What bothers me is that we seem to have got caught in the trap of tech fixes
and short-term solutions; sufficient troops on the ground, and enough night
vision equipment, and we'll solve something or the other. Of course we need
full-fledged artillery back-up, from 105 mm through 130 mm right up to
long-range howitzers, and a combat air patrol team upstairs keeping a close eye
on the bad people.
These terms can be exchanged readily for other theatres of action, loosely
so-called.
But it's completely missing the point, isn't it? The Kashmiris want a
reasonable say in running their state, which they have been consistently
deprived of, including through election-rigging by Sheikh Abdullah. The
adivasis want the tendul-leaf and forest produce mafia kept at bay, and their
natural resources to be harvested in rational ways. Also, if possible, some
sensitivity to their ways of life, which don't always sit well with Manu's
admonitions. And as far as I can make out, there are questions of equity and
even-handed administration in the North East as well, a kind of lethal mix of
the Kashmir and Chhatisgarh/Jharkhand situations.
While the use of military (or para-military) force can be justified in order to
ease a difficult and temporary situation, like what is happening right now, how
can we so systematically refuse to accept that the rules on the ground don't
work any more? That significant sections of the Indian citizenry don't believe
in them any more? What stops us from enforcing clean elections, for instance?
The Election Commission certainly has all the power needed. Why is there no
effort at finding jobs for people in North Eastern India, and why are such
floods of them found in the metro cities and the sub-metros (in a perverse kind
of way, this actually proves the argument, of which more later)? Given the huge
potential for tourism in the area, and given that that is peculiarly a
people-intensive industry, is it possible that there is nothing to be done for
job-creation in Nagaland, for instance, and that the only answer is to build
one more anti-insurgency centre?
If we are ever to get a peace dividend, it will come from reducing some of the
excesses of the planners in the Defence Ministry (not the soldiers; we have
never bothered to ask them their opinion on how to calm things down so that
they never have to shoot at an Indian citizen, but they certainly, along with
the police forces, have a clear and well-defined point of view). So there won't
be a melt-down of the military budget if there is an unlikely general outbreak
of peace, there will be more rational spending, with some balance between
education and infrastructure (useful for jobs, please note) on the one hand,
and straightforward military expenditure on the other.
Even if jobs for these educated people are not to be found right in the middle
of Gulmarg, it will certainly not be very easy for a Gillani to argue for
separation from India when a significant section of his youth is working in
Indian cities, well-connected with their homes, able to afford good medical
care and attention, able to bring their old folk out of the village and into
the city where they're working, and able to merge more easily with the rest of
India.
To go back to the situation in the North East for a minute, getting these kids
jobs in Hyderabad and Bangalore is at least a step forward, and we can work
towards getting them jobs closer to home as we go along. For the time being,
they don't want separation from India as keenly as earlier generations might
have. And that has to be a plus point as far as reduction of bloodshed is
concerned, setting aside for a moment the never-ending clash between
nationalism and libertarian thinking.
This has to come in along with good governance in the most poignant sense, of
course; good democratic governance, with representatives elected fairly and
with them administering their responsibilities in a, well, responsible manner.
That should remove the ground from under the feet of the more volatile elements.
So how do we get our bureaucrats, and, more important, our politicians to
devote a small portion of what is gathered as taxes to education and
infrastructure, rather than blowing up everything on laser-guided ordnance for
the main battle tank that is to be (well, not just now anyway, perhaps in a
decade or two)? Perhaps by reminding them that there are rich pickings in these
two sectors, not just in defence purchases.
And finally, if we can't give democracy to our citizens, along with civil
rights, and if we can't create the right conditions for jobs, then how are we
different from other nations which we consider on the lunatic fringe? If we are
no different, why exactly are we trying to hold back people who want to leave?
bonobashi
--- On Wed, 20/8/08, Perry E. Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Perry E. Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [silk] Vir Sanghvi on Kashmir
To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
Date: Wednesday, 20 August, 2008, 10:18 PM
ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do not foresee any let up in India's defence spending. Too many
> Indians inside and outside India's corridors of power are unmoved by
> what they perceive as naive arguments from former colonial powers
> and existing military and nuclear powers that "disarmament" of
some
> sort is a good prescription for India and Pakistan,
Disarmament is generally a poor idea -- I'm not a believer in going
defenseless. A strong military is a reasonable way to deter
aggression. On the other hand, warfare is also a rather poor idea --
one engages in it when one has no better choice -- and long
smoldering conflicts left unsettled have a nasty habit of bursting
into flame.
> and that if a recalcitrant India were to reduce defence spending it
> would have the magical effect of making Pakistan do the same,
I doubt it would have any magical effect on anyone, but it is
generally a poor idea to burn resources to no productive
purpose. Spending money week after week to resupply troops by
helicopter so they can continue defending barren wastelands high in
the mountains seems like a fairly poor use of funds.
> To speak in Indianese - i would ask people "to eschew such egregious
> prescriptions sourced from nations whose histories are peppered with
> the very sins of which India is being accused" :D
I'm not a big believer in my own nation's policies -- indeed, I
protest them far more frequently than I laud them. I think it would be
easier to claim my views were hypocritical if I did not apply them
universally.
> shiv
--
Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Connect with friends all over the world. Get Yahoo! India Messenger at
http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/?wm=n/
