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.

Act of International Criminal Court to prosecute only Africans is illegitimate.

Reacting to Jurist  report on " Africa leaders should be immune from ICC prosecution: AU "

The bullying of third world countries by international agencies, especially courts is not something new and it is a regular phenomena since the formation of UNO and other institutions which came to existence subsequently. International criminal law might have taken a new turn ever since the Nuremberg trials, but the disgust stems from the maxim - "Selective application of law is no law" . Are we to assume that in this civil world it is only in Africa people commit crimes especially state sponsored ie., the crime where leaders take an active role in engaging in war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide?

Whenever you hear about a case in International Criminal Court (ICC), there is a high degree of probability that the accused will be from third world, mostly from Africa. Mired in poverty, illiteracy and political corruption and at the receiving end of super powers they remain robbed off their wealth. Oppressed by the European colonial powers they continue to remain as a second class civilians and their very state of life is a blot on the legitimacy of civilized world.

The interest and alacrity which colonial powers shown in robbing off the wealth of Africa is not shown when it comes to contributing towards its development. It is a misnomer to claim that whatever little the developed world is doing is due its generosity but in my opinion it is firstly a misplaced argument and secondly it must be seen as if they are giving it back to the rightful owners from whom they have taken forcefully. The rosy picture given by the the departments of international development of developed countries on their contribution towards global development cannot taken at face value.

Yes. There is no doubt that by providing 70% of funding which is required to run ICC, EU uses it to settle political scores and for the purpose of arm twisting in the resource rich Africa. And in this light the threat by African Union to pull out of ICC is highly legitimate and AU must make the regional institutions stronger and establish an ICC like setup exclusive for Africa and try all cases there, probably with an international supervision. And the former colonial powers must not be allowed to use new tools to loot Africa.

If we ever have to try all the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the European Colonial powers, especially by the countries like Portugal, Spain and Britain we may have to establish hundreds of such courts.

Sub-Standard Performance in Chennai Moot competition

I have been attending few moot court competitions off late for a hands-on experience on advocacy and yes, as elders say to hone the lawyerly skills. The first one was in Trichy on last week of last month and the other one in Chennai yesterday. I played the role of researcher in the Tamil moot last month and as a speaker yesterday. The way I fumbled yesterday was unprecedented, it was all about questions on Indian constitution law. I have tried to convince my mind with silly reasons on why I have done pathetically. But my mind knows, that what I was saying to myself was not truth, and I am way below the average.

Yes. All kept saying that participation is more important and this opportunity is to provide an exposure. But I felt humiliated and challenged.

Though I knew it but I am realizing only now that a good command on constitutional law is essential for a law student. My priorities will be re-aligned accordingly.

Can we separate politics from law ?

Whenever I try to give a political dimension to a legal question, I am cautioned by learned people and teachers by a statement “You should keep yourself away from Politics”. Instantly I would ask myself why?

This is not the question only with respect to academia but in general too. Suppose we are travelling in a public transport and if you happen to discuss your political views with your fellow traveler, what if he does not agree? Or what if he weakens your argument. What if it ends in a duel? May be that is why generally if someone talks about it – Politics, others might just say “here we go we have got another wayward”. If that is the case we should declare “Aristotle” a wayward.

But here I would like to ponder over such cases with in the academia. On the other day my teacher and I were discussing some legal questions on few things, one of the item that came up was federalism and Art: 370 of Indian constitution.

My view was that India is not strictly a federal country; any time centre can usurp all the notional powers given to provinces or states.

And it completely depends up on temperament of the leader who is ruling at a specific point of time. Nehru and Indira Gandhi are such leaders whose tendencies were always unitary and they rarely indulged in the practice of federalism. May be we have had a single party rule for a very long time. But that is not the point.

The moment I have taken few names in politics, comes the caveat “Don’t mix the politics” in law.  Then the question would be is it really possible or is it appropriate to view politics and law as two separate worlds? May be yes. But it should not be, if we are looking for a holistic view. After all law is nothing but the result of political deliberations and in effect law is an offspring of politics. Without politics, law is not possible. But in the Indian context unlike west we have a lot of practical difficulties if we ever have to engage in daily life political discussions. Though in broad terms ‘Politics’ could mean everything we do in our life, here I am only referring to relations between public & political parties which rule the former through an institution called government.

Aren’t we discussing politics all the time? When fuel and cooking gas prices are hiked we deplore the actions of govt. because we know it is they who have taken this decision.

Why academia as a whole does not engage itself in political discourse is an important question. At least teachers from the depts. of Humanities and Social sciences rarely discuss current issues in public or classroom. That is why there is a scant regard for social sciences in India.

In India people do not practice “Transaction based reactions” i.e., you do not agree/disagree with a person but only with issues. Even though congress is neck deep in corruption it is possible that few people including I could agree on few issues that does not mean that I am either Pro or anti.

But the compulsion of teachers not to discuss current politics with students in particular or with in academia at least is because if your political inclinations are known, there will be issues in career progression i.e., becoming from guest prof. to tenure prof. or from an Asst. Prof. to Prof. or to go on and become a vice chancellor or directors. So there is hardly a requirement of your subject mastery. Additionally they fear professional retaliation if they make their inclinations apparent.

In reality if we endeavor to answer critical legal questions in its entirety, keeping politics aside will not help either the student or teacher. Way to go for Democracy in India!

My Comment on The Politics of going public

Commenting on John W. Patty's The Politics of Going Public

One of the earliest constitutions which gives so much of power (Near absolute ?) and enough room to react on exigencies, doing public vetting on certain decisions (few may be less important) looks like some kind of precedent setting.

America appears to have guarded itself from an outright tyranny which is prevalent in third and Muslim world, because most of the presidents were some kind of Plato's Philosopher kings, but I know many would disagree with this assertion.

While there is no disagreement that the president gets to decide when and in front of whom, but the larger question I feel it should be, is he not shackling the future presidents by his current actions.The expectations of the public will be raised ?

Going or not going to public may not be an issue in a country like India for example, they are mostly ritualistic, where once a year the prime minister or the president will address the nation on independence day and opening session etc., And no importance is given to clarify their stance to the public directly before/after taking critical decisions.

I forgot to mention they go around during election campaigns.

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.