Thursday, September 18, 2014

The case of Kashmiri Apples and Scottish single malt – Why Kashmir is not Scotland

The idea of a new country being carved out is an exciting one. Especially in the post Cold War world, where changing boundaries was a remote possibility. East Timor, Kosovo and South Sudan were carved out in the twenty first century on ethno-religious lines. The creation did make for some international headlines but the biggest bang was landed by the referendum in Scotland (happening today). Today the Scots will be asked, “Whether Scotland should be an independent country”? People will vote a “yes” or a “no”. The Indian media has not given much importance to the event, but it is inevitable that someone tries to piggyback the movement happening far away from India. Indian Affair happened to read this article on Firstpost. Hasan Suroor has made a case for self-determination for the Indian Kashmiris and ridiculed the Indians for becoming “embarrassingly jingoistic” on the Kashmir issue. 

The case that Hasan makes is subtle. He starts off with some tidbits on the discussion held in one of the committee rooms in the British Parliament on Kashmir dispute. He then trashes it saying it is a mere ritual. Then there is a full paragraph from “an Indian media report”, which apparently proves Hasan’s point that Indian media has a “patriotic slant”. Then there are a few paragraphs on how the liberal, sophisticated ad broad minded Indians and Pakistanis turn embarrassingly jingoistic, as if by magic.

This is followed by a vague argument on how the, “…notion of absolute national sovereignty passed its sell-by date more than two decades ago.” He gives the collapse of Soviet Union as a point of reference as to why the notion of national sovereignty has ceased to exist.

The point is that Soviet Russia was an imperialist force and treated the now independent states as its colonies. The initial bond of ideology had faded when the socialist economic policies went horribly wrong. The states broke off at the first opportunity they got. The very states then joined the Commonwealth of independent states at Russia’s behest. All is not smooth there, the friction between Russia and its former colonies from Georgia in the Caucasus to Ukraine in the Black Sea are a proof that national sovereignty is very much alive and kicking (Russia has annexed Crimea by force).

Then there is another vague mention of, “The partition of Sudan, the growling momentum of secessionist movements in Africa, and the push for autonomy in the Muslim world-- not to mention what's happening in Ukraine--are all signs of the changing times”. It is difficult to link any of this to the Kashmir issue. Sudan was partitioned on ethno-religious lines after decades of bloodshed. Africa probably will go through a long and slow process of rearranging its territorial boundaries. Countries are not created on a drawing board, that’s what the European imperial powers did. It is understandable that the African people would want to set things right, the way it suits them. There is no push for autonomy in the Muslim world. The only thing happening from Morocco to Malaysia is, a push for more authority and tightening of the proverbial iron fist.

Finally Hasan touches upon the Scottish referendum and makes a subtle case for Kashmir to be given the right to self-determination. The constitution of India gives every citizen the right to free speech. Hasan has exercised his. The arguments are flawed, however. He says, “And it is interesting to see how Britain is approaching it? Not by bullying or intimidation but by love-bombing the Scots, begging them to stay on, and promising to reward them with greater autonomy if they reject independence.
Azadi Vs Referendum 

Of course the British are love bombing the Scots, after all the Scots never carried out any terrorist attacks, they never colluded with an adversary to weaken the government in Scotland, and neither did they carry out routine stone pelting on the security forces. They deserve better treatment because they argued their case in a civilised manner.

Hasan then implies that the approach of the Indian government is flawed because, “In India, on the other hand, not only autonomy guaranteed to Kashmir at the time of its accession has been progressively whittled down over the years, the Modi government's official policy is to scrap Article 360 [should be read as 370] which gives it special status”. The benefits and relevance of article 370 is open to debate. There are different views on how the issue should be approached. This debate is a sign that democracy in India is alive and well. Hasan might want to listen to his own view on how times are changing. A debate on article 370 too is a sign of changing times. Let’s not stifle the discussion even before it starts.

Then comes the most bizarre argument. “It is a prescription for further alienating the Kashmiris and pushing them into the pro-azadi camp whereas the effort should be to win their hearts and minds-- if necessary by bribing them, as the Brits are doing, offering them inducements they cannot reject. Like everything else, loyalty has a price tag; and how much you are willing to pay shows much you value a relationship”. A debate on article 370 seems to a prescription for alienation. What happened to the spirit of democracy where everything is open to a debate?

The government of Jammu and Kashmir has budgeted an estimate of ₹22,973 crore for the fiscal 2014-15.  This is the amount of central grant that J&K wants for a year. There are many other infrastructure projects that the Indian government has carried out, not to mention the relief work being carried out by the army in wake of the devastating floods in Kashmir. Sadly the Kashmiris have responded with provocative messages with banners and graffiti and tried to cause physical harm to the rescue teams by pelting stones at helicopters and rescue boats. Probably the Kashmiris do not appreciate “bribes”. They will not because it is not about bribe, the issue is based on religion and religion alone.

