GYANOPROBHA

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT KARAN THAPAR DOESN'T WANT TO SEE

FOR UPDATE DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2010, SEE BELOW

Just watched Karan Thapar interviewing Binayak Sen - an utterly frustrating experience. See  a transcript here.

Karan Thapar made the fundamental logical error of confusing an explanation with a moral justification. And Binayak should have pointed this distinction out to him immediately.

To say that the violence of forest tribals is a response to state violence that accompanies the predatory policies of so-called "development" that destroy the ecology on which the surivival of the forest dwellers depends is to propose part of an explanation. It does not morally justify the violence of the tribals. It does however need to be complemented with an explanation why non-violent strategies have failed.

For example, when a doctor attributes lung cancer to smoking, she is not claiming that lung cancer is what should happen, or that it is right that the patient is suffering from lung cancer. Karan Thapar would however claim that she is a supporter and sympathizer of lung cancer, and that she morally justifies the suffering of the patient.

Take another example. Historians might claim that the rise of Nazism in Germany was a response to the humiliation meted out to Germany by the treaty of Versailles after World War I. Can this explanation - a cause-effect linkage - be treated as a moral justification for the Holocaust? Or as "creating moral equivalence" between the Allied Powers and the perpetrators of the Holocaust? No to both questions.

Karan Thapar also made the mistake of associating Binayak with the maoist position. At one point he even claimed that Binayak had some influence over them. Where did that come from? The police tactic of smear by association, perhaps? Perhaps the entire reason why he was so anxious to side-track Binayak's central message - a warning against genocidal famine - is that he set out with an agenda of trying to entrap Binayak into making a sympathetic statement on behalf of the maoist cause. He is not the only media personality who does this.

I also do not understand how much more clearly Binayak and other human rights activists can express their condemnation of violence - whether of the state, the maoists, or of any other group. Why do their interlocutors not demand the same rapid response condemnation of all acts of state violence from those who support the violence of the state? Binayak tried to make this very point, but Karan Thapar seemed to confuse it with some other point which he had on his talking points agenda.

The elephant in the room to which Binayak tried to point again and again was the evidence of a famine of genocidal proportions. But Karan Thapar seemed to consider it less important than extracting a clear and unequivocal condemnation of the most recent maoist atrocity.

Look out for other signs of the mainstream media using the maoist violence as a distraction to draw attention away from the famine.

UPDATE DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2010

This interview generated very little comment in the mainstream media. One must infer that the genocide by silence of the chronically malnourished must continue for a while longer in this shining and incredible country.

But two powerful comments have appeared in the dissident media.

One is a comment by Sevanti Ninan in The Hoot which reinforces my observation that Karan Thapar's objective seemed to have been to extract from Binayak an admission of support for the maoists. "...[T]he Thapar inquisition  usually thrives on being single minded. Since he had someone who could be painted as a Maoist sympathizer on his show he was going to milk it for his upper middle class audience for all it was worth. And not just any small time Maoist sympathizer but a man who could be conveniently labeled the country's 'foremost human rights activist', a description Thapar would repeat every now and then with relish. If you succeeded in tarring him you achieved what has been an English TV anchor obsession since 'the Naxal Menace' became prime time fodder. You succeeded in tarring the tribe. Sen's assertion that 'we' (referring to  human rights workers) did not condone either the violence of the Maoists of the state, only brought more demands for an even clearer assertion."

The second comment is a longish reflection by Radha D'Souza on "The Economics, Politics and Ethics of Non-violence" that takes this interview as its starting point, and observes: "Paradoxically, the institutions founded on violence, the military-industrial-finance-media complexes, are the ones that preach the ideology of non-violence in unequivocal terms; and those who advocate peace with justice end up advocating violence. How are we to understand this paradox? We cannot say it is because the institutions are hypocrites because, if institutions are mindless, they cannot be hypocrites."

The entire political system is dependent on and sustained by violence, but only maoist violence is unacceptable. "This is the reason why we are unable to respond to the present crisis. The Maoist say: constitutionalism has failed our people, and we say, true it has failed, but what can we do, let us try once more. The Maoists say: India has become a violent society, forty percent of our parliamentarians have a track record of violence, our democratic political parties have their militias, we kill freely in the name of Ram, our army with its vast arsenal has waged war against our people for sixty-three years, and therefore, they say violence is the order of the day. We say: all this is true, but you Maoists should not be violent."

Quoting Buddha's response to the conflict between Ajatashatru and Prasenjit, she ends:

"We witness before our eyes the “killer begetting a killer”, and the “unfolding” of the karma of the conquerors and abusers and revilers and plunderers. But we live in strange times of equality, liberal rights, and individual freedoms, and somehow these lenses do not help us to see the difference between abuser and abused, between plunderer and plundered, between cause and effect, the begetter and the begotten."

IN MEMORY OF HOWARD ZINN

Howard Zinn's recent death reminded me what an inspiration as a teacher and an intellectual he has been to me. 

A former student of mine reminded me today that I had sent her this passage at a time when she was struggling to find some balance between optimism and realism. I found in it a source of strength in my own struggles to avoid giving in to cynicism and find a reason to go on teaching future adults.

