LOOKING AT UKRAINE WAR FROM INDIAN PRISM

INDIAN EXPERTS ON THE WAR    

Discussions in India's intellectual spaces on Russia-Ukraine war were initially focused on humanitarian evacuations. Subsequently, most Indian experts appeared more anxious to express solidarity with President Putin led Russia, rather than evaluating the entire issue objectively, even from the perspective of strategic interests of Russian state and its people. 

     Looking at the entire issue from New Delhi, closer ties with Russia and Israel appear critical for India's own security as well as long-term security and stability of this region and beyond. Simultaneously, India's friendship with the West, and especially the United States, is equally important for India's existential interests as well as strategic security of the United States. However, there has been an apprehension that China's burgeoning economic, military and technological prowess may compel the United States at some point of time to abandon Asia and Indo-Pacific, especially if the costs of defending this region, or even maintaining presence here, could become unsustainable.

 China's military and technological surge appears unstoppable at this juncture. Simultaneously, internal fissures in US democracy, including its position even on critical foreign policy and security issues, appears more than glaring. In long run, China definitely threatens the United States and its allies. But in the interim, it is possible that the United States can work out a tactical understanding with China to avert a direct conflict.  

    On the other hand, India is uniquely positioned to consolidate ties with West Asia and Africa as well, including Islamic nations. It continues to enjoy immense goodwill in the region. The entire equilibrium places India in an unparalleled position to pursue its great power aspirations, if it can optimise its internal governance institutions. 

The dividend of better understanding between the West and Russia at one level and Israel and Arab world on the other may harm military industrial complexes of the West but provide an unparalleled impetus to technological and economic upsurge for the entire mankind. India's rise will not only provide the biggest antidote to both Islamist radicalism and Chinese authoritarianism but also act as the biggest catalysts to peace, stability and innovation, benefitting the entire mankind. 

    I believe that the Russia-Ukraine war is not of mere academic interest to India. A depleted and weakened Russia, dependent upon China, shall be disaster for India. It can multiply military-security threats from China. However, the dynamics of Chinese political system is such that it is bound to breed conflict with both Russia and India. With 10 times more population than Russia and similar advantage in economic sphere, China possesses the capacity to virtually gobble up Russian land and natural resources, at least substantially if not entirely. Though internal systems of China are likely to crumble once the bottled-up pressure of mass oppression explodes. This is inevitable at some point of time. 

    Such an outcome has potential to generate exceptional instability and volatility in the region. This would dwarf the instability and volatility that we witnessed on fall of Soviet Russia in early 1990s.   Though the world has recovered from the same due to stability provided by leadership of strongman Putin. But his de-institutionalization of Russia and decimation of all opponents, besides creation of an army of loyalists through a caucus of oligarchs - at the cost of sustainable progress of his own country-  doesn't augur well for future of this great civilisation. 

    Most discourses on Ukraine war in the intellectual space of the West appear driven by an urge to humiliate and vanquish President Putin and Russia. West has done huge disservice to both democracy and Russia by giving an impression that it was consistently trying to undermine and destabilise Russia. It has also been suspected of engineering colured revolutions in Russian backyard to change regimes. These moves appear more focused on weakening Putin and Russia rather than ushering democracy in these parts of the world. These have backfired and further strengthened Putin and impeded Russia's transition to genuine democracy. In retrospect, the entire approach also appears flawed and tactical. It plays into hand of China. Russia could have been a much lesser danger even to the West than Xi led China.  

    India has to impress upon the West that an isolated and weakened Russia, dependent upon China, is as much threat to the West as India. Russia has to be weaned away from the Chinese influence and it should be nudged on the path of democracy. This will definitely help stability and security of the existing global order. However, this is not going to be easy. India has ignored provocations and taunts by the Western media that has been least respectful, or even receptive, to Indian sensitivities. But Indian state must harness its goodwill to break the impasse in US-Russia ties. 

    During yet another discussion on a Hindi channel named APN, I was shocked by observations of a retired Indian diplomat. He insisted that India must stay away from Russia-Ukraine dispute. His words were: "doosre ke jhagde mein hamein kyon padna hai?" (Why should we get into quarrel of others). This is the precise psyche from which India must extricate itself, We are in a different era where any development anywhere in the world impacts us in one or the other form to some degree. The war of attrition between Russia and Ukraine, despite helping us in the interim on oil bills, threatens to shift an already disadvantageous geopolitical equilibrium further against us. 

I call an approach of isolation from Russia and the West as strategic myopia. At one hand, we aspire to become global leaders, and at another we are reluctant to engage others or reform ourselves internally, to secure our own existential interests. Our great power aspirations must not rest on goodwill or mercy of the world or discretion of fortunes. We have to pursue it ourselves as a state and society        

LOOKING AT THE LARGER PICTURE

    Ukraine has suffered enormously in the ongoing war.  But Russia too has not been able to escape the devastating consequences. Military losses and setbacks have embarrassed Russia and generated a lot of resentment internally. People have been quiet on economic hardships but loss of youthful population and wasted economic opportunities is going to haunt Russia for a long time. 

