Why Terrorism and National Security will never be an election issue in India?

Recently we have seen current Gujarat Chief minister raising some security issues in public speeches as a part of his campaign against the incumbent congress such as issues like border incursions by China and Pakistan then the subsequent killing and beheading of Indian soldiers. We are still not sure if it will be an election issue. Can any political leader be sure that by campaigning on issues of national security and terrorism he can change the voting behavior of people in a country like India? We must admit that India is a divided house on different fronts linguistically, politically, economically not to mention the caste word though there is some kind of loose knit of cultural unity but that alone is not a reason to celebrate.

Why border incursions by Pakistan and China in one part of the country are not taken seriously in the other parts of country or when Maoists kill people why people do not react at all in front of ballot? Why ruling government, political leaders are not held responsible for their inefficiency? Why people do not punish the rulers for their inaction when elections ensue? This is a complex question. The examining of this issue is not without a danger of being caught within the dichotomy of right wing and left wing.

Off late I have been reading Max Abrahms a terrorism researcher and professor. I recommend that you too should read him. Max asserts that in most cases in west a terrorist attack generally, polarizes voters towards right and those parties stand to benefit because it is generally assumed that right wing parties are strong in their views and policies on national security. It is especially the case in Israel.

In my opinion poverty and illiteracy are the two main reasons why people really do not worry about terrorist attacks. If people have taken Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008 seriously, Congress party would not have made it to power again in 2009 for a full 5 year term. There was nothing tangible done in reaction to 2008 terrorist attacks apart from dousing victim's feelings by hanging Ajmal Kasab through judicial trial by Indian government.  It is alleged that hanging of Kasab too was timed in such a way that it will benefit ruling party. This is just to prove that government is tough on terrorism.

The real story is nearly 50% of children under 5 year age are undernourished. A significant section of Indian populace do not get food to eat three times a day. And that is why you can have governments which will remain inefficient on every front for 4 years and by fifth year they would release plethora of schemes targeting specific vote banks through freebies and concessions. People do not mind, they would simply vote for the incumbent.

Read Maslow's theory 

Maslow's hierarchy theory comes in handy for a comparison between an Indian voter and a voter in west. Our typical Indian voter is struggling to meet his physical needs, when that elementary expectation is not met he will not think about the needs of safety and self esteem which is why when Tamil fishermen are killed by Sri Lankan navy in extreme south people are hardly bothered about it in Delhi. And if some Pakistani terrorists and army kill Indian soldiers people do not react in North east.

Indian voter is poor, illiterate, has a short term memory, he forgives grave mistakes easily. For people activism literacy is important. Extreme poverty obstructs men to become literate. So political parties keep them in constant poverty. If you are illiterate you cannot question the government. Voters forget all mistakes committed by politicians with one freebie gesture say free rice per month, quota reservation etc., it is not their fault because that is their immediate priority and they are still lurching in the layer of physical needs on Maslow's table of hierarchy theory.

In west people are literate and are well aware of their rights hence politicians are compelled to go to people directly to present their case. In case of a terrorist attack, people unite and make their political rulers answer. For the citizens of west physical needs are no more a priority but for us it is.

This is not to discount the fact that we have united resolutely whenever there was a full scale aggression by enemy, but then too people never punished governments whose misdemeanor caused serious national security crises, 1962 Chinese aggression is a case in point. If people had taken it seriously congress would not have never made it to power. Let's collectively conquer the physical needs of an ordinary Indian citizen so that his voting behavior is not affected by physical needs alone and he also analyzes facts before he decides to whom he should vote.

Application of International Law: Challenges

Introduction:

International Law[1] or the Law of Nations is the name of a body of rules which according to regular definition regulates the conduct of States in their intercourse with each another. International Law is that branch of law which relates to the conduct of independent states who have certain inherent powers and are not subject to external political power[2]. But to the question of whether it is applied evenly throughout the world when ever there was a violation? The answer is apparently a partial yes. Since International Law has different dimensions, on this paper I shall attempt to pick up certain heads or themes and discuss challenges in those specific spheres. Additionally I make an earnest attempt to suggest certain measures through which we could curb the possibilities of violations going unaccounted.

