Answer:As I started to pen down these reflections, the news has come that India and China had agreed to ‘cool down’ the tension at the line of Control. Indeed, it is a hopeful movement to keep peace in the boarder. However, the latest reports say that China has not removed its forces from the actual line of control and it revived the claim on the Galwan Valley and asked India to pull back its forces from the area. Moreover, both Indian and Chinese troops continue in “eyeball to eyeball” positions at all the friction points in the border area. It shows that the tension is not yet released. I hope and wish that this may not last long and the leaders from both sides may work together for an amicable solution. But I am bit sceptic, because of the short-sightedness of our political leaders and the misuse of the sensitive issues for mere temporal gains. Moreover, as far as the leaders of the countries move ahead with the dreams of ‘imperialism,’ the claim over the territory may repeat.
If you have gone through the media coverage recently, it is easy to understand their role in creating ‘a war mania’ in the society. It is true that most of the Dailies have written the editorials on a peace agreement or the possibility of avoiding war like situation. But many of their reports on the ‘anti-China movements’ and the narrations, which are more sensitive and attractive, were enlarging the picture of a ‘permanent enemy’ in the neighbourhood. To rub salt into the wounds, they also have given different descriptions of the military power comparing both nations, giving a detailed list of it and making some assessments on the possibility of victory/defeat. Sometimes they have given the graphics of the ‘strategic points’ with some exaggerated and emotional accounts! Since the matters on defence are highly confidential, the facts that appears in the media will be partial and most of them will be coloured with some fictions and imaginations that may stimulate the delicate emotions of patriotism. With the careful use of chosen euphemism and deceptive narrations the media routinely deployed to drum public support for a battle. It is said that the habits of mind that make war inevitable are the habits of bad language – the language we use in confronting particular situations, especially in the matters of sensitive issues.
During the last few years, we see a degradation in the political ethos of the world. Neither India nor China is an exception. As Larry Diamond, a political sociologist of our time comments, “every type of regime is getting worse. Liberal democracies are becoming more intolerant. Illiberal democracies are electing authoritarian personalities. Authoritarian regimes that once co-existed with pockets of opposition no longer see the need to bother.” In order to gain power and to continue with it, the political leaders use all hooks and crooks without any rationale. The short-sighted views and deceitful arguments and activities are not helpful to find an honest solution for the contemporary problems of our nations. Instead of the integral growth of a country and its people, they are satisfied with the temporal gains and self-esteemed projects. In the hands of such leaders, the power becomes mean, belligerent and temperamental. In one of his recent articles, Rajeev Bhargava warns that we, the Indians have to be more careful about the hidden virus – ‘the virus of arbitrary power’ in a democratic society. According to him, frequent arbitrariness in the political domain leads to tyranny, which may last in slavery and distress. When people are moved by emotions, rather than their critical abilities to make distinctions and decisions, it is easy to create tyrannical and destructive politics that ultimately leads to a contempt towards the powerless, towards minorities, towards the stranger and ignores human complexity and difference. Rather than rational arguments and honest data, the popular prejudices and sensitive assertions may fascinate and mesmerize the mob.
The mania of war is intrinsically inter-connected with political strategy of the governments. The claim to be a global power is a pompous pronouncement from many of our political leaders. For an ambitious leader, there should be some opponents to be conquered. In order to continue in power and to claim as a tough and decisive leader, it is necessary to catch the attention of the people, especially by exploiting their emotions and manipulating the ego. Creating some enemies and belittling them is a good way to gain the attentions of the public. The use of denatured and blasphemous language is a part of it. It is a language of arrogance, blended with half-truths, banality and deception.It may not have depth or logical coherence. Rather than pacifying, it fires up the emotions of the ‘senseless folk.’
