My views on Pulwama terror attack at NewsX Panel Discussion

I

I have always maintained that terrorism is an act of war and not a law and order problem. To fight this war to win, we need stronger defensive capabilities at home and ability to pulverise enemy outside. Our previous generation was sleeping when Pakistan managed to acquire nuclear capacity by stealth. It is time we bolster our comprehensive national security infrastructure for a comprehensive victory and sustainable empowerment of India. 

A STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE ON NATIONAL SECURITY OF INDIA     

I have been extremely irregular with my blog and most other forms of writing in social media. This is largely due to my commitment to my primary research work captioned Quest for Indocracy. 

I believe I must write on my blog at least once every week. I did try speaking on the page of Indocracy but I had to discontinue as the response did not appear adequate. 

Meanwhile, I am posting a talk on National Security that I delivered a few weeks back. I have been advocating a strategic paradigm shift in our approach to secure our legitimate national security interests. I am sharing it for benefit of those who read this blog. Many people may have heard this talk on YouTube. 

 

BORDER STAND-OFF: HANDLE THE CRISES BUT BUILD A STRATEGIC CAPACITY

[Crises like the ongoing stand-off on the border must be handled with all our existing resources. But we would peril security of India as a state and civilisation, if we fail to learn lessons from the past. We need to bolster our national security capacity to handle uniquely formidable challenges imposed on us by  the sheer geopolitics of this region.]

ESCALATION OF TENSION ON BORDER

        Sino-Indian border has once again seen escalation of tension. Chinese troops have transgressed into Indian side of the 'Line of Actual Control'. Displaying quintessential Chinese duality, its media has been using a belligerent language despite words of sanity by the top political leadership. Indian government has approached the issue calmly.  Indian Army Chief has visited his troops on the ground and sent additional reinforcements. Indians have made it clear that such transgression shall be rebuffed and status quo shall be maintained.    

   Over the last few decades, Indian state has handled such conflicts deftly but has avoided strategic preparation to deal with recurrent aggression,  brinkmanship and sustained territorial expansion by China in the region. India's northern neighbour's internal governance accomplishments, especially its economic transformation as well as advances in scientific and technological innovation, are worthy of emulation. But its aspirations for unrestrained territorial expansion and global domination threatens not only India but also others in the region and even the entire world beyond a certain point.

    What is worrying for India is the manner in which the Nepali Prime Minister K P Oli has raked up a fictitious border dispute. He has jeopardised a relationship of mutual trust as well as a longstanding social, cultural, ethnic,  and linguistic  bond. Citing 1815 Sugauli treaty, Oli has suddenly claimed an area that was never shown as Nepali territory even in Nepal's own map. He has not only pushed a legislation through parliament changing the map of the country but also whipped up nationalist passion by several strident anti-India statements.    

      Intriguingly, Kalapani area, on the West side of Kali river, which Nepal has claimed, is located at a height of approximately 20,000  feet close to the tri-junction with the Chinese border. It carries huge strategic importance in eventuality of a conventional Sino-India conflict. Though the Chinese Foreign Ministry has distanced itself from strident anti-Indianism of Oli but the plot is crystal clear to any impartial observer. Other smaller South Asian states have so far remained committed to the India's concerns but the Indian Government has to be cognisant of the fact they are vulnerable to Chinese coercion and enticement.   

      China's has generated border dispute with virtually each of its neighbours as a part of a well-crafted Geo-strategic design, which appears continuation of the policy of territorial expansion of Imperial China.  It entrenches an oppressive regime internally and enhances clout of its incumbents globally. The brazenness with which China has captured the South China Sea and converted it into its own backyard is one of the multiple examples in this direction. As per most estimates, South China sea accounts for nearly 12 to 20 trillion dollar worth of marine resources besides being the second busiest sea lane, accounting for nearly  50% of the world's commodity transportation in terms of tonnage. Simultaneously, China's ambitious belt and road initiative is nothing but yet another aggressive assertion of its global aspirations.

