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.

Preemptive attack and the power of Weak

Recently I have witnessed an incident while I was travelling by a public transport. There was a verbal duel between two passengers not sure what was the reason but reason per se might be quite an irrelevant item on which we are about to discuss. 

Two actors involved one person visibly weak and the other person reasonably strong, at least that is how they appear. When the duel reached a certain point the stronger one out of frustration slapped the weaker one, it appeared that he could not take it anymore. Then the weaker one just stopped talking. Something interesting ensued thereafter, as the weaker one was about to get down at his bus stop (ie., at his place) he called the big guy and asked sorry for what he has done. That act of asking sorry never appeared genuine at first place; I thought there was more of sarcasm. This stronger guy had some kind of triumphant feeling.

Before the bus could reach next stop the same weaker guy who got down at the previous stop asking apology and all that, brought his friend (a moderately stout guy – in good position to challenge the stronger one who slapped the weaker one earlier). And what happened next is indeed an easy guess, weaker one wanted to avenge.

But quite different happened in the approach the weaker one has taken. The moment these two guys got in to the bus, the weaker one’s friend was seen questioning the stronger one who is already in bus about why he slapped his friend. When they both were talking, taking the benefit of distraction the weaker one slapped the stronger one. Then suddenly I could see the stronger one pushing the weaker one and his friend. In that commotion the weaker one got down and walked away. And the guy who came to support the weaker one had to bear few blows before he could leave. End of the story.

International Relations & Politics

For a very long time this incident has been lingering in my mind and as a student of International Relations and Politics I could not arrest my temptation but to relate this incident to the behavior of nation states. And following questions should guide us in our discussion. And I will try to relate few known issues which are happening around us with this real incident. I shall interchangeably cite the incident mentioned above and few issues in International relations for the purposes of an easy comparison.

1. How a weak country will react if it was attacked by a stronger one (a reference to weaker one and the stronger one in the above mentioned real incident)?
2. What happens if a nation state faces flack for supporting its friendly neighbor or another friendly nation state in crisis situation?
3. What consequences should a strong country take in consideration before it decides to launch a pre-emptive attack on a weaker state?

On Question No.1

If you irritate a mighty super power (stronger one) then you (weaker one) should be ready for consequence/s (weaker one got slapped by the stronger one in the bus) your action generates.

Bin-Laden has been irritating the mighty US for quite some time and for once it retaliated and killed Bin-Laden, that is a consequence for his act of bombing twin towers, pentagon and few other sites in US ie., 9/11 incident.

But then the moment US slapped the weaker one (conventionally & militarily speaking bin laden/Al-Qaida is weaker than US) the scope of conflict expands, Laden’s friends (fellow Jihadis and other terrorist organizations jumped the fray) become a new irritant then the fight goes on and at last after it - US has completely bogged itself down now wants to engage with Taliban to finish the war.

If you don’t have an idea about the consequences your physical attack on other nation state could generate you should not attack. Especially if the other state is a relatively a weaker one the temptation is apparently higher as in the case of Iraq’s invasion and subsequent annexation of Kuwait, but it failed to factor in the consequences – US retaliation (reaction ?). Two equally stronger ones don’t fight or attack each other directly. US v/s Russia and US v/s China. But US intervenes everywhere else in the world in some pretext or the other.

On Question No.2

Before getting carried away by your friend’s call for help and supporting him you should assess whether it is really worth it. In our original incident the guy who came in supporting the weaker one had to bear few blows. Compare this with US invading/attacking Afghanistan, in the beginning all its European allies and allies elsewhere willingly joined the effort and as it turned out to be an endless quagmire everyone started to get out of it.

If you cannot make an unconditional commitment to your friend’s cause then don’t go for it.

On Question No.3

If you don’t have the skill (or resources) to destroy your opponents with least or no damage to yourself just don’t go for a preemptive attack. US attack on Vietnam could be an example. Mighty US was defeated by Vietnam.

If not nations, these suggestions are definitely helpful for those who travel by public transport daily.

Should Colonizers & Oppressors Pay reparations for Slavery ? Yes. They should.

Responding to an NYT report on whether former colonial powers should pay reparations for slavery?

For all that modern jargon in Human rights and insistence of European Powers to follow them, it will be a surprise for someone to hear it for the first time that it is none other than Europeans who invented “Slavery” and oppressed almost more than half of the planet.One thing is for sure. Being a former brutal oppressor and colonizer does not mean they have no right to talk about Human rights or some higher ideals.

But European powers in a way are indeed polluters of humanity and must be obliged to pay reparations. To borrow a principle which is relied on environmental suits mostly in India ie., “Polluter Pays Principle” and use it in this context as an analogy or as a metaphor might help. This principle more or less says he who pollutes and/or has a direct role in perpetuating pollution should pay for it. In that sense former colonial powers are liable to pay the compensation. It is no doubt that people in African and Caribbean countries are the most oppressed who could never fully recover from the atrocities committed by the European countries. China & US, they asserted themselves since beginning, who were the only two former colonized countries/regions went on to become major economies in the world, thanks to their resolve, but not everybody is that fortunate.

Arguments like whether we can bring in people in to courts who were actually oppressed does not stand, their legal heirs and next generation must be compensated. And the reaction of Lauterpacht Center forInternational Law is understandable.Reparations such as these will definitely put Jihadist apologists in a spot, because oppression by the Christian world was always shown as a justification for the atrocities they have committed and still committing.

Richard Dawkins some time ago in his twitter conversation said that yes, Christians have committed innumerable atrocities by killing & maiming millions but they have moved on and realized their mistakes.

The spiritual giant of India Sri Aurobindo too supported Colonial powers especially British because in his opinion though British is a colonizer and oppressor it also propagated many good ideals like democracy and freedom etc., hence he supported the colonial powers in their war effort against axis powers, who then called colonial powers as advanced and progressive forces.

So in that context when juxtaposed with axis powers, the colonial powers were considered either angels or lesser evils. You cannot imagine a world after World War II with axis powers winning it; civilizations must have been made to endure highest forms of slavery.

