Archive for the ‘India’ Category

“Kashmir crisis in sharp focus”: Crisis Group

Friday, December 27th, 2019

After years of being off radar of international conflict monitoring groups, Kashmir is ranked 8th in Crisis Group’s “10 Conflicts to Watch in 2020”; above Ukraine and just below US-North Korea conflict.

“After falling off the international radar for years, a flare-up between India and Pakistan in 2019 over the disputed region of Kashmir brought the crisis back into sharp focus. Both countries lay claim to the Himalayan territory, split by an informal boundary, known as the Line of Control, since the first Indian-Pakistani war of 1947-48.

First came a February suicide attack by Islamist militants against Indian paramilitaries in Kashmir. India retaliated by bombing an alleged militant camp in Pakistan, prompting a Pakistani strike in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Tensions spiked again in August when India revoked the state of Jammu and Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status, which had served as the foundation for its joining India 72 years ago, and brought it under New Delhi’s direct rule.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, emboldened by its May re-election, made the change in India’s only Muslim-majority state without any local consultation. Not only that: before announcing its decision, it brought in tens of thousands of extra troops, imposed a communications blackout, and arrested thousands of Kashmiris, including the entire political class, many of whom were not hostile to India.

These moves have exacerbated an already profound sentiment of alienation among Kashmiris that will likely further fuel a long-running separatist insurgency. Separately, the Indian government’s new citizenship law, widely regarded as anti-Muslim, has sparked protests and violent police responses in many parts of India. Together with the actions in Kashmir, these developments appear to confirm Modi’s intention to implement a Hindu nationalist agenda.

New Delhi’s claims that the situation is back to normal are misleading. Internet access remains cut off, soldiers deployed in August are still there, and all Kashmiri leaders remain in detention. Modi’s government seems to have no roadmap for what comes next.

Pakistan has tried to rally international support against what it calls India’s illegal decision on Kashmir’s status. But its cause is hardly helped by its long record of backing anti-India jihadis. Moreover, most Western powers see New Delhi as an important partner. They are unlikely to rock the boat over Kashmir, unless violence spirals.

The gravest danger is the risk that a militant attack sets off an escalation. In Kashmir, insurgents are lying low but still active. Indeed, India’s heavy-handed military operations in Kashmir over the past few years have inspired a new homegrown generation, whose ranks are likely to swell further after the latest repression. A strike on Indian forces almost certainly would precipitate Indian retaliation against Pakistan, regardless of whether Islamabad is complicit in the plan. In a worst-case scenario, the two nuclear-armed neighbours could stumble into war.

External actors should push for rapprochement before it is too late. That won’t be easy. Both sides are playing to domestic constituencies in no mood for compromise. Resuming bilateral dialogue, on hold since 2016, is essential and will necessitate concerted pressure, particularly from Western capitals. Any progress requires Pakistan taking credible action against jihadis operating from its soil, a non-negotiable precondition for India to even consider engaging. For its part, India should lift the communication blackout, release political prisoners, and urgently re-engage with Kashmiri leaders. Both sides should resume cross-border trade and travel for Kashmiris.

If a new crisis emerges, foreign powers will have to throw their full weight behind preserving peace on the disputed border”.

Anarchism, Pure and Simple

Thursday, December 26th, 2019

Sixty four years ago a small periodical from Allahabad wrote:

“Now that India has obtained independence, the old combatant for liberty has given up his last gasp in the most complete poverty.”

Writing about the same “old combatant for liberty” Hem Day later recalled that ” he is not well known to all, even to our own people, for he has neither the fame of Gandhi, nor the fame of Nehru, nor the popularity of Vinoba, nor the notoriety of Kumarapa, nor the dignity of Tagore. He is Acharya, a revolutionary, an agitator, a writer.”

M.P.T. Acharya was born on 15th April 1887 in Chennai into a Bhramin family. From early years he was involved in the nationalist struggle. He edited a nationalist magazine for his uncle. When the periodical was suppressed by the colonial authorities Acharya had to escape to French controlled Pondicherry. Sensing he was not safe there he left India and landed in France. He soon moved to London and joined the Indian House with V.D Savarkar, Madan Lal Dhingra and other Indian nationalists. When in 1909 Dhingra assassinated Sir William Hutt Curzon Wyllie the Indian House soon disintegrated.

In next few years he visited Berlin, Munich and in November 1911 was in Constantinople to gain Muslim support against the British. In 1912 he moved to New York and in 1914 to San Fransisco, where he edited the Tamil edition of Gadar Party’s periodical. Gadar Party was set up a year ago, with help of his friend and IWW member Har Dayal. Har Dayal had spent time with Emma Goldman and when in 1914 Dayal was deported for being “an anarchist” Emma protested and wrote about it in Mother Earth.

It was during this time Acharya saw the real face of Western Democracies and stood against the notion of nation states. “Is it to make large cities with miserable people, barely eking their existence that we want to have ‘Swaraj’?” He asked.

”I consoled myself by answering that the misery was due to foreign Government, but under Indian Government, it would all vanish, because our countrymen will be friends of the poor when they come to rule. Late on, however, when i went to Europe and saw misery there, my illusions about “National” rule were shattered.”

Acharya spent the World War period in Middle East and in 1917, with Virendranath “Chatto” Chattopadhyaya, attended a socialist peace conference in Stockholm. Where he met prominent Bolshevik leaders and in 1919 met Lenin. In 1920 Acharya helped form and became Chairman of the Communist Party in exile, with M.N.Roy as Secratary. Acharya was kicked out in 1921 for his criticism of the direction CPI was taking under the Comintern and Roy’s autocratic behavior.

In 1922, with Rudolf Rocker, Augustin Souchy, Alexander Schapiro, Acharya was present at the founding meeting of the IWMA. Where he set up an Indian committee with an aim to send anarchist literature in India. Acharya’s involvement in international anarchist movement was set-off by his disillusionment with the USSR and the whole edifice of Marxist priesthood. He wrote:

“We are Anarchists, because we do not want authoritarianism outside or inside, because to us anti-Marxists, life and society must be, immanently – one indivisible whole impossible of mechanical separation – as the Marxists inorganically think and believe.” “Communism can come only through and beyond Anarchism not before and behind it, as Lenin predicted and died broken-hearted and mad.”

From 1923 onward, Acharya was in communication with Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Taiji Yamaga, Lu Jianbo, Rudolf Rocker and many other anarchist, but most prominantly with Albert Meltzer – whom he met only twice but maintained a regular correspondence till his death. Acharya wrote for American, Russian, French, German, Spanish, British anarchist journals and newspapers on the topic of economics, India, anarchism among others.

