mr Mo... an engaging piece on an observation that most of us in our enclosed micro-societies tend to overlook... although, by the end of it you seem to have answered your own question, it seems... avidly waiting for your next post, especially with the elections coming up along with the imminent BJP win, would be glad to read how your elite view (read Congress) minces the idea of BJP's win, a view not just endorsed by me but by other small town and rural citizens who sleep and wake up with fear of death by terror and are unaware where their next meal may come from in these torrid economic times our government has led us into...
kranti ka waqt aa gaya hai... Is it time for another JP to rise and save us gullible Indians from a dynasty in a democratic cloak?

Whose India is it?

Last night a show on television was hosting a debate on issues stemming from Hindutva groups claiming to protect Indian culture and the consequent opposition expressed by liberal sections of society. The show was by a news channel catering to the urban educated middle class and predictably assumed that the position of the liberal progressive urbanite was the one to reckon with. However, despite the idealogical bias in the show, it did manage to throw out one interesting and fundamental contradiction existing in Indian society at this point. A question was raised about the difference in perception between small town India and big city India on what is considered morally and culturally acceptable in Indian soceity.

First and foremost, this question throws to light the reality of an increasingly diversified India, one where differences in perceptions, aspirations and ideals are glaring not only between small towns and big cities, but even more so between a rural and an increasingly urbanised India. It is an India where social spheres are increasingly drifting apart as a result of the enormous economic evolution underway in the country. From an economic standpoint some might still argue that the economic trajectory will have these spheres converge eventually. But there is no doubting the enormous social and cultural gap that is establishing itself as part of the evolutionary dynamic.

It is not surprising then to see that the idea of what might be socially acceptable to a big city person might not necessarily bode well with people from the small towns with a villager possibly not being able to relate to either of the two mindsets. A villagers social realm rests on principles of close nit community life where everyone knows everyone and every individual's activities are open to public scrutiny. Most are deeply religious and allow themselves to be governed by well established socio-religious customs and norms. Small towns in India largely consist of families with small scale businesses with the majority of the populace engaged with them in some way or the other. The towns consist of close knit areas having a few well known families where the lives of the members are closely followed by the common populace. The increased exposure to different media and western ideas is met with almost stronger opposition from the joint family system which lays utmost importance to public impression and reputation. Big cities on the other hand are characterised by shallow social relations and nuclear families. With ample opportunities to earn and spend, people have little time to think beyond their limited social groups. The general attitude is largely self-centred with little time or inclination to bother about others in the city. The scale and size of the cities also allow for avenues where one can remain unknown and unnoticed.

The socio-economic equations of each of the three groups are so drastically divergent, it is unreasonable to expect any one to relate to, let alone accept the others viewpoint. Also, each group is economically and politically significant enough in its own right so as not to give way to the perception of the others. Each has its own unique social dynamic in which it sees sense and purpose. Unfortunately, these social spheres do not operate in isolation. Further, each has a well developed sense of being part of the Indian identity and in turn feels that it has a right to influence it. The problem gets worse when people feel insecure about their identity and in retaliation attempt to force a particular identity onto others. Who then has a right to determine what is understood as socially acceptable or not in this country? Who has a right to lay claim to the idea of India and what it should be like?

Each social sphere has a definite right to define and follow the limits that make sense to its members in their respective social contexts. Limits cannot be absolutely followed within social spheres just as they cannot be expected to be uniform across them. It is important to realise and inculcate the understanding that today's India is one where multiple and often clashing dynamics exist. There needs to be a conscious recognition of the increasing social divide and a concomitant shift in attitude from confrontation to reconciliation. It is for this very reason that a system of democracy becomes ever so relevant. We are lucky that we have such a system in place and it is thus increasingly important for us to effectively use the institutions available within this system to resolve and reconcile the contradictions which are developing between our ever evolving social spheres. For all its contradictions, we cannot have an India that is one's and not the others. No 'ONE' can lay claim to it.

Are We On the Road to War?

After encouragingly restricting action to strong arm diplomacy between India, Pakistan and the US, the response to the attacks by India seems to be increasingly heading in the direction of war between the two neighbours. After initial giving in by the Pakistani establishment followed by assurances of concrete action against suspected elements within their country, Pakistan has failed to undertake any concrete steps in fulfilling its promises. Instead, what has ensued on both sides is a heated rhetoric tilting in favour of a military confrontation between the two countries. Both countries have slowly but surely begun to up the preparedness of their respective armies and have ensured that their rhetoric has captured the same. Thus, what seems to have begun is a troubling journey down a road leading us to war.

The prospect of war between India and Pakistan brings forward the ultimate concern, that of a nuclear attack. Logically speaking, a war between the two countries should end with either dropping a nuclear bomb on the other. Victory is the sole aim of any party in a war and in this case there should be no reason why either should not consider attacking the other with a nuclear bomb in order to ensure the same. Agreed that both countries probably consider this as a last option, but there is little doubt that should the dynamic shift to the point of demanding nuclear action, neither country would desist. With the increasing prospect of war, can we then assume that there is an increasing prospect of a nuclear war ahead of us?

This writer would like to fantasise that such an outcome is unlikely. However, I do believe it would be unlikely only if actual war did not break out between the two sides. We then need to understand if war is imminent at this point or not. Going by the present situation, war seems more or less imminent. However, there have been moments in the past where both countries have resisted going to war despite military tension being much more hightened than at present. India and Pakistan managed to avoid war despite the clear intentions of India after the Parliament attacks in 2001. Without going into the dynamics of that outcome, one can atleast understand that there are circumstances within which war can still be avoided between the two countries.