An extract from Volume 36  of Aurobindo's writings “Autobiographical Notes and Other Writings of Historical Interest” Pages – 459 & 467 could help us understand the argument.

It is hardly possible that after the war the old order of things can survive unchanged; if that happened, there would again be a repetition of unrest, chaos, economic disorder and armed strife till the necessary change is made. The reason is that the life of mankind has become in fact a large though loosely complex unit and a world-order recognizing this fact is inevitable. It is ceasing to be possible for national egoisms to entrench themselves in their isolated independence and be sufficient for themselves, for all are now dependent on the whole. The professed separate self-sufficiency of Germany ended in a push for life-room which threatens all other peoples; nations which tried to isolate themselves in a self-regarding neutrality have paid the penalty of their blindness and the others who still maintain that attitude are likely sooner or later to share the same fate; either they must become the slaves or subservient vassals of three or four greater Powers, or a world-order must be found in which all can be safe in their freedom and yet united for the common good. It will be well for India, if in spite of the absorption of her pressing need, she recognizes that national egoism is no longer sufficient. She must claim freedom and equality for herself in whatever new order is to come or any post-war arrangement, but recognize also that the international idea and its realization are something that is becoming equally insistent, necessary and inevitable. If the totalitarian Powers win, there will indeed be a new world-order,—it may be in the end, a unification; but it will be a new order of naked brute Force, repression and exploitation, and for the people of Asia and Africa a subjection worse than anything they had experienced before. This has been recognized even by the Arabs who were fighting England in Palestine before the war; they have turned to her side. Not only Europe, Asia and Africa, but distant America with all her power and resources is no longer safe, and she has shown that she knows it; she has felt the peril and is arming herself in haste to meet it. In the other contingency, there will be not only the necessity for a freer new order, but every possibility of its formation; for the idea is growing; it is already recognized as an actual program by advanced progressive forces in England and elsewhere.

We should remember that conquest and rule over subject peoples were not regarded as wrong either in ancient or mediaeval or quite recent times, but as something great and glorious; men did not see any special wickedness in conquerors or conquering nations. Just government of subject peoples was envisaged but nothing more—exploitation was not excluded. The modern ideas on the subject, the right of all to liberty, both individuals and nations, the immorality of conquest and empire, or such compromises as the British idea of training subject races for democratic freedom, are new values, an evolutionary movement; this is a new Dharma which has only begun slowly and initially to influence practice,—an infant Dharma which would have been throttled for good if Hitler succeeded in his “Avataric” mission and established his new “religion” over all the earth. Subject nations naturally accept the new Dharma and severely criticize the old imperialisms; it is to be hoped that they will practice what they now preach when they themselves become strong and rich and powerful. But the best will be if a new world-order evolves, even if at first stumblingly or incompletely, which will make the old things impossible—a difficult task, but not absolutely impossible.

The victims of European colonization must be satisfied with one thing that at least their former colonizers agree and apologize that their crimes are deplorable. But, the victims of Islamic Imperialism are not that fortunate enough. The way forward should be that either through political or legal means the victims must be compensated that would add more credibility to European’s current status and equating international aids with compensation is completely misleading.

May be it is time to codify in international law that nation states which are economically weak and backward must be allowed to seek compensation from their former oppressors for crimes like slavery and must not be restricted only to slavery. Probably if this case is taken up and it wins in ICJ that would certainly set some kind of precedent which shall withstand assertions like calling the whole exercise as legal fantasy.

India must also explore such options for the atrocities committed by England in TamilNadu, India where native Tamils were migrated to plantations of Srilanka and made to work as slaves, not sure if we can ask the same to the oppressors of Persia.

Reflecting on Col. P K Gautam’s recently written paper in IDSA

Reflecting on Col. P K Gautam’s recently written paper in IDSA on Enduring issues of Statecraft, Military Issues andInternational Relations from Cholas the powerful southern kingdom.

It is a scintillating write up which talks about areas which needs focus to solve some of the serious issues which afflict the present day world. Col. PK Gautam talked about indigenous solutions to global problems.

All major issues which remain unsolved in the arena of international politics India has solutions. Firstly in the academic domain there is no great interest in researching our glorious past, even if somebody does, it is completely distorted because of researcher’s ideological moorings. For example, we have Romila Thappar who in a way eulogizes all Islamic Invasions and the destruction that ensued in the name of their religion.

Supremacy of Cholas:

Based on my elementary reading on Cholas I can say that, they were like Brits of 16 th and 17 th century, especially with respect to the invincibility of their naval fleet. They ruled throughout the Southeast Asia uninterrupted for nearly 500 years, engaged in trade with southern part of Africa. And the northern Kingdoms did not dare to enter in to their fiefdom. There was more of an internal conflict within the triumvirate of chera, chola and pandyas.

The take away for a budding student especially like me would be firstly not to go for foreign sources and ideas for everything and waste time, but look within. India was an intellectual power house once and we were systematically indoctrinated by a highly organized but a very small group of people called Brits and were forced to agree that everything indigenous was inferior. This feeling remains intact till this date.

Gandhi said if we have to for a moment imagine that the whole written literature of Hinduism is disappeared and only the first phrase of Isho Upanishad remains, all that lost literature can be re-constructed from that one phrase, Amitabh Mattoo described this in one of his op-ed some time ago. Mattoo went on and added that if the whole international literature has disappeared from this world, all can be re-constructed from the epic Mahabharata. That is the power of indigenous wisdom. Mahabharath is the best teacher you can ever have especially if you are a student of International Politics.

Yes. There were myriad independent political entities in the name of kingdoms but people were united with one culture, which we can conveniently call it as Hindu religion. Though few in the current days who were completely indoctrinated with Marxist ideology might have an objection with that “H” word, truth remains unsullied.

We Indians should take the study of history seriously and learn from our past for the sake of addressing our own problems and subsequently to help others too.

Thanks to Shri. Col. P K Gautam.