    President Putin has been outsmarted by the NATO strategists this time. Probably, it is complacence that bred overconfidence this time. NATO or the United States seem to be winning the battle for the time being. But a victory here is likely to push them to an imminent loss in a larger geopolitical war. 

    Ever since pro-Russian Ukrainian President Ynaukovich was ousted through a mass uprising in 2014, the NATO-Russia confrontation had been on the rise. Russian victory over Crimea and its annexation, in a genuinely short, swift and decisive battle bolstered the image of invincibility of Putin. He had successfully avenged humiliation over ouster of a pro-Mocow regime. But his failure to win the current war, despite having initiated the same, appears a self-goal. Many believe that he was provoked into this trap by the NATO strategists.  

    There are far too many indicators to suggest that President Putin went into the war without adequate preparation. None of his advisors and associates could probably muster enough courage to point this out. Early this year, there was a video that went viral on social media in which the President Putin was seen rebuking his intelligence Chief. The latter had mildly tried to suggest that Russia needed more preparation to win the war.

     Inbuilt constraints of the authoritarian governance model of Russia have also been exposed during this war.  Russia had also failed to factor in the tough resistance from Ukrainians and alleged covert support that they have received from the West. 

    NATO's eastward expansion is also something that the West is not able to discuss with candour amongst itself. The West should have tried to push democracy in Russia more through persuasion rather than coercion, deception and clandestine regime changes. A genuine democratization of Russia could have provided bigger safety net for security of the West. 

    But that appears improbable at this point of time. For persuading Russia or others to democratize, the United States has to fix its own internal democracy, which it appears shy of addressing. Simultaneously, expanding asymmetry of power between China and India is another factor that has been denting desirability of democracy and open societies, notwithstanding appreciation for the same. 

    It is widely believed that capitalist greed of United States has created a monster in form of authoritarian China.  A small cartel of people led by an insane narcissist, domestically accountable to none, but with access to exceptional financial, technological and military prowess, threaten the entire world. They appear capable of marginalising even the United States in few years at least in Asia, Eurasia, Africa and Far East. 

    TEST OF GLOBAL DIPLOMACY AND LEADERSHIP    

    An early conclusion of war, at this juncture, appears too distant given the level of distrust between the two sides. Any mediation by any power appears fraught with serious possibilities of failure. Mediation and facilitation more often require complex technical skills, besides trust of contending parties. While India enjoys high degree of trust of both Russia and Ukraine, but it is possible that neither United States nor China could be interested in putting their weight behind India or a bonafide peace deal. Besides, Indian diplomacy's technical expertise and experience of mediation in such complex conflicts is quite suspect. Hence, a progress in this direction is possible but it is not going to be easy.  

    Many Western analysts have contended that the Russian failures have severely dented the aura of invincibility of President Putin. Some assess that he may have to explore a smooth exit from political space of Russia. Alternatively, there could also be an abrupt end of his regime, which appears difficult the way he has decimated all opponents and even alternatives to himself. 

Surreptitious regime changes forcing transition to election process has failed in far too many contexts. Political stability in Russia appears not worth the risk of instability that the West supported coloured revolutions had brought in. Of course, at some point of time Putin has to retire. Someone acceptable to the west and Russia has to assure Putin of a safe retirement and stop comedian turned hero Zelensky to restrain his bravado. But this is not going to be that easy. President Putin has established himself as custodian of Russian pride. West has to act with immense generosity whereas India has to stretch all its potentials and capacities to push peace, not as an act of altruism or charity but a critical necessity for creation of a geopolitical equilibrium that ensures its security.   

But as long as Putin remains at the helm, the threat of a nuclear attack, howsoever minor, remains a reality. The world has already paid a high price over Russia-Ukraine war. It will test resilience of global diplomacy and leadership to extricate the mankind from potential threats of a further escalation of this war that has already taken a heavy toll.   

A WAR THAT HAS PRODUCED MANY LOSERS BUT NO CLEAR WINNER

    Daily Russian poundings over the past 9 months has witnessed large-scale loss of lives and public infrastructure in Ukraine. Russia has also suffered setbacks. Its strength has been dented by unexpectedly high military casualties besides impact of Western sanctions. The whole of Europe battles serious economic crises alongside energy shortages. The entire developing world is anticipating an impending food and energy catastrophe. India and Asia worry alteration in geopolitical equilibrium, paving way for unrestrained Chinese hegemony in the region, that is certain to threaten their security. United States runs the risk of being replaced as the most preeminent power in Asia and Europe by the China. The gains for China, as of now are more potential than real. Hence, the world is in middle of a war that has not yet escalated to its optimal potential but has produced more losers than any clear winner.

This is a different war and efforts to draw parallels from history is more likely to hinder our understanding and ability to face the same. 

LOOKING AT FUTURE FROM THE PRISM OF PAST

 On October 26, I was in a live TV discussion on Russia-Ukraine War at platform of an eminent Hindi channel. My fellow panelists included a well-known and articulate retired Ambassador, a retired General of Indian Army and a retired Historian, with specialisation on Eastern Europe and Russia.  They had nearly two decades more experience of the world than me and naturally I have always been deferential to such elders and their wisdom. However, intellectual integrity has at times forced me to take contrarian  position and defend the same but with an open mind.  