BACKGROUND OF SINO-INDIAN BORDER

    Communist China has perennially criticized the West for imposing a series of unequal and humiliating treaties on them for 100 years  since 1842. But interestingly, it was Great Britain that was complicit to large-scale Chinese territorial expansion for nearly a century from the beginning of 1800s.  It was imperial British that facilitated Chinese entrenchment in both Tibet and Xinjiang or Eastern Turkistan, the two independent civilizations and states that were culturally closer to India than Han China. Tibetans used Dvenagri script and  Hindustani was a popular language even in Kashgar. The British were keen to keep the Russians at bay over their ongoing rivalry with them in Europe and West Asia.

   By 1840, the entire undivided state of Jammu and Kashmir, including areas held by China and Pakistan was already  part of Sikh empire under autonomous rule of Dogras. In 1841 Dogra troops led by Zorawar Singh had initially captured most of West Tibet up to Mayum pass, garrisoned local forts and set up its own administration. It were British who started complaining to Sikh emperor in Lahore against Zorawar Singh, accusing the legendary General of exacting taxes from British suzerains. There are unconfirmed inputs suggesting that some British officers were eyeing share of lucrative Pashmina trade between Tibet and Laddakh, which was disrupted by the new arrangement. Meanwhile, Tibetans marshalled fresh reinforcements and counter attacked Zorawar Singh's troops, taking them by surprise and killing the General, taking advantage of the inclement weather. They re-captured some of the areas and marched up to Leh only to be comprehensively beaten and chased back. It was under these circumstances that the two sides signed the Treaty of Chushul (1842), which acknowledged Dogra-Sikh sovereignty up to Xydullah and East of Mansarovar Lake, way beyond the undivided territory of Jammu and Kashmir shown in map of 1947.  

     In 1865, when surveyor William Johnson demarcated Kashmir-Tibet boundary, he ceded significant territory back to the Tibetans on map citing inaccessibility from Laddakh and hence difficulty to govern it effectively. Later this became Ardagh-Johnson line when British Chief Military Intelligence officer Maj Gen John Ardagh  proposed (1897) it as formal boundary between British India and Tibet. As per this line, entire Karaksh valley and eastern side of Chang Chenmo valley were part of Kashmir. What really transpired subsequently is still not known, as there was no protest either from Tibetans or from nominees of Qing ruler. But in 1899, a section of British officers cited Chinese reluctance to accept the proposed line  claiming that the Chinese had suddenly developed interest in Aksai Chin at the Russian instigation.  Others suggest that the British kept hedging their position on Sino-Indian border depending on their equations with the Russians in other theatres. Further, there was a change in status of Tibet in 1912, when it signed a treaty with Qings to inherit all its territories in Tibet and became an independent country once again.  

      Intriguingly, amidst Anglo-Russian rivalry, British objectives were dictated by its own larger strategic calculations outside the region. Interests and aspiration of indigenous people of Tibet and India were certainly not a priority. Hence, when they brokered a deal during the famous Shimla convention (1913-14), where McMahon line had emerged as the boundary between India and Tibet, they still acceded nominal suzerainty over inner areas of Tibet, only in deference to Anglo-Russian convention of 1907 which had demarcated the respective spheres of influences of the two sides in Iran, Afghanistan and Tibet. As per provisions of this agreement, the British were obliged to enter into any negotiation with Tibet only in consultation with China. Logically, this clause should have become defunct after independence of Tibet in 1912.  

    This was the time, when China was used both by the British and the Russians to offset each other. Hence, even after Tibet had renounced its 192 years of nominal suzerainty to the Chinese, and that too with the concurrence of Qing regime, the British still invited representatives of the Chinese government to Shimla convention in 1914, to demarcate boundaries among British India, Tibet and China only in deference to Anglo-Russian convention of 1907.  Shimla convention acknowledged complete freedom of Lhasa regime in outer Tibet, that shared a boundary with India, but nominal suzerainty to China in the inner Tibet. Even such suzerainty barred any interference by the Peking or Beijing government in day-to-day  affairs of the Tibetan Government in Lhasa. 