"To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory."

BINAYAK SEN WARNS OF AN IMPENDING GENOCIDE

Dr. Binayak Sen has recently been touring the country, speaking to various audiences about a problem that has kept him pre-occupied for a number of years - the problem of chronic hunger and malnutrition, which has become more widespread since 1991, and has reached what Binayak regards (using UN criteria and definitions) as potentially genocidal proportions for vulnerable sections of the people, such as scheduled castes and tribes. They are related to a more recent concern of his since his release on bail: to highlight the need for a peaceful resolution to the problem of maoist and state violence. 

The problem of the enforced displacement of the most vulnerable people in terms of chronic hunger is seen at its most acute in districts like Dantewada in Chhattisgarh. This displacement has been taking place for some time - earlier under the Salwa Judum movement, now under the military Operation Green Hunt, ostensibly to combat maoist guerillas who have managed to establish bases among the tribal communities and instituted their own forms of governance in defiance of the state. Apparently it is not a coincidence that the most violent displacements have been occurring where international and domestic mining and mineral corporations have been interested in setting up operations.

In an interview with Norman Swan of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation at the time of his keynote address to an international symposium at CMC Vellore, Binayak speaks at length about his confluent concerns about displacement and hunger. He also reports on his still continuing trial, and the effect of his two year ordeal on his personal life.

DREAMS OF A GENTLE GIANT

There are a couple of Indian commentators who have been urging that the Indian government should send troops to Afghanistan to beef up the American/NATO fight against the Taliban. They argue that, from an Indian perspective, an American withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a catastrophic defeat in the so-called war on terror because it would encourage the Pakistani military-jihadi complex (PMJC) in its designs to keep mounting terrorist attacks in Indian cities and - their biggest prize - sever Kashmir from India as revenge for India's humanitarian intervention in the Bangladeshi independence war in 1971. Indian troops in Afghanistan would serve to keep the US focused in the region by relieving US and NATO troops, freeing them up to concentrate on defeating the Taliban militarily where the latter are strong. Indian troops could attend to peace-building and infrastructure development missions in which Indian security forces are already engaged. It would also serve to further strengthen the already friendly relations that India has historically enjoyed with Afghanistan, and give India the advantage of "strategic depth" in dealing with the terrorism unleashed on India by the MJC. If Indians engage the Taliban or PMJC militarily, it would entail higher costs for Indian people, not just in terms of casualties, but also in terms of civilians dead in terrorist counter-attacks on Indian cities which, as before, we would be powerless to entirely prevent. But these increased short term costs are, in the judgments of those making the case, offset by larger long term gains resulting from the destruction of the PMJC.

What this analysis assumes is that India is incapable of dealing with the PMJC on its own while the latter is being helped and aided by the US. Hence the need to ally itself with the US, as the alliance would grant some leverage with the US in efforts to choke off aid to the PMJC, and also destroy it militarily. If the Kerry Lugar bill is a sign of this leverage, my bet is that it will fail spectacularly, but quietly. US arms and aid will keep pouring in even while the suicide bombings in Pakistan and attacks on civilians (reported mendaciously in the western press as Pakistani or Afghan Taliban) keep mounting. Have any of the conditions of the bill actually been met by Pakistan? Has LeT or JeM been destroyed? Has Muridke been dismantled?

The analysis also assumes a much higher level of effectiveness for the US as an ally for Indian designs in Afghanistan, or for a fight against the PMJC and their allies across the Durand Line. But neither the US security apparatus (consisting of various intel agencies, the Defence Department and private military firms like Blackwater) nor the PMJC and its associates like the LeT and other outfits are interested in stopping the war on terror any time soon.

The PMJC is unfortunately playing a winning but deadly game. On the one hand its insatiable appetite for US money and arms is being fully satisfied, because the US MICTUM (military-industrial-congressional-thinktank-university-media) Complex continue to see the Government of Pakistan (in this context, essentially the ISI) as a useful ally, a needy customer for its weaponry, and a reliable catalyst in keeping the entire region inflamed in the war of terror and counter-terror. On the other hand, by killing large numbers of civilians in its hunt for the jihadis they are secretly NOT arming, as well as by allowing the US drones and Blackwater/Xe mercenaries to wreak havoc among the civilian populations in the various FATA districts of the NWFP and Balochistan in the ostensible search for a few hundred Al Qaeda, the PMJC is managing to maintain a superficial credibility among US opinion makers as a serious US ally against terrorism, which keeps the money and arms flowing.