When he returned to India in 1935, he also started writing for Indian publications, including Gandhi’s Harijan. About Gandhi, he wrote that “Gandhi is more opposed to the violence of the mass liberation than the violence of governments.” He admired Gandhi as a tactician and also independently formed his own “logical pacifism.” Acharya set up the Libertarian Socialist Institute and published many anarchist classics and new material in Bombay.

Acharya contrasting himself with the Indian communists wrote that “[w]hat is needed for the Indian proletariat is new workers’ organizations, of a revolutionary syndicalist character, which alone can tear it out of the misery in which it grows. Only federalist organizations, given their complete independence, can create a solid foundation for class struggle in India.”

Commenting on Acharya and Indian Left, Meltzer wrote that “it was impossible to comprehend the difficulty in standing out against the tide so completely as was necessary in a country like India. It was easy for former ‘nationalist revolutionaries’ to assert their claims to the positions left vacant by the old ‘imperialist oppressors.’ This Acharya would not do. He remained an uncompromising rebel, and when age prevented him from speaking, he continued writing right up to the time of his death.”

Acharya warned as early as 1945 that Nehru and Patel “goes around like emperor, and speak like emperor.” And that “[w]ithout an anarchist movement this country will go Fascist and go to the dogs.”

Penniless, sick and alone, this old combatant for liberty died in 1954. Albert Meltzer in Acharya’s obituary wrote:

“Despite all of his efforts Acharya remained an isolated Anarchist in India and failed to create a movement. Whilst nationalists like Har Dayal and Bhagat Singh had a knowledge of anarchist texts, they merely incorporated what they felt to be useful to the struggle against British rule into their thought. Nationalist, and to a lesser extent Communist Party orthodoxy, had too much of a grip on the Indian masses, and unlike elsewhere in Asia, an anarchist movement did not develop, much to the chagrin of Acharya”

“With a growing interest in anarchism among Indian students, a Bombay publishing house reprinted many classical Anarchist works, but Acharya did not succeed in building a movement before his death, nor do I think one exists yet.”

‘What is Anarchism?’ first appeared in Withering India edited by Iqbal Singh and Raja Rao in 1948. Most of the texts in the volume were written exclusively for it and other author included Nehru, Jinha, J.P. Narayan. ‘How Long Can Capitalism Survive?’ was published in The World Scene From Libertarian Point Of View by the Free Society Group of Chicago in 1951. In 2018, it is sad to note that all the aspect of capitalism that Acharya pointed to while predicting its’ end, in this essay, have given it the strength by which it today stands: financialization, international trade deficits, and institutions. In fact in this essay, which was written just three years before his death and when he was very ill, Acharya made many errors which he had criticized Marxists of in earlier writing and it is not a consistent libertarian text. For example, attempting to find almost a form of wage-centric-determinism in capitalism and calling anarchist economics “scientific” are not very appropriate from Acharya’s own earlier views. Claims such as “outside economic freedom there can be no freedom” are very anti-libertarian, if meant literally.

Some words that might cause confusion have been updated to current usage, while others that are still understandable are kept as they were. Writing in 1940s Acharya was using non-gender-neutral terms while talking about the species as a whole. Comments in square brackets are by me.

I would like to thank Ole Birk Laursen and other scholars who have helped dig up and bring back to light MPT Acharya’s life and ideas. A collection of Acharya’s works will be published by AK Press in 2019, thanks to Mr. Laursen.

The Fraternity of the Red Flag

Thursday, December 26th, 2019

 

The Fraternity of the Red Flag was a revolutionary organization established in California around 1912. Har Dayal, an anarchist, Secretary of the Oakland IWW branch and Indian expatriate, founder of the Ghardar Party, which militantly opposed British colonization of India. The fraternity ran the “Bakunin Institute,” an anarchist “monastery” in Oakland based on the ideas of the Spanish educator Fransisco Ferrer. Any radical over twenty years of age could join the Fraternity. A prospective member would spend a year of “moral and intellectual preparation” under the guidance of an existing member, and then pledge to uphold “the eight principles of Radicalism”, including:
4. The establishment of communism, and the abolition of private property in land and capital through industrial organization and the General Strike.
5. The establishment of free, fraternal cooperation, and the ultimate abolition of the coercive organization of Government.
6. The promotion of science and sociology, and the abolition of religion and metaphysics.
7. The establishment of Universal Brotherhood, and the abolition of patriotism and race feeling.
8. The establishment of the complete economic, moral, intellectual and sexual freedom of women, and the abolition of prostitution, marriage, and other institutes based on the enslavement of women.

When India Kills Journalists

Friday, August 16th, 2019

Originally published on 25th Oct 2018.

After the brutal murder of Washington Post’s Jamal Khashoggi by a Saudi death squad, the American media for the first time has even tried to consider that there might be questions about Saudi regime’s legitimacy on human right ground. Record of Indian squads attacking journalists, like other “misadventures” (read “crimes”) of Indian armed forces are easily lost in the memory hole of Indian intellectual culture.

In the late 1987 there were four newspapers in the Jaffna region of northern Sri Lanka, ‘Eelamurasu’, organ of the LTTE; ‘Uthayan’ and ‘Eelanadu’, which rarely had any news content in and; ‘Murasoli’, that started in 1986, was the only independent newspaper in the region. Its founder and editor Sinnadurai Thiruchelvam was arrested multiple times by the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) and his 17 year old son was brutally murdered by Indian backed and trained EPRLF on May 10th 1987.

This was before the October indecent that turned the IPKF and LTTE murderously against each other and that led to murder, rapes, kidnapping and destruction of agriculture in the Jaffna region by the IPKF. Later this month Indian forces also bombed the offices of ‘Murasoli’ and ‘Eelamurasu.’

On October 21-22 1987. IPKF killed over 200 patients, staff members and civilians in the Jaffna Hospital. The details are sketchy for obvious reasons – no wittiness was left alive, and local media was silenced. But according to Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Indian forces attacked the hospital claiming the LTTE militants were in hiding.

None of this was every reported by the most liberal section Indian media like India Today, the only Indian publication that had a reporter in Jaffna and ran a cover story in November about the hard time Indian forces were having because of restrictions on killing civilians; and also Frontline, which until 1986 were reporting about the atrocities of all sides but ignored the IPKF atrocities when they began.

This is not an exercise in historical study. But this attitude of Indian forces and media is still alive and has gotten even worse over the decade. Indian forces by definition can never do any wrong or crime and in many cases are the victims, from Kashmir to Chattishghar where Indian forces bomb its population from helicopters.