     Though Chinese Government is believed to have reneged on the agreement reached out in Shimla, largely at the instigation of Russians, it still had no locus-standi to talk about the border between Tibet and British India, over which it had lost even nominal sovereignty.  However, there was no confusion even on the Chinese side about the exact border dividing India and Tibet. A map published by Peking University in 1928 had acknowledged Aksai-Chin and large parts of other territories currently disputed by the China, as part of India.     

        It is interesting that in 1950s, even Maoist China did not change imperial outlook notwithstanding its proclamation of communism as state ideology. It not merely captured Tibet but also denounced Shimla convention on the plea that Tibet was not an independent country in 1913-14 and hence had no right to negotiate the boundary. Independent India's first generation of leaders being freedom fighters, lacking any strategic exposure, acquiesced to the Chinese position, in deference to neighbourly bonhomie,ignoring Tibet's longstanding social and cultural linkages with India as well as India's own strategic interests. 

     In 1950s, Chinese quietly built a road through Aksai Chin, nearly 100 kms inside the Indian territory because that was the only route through which an all-weather road could connect Tibet and Xinjiang.  China went to war in 1962 with an an unprepared India that failed to acknowledge the Guerrilla Commander in Mao, who had deftly secured his victories through an element of surprise and deception, catching the adversary unguarded. Chinese occupied nearly 39,000 sq km (approx) of territory and subsequently in 1963 Pakistan ceded another 15000 sqkm (approx). Diplomat magazine reported in 2019 that China had managed to acquire another 640 sq km of Indian territory by constantly pushing the line of actual control. None of the two sides have confirmed it though.

AN INSIGHT INTO CHINESE BRINKMANSHIP

It is well known that the China has been disputing the entire McMahon line, claiming large parts of Indian territory - where people speak Indian languages and follow Buddhist practices and have nothing common with Han China- as their own. Such an approach of China is not restricted to India alone. It has been expanding its territory and domain of influence in all directions. It is nearly impossible, in the prevailing context, for the Chinese political leadership to appreciate Indian perspective, or respect any other power or civilization. This is especially given their habit of enjoying unrestrained access to absolute power and belief in infallibility  of their own wisdom and innate superiority of Han race.

 Even the Confucian morality, or the Confucian concept of harmony, that has become the guiding principle of Chinese state philosophy envisages eternal superiority and authority of the more powerful entity and obedience of the rest to it. The superior power, which in this case being the Chinese state, is restrained only by the moral principles, whereas the rest are expected to obey or at least not defy. 

Communist China has consistently played up the gross historical wrongs inflicted by the Western powers on Han people. They also seem to perceive communist China's spectacular  success as vindication of such a belief. While, they have been dealing with the west but their distrust towards the West and the Western ways has been more than obvious. India's perceived proximity to the West or its adoption of the so-called Western democratic model of governance has remained a permanent cause of their annoyance with India. They have also been discomforted with efforts to put India and China in the same bracket and have made conscious efforts to equate India with other minor powers in the region.           

On the other hand, India has ignored the growing asymmetry of all round power with China for far too long. With five times economic strength and significant edge in technological excellence and innovation, Chinese state may find it more tempting to exert pressure on India in retaliation to growing world-wide pressure over their concealment of Covid-19 spread.

ROAD TO FUTURE

While  India should be able to ward off such brinkmanship for the time being but there is no confusion that the world’s biggest democracy requires serious restructuring of its governance institutions. India shall have to find an endurable solution to the irregular and diffused war with Pakistan.  Conventional military techniques and surgical strikes may provide limited and temporary deterrents but these have appeared inadequate towards finding a permanent solution or obtaining a comprehensive victory. 