My Comment on Arms Race in Asia between China and India

Responding to Arms race between China and India

There is another possibility like Chinese media some time ago quoted, that India is actually underplaying its missile development program. And Agni V itself is some kind of ICBM, just to avoid an arms race in ASIA India constantly projects a  picture to the world in general and China in particular that it is not racing with them but in reality it is reaching near China's military prowess. But I hope Chinese intelligence is not that dumb in not knowing what we are up to.

Western powers have realized that the embargoes and regimes like MTCR(Missile technology control regime) have in no meaningful way obstructed India's indigenous development of ballistic missiles, though we have to agree that it did sluggish the pace. The job of our scientists is commendable. The issue was always with political leadership.

May be the statements like the one which Avinash Ji made could be because of current circumstances where Chinese at will cross Indian borders and go back. The strategic leadership may have stage managed such comments and reactions in their attempt to create some kind of deterrent to Chinese with respect to border intrusions.

We really do not know if mere statements could cause deterrence. But there is a profound pride on reaching this milestone by India among the educated citizenry.

The reply I got for the above comment :

From JB :

Having something in your drawing room showcase does not mean you know how to or you have the mental strength to use them. In 1962 having far superior air power India failed to put it to resulting in lasting humiliation!

And my further response to it is mentioned below :

Agreed ! But that was exactly what I have said as it has to do with Political unpreparedness rather than Military unpreparedness.

You know, Nehru once declared that India does not need a military. All it needed was a police force to control the public. How naive. The strategic thinking itself was not in deficit, but the strategic thinking of political leadership was in deficit. China never had this problem.

Snowden & Spying : What Kautilya says ?

To a question whether Spying is wrong ? May be right, may be wrong ? It was always there though the latest sophisticated technologies have changed the way it is done. After Edward Snowden's episode we have a flurry of questions raised and circulated by the Leftists in the form of propaganda against their imaginary enemy Imperialist America. If all the countries have to remain like isolated islands with out any connection to the other geographies or the peoples of other nationality then reliance on this medium to ensure political stability at home is minimum because, in that case we may have to deal with only internal trouble makers for which spying is still indispensable.

Snowden is China's stooge ?

I thought America just resolved Anna Chapman episode and we had this Wikileaks now the Avalanche impact of Snowden's revelations. Just before Snowden's revelations US has been making a lot of noise about Chinese cyber attacks on its corporations and accused it of stealing trade secrets and intellectual property. It was never specific, no body was sure whether it was about to release more details. China may have many Snowdens deep inside the American Enterprise holding key positions in government and private enterprises they must be identified and eliminated, for they are rear annoyance as per Kautilya's Arthashastra. China used just one Snowden to shake the applecart slightly, there are many more to come ? If China is spying to steal trade secrets and intellectual property, US does it to secure democracy and peace for its citizens, the notoriety is there to judge for all of us. There are already reports surfacing about another US citizen a retired general leaking the details on Stuxnet Virus, so there is a lot of crisis ahead for US.

Kautilya's's take on Spies in his Arthashastra :

The legendary Kautilya - senior advisor in Mauryan administration who toppled the powerful Nandas from throne in his Arthashastra talks in detail about Spies.

In chapter III of Book IX - The work of an Invader he talks about the internal and external troubles a state could face and which should be dealt with on a priority basis.

OF the two things, slight annoyance in the rear, and considerable profit in the front, slight annoyance in the rear is more serious; for traitors, enemies, and wild tribes augment on all sides the slight annoyance which one may have in the rear. The members of one's own state may be provoked about the acquisition of considerable profit in the front.

Slight annoyance in the rear he refers to the internal troubles or unknown/known enemies internally, is more serious than known external enemies. So that must be looked up in to first before. And further he defines what is an internal enemy or a rear annoyance.

The provocation of any one of the minister, the priest, the commander-in-chief, and the heir-apparent is what is termed internal trouble.

And explains what to do about it - the phenomena of Internal enemy

The king should get rid of such an internal enemy either by giving up his own fault or by pointing out the danger arising from an external enemy

The above statement has two aspects getting rid of such an internal enemy and convincing him by telling him the danger of an external enemy or giving himself up, though we may not have consensus on using these two solutions but we might agree on one thing ie., to get rid of him. Making sure that he is ridden with out flouting the principles of modern day justice is indeed a challenging task. I am sure Americans can innovate.

The focus should be to expose China's theft, one at a time, I think it is already started. China stealing an American company's Turbine Software ?

Reflections on a paper authored by Terrorism Scholars Max Abrahams and Karolina Lula : Why Terrorists Overestimate the Odds of Victory

Reflections on a paper authored by Max Abrahams and Karolina Lula Why Terrorists Overestimate the Odds of Victory 

Terrorism as a Puzzle:

What an apt addition of the adjective "Puzzle" with terrorism. It is certainly puzzling to see why terrorists kill civilians as if someone kills an enemy in video game for pleasure. If we do a fish bone analysis and see what was the cause, all roads will probably lead to non-adherence of real democratic ideals, where a citizen's free will is encouraged and also to ensure some one's free will does not affect others, and equal availability of opportunities to pursue one's dream. Even in the so called England, the country which is touted as the inventor of democracy, the claim which can be disputed and will not stand for an intense scrutiny, we have had Guy Falkes a terrorist, should we assume that England was despotic? Yes. Why not? Those who create colonies out of hapless communities and exploit for the benefit of small group of people they must be called despotic. we can say that it wasn't a puzzle because people's displeasure towards government was evident and they targeted government and rulers to avenge themselves of the horrible acts of governments of those days.

Yes. Organized Terrorism (freedom fight) diverted on colonial masters to an extent made them (colonizers) shudder though they never agreed it publicly. Once the goal (ie., attaining political independence) was achieved they never had to resort to such violence for their legitimate political demands, there were or are other means. Hagganah, Indian National Army of Subash Chandra Bose could be few examples who were labelled as terrorists by the occupiers. In this context we can say that those who are with Palestinian resistance are terrorists? With one exception that they have directed or directing their violence towards civilians too, which is definitely becoming counterproductive according to Max's research.

