An Eulogy For The Hawks

To,

His Excellency The Prime Minister,

Shri A.B. Vajpayee,

South Block,

New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

The plumes in your administration’s foreign relations’ cap have been manifold, and much deserved. The acerbic prophecies and the false prophets announcing international isolation, after the peaceful detonation of the atomic devices have been relegated to the dustbins of cynicism and opportunism, the latter a favorite of our political class. Yet, dear Sir, you face the gravest and most delicate of all challenges in the coming months. Your administrations’ talks with President Musharraf, although a foregone conclusion while writing with this, is possibly the process that would ensure the ensconcing of an individual and a regime – one that will threaten the territorial integrity of India by an order of a magnitude in the coming decade.

Pardon Sir, such naked apprehension at your esteemed Guest. Yet, I must persist at the risk of losing myself in the maze of approximations and creating a perception as a warmonger. The reasons for these sentiments are varied, and some oft repeated within certain quarters of your party, who unfortunately entangle themselves in rhetoric, inanity and paranoia on a Wagnerian scale to be taken seriously. Yet, we must continue to investigate every nook and cranny of possibilities that might ferret out your Guests’ agendas, the hidden and the inevitable.

The fundamental question that remains unanswered, or at least unknown in the public sphere is, is whether there actually exists a long term goal of India’s relations with Pakistan. Of course, for public consumption and world opinion, we have made mindless repetitions at forums – domestic and otherwise – ‘threatening’ to live peacefully with each other. Only If. Then there inevitably is a litany of complaints, counter-arguments and finally meek cognizance of lessons in reality. Yet, strangely events in the past decade conspired to pull us out of own quagmire, particularly in the last quinquennieum thanks largely to the institutional apparatus our forefathers left as a legacy. Your administration, and particularly Mr. J. Singh has contributed more than his share in the change of fortunes, portraying India as a mature and reliable member of the international community, which we indeed are. Today we are positioned in international commerce, labor market, mass media and social evolution in manners that India “counts” to the Lords of the Manor. In almost a clinical reversal of fortunes, Pakistan has been on the receiving end of the stick thanks largely to the gluttonous bourgeois and plethora of internal contradictions, including patrimonialism, coercion on an institutional scale, and an elite with expendable irons in the fire. They, dear Sir, are virtually at the weakest in their entire history.

The above few lines might lead, a professional peacenik, to conclude that there in lies a pathological hatred for Pakistan that they have been crying out hoarse against, particularly in a section of the Indian society. This is no hatred or malevolence towards the people of Pakistan, but rather a matter-of-fact observation of the state of their union.

There lie two fundamentally divergent, yet not mutually exclusive, courses for the future between India and Pakistan. The one is the present course that we have been steering for the last two scores and a decade. One that can be described as ‘Benevolent Jingoism’. The inevitable comparisons of a similar kind of symbiotic relationship, was the one between the American and Japanese Automobiles Industry in the 1960s to late 1980s. Whilst in the heartlands like Detroit or Ann Arbor, Toyota and Mitsubishi were smashed relentlessly by the common man and the trade union leaders alike with equal fervor; the Washington beltway juggled around the quantitative restrictions thanks largely to their understanding of ‘reality’. Similar has been our case, where although in the heartlands of India – be it Lucknow or Lalgudi – anti Pakistan rhetoric has been shrill, needless and effortlessly evoked to drown more urgent matters; the internal ‘compulsions’ of the governmental machinery have resulted in a quid pro quo bonhomie. For the past 45-50 years, we have had an emasculated approach that if viewed a century or two later, might be seen as organized as the Mughal resistance was to the British in the 16th and the 17th centuries. We have swayed in all matters, barring for the mind numbingly repeated “Kashmir is an integral part of India.” Neither have we been proactive, despite claims, nor have we actually bothered to strategically implement methods to “woo” the discontented. Yet, the greatest of follies was the self inflicted malaise, what could be termed as ‘intended decoherence’. It is the unwillingness of the political elite, to either prepare Indians for a changing mindset or to pursue policies that are aggressive not in words alone, but in total unadulterated action from all corners of governmental machinery. None is particularly to blame more than the Centrist governments who have the opportunity to rule the rest of us because of, what Warren Buffett calls “the lucky sperm contest”.