Smart diplomacy and deft geopolitical manoeuvrings cannot substitute strong national security architecture with equally powerful strategies that need stronger comprehensive national power to sustain. We have to appreciate that only an economically powerful state, and not a large number of billionaires amidst an ocean of poverty, with high quality human resource, strong technological capacity, robust governance institutions and high level of social cohesion can sustain a powerful national security architecture. 

Ironically, over the past few decades, far too many self-seeking cartels have become so powerful in India that they would be the first to obstruct, or even crush, any idea or initiative towards optimising the collective strengths and capacities of the country. All key stakeholders of India shall have to realise that the unique geopolitics of South Asia has saddled us with formidable national security challenges. As a large state,  we have no liberty to comfortably ignore these to psychologically nestle under perceived protective ambit of some invisible or divine force.

 Exigencies like the ongoing stand-off on the border must be handled with all our existing resources. But we would once again peril security of India as a state and civilisation, if we fail to learn lessons from the past. A strong national security capacity needs a powerful and yet a dynamic vision with a clear road map and commensurate efforts to pursue these. National Security in today's world cannot be a stand alone and isolated proposition. Institution of governance and society need to be increasingly harmonised, and not oppressed, for optimising their output and level of excellence.    

  

Ethical Dissidence Strengthens, and Not Threatens, National Security

I feel saddened as an Indian to read media reports about the questionable and controversial circumstances of transfer of Justice S Murlidhar from Delhi High Court. I have had a very little exposure to judiciary but what I have come to know over the last one year during my several visits to Delhi High Court, as well as interactions with a larger number of lawyers, that he stood out, at least in the public perception, as a beacon of  “Dharma” and “Justice”, as enshrined in the Kautilyan principles of governance, among his peers. 

 This is not the first case where an upright public functionary has been humiliated under this government for standing up to values of professional ethic and integrity. There are many who have bitten the dust and paid a price for their unfailing commitment to integrity and the country. Some of these actions may appear legally justifiable but these will eventually contribute to our downward spiral both as a nation and civilisation. This has already impaired our collective capacity in a competitive word but it could soon become irreversible if we do not act fast.  

A country of India’s size can never be governed by brilliance of a few, howsoever well intentioned or virtuous they may claim to be. Integrity and efficiency of institutions is critical if we are genuinely serious about channelling collective energies of our people towards our great power aspiration both as a state and civilisation. The follies of such self styled brilliants, have gone on unprotested for far too long. If it is allowed a free run, it is certain to doom Prime Minister’s grand vision of resurrecting the great civilisational state of India. 

All is certainly not well with most of our governance institutions. This is particularly so with our Judiciary, which has remained trapped in the colonial aura and arrogance while dealing with ordinary citizens. It must  probably be the most dysfunctional institution of its kind in the entire democratic world, fairing at times worse than even a few autocracies or authoritarian states. Abnormal delays and routine miscarriages of justice, notwithstanding brilliance of a few judges and quality of some of their verdicts, have crippled the credibility and capacity of our criminal justice system to contain conflict, leading to a larger under-performance of our society and state. 

The entire issue of deep-rooted malaise  in judiciary needs to be examined and redressed. It would be outright disaster to crush few dissenting voices of sanity on advice of a class of professional cronies, who  have  flourished in this country for far too long. They have been selling their services to every incumbent in power- from Moguls to Congress and may be even this government. Such flawed advises to top incumbents in power has been nothing but an attempt to camouflage their own individual or collective aspirations. These include perpetuation of their own indispensability in the larger power equilibrium by causing artificial affront to authority of their masters. 

Such phenomenon has always brought disaster for every society and state afflicted by it. I am confident that Honourable Prime Minister will take note of it, and make serious endeavour to not merely make amends in such obvious cases but also root out the entire culture of cronyism and middlemen, which has turned out to be the biggest bane of India over centuries and not decades. It is this culture that induced our decadence and degeneration from pinnacles of prosperity, scientific knowledge and cultural advancement, much before the dark ages of medieval era, when we were trampled upon by a few herds of barbaric savages, who had no exposure to anything called civility. 