Unrepresentative Security Council

Security Council formed as a tool to balance the power between competing nations, when we talk about Security Council we should go back to the circumstances that lead to the creation of League of Nations instead of United Nations Organization. Now the Security Council as an institutional set up is the giver of corrective justice[3] rather than distributive justice[4] most of the times. Apart from the stated purpose of maintaining International Peace it is a bloc to check the expansionist intentions of superpowers. The world at the moment is neither a unipolar nor a bipolar reality and is essentially a Multipolar set up. With that being the case it must reflect and represent the current day reality because most of the time ideological battles are fought in Security Council over important security issues, this is mainly because of the presence of Russia, USA and China. Members of security council are driven by their own national interests rather than by global justice and international peace. Security Council in its current form is blot on its legitimacy[5]

Syria’s Civil War:

Syria’s civil war is a case in point where there is no agreement on resolution[6] between major powers, with China and Russia on one side and USA on the other. With such a disagreement how can we hold the Syrian government liable for the excesses it committed on the protesting groups?

Resolution on Iraq:

Immediately after US and UK led invasion of Iraq on the premise of Iraq possessing Weapons of mass destruction, US wanted to lift all sanctions which were imposed when it was under Sadam's regime. Firstly act of aggression is a violation of International Law. By lifting the sanctions through active lobbying US has turned it in to a legally correct invasion and despite the opposition of non-permanent members a resolution[7] was passed for that effect. So it becomes imperative to reform Security Council which reflects the aspirations of developing countries else it will continue to be a forum where super powers play zero sum games[8] with each other.

Totalitarian States and Military Regimes

Though different ideologies propagate totalitarian view but it is also possible that an individual tyrant for eg: a military dictator can usurp power from a democratically elected government and to further sustain the power it acquired through fraud it engages in violation of International Law. Disturbing development is that when they have a tacit support of super powers the crimes these regimes commit often go unaccounted. Therefore the existence of totalitarian[9] regimes and the violations they commit is a grave challenge for the application of the rules of International Law.

Case of Baluchistan:

How Baluchistan has become a part of Pakistan is a painful past. And the state oppression drives the Baluch nationalists to fight against the tyrant administration to establish their human rights and further their cause of Independence; the most shocking violation is how Pakistan as a state engaged in blatant human rights violations since the issue erupted in 1947. Forced[10] disappearances of people of Baloch is a key component in its strategy against the struggle of Baluch independence, which is a grave violation of International Human rights law. But until date we have not seen any tangible and meaningful intervention by the international community. If every state has a right to fight the forces of separatism they have to do with due regard to International law[11] (Human rights and Humanitarian law). Sanctions and strictures do not deter people from committing crime and civilians are continued to be killed in Baluchistan till date and this violations are expected to continue in future unless they it is forcibly stopped by International Community.

Discrimination as a state policy in totalitarian regimes:

Totalitarian states have discrimination as their policies which are duly supported by their municipal law, just like Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia, where the former persecuted Jews and latter denied basic human rights for all opponents under the sun. According to Universal Declaration of Human rights all citizens have equal rights and there should be no discrimination on grounds of ethnicity, religion or minority status. But Pakistan’s constitution[12] says only a Muslim can become a president of Pakistan which is a violation International Law[13] (Civil and Political rights). No one till date could question this discrimination. As a way forward UN must start propagating the idea of keeping religion and affairs of state as two distinct entities which might help to gradually reduce the official discrimination.

Humanitarian law

If there is any domain of International law which is absolutely suffering from non-active support of power bloc it is “Law of Armed Conflict”. The serious problem of all law, and hence of international humanitarian law, is the yawning gap between precepts and practice[14]. Battle of Solferino 1859 helped Henry Dunant to discover how barbaric Human being was and ever since he tried to convince all, that war is indeed destructive and even in afterlife he is still trying to convince through ICRC. It generally insists on humanitarian considerations while two warring parties are engaged in an armed conflict. And primary aim is to ensure that no harm is caused to civilians, also if once armed combatants are disarmed they must be treated humanely. It will not be an exaggeration to say that most of the time perpetrators are not held liable. If we have to go by the dichotomy of International armed conflict[15]and Non-International armed conflict, most of the times violations occur in Non-International armed conflict[16] than the international armed conflict. Peremptory norms of International Humanitarian law are violated every day in this world in one conflict or the other without any fear of liability.

Bangladesh Liberation War:

During Bangladesh's liberation war Pakistan’s army and state sponsored militia committed grave human rights violations and war crimes, millions of innocent lives [17]were lost who had nothing to do with direct armed conflict. A mass exodus of further more ensued. But the key master minds that were behind this crime did lead a peaceful life and died naturally. The tribunal which was recently established is nothing but justice delayed. Years lapsed, no justice for the people perished. Again International community has not done enough when it comes to ensuring justice delivery for the victims of Bangladesh genocide. Limitation of Humanitarian Law is that it cannot stop beforehand from people getting killed at the time of war, or it is nearly impossible to force belligerents to adhere to the law of armed conflict when they are actually engaged in war or before they are going to start.

