Themes > Current Issues
25.05.2002
The Road to Ruin
C.
Rammanohar Reddy
Those
who
speak out against a war must be prepared for accusations of being soft in
brain and brawn. But this should not be surprising when war hysteria seems
to be the national mood. Strangely though, the hysteria is restricted to
the members of the political, chattering and middle classes who are ready
to offer others' blood to play out their notions of patriotism. The larger
public mood, however, is one of resignation. People only wish to find ways
of lightening their daily load. The one difference this time is perhaps
that the services have been much more vocal in expressing their opinion in
favour of an open conflict with Pakistan.
The twin notions of an 'affordable war' and a 'limited war' are oxymorons which, to rephrase the words of the American black leader, Martin Luther King Jr., together threaten to take the two countries down a descending spiral of destruction. An affordable war is just one of the many absurd arguments now being offered to stifle opposition to a war with Pakistan. It has been said before and it must be said again that the case against war always rests on the human, social and political suffering it causes. This argument cannot be made on the ground that it will impose financial costs on the country. However, since the economic argument is now increasingly being cited to justify a war it has to be contested.
The idea of an affordable war sees 'costs' in narrow terms. It estimates the incremental costs of mobilisation over the past few months and concludes that it will add up to only a few hundred crores, a trifling amount in comparison to the Defence budget for 2002-03 which is placed at Rs. 65,000 crores. A `surgical strike operation' may not cost much more, although the assumption here must be that the reaction from Pakistan will be of quiet acquiescence. A full-fledged war, even in financial terms, will cost much more. The costs of lost military equipment and the civilian infrastructure that will be destroyed will have to be factored in. And, as has been argued in these columns by P.R. Chari, once costs of replacement at current and not historical rates are taken into account, the picture will be very different. But the financial accounting that underlies notions of an affordable war is a self-serving exercise. There are the larger costs which are conveniently excluded. These include the costs of displacement of the civilians on the border, who are usually fobbed off with token compensation, and of the military wish-list which follows war and is always a long one. In the ultimate analysis it is not these rupees and paise which make up the cost of war but the social and economic burden it imposes on the country. First, the social cost is the one caused by the pushing of all other issues off the domestic political agenda. For instance, after the drama in Parliament and the charade played out by the NDA allies, we are now witnessing the gradual disappearance of the Gujarat pogrom from all public discourse. The refugees can continue to swelter in the camps, the camps can even be closed down, justice can be denied... the demands of war come first. Second, the larger economic cost arises from the short and medium-term dislocation and uncertainty a war will cause to the economy. Both private and public investment will be badly affected — public because of fiscal considerations and because governance will grind to a halt, and private because entrepreneurs have more sense than to invest when two nuclear powers go to war. What is now happening on the bourses and the movement of gold prices is only a sampling of what will come if the Government does opt for open retaliation. Any hopes of an economic recovery can then be forgotten altogether.
Of course, the basic premise of an affordable war is both insidious and dangerous. It is part of what has been referred to as the `Smash Pakistan' school in India. The argument in essence is that as India can afford an arms race and Pakistan cannot, Pakistan can be financially crippled by forcing it to keep up with India. A war today will therefore be affordable for India, but not for Pakistan for whom this will be a step in the road to ruin. This approach is the reverse of the policy of the Pakistan military and intelligence towards India in the 1980s and 1990s: ‘Bleed India with a 1,000 cuts’ in Kashmir, Punjab and elsewhere. But if Pakistan has not succeeded with that policy, there is no reason why India will either, if it attempts to economically cripple Pakistan. As the more astute of the strategists have pointed out, a Pakistan that is unable to afford a conventional arms race will increasingly see its nuclear weapons as its only hope for defence.
This lowering of the nuclear threshold by Pakistan could result in the so-called limited war turning into the nightmare of an ultimate war in South Asia. If nuclear wars can be won, as some of our hare-brained leaders claim is possible, India may well indeed emerge the victor. But the victor will preside over a swathe of destruction cutting across the two countries. It is amazing that our leaders have to be told that it will take decades if not centuries before India (or Pakistan) can ever hope to rise from the ashes of such an Armageddon. If not war (whatever its objectives, which no one knows for sure) what option do we have? The super patriots make it out as if the travails of Kashmir are all of Pakistan's making and our hands are lily white. Pakistan has only been able to fish in waters that have been muddied for over half a century by Governments of all hues at the Centre and by State Governments which have been put in office by rigged polls, or have been quick to lose their legitimacy by plundering the exchequer or have had Chief Ministers more interested in holidaying in Europe. Pakistan has aided, abetted and financed terror in the Valley. Simplistic it may sound, but the truth is that Pakistan has been able to interfere only because of our basic failures. A war only puts a lid on these political failures.
The only significant victors in the current game of war hysteria are the BJP and the members of its rag-tag coalition who watched in silence as the Gujarat pogrom was orchestrated. A Government that had lost all moral legitimacy has found the recent spurt in terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir a ready tool to recover lost ground. A nation shamed in the eyes of the world is falling back on the oldest and most cynical of policies to assert itself. It is significant (or some coincidence) that the drumbeats of war are beginning to sound louder just when we finally have names and faces to the victims of the unthinkable horrors of Gujarat. While the blinkered will deny that Gujarat saw the depths of humanity in the crimes against women, we now have the testimony of Khaliq Noor Mohammad Sheikh who, insane in his grief, just about manages to carry his life from day to day. It was Mr. Sheikh's pregnant daughter, Kausar Bano, who was burnt alive by the mad men of Ahmedabad. But her stomach was first slit, the foetus pulled out and thrown into the fire before her eyes.