The new age Islamic Terrorism:

Thought Leftists and other pseudos would not want to precede the word "Islamic" with terrorism, but truth is indisputable, most of the countries are victims of Islamic Terrorism. To a question whether terrorists are irrational in their behavior because there is hardly any political yield out of their actions? In this light Binladen's statement comes in handy,

"We do not distinguish between those dressed in
military uniform and civilians because Our enemy is every American male, whether he is directly fighting us or paying taxes"

This One statement is enough to weigh in the mental out look of Jihadi leadership, though Max argues that there was a change in his approach towards his last days. When man reaches towards his last days, he attains wisdom. But for a hardcore Islamic mind if it is not to create Dar al-Islam it is to eliminate Dar-ul-Harb, he shall employ any means he thinks appropriate and it is his pious duty. So killing innocent civilians is allowed?

Terrorists taking cues from History:

In this aspect the defeat of Soviet Union in Afghanistan certainly bolstered Jihadis and they have chosen American Heartland as their new battle ground and Americans their enemy. This thinking pattern is certainly oblivion of the fact that it was America's fight against USSR's hegemonic ambitions and was not a fight to save Islam for which Jihadi's were used merely as instruments or means because US is aware of de-merits of a conventional war. But since then Frankenstein monster has turned against its master who had no interest to control or subdue it and suddenly he woke up to 9/11 and the rest is history. Without an organized human effort supported by military and technological supremacy heading for a showdown with a pre-eminent military power is impossible. So instead of running indefinite campaigns they (Jihadis) must organize and develop their followers for a bigger fight in future ? Not sure.Or the only intention could be to constantly irritate the super power thereby blocking it to gain further eminence?

Who won the "War on Terror”?

In this context few would argue that in the so called war on terror it was not America which won but Al-Qaida. With its domestic compulsions on economic growth and sustainability is it not becoming tough for America to manage the war on terror? It will be obviously foolish to claim that US is the victor because it could eliminate Bin laden physically, the only utility US has derived may  be "vengeance is served" and nothing more than that.
When terrorists know that governments do not concede for violence against civilians, why then they engage in terrorism?

In this context Che's advice to his foot soldier is relevant

“Avoid useless acts of terrorism. He stressed that the tactic is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution"

This is one remarkable difference between Islamic Terrorism and Non-Islamic Terrorism. So Jihadi Terrorists know that while they cannot convert the whole world in to a Dar al-Islam in any time soon but they do not want anyone to have the power that could threaten their superiority, if at all they are going to achieve that status. So all infidels are enemies of Islam?

Terrorists drawing incorrect lessons from Guerilla campaigns?

If they plan their strategy on the premise of successful guerilla campaigns then they are certainly irrational if it is not a bounded rationality, Herbert Simon taught us there is nothing called as Rationality but bounded rationality. In that sense yes, I agree that there must be further research conducted to find out on what basis terrorists take cues from guerilla campaigns.

Poverty or Ideology which drives terrorism?

Of course I agree with Max's finding that it is not always poverty that drives terrorists. There must be something else? Indoctrination? The successful Indoctrination campaigns are run by LeT of Pakistan. The main challenge for democracies is to educate and prove their populace that terrorism is not the way to achieve their political demands and not to fall prey to terrorist's propaganda, which often exalts Jihad, is a duty towards god. So affluent, educated, rational and psychologically balanced fall in to the same pit. Apparently elected governments fail in their part making it much worse when they play with divisions. India's vote bank politics based on Muslim vote bank is a case in point.

Competitive quantifying and forecasting in political science ?

At least in US that is how it is. Going by the little knowledge I have, in US decisions and projections based out of gut feelings are considered as rubbish. But at the same time best way to part from this statistical jugglery is to go for Psychological explanations. Am I saying this because I am poor at statistics ? I could not judge right now.

"Over fifty years ago, Sidney Verba instructed social scientists to embrace psychological explanations when they outperform assumptions of perfect rationality. Contrary to the view of many political scientists, terrorists are not masterminds. Even their leaders make the same cognitive mistake as do other mortals—overestimating the political effectiveness of terrorist
campaigns by drawing false analogies from recently successful guerrilla campaigns. To a surprising degree, this simple theory can account for the global diffusion of terrorism despite its political futility"

The verbatim from Max's paper which I have reproduced above is convincing. That is Social Scientists must take Sidney Verba's instructions seriously and must not be only data guys.

 

Reflections on Terrorism Scholar Max Abraham's recently published Paper

Reflections on Terrorism Scholar Max Abraham's recently published Paper : The Credibility Paradox: Violence as a Double-Edged Sword in International Politics (International Studies Quarterly, December 2013)

The underlying theme appears to be that indulgence of violence will be a double edged sword and would be detrimental to the objectives of perpetrators (Terrorists) and challengers (States). I generalized under the following heads.

Terrorism as a double edged sword:

Yes. It is. Countries which are democratic or otherwise maintain certain degree of flexibility and attempt to accommodate perpetrator's concerns to an extent. But there is always a threshold once breached by terrorists it is common to expect that they might face stern reaction from affected states. Especially when terrorists are waging a war against a pre-eminent military power like America. The response from countries such as these could be overwhelming that the very survival of terrorist organizations could be at stake. In that context the warning given to Osama against a massive attack on America (9/11) is indeed telling, I know his rage could not take it. At least theoretically Al-Qaeda cannot boast the same capabilities which it did more than a decade ago, i.e., before 9/11 attack.

It is not only because of high intensity of crimes committed by terrorists the states react, but also to low intensity crimes given that it has been committed on a continuous basis over a period of time irrespective of whether it is after significant concessions or they are no concessions at all. To a question whether how a state would react to two terrorist attacks first one which kills 5000 civilians and another attack kills 50 civilians at a given point of time? The obvious assumption appears to be that in the former case response from challenger states could be so overwhelming that either terrorist organization will be wiped out completely or their attack capabilities will be reduced significantly apparently through the counter actions of affected state in question. And in the later case, we may think that state would be ready to talk, this will be considered as an option only if it is for the first time or few more times until the state feels that perpetrator is so adamant and will not change his stand. So time dimension must be taken in to account. If there are 100 such attacks in a span of decade or more which actually claims 5000 civilians? Then too we can expect a stern response from the state, as if it was a single massive attack. States would not react decisively until a specific threshold is breached.

