mere instruments of governance emerging from the concentration of resources, cultural affinities etc. This makes us all humans... not Indians, Pakistanis, Germans, Mexicans, Russians, Albanians, Iranians, Israelis, Kenyans or Ethiopians. Going by this fairly lucid logic, we discover that people around the world are essentially the consequence of the same elements... Choices and circumstances. Hence, their personalities are a melange of situations resulting from the same fundamental drivers like pursuit of happiness, fear, courage and so on. Embarking on a detailed discussion of the redundancy of nationality and the innate irrationality of the concept of patriotism and nationalism is unnecessary since those who haven't already understood the essence of my point will not understand anything beyond it either.

So what do I imply by हम (us)? I speak about every single Indian from every single part of the nation and every single global citizen from every single corner of the world. However, owing to the political identity of being a sovereign nation, an identity to which the world's second largest population has agreed to, the responsibility for action is not the rest of the world's. Most of us already realize this ofcourse. However, for those who still think it is justified for a nation to live on the philanthropy of other nations... think again. Do these nations really deserve to exist? Shouldn't they be merged with another so as to justify their claim of sovereignty which is a claim emerging from the assumption that the nation has what it takes to keep its citizens happy and free.

What do I mean when I say free? That's a critical question. Amartya Sen made a critical observation when he drew a clear distinction between "freedom from" and "freedom to". Though portrayed as conflicting ideologies, I don't see where the conflict arises from. Freedom is essentially being free in every sense of the word, including being free to be free from! Actions resulting from exercise of this freedom are subject to, like all other actions, are subject to consequences. Understanding and embracing these consequences along with the actions and the root drivers leading to the action and every element of circumstance that provided the groundwork for this reality is total freedom.

Now consider those who claim, "I'm free to be free from starvation." If they say this as a statement of fact, it is completely valid, however if they state this as a demand from the rest of society, of which they are a part as well, they are infiltrating on another person's freedom. If the latter man were me, I would feel absolutely nothing for this person has chosen not to strive to beat his or her circumstances but chooses, instead, to place a demand on another's freedom. I'm free to refuse.

To put the concept of freedom further into perspective, I wrestled with the rationality of communism and came to one simple conclusion. It makes perfect sense subject to it being confined to those who want to be confined within it. I wouldn't call the ideology evil. It is built for a society of parasites and slaves giving them the upper hand over the "bourgeois" value creators.

I have yet to see a successful/pure communist nation or even a pure democratic nation. I choose to speak about India at the moment for no reason other than my intimate familiarity with its people, land, languages and culture. Patriotism as a sentiment is alien to me. That said, I'd like to enumerate certain fundamental flaws in our political, social, civil and religious/cultural fabric that will require to be amended if we are to be the land of the free. These, by no means, forms an exhaustive rendition. It is only some of the issues that are critical. I do not care about the burgeoning populations as much as I care about my own freedom in any society. It would be a fallacy to assume that all humans want to be free, so I do not indulge in that misconception. Instead, I am only interested that nobody steps on my toes...

Geo-political hypocrisy - Kashmir! Give them a referendum or quit calling India a democracy. For a detailed discussion on this, refer to my article on the "Kashmir Conundrum"

Socio-cultural fabric - It doesn't matter where you are from, the fundamentals of a human are the same. Caste-based discrimination within the country has taken a whole new dimension. Now it isn't the lower caste only that is suffering. All the ordinary citizens of the nation who don't come under the SC/ST/OBC category has to fight like dogs for everything from quality education to Government jobs while those who have the privilege of belonging to oppressed class grow by leaps and bounds with relative ease. This is an argument against affirmative action as a whole. Many would argue compassion. Forget compassion! Think about reason. What do these oppressed people need? Customized education and the tools to build competencies to compete in the modern world if they so wish to. In that case, it is rural development (Education and Entrpreneural development) that should be taking the upper pedestal in government policy. If any of you have traveled into a reasonable number of the villages of India you will witness the rubbish being taught at these schools and the inappropriate and ineffective development practices rampant across most of the sub-continent. Part of the reason of this problem is that these uneducated people don't realize the importance of a rational long-term approach. They can be easily made happy with affirmative action which fills the politician's vote banks and gives them greater control over larger parts of the country