In course of this particular discussion, the retired Ambassador questioned my understanding of diplomacy and warfare, over my following observations: 

1. President Putin's strategy was failing as Russia was forced to make far too many tactical retreats and recalibrate its strategy a bit too often, despite enjoying huge military superiority over Ukraine; 

2. With shift in momentum, the Russian troops could struggle to hold on to some of their territorial gains;  

3. A good strategy of war must get a quick and decisive victory at minimal costs and negligible collateral damages;

4. More the war prolonged, the Russian dream of Kievan-Rus reunification shall become distant, if not unachievable; and 

5. A victory in a prolonged war, involving heavy human and material costs, feels more like a loss;    

    I had held on to my position on that televised discussion even in face of insistence by my three elderly co-panelists that Russia was winning the war. They cited the duration of the first and second world wars to contend that wars have their own momentum. They dismissed my idea of short, swift and decisive war as imaginary. 

    Sadly, they forgot that the world has evolved far too much since the second world-war era. We are living in a far more integrated and technology driven world, which has potential for more devastating consequences in a much shorter time. Even in that war, the aggressor or the principal initiator of the war - Germany - had paid heavily for its grave miscalculations. Despite its huge military and economic strength on eve of the two mega wars, Germany faced a debacle that pushed it back on most parameters of national and societal power by centuries, even though it inflicted massive collateral damage in others as well.  

    Here the war was initiated by President Putin. He has been careful to avoid attacking NATO countries. His adventure is not comparable to Nazi Germany. But Russian failure to win the war in a short time as well as its military and economic setbacks have dented its image of invincibility in the region.   However, this was not the first time that this particular Ambassador had verbally attacked me. I recall in a discussion he had been very aggressive towards another retired Ambassador who was a few years younger to him. During a TV discussion on Sri Lanka in 2020, he had repudiated my assessment that Rajapaksa brothers would not be able to resist Chinese pressure and the resultant consequences for the island nation could be too bad. The YouTube video of that discussion is still available on the web and what transpired in Sri Lanka since then is very well known.  

I find the problem with our traditional experts lays in their over reliance on history to assess the present or look at future. 

UKRAINE BLEEDS, RUSSIA STRUGGLES AND THE WEST GETS A FALSE SENSE OF VICTORY:

    During this discussion, as well as discussion on this subject on other platforms, I have maintained that Russian setbacks since September 2022 indicated that it shall struggle to hold on to some of its territorial gains. Even though Ukraine is in no position to defeat Russia or deter sustained onslaught by Russian artillery, missiles and Air Force, Russia appears incapable of securing an outright military victory in foreseeable future.  The entire Kievan Rus region has suffered irreparably.   

  Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff has been quoted by media in early November that nearly 200,000 soldiers have perished in this war. Ukraine and Russia have faced similar number of military casualties. We may dispute accuracy of these figures but cannot deny massive military casualties impacting both sides. Ukrainian President Zelensky himself had conceded in June this year that Ukrainian was suffering daily military casualties to the extent of 700-800. Simultaneously, there are indications of unexpectedly high military casualties even on the Russian side. Moscow's official data about military casualties stood at 5937 by early September as per a BBC report. However, large-scale military recruitments and images of large number of women searching their dead sons, husbands and brothers have been visible on social media.  

    Simultaneously, by mid-November 2022, Western sources have estimated Ukrainian civilian casualties around 40,000. The war is also believed to have generated 15 to 30 million refugees as per credible media channels in the West. Official UN records indicate that 7.8 million refugees have moved into different parts of Europe. They are mostly from Ukraine but a small component among them are Russians. There are no credible figures available on total loss of Ukrainian public infrastructure. The assessments have varied anywhere between US $ 300 to 800 billion. Ukrainian economy has shrunk by 39%. Rebuilding is going to cost too heavily. However, no one knows as yet when the war shall end. On the other hand, Western sanctions have failed to entirely cripple Russia.  But it would be too naive to deny economic and human impact of the war on Russia. 

    In recent months, Ukrainians have struck Russian positions with exceptional lethality, destroying their tanks, aircrafts and even sea vessels, with help of Western satellite imagery, surveillance and latest precision strike weapons. These have exposed relative obsolescence of military firepower of Russia, notwithstanding their strengths in areas like rocketry, missile technology, including rocket and jet-propelled hypersonic missiles, fighter aircraft, including advanced strategic bombers among others. But in many areas, they have lagged behind both the West and China, especially in advanced electronics and precision strike weapons.

      Over the last few weeks, scenes of mass jubilation, especially following Russian withdrawal from Kherson, and warm welcome extended to advancing Ukrainian troops by local people, including ethnic Russians, have conveyed a clear message. The so-called nationalist support base of President Purin appears under threat for the first time. Some of his staunch loyalists on social media have been openly critical of the Russian war strategy, especially its abject withdrawal. The possibility of use of tactical nuclear weapons remains a reality even now. But the image of invincibility of Russian artillery and airpower in Ukraine stands thoroughly exposed. At this point of time, Ukraine appears incapable of pushing the Russians beyond the East bank of Dniper or Dnipro River. Stalemate is likely to continue in many areas. But absence of a decisive victory for Russia itself is being hailed as Ukrainian victory.   

