After a century of peace since 1857, we entered an era of independence — a totally new era of representational democracy, secularism of our brand, social equality, economic equity, uplift of the downtrodden and diverse-yet-united nationhood in a modern world. Nationhood and society in the post-independence era imposed new dimensions, disciplines, obligations, aspirations and security concerns; a new approach, new attitudes, new thought process; a breaking free from old shackles and subservience to outsider’s rule.
All these were new, laudable, in keeping with the new era vision, but remained tied to the strings of our cultural and civilizational baggage of the past; a past of a thousand year servitude and abilities clogged into a defensive, rigid, apprehensive, even fearful response to change, to grab new vistas that opened with new nationhood. That rigidity, resistance to change, hangover of the past still continue, despite what we set out in our Constitution, method of government, social dealing and security measures.
These sixty years and more have seen little peace; have set afire many an issue – political, economic, social, linguistic, religious, identity related, cultural, racial and many more. Internal disturbances resulting from these fires are assuming dangerous proportions greater than external threats. Today we have diplomacy and international opinion-cum-pressure groups to cope with external threat, in addition to our armed strength. But coping with internal disturbance is becoming far more difficult, because we are rapidly losing our cultural, civilizational trait of tolerance, adjustment and dialogue with and among our own diversity.
Today we have diplomacy and international opinion-cum-pressure groups to cope with external threat, in addition to our armed strength.
We inherited, and have lived with, enormous, endemic diversity, a feature not witnessed in any other nation to the same extent. The only Indian way to cope with this was, and still is, through tolerance and dialogue raised a few notches. Rapid loss of these, even in various democratically elected bodies, is stoking so many fires throughout the country – fires of identity, interests, aspirations of diverse segments, economic inequalities, historical suppression of social groups etc.
The second basic cause is our typical Indian (Hindu in the main) attitude of the heartlander towards the peripheral. The heartlander of the Gangetic belt and a core Deccan region has ruled the hearts, minds, psychology, consciousness, philosophy and the very Indianness of our country for millennia. The peripheral falls into four categories: (1) territorial (along the borders – J&K, Northeast; at a point in time even Punjab and Tamilnadu slipped towards the brink, but retrieved); (2) social (Dalits, scheduled castes, untouchables); (3) tribals (Northeastern, central and south Indian; mostly forest dwellers and hillmen); (4) religious (minorities).
The heartlander for centuries has neglected the peripheral, denied him the feeling of ‘belonging’ to the main group, alienated and, worse, exploited him, treated him with scant regard and even less concern. This has continued in independent India, despite the democratic practice of vote-begging and high-toned pretension to social justice, economic well-being and human rights. It is this heartlander’s attitude to the peripheral (of all types) and the peripheral’s improving awareness of the loud talk of Constitutional promises of a better future for him that are yet being denied to him, which are causing internal fires-insurgencies in the Northeast, J&K and naxal menace in 250 districts in eight states across north-south median.
Making matters worse is the third factor: bad governance, or governance favouring vested interests, exploiting parties, or at places no governance at all. The gainer is the industrialist, the miner, the contractor, the exploiter, all of who make money, add to government as well as personal coffers as GDP growth and national wealth-building, with little accruing to the peripheral even as he has to suffer the most. Bad administration’s backbone is corruption: government funds piously released for the peripheral’s benefit pocketed by the intermediaries including legislators, executives, administrators, contractors and other minions.
Where does the peripheral go then? To Whom? What of his own sense of identity, honour, pride, lifestyle, his own psyche and feeling?
To quell these disturbances – caused by diversity (lack of dialogue), attitude towards peripherals (lack of concern), and people’s deprivation (Bad governance) many a police, para-military, even military operation is set up. Some of them have gone on for years (50 plus in Nagaland, 30 in Assam, and Manipur, 20 in J&K, 15 in Dandakaranya Naxal belt). A few have gained the distinction of campaign medals being struck and gallantry awards instituted for what can be called war in peacetime and on our own people. In such a scenario the term military forces merges with that of the Security Forces (SF), consisting of all government agencies like police, para-military and military.