Economic policy - "Protectionism," a term that most would associate with post-independence India where the Indian Industry suffered greatly under the shadow of the STC and Nehru's socialist approach to development. He was, not surprisingly, a great admirer of Stalin. Signs of this remained as a stick in the wheel if economic progress until P.V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh began opening up our economy in 1991. One of the sole bastions of regressive protectionism is the Retail Sector. Again, the fear for loss of voter support leads politicians to place huge barriers for entry of larger, more efficient retailers into India. Most cry out about claims for compassion in the face of dying local retail businesses. Do they deserve to die because they are not as efficient? Should they starve in the name of progress? I'll say only one thing to them. They deserve to live using their own creative and intellectual capabilities not by inhibiting those they consider superior in intelligence. That's a long story cut short ofcourse. The rabbit hole goes deeper than this and my conclusion at the end of it is right here.

Religion - My response to religious movements in India is mixed. I, by no means admire or respect religion in any form. However, I don't have any problems as long as the religious folk keep their religion to themselves. This has been the case in India for quite a while now. Unfortunately, the practice of religion has become quite a nuisance. What will you think of when I say fundamentalism? Terrorism? Al-Qaeda? I think of Evangelists, born-again Christians and the related lot. I see the growth of these little groups mainly as a response to contemporary Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism. The Christians must have been thinking... "Hey, it's been a while since the crusades, and now other religions seem to be getting ahead of us... Time to bring in the mind control and life control into Christianity!" The dangerous bit is that anything can be now justified using one of the hundreds of interpretations of the Bible or Quran or whatever ancient piece of vague, myopic, narrow-minded, regressive rubbish that most live by. Stay out of my way and I'll let you be. Cross my path and I declare war. It's simple. In India, this is a slowly growing phenomenon. Though the emphasis on blood-lines is still deeply entrenched, conversions are yet to take front seat in religious agenda. However, I do see this changing and it isn't for a brighter and more amiable future.

The empty masks

The world's future leaders writhing together in hedonistic delight; empty and inane. I understand today the reason for most of the world's problems; It's power in the hands of these semi finished humans. Why! Why am I even in the vicinity of this ghastly display of nothingness!

It strikes me though that this is quite an accurate scale model of the real UN, conceptually speaking.

It is situations such as these that a phrase leaks out from my pit of unforgettable, redundant and putrid thoughts; "Work hard and party harder".

Isn't it a a chronic dearth in a passion for life and a reason for existence that drives humans into pursuit of such forms of escapism... I already know the answers but it was never reinforced so violently that draws from me only one declaration - never again.

Around me I sense the cause for the degraded fabric of our concept of humanity and suddenly i'm surrounded by a dark void... The only whole truth remaining is my own.

The Kashmir Conundrum

Kashmir – An area of conflict in South Asia that hasn’t seen peace, freedom and security for a very long while. After several hundred years of imperial rule, part of Kashmir became a part of the Secular, Democratic, Republic of India while the other part became a part of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. A minute section of Kashmir is also occupied by China.

The History of the state is the key to understanding the basis of the Indo-Pak conflict and also offers the means for a peaceful resolution of the issue. The last ruler of Kashmir was Maharaja Hari Singh, a man who was despised predominantly by the Muslim population of Kashmir for his autocratic and anti-Islamic regime. It is Hari Singh who handed Kashmir over to the Government of India through a document of Accession which many claim he had no right to write in the first place by virtue of his lack of control over the Islamic rebel groups in his own kingdom.

This is where the feud between India and Pakistan began; over who had a claim over the territory of Kashmir. Pakistan chose to separate itself from India as a nation built for the Muslims because they felt marginalized in India. They claim Kashmir due to its Muslim majorities and India claimed Kashmir by virtue of the accession document signed by the Maharaja.

