Rajmohan’s op-ed sounds promising but ends flat on its face. The author oversimplifies and generalizes, and in the end, doesn’t offer any solution.

For example, he intersperses the article liberally with several clichés:

1. India has begun to find its feet in the world.
2. Indian economy is booming.
3. Our youth is filled with energy and optimism.
4. We are managing to fill the development gap that was created as a result of communist socialist policies.

And he follows this up with predictable arguments, which have but an iota of merit. For example:

Third, traditionally, the problems within the subcontinent have constituted one of the biggest constraints. On the ground, this would mean ending the economic consequences of the Partition in ?47. Yet, India remains niggardly in its approach to trade and opening its market to the neighbours. Instead of leading the charge towards a rapid reintegration of the South Asian economic space, India remains hesitant in its approach. Security arguments are drummed up to prevent closer economic cooperation, like on energy pipelines.

Perhaps the author is unaware that the security threat posed by Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh (to an extent), are real. A few years ago, a high ranking Pakistani embassy official in Delhi was caught trying to smuggle sensitive defence secrets. The Acorn reports from time to time the Chinese military–naval–buildup along India’s coastline, which is certainly a cause for alarm. I don’t need to explicitly state that mutual political amity is a prerequisite for conducive trade relationships. On the subject of energy pipelines, can we reasonably guarantee that the pipelines won’t be routinely blown up?

While Pakistan?s low-intensity conflict against India has caused many problems, the effectiveness of that strategy in prising territory out of India are under a huge cloud. Yet our armed forces have been condemned to defend every square inch of territory rather than consciously adapt to the new military threats that face the nation.

Again, Rajamohan overlooks and grossly simplifies security concerns. Although the conflict is the low-intensity, it continues to bleed us dry: in terms of (military) manpower, money, and other resources. And Pakistan has no intentions of ending this at least in the “foreseeable” future. The “prising out territory” factor is definitely a serious concern especially in the wake of the recent proclamation of carving out an Islamic nation in the North East.

And on the diplomatic front, despite launching historic negotiations with both China and Pakistan on resolving the boundary dispute and the Kashmir question respectively, caution again appears to have overtaken the imperatives of political imagination.

The problem since Nehru’s time has been endemic: of approach and perception; rather, their perception of our approach. India is still perceived as a soft state. No leader worth his/her salt has spoken from a position of strength except perhaps Indira Gandhi. Yet, Indira Gandhi faltered at the Shimla pact. Our successive Prime Ministers have shown the begging bowl of peace in the hope that the aggressor understands the same language. In effect, we have mortgaged our will to his whims. A word or two about the author’s indecipherable choice of words: caution . appears to have overtaken the imperatives of political imagination. First, caution especially when dealing with rogue states like Pakistan is the prime requirement if we really care about national security. A few days before this article was written, news of gunfire exchange at the border has been reported: The Acorn weighs on the matter. How does the author recommend that we use “the imperatives of political imagination?” And pray, what are “the imperatives of political imagination?”

While it is clear that resolving the political dispute on either of the two frontiers would dramatically alter India?s security condition, defensive arguments are mounted to avoid the exploration of innovative solutions.

Rajamohan is guilty of the same approach: of analysing the issue looking at a single aspect: security. Eliminate the security factor and India’s economic progress will accelerate–this seems to be the summary of his analysis. Compare India’s relationship with the US, which has improved over the past 5-6 years. Was security (!) an issue here? The States’ grouse had in large part to do with with our alignment with the Fatherland and it still harbours some of these misgivings unless I’m mistaken. There is also its perception that India is a country whose nuisance value should be contained–although I’m not sure how correct it is at present. However that be, the fact is that India-US economic ties have strengthened a thousandfold: all it took was some skillful diplomacy on our part to change its perception towards India. This could happen because the security factor was totally non-existent. What if say we had a border dispute with the US or a fundamental, ideological opposition with it? Can we say the same thing with regard to Pakistan, which is opposed to India on both these issues? No “innovative solutions” can and will work until Pakistan stops its adventures in Kashmir and elsewhere.

And the article ends predictably: the author parrots the same formula which we come across in hundreds of articles.

What India now needs is a bold vision on foreign and national security policies, whether in dealing with the great powers or its smaller neighbours.

Bold vision, strategic thinking, far-reaching foreign and security policies… no hint is however, given as to what these policies maybe, how these policies should be conceived and implemented. Nothing concrete.

Rajamohan raises an interesting point, by the way.

While India is acquiring greater economic, diplomatic and military muscle, its mind has remained small.

Had the author perhaps focussed on this, the article would have been better. Nani Palkhivala’s words on India’s mental smallness:

We are not poor by nature but poor by policy. You would not be far wrong if you called India the world’s leading expert in the art of perpetuating poverty. Yes, the potential of India is so great! Sir William Ryrie, the executive vice -president of the International Finance Corporation, expressed the view that India has some of “the most creative entrepreneurs?. The most dynamic business leaders and the sharpest financial brains in the world.” These words give you an idea of the magnitude of the effort needed to keep India impoverished.

Tags: Commentary, Indian Politics, Terrorism & Pakistan