It is Kausar Bano's India that is readying for its dharm yudh.
The twin notions of an 'affordable war' and a 'limited war' are oxymorons which, to rephrase the words of the American black leader, Martin Luther King Jr., together threaten to take the two countries down a descending spiral of destruction. An affordable war is just one of the many absurd arguments now being offered to stifle opposition to a war with Pakistan. It has been said before and it must be said again that the case against war always rests on the human, social and political suffering it causes. This argument cannot be made on the ground that it will impose financial costs on the country. However, since the economic argument is now increasingly being cited to justify a war it has to be contested.
The idea of an affordable war sees 'costs' in narrow terms. It estimates the incremental costs of mobilisation over the past few months and concludes that it will add up to only a few hundred crores, a trifling amount in comparison to the Defence budget for 2002-03 which is placed at Rs. 65,000 crores. A `surgical strike operation' may not cost much more, although the assumption here must be that the reaction from Pakistan will be of quiet acquiescence. A full-fledged war, even in financial terms, will cost much more. The costs of lost military equipment and the civilian infrastructure that will be destroyed will have to be factored in. And, as has been argued in these columns by P.R. Chari, once costs of replacement at current and not historical rates are taken into account, the picture will be very different. But the financial accounting that underlies notions of an affordable war is a self-serving exercise. There are the larger costs which are conveniently excluded. These include the costs of displacement of the civilians on the border, who are usually fobbed off with token compensation, and of the military wish-list which follows war and is always a long one. In the ultimate analysis it is not these rupees and paise which make up the cost of war but the social and economic burden it imposes on the country. First, the social cost is the one caused by the pushing of all other issues off the domestic political agenda. For instance, after the drama in Parliament and the charade played out by the NDA allies, we are now witnessing the gradual disappearance of the Gujarat pogrom from all public discourse. The refugees can continue to swelter in the camps, the camps can even be closed down, justice can be denied... the demands of war come first. Second, the larger economic cost arises from the short and medium-term dislocation and uncertainty a war will cause to the economy. Both private and public investment will be badly affected — public because of fiscal considerations and because governance will grind to a halt, and private because entrepreneurs have more sense than to invest when two nuclear powers go to war. What is now happening on the bourses and the movement of gold prices is only a sampling of what will come if the Government does opt for open retaliation. Any hopes of an economic recovery can then be forgotten altogether.
Of course, the basic premise of an affordable war is both insidious and dangerous. It is part of what has been referred to as the `Smash Pakistan' school in India. The argument in essence is that as India can afford an arms race and Pakistan cannot, Pakistan can be financially crippled by forcing it to keep up with India. A war today will therefore be affordable for India, but not for Pakistan for whom this will be a step in the road to ruin. This approach is the reverse of the policy of the Pakistan military and intelligence towards India in the 1980s and 1990s: ‘Bleed India with a 1,000 cuts’ in Kashmir, Punjab and elsewhere. But if Pakistan has not succeeded with that policy, there is no reason why India will either, if it attempts to economically cripple Pakistan. As the more astute of the strategists have pointed out, a Pakistan that is unable to afford a conventional arms race will increasingly see its nuclear weapons as its only hope for defence.
This lowering of the nuclear threshold by Pakistan could result in the so-called limited war turning into the nightmare of an ultimate war in South Asia. If nuclear wars can be won, as some of our hare-brained leaders claim is possible, India may well indeed emerge the victor. But the victor will preside over a swathe of destruction cutting across the two countries. It is amazing that our leaders have to be told that it will take decades if not centuries before India (or Pakistan) can ever hope to rise from the ashes of such an Armageddon. If not war (whatever its objectives, which no one knows for sure) what option do we have? The super patriots make it out as if the travails of Kashmir are all of Pakistan's making and our hands are lily white. Pakistan has only been able to fish in waters that have been muddied for over half a century by Governments of all hues at the Centre and by State Governments which have been put in office by rigged polls, or have been quick to lose their legitimacy by plundering the exchequer or have had Chief Ministers more interested in holidaying in Europe. Pakistan has aided, abetted and financed terror in the Valley. Simplistic it may sound, but the truth is that Pakistan has been able to interfere only because of our basic failures. A war only puts a lid on these political failures.
The only significant victors in the current game of war hysteria are the BJP and the members of its rag-tag coalition who watched in silence as the Gujarat pogrom was orchestrated. A Government that had lost all moral legitimacy has found the recent spurt in terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir a ready tool to recover lost ground. A nation shamed in the eyes of the world is falling back on the oldest and most cynical of policies to assert itself. It is significant (or some coincidence) that the drumbeats of war are beginning to sound louder just when we finally have names and faces to the victims of the unthinkable horrors of Gujarat. While the blinkered will deny that Gujarat saw the depths of humanity in the crimes against women, we now have the testimony of Khaliq Noor Mohammad Sheikh who, insane in his grief, just about manages to carry his life from day to day. It was Mr. Sheikh's pregnant daughter, Kausar Bano, who was burnt alive by the mad men of Ahmedabad. But her stomach was first slit, the foetus pulled out and thrown into the fire before her eyes.
It is Kausar Bano's India that is readying for its dharm yudh.
© MACROSCAN 2002