In the new post-independence melee the aspirations, wishes and sense of rights envisioned in the system immensely agitate people’s mind. It is brought to boiling point by the games various leaders play with the people; by the vacillation, delay and other means the government acts, reacts or does not act all due to pulls and pressures of diverse and interest groups using coercion and force of majority – local or contrived – (a democratic certification); and by the old baggage of neglect of an unconcern for the peripheral: To a point that suggests, if not proves, that in our genre of democracy it is the minority that is sacrificed for the majority; that democracy is dictatorship of the majority; that public interest of wealth building through dispossessing, exploiting and inconveniencing of the minority – the peripheral is unavoidable in the national interest.
Where does the peripheral go then? To Whom? What of his own sense of identity, honour, pride, lifestyle, his own psyche and feeling? He is alienated, gets angry, is forced to revolt, with no alternative. He rebels, resorts to armed resistance. His desperation welcomes any outsider’s help, ignoring the helper’s agenda. Also, the supporter finds a ready listener in the desperate peripheral. Resistance invites police intervention in the service of law and order. The outsider’s help in armed resistance is effective. The police retaliates. Excesses start. Counter excesses follow. The peripheral’s society splits in such tense situation – pro and anti.
Use of force and excesses flow freely on the people on both sides – by the police and the helper assisted affected follower. It is mayhem on the people, the peripheral. Administration grinds to a halt, or is marginally kept alive in pockets by armed force. (It will be an object study how during the tense IPKF days in Sri Lanka Town Commandant Jaffna assisted by the Jaffna Government Agent – GA, equivalent of our DC, maintained civil administration, reconstruction and resumption of civil services despite LTTE danger and IPKF use of force against it. The Town Commandant moved throughout Jaffna unarmed. The GA, though killed by the LTTE later deserved IPKF salute. Civil administration had to be people-centric, courageous and dedicated).
| Editor’s Pick |
We saw Chinese and erstwhile East Pakistanis helping Northeastern insurgents, Pakistanis helping insurgents in J&K, separatists in Punjab, and now our own Mao inspired communist extremists, Naxalites, stoking Central Indian tribal fires. Discount based on identity, rights to natural resources and a rightful place in the sun resorting to violence and fanned byoutside support (foreign or indigenous like Naxalites) has almost blurred the line between insurgency and terrorism as both resort to excessive violence. Genuine discontent assuming severe forms is termed unlawful act. It seems both law and justice in the case of genuine but flaring discontent of the downtrodden and the oppressed are indeed blind.
So the burning bundle falls into the lap of the SF, which include the military. Merging of military forces into SF consisting of all force-wielding, law enforcing agencies follows proliferation of violence (without which nothing in the government seems to move), taking the form of protest, resistance, revolt, armed action, insurgency, terrorism – in short miniaturization of societal segments. The government reacts with resort to force, more force, more SF, better weapons, Green Hunts, elite forces, training camps for police in military tactics, jungle warfare, militarisation of police and para-military forces.
All for the purpose of killing (and getting killed), waging war against our own people — our cultural, moral and civilizational traits of tolerance, dialogue and adjustment are hung by the nearest peg. The chimera of GDP growth, wealth building, development, progress etc. has had little concern for the peripheral, the poor, the underprivileged, who hardly get a share of the accruing wealth, as a result of bad or lopsided, undemocratic governance — undemocratic because of the sidelining of democratic discipline, tolerance, give-and-take and its obligation of carrying along the minority of the large Indian peripheral.
And the SF accept the hot potato as a military challenge time and again, without murmur, with very little thought or opinion on the basic causes of discontent, not even daring to whisper in the government ear as to why matters have been permitted to reach the sorry pass. Government security agencies are obedient, subservient to civil authority. True all the way, and as it should be, and as is etched in both Constitution and service ethos.But what about loss of life of our citizens, are they less important than the constitution and service ethos? Is the use of force, kill and be killed activity the only important factor in resolving discontent and resistance by the aggrieved as most intellectuals, commentators and the media seem to suggest?