    Meanwhile, despite inability of both Russia and Ukraine to conclude the war, a trust-driven peace talk is nowhere on the horizon. Ukrainian President probably thinks that he has wrested momentum and, hence, has put impractical conditions for talks. These include restoration of all areas captured by Russia as well as ouster of President Putin from Russian Presidency. Russia, under President Putin, is unlikely to concede defeat or accept losses.

               Simultaneously, the net outcome of war shall decisively tilt the balance of entire global geopolitical equilibrium in favour of China. It shall increase Russian dependence on China and provide the latter with unfettered access to vast land and natural resources of its mauled and depleted northern neighbour. I doubt the resultant outcome shall suit the strategic objectives of the West, especially the United States and its allies.   

                                                                                                                   (To be continued)

Russian Invasion of Ukraine (Vol.1): Significance of the War

 Significance Ukraine-Russia War

As Russia-Ukraine war completes 100 days with no end in sight and Ukrainian President himself conceding that ‘Russian forces had captured one-fifth of the territory of Ukraine’[1], consequences of the war are more than visible. Food and energy prices are soaring world-wide following sanctions and dislocation of supplies. Horrific images of the dead civilians and large-scale destruction of cities, towns, farmlands, villages, neighbourhoods and public infrastructure in Ukraine suggest that soon very little may be left in Ukraine to re-build. On the other hand, Western sanctions, imposed in five tranches, seem to have had done little to shake Russian determination on Ukraine. Rather enterprising middlemen are raking moolah out of distressed Russian crude sale at one level and overall shortages on the other. Some are already eying lucrative post-war reconstruction opportunities in Ukraine.

Russian forces appear to have established almost full control of industrialised Donbass region, capturing almost all key cities in a campaign that has been excruciatingly slow yet steady. Ukrainian forces have put up determined resistance, even recapturing small number of habitation in an area, where Pro-Russian local militias had already     been controlling a significant area including controlling Luhansk and Donetsk provinces. Occasional counter-attacks from Ukrainian sides reflect resilience of the resistance that the Ukrainians have put up so far as well with possible intelligence and otherwise support from the Western sources. Going has definitely not been as easy and smooth as the Russian side may have anticipated. Russia to give up on its earlier strategy of possibly toppling Zelensky by encircling Kyiv and overwhelming Ukraine from all sides.

Large-scale casualties and destruction is going to leave bitterness that may persist much longer, if not forever. These may fracture the common civilizational identity of erstwhile Russian empire or the former Soviet republics that the President Putin was seeking to restore. Many Western analysts have described graphic depiction of war miseries in media as setback for Russia and victory for Ukraine in larger information warfare. A few friends in strategic community East Europe have observed that it may appear a moral victory for the United States and the Westers Europe as they succeed in their  objective of inflicting a big blow to President Putin’s aspirations to regain territorial integrity of ‘Kievan Rus’ (or Kyivan Rus) and establish pre-eminence of Russia in all the territories that had once been part of Czarist Russia and erstwhile Soviet Union. But flawed strategy of President Putin and his inability to usher in genuine democracy in Russia is equally responsible for this humiliation of almost entire Eastern Europe.

East Europe and West Europe had always been two separate civilisational entities and there has always been some degree of competition between the two, notwithstanding their own internal tussles, turmoil and conflicts. Ukrainians have paid a huge price in terms of loss of human lives and large scale despoilation of their land. It is indeed difficult to differentiate Ukrainian and Russian blood as there has been huge intermixing and for a variety of reasons ethnic Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Germans etc who constituted population of Ukraine around or before first world war have learned Ukrainian language and assimilated into a common Ukrainian identity. A significant section in the East have retained their exclusive Russian identity and President Putin had charged Ukraine of carrying out genocide against them. Unfortunately, over 25 million Russian speaking people had suddenly become foreigners overnight when 15 Soviet Republic had turned independent following fall of Gorbachev. Their relationship with their non-Russian speaking states remains complex and tenuous.  

But the larger human and material const that Ukraine has paid to gain popular sympathy is probably far too high. Further, Western strategy or support for the Ukraine or leadership of President Zelensky is not going to alter the eventual outcome of war, even if alters geopolitical equilibrium of the region. These are only going to stretch the agony, pain, trauma and losses for people of Ukraine manifold.  Other in the region absorbing refugees or impacted by disruption of supplies in some form or the other are also going to suffer to varying degrees. 

President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has shattered the belief that conventional wars were either unlikely or no longer needed in an increasingly interlinked and integrated world. This War has also exposed the vulnerability of the larger freedom that the mankind has substantially enjoyed from the war since the middle of 20^th century. Overall military costs including Western aid and spurt in military spendings of most states in the region is going to witness decline in share of public investments in human development and social-welfare projects world-wide. These can permanently distort the trajectory of progressive evolution of democracies all over the world and plight of masses may deteriorate all over the world.