Highway of Death:

An important incident on violation of International Law which is committed by US on retreating Iraqi forces during the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was reversed mainly by US Army. If the sole intention was to assist Kuwait to free itself from the Iraqi invasion why should US bomb the retreating Iraqi forces on Highway 80 – A road that runs from Kuwait city to Safwan of Iraq. International Law prohibits the excessive use of force which could cause a superfluous injury. US army literally bombed the Iraqi forces from whom it had no immediate threat, thereby killing thousands of soldiers which is an unnecessary suffering for retreating soldiers and is a violation of very minimum humanitarian standards[18]. The military necessity[19] of killing thousands of retreating soldiers was never ascertained and justified by US Army, therefore it is a clear violation of Jus cogens[20].

Physical elimination of Iraqi soldiers with excessive force is a willful killing[21]. There was never a case to prosecute USA for its act, because US is not within the purview of International Criminal Court.

Conclusion: 

Though we have identified serious limitations in applying International law, it is not to discount the fact that even with current limited application of International law much of stability and world peace has been achieved, but that is not enough with this planet continuing to grow beyond 6 billion people and a considerable amount of population being younger generation who can easily identify the untenable argument of unequal application of International Law and the rising state of Multi-polarity affirms that notion. Long gone are days where the governing of global affairs was completely based on uni-polar and bi-polar views and we are in the era of Multipolar world therefore new threats, challenges and opportunities are on the table for the world to embrace. The developed world must realize this fact and ease its grip on world and let everyone to decide their own destiny without being intervened by the super powers, in that direction reforming the Security Council will have a salutary effect. Developed nations must agree that when it comes to violations International Law they are no different from any other country in the comity of nations. Bringing US within the purview of International Criminal Court could set the right tone to start with.

Note: This Paper will be submitted for a discussion which is due to happen on 24 Aug 2013 at Dept. of Legal Studies, University of Madras.

End Notes

---

[1] Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law, Rinehart, 1952,  p. 3

[2] Roland R. Foulke, Definition and Nature of International Law, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 6 (Dec., 1919), pp. 429-466

[3] Coleman, Jules and Mendlow, Gabriel, "Theories of Tort Law", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), 

[4] Lamont, Julian and Favor, Christi, "Distributive Justice", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

[5] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/06/un-security-council -Accessed on 22/08/2013

[6] http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42513#.UhVw5pL-HyQ – Accessed on 22/08/2013. Security Council meeting held on Syria

[7] Resolution 1483 (2003) Adopted by the Security Council at its 4761st meeting, on 22 May 2003

[8] Jackson, Matthew O., A Brief Introduction to the Basics of Game Theory (December 5, 2011). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1968579 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1968579

[9] Primoratz, Igor, "Terrorism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

[10] http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/28/pakistan-security-forces-disappear-opponents-balochistan - Accessed on 22/08/2013

[11] Art. 3. Chapter I: General provisions, Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

[12] Art.41 (2) Part III: The Federation of Pakistan, Chapter I: The President.

[13] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976.

[14] 31-03-2001 Article, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 841, by V. S. Mani

[15] Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.

[16] Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions; and Article 1 of 1977 Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

[17] Please see the Bangladesh genocide archive at http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/

[18] Art. 3 (2) (b) Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards Adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, in Turku/ Åbo Finland, 2 December 1990.

[19] International Law, Malcolm Shaw – 6th Edition – The conduct of Hostilities – pg 1184

[20] Finnis, John, "Natural Law Theories", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

[21] Art.8 (2) (i) Wilful Killing, Rome Statute of ICC.

The Myth of India’s Nuclear Deterrence

The recent unprovoked transgressions in to Indian territory by both Chinese and Pakistan bring to fore the oft repeated question whether India’s Nuclear deterrence is working when it comes to Pakistan and China. It was raised by Prof.Rajesh Rajagopalan in a periodical recently. And it almost sounds true that when India flanked by ideologically hardened neighbors whose commitment towards it appears to be beyond the interest of its own people’s welfare. At least this question may not be relevant to China as it enjoys near superiority in military hardware not to mention strategic advantages.

But it is shocking that with its inferiority on conventional weapons Pakistan frustrates India on a daily basis. While reports suggest that India’s nuclear arsenal is primarily directed on China, it has never taken a clear stand on Pakistan. It is felt that though the “No First Use" doctrine has given some level of moral depth but it has yielded no tangible benefits. While the fixation of Pakistan on Kashmir is understandable, but for all its irrational behavior starting from unprovoked border firing on Indian posts , assisting terrorists to infiltrate to perpetuate proxy war to inhumane acts like beheading Indian soldiers, Pakistan has a tacit approval of China for all its acts.