A case in point could be the terrorist organization LTTE which maimed and killed thousands of the very Tamils it claimed for whom it is fighting. For more than a decade or nearly two decades SriLankan citizens endured the onslaught of LTTE violence, this in no way to discount the atrocities committed by state on minority Tamils. For all such low intensity terrorist attacks for a longer period of time, the Sri Lankan populace completely fed up and wanted to wipe them (LTTE) out completely, atleast that was the popular opinion and on that popular theme the current president acquired absolute majority in presidential elections. The arrogance of LTTE leadership was so enormous that it accepted nothing short of a separate country and denounced a viable option of devolution of powers which was acceptable to Tamils but not acceptable for the LTTE terrorists.

Maoism & Terrorism:

Like their LTTE counterparts Maoists are engaged in low intensity attacks for quite some time. And response of the state to their violence is at best none. But if Maoists kill 2000 civilians in one terrorist attack, that may be considered as threshold breached. If sanity prevails no leadership of a terror group would chose to do that, unlike Osama’s decision to target huge number of civilians in the case of 9/11 attack. It is completely based on availability of resources at some one's disposal, a bustling number of death squad in his control. I consider Maoists are most notorious when compared to hard-line Jihadis, for the simple reason being Jihadis thrive in no man's land but Maoists are confined to specific geography that too in a state which is touted as a largest functioning democracy. And they continue to operate on their to be achieved goal ie., to throw the elected democracy by 2050 and make this country a Maoist state. In this front there is a great competition between Islamist Terrorists and Maoists, where the former wants to turn this land in to Islamic State and the later wants to turn it in to a Maoist state with democratically elected government acting as a fence sitter.

Demands such as prisoner release, is it moderate compared to indiscriminate killing?

Yes. States especially large democracies easily concede for such demands because they think that they can save a lot of lives for the moment, though it will be foolish on terrorist’s part to kill all the civilians even if demands are not met, I agree with Max on this. Consider the hijack of IC 814 to Afghanistan when BJP was in power in India. Maulana Massod Azhar was released, who after his release went on to kill scores in organized attacks and not to mention the parliament attack. So I think on a broader view there is nothing moderate about terrorists or their demands, if they are they would never have resorted to terrorism?

Target population's reaction & Electorate moving to Political Right:

Pakistan is such a deviation where terrorists get absolute moral support from majority of the population, at best the target population such as Hazara shias, Baloch activists, ahmedias and Hindus have no avenues to react or make an impact. In complex societies like India unless it is a conventional war with other state (kargil war) people are insensitive towards such acts. Ie., a 2008 type terrorist attack in Mumbai may not evoke much of a response in extreme south or in North east or J&K for that matter. At worse security of state or terrorism is not even considered as an electoral issue. And there is this large scale sympathy towards Islamist Terrorism from Muslim populace and the leftists. Consolidation of votes does not happen on this issue. So we have a Muslim Vote bank, presumably a vote bank for Christians, but there is no Hindu Vote Bank if there is one BJP would be ruling India for ever. Also is it not a wonder that Americans chose to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans who are considered as far Right who acted sternly by attacking Afghanistan after 9/11? Israel is an exception I suppose, but there too its (Political Right) base is dwindling as per recent election results.

State’s violence against its citizens:

This is a most important component within the realm of political violence. When state which is a democratic, aristocratic or in any other form roughs up its deserters (as in deserters of the ruling party or clique) the fall of ruling dispensation is almost sealed, either they themselves try to strike the empire back or support an outsider. Iraq is a case in point for all the atrocities committed on Kurds by S.Hussien, they celebrated once he was condemned to death and also supported the outsider, NATO. Though democratic countries exercise restraint, there is a temptation to resort to such tactics even when they know how it ends. To quote legendary Gandhi, it is impossible to govern men without their consent.

Survey:

I hope such surveys should be conducted in India too. I am not sure if Max has such interests?

It is natural that responses for questions 3 & 4 are high on terrorism in Vignette 1.

Unofficial accounts confirm that even if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan which has been a reason for terrorists to wage terrorist attacks on Democratic India, they will not halt attacks, because at the end they want to turn the whole Indian state in to sharia fold. Yes they would derive great satisfaction if Americans or Hindus harmed in an unrelated incident.

Looking forward to read more of Max's work.

 

Why China cannot be India's true friend ?

The recent visit by the Chinese premier Li has raised much debate and a positive out look in his first spell of foreign tour after taking over as a premier of Communist china simply because he chose India as a first stop in his current leg of foreign tour. He himself mentioned in his joint press conference with India's PM that due to the importance he assigned towards India, he chose to anchor first in India, which provided much fodder for Indian Media which has been chewing it for quite some time. And went on further eulogizing hindi - chin bhai bhai stuff.

Let's be more realistic in our expectations with China. Once Li wound up his Photo op in India he landed in a country what is termed as China's Israel ie,. Pakistan where he concluded or signed agreements on which India has serious concerns. Transfer of Gwadar Port to China. Caught between in the so called string of pearl, Golden triangle and Golden crescent, India has many woes ahead to be dealt with. Gandhian assertions by our PM such as " There is enough space for both China and India to grow " has only philosophical appeal and nothing more than that. We shine only when compared to Pakistan which is not a bench mark at all.

Monumental mistake/s committed on dealings with China in early stages of Post-Independence did cost us dear and we could never move past that, legacy of which haunts India until today. It is our failure to give credence to the fact that China can never make love with a democratic India, should not we be seeing it through ? To go by a favorite quote " Show Me Your Company And I’ll Tell You Who You Are " Lets see the bunch of countries which are friends of China. North Korea, Pakistan ? With out trying not to be outlandish, North Korea is considered as a rogue state and Pakistan a failed or terrorist state. The revelation that nearly 80 % of terrorist attacks are hatched in Pakistan is more than an evidence and shows how Pakistan is contributing to World's instability. Now that we know China's company we should be able to tell what China is.