In the event of failure of his so-called grand agenda of Putin, probability of his taking recourse to desperate measures, periling security of both his own people as well as that of others, appears a reality. Though the world has so far ignored the potential threats of nuclear war by Putin and his associates, the spectre of even biological, chemical or a limited nuclear war remains on the horizon, albeit quite distantly at this stage. They have consistently reminded, if not threatened, the world about potential consequences of a limited nuclear war. Yet there is no worthwhile global initiative or leadership that appears capable of halting this war to usher in an early and sustainable peace or even ceasefire.

  We are already witnessing far reaching consequences of this war where few are enriching at the cost of the rest. These include miseries of people in Ukraine and families of the Russian soldiers as well as people suffering to varying degrees due to dislocation of food and essentials. The pace and scale of devastations, combined with larger implications for global geopolitical equilibrium, peace and security, far more exceeds consequences of several prolonged skirmishes, border conflicts, sustained counter-insurgency or anti-insurgency operations or military interventions as well as a few prolonged wars like the one between Iran and Iraq in 1970s that the world has witnessed over the past few decades. Russia, a direct party in this war, has not only been a top nuclear power but also one of the biggest producers of oil, gas, grains and fertilisers. Russia and Ukraine, together, have been described as bread basket of the world.

Rapid assessment report of United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) had assessed, soon after Putin’s invasion, that this war would lead to: a) escalation of cost of food items globally, exposing several nations in Asia and Africa, as well as a few even in Europe, to supply shocks; b) limited disruption of transportation of container cargo; as well as c) increase in oil gas prices impacting larger investment, inducing instability in financial markets and squeezing real income in many developing nations etc.[2]

These assessments have turned out to be correct by the end of May 2022. Prices of many essentials have risen in most developing nations and disruption in global supply and investment chains seem to be leaving their impact quite significantly. UN Secretary General Guterres observed on June 03 that ..”the conflict has already taken thousands of lives, caused untold destruction, displaced millions of people, resulted in unacceptable violations of human rights and is inflaming a three-dimensional global crisis – food, energy and finance – that is pummeling the most vulnerable people, countries and economies,”[3]

(To be Continued )

---

[1] What Happened on Day 99 of the War in Ukraine - The New York Times (nytimes.com) as accessed on June 3, 2022;

[2] https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osginf2022d1_en.pdf as accessed on June 01, 2022

[3] UN Secretary-General Fears Three-Dimensional Global Crisis As War Continues In Ukraine (outlookindia.com) as accessed on June 04;

A CRITICAL TRIBUTE TO NEHRU: THE VISIONARY FIRST PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA

 

On his 58^th death anniversary, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India, appears a highly polarising and controversial personality. This was not the case a few decades back when I was studying in a university in the national capital named after him -   Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JNU). But even during late 1980s and early 90s, Pandit Nehru was not a very popular figure even in a premier University that was named after him. But he was definitely not hated or despised by any standard. 

We are the largest democracy in human history with free speech enshrined in our constitutions as a fundamental right. But I don't remember at any point of time in my entire life, at least from mid 1970s since when I remember things clearly, that  one could either admire or criticise  a big leader or even disapprove of his/her decisions at any public platform, without losing  goodwill or inviting some retribution. Today, strangers, if not bots, are waiting to pounce upon anyone on social media with all kinds of vituperative diatribe over any divergent perception on an issues or even a leader. 

Nevertheless, in the best interest of democracy and governance, decisions of every important leader, howsoever great, must be open to impartial and enlightened public inquest or intellectual scrutiny. One must never be insulting or prejudiced in such exercise. But an honest venture with candour shall certainly helps build better perspective on governance and democracy. 

During my days in JNU, leftists not only dominated the intellectual discourse on the campus but virtually bullied, mocked and intimidated the rest. They often mocked Pandit Nehru, describing his vision of socialism as fake, insincere and utopian. This was prior to collapse of communism in 1989. This was the time, when even the remotest association with Congress Party or BJP, or for that matter any centrist party, was considered a stigma on JNU campus. I remember during 1988-89, Congress Party had arranged a series of cultural programmes to mark birth centenary of Pandit Nehru. But I doubt it had any positive impact at least in JNU.   

Interestingly, certain shades of socialists, opposed to Congress Party in 1980s, hailed Nehru as their own icon.  They showed enormous praise for Nehruvian socialism, even while opposing and condemning Indira Gandhi over her assaults on democracy during the famous "Emergency" era  and eroding and scuttling integrity of nearly all institutions. Some of the elderly and towering socialist leaders like late Shri Chandrashekhar ji and his associates cited Nehru's five-year plans, or his initiatives to build s strong public sector and institutions of learning, his leadership of post-colonial Afro-Asian world to resist “neo-imperialist, neo-colonial hegemonic agenda of the United States” in 1950s, without capitulating to Russia, as hall-mark of great leadership.  

They particularly praised Pandit Nehru’s vision of a modern and scientific India, which in their opinion were manifest in Bhakhra Nangal project to IITs to steel plants to atomic power projects etc. We hardly talk about Bhakhra Nangal today, but I was told that it was inaugurated with festivity and joy, befitting a national festival. They opined that these were so very difficult to conceptualise in the atmosphere prevailing in the immediate aftermath of independence. 