This week marked the 31st anniversary of the Jaffna Hospital Massacre by the IPKF.

Short note on Inequality

Thursday, August 15th, 2019

UPDATED: 12th Oct 2019

The Indian boss class has come out with the new list of richest Indians. The richest 100 individuals (the top 0.0000006% of the population) in India own 8% [Rs. 32 Lakh Crore] equivalent of India’s wealth [Rs. 4 Crore Crore]. In which, within last year Mukesh Ambani, Gautam Adani, and Uday Kotak earned Rs. 3 Crore each – every hour.  For the Indian working class, this has been a decade of criminal theft.

While more than 80 cr. people have a wealth of less than Rs 60,000.

In 2016, 55% of national income was received by the Top 10% earners in India, against 31% in 1980.

This IS class-war.

More data can be found here.

 

India’s Role in Myanmar’s Crimes Against Humanity

Thursday, August 8th, 2019

(First posted on Stoke.)

In 2015, Myanmar had its first competitive and relatively free elections after 25 years. The election results gave the National League for Democracy party majority in the assembly and help make Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, the State Counselor of Myanmar. The constitution adopted in 2008 instituted a form of government with a mix of military and civilian components in which the military establishment still holds a dominant role. The Tatmadaw, the main armed force in the country, appoints 25% of the seats in both legislative houses, three candidates in ministerial posts and two Vice-Presidents.

Through much of its post-colonial history Myanmar did not recognize the ethnic minorities, especially the Rohingya Muslim community, as natural citizen. The Rohingya people remained the victim of sectarian violence from Buddhist majority backed by military leaders. Starting in 2016, many reports have repeatedly confirmed violations amounting to crimes against humanity and included murder; imprisonment; enforced disappearance; torture; rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence; persecution and enslavement against Rohingya Muslims in the Rankin region by the Tatmadaw.

On August 5th 2019, the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar made public its report on “The economic interests of the Myanmar military”. It establishes in detail the degree to which Myanmar’s military, especially the Tatmadaw, has used its own businesses, foreign companies and arms deals to support its brutal operations against the ethnic minority groups that amounts to serious crimes under international law. Four Indian firms (two private and two State-owned) have financially assisted or have armed the Myanmar armed forces that contributed to crimes against humanity.

Tatmadaw’s two holding companies, Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (MEHL) and Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC) are major conglomerates running operations in every sector from mining to finance through, around, 120 subsidiaries. Profits from these establishments help fund Tatmadaw operations outside the state budget. There are 15 international companies that have formed Joint Venture ties with Tatmadaw, MEHL or MEC. Another 44 international firms have different forms of ties with these military owned and controlled enterprises.

In May of 2018, Indian firm Infosys became a contractor for MEHL owned Myawaddy Bank. Salil Parekh’s multinational corporation provides Myawaddy Bank digital banking software. The relation of Myawaddy and Tatmadaw are public knowledge and that its shares are held by serving and retired military personnel and related organizations such as the Veterans’ Associations. The economic tie was made in 2018, around two years after the human rights violations by the Myanmar armed forces became internationally known.

Adani Group engaged with Tatmadaw conglomerates more directly by paying MEC Rs. 20,000-cr (USD 290 million) for leasing land in Yangon for 50 years. The report notes that both, the Infosys’ and the Adani Group’s ties with enterprises controlled by Myanmar armed forces amount to financially assisting the operations that have lead to gross human rights violations and activities that have violated international humanitarian laws.

India’s State-owned defense manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) delivered second-hand trainer aircraft to the Tatmadaw, again, in 2018. Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), also, provided anti-submarine torpedoes to the Myanmar Navy. The report does not say that HAL and BDL arms trade amounts to an illegal act under international law but it repeatedly says that India “should not have permitted the transfer of arms and related items to the Tatmadaw.”

One thing the report does not mention, because it was not part of its official mandate, is that at least some of the helicopters used in military operations in Rakhine State might have been supplied by India during the military dictatorship.

It must be noted that Indian media, to a significant extent, remained supportive of these “military aids” and uncritically accepted the “containing the Chinese clout” and “suppressing the counter insurgency” narrative of the Indian State.

In addition to these business ties that amount to financial aid and direct military support in the human rights violations, Indian government (through the Delhi-based private firm C&C Constructions) has undertaken the construction of Rs.1,600-cr Mizoram-Myanmar Kaladan road which ties Mizoram with seaport in conflict stricken Rakhine State – a project that passes through dense forests and in which “a substantial number of project workers died due to malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases. Such infrastructure projects might amount to what the report calls “consolidating the consequences of war crimes”.

Earlier this year, the UN human rights experts condemned India’s deportation of Rohingya as it violated the principle of non-refoulement. They said that, “the deportation of Rohingya to Myanmar speaks to a system of refugee status determination that fails to account for the ongoing, credible reports of ethnic and religious minority persecution in that country,”

Note on ICJ Jadav case judgment.

Tuesday, July 30th, 2019

I do not have the strength to read, much less to watch the reaction of Indian media on ICJ’s judgment on Jadav’s case. But I can still wager that almost everyone in the media will miss the most important implications (moral and principled ones, if not legal implications) of the judgment.

The Court rejected Pakistan’s argument that because India has abused rights the former does not have an obligation to abide by international standards and treaties. As it will defeat the purpose of these standards.

If we apply the same principle to India it would mean that even if Pakistan has breached international laws and/or rights against India, India must abide by international standards and treaties when dealing with Pakistan. Which means that the Ministery of External Affairs cannot continue to claim that “it will only talk with Pakistan when it stops terrorism”. Individual claims of supporting terrorism might or might not be true but they cannot be a reason to break diplomatic mechanisms and end peace negotiations.

India’s undoing of talks and diplomatic standards is a far graver threat to international peace and human survival than this particular case.


Yes, one might claim that “the grounds in Jadav’s case are Vienna convention but there are no bases for India Pakistan peace talks and de-escalation of tensions”. This only further shows how criminally insane Indian position is that there are no binding mechanisms.

Part of my presentation on climate law at some university:

Saturday, July 27th, 2019

A question has been bothering me for quite some time now. The question is, whether it is better to do something – something that gives only an illusion of reaching a solution to a problem or, to do nothing about it? The paper was an attempt to clarify some issues around this problem.

What do I mean by actions “that only gives an illusion of reaching a solution” – by vacuous actions? I believe any solution that does not incorporate and take into account the core of the problem can never meaningfully solve the problem and hence are only empty posturing.

In case of climate change then, what are the core issues that any meaningful action must incorporate? There are several, but here I have only focused on four – three general and one India specific (but a derivative of a general issue).