In 21st century, two major threats for the stability of this world is Islamic Terrorism and Communism. Both diagonally opposite with respect to their ideological inclinations but employ similar means to achieve their ends. Pakistan is more than willing to submit to Chinese suzerainty as it thinks that Hindu India is a threat to its existence, with out realizing a fact that under the nose of communism they cannot pray Allah. As a country India which was just relieved through political independence from 1000 year old colonial yoke (Islamic & British rule included) it always took a stand making sure it does not anger any bloc in the cold war era and any other bloc in the current era. So there was this Panhsheel and NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) distortion which still remains to be a stumbling block.

For China and Pakistan they are very clear on their goals ie., not to provide any avenues for Indian dominance with in Asia in particular and in world in general. India has always been sensitive towards China's concerns let it be Tibet or Taiwan etc., but there was never an element of reciprocity in Chinese approach towards India. Hundreds of Chinese Military incursions every year in to Indian Territory is a case in point. But India never indulged in such a behavior either with Pakistan or China. The ruling politicians call it as Soft Power but I would call it incapability.

Barring aside the requirement to attain a greater economic supremacy Vis-a-Vis China it is important to maintain the balance of Power in Asia by beefing up India's defense and intelligence capabilities which is a way to go for her. If it is not due to the out right rejection of Capitalism but it is definitely due to her love for Socialism/Marxism made India a loser. With Communists/Marxists/Maoists deeply penetrated in India media which wields an enormous power in guiding public opinion, the state of India and its future is in cross roads.

In the emerging Bi-polar reality Russia (or USSR) is already knocked out of the game whose economic supremacy is greatly dwindled but technological supremacy with respect to defense industry still remains to an extent, and the new comer to take erstwhile USSR's position is undoubtedly China and the defending champion is USA. Just like in the cold war era India in its attempt to take a middle course reached no where, now it is in the dilemma of emerging US - China bipolarity, as in what stand it should take. The Internal & Economic security is so fragile that it cannot take an independent stand. Though we have talked about "Look East" it seems we have never looked east. In east it is Japan and in West it is USA are our only allies to counter new axis of evil which is Pakistan-China in the context of Asia if not on a global scale.

And China knows very clearly that the way to drag this world in to Communism abyss is only through military supremacy and in that quest it diverted its full efforts to steal defense secrets through its army of hackers and cyber spies and reverse engineering which makes Communists an Immoral bunch.

If recent Rand Corporation's report was correct about the feasibility of setting up a Drone base in Andaman Nicobar Islands for an eventual Offensive against China, India should go for it. It is an open secret that China cannot have democratic friends. If it says that India is one, then it is merely a public posture. Siding with USA in west and Japan in east is the only way to check Chinese arrogance in greater Asia.

My comment on Matt Dickenson's Post

My comment on Matt Dickenson's Post - Graduate student of Politics in Duke University

But then that is how Americans are grown up as they have never heard bombs blowing up in their back yards. And their reaction in this case is apparently justified. Contrast it with the situation in South Asia, on a frequent basis hundreds of innocents are targeted and killed in the name of ethnic cleansing (Hazara shias, ahemadias, Hindus) by the taliban in Pakistan. So if terrorists choose to hijack few planes and attack few high rises in pakistan? The aftermath reaction of pakistanis will be certainly different from Americans, and they will carry on with their lives as they happen every day and they are so used to that.

Though India has been a victim of terrorism exported by Pakistan.. In the aftermath of all such ghastardly acts there was no psychological imbalance at all. By engaging in the normal course of business Indians want to send a message to the coward terrorists and jehadis and also to their backers that "look we are least afraid of your acts".  And that is how the psyche has evolved over the years.

To expect Americans to maintain the poise after such an attack of such magnitude is not fair. May be they should get used to it. But asking them to get used to is again not fair.

Panchsheel & Utopianism

Every country’s path to progress and the decision taken at important junctures of history are based on its leader’s ideological inclination and based on his upbringing and cultural orientation. When we trace our origins of foreign policy moorings in post independent India the only torch bearer was our first Prime Minister. Who is understandably involved in freedom movement and European educated who knew to an extent how the nations were conducting themselves when it comes to dealing with other nation states.

Being a country which recently got a political independence with a shattering economy, I say shattering because British’s systematic plunder of India made national treasury dry and nothing is left for Indians. When the whole world divided itself in to two camps - capitalism V/S communism, India had no base to take a stand. In this background with the intention that India should not be seen as a country which is siding with any one camp few proactive ideas were floated and adopted like Panchsheel, Non-alignment etc., though it’s relevance in 21^st century is a topic which requires an intense debate with keeping in mind the current day realities. We shall focus on Panchsheel at the moment.

Though India is similar to China to an extent in its land mass and other aspects, its diversity has always played a spoil sport. Myriad cultures, languages & customs etc., and on a relative basis this was not a challenge for China at all. It is often said that if you have power, then control, if not get controlled. This was the situation of India at that time ie., it had no power to control the events, at the same time we never wanted to be seen as a weakling. And to preemptively capture the moral high stance we spoke about Panchsheel.

But what we have never realized was Panchsheel is against the very basic tenets of communism. Let’s speak of one virtue one of the five principles – peaceful co-existence. When the very idea leftism/communism is about turning the whole world in to communist ghettos apparently through aggression, isn’t a misnomer to talk about peaceful co-existence with communist China? But Nehru’s utopia has demoralized the whole country, the rest is history especially after 1962 china's agression on India.

Communists have no regard for the peaceful co-existence.The recent events of border incursions by Chinese army in to our territory just prove that, the irrelevance of Panchsheel with China. I am not sure if Nehru thought this would appeal to china because China is a Buddhist country and borrowing principles from Buddhism will make sense, what he failed to realize that godlessness is at the core of what communists actually are. Even as a fellow communist sympathizer he never realized this fact.

It is said that on every year for the past few years or more, there has been an alarmingly increase in Chinese incursions, and GOI is waging a war with media to manage the reportage and there is no substance in the outcome of negotiations with China. In a face off for India with China it will only be a situation of asymmetric warfare. So statements like taking China and Pakistan head on at a same time is apparently baseless and is considered to be unreal. And there is no reason for us to celebrate because we have defeated Pakistan for more than few times in a conventional war, but in fact we actually are losing in a different theater i.e., the proxy wars.

Hind-chin bhai bhai propagated by Nehru has absolutely no relevance within the context of South Asian affairs. It is time to strengthen our defenses, but from where would the money come from? Good question. Money and resources are there. But it is whisked away by Politicians. We are losing on every front because of Political Corruption. But then who will rein up on these crooks? Don’t think, it is none but us.

My comment on "" The Quixote, er, Magnitsky Act Kicks In "" by Jay Ulfelder

My comment on "" The Quixote, er, Magnitsky Act Kicks In "" by Jay Ulfelder
==========================================================================

I think time has come for both the dwindling juggernauts to think that collectively did they do any good to this world? It is always a zero sum game when it comes to Russia V/S US. If we have to understand that it is always about capitalism fighting communism or vice versa why the situation has not been improved. I agree that for Russia it is a way to go for democratizing many things. But If US has to claim that it has the moral authority to push its style of democracy, openness and liberalism etc., It should not chery pick Russia alone but it must risk it doing with Islamic countries for whom even semblance of democracy is too remote and foreign to accept.

I always feel that for super powers there are always two choices, National Interest and Global Interest, and they must strike a balance between them without a over emphasis on any one thing. The term National Interest means at times anti others which will directly take a toll on Global Interest. Britain has to go down the annuls and is no more a super power because it treated everybody else as just resources with no respect for other’s right to lead a dignified life. Only those leaders who had the ability to harmonize these two conflicting terms could take the human race forward. Woodrow Wilson succeeded to an extent and I think no one else has met the bench mark he has set. And the current leaders of both these countries (US,Russia) have kept the Global Interest in aloof and fueled the rivalries. Suddenly it seemed that the whole US campaign of Reset with Russia was a bluff.

Should I thank the God? May be yes. For giving us the Nuclear weapons, thereby avoiding a third World War? Time to think rationally for both US & Russia and prove Herbert Simon wrong.

========================================================================

My comment on an article written by Jennifer Lind and Sumit Ganguly

My comment on " Why Cameroon Didn't Apologize to India " in http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/05/why-cameron-didnt-apologize-to-india/comment-page-1/#comment-56476 Written Proffessor Jennifer Lind -  Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College and Sumit Ganguly - professor of political science and holds the Tagore Chair in Indiana University, Bloomington

=======================================================================

In a strictly political parlance as far as this specific instance is concerned, the gesture of British PM is to make sure that he earns some brownies for his business community in particular and to project British as a responsible/reasonable/sensible nation state, which it was not until recently. The dwindling fortunes have forced England to opt for such gestures even it meant to be a little blow on the domestic front, these are especially done when elections are not around the corner ? But the moot point is why it cannot afford apologies to any other colonial country but India ? The reason is straight and apparent " Business" . Why it is not doing the same to any of its former colony is again "Business".

When I asked a question to a Brit writer Partrick French (@PatrickFrench2 ) " Where all the plunder has gone which the brits looted from India ? " in the context of Cameroon's visit recently. His answer was " Hard to answer that in 140 characters " in twitter. How true it is. The amount of riches it looted from India is indeed enormous but still countries such as these are struggling to keep up in the current economic scenario. So it becomes all the more responsibility of a head of government to make sure he pitches for British Business.

There can be two views narrow and broader. Again there is a scope to debate on which is broader and narrower. For now lets deduce that the Narrower being that this whole gesture is for sake of business than a genuine remorse and the broader being a sincere apology. What ever be the case the world is already bracing itself to manage the RE-EMERGENCE of India as an inevitable global power. Such gestures of apologies of a former ruthless colonial master goes a long way in promoting its own interests.

Thanks
@paytriat

Unipolar World – The reason for Turbulence

The powerless has to obey the powerful; it has been in practice since time immemorial. May be the meaning might have been changed in the current days of being powerful. Those days (I am talking about Stone Age) being powerful means the physical strength to protect one and also the dependents, now it may be money and power. It is good to see that under the garb of democracy powerless have also acquired the bargaining power.

We are living in a world which is segmented and necessarily a multipolar. We have seen the unipolarity, bipolarity and now a new kind of environment. Power segmented in one area is surely a concern for all of us. In a world of competing interests if a country wants to boast itself it has to demonstrate its ability by which others can understand that it is really a super power. One important indicator is how strong and effective is its war machine, of course this is only possible if some one is economically strong.

I really don’t know if I can say the super power should take a fatherly role in guiding the underdeveloped or the thirldworld counties. And see what happens if more than one party competes for that role-super power. We know what happened between USSR and USA and what is happening with India and China. Ultimately for any one who is heading a nation state the interests of his own people are paramount. But once the interests are addressed what’s next?

The current fragmented state of this political world is a result of power struggle between the European rivals. Though their platform to fight was initially Europe later it spread out. Though the Imperial coterie ruled this world for many years what is that they have achieved, at last they have become victims of economic slump. It is asserted that to maintain the nuclear weapons in a ready state the super power spends millions of dollars daily.

The balance of power is perpetual and a never ending game. America thought by neutralizing the USSR it won the race and never expected that it again has to compete with China and of course India. Surely it cannot bomb china and India then claim the supremacy over the world. So Unipolarity is slowly becoming a thing of past. Arms race, wars, terrorism, uneven development, illiteracy, poverty, hunger all are result of Unipolar world.

If one country has to remain as a global rowdy (super power) it has to either grow or suppress others growth. And doing the later seems to be the most opted solution which creates divide. I aint no expert on United Nations but still agree with the majority which says there is no true representation in that body. It is a good news that in 21^st century we are seeing new power centers getting created, suddenly multi polarity seems to be all the more possible.