“The twenty- first century is the age of “multinational statehood” and large nations with culturally diverse populations need people's consent to govern them.  It is no longer possible to impose consent from London, Moscow and Delhi. It has to be earned. Jackboots have had their day”, says Hasan. It is worth remembering that India is probably one of its kind “multinational state” with such mind-boggling diversity. It’s the Kashmiris who do not appreciate that. The hard evidence of this being the systematic persecution and forced exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the 1990s. The diversity of Kashmir died at the hands of Islamist movement backed by Pakistani state and non-state actors. India also happens to have a federal form of government. The constitution clearly separates the list of responsibilities falling under the union and state lists. The people of India are giving their consent every five years (some times more often) to govern them.

At the end is another argument as to why India should seek help from a third country, ideally the USA since they have past experience of resolving the Irish issue with the British. Then a soft slap, saying you need to grow up India. The sad thing is that the Kashmiri case has no similarities with the Scottish case. The violence, the religious hatred, the role of adversaries, militancy, systematic change of demography by forcing Hindus out, etc has made Kashmir a case unfit for self-determination. 

Hasan would have come across as a rational thinker rather than as an irrational, nirvana seeking teenager had he also said a word or two to the Kashmiris. Something like do not attack your rescuers or do not cross over to the Pakistani side to get militancy training or try to live in a diverse society and bring back your brothers and sisters whom you kicked out decades ago. His is probably the case of “support by silence”.


Saturday, September 6, 2014

India and dawn of a multipolar world

Once upon a time

Throughout the post war period and until the fall of Soviet Union, the world order was bipolar. At one end was the capitalist United States with its European allies and on other was a socialist Soviet Union with its European members behind the “iron curtain”. There was a third but insignificant pole, the nonaligned group of mainly poor countries. The third pole or the third world eventually became synonymous to poverty and to this date, the term “poor countries” and “third world countries” are used interchangeably.

The world order changed in the post-Soviet era. The cold war came to an end and Russia descended into an economic nightmare. The “shock therapy” Boris Yeltsin administered to the markets resulted in crony capitalism and hyperinflation, wiping out savings of common citizens. The world ceased to be bipolar and America more or less dominated the global landscape. Meanwhile elsewhere in the world, new equations were being written. China had started to show signs of tremendous economic potential and India opened up for investment.

The dragon, the elephant and the pivot to Asia

The fall of Soviet Union seemed to have perfectly timed with events elsewhere. The next two decades proved that the world was no longer unipolar (as America would like to believe) or even bipolar. The rise of third world has created a multipolar world. The first world saw a decline, both in economic and military power. America ended up being entangled in a bloody mess in West Asia while its European allies struggled with recession and plummeting defence spending (most of the NATO members fall short of the 2% targets on defence spending). China rose to prominence, both in economic and military terms. India, despite its bureaucracy and lethargy turned out to be of immense interest to western world. President Obama shifted his interest to “pivot to Asia”. President Putin safely installed himself as a long term ruler of Russia and opened up another power centre with his plans to counter the European Union. The mess in Ukraine is a fine example of EU – Russia power game.

With a multipolar world inevitable, where does India stand in the scheme of things? In his just concluded visit, the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said, “India is an emerging democratic superpower”. It is hard to say whether he was referring to India’s vibrant democracy or referring to India as an emerging superpower in literal terms. Whatever the case be, India is attracting more attention than ever. The biggest advantage (or disadvantage) is India’s proximity to China. It assures, no one should feel threatened with the “peaceful rise” of China. But the territorial disputes with almost all its neighbours and a claim to almost all of South China Sea has always betrayed the assurance China gives on its peaceful rise.

Will the Buddha smile?

From Myanmar to Japan, countries are deeply suspicious of China’s expansionist threat. India comes as a natural counterbalance due to its economic potential and to some extent military deterrence. Since a few years Asian countries have tried to cosy up to India in an attempt to send a message to China. It is unlikely that India will play a role of a military superpower, the way America has played in the past or the way China intends to. The situation however provides for a very good opportunity where India can secure its national interest and open up new opportunities for its businesses abroad and invite businesses to India and create employment.

Are you thinking what I am thinking?
Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, Myanmar, all at some point have shown keen interest in doing business with India. Most of the time the reason behind such warmth is a mix of business interest and a rising China. Under the previous administration of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India did not seize the opportunity. The incumbent has shown a clear departure in foreign policy from his predecessor. In the first one hundred days in office the Prime Minister has travelled to Bhutan, Nepal and Japan. He sent his minister for foreign affairs, Sushma Swaraj to at least half a dozen countries in the same period. His Australian counterpart recently concluded his two day visit, which also saw an agreement on civil nuclear partnership.

All this will prove useful only if the visits are turned into concrete business opportunities. The equation of supply and demand will dictate the market, as usual. The world needs India as a counter balance to rising China. India needs the world to set manufacturing base in India and new markets for Indian businesses. The equation is perfect.

If one were to put a red flag on power centres of the world today, there would be one too close to another. America, the EU, Russia, India, China and Japan are all trying to make space for their ambitious plans or are struggling to hold on to what they fear losing.


Territorial expansion died in twentieth century (still thriving in Russia). Today the struggle is about control over resources and markets. The fear of a not so peaceful China rising will bring countries together. India has as much to watch out for as far away Japan. The big question is, “will India stand up to the occasion”?