The first one has to do with total global carbon budget. To keep global mean temperature below the catastrophic threshold of 2°C there is only a limited amount of greenhouse gases we can emitte. The global carbon budget for 2°C according to IPCC Working Group I is less than 700 GtCO2 and for 1.5°C is around 400 GtCO2.

But the divergence from this fact and core issue starts to appear in the IPCC itself when the Working Group III in it’s modeling assumes that we have a budget of around 1600 GtCO2 – almost three times the actual. All actions to mitigate climate catastrophe must take this fact into account.

The second part of the core of the climate problem has to do with carbon removal technologies. There are many variants of these technologies and the scientific community has been telling us again and again that none of them exist . Atleast they can not be deployed in the scale required in given time. But the IPCC Working Group I assumes these technologies in its modeling – this brings our global carbon budget significantly further down. This fact must also be taken into account in any set of meaningful actions.

Third, the recent IPCC special report on 1.5°C says that what is now required to avoid the worst possible catastrophe is a “rapid and far reaching transition in all aspects lf human activity” which is “unprecedented in human history”. It doesn’t recommend patching up older actions, policies and legislation.

And sadly, I haven’t came across any discussion of these issues in last two days in the conference. There is a limit to hiding behind the language of differentiated responsibility after which it morphs into irresponsibility.

The fourth point – about India. Using some older model I have tried to show in the paper that even in best case scenario, India has the carbon budget of around 40 GtCO2. Which means even if USA and the EU decarbonise rapidly and reach net-zero around 2040, to avoid climate cascade into an inhabitable planet India can only emit for 10 more years at current rate.

Any meaningful action in India must take this into account – otherwise it’s just a masquerade for business as usual.

What I have been trying to say is that we cannot negotiate with or fool laws of physics. And if we cannot do that, the only options we have are to either follow IPCCs recommendation of rapid and unprecedented transition in all aspects of human life or to embrace extinction.

CELEBRATING ARMAGEDDON? – AND – INTERVIEW WITH HANS KRISTENSEN

Monday, July 22nd, 2019

(First published on Stoke.)

On 5th November 2018, India announced that its (partially) indigenously designed and built nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, INS Arihant returned from its “deterrence patrol,” completing India’s nuclear triad of land, air and sea based nuclear delivery systems. Media responded with reporting about it as a “historic achievement” and an “accomplishment.”

I talked with Hans Kristensen of Swedish International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the director of Nuclear Information Project about this development, who recently published the details of Indian nuclear forces in the journal of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The interview can be found at the bottom of the article.

Dangers of thermo-nuclear weapons, from a single detonation to a full blown war are numerous and could be terminal for organized human life on the planet. Even a limited exchange of 4 or 5 warheads between India and Pakistan will lead to millions of deaths, total collapse of agriculture, radioactivity in whatever water resources will be left, countless sick and mimed with severely destroyed medical infrastructure and the collapsed political structures. Nuclear weapons modernization and even a conventional arms race is contrary to the logic of deterrence and increases security risks. Also, the research, production, maintenance and up-gradation of these weapons are projected to take up trillions of dollars in the coming decade. Most human would consider holding civilians of other nations and our own nation hostage for apparent security morally reprehensible and it could soon become illegal under international law.

Despite all these risks and costs involved, missing from the media landscape was any critical voice talking about these anomalies in international politics, at a time when most of the nation states are calling for its total ban and scientific community is sounding alarm about terminal nuclear disaster. All these risks were set aside by the simple act of omission and the weapons of mass destruction that “pose a grave threat to international, national and human security”, in words of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, were normalized and in fact praised.

Here are some of the headlines:

“INS Arihant enhances India’s security needs” – Business Standard.

“Sea change: INS Arihant marks a high in India’s strategic independence. But it is just the beginning” – Indian Express.

“India completes nuclear triad with INS Arihant’s first patrol” – Hindustan Times.

“The significance of Arihant”, Indian Express. By Former Naval Chief Arun Prakash.

“India achieved a significant milestone in its strategic nuclear posture” (IE) was the dominant theme established in the national coverage.

In this article I will first look at INH Arihant within the context of Indian nuclear posture and review the relevant risk research around nuclear weapons and war.

Indian Nuclear Forces.

India is one of four nuclear weapon states (NWS) that are not a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), a treaty that has support of 190 nation states. India has also not signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the treaty has not yet gotten into force because India, North Korea and Pakistan have not signed and China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the United States have not ratified it. In September 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) opened for signatures and ratification. 69 states have signed the Treaty and 19 have ratified it – India has so far not taken part in any process. It will come into force after 31 more parties ratify – which is expected to be around 2020. India with handful of other NWSs stands in splendid isolation in a world opposing the bomb. And if the TPNW comes into force it will be deemed a criminal state under international law.

By latest estimates India has sufficient fissile material for 150-200 nuclear warheads and has produced 130-140 warheads.

01

The Arun Prakash column in Indian Express reminded us that the nuclear modernization project will take up trillions of rupees in coming years, which only a small part of conventional military modernization drive that is estimated to take over 6 Lakh Crore by 2025 alone. India’s budgetary allocation for health, education and other social expenditure is 1.3 Lakh Crore in 2018-19 while we spent over 4 Lakh Crore on Defense. INS Arihant alone costed around 1 Lakh Crore to the Indian citizens. More over the overall social and opportunity costs of military spending include manpower and infrastructures devoted to war related activities rather than towards social needs. Spending trillions on potentially criminal and unimaginably devastating weapons at cost of education, climate mitigation and adaptation technologies, health and public transportation should raise some concerns over the concept of “national pride.”

In January 2018, The Hindu revealed that INS Arihant was severely damaged by a human error that damaged the propulsion system. The authors of the article also made the revelation that “[t]he absence of Arihant from operations came to the political leadership’s attention during the India-China military standoff at Doklam. Whenever such faceoff takes place, countries carry out precautionary advance deployment of submarine assets”. (INS Arihant left crippled after ‘accident’ 10 months ago, The Hindu, January 08, 2018)

This suggests India might have deployed nuclear weapons against China during the Doklam stand-off. This non-war conflict could have lead to a situation of inadvertent escalation and a perception of nuclear threat or false alarm could have lead to a detonation and probably a substantial nuclear exchange.

02

It is already doubtful whether the national security state provides any meaningful security (even in the limited sense of the word) to its population from external threats – state and non-state, with its preparation of war and disregard for diplomatic and peaceful settlements and reconciliations and cooperation. It also puts into question whether the deterrence “theory” is even tangible within the processes of national security state. Deterrence presumes rational decision making, which includes diplomacy and peaceful settlements – threatening postures and rhetoric run contrary to the deterrence framework. Hans Kristensen in the interview said that, “[t]he Arihant in its current configurations does not enhance India’s deterrent posture in a meaningful way”.