Many politicians who were young in 1950s and 1960s, had mentioned that despite all its claims to promote democracy, the United States had refused to help India with steel manufacturing technology or any heavy engineering industry or technological modernization plan on which Nehru ji was very keen. Later suspicion of American hand in killing of Homi J Bhabha virtually confirmed Indian apprehensions of  American hostility. With John Foster Dulles vindictive policy of 1950s that those who were not with America were against it, was yet another indicator of American disdain towards India's autonomy and independence in conduct of foreign policy.  Under these circumstances, Nehru appears to have handled initial challenges of governance and geopolitics so very well.  

But these admirers of Nehru also criticized the latter's overly anglicized ways, his stance on Tibet, his follies over Kashmir and of course the debacle that he invited in the war with China in 1962. They identified the root cause  of these failures in Nehru's patronizing and self-righteous approach that bordered on some degree of narcissism. Yet in hindsight, his narcissism was far less malevolent compared to not only Mao, Stalin, Khrushchev or even Churchill but also likes of even Tito, Nasser, Sukarno and Nkrumah, who were suspected to have clandestinely eliminated/oppressed some of their key rivals.  

Nehru's financial integrity, as per all available records, was impeccable. Unlike Jinnah, who was committed to excesses in luxury and sensuous indulgences, Nehru led an austere life. This was despite having seen luxury and comfort that his father had once provided for. His association with several women were well known. But that was the case with nearly all men in power of that era, in almost every part of the world, varying from Churchill to Mao.

 

Nehru was thoroughly committed to governance and remained fairly impartial in dealing with of most his colleagues. Chinese betrayal in 1962 had left him shattered and he made no bones about it. In the last interview of his life, which I have inserted in this blog, he was unequivocal that India had to become a strong military power to repel Chinese threat via Tibet. Even at the height of his soft corner for China, he never hesitated in giving shelter to young Dalai Lama.

 Source: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=nehru%27s+last+interview&docid=607999303091500460&mid=733C6AD9FEBFFABB87B4733C6AD9FEBFFABB87B4&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

When India, with its rich civilizational heritage, gained independence as a vast and yet fractured nation, with a set of challenges that were far too complex and  yet humongous, it needed an exceptional and towering leader to preside over the initial phase of tumult and uncertainty. Even if Nehru was not the perfect choice, he was certainly one of the best options that the country had at that point of time. He had several strengths but also a share of follies. How Subhash Chandra Bose or Sardar Patel would have acted is a hypothetical proposition. But these leaders did appear more decisive, forceful and realist on several parameters. But Bose was not there and Sardar Patel passed away prematurely. 

There was no dearth of a galaxy of brilliant leaders even in cabinet of Pandit Nehru or outside. Nehru did occasionally support even those who were opposed to his views but in few cases, he did appear vindictive. I am not citing specific examples only to avoid controversies. But I doubt that there was any leader in any part of the post-colonial world at that point of time, who was better. We can argue that as the first Prime Minister, he could have done more. But this is an endless debate.   

Subsequent researches, incorporating some de-classified military-diplomatic documents, demonstrate that Nehru ji was least receptive to the then military, security and diplomatic establishments of the country. He over-rode institutional wisdom on several issues of critical importance.  Deadlock in Kashmir in 1948 or Chinese intrusion in Aksai Chin in 1950s or abdicating offer of a permanent seat in UN Security Council in favor of China or ultimately being surprised by the Chinese attack in 1962 are some of the examples in this direction.

It is debatable whether such lapses emanated from Nehru's romanticist view of the world that he had nurtured as an idealist freedom fighter under the patronage of Mahatma Gandhi. He lacked adequate exposure to geopolitics and security issues or one can say the very principles and practices of statecraft and warfare. Alternatively, he had remained distrustful of incumbents in those very military, intelligence and diplomatic institutions, who until sometime back had faithfully served an external colonial master, helping in oppression of their own people. 

Nehru in his bonhomie with Mao in 1950s, failed to appreciate Chinese or Maoist psyche emanating from long uninterrupted tradition of deceptive warfare and diplomacy. Mao was a top guerrilla warrior, adept in overwhelming bigger adversary exploiting their trust and complacence. Nehru had virtually given up on North-East India during the Chinese war besides letting down troops with deficient supply of essentials. He probably acted far too naively in dealing with Islamist radicals, as if they were liberal Muslims.  

But a great  leader cannot hide behind these excuses. Sardar Patel too had no exposure to statecraft. But he acted with such levels of realism, pragmatism, integrity and vision – in uniting 500 plus princely states, including difficult ones like Hyderabad and Junagadh among others- that could pale even the most seasoned governance and statecraft strategists. 

Leaders cannot be omniscient. But they must optimally harness all their resources, including their associates. With all his strengths and good intent, Pandit Nehru could not sufficiently trust his own associates and he probably remained far more than the first among equals in his council of Ministers. He trusted his own wisdom and decisions far too often, ignoring his associates. This contributed to a great visionary and idealist flounder on some major issues of strategic importance. 