The deterrence worked only till such time when Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons. There is no asymmetry between India and Pakistan with respect to number of Nuclear weapons. The message is clear for Pakistan on the no first use doctrine. If we are not going to use Nuclear weapon until we are bombarded by a nuclear weapon, there is no question of deterrence. So time has come for us to annul the no first use doctrine..

Unlike Pakistan, Indian society is not anarchic where all decisions had to be taken based on collective consensus especially if it is a decision on military retaliation. If Pakistan was in the same position it would have launched unilateral strikes on India long ago taking the advantage of conventional weapon’s asymmetry.

With the drawdown of US forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan is understandably in tremendous pressure to engage Jihadis in a different theater, ethnic cleansing of hazaras and ahmedia’s is a task which will be taken care by domestic Jihadis and for Jihadis whose business is transnational in nature, Kashmir in particular and India in general is their preferred battlefield and Pakistan’s security establishments are more than willing to assist their quest.

More than anything else India’s stature is taking a severe beating in international arena for its response of zero reaction on Pakistan’s violations. India had two had chances 26/11 and parliament attack. It will be absolutely foolish to wait for another such moment if we ever wanted to retaliate. Tolstoy said you may not like war but war likes you. Without a strong military, diplomacy will not work. If you do not have capability or the intention to neutralize your adversary on the battlefield your diplomacy of talking will be a waste of time, especially with a state like Pakistan.

Military dictators of Pakistan have ensured the acquisition of Nuclear weapons making both Pakistan and India even on this platform. Firstly internationally community must be held completely responsible for allowing a hardened Islamist country like Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons.

To make our message clear it must be communicated to Pakistan that being a democracy does not mean we are weak and when it comes to national security all political parties have a same line of thought, maybe this is impossible having communists in India, but we should try out.

And importantly “no first use” doctrine must be scraped with immediate effect and the new doctrine must be worded in such a way that when a conventional and limited war is not forcing an adversary to negotiating table, nuclear weapons will be used. This will send a message to Pakistan that India will launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If we are doing that it means we are talking.

Responding to Chris Clary's Post on recent killings of Indian Solders by Pak Terrorists

Responding to Chris Clary's Post on recent killings of Indian Solders in Poonch by Pakistan Terrorists.

One of the common misconceptions of scholars in West on Indo-Pak relations is that Pakistan's civilian government is doing an overtime job on creating a framework for rapprochement with India. For Pakistan it is playing its due role as a failed and terrorist state. Civilian authority has no control over actions of any institutions not to mention Military. I fail to understand the reasons why we should continue to talk to somebody who has no authority over the entire territory. It will be a great service if we recall, through out its existence it remained and will continue to remain under the rule of Military Junta. And most of the population prefers to live under military regime. So much so that ever since it was formed only one so called civilian government could complete its actual term.

To balance the asymmetry of warfare when it comes to confrontation with India it resorted to proxy wars. Lets not forget that Pakistan was formed on Hindu Hatred and constantly thrives on that premise. As far as the Congress Party concerned it always played Pak-Terrorist's issue as a vote getter there by setting up a theory that by taking stern action on Pakistan it could lose Muslim votes in India, Indira Gandhi was an exception anyway. It is really painful to see people especially in academic world try to distinguish Pakistan Military and Terrorist groups which flourish there. Please remember especially when it comes to India there is no difference between Pak military and Pak terrorists.

The leftist discourse has caused considerable damage to our response to Pakistan when ever they engage in such gruesome acts. Pakistan treats India/Bharath as a country which is inhabited by Hindus and converting it in to Darul Islam is their pious duty. India being a bustling democracy does not have a decisive leader in power to take decisive actions. Resources to retaliate was never an issue, armed forces is battle ready. Only when the Hindu Hatred is abolished from the minds of Pakistanis, peace is possible. But then with out the jaundiced Hindu-Hatred view terrorism industry will go bankrupt. And the Jihadi's (Military & Terrorists) will never allow that to happen. I have spoken about this on why China and Pakistan can never be India's friends.

http://paetriot.blogspot.in/2013/06/why-muslims-of-india-should-stop.html?utm_source=BP_recent

http://paetriot.blogspot.in/2013/05/why-china-cannot-be-indias-true-friend.html?utm_source=BP_recent