Shouldn’t the military, the SF who do the actual killing as part of their ‘management of violence’ and who have a better, wider, more humanistic view and opinion, therefore, also carry the duty of advising, cautioning and restraining the government against authorizing use of killing force and legally covering the same?
Isnt it time that the military started cautioning, advising and asserting with the government, and the government”¦
It is indeed paradoxical that development, progress etc. have to be accompanied by the police replacing rubber bullets with lead ones, and instead of aiming below the knee have to raise the aim to the chest to cope with genuine discontent on account of ‘development’! This can hardly be termed a democratic way of resolving discontent and deprivation of sections of our own people- peripherals! T
he military (also the SF) man is considered to be the epitome of courage, besides bravery. Then why doesn’t he use his courage to sound the government, the civil authority, to caution it, ask for good governance, and assert that opinion? Which would reduce the menace of discontent by half, obviate the need to wage war on our own people and during peace time, and avoid the spree of killing and being killed. When an old military leader utters the need for good governance all the estates, first to the fourth, swoop on him accusing him of transgressing his limits, of entertaining ‘ideas’.
What ideas? Of military coup? Military insubordination? This is a curse of disastrous Nehruvian legacy of distrust of the serviceman, doubting the serviceman’s grey matter, his core national values of the new era, and his diligent acceptance of the same in wholehearted practice, unlike most other segments of society. The elected representative and the politician, who run berserk exploiting the new era, seem to be afraid of the apolitical, disciplined, dedicated and fair-playing military, but yet rely on it totally to bail them out of the chaos and depredation perpetrated by them, as the military does its duty, dirty or dangerous, irrespective of its own predicament. That provides all the reasons to perpetuate Nehruvian curse.
In the process the military (and also the SF) holds itself, aloof, treating the politician and the bureaucrat with contempt, and keeps away from showing advisory, cautionary, forewarning interest for good governance. Internal disturbance tends to become a business more police, more weapons, more money, extortion, blackmail, corruption.
| Editor’s Pick |
But why the civil authority’s distrust and the military’s contempt? Even after these sixty years, five wars, fifty years and more of counterinsurgency operations across the country, and foreign experts commenting on the strange and unwholesome civil-military relations? Are the civil authority and the military such confirmed, adamant hardcore prisoners of their mutual prejudices that the senseless loss of lives and limbs of their own people are of lesser consequence? Isn’t it time that the military started cautioning, advising and asserting with the government, and the government started giving a close hearing to and integrating military view?
Prolonged involvement of the military (and the SF) is internal wars alienates people, affects public support in external war, while brutalizing the sarkari weapon-wielder. Good governance and caring for the peripheral are essential for real peace and security.
Is it all that vital to uphold ‘development’, industrial and mining ingress, natural resource grabbing and ruthless exercise of government’s eminent domain at the cost of the peripheral’s dispossession, deprivation, alienation and well-being he expects in the new era? At the cost of waging war on our own people? What kind of cost accounting is this GDP growth through resources grabbing from the peripheral versus human weal of the deprived and the disposed and the threatened? Is this GDP favouring zero sum game necessary? Doesn’t it make a mockery of our tall talk of democracy, public weal, uplift of the poor and integration of the peripheral, even as we wage war against them?
May be the military (and the SF) has to become more and more assertive, more and more responsible in its wider national internal security context, while the government distances itself from the Nehruvian legacy, becomes more receptive and responsive to military advice and opinion in matters of internal security and good governance. That way lives will be saved. Both need to evolve platforms, forums and conventions to more fruitfully and effectively interact with each other and obviate waging war on our own people in favour of GDP growth, wealth building, national prejudices and ideological obstinacy.
Please wait...