A standard criticism of US policy in Afghanistan and indeed the entire Middle East is that it is creating more terrorists or potential terrorists very rapidly. This criticism flows from the tendency of the critics to take the statements of intent of the various parties at face value, ignoring the patterns and significance of their actions. The US government and its various agencies would like the world to think that they are engaged in a fight against terror to secure the safety of the Homeland. The Pakistani agencies such as the ISI similarly want the world to believe that they are motivated by the desire and need to protect the Pakistani people. But in neither case are their actions consistent with such declared aims. On the contrary, it is entirely possible that for the deeper players on both sides, viz, both the ISI and their US counterparts, the creation of more potential and real terrorists is not a mistake, but their true even if unstated intention. Their actions seem perfectly consistent with such an aim. They must be perfectly aware that their policy is ensuring a continuous supply of suicide terrorists and even more fanatic fighters who can be relied on to keep the threat of terrorism alive. Follow the money and watch their actions: they tell an entirely different tale. Both sides stand to gain money and power - more concretely, a continuous flow of lucrative no-bid contracts for supply of arms, material and serivces for themselves and their chums - just by keeping the adrenaline of terror pumping in the veins of the people they claim to be protecting. Of course, if pressed, they probably won't put it quite as baldly as this. They too will probably come out - like Rohit Pradhan in the link above - with some kind of cost-benefit justification: that the short run benefits of increased civilian fatalities will be offset by the long term victory over the terrorists.

Admittedly, the foregoing argument is devoid of any actual supporting evidence, but there seems to be a good case for looking for such evidence. But there is enough evidence (not supplied here) of a long-standing symbiotic relationship between the US and the Pakistani ISI. And unless this relationship is recognized, exposed and disrupted, terrorism will not cease in this region but continue to flourish. This is yet another instance of governments that claim to be protectors of their electorates ending up doing what is diametrically opposed to the interest and welfare of the vast majority of the people in their respective countries.

So what should the Indian government do?

Firstly, India needs to recognize that an alliance with an unreliable and decadent superpower like the US is a strategic stupidity. India and Pakistan need to find their own solutions to the problems between them. The US can only play a destructive role in this process, and has done so. It is notorious in the region for its ambitions to create markets for its weaponry and military expertise, and for its history of choosing violent interventions in the region in preference to peaceful ones. How much can the US be trusted as a staunch ally in the fight against its own pernicious creation - i.e., the Pakistani MJC - especially at a time when it has become even more dependent on it to deal with the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan? How much freedom of action does the US government have when there are several major social, political and economic crises unfolding rapidly at home? If it wants a permanent end to jihadist tendencies on the subcontinent, then India would be much better off seeking allies in the immediate neighbourhood - China, Russia, and the central Asian states,

Secondly, training the Afghan troops and police on Indian soil is a much better way of using India's military prowess than by having Indians die in a war with no clear objectives. Britain and the US have already mooted the idea. It is not at all clear that sending troops to fight alongside the deeply unpopular American/NATO troops is the best way of destroying the PMJC. In fact, it's probably much more plausible that it will provide a fillip to the efforts of the PMJC to send in suicide bombers into Indian cities. With India training Afghan forces, there would be no direct attack on the PMJC, but the benefits of such a relationship would be greater access to intelligence and other networks that could help in undermining the PMJC.

Thirdly, the only sustainable way to de-fang the PMJC is to "drain the swamp" - change the ideological ecology in both India and Pakistan so that extremist ideologies in both countries are deprived of the niches in which they flourish. For India, the Hindu right-wing extremists are probably on their way out (no thanks at all to the Jihadis from across the borders, who in fact helped keep the Hindu right-wing on life support). Indians should now help Pakistanis rid themselves of their own religious right-wing extremists. Support democratic and secular forces within Pakistan as much as possible, and carry out intensive ideological and cultural propaganda against the jihadists of all religions in both countries. This is as much a task of quiet, persistent and professional spycraft, as it is of developing amicable relationships between the peoples of India and Pakistan through trade, tourism, cultural and educational contacts. To put it simply, bombard the Pakistanis with Indian love, but keep a watchful eye on both sides on who is likely to cause mischief, and deal with them firmly.

Fourthly, develop a solution to the Kashmir issue within the framework of a future South Asian Union of open trade and open borders, but ensure that the people in both Indian and Pakistani sides of Kashmir get an equal partnership and stake in the solution. In other words, a re-unified independent Republic of Kashmir, with both Muslim and non-Muslim inhabitants enjoying equal status as citizens, can be offered as a solution to the Kashmir issue, but only as a sequel to the creation of a South Asian Union.

Lastly, no country can act as an exact model to another. But to the extent possible, we should try and model equitable, people-friendly growth for the other South Asian neighbours, especially in Pakistan. This requires urgent attention to the several colossal problems among our own people, which are very similar to problems in Pakistan, in nature if not in scale: eliminating chronic hunger and malnutrition, developing equitable educational access through investments in infrastructure and educational quality, adopting a servant model of governance with participation of citizens in public decisions, accountability of government and businesses to all their stakeholders, responsibility of decision makers to those affected by their decisions, and transparency in all matters that concern the public.

None of these steps can be undertaken without considerable argument and opposition from the security establishment in India. They are also certain to be resisted by the Hindu right-wing now in opposition. But I believe that the five steps outlined here taken together represent an entirely fresh approach to what has so far proved to be an intractable problem.

RINGING IN THE NEW YEAR...

My wife and I welcomed in the new year in the company of friends whom we had not seen for twenty five years, and who travelled to Turkey from Singapore to meet up with us.

I heard my almost one-year-old granddaughter greet me heartily on the telephone.

I wish all my readers a peaceful, enjoyable, fulfilling and productive 2010.