Intolerance to Army above all, India treading dangerously
In an editorial recently, The Times of India offered some bizarre advice to the government. It suggested the government should work on battlefield tactical nuclear weapons and deploy them on the border with China.
The editorial on how India can counter China’s unwavering support to Pakistan, and Russia falling in the Chinese orbit, advised the government to provide Beijing access to the Arabian Sea.
Here is a paragraph from the editorial:
"A route through India would provide the Chinese what they seek - access to the Arabian Sea - while building India’s infrastructure and diminishing the importance of CPEC and Gwadar port. If incentives alone do not work, New Delhi can build some disincentives as well. One could be denial of market access if China continues to support terror groups. Second, India could consider doing to China what China has helped Pakistan do to India: work on battlefield tactical nukes to be deployed on the Chinese border."
As a nuclear-armed state, India has been working on building deterrents against both Pakistan and China. It has a nuclear doctrine in place. But to suggest that the government inflict on China the same pain, adopt the same nuclear blackmailing tactics that Pakistan has been doing to India defies imagination.
But actually it shouldn’t. Advice to work on battlefield tactical nuclear weapons for deployment on the Chinese border is in tune with the times.
It reflects the public mood prevailing in the country post the September 29 "surgical strikes" against Pakistan. It reflects the public anger against China for its support to Pakistan. It’s also a telling example of the manner in which the public mood is being manipulated by media.
The pervasive mood in the country has crossed the threshold defined by intolerance for non-conforming viewpoints and stifling of dissenting voices. It’s more than mere orchestration of ultra-nationalism and calling for test of patriotism.
The atmosphere is of war, without any actual war being fought at the border. It may be called the birth of a militarised society.
The Army has always been looked upon as an institution above reproach and criticism. Neither political parties nor any vocal group of civil society has ever called the Army and its valour in question.
 |
| The Army’s role in the society, as an organising and overweening force, has never been so valourised. (Photo: AP) |
At the same time, the Army’s role in the society, as an organising and overweening force, has never been so valourised.
The comparison of the Indian Army with the Israeli army by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in this context too is a step towards militarism and militarisation of polity.
"Earlier, one heard about Israel doing such a thing, now the country has seen that the Indian Army is no less," Modi said referring to the surgical strikes at a meeting in Himachal Pradesh.
Most of the strategic affairs writers have interpreted Modi’s statement by comparing the capabilities of the two armies. In this, they missed one crucial element: the militarisation of the Israeli polity, and yet, its failure to ensure foolproof security for its citizens.
Israel has built a militarised society that’s constantly at war with its neighbours and within too. Such is the extent of its militarisation that one often comes across reports of Israeli youth and soldiers cracking under unbearable stress. The Israeli army lives under constant nerve-wracking pressure.
According to The Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC), Israel ranks as the world’s most militarised state. The BICC index calculates each country’s investments in defence and compares it with human development sectors, such as education and healthcare to gauge the extent of militarisation.
Outside of the US, the Israeli society is the worst victim of the military-industrial complex phenomenon. As far back as 1961, in his farewell address, US president Dwight D Eisenhower had warned of the increasing danger of "military-industrial complex" on American politics and society.
India is nowhere near the "military-industrial complex" Eisenhower had warned America of. But our national discourse is moving in the direction of creating a militarised society.
An American historian, John Gillis, who edited The Militarisation of Western World, says: "Militarisation is the process by which civil society organises itself for the production of violence. It involves a series of mechanisms that involve the entire social edifice."
In NDTV’s Walk the Talk with Shekhar Gupta, RSS and BJP’s ideologue Ram Madhav clarified that his "whole jaw for a tooth" remark was not a call for use of overwhelming military force against Pakistan.
It was an all-encompassing use of force - military, diplomacy, economy, politics and culture - to stun Pakistan. It’s a mindset that calls for giving no quarter, leaving no room for peace but war.
It’s the prevalence of this mindset that prompted some people inside a Goa cinema theatre to assault paralysis survivor, disability activist and author Salil Chaturvedi on a wheelchair for not standing up for the national anthem.
It’s because of this mindset that the villagers of Bisada draped the body of Ravin Sisodia, one of the accused in the Dadri lynching case, in tricolour upon his death in jail and called him a martyr.
It’s not a surprise, therefore, that filmmaker Karan Johar had to release a video to submit to the call for test of patriotism and declare that he would never hire Pakistani artists for his films.
Such "patriotism tests" have crossed the boundaries of the intolerance debate that raged in the country soon after the Modi government came to power.
Intolerance of other viewpoints, stifling of dissent, test of nationalism and valourisation of the armed forces are essential links in the chain that lead to militarisation of policy, the state and society.
When violence permeates the edifice of society, call for nuclear blackmail of one state by another is normal.
India stands at an inflection point.
Will it turn into a militarised society like Israel, or will it choose a path to strengthen its civil and democratic institutions to create a humane society?
Watch: