(This piece appeared in 'Organiser')
Pseudo Intellectuals and Sickular army !!
Crude politics and self seeking politicking have created mental barriers amongst Indian intellectuals. Therefore, there is an overwhelming section that often favours the fringe elements and yet would like to push such a jaundiced version as legitimate views of 130 crore Indians. When it comes to fresh escalation of tension between India and China, they would easily latch on to the apron of prophets of doom and blow up a theory that India has almost lost the battle!
This is not guided by the principles of ‘upholding’ of truth nor guided by any political ideology in a large sense. Thus, the intellectuals easily become tools of propaganda and this lot feel it happy to ‘wield power’ – Brahminical sense of power to an extent – without being elected to power. Because, China happens to be a communist regime, the so called ‘Left leaning’ intellectuals and media persons in India also would find it easier to join the propaganda and shun the truth.
Therefore, in recent weeks an impression has been created that with regard border tensions, China has an upper hand – whereas the truth could be just the opposite. According to military specialists like Major Gaurav Arya, such a scenario prevailed even during Doklam crisis of 2017. It is in this context, it can be easily said that perhaps China knows it well that India of 2020 or 2017 (unlike 1962) can actually harm China.
“Many people commented on Doklam when the issue happened and not many people have visited Doklam. Why the Chinese withdrew from Doklam because the Chinese knew that the Indian army was holding strategically superior ground,” he says and not without good reasons. These facets were hardly understood by Indian media and especially the Left liberals and opposition parties in the country.
In fact, on the contrary, the Indian ‘intellectuals’ banked heavily on ‘Global Times’ – a privately run media in China and took whatever was dished out there. The Congress party had turned further clumsier and funny when it tried to open a channel of communication with Chinese diplomats without keeping the government of the day informed. To make things more complicated, first there was denial and then they resorted to mere rhetoric.
To talk about ‘understandings’ of different layers of the issue between China and India, it would be relevant to focus on the Congress party’s politics and not forgetting the mandate it got both in 2014 – and in 2019 – after Doklam crisis and Rahul Gandhi’s unusual friendly trip to Kailash Mansarovar. In fact, there was a big fuss when BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya had tweeted: “Rahul Gandhi goes blank when asked about his experience at Kailash Mansarovar”.
Of course, a video was circulated dismissing any such ‘perception’ and the former Congress president was heard stating in Hindi – “When a man returns from Mansarovar, there is a complete transformation”. This writer had interacted with a ‘Leftist Liberal’ in Varanasi – Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s parliamentary constituency –during 2019 elections. Calling himself ‘a pro-Modi Left Liberal’, the individual argued that one principal reason for Congress party’s failures in recent past electorally has been its unwarranted but over dependency on the ‘ultra Leftist variety of politics’.
His explanation was that the dependency on ‘politics of fringe elements’ – as also highlighted once by Late Arun Jaitley – has shrunk Congress party’s base. In this context, he explains – Rahul Gandhi and his ilk will do well to appreciate that Indians had shown faith in the Congress during freedom struggle also due to ‘desi’ factor as they saw in Mahatma Gandhi a leader who was banking on ‘Indian traditional values and oriental wisdom’. Contrast Gandhiji’s emphasis on ‘Ram Rajya’ variety of politics with Jawaharlal Nehru’s socialist push and one can draw a conclusion which way people of India were. Essentially, Indians have not given up that philosophy.
China too has changed a lot since 1962 and so has the world !
Over the years the Chinese leadership has also been pragmatic and had favoured closer ties with India despite differences and problems in some areas. This was a clear shift in Beijing’s policy which had earlier clearly taken pro-Pakistan line and confronted India in more ways than one. China is guided by its ‘India policy’ vis-a-vis global politics and Asian strategic games, but all that is definitely sustained by its pro-Pakistan policy.
Indian intellectuals often miss the line that China also plays diplomatic billiards – using Pakistan angle to hit at India. China’s stance on terror with regard Pakistan has been largely guided by this factor. Of course, the recent border escalation is China’s own making as it has come under heat internationally due to Wuhan-induced ‘Coronavirus crisis’. While, the entire world has made a big fuss about Beijing’s complexity along with a reputed institute like World Health Organisation over Covid-19, a section of Indian intellectuals just looked the other way.
This motivation too was not based on ideology but guided by ‘pragmatism’ and motivated agenda.
The Leftists’ propaganda theory survives on the conviction that given repeated push and guided by the strength of power politics, they can change the Truth itself. Therefore on multiple times, the reality was either not understood or deliberately ignored. They call themselves progressive and claim to champion the cause of tolerance and freedom of expression, but the truth is the Left leaning scholars and political forces have only entertained views which suit them. The ‘Other’ view would be either ridiculed or dismissed as something evil.