         But today, Nehru is no more and India and the world and the larger context and sub-contexts of governance and geopolitics have significantly transitioned. United States is the closest partner of India, notwithstanding India's refusal to directly condemn Russia for invasion of Ukraine. India- China competition and rivalry is likely to stay forever. Successes and failures of Nehru offer huge lessons in leadership, politics, governance and geopolitics and diplomacy.  The biggest criticism that Pandit Nehru faces is on introduction of dynastic politics in India. Probably, it never happened during his own life time. It was Lal Bahadur Shastri who had succeeded Pandit Nehru but following his unexpected death in Tashkent, Indira Gandhi took over premiership with help of some clever courtiers, who had intended to exploit her naivete. She outsmarted all of them and turned out to be exact opposite to her father on tolerance to dissidence or even corruption. But it is pertinent to ask, what were the rest of Congressmen & women doing? 

Even today, the Nehruvian idea of egalitarianism is neither fake nor irrelevant. An extreme inequality in society disturbs its strategic equilibrium, undermining the quality of cohesion and competition and consequently the capacity of a society evolve and flourish optimally. Today, China with 109+ highly profitable public sector companies in the list of Forbes Fortune 500, has demolished the myth of inefficiency of public sector. Ability of these companies to invest in R&D without worrying for immediate returns, has helped  China surge ahead of even the United States in many critical areas of fundamental research. Yes, we need to avoid obtrusive controls of the kind that the Soviet Russia and erstwhile communists practiced, killing innovation and excellence and choking output of their societies. 

Nehruvian model sought to retain people's control over mega companies and major resources without curbing freedom of ideas, initiative and enterprise. The model could have been refined alongside transformation of larger ecosystem to foster higher quality of trust, collaboration, competition and excellence. 

But it is time Nehru is liberated from partisan, acrimonious and politically discordant discourses. His lapses must be remedied and  his contributions need to be consolidated upon. But this is possible only if his great grand children set an example of some self-sacrifice. Their presence at the helm of Congress Party, by virtue of sheer birth in a family rather than any accomplishment as well as their association with dishonest courtiers, amounts to the biggest indictment of Nehru as harbinger of nepotism, favouritism, dynastic entitlements and corruption in every sector in contemporary India. 

Pandit Nehru's great grand children can emerge as powerful agents of change to redeem not only pride of  their own great grandfather but also help India realise its optimum potential as a state and society, that Pandit ji had envisioned. 

Racial Mass Shooting in New York: Need For Re-Structuring Governance Priorities In Democracies

        Shock and anguish were the first reaction to a news this morning about a racially motivated shoot out at a grocery store in New York. An 18 year old white supremacist young man had shot 13 persons, killing 10 of them. 11 of the 13 victims were coloured people. 

This Victims in this case were all innocent and none deserved to lose their lives the way they did. Their families also did not deserve the ordeal and trauma or scar that may persist for life. The debate over this killing even in the United States focuses on gun laws. People assume that once access to guns is stopped, probably such killings may stop. They may not be entirely be wrong. With knives and hammers, far lesser casualties can be inflicted. Victims in such cases, may have better prospect to fight back and protect themselves. But what is more serious is the depth of hatred and poison in the hearts of such assailants as well as social and otherwise conditions promoting such state of mind or mental instability among a few.  

There has been a complaint from sections within the American society, that most stakeholders of United States lack sincerity or conviction to address this menace. Their condemnations of such killings and expression of outrage sounds more like hollow rituals rather than real intent or purpose. Probably a steeply inequal and materialistic society, that worships wealth, may struggle to attach priority to an issue where victims are irrelevant in larger economic and political power equations. 

This incident happened far too away and it may look absurd for an Indian to take it so seriously. People in most parts of the world are least impacted by it, even though some Indians may feel concerned as they may have their family  or relations in New York or similar other parts of the world. But I assume that most of them probably may not be required to frequent such neighborhoods.  

Nevertheless, I feel that the regularity with which such shootouts have been taking place in the world's most powerful democracy, reflects serious deficiencies and dysfunctionality of some of their institutions. But such phenomenon is nearly universal in many democracies, even though their forms and contents may vary. Some of the underlying conditions that drive such racial or hate-filled attacks are omnipresent in nearly all plural societies. 

But apathy towards human life may be more pronounced in some of the authoritarian societies as well as post-colonial democracies. Even the better governed authoritarian states, where masses may not have access to guns, it is enforcement agencies and their personnel who frequently unleash such or somewhat similar terror which may not even get reported. Many excesses and acts of violence by them may not have sanction of the political leadership.   

Since the world look up to  America to assess the standards of governance, integrity and efficiency of institutions and state of human rights in their own countries, it becomes imperative to delve deeper into this phenomenon and explore solutions that may be universal in nature.

Of course the American gun-laws are outrightly atrocious. There is no place for such laws in a society that aspires or pretends to be a beacon for entire humanity. But probably abolition of laws in themselves may not be sufficient. It is more important that effort is made to eliminate those conditions where people need such deadly weapons of mass killings. If they need it for their own security from wild animals or deadly criminals, let there be a less lethal weapon in the market that only immobilizes  people  but only temporarily, without causing any injury. Even sale and use of such weapons must be strictly regulated only for self-defense. 