The real reasons are the strategic importance of the region in terms of Defense and Trade along with its abundant natural resources like water supply and the potential for agriculture. These reasons, along with a strong tendency towards power-play, are apparently sufficient for both countries to wage large scale conventional wars (1947, 1965 and 1971).

There are blatant human rights violations in the area coupled with a severe lack of development and employment opportunities that lead inevitably to large sections of the Kashmiri population living in conditions of fear, anger and squalor. They have not yet been given the right to exercise their will in this matter. This has led to the growth of various militant organizations in the region that oppose the oppression of the Indian Government. These “freedom fighters” are labeled terrorists by the Indian government justifying their military pressure over the entire civilian population in the area.

In 1947, when the Kashmir issue was first referred to the United Nations, India did not want to be at an equal footing with Pakistan while Pakistan was openly hostile towards the Indian Government. On 31^st December 1947, Nehru wrote to the UN Secretary-General:

“To remove the misconception that the Indian Government is using the prevailing situation in Jammu and Kashmir to reap political profits, the Government of Indian wants to make it very clear that as soon as the raiders are driven out and normalcy is restored, the people of the state will freely decide their fate and that decision will be taken according to the universally accepted democratic means of Plebiscite or Referendum.”[1]

More than 50 years have gone by and the Kashmiris are still not acquainted with “normalcy”. They still have not had the (long overdue) plebiscite.

India’s stand was that, Kashmir was formally a part of India according to a legal agreement with the Maharaja to this effect and that any claim to any part of Kashmir by Pakistan is illegitimate.

Pakistan was of the opposite view where it felt that the Maharaja was driven out of his country by the people of Kashmir and that he had no authority to hand over the state which wasn’t under his control anyway. This nullifies any agreement made between the Government of India and the Maharaja.

Another dimension to this problem is the Pakistan sponsored jihad that was responsible for flushing out more than 2 lakh Kashmiri Pandits from the region ensuring a Muslim majority in case of a plebiscite. This endless muscle play by both India and Pakistan is obviously not going to lead to a sustainable solution. It is about time that we started considering a real solution.

The road ahead

The most pragmatic solution to this dispute comes from an unlikely source… Pakistan’s Military Dictator, General Pervez Musharraf. His commitment to humanitarian issues can definitely be questioned in the light of his ongoing feud with the rest of Pakistan for keeping power in an extremely undemocratic fashion. However, if one ignores the nature of the source of these suggestions, they are absolutely logical. The proposal included a four-point formula that addresses the key problems to this conundrum:

1. Demilitarization of the disputed area.

This would be done by both sides; India and Pakistan in tandem with a UN sponsored cease fire leaving room for organizing a plebiscite in the area.

2. Self Government.

Self-Government by the Kashmiris implies that both India and Pakistan will need to bring the Kashmiri interests to the table and add them to what has become a bilateral argument involving only Indian and Pakistani interests. Let the Kashmiris decide what they want.

3. Softening of existing borders.

The primary reason for the existence of hostilities amongst India and Pakistan is Kashmir. Once the region is divided according to the plebiscite, there will be no reason to have gargantuan armed forces regiments posted in the area leaving room for more productive interactions like trade and development. This can be achieved through creating, in phases, a permeable border amongst India and Pakistan.

4. International supervision and guarantee from the UN and major regional powers.

International supervision is necessary to ensure that both sides are operating in the interests of the people caught in the crossfire. The border drawn after the plebiscite and division of Kashmir will need to be recognized by the international community.

The plan is quite straight forward. However, implementing this plan is another challenge altogether with the primary obstacle being India’s unwillingness to give up territory. The Government of India will have to be convinced about its priorities. Territory comes after people. The people of Kashmir are suffering and are being driven into desperation. This could pose a serious law and order situation in India through the coming years with an increase in the already high levels of “terrorist” infiltrations across the country.