Lets abolish the UN and split (based on commonalities) the world on different zones and each zone would have an UN like institution and no zone would interfere with other except for consulting or co-ordination, then we don’t have to seek UN resolution to bomb some one. The only problem is how to deal with personal tyrannies. Otherwise in our generation I am sure that we all will experience the life in a multipolar world.

The Spark of Revolution

Revolution has really become a buzz word. When we utter this “R” word then our grey cells are forced to think about Karl Marx or French revolution. The source of current wave of upheaval in the Arab landscape seems to be a road side vendor. All this started when his vegetable cart was confiscated by the police and the reason cited is he did not have a license to run that business in Tunisia. This deprived him from his only source of income and subsequent persecution by the officialdom made him to self immolate. In a country where most of the people are languishing, the top brass stays unfazed and spends time in the most luxurious resorts. They ensured fruits of all business contracts or the MOU’s signed with other countries reached their kith and kin. seems to be worst of tyrannies. There were times it was thought that revolution is only a thing of the nascent days of industrial revolution or the early half of 20^th century, but what we see here is truly an example of dialectism what Karl Marx envisaged, may be a century ago. Most experts say that this is no one’s revolution but the one of a common man, meaning which no body did spearhead this, but the people on their own.  You name any dictator (some may under the garb of presidency) in the Maghreb or in the African continent most of them are perfect realists in its true Hobbesian sense. There will be genocides for money or power and also to establish the supremacy of the two great religions (Islam and Christianity) as is case of Sudan. Though the Tunisians were successful in showing the door to the malevolent dictator who ruled for decades, we need to see whether the other brothers of them would be successful from relieving themselves from the clutches of their arrogant dictators or aristocrats or monarchs.

As I right this already Egypt was successful in its revolution and many country’s leaders in Maghreb are in deep trouble, the case in point is Qadhaffi’s Libya.

The champions of democracy USA and select few European countries are known for their selective application of International principles and laws would definitely make sure that their permanent interests are not affected in the midst as Israel worried on Egypt’s liberation from Mubarak. The indigenous right wing tried to claim their share in the victory as Muslim Brotherhood did in Egypt by they were largely ignored. The revolution out of sheer frustration. Though it is broadly agreed that the law is the supreme command of a sovereign as per Austin, when leaders don’t respond and does not understand the needs of the populace this is deemed to happen. I know we cannot forget Charles Julius Guiteau who assassinated President James Garfield due to the frustration rose from the unemployment in the 19^th century in USA. As USA is a liberal  democrat they could meet the challenge through passing legislation there by abolishing the patronage system in the federal services. But the Arab world is different. Highly riddled by the religious fanatics, mass unemployment, and illiteracy are some of the problems to quote. 

Thanks to the liquid gold other wise I cant imagine living in these deserts. The realists who took the reigns of the power are not reasonable at all and continue to be unreasonable. Next to Tunisia and Egypt we have Jordan, Syria, Bahrain, Qatar and don’t forget Libya is waiting to be liberated. All this inspires the mortals of suppressed civilizations/societies to demand better lives and social justice and fundamental rights from their masters. Let this be in the extreme east or Africa or Maghreb.

 Can’t we have a revolution in India to relieve ourselves from the yoke of kleptocracy?

Killer Seas - On Indian Fishermen Killing

Recently I have watched the movie Hostel in which a bunch of sick people kill their fellow human beings to relieve from stress or as an act of hobby (This is a must watch movie). Killing Tamil fishermen by srilankan navy (as it is alleged) is an act similar to the sick people in Hostel movie. When we talk about genocides of our time we only think about Hitler’s massacre. Being right wing is not wrong, the Sinhalese might have their own reasons why they want to consider Tamils as sub-humans but we are living in a world which is a liberal democrat and we are expected to honor human rights. The British (for that matter even missionaries) played their card by playing the divisive politics to further their own agenda. Between Sinhalese and Tamils we have a strong genetic link as we are from the same part of sub-continent. There is a theory which confirms that Sinhalese only inhabitated Ceylon only 100 years before the Tamils have set their foot so tamils are not aliens in srilanka.Month on Month we have a significant number of people getting killed by the srilankan navy as a result governments(centre and state) in India cries foul and for some time there is a truce and again the killing resumes.

Historically Indian government’s response was really pathetic on instances of this kind. Jayalalitha former CM of TN commented that citizens of such a mighty country like India which has a powerful military are killed by a tiny country like Srilanka is really unacceptable and in these circumstances if the PM does not know what to do he should quit. Her demand is convincing. This time there seems to be sudden interest may be because it is an election time in TN and the centre wants to show that they are defending their country men by sending the foreign secretary to Colombo and taking few series of measures which would project that GOI (government of India) is serious. But no body knows about results of the actions and steps which were taken already when similar incidents happened in the past. It is a matter of envy to any sovereign country when China showed its strong protest with Japan as its citizen was arrested on Diaoyu Island issue. China went on to suspend the export of rare earth. Not surprisingly Srilanka denies its Navy’s involvement in the killing of Indian fishermen and says it has ordered for the enquiry and we hope the report is out before the state elections in TN or at least after the elections. In India especially in TN this is mostly seen as an election issue, which is a black spot on the Indian democracy. When a fisherman of srilankan origin runs in to Indian waters we never kill them but follow the internationally acceptable legal/diplomatic process like deporting to their home land and/or trying them in a court of law which never happens in Srilanka.

India through its mighty soft power should compel this tiny nation to follow these acceptable procedures instead of exhibiting its behavior which is akin to racism. Politicians in TN assert that giving away the Katchatheevu in Palk Strait is an act of foolishness and reclaiming this territory is one great step towards solving the problem of fishermen killing. All rhetoric will sound like babble unless concrete steps are taken to solve this problem.

We can constitute a joint force of both the navies and monitor the troubled waters and identify the root causes. Also appoint a tribunal to try these cases of excursions as this will instill confidence especially to the Indian populace. Above all the governments of centre and state must pursue Srilanka to take effective steps to end this barbarian act of killing people of another sovereign simply because they have unknowingly crossed the international maritime border while fishing.