Under the UPA regime, too, there were no breakthroughs in India-Pakistan diplomatic relations but under the NDA the relations have broken-down. The cross-border exchange of mortars and bullets has increased with more intensity between the Indian and Pakistani forces. India Pakistan border remains a major hotspot for potential nuclear war. Kristensen in the interview noted that, “Nuclear parity is not essential but significant asymmetry can deepen mistrust and trigger worst-case planning that speeds up the arms race and make a future crisis very unstable”.

In conclusion to this section, within the international nuclear political arena India is isolated but as all the other rogue states that are also disregarding international norms and consensus are most powerful nations the tension and risks continue to build-up with every new technological development, conflict and missed diplomatic opportunities.

Nuclear Risks.

Risks of nuclear weapons in Indian context can be divided into roughly two categories. First a significant nuclear exchange and second a single nuclear detonation. The first kind of scenario could arrive from a number of possible trajectories. A false alarm, a missing nuclear submarine (there are a number of cases where this has happened) in a war or peace time situation. Technical errors and human errors could also trigger a nuclear detonation. A single detonation could happen by accident during deployment of a warhead or a terrorist attack.

Karthika Sasikumar, in a paper described predictable consequences of a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.

“Exploding a 20-kiloton bomb (the equivalent of the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan) over Hyderabad, India, produces around 436,000 immediate fatalities. The fatality estimates depend on, among other things, the time of day that the detonation takes place. If the explosion was to be near the surface rather than in the air, the casualties would be halved, but the bomb would produce devastating radiation over 13 square kilometers.

With an airburst detonation, which would maximize damage to buildings, Hyderabad would lose nearly 150 medical facilities (based on Google Maps designations, which might not be completely accurate).

The famine that would result could affect more than a billion people, according to a 2012 briefing paper by physician Ira Helfand. Using a model of the global economy, the paper found that a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan would cause malnutrition among 215 million people across the world over a decade and would also put at risk the 925 million people who are already chronically malnourished. Helfand’s estimate for the number of people who would be added to the rolls of the malnourished is on the lower side, since it assumes that markets continue to operate normally.

There is less than one hospital bed per 1,000 residents in India and Pakistan (The World Bank Undated). Even in India’s capital, only 1.4 beds are available per thousand residents. Interestingly, the major hospitals in New Delhi are located very near the administrative center of the city, a potential Ground Zero discussed above. Experts believe that civil defense will be extremely difficult to implement in India and Pakistan.

In the event of an attack by Pakistan, India’s sizable Muslim minority (approximately 170 million) could face retaliation from the Hindu majority, triggering communal riots.” (Karthika Sasikumar (2017) After nuclear midnight: The impact of a nuclear war on India and Pakistan, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73:4)

The consequence of a substantial exchange would be termination of all organized human life and of many ecosystems. (2018 Doomsday Clock Statement Science and Security Board)

In conclusion, the consequences of nuclear weapons are beyond anything justifiable and are potentially terminal for our species. The costs of developing and maintaining these weapons are immense. Possession of nuclear weapons might soon become illegal, which will make India a criminal state. Disregarding NPT, CTBT and TPNW already gives weight to the argument that India and other NWSs are acting as rogue states. When Indian mainstream media chooses to omit all these important fact and praise the weapons, responsibility of nuclear disasters – including end of human life – also fall on their shoulders.

Interview with Hans Kristensen.

Sarthak: How do you see this development? Would you say it is “an achievement”?

Hans Kristensen: For sure, it is an achievement because India has spent decades and billions on developing this capability. We still don’t know much about the submarine actually did during the patrol and whether it actually carried nuclear warheads on the missiles at the time. If it did carry nuclear weapons, it would be a significant change in India’s nuclear warhead management, which has so far avoided deploying warheads on missiles under normal circumstances.

S: Does INS Arihant and conventional modernization generally enhance India’s “deterrence credibility”?

HK: The Arihant in its current configurations does not enhance India’s deterrent posture in a meaningful way. For it to play any role, it would have to sail deep up into the Arabian Sea for its missiles to be able to reach important targets in Pakistan, or sail all the way into the South China Sea to be able to hit targets in China. It is doubtful that Pakistan or China currently have the capability to preemptively decapitate India’s land-based deterrent. Once Indian SSBNs in the future are equipped with longer-range missiles, then the sea-based force will begin to play a really role in India’s posture. For now, I consider the Arihant a technology-development project intended to improve the capability and develop operational and command and control procedures and technologies to be able to operate an SSBN force effectively in the future.

S: What nuclear development do you predict in the coming years in the region?

HK: India and Pakistan both seem intent on continuing their bilateral arms race with development and deployment of more nuclear weapons. While Pakistan is focused on India, the Indian planning is spending more efforts on improving its posture via-a-vis China. In the immediate future, both India and Pakistan will deploy new and longer-range ballistic missiles and begin to field nuclear-capable cruise missiles. Pakistan has already begun to develop tactical nuclear weapons; India not so much although its Prithvi II could be counted as such. Pakistan does not have the capability of building an SSBN fleet but is developing nuclear cruise missiles for its attack submarines. Once Indian SSBNs begin to patrol the Indian Ocean, we will likely see Chinese and Pakistani navies trying to develop anti-submarine capabilities and strategies to find the submarines and be able to hold them at risk in a war. Likewise, India will now have to enhance its capabilities to protect its missile submarines. This will add a new expensive and potentially dangerous dynamic to the arms race and military competition in the region.

S: What are the risks associated with a nuclear submarine like Arihant?

HK: As mentioned above, once a country deploys SSBNs, its adversaries will try to find them so they can hunt them in a war. That raises risks for accidents and incidents in peacetime and for escalation or misunderstandings during a crisis or war. Imagine if a serious crisis or a war erupted with Pakistan and the Indian navy suddenly lost contact with a deployed SSBN. Would Indian authorities conclude that this was a technical glitch or that the submarine had been sunk by Pakistan? Likewise, since Pakistan does not have the capability to build an SSBN fleet, will it now conclude that India is trying to outpace it by building a nuclear force where the land-based weapons are intended to destroy much of Pakistan in a first strike, where India’s future missile defense system would scoop up the few remaining Pakistani warheads that have survived, and the Indian SSBNs would be intended to give India the ability to win a nuclear war? Nuclear parity is not essential but significant asymmetry can deepen mistrust and trigger worst-case planning that speeds up the arms race and make a future crisis very unstable.