Military chiefs as well as the political leaders around the world recognise that language is one of the most effective weapons in their armoury. In his famous essay on ‘War and Crisis of Language’ (1967) Thomas Merton makes an analysis on the language used at the time of war. According to him, architects of war are always, throughout history, architects of language. This language of war is characterized everywhere by the same sort of double-talk, tautology, ambiguous cliché, self-righteousness and doctrinaire pomposity and pseudoscientific jargon that mask a total callousness and moral insensitivity. Look at the different reports. Both countries blame each other on the invading of the land! And the military (political) leaders accuse each other. Yet the top leaders of the countries keep a ‘meaningful’ silence. Since the language of the war-maker is self-enclosed in finality, it does not invite reasonable dialogue. Rather than clarity and precision, we can see some ambiguity mixed up with confusions and puzzles. By retaining some disarray among the people, it hides the most important issues to be addressed in the society.
At the face of a war, we fear to ask questions, we are forbidden to see a problem from its different angles. Moreover, we will be forced to close our eyes and shut our mouths in front of many kind of atrocities and brutalities. The leaders will have explanation for everything and we are forced to swallow it without any questions. Merton gives a classical example of the U.S. major who, on February 7, 1968 shelled the South Vietnamese town of Bentre “regardless of civilian casualties… to rout the Vietcong.” As he calmly explained, “It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it.” Merton sarcastically points out another example, about the creation of a war phobia. The opponent, whose future we are about to decide is either a bad guy or a good guy. “If he is a bad guy, he obviously has to be killed. If he is a good guy, he is on our side and he ought to be ready to die for freedom.”
When there is a fear of attack by the enemies, there will not be any serious questions. If someone makes any critical remarks s/he will be branded as a traitor or anti-nationalist. The fear of war is an easy way to evade from the alarming questions of the country. Take the case of the present situation of our country; the issues in the border divert the attention of the people conveniently. There are very serious concerns on the way the country is handling the covid-19. Many have already criticised the unilateral decision to lock down in a four-hour preparation and the death, suffering and the long journey of the poor migrant workers of this country are not analysed seriously. Neither we have asked for some solutions! People are not able to question the gigantic growth of the price of petroleum products and the injustice of looting their pockets (which is already empty!). When the global price of crude oil was at a lowest level, the government increased its levies and the burden of the lock down was doubled. The internal trauma created by the attacks to the minorities and questions on the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 are still to be addressed.
When the idea of a modern India, which is built upon the farsightedness of the freedom fighters and visionaries as a secular and democratic republic with its principles of liberty and equality upends, the decent voices are silenced in various ways. At the moment,when our troops are at the “eyeball to eyeball” positions and we have a common enemy to fight, it is easy to evade the questions, arguing that the ‘national security is not to be politicised.’ In order to hide the present mistakes, one can easily ponder over narrating the history of past unpleasant events, either of emergency or of the war in 1962! When we fail raise questions, democracy dies and tyranny overpowers.As Josiah Gilbert Holland, the American poet writes, “a time like this demands, Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands.”
If we do not ask questions, if people are unwilling to challenge the situations, instead of democracy, majoritarianism may rule the country. As Justice Deepak Gupta pointed out recently, “the right to disagree, the right to dissent and the right to take another point of view would inhere inherently in each and every citizen of the country.” If the citizens in a country fail to decent when it is required, or if they idolise any political leader, the danger of totalitarianism will encompass the entire system. Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of our constitution, already warned on the danger of uncritical approach in a democratic system; “The second thing we must do as to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely not to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions. …this caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti, or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part of it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-wordship is a sure way to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.” The totalitarian regime will not have any other options other than the realisation of self-imposed ego and war can be a way to actualise it. As in the war of Kurushetra in Mahabharata, the proponents of the war may be aware about the absurdities and meaninglessness, only when it ends. The victory can be claimed, but what is left would be suffering, loss, death, atrocities and destruction that leads to enmity, sadness, emptiness and darkness. Mahmoud Darwish, a Palestinian poet reminds;
“The War will end
The leaders will shake hands
The old woman will keep waiting for her martyred son
That girl will wait for her beloved husband
And those children will wait for their hero father
I don’t know who sold our homeland
But I saw who paid the price.”
Leave a Comment