So put simply here is the solution I propose; i propose a referendum in the area. Follow it through in collaboration with Pakistan. The "terrorism" will subside. Draw an international boundary. Reduce expenditure on military. Divert these finds to Jammu and Ladakh redevelopment. Relocate the Kashmiri Pandits and print new maps. I am quite aware of the excruciating (almost intolerable) simplicity of this plan. The complications pour in when we start thinking about its implementation.

For starters, the Indian public also needs to be made aware of the situation that prevails in Kashmir today. The Government has skillfully kept this away from them through manipulation of the mainstream media. Demanding accountability and productive action from the Government of India should be the first step preceding international pressure through sanctions and power play. There is a severe dearth of objective, unbiased information about Kashmir. This will take a lot of courage from the Indian media… to stand up for what they were built to do; defend the truth.

I speak only of India because Pakistan is prepared to sit across the table and talk about trade-offs. India currently lacks the political will to do so. The people need to take up the initiative to push for political action.

This is an urgent situation that requires immediate remedial action before it exacerbates into uncontrollable dimensions. Let this be the last generation of children who grow up in Kashmir amidst the sounds of explosives and gunshots. Let this be a true test of the Indian democracy.

--------------------------------------------

Statutory warning: This article is purely my opinion and can be potentially undermined for the lack of primary data. I have not visited the region of conflict yet. The information that has led to the formation of my opinion has its origins in the data collected by NGOs, International organizations and publications on this issue. These have been largely neutral sources. I also attended a conference on the issue which was scathingly biased towards an independent Kashmir at all costs. There were a plethora of testimonials that corroborated the human rights violations as a result of Indian forces in the region. It was silent about the situation on the Pakistani side of Kashmir.

Now assuming that there are human rights violations happening on the Pakistani side as well (which is extremely likely as well), does that undermine my argument for a plebiscite or strengthen it? It does not take a very wise man to decide.

The conclusion and primary argument of my article is to hold a plebiscite and not to play a blame game. Most of the Indian readers who have criticized this argument profusely have done so on the premise that one cannot trust Pakistani action. India, in their opinion, has lost a lot of blood on this issue already. My question to this is whether that was necessary. Also, is the Indian blood all that matters? What about the Pakistanis and the "collateral damage"? Maybe they just deserved to die right.

The reason my country has drawn so much of my criticism is perhaps because it matters to me when their democratic stance seems like a facade that can be adorned depending on the circumstances. Also, I find it terribly inappropriate that the tax money of millions of citizens is spent on war supplies when the matter can be resolved through political will and action.

Yes, this might seem anti-Indian or outright heresy coming from an Indian. A splatter of rationality with a dash of detachment from nationalistic tendencies could straighten that perception out.

-------------------------------------------

[1] Jawaharlal Nehru, as quoted in Korbel, Danger in Kashmir, p. 98.

The responsibility to protect

The responsibility to protect refers to the right for a country to Prevent, Respond and Rebuild in the context of what it perceives as a violation of global interests by another country. This violation is usually on humanitarian grounds like those happening in Palestine or Sudan or Kashmir.

Before embarking on trying to assimilate this theory let me make one thing very clear. No country operates on any ground other than its own national interest. That is the reason they are countries in the first place. Simply put, countries are simply not driven by the altruistic motive of welfare to all. They will do something if they benefit from it.

The US is the perfect example of this. They claim that spreading democracy is their primary goal. Bullshit! To keep this free from frills. They perceive a national threat in countries moving towards communism. Politics is nothing but power play and leftist governments are a threat to American power. Just to elaborate on the hypocrisy of the altruistic idea... Look at China! Sino-American relations have always been strangely conducive apart from occasional hiccups ever since Kissinger had this marvelous brainwave of using befriending the Dragon. The reason America liaised with China in the first place was its economic and political potency and to use it as a tool to curb the growth of the more threatening Soviet expansion. I would also like to bring in the massive opprobrium that have been brewing in South American leftist regimes against the US muscle play. However, I'll keep this focused.