We could still persist with this policy, and undoubtedly we will find proponents of such a status quo. The clichéd Italian gangsters in Hollywood would have probably described the last 45 years of approach to Pakistan the best. “Badda Bing, Badda Boom, Badda Poop.”.

There lies another set of possible events. One that can be titled as a policy for ‘Unilateral Superiority’.

Carl Jacobi, the noted algebraist of the 19th century, was attributed to have said “Invert, always Invert.” The gist of his witticism has much to teach. The obvious reaction, and justifiably so, is that processes that would ensue after your talks is one that would be of mutual benefit, and in a vague manner beneficial for the rest of the world. Yet, a question that rankles me WHO stands to gain more with these talks in July? The glibly delivered answers by the spokesmen on both sides is that the ‘people of the subcontinent’ stand to benefit from this exercise.

Lets look at the obvious. The person (and the regime) who stands to gain the most, is President Musharraf. It is he (and Pakistan) who needs to improve the financial mess he has ‘inherited’ and restore minimum credibility to the international financial bodies. It is he (and Pakistan) who needs to restore an element of ‘vision’ to the crumbling and nearly useless internal state machinery. It is he (and Pakistan) that needs to resuscitate International and Indian public opinion that he leads, not a barbarically medieval country but rather one that might contribute to the new century. It is he, personally, who has to inspire loyalty or else he might be another in the long list of eminently forgettable casualties in Pakistan’s paroxysm filled efforts at self-governance. The list of expectations from him is long, arduous in execution and fraught with dangers of all sort. Few have been instances in the previous century when men have triumphed over such inexorable odds.

The danger (or exultation of sorts, among certain quarters) lies, in not whether President Musharraf or Pakistan resuscitates itself thanks to innumerable kisses from IMF and the Jehadis itself. But, rather what have been the historical imperatives that have governed a nation of that particular variety. I cannot resist but include a rather oft repeated aphorism that was a favorite of the Senator Jesse Helms kinds, during their ‘outraged’ excoriation of then President Clinton. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and acts like a duck – it must be a duck.

Pakistan, at least the successive regimes, historically has shown a proclivity for antagonism towards India, come Hell or High Water. This has again nothing in particular to do with their ‘pathological hatred’ towards us, but rather the manner in which we have been conjoined since our nations’ Cesarean birth and the subsequent ideological mastheads that hoist our countries respectively. We, India, are based on the solitary founding principle that religious sensibilities has nothing to do with nationhood; while Pakistan was born drenched, as a spectacular reconfirmation of their belief that all Muslims need a separate state and machinery. We are, dear Sir, the Saleem Sinai’s to their Shiva’s in this modern political epic. Born to antagonism.

President Musharraf and you are an ample representation of the crux of such inherent contradictions in our existence. Moreover, he and his retinue are men who have flourished in an anti-India environs; leading him personally to partake in two Wars and a recent misadventure. No longer is the Pakistani army filled with the clichéd, yet once true, Sandhurst or Westpoint educated Renaissance men who made War reluctantly. The talks that will ensue will allow General Musharraf to perch himself more strongly and slowly pursue measures to strengthen (or rather, fortify) Pakistan – internally and externally. You, Sir, will be helping in legitimizing his transformation from Dictator to Chief Executive to President to Strong Man to Leader of Pakistan in the eyes of the international community.

The fear, or the apprehension comes, not from the above inevitable metamorphosis. But rather from the long term prospects, that a man who seems to embody and live Nietzche’s ubermenshch idealization willing himself to power and slowly consolidating through a careful mix of expediency and ‘concern’, will still be around while we undergo our usually rancorous and amorphous leadership transitions. We will often be susceptible to our Pearl Harbors.