SECURITY AND PEACE VS THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE

Monday, July 22nd, 2019

(First published on Stoke)

The subject of this article is the Indian National Security State. By which I mean those sets of institutions – governmental and private, known and secret, whose primary or major objectives are set around armaments – their production, procurement, research, maintenance, use and; wars – small, big, covert, overt, and preparation for them. I would argue that this National security establishment is Big, it is Dangerous and it is Ignored. It is big in the sense of its economic, political and social influence. It is dangerous, both by its existence and its activities to the domestic liberties and to the victims of the more overt violence of these establishments. And it is ignored by the intellectual class and media because they agree with and profess the basic underlying principles of this security establishment. Hence, they minimize or ignore the influence and harm caused by the national security state.

The basic underlying principles, or in some sense the ideology of the national security state is based on the concepts of Super Power and Modernization. In themselves these terms are quite empty but in historic setting they developed they prescribe a certain set of institutions to carry out certain activities to achieve certain goals.

The historic setting for the emergence of the contemporary ideas of Super Power and Modernization was broadly the West between two Great Wars and post-war de-colonization and the Cold War. By super power I mean the drive of all nation states to achieve a condition of relative and absolute superiority in economic and military terms, in comparison to other national states. This economic superiority does not entail in anyway that the society with the national border will benefit from the supposed economic growth. Inequality, financialization and wealth concentration, as we shall see, are parts of a national security capitalist state. Terms like “modernization”, too, do not have any strict meaning but the set of ideas that most influenced early era of Nehru’s India were those of Walt Rostow and his associates in MIT and John Hopkins in the United States [1]. Walt Rostow, who was a major designer of the Vietnam War and by any sensible assessment was a war criminal, was admired for his theory of Stages of Development. He and Clark Kerr provided the ideological core to the managerial class of de-colonized states. Establishment of the Indian higher education system, with direct help from MIT and Hopkins after the 1960’s is an interesting illustration of this theme and desire.

These modernization theories, with their centralized states and heavy industrialization had their mirror image in the USSR with similar strong powerful state ideology and dependence on big and heavy industry. This setting was quite favorable for Indian managerial classes – the higher offices of the state. The consensus in Indian political and intellectual culture includes a believe in a strong Centre, militarization, and heavy industrialization. This is shared by the communists [2], the congress and the BJP; and with some divergence on strong center, even by regional parties.

Although, a systematic and critical study of Indian post-transfer of power intellectual trends within the political elite circles is of great value, I cannot attempt to produce it here. Before looking at the substantive part of the argument I would like to look at another essential concept.

It is not obvious what the “security” in National security entails. There are hints in the constitution and in other state documents; it talks about “national integrity,” “sovereignty” etc – in essence, the security of the state. For millions in this country the insecurities are at work, of low wages, and wage cuts, of housing, of health and of education, the insecurity from fear and uncertain future. For them security means alleviation of poverty and reduction in inequality, it means good health care and stable job structure, it means freedom from harassment. But for a minority it means more guided missile systems and new jets. And when there is a contradiction between the needs of two classes maxim of Thucydides still prevails, that, “the strong do what they can and the week suffer what they must.”

Security for the national security establishment is very limited and I will argue, below, that the security of the national security state makes the world more and more insecure.

Merchants of Death

We are told that India is a “developing country.” Any impartial observer will conclude that for most of the population the development is downwards. While the legacy of colonialism and subsequent American New World Order have all played a part in hampering the kind of economic and technological development envisioned by Indian elites, Indian National Security State has contributed more than it’s fair share in destroying nations’ development.

From a third world nation India is on the path of becoming, what some economists have termed a Fifth world nation [3]. A country that lacks resources needed for repairing even key industries and that suffers a declining level of living. I have recently written about the declining level of living, here I will talk about the social costs of a national security state. Social costs are costs of an economic activity that are borne in some way by society at large.

One of the best definition of social cost of militarism is given by US President Eisenhower:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

This year Arun Jaitley, who illustratively heads both the Financial and Defense ministry, allocated more than INR 4 lakh crore for the military [4]. Combined budgetary expenditure on health, education and social protection for 2018-19 is INR 1.38 lakh crore [5]. It was the fifth largest spender on military in 2018, only behind United States, China, Saudi Arabia and Russia. While India ranks 130th in UN Human Development Index. When 42 states submitted report to the UN on their military spending in July 2016, the top 5 spenders, including India did not.

800px-2014_militrary_expenditures_absolute.svg

While the so-called Rafael controversy is about “crony capitalism,” “corruption” “over spending,” over few thousand crore, it is overshadowed by the INR 6 lakh crore to be spent just on “modernization” of military till 2025. [see 4] Also, to be kept in mind is that fact that modern attack aircrafts on reaching Mach 1.0 use fuel worth of INR 20,000 per minute, i.e. over INR 1 lakh in 5 minutes [5]. HAL, one of 9 DPSUs employs 9,000 workers and 5,000 engineers. There are 141 Ordinance Factories and 200 major private contractors, plus thousands small private sub contractors under the Ministry of Defence and of Defence Procurment. DRDO has 52 labs and was allocated more than INR 6 thousand crore [7].

One illustration of the bipartisan support of intense militarism in Indian politics is provided by what UPA II did when “the Indian military faced a moment where it has to choose between fighting the debilitating effects of a slow economy after 2011 verses the pursuit of a largely Pakistan-specific military buildup.” [see 4] The report later notes that “India did not face any immediate threat from any neighbor beyond border and water disputes with Pakistan and China. But New Delhi all but closed that door with Pakistan and was not showing any particular urgency to resolve disputes with China”. About the effects on the economy the report continues: “The choices were tough for the country’s financial managers as well. The government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a reformer, chose to give priority to military expenditure over the task of jumpstarting the Indian economy” [lbid].

In addition to the enormous amount of money, infrastructure and man-power devoted to the National Security State (all this is not including the almost totally unaccountable intelligence agencies and their secret budgets [8],) while actively and consciously making lives of millions more insecure, this establishment is consuming more and more intellectual and educational centers.

The recently published Draft Defence Production Policy states that “[a] High Level mechanism with involvement of Service organizations and HQIDS will be set up for identifying capability voids and defining critical technologies required for indigenous research/manufacturing in consultation with industry and academia”. Further, “This mapping will cover DRDO labs, other public sector laboratories, academic institutions and industry”. The negative effect on education and research are easy to imagine but this is in no way a new trend in fact as noted above the IITs, Birla’s BIT and other institutions of higher education were created with the aim of providing social engineer, who will identify the problems for the state and design solutions for them [9].

In recent decades, large swath of think-tanks and Private Security Companies (PSC) have immerged in India. The India Foundation is run by National Security Advisor’s son Shaurya Doval. It has as its Trustee Ex-Commander in Chief of Western Naval Command, Shekhar Sinha; and Suresh Prabhu, Minister of Commerce and Industry of India; Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, minister of state in Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs Hardeep Singh Puri, Minister of State for Civil Aviation Jayant Sinha; M.J. Akbar, Minister of State for External Affaris; Ram Madhvan Varanasi, the Member of the National Executive and public relations in charge for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and; Shaurya Doval who is also the Managing Director of a capital marketing company Zeus Capital, on the Board of Governors[10].

The Observer Research Foundation, set up in 1990 has the following Advisors and Fellows: H.H.S Viswanathan, Indian Ambassador; H.K Dua, former MP and Media Advisor to the Prime Minister; J.M. Mauskar, former Central Pollution Control Board chairman; former Vice-Chief of Indian Navy; M. Ashraf Haidari, Director General of Policy & Strategy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan; IAS officer N.K. Singh; Russian politician Sergey Kurginyan; former Deputy National Security Advisor Vijay Latha Reddy and former RAW chief Vikram Sood [ORF Wikipedia page].

These and similar think tanks have a revolving gate between them and the National Security State. They are filled with people from the State offices and they suggest, prepare and shape the policies that are implemented.

Social spaces have also been taken over by the National Security State in form of private mercenary armies of varies strengths and different degree of professionalism. They are both of Indian and foreign origins. The G4S a UK based PSC provides security personals and systems to the Indian government, the coal industry, shopping malls, JNU campus [11]. A G4S employee shot over 100 people, killing 49 in an Orlando nightclub in 2016. They were responsible for torture in Kabul and also worked with Israeli prisons and military checkpoints in occupied territories. [12] There are also indigenous Private Armies. Chief Minister Adithyanath’s Yuva Vahini and Rashtriya Samaj Sewa Samiti alone have about 10,000 soldiers.

Militarization of Police force is in the pipeline with help of private industry. An internal publication of Industry Chamber FICCI reported that “Union Home Minister, Rajnath Singh, envisions a tech-savvy police force capable of providing security to the citizens even as the physical and emotional needs of a policeman are given the credence they deserve from senior officers. The predictive policing requires modern technological capability and weapons to deal with complex crimes that pervade the society.” Adding that “[t]he private sector is keen to collaborate with the police force to beef-up the security of the country and its citizens.” [13]

All this development and new surveillance systems like NETRA, the fact that internal documents from the national security agencies generally have never been declassified and the external and internal data monitoring and collection agencies like NTRO should be seen in light of the state of civil liberties, censorship, privacy, criminal justice system and how they actually function in the country. The absence of debates on these topics in this context in India, compared to that in the United States, is almost absolute.

In conclusion, internally the Indian National Security State is very big, financially, in infrastructural and in man-power. It is harmful because of its opportunity cost on the people and society, i.e. lack of environmental friendly and climate resilient infrastructure, research in core sciences and primary tool industries, health care and quality education. It is also bad because of its corrosive effect on democracy by secrecy, militarization of society, degradation of educational and research institutions and disregard for civil liberties.

International Dimensions

Some conceptual clarification before looking at the facts. A major part of the national security state is the armed forces. Even if we restrict the discussion of “peace” as defined as the absence of war, and do not include the various forms of institutional violence on individuals, it should be noted that India is a Permanent War Economy. A state where research, production, planning, and training for war is a major on going part of the state, even when the bullets may not be flying at any given time. This establishment and its processes are, at least theoretically, in service of assisting the armed forces. And generally the armed forces are supposed to secure the population from violent actions of other nation states and from attacks of non-state actors, internal and external. Only these two kinds of threats are supposed to justify and legitimize the massiveness of the establishment.

The border and water disputes with China and, conflict over Kashmir and similar disputes with Pakistan are real problems for everyone involved. But a close examination of recent conflicts with China and Pakistan show that the national security logic has only made the disputes worse and have hindered settlements. For example, The Doklam stand-off last year is presented in Indian media as a case of Chinese aggression while less emphasized and sometimes missing are the facts that “[t]his was not a direct territorial dispute between China and India, but India deployed military units on behalf of Bhutan, the only neighboring country with which China lacks diplomatic ties. The stand-off lasted over two months before the two sides extricated themselves from it. The chronic mistrust underlying what was essentially a small and localized crisis flared up again in December 2017, when an Indian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV, drone) crashed on the Chinese side of the Sikkim section of the China-India border.” [14]

Bhutan few weeks after the standoff began was against Indian military involvement, it deliberately did not deployed its Royal Bhutanese Army troops side by side Indian soldiers and, China and Bhutan was interested in resolving the matter bilaterally. And it was noted that, “Bhutan, it seemed, has nothing to gain and everything to lose in this standoff,” also, “the question that was increasingly being asked was on why Bhutan was being dragged into the rivalry between India and China”. [15]

The Global Security report quoted above also didn’t fail to notice that “New Delhi all but closed that door with Pakistan and was not showing any particular urgency to resolve disputes with China.” I also believe that India’s official stance with Pakistan that talks can begin after Pakistan deals with “its terrorist problem” is unnecessary and unhelpful, but given the limited space I will not deal with the issue here.

There are workable suggestions being provided by peace activists and scholars. It includes strengthening already available international legal and institutional frameworks, while creating new regime of disarmament inspection and verification. And mechanisms of dealing with violations of these agreements. Also, a conversion from a permanent war economy to a civilian economy [16].

Terrorist Groups

In case of non-state threats, or “terrorist” threats [17], there too is considerable evidence showing that minimizing this threat is not a priority for the national security states world-wide and in fact, that they directly and indirectly intensify the terrorist threat [18]. I will argue that the Indian National Security State has only made this threat worse in India by its sledge-hammer approach of dealing with political problems and actively committing acts of terrorism itself.

A small group of researcher, led by anthropologist Scott Atran, has provided framework for looking at non-state radical terrorist groups and the empirical evidence supporting it. They conclude that, a sense of “Look, you’re on the outs, nobody cares about you, but look what we can do. We can change the world.” attracts the young individuals who are willing to take up arms for their “sacred values.” Most of these young men come from societies that have excluded them from economic, social and political participation and where they see no future. An objective reality of oppression and subjective sense of humiliation and feeling of alienation forms the backbone of a terrorist [19].

