The Prime
Minister Narendra Modi made a surprise visit to Leh today. It was ostensibly in
view of the ongoing tensions and recent clashes between India and China on the
Ladakh border. The motive was to take note and conduct a first hand survey of
the happenings and the ground position on the border. Besides, more prominent
was to boost the morale of the soldiers serving on the border as their families
back home are battling the uncertainty of Chinese virus induced flu. By all
accounts, the visit seemed to have been a success. The PM’s communication
skills and strategy were once again evident in full flow. There might be a talk
of PM not visiting the actual border but there would be many reasons for the
same including the problem of acclimatization.
Yet, what needs
to be decoded is the communication of PM as he sought to send message to the aggressive
moves of the neighbours. The PM’s speech was aimed at China without naming it
and pointedly referred to India’s resolve in defeating nefarious tendencies of
China and its suzerain Pakistan. One point emerged, described metaphorically
perhaps but captures the Indian essence in perfection. PM referred to Indian
love for bansuris of Lord Krishna as much as the love for Sudarshan Chakras of
Lord Krishna. Implied in this powerful metaphor was India loves peace yet would
not shirk away from action if pushed to the shove. Indian philosophy
encompasses both peace and war and offers adequate justification for the both.
In fact, Bhagvad Gita is the spiritual justification for use of violence for
legitimate ends.
The perception
that India is peace loving and believes in nonviolence and abhors violence in
general is a very recent phenomenon. In fact, what was used in a specific
narrow context has to sought to be generalized as an all-encompassing and
guiding policy that in fact has made India suffer on more than an occasion. Nehruvian
blunder was predicated on this premise. Whether Nehru was naïve or ignorant or
genuinely believed he could convert the world into a universe of nonviolence,
one does not know. However, one does know there were hardly any takers for his
policy. Nehru for instance believed that Chinese Communist leadership given
their long battle against Western backed powers believed in peace,
anti-colonialism and thus would not seek gain territory from similar parties.
It was the 1962 humiliation that finally brought him to reality by which time,
it was too late. None of the Nehru’s friends adopted his policy. Mao and Zhou
Enlai both used war and violence as legitimate tools to gain power, consolidate
power and expand their territories. Sukarno of Indonesia did not hesitate to
annex Bali or West Papua to Indonesia though they were not originally part of
the country. Tito in Yugoslavia held the country only through force pandering
to Serbian nationalism. Naseer in Egypt leave alone practice of non-violence
vowed to annex and obliterate Israel before reality sunk him in the 1967 War. Incidentally,
Nehru’s daughter herself did not believe in the same evident from her policies
both at home and neighborhood.
Gandhian idea
was rooted in a narrow context. It was to basically appeal to the moral
sentiments of the British population which prided itself on freedom of
expression, democracy and human rights of that era. He was seeking to place the
British regime in a moral quandary often thus seeking to leverage the fight for
independence. In fact, this would have been simply impossible to adopt the same
against the Hitler or other dictators for whom the violence hardly posed any
moral compulsions. Incidentally,
Gandhian policy of non-violence was not an original Indian idea. Contrary to
the belief he did not borrow the idea from the Indian philosophical thoughts
but from the Christian thought process. It was Jesus Christ who advocated
turning the other cheek when confronted with violence. This had influenced Gandhi
which he experiment with an Anglican British rule.
As one peruses
the Indian epics and history, nonviolence hardly finds a place. Ashokan idea of
Buddhism and nonviolence is more of recent invention and based fundamentally on
his own edicts which have been discovered in the last century and half or so. Ramayana
adovcates violence for legitimate ends as reflected in several episodes. Yet it
is the last option that has to be exercised. The festival of Navaratri, Durga
Pooja, Dusherra were essentially in celebration of a Goddess who battles
against the evil through violent means. Deepawali celebrated Krishna’s victory
over Narakasura is also about war. Puranas are replete with just wars. Mahabharata
is again about battles being fought in different domains. In all these, there
runs one common line of peace being the first intended objective and when it
fails, the war is a must and has no substitute. This is completely at odds what
Nehru and his supporters to the present make us believe.
When Modi
invoked Krishna ( he did invoke Buddha too), he was making the point of
reference to the vast India epic and other literature that deals extensively
with war as a legitimate exercise. India’s victories did not come through advocacy
of peace. Peace in the wake of aggression is symbol of weakness and ineptitude.
The talk of peace sends a message to the enemies of being unprepared for the
combat. In economics phraseology, loss of territory or inability to defend oneself
perhaps yields greater satisfaction than the loss of lives in defence of their
territory. In Broken Windows theory, it is essentially the beginning of the end
of the country as we know it. In fact, the ancient epics point out to these
fallacies though they might simply be unaware of what economics or sociology
was.
In evocative
phrases like Veer Bhogya Vasundhara, Modi was locating the Indian strategic dimensions
to its ancient roots. The peace of the brave is very different from the peace
of the meek. It is the former that was celebrated in the Indic thoughts while
the ostensible modern adaptation of the same by the liberal ecosystem panders
to the latter. Therefore, it is in this context, Modi’s timely reminder of the
same sends a powerful signal as India prepares its next step in its response to
China.
Comments
Post a Comment