His “Divine Wind” (Kamikaze) murderers are plenty a pound. Trenchantly planned excursions will be unleashed by President Musharraf’s regime in face of growing frustrations and hostilities that the following years inevitably will elicit from the Pakistani public – as all efforts at national restructuring does. The entire existent machinery will, to invoke John Wayne, “itch for action.” History will, inevitably repeat. This is of course, President Musharraf’s trump card; his reverse swing that he would employ if situations get worse for him domestically. You and your legacy, too will be judged by posterity as one that came to greatness yet like the mythological Karna was denied by ‘externalities’. We will all be back for another spectacle, be it Lahore or Delhi, and another generation in both countries will be sacrificed at the altar of this conflict.

Within the passage of a generation or two – provided we flourish consistently at the present neo-Hindu growth rate – India will slowly prove to be in a position with wherewithal to challenge the, by then covert, hegemony of the United States. The world will have an hierarchical yet multi polar centers of power, areas of influence in a manner reminiscent of Europe in the days of the Kaiser, the Austro Hungarian Empire, the Archduke et al. Entente and Détente of all hues would be flying around – and the rest of the world, including our then allies and other inimical forces, would use Pakistan to counter balance India to a respectably annoying degree. President Musharraf, or another Rational Leader, would hardly show the whiffs of vision that they projects today. A prosperous and militarily strong Pakistan will attract the interests of the global investment community leading to a larger ambivalence towards them than the outright antipathy they seem to be able to evoke. Pakistan will again, if allowed to exist in the present form, prove to be a irritant albeit of a much stronger concentration and design.

Yet, one understands the dynamical process that a relationship between a State and a Regime is; between the Pulsar like political pair and the rest of the International Galaxy is; between overbearing Business interests and the progress of the State et al. On closer inspection, your administration and the people of the India stand to gain nothing more than ‘Brownie Points’ for Good Conduct and Application. The international community would be mighty pleased with the mature statesmanship that you have, often genuinely I feel, displayed. The Americans, especially the new administration under President Bush which although is stoic and resolute is still on unsure footing thanks to internal realignments and external complexities, would see our moves as one that is expected of a larger and mature democracy. Very well, then. So be it. Carefully constructed public overtures is of course essential and I sincerely hope that your meeting with President Musharraf is nothing more than a gesture. Not losing focus on the fundamentals is the key.

The more rarely discussed issue is the individual personality of President Musharraf and his kind – be it Richlieu, Napoleon, Metternich, Bismarck, Hitler, Kissinger and Thatcher. Many of them have been explained away as lacking ‘moral common sense’ and hence the cold-bloodedness often to their acts and thoughts. Whatever be the finer exposition, we too must adopt the stratagems of these Princes’; knowing very well that once we embark on a consciously cynical trajectory we too might be doomed to wallow in our self-inflicted hollowness. President Musharraf and his kind (there very well are Men of such characteristics in your administration, too) believe in the power of the Rational, the Efficient and the Linear. He will employ every arrow in his quiver to consolidate, liquidate and present to the world that he’s fighting against enemies – exogenous, endogenous and some decidedly ethereal – with a gargantuan appetite for violence and destitution. Such Princes of Darkness rally themselves as the mood of the populace dictates. Like Lenin, who unhesitatingly promised “Bread, Peace, Land” – President Musharraf too promises today what the world wants to hear, what the irrelevant motley crew of “humanists” in Pakistan want to believe. Democracy. All of us, in life and in larger abstract social constructs, are in need of the Other -- and no Other is more exciting to inflame minds than that of an unjust tyrannical force. India will consistently be the bogey man to Pakistani public, the Guy Fawkes to their children’s fantasies, the Kafirrs to their religious idealogues. To a certain extent there in lies an inevitability of sorts, for we are on the way to be a colossus that has the strength to hurt and the peculiar penchant among our ruling class to make uninformed brash negations of the Pakistani state. India remains their number one enemy, in their minds. Make no mistake, Sir – we are in a state of war with them. The War with many names, a War nevertheless.