However, lets assume that India, while not engaging in war, would perceive military action as the only solution to effectively tackle terrorist elements in Pakistan in order to ensure that no further attacks take place on Indian soil (a proposition similar to what the US adopted post 9/11). It would then appear prudent that India conduct surgical air strikes against specific targets in Pakistan. It is another matter if India is actually capable of undertaking such high precision and covert engagments. However, such action would ensure that India achieves its objectives of ensuring its security without engaging in an all out war against Pakistan. It is also a matter of concern (and speculation) as to what would be Pakistan's response to such attacks. Does such an option then suggest that we are in for a long drawn out proxy war with Pakistan on the same lines as the one being undertaken by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq? More importantly, would it be practical, both politically and strategically, for India to consider such an option?

We Need to Remain Skeptical

Mr. Monkey,

To begin with, I would like to point out that no where in my post have I mentioned number of deaths. I have, on the contrary, referred to certain contradictory facts pertaining to specifics of the incident being furnished by the authorities at various points of time. However, I shall go beyond this little error in order to respond to the latter point you have made in your post.

Blaming Pakistan for the attacks can benefit the Indian government in two ways. One, it can assure its citizens that a threat of this magnitude is possible only from abroad and that too from a perceived historical rival. This allows the people to retain confidence in the internal stability of the country as well to some degree prevent the possibility of an communal out-lash based on internal differences. Very simply, all the murk has been swept off our shores onto another. This in my view would be the political benefit.

Two, India can use whatever diplomatic and strategic leverage it can get in order to curb militant activities against it sponsored by Pakistan. Shifting the blame of the Mumbai attacks on elements in Pakistan has no doubt brought to question Pakistan's credentials and has paved the way for international pressure to act on it. In fact, as we see right now, the tactic has only worked to our advantage with Pakistan taking significant measures to meet the demands of India, albeit with the constant support of the US and the international community. This to my mind, appears to be a significant strategic benefit India has gained by putting the blame on Pakistan.

Further, the shifting of forces in Pakistan from the Afghan border to the Indian one and the ensuing military tension is an unavoidable outcome. There would be very few circumstances under which such an action would not have been initiated. However, it is worth noting the intense emphasis by the Indian side of its rejection of a military option. This to my mind has done well to address concerns (though not to the fullest) while allowing India to pursue its political and strategic imperatives.

I must also clarify that I do not mean to suggest that India's position is completely based in fiction with the sole purpose of achieving perceived benefits. Rather, I am suggesting that while a lot of India's claims may well be based in fact, we need to be skeptical of its claims and actions. This is especially important when we see it in the context of the possible gains available to India and the discreditable manner in which it is handling the information campaign pertaining to the attacks.

You paid for the tickets

Mr. MO,
With regards to your highly diplomatic although engaging post of being "taken for a ride" by the authorities, I begin to ponder if it was you who boarded the ride and paid for the tickets.
Firstly, it is a highly sceptical view when you think of the government colluding with the security agencies in terms of the death numbers. At a moment like this, and in the prospect of sounding overtly patriotic, I think causing confusion with the numbers of dead will play little to no role in diverting public anger, as we have seen lately. It is, in my opinion, a result of utter confusion caused with the presence and subsequently absence of a leader (read Home min.) at the time of the attacks.
To discredit the forces in their analysis, not counting the police, as a motive by the government to use it to their advantage is inapproriate too. The attacks have assumed a larger face than just death numbers. So, although, your first point of the lack of co-ordination among the forces may be true, the government colluding on the number of dead may not be.
Also, I fail to understand how the government's constant mongering of Pakistan will garner it strategic and political points as we saw almost immediate concerns of seperatism-fuelled-violence amid the country being raised when fingers were pointed across the borders. And with Pakistan almost immediately reducing its troops against the war-on-terror at its western borders and placing them at its Indian borders, the onus was on India to reduce the tension. This I hope is the subject of our next discussion.
We have been taken for a ride all the while, surprising how the prospect of death numbers has woken you up to de-board suddenly.

Taken for a Ride

Going by everything the newspapers and news channels are reporting, it would seem that the authorities are playing a really nasty joke on us. Either they think that we are extremely devoid of any intelligence or they think that they can take us for a complete spin. With people of authority in the government changing their position on facts pertaining to the Mumbai attacks almost every third day, I certainly feel like they take us for complete idiots.

To begin with, the Marine Commandos stated that, going by the behavior of the terrorists, they were certain that the terrorists had complete knowledge of the hotel and the area around the Taj. They had thus presumably undertaken a thorough recce of the area in the days leading up to the attack. This point had been contradicted by the Mumbai Commissioner of Police Mr. Hasan Gafoor who had, for the record, stated that there was no recce done by the terrorists. The reports on the amount of RDX found and the locations at which it was found were also contradictory. Also we cannot forget the utterly contradictory statements made by heads of various forces taking part in the operations. The General from the Army had a different idea of the number of terrorists than the head of the NSG who further differed from what the CP Mumbai Police had to say (mind you, they were all on TV or in the newspaper saying this, so its not about media speculation).

There are two ways to rationalize the ongoing mockery. One, that there is complete failure of coordination and information sharing between the various agencies and none are sure about the facts themselves (this, we all know, is to a large extent true). Two, that the government is actually well in control of these agencies and is forcing them to alter the facts as it deems fit. The government’s motive presumably being to alter the truth so as to suit the position and actions it would find convenient in the days and weeks to come.

Assuming the second rationale to be true, we have grave reasons to be worried. There is no doubting the strategic and political benefits available to India if it maintains its current position of blaming the attacks on Pakistan (or elements in it). In such a scenario, we as citizens need to question and understand that, in the name of national interest, are we being taken for a ride?