 It was culture of cronies and “Charans”, besides debauchery and decadence of most contemporary rulers, that had decayed our civilisational strengths and its eternal values much before the barbarics and even some of their slaves could pretend to rule India by virtue of their capture of Delhi. Of course, significant exceptions like Rana Pratap and Shivaji to several others, avoided our complete annihilation as a civilisation, giving us this day when we can still dream and aspire to not merely revive our ancient glory but also contribute to a better world through strength of our ancient civilisational virtues. 

Strength and glory of ancient India stemmed not from some brute and savage force of destruction but from our larger values and principles of governance where political power remained subservient to sagacity, wisdom and ethic. Net result was advancement of science, knowledge, industry and culture under the protective cover of a robust framework of governance including security of state and society. Much before the West could discover and build on the idea of reasonable restraint on arbitrary authority of the ruler, Kautilyan principles of governance had envisaged complete absence of any discretionary or despotic power for the ruler. 

Kautilyan King had no authority to force his decision on the council of Ministers, who were always the wisest and the most ethical men of their time. King could merely express his opinion in the council of |Ministers, and often the Kings were elected by an electoral college of wise. Members of the council of Ministers were expected to have sufficient integrity to arrive at a mature consensus, and not a majority vote over minority, through deliberation of issues with an open mind - in spirit of "Vaad" and "Samvad"- rather than prejudiced "Vivad". 

Of course we cannot and must never go back to the past. Scientific innovations and advancements in people-centric governance ushered in by the West and practised by independent India  have become part of our larger political and cultural strengths. These need to be refined, and not reversed, by incorporating some of our civilisational values in our governance principles. It is strength of our ancient civilisational values that have differentiated us from our rogue neighbour that emerged on the basis of a perverted version of Islam that was exploited and abused by a modern day monster called Jinnah who did the bidding at the behest of a receding colonial power. In the process, a set of philosophical teaching that were certainly more humanist in their context, but had been distorted soon after the death of Holy prophet of Islam, were further defiled.

It will be pity if a secular Hindu India tries to ape medieval Mughal or Turkic Values, where justice, including life,liberty and dignity of citizens or even state functionaries, depended on individual mercy or whim of rulers and their chosen cronies. It was hoped that decimation of certain political formations, that had been reduced to a facade for underhand and illicit brokerage syndicates, would usher in original "Indocracy" based on our eternal principles of “Dharma” based governance. This could have liberated us  from the shopkeepers model of superficial Western democracy that has been built on the miseries of colonised people from Asia to Africa and even original Americas but were further distorted in most developing nations. Sadly, such dreams and hopes appear to be on the verge of being of shattered. 

We have a long and uphill task to cover if we are serious about resurrection of glorious civilisational state of India as an inspiring pillar and beacon of hope for a more stable, secure and civilised world. Ethical dissidence, aimed at larger public good and collective well-being, would not merely be desirable but should rather be respected in the key institutions. This could be the most critical tool of transformation towards enlightened and efficient governance. Ethical dissidents can never bring down a righteous government and induce instability. But they can certainly usher in some sanity and discipline in the malfunctioning institutions of the country. Incompetent cronies, indulging in dirty machinations, criminal conspiracies and unspeakable forgeries, on the pretext of pleasing political masters, can only bring all round disaster for both society and their own masters. This class has perennially profiteered out of bad governance and it shall always have a vested interest in perpetuating the same to the detriment of  agenda of nation building. 

It is indeed high time that the government embarks upon a drive for major and sustainable restructuring of all institutions in public domain. A greater integrity, higher efficiency and larger internal and external synergy among governance institutions would be the sole bedrock of a powerful state and society that can unleash collective energies of our people in pursuit of the vision of India that Prime Minister spelled out soon after 2019 poll results.