The second question that has come to fore is racial prejudice and motivation of the assailant. I have always maintained that democracies all over the world need to pay serious attention to usher in a firm and effective mechanism of rule of law. Even political mobilization in  the name of identity- race, religion or language- must be banned. Attempt to profiteer out of identity politics is nothing but day light assault on principles of democracy and equality. This holds true not only for politicians but also religious seminaries or civil society groups who have been seeking to demonize all members of other identity. 

I realize that there are certain theological principles and so-called religious texts that instigate violence against members of other faiths. These must be banned. Preaching or advocating violence or hatred against any community is no freedom. It is rather abuse of freedom and the biggest threat to lives, liberty and security of people as well as security and stability of states and societies. 

Finally, I would call for re-prioritization of some of the governance objectives, especially in democracies. Human health-both physical and mental- has to be at the top. I am not advocating that democratic states should create an army of lazy parasites who produce nothing and consume a lot. But probably, all democracies need to create a citizenry that is physically and mentally healthy, professionally and technically skilled  and ethically conscientious to foster optimal collaboration of the highest possible quality.  

The attacker in this incident is certainly a mentally ill person. There are lot of mentally unstable and ill people around us. Some of them are sadly harming themselves but many among them are inflicting severe harm on their societies and people around them.  If mentally ill persons get power- either in the form of a gun or even a position of authority- they may simply become unmanageable monsters. 

A deterrent action, howsoever strong, can do very little to retrieve the situation once the harm of this nature has already been inflicted or some human lives have already been lost.  Hence, it is important that democratic states restructure their priorities to attach optimal importance to physical and mental health of their citizenry.  Wherever required, even families must be counselled to ensure that they provide optimal conditions for wellbeing of their children. A regular physical and mental health check-up must be mandatory in all societies for all individuals. 

Similarly, universal access to quality education, dignity of labour, basic economic security must be prioritized.   Leadership in democracy, or what I envision as Indocracy in its more humanised form, is all about leading people towards a better society that fosters better collaboration and trust. Hence, leaders must harness collective strengths and capacities of their people towards collective goals. Today the victims of attack from a mentally unstable may be few poor hapless black citizens of a mighty democracy. But tomorrow even the mightiest among the mighty may face consequences of reckless actions of normal looking insane persons, with lot of destructive power at their disposal.     

Indocracy and An Indigenous Strategy on Terrorism for India

 

Dear Readers, I had taken probably the longest break from my blog due to a variety of factors.  I had promised that I shall soon be spelling out certain details of Indocracy and the one year period is too long. One can write a series of books in such a duration.  

Meanwhile, I have spelled out my ideas of Indocracy at various other platforms as well. Interestingly, many other people have started using the phrase or caption "Indocracy" @ "Bharat Tantra". I wish they used it to produce some meaty and thought-provoking concepts. But this is simply not possible for plagiarists or people lacking even basic integrity to acknowledge that they have got an idea from somewhere.  

While at one level I was eager that many people used or at least became conscious of the requirement of something like Indocracy or Bharat Tantra. But at another, I remain apprehensive of distortion of this idea. Indocracy @ Bharat Tantra is not about going back to past, howsoever glorious it may have been. It is also not about anguish and pain over certain developments that may not be perfect. It is more about a scientific knowledge and practice driven futuristic perspective on governance, geopolitics, national security and leadership to drive these.  It is neither possible for researchers nor for specialists. 

Anyways, the most hilarious encounter I had on this issue was by an acquaintance from JNU who teaches Hindi in some college of Delhi University. During a casual interaction, I mentioned to him about my idea of Indocracy. He became excited and soon invited me to a WhatsApp group that was captioned JNUites for Indocracy. I was appalled that many ideas from my own blog were being rehashed and in some cases even people did not bother to change the language. Meanwhile, I was told that the concerned acquaintance used his connections to organise seminars and public meetings and started peddling his own interpretation or misinterpretation of my ideas as Indocracy @ Bharat Tantra. I exited that platform and took resolve to avoid something like that. 

Integrity and Humanism are at the core of the idea of Indocracy. Indocracy is an intellectual revolt against the idea of entitlement and dishonesty. Indocracy envisions innovation and excellence, which is impossible through petty theft of ideas or wealth. The concept of leadership in Indocracy is driven by the highest form of altruism and one feels quite disturbed to see people claiming to be creator of some concept like this in name of our civilisation and making a beeline for personal favour at corridors of power.   

While our detailed interaction on Indocracy shall continue, I am taking liberty to post a research paper of mine that I wrote last year on need for an indigenous strategy on terrorism. There is a world-wide decline in terrorism but the larger ecosystem of terrorism in South Asia shall ensure that the problem shall persist. Further, massive counter-terror infrastructure shall start hurting us soon. It is time that we modify these institutions with larger change in the context. 

Though many factual details have changed since the paper went to press but most of its contents remain relevant even now. It will be pleasure to have feedback of my valued readers.    

 

Jitendra Ojha's Paper on Terrorism