The primary shortcomings in the responsibility to protect can be substantiated in two essential questions:

1. Who enforces this responsibility?
2. What about the sovereignty of states and their right to reject incursion?

This responsibility is given to a nation by whom? International organizations one might say... The United Nation? :-) We all know where that is going to lead... a veto! Because ther is not such thing an an International Organization. The UN is a negotiation desk for pursuing National interests.

By what right does one nation intrude on the affairs of other nations? To make things simpler... by what right does the US intrude into the affairs of Iraq? All states have the right to sovereignty. So theoretically speaking Iraq has the right to determine what happens within its borders because of its right to sovereignty.

The next issue is how should one define sovereignty? A state that cannot protect its citizens anymore obviously cannot be considered sovereign. The very reason for the existence of a government is the protection of the citizens it governs. If this does not exist, how can the sovereignty exist. Natural disasters, Genocide, Military oppression lead to the loss of sovereignty of a state. This is a purely logical thought.

Now does the loss of this sovereignty justify intrusion of another nation in the affairs of the victim? When national interest is at stake, of course it does. But, let us not label it as service to mankind.

The way I see things, the primary responsibility of remaking the sovereignty of a nation is with its citizens. This is what any intrusion must stress on - creating a system of referendums within a nation rising from the aftermath of a revolution or disaster. This is why states are not the optimal medium to put into effect such a referendum. They will be biased towards serving their own needs (even at the cost of others). A truly supranational organization could be of real help here. That was what the UN was intended to be. I hope that reforms are heading in this direction.

Another Bhutto dead

I really can't come up with anything when I ask myself what the halcyon days of Pakistani politics have been. It's pathetic watching the television relaying images of people crying their hearts out, destroying public property, automobiles, human lives and of course... Musharaff's support groups.

What were these people crying for? what were they angry with? with the extinguished flame of the "last" hope for democracy in Pakistan? I'm sure there are people who are devastated by this. But, would it drive them to mindless vandalism?

Around 30 people were killed by the suicide bomber. Another 30 were killed by rampaging mobs after the incident. I am tempted to ask myself... which is the greater evil?

Imran Khan seems to have his nuts and bolts in the right place when he says that though this is a devastating loss, there are steps that must be taken from here to continue the movement towards democracy. It starts with Musharraf relinquishing power and an independent judiciary conducting a detailed inquiry into this matter followed by elections as scheduled.

Compare this to Nawaz Sharif who appears sullen and (almost) weeping on the television declaring that this is the worst day in the history of Pakistani Politics (I wouldn't attest to that!) and that he will boycott the elections.

I ask people such as him... Is that in the spirit of a struggle towards democracy? Is that what is called for to transform Pakistan from a dictatorial regime of an inefficient General to a robust democracy?

However, the mobs don't really care much about a dictatorship or a democracy or anything productive for that matter. They seem to be driven by a single minded desire to destroy anything holding a promise to progress simply because it is beautiful... simply because it stands for all that is great in this world.

Democracy, in my opinion, is not the most efficient political framework for a nation. I prefer a dictatorial regime with regard to power over the protection and sustenance of civil society and a purely capitalistic and democratic model to the operation of the economy.

However, I have a stipulation that negates the efficacy of this model in most real-world scenarios. The dictator must be a woman or man of intelligence, courage and integrity. To be honest, Putin gets the closest (though not anywhere near being close enough) to these requirements amongst most dictators that exist today.

"Benazir Bhutto, the Martyr!" people will cry...
and the few that truly understand
will only crack their knuckles and sigh.

Peace at gunpoint

I've been asked several times... What drives people to killing an innocent human in cold blood? The question to ask is... What does this man FEEL while killing another? Does he feel anything at all? What should be done when such a man has an innocent man, woman or child at gunpoint? Negotiate?

This is the primary function of the UN peacekeeping forces, keeping peace at gunpoint. Using the gun when there is no other way. But, if we think about putting an essentially supra-national humanitarian peacekeeping force that steps in to stop all forms of violence inflicted on innocent people, we cannot possibly think of putting this force under the control of an organization that derives its legitimacy from its member states. These member states have a complex mesh of national political interests at stake that prevents them from taking purely global humanitarian decisions.

