On Kenneth Waltz's ‘Man, the State and War’

Many primers in the study of international politics have been suggesting that reading and understanding the analysis of Kenneth Waltz’s book Man, the State and war as some kind of prerequisite for a good grounding on further studies in this discipline and subsequently I have decided to spend my time on reading it. Without doubt that was a good start.

The author for the purpose of analysis has picked up three independent components one more or less states that Man is a sole reason for all that is happening or to go bit further it is human’s mental makeup that leads to a decision to go for war for a variety of reasons, which is purely a psychological view. And another view (image) is how human tendencies are conditioned through institutions. Third image is when there are no binding rules with transactions between independent nation states, to prove one’s point one decides to go for war.

The central elements of this whole analysis is Individual, Institution and the vacuum of authority in relation between independent nation states i.e., Anarchy.

On the face of it, it is convincing to hear that neither man nor institution is the reason for war but the anarchic nature of international relations as a fundamental reason for war.

Though I do not intend to pass a judgment. I have always believed that without a reformation of an individual mind, reformation of a society is impossible and we cannot help it if it sounds more psychological. All incorrect judgments and vanity are because of man’s inherent mental impulses. If Hitler wanted to annex the whole Europe it was his individual decision rather than of all Germans. So the example of Hitler and Chamberlain is ubiquitous. In the context of South Asia, Chamberlain moment for India was when Nehru an ideologically indoctrinated prime minister of India said that Indians and Chinese are brothers.

Just Chamberlain appealed Hitler, Nehru too appealed China and Zhou and went on to say that India has got no business in Tibet and relinquished a seat in Security Council, all this was taken as a cue of weakness which emboldened China to attack India. Again two minds involved here, Chinese and Indian leadership both can be called as causes.As institutions and social conditions are the creation of man, with man corrected all will be perfected.

I have a slight disagreement with the way anarchy is portrayed. It has two conditions/assumptions one is there will be no government to govern and the other important condition is there should be no wicked men in society. If society has no single wicked man then there is no need for government and institutions not to mention the nation state.

Ken eventually deduced that anarchical nature of International relations is the sole reason of war, that conclusion goes against the very definition of Anarchy. If there is a condition of anarchy in operation then there will be no wars, no suicide bombing, and no violence.

If we ever wanted to hold an entity responsible for causing war it is the human mind. If we are looking for solutions to condition human mind then institutions are needed. Because society consists of both good and bad men and they will never stop fighting each other.

Ideology & Vision

With Aam Aadmi party in the scene and the way it churning out its populist schemes in Delhi, the debate of ideology came to the fore once again. But the fact is Ideologies are not formed in vacuum they are formed out of a leader’s vision or in short vision is a mother of Ideology. The condition of workers in Europe when industrialization was at its peak made Karl Marx empathize with them and he set out his vision in to clear cut ideas, hence his ideology. His blunder was that he wanted to turn the whole world in a way he thought. All that he said was more convenient to his followers to spread his dogmatic ideas through any means possible including gory killings of those who did not accept their ideology for the self aggrandizement of those aristocratic rulers who ruled by force in the name communism. In short in Communist Countries the crescendo is “Either My Ideology or your death”. Hence people suffered throughout USSR post Russian revolution and in China through Cultural Revolution.

The Congress party of India is a white man’s burden. Though Congress appeared to be a grand party then, it either ran on one person’s or on a family’s whim, just like the way it is now. The leftist moorings of Nehru and his daughter Indira are an open secret. Just like in any communist country or any leader whose allegiance is to communism, this country too was ruled by the charisma of both father and daughter who are ardent adherents of communism. Indira’s romance with Russia was such that she got the preamble of Indian constitution amended to include words like Socialist and secular.

On the face of it the argument by communists might sound convincing i.e., if there is a rampant income inequality, state should intervene to redistribute the resources to create equality. Let’s consider an example if there are four people in a state two having Rs. 20 each with them and the other two have 10 each, now the state will grab Rs. 5 from each having Rs. 20 and will give it to the other two each Rs.5 now all have Rs. 15 with them and no income inequality here.

It is easy to re-distribute the resources when there are only four people but what happens when there are a billion people? What if one person who has Rs. 20 refuses to give Rs. 5 to the state? Will the state just kill him? Then what about individual freedom and rights?

Indian case shows that this dogma was always used to constantly appease the voters and get their votes. The question whether the state should forever engage in redistribution of resources or create a situation where the have-nots will earn what they want through merit? Ambedkar wanted the SC/ST reservation only for 10 years and after that there should be no reservation what so ever. He has been too Utopian in his thinking about politicians.

Coming back to the story of Congress, after ruling this country for decade after decade with whatever means possible why freebies are still popular in this country why more than half of the country is living a sub-standard life? It is only because of this freebies (Socialism) are still popular. When Congress questions Aam Admi party about its ideology is it still talking about socialism and secularism? If it is just about these two, then it is going to be the same old garbage which Congress used to remain in power for all these decades.

What people need is not ideology but vision, a vision where everyone can earn through merit and talent, with that people can get what they want rather than state helping them by grabbing from somebody’s kitty and giving it to others.

Congress cannot run its business if India becomes self sufficient in all domains hence in some pretext or the other it robs this country and ensures perpetual poverty and therefore maintains its relevance.

If one generation cannot see the fruits of an ideology then what is the use?Whatever may be the ideology of US and the other western countries which have seen a great material progress and prosperity why it does not happen in India? First step towards such a great prosperity is freeing this country from Congress. And the alternative is simply not the likes of Aam Aadmi Party, because it is yet another splinter group of Congress/Communist type which so far has not given any viable vision. When Congress talks about ideology we should just ignore it. But when AAP talks about it we should validate it.