The attempt to call anything pro-Hindu or closer to Indian ethos has been dismissed as ‘communal’. No wonder, the game plan of overdoing the same has boomeranged even on Communist Party of India (Marxists) – who were original claimant to the title of being a ‘pro-Hindu party’ in Kerala of 1970s and 1980s.
Way back in 1976, for its part China took a stance which is significant from Indian perspective. It agreed to mutually upgrade the diplomatic relationship to ambassadorial level. Experts say the moot point was China had realised that its sole dependency on Pakistan would not be enduring and it required India too to counter other global players such as Russia (Soviet Union) and the United States.
But in domestic politics in India, it would be imperative to point out that after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, a sort of a bigger deal was struck between the Congress and the Leftist forces. The communists walked away with upper hand advantage in Indian academic and media including university campuses while the political power went to one party and specially one family. Thus, as long as it suited them, the Leftists did not find fault with dynastic politics of Nehru and Indira Gandhi also and their breed of intellectuals did not mind underplaying the roles of freedom fighters like Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.
In Chinese context, thus communism had shielded Mao and his dispensation and in Indian context, Nehru’s role in Indian history was glamourised. At later stage this benefit was granted to Indira Gandhi but on several fronts, genuine Indian interest and the positioning of armed forces were undermined and ignored.
Even the word ‘nationalism’ became a bad word and the facade of secularism cloak was pushed. In international context, India was soon to acquire a tag of being a ‘status-quoist’ power. However, circumstances were such that Pakistan faced a war in 1971 and Bangladesh was created. This had irked Pakistan and left the Leftists scholarship in India shell shocked. It also shocked China and Beijing immediately assisted Pakistan building up an indigenous defence production capability.
China also helped Pakistan to get ‘prisoners of war’ released from India as entry of Bangladesh to the United Nations was unnecessarily linked to the same. In retrospect, what could be asked about the ‘intellectuals’ and their understanding of geo-politics and India’s national and security interest vis-a-vis China.
It is true that ‘clay’ can easily be moulded, but it is also true that the clay would require a potter’s hands to take proper shape. Moreover, in the context of contemporary setting – when Modi is in power – a large section of Indian intellectuals simply feel opposing Modi is a sacred duty and thus even something going against Indian interest is acceptable as long as it put at risks Modi’s position.
Thus, it has been a challenge before this section of ‘intellectuals’ – which thrives in Modi-bashing – to widen their commitment towards a genuine nationalism.
This school of thought thus missed the point to highlight that if Pakistan was emerging as a notorious western neighbour for India, Islamabad was drawing its strength from Beijing only. How many Left liberals have highlighted that China’s continuous endeavours to contain India’s rise were linked to Beijing’s regional arms control arrangements. It is not without good reason that American security specialist Frank J. Gaffney wrote that Pakistan’s advancements including the nuclear and missile tests in 1998 were the direct result of China’s friendship and ‘strategic partnership’.
In fact, by 1982-83, China had provided Pakistan with 75 per cent of its tanks and about 65 per cent of the aircraft. The CPI(M) in 1998 had slammed the Vajpayee government for conducting nuclear tests. The then Defence Minister George Fernandes’s response that China was India’s ‘enemy number one’ was also highlighted. But Fernandes was only speaking the truth. Even if in today’s world, it may not be worldly wise to call a neighbouring country, ‘enemy’, it goes without saying that China is India’s ‘rival numero uno’.
Tail piece: Obnoxious China-Pak axis
# There has been something called detestable China-Pakistan axis – which has been conveniently ignored by a section of Indian intellectuals. The strategy of keeping India off-balance and strategically frustrated, from terror in Jammu and Kashmir perspective, has been effective.
# Indian armed forces lost 89 personnel in 2016 alone due to cross border attacks and it was called by a section of media --- ‘annus horriblis’ meaning – “horrible year”. Total casualties between 2005 and 2016 were over 6000. The same year Uri infamous attack happened. This was reciprocated by surgical strike on September 27. Since 1988 when violence picked up in Kashmir, official data indicates that more than 44,000 people have been killed in the conflict.
# China and Pakistan have dominated India’s foreign policy and security scenario but a school of thought has always looked the other way. # The intellectuals wedded to Left Liberalism have not bothered about the fact that by 2025, China could be able to deploy anywhere between 300 and 400 sophisticated aircraft against India. Pakistan could also have over 100 advanced fighters. Thus, it was analysed by forces in 2016 that the Indian Air Force’s desire for 45 squadrons by 2027—some 750–800 aircraft—is compelling.
# No wonder, it was recommended that Air Force should revisit its basic policy approach. The genuine nationalist forces have underlined that India needs to safeguard its regional air superiority over both Pakistan and China by mustering the requisite end strength.
No comments:
Post a Comment