So what is the ideal solution?

Creating an armed peacekeeping group not controlled by any nation but by a single truly supra-national organization. What will be required for legitimate intervention is endorsement by nations, especially the government of the nation that is a becoming a victim to mindless violence. Now, what if the government in question is either the cause of the problem or defunct? What becomes necessary in this case is circumventing the system.

Though unfortunate, the reality is this... To be effective in humanitarian intervention, states must be circumvented. The condition of sovereignty stands valid only if the state is effectively responding to violence being inflicted upon it's innocent citizens. So, logically speaking, circumvention is justified. Realistically speaking, such an organization would quickly become illegal... some might even label it as a terrorist group forcing it to go underground.

So this peacekeeping group will need funds. Where will that come from? Governments are out. Private sources are the only solution apart from self-sustaining projects. It will definitely require a huge fund base to fight maniacs with guns and politicians with words.

Money and Freedom

The primary argument in a session yesterday was whether nations should be grateful to their colonizers for the infrastructure and systems they left behind. The very base of this argument was ridiculous!

The primary concept under debate was making a choice between economic progress and Freedom. Putting these as options together is grotesque.

Politics!

There will always be variety in the human race, there will always be anomalies, there will always be miscreants and reformists and governments and conflicts. The very thought of aligning human beings with a common code of conduct is unrealistic.

We are not heading for a more uniform world full of peace and prosperity. Let us have this very clear... There will always be someone or something to fight so as to mitigate the damages inflicted upon our lives and our freedom.

Freedom!

What makes this concept so amorphous?

Does doing something out of self interest involve stepping upon another man's toes, stealing some one's bread and harming someone intentionally not as a reaction but a deliberate and planned action?

Here is my stand...

The only morality I know about is living of my own productive capacity and free will or die trying. I refuse to live life as a compromise. At the same time, I do not want to die, therefore, I will do what it takes to live life on my own two feet and not as a parasite.

Where do I draw the line?

Don't corner me. Don't deliberately try extracting from me what I hold most dear. I will defend it because I love it.

Apply this to the national level... Inconceivable! I know.. But then, that is my only political point of view. I wont even try to superimpose this ideology on the behavior of governments and nations.

"Hey, you!", They will shout, wielding a gun... "WE are going to make something of your pathetic lives whether you like it or not."

"WHY!... The impudence of it!... You have already lost your right to ask that..."

Every man has a part to play. I refuse to play messiah. The president plays his part, the terrorist plays his, the revolutionary plays another, the peacekeepers play more... I play mine. Nobody writes my script but me and I don't try changing anyone's scripts either. They make their choices and I make mine.

So much for my penchant for Politics!

Democracy or ochlocracy

Through the centuries we have had nations proclaiming and, to a certain extent, displaying democracy (rule of the people). India calls itself a secular & democratic nation. I would agree with this on a broad-based theoretical perspective.

At a national level, we do have all our political representatives mouthing the same lingo. The situation changes substantially at the local level. Our local politics is more representative of ochlocracy (rule of the mob).

The essential difference here is that mobs in ochlocracy are driven by passion and irrational 'mob mentality' which is usually a singular opinion held blindly by every member of the mob.

The people in a democracy are driven, however, by their own individual rationality. The decisions here are upheld when they are belonging to the majority.

Politicians today seem to fill in their vote banks through imposing pure ochlocracy. The gullible fall for this tactic since mobs are fantastic comfort zones to shield them from their daily problems like money, family, education etc.. ironically, the belief of the mob could then become a whim of the leader (conspirator).

The vote banks consist of mobs and not individual citizens. That is where our problem lies. We are acutely fragmented as a country even though we call ourselves unified and secular. In all this mess, the literate individual voters stay out of the drama. Why? Because it seems to be a lose-lose situation anyway... It's difficult to vote for the lesser evil.