Rarely has anything original regarding War itself come since Sun Tzu in the 500 BC. He writes, “What is of supreme importance in War is to attack the enemy’s strategy. The next best is to disrupt his alliances. The next to attack his army. The worst policy is to attack cities.” Our long term goal must be the dismantling of the present Pakistani state apparatus, into smaller units of self governance. Nothing less than that will ensure our long term business and security interests.

You and your administration stand poised in the history of modern India, to neutralize the existence of Pakistan like no other government ever, thanks to the multiplier effects, like the economy, the backing of the resurgent Right, the workforce that is the envy of every developed country et al that were denied to Mrs. Gandhi after her 1971 war. It is not war that I ask of you to consider, but rather the encouragement of factors and mechanisms that would help Pakistan on the spiral downwards into its disintegration a la the erstwhile USSR.

Fundamental factors that need to be encouraged.

(1) Increased Defense Spending.

(2) Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Liberalization. (The Government in the business of Governance)

(3) Encouragement of anti-Pakistani state factors, ranging from tactic support to secessionists, encirclement of Pakistan geographically with the Central Asian Republics, Iran, Qatar

(4) Unequivocal American ally.

(5) Continue to engage positively with Russia.

(6) Studied ambivalence towards China, with respect to defense and foreign affairs. Challenge their increasing market presence through legislation.

(7) Increase Naval Presence to controlling a sea-supply isthmus for Pakistan. .

(8) Unite with Russia, China to ally against Islamic extremism.

(9) Electrification of Indo-Pak border.

(10) Strategic Pro-US, Pro-India media used to change the tone, from indictment of Pakistan it must be the indictment of their Government and not the people.

(11) Neutralization of Pakistan’s efforts to redefine its government.

(12) Systemic extermination of Jehadi networks within India – in a manner a la Waco or Ruby Ridge.

(13) Create an appetite for power amidst local “serfs” within Pakistan’s feudal landscape.

(14) Let talks on Kashmir continue between Pakistan and India alone.

(15) Neutralize the Hurriyat politically and reduce them into irrelevancy.

(16) Improve local schooling, employment, medicine and bureaucracy in Kashmir simultaneously.

(17) Strengthen the RAW/IB/Military Intelligence with a coherent external agenda and specialist directors.

There of course are the usual arguments of “Guns or Butter” that many concerned, some genuinely, will offer. Reduction of defense budget, Reduction in Defense R&D, Reduction in Defense Personnel et al are the favorite whipping boys of the anti-establishment generation who find themselves in a superlatively ambiguous position – be it family, society, community, state or religion. The sad reality of affairs in India, at the risk of generalization, is that there is more than adequate non-governmental and governmental funding to curb and regress poverty and other internal national security threats within a quarter of a century. The problem arrives often from pilfering of funds, useless projects, unfocussed efforts, blind transplantation of Western models and outright criminal behavior. Poverty and its evil incarnates can only be defeated by a thriving economy alone, where Indian companies have ability to leverage their unique positioning. Here too, a resurgent Pakistan is a fundamental competitor to hundreds of million small scale entrepreneurs who are slowly breaking into the European, Australian, North American markets. The moral imperative of a state is its self-protection, and none sits on a higher pedestal.

You stand, dear Sir, at a critical crossroads of our Nation’s collective memory with a possibility to go down as a well meaning yet ultimately effete Neville Chamberlain or as President Reagan, peace loving yet unflinchingly clear on defeating the USSR. We must be driven by the profoundest hatred against allowing the specter of defeat to arise from a veritable position of strength.

To end, let me quote from a undisputed Prince of Darkness of the previous decade. James Baker III, the Secretary of State for President Bush (Senior) in an interview for Time magazine: “ The trick is getting them where you want them, on your terms. Then you have the options. Pull the trigger or don’t. It doesn’t matter once you’ve got them where you want them. The important thing is knowing that it’s in your hands, that you can do whatever you determine is in your interest to do.” That was him describing to kill a wild turkey.

Sincerely,

Keerthik Sasidharan.