In Kashmir, too the acceptance and strength of terrorist organizations directly correlates to the amount of political and violent repression by the Indian State. The genuine grievances of Kashmiris have never been addressed by any state party and Indian state has taken away the platforms of peaceful settlement – as it rejects any need for a settlement. All this creates a sense of alienation and the reality of “you’re on the outs, nobody cares about you,” without which the terrorist organizations and groups cannot emerge or function. In addition to not addressing the real grievances, Indian state has committed major crimes in the region that in eyes of the terror groups, with some justification, legitimizes their own use of violence [20].

In 1996 Human Rights Watch reported that “Indian security forces have intensified their efforts against militant groups, stepping up cordon-and-search operations and summarily executing captured militant leaders. Alongside them, operating as a secret, illegal army, have been state-sponsored paramilitary groups, composed of captured or surrendered former militants described as “renegades” by the Indian government. Many of these groups have been responsible for grave human rights abuses, including summary executions, torture, and illegal detention as well as election-related intimidation of voters.

“While attempting to reassure the international community that they have taken steps to curb human rights abuses in Kashmir, Indian forces have in effect subcontracted some of their abusive tactics to groups with no official accountability. The extrajudicial killings, abductions and assaults committed by these groups against suspected militants are instead described as resulting from “intergroup rivalries.” But civilians have also been their victims, and the militia groups have singled out journalists, human rights activists and medical workers for attack. They have been given free rein to patrol major hospitals in Srinagar, particularly the Soura Institute, the Sri Maharaja Hari Singh (SMHS) hospital and the Bone and Joint Hospital. They have murdered, threatened, beaten and detained hospital staff; in some cases these abuses have occurred in full view of security force bunkers or in the presence of security force officers. They have also removed patients from hospitals. These abuses constitute clear violations of medical neutrality.” [21]

And recently UN High Commissioner for Human Rights brought out a report stating that, “[i]n responding to demonstrations that started in July 2016, Indian security  forces used excessive force that led to unlawful killings and a very high number  of injuries. Civil society estimates are that 130 to 145 civilians were killed by security forces between mid-July 2016 and end of March 2018, and 16 to 20 civilians were killed by armed groups in the same period. One of most dangerous weapons used against protesters during the unrest in 2016 was the pellet-firing shotgun, which is a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun that fires metal pellets.”

“Over 1,000 people were detained under the PSA (Public Safety Act, 1978) between March 2016 and August 2017. Human rights groups had warned Jammu and Kashmir authorities that minors were being arrested under the PSA in 2016 and 2017.”

“During the 2016 unrest, there were numerous reports of attacks on, and obstruction of, basic medical services that had a severe impact on the injured and general civilian population in Kashmir. Human rights groups claimed that days-long curfews and communications blockades also had a major impact on people and their access to medical care in Kashmir.”

“Impunity for enforced or involuntary disappearances in Kashmir continues as there has been little movement towards credibly investigating complaints including into alleged sites of mass graves in the Kashmir Valley and Jammu region.”[22]

For killing of civilians, use of human shield, attack on medical units and disproportionate use of force, the Indian state actions constitute crime under Protocol I of ICC, Common Article 3 of Geneva Convention, Article 18 19 21 and 21 of Geneva Convention and constitute war crime under 1998 ICC Statues Article 8(2)(b)(ix) and (e)(iv).

Acts of terror are crimes. And they must be dealt as such. The perpetrators must be arrested, given fair trial and sentences. Lack of such action is itself a crime and increases terror activities.

Any real attempt of stopping terrorism must include these steps by a nation state. 1) Serious attempt of addressing genuine grievances of the groups, 2) fair arrest, trial and sentence in case of non-combat captures, 3) stopping state terrorism. Indian and other national security states have so far failed to do this and have moved in the opposite direction of spreading more terror in name of stopping it.

In conclusion to this section, though the justification of National Security State is derived from security from internal and external non-state and state threats it is not clear if the institutional logic and practices of this establishment can ensure such a security. In fact, as I have tried to show, these institutions hinder actual peace processes by choosing more violent (and at times criminal) course of action. Hence, there is a need for strengthening and creating international institutions and mechanisms with aim of de-militarization, disarmament and economic conversion.

A Congealed Auschwitz

On January 13 2018, this message appeared on the screen of mobile phones, television sets and was heard on radio in Hawaii:

BLASSISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.

38 minutes later it was announced to be a false alarm. But overwhelming evidence of nuclear accidents and false alarms suggests a similar and real alert might appear on our screens anytime [23].

NUKEMAP

VIA NUKEMAP.

In Bhopal 1,22,520 deaths and 2,49,340 injuries, from a single ground explosion of a 45 kiloton yield nuclear warhead can be expected – not taking into consideration the fallout effects. This could happen due to a provocative strike, because of miscalculation or warning system error or could happen in Gwalior due to an accidental explosion of our own warhead (in which case the casualties will be much greater as the yield of our warheads is 60 kt.)

The threats of nuclear explosion, “limited nuclear wars” or the final total war are far greater than those from any terrorist organization. But Indian National Security State is making its own population insecure and is holding the world’s population a hostage by its nuclear weapons. Indian’s disinterest in Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons last year shows our unwillingness to move towards eliminating these indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction. Instead the planners of the national security state, the think tanks and the academia try to legitimize the weapons.

Marcus Raskin, who was a nuclear war planner, in an interview said:

“My view was that this did not separate us from those engineers and technocrats  who worked on figuring out how large boxcars should be for sending people to  concentration camps, to Dachau and Auschwitz, and indeed measuring or figuring  out how large the gas ovens would be, because indeed, nuclear weapons had become,  in my mind, then, and certainly there’s no cause to change my view on this, that  each nuclear weapon of a large size was no different than a congealed  concentration camp, a congealed Auschwitz”.

Conclusion

The national security state, the institutions and its political economy are a massive burden on nation economy, resources, technology and man-power. It degrades civil liberties and rule of law. It makes the world insecure by taking more violent stances on issues that could be peacefully resolved under alternative set of institutions and it aggravates non-state terrorism. The security it claims to provide is very limited and comes, if it does at all, at very high social cost. The peace it promises is a far cry from its prescribed line of action.

 

Notes and References:

  1. ROBERT S. ANDERSON, NUCLEUS AND NATION, 2010; NILS GILMAN, MANDARINS OF THE FUTURE, 2003; MICHAEL E. LATHAM, MODERNIZATION AS IDEOLOGY, 2000.
  2. TIMOTHY KERSWELL, STUDIES OF THE INDIAN COMMUNIST MOVEMENT, IN LABOR AND SOCIETY, 2018.
  3. LLOYD J. DUMAS, THE OVERBURDENED ECONOMY, 1987, PG 29-30.
  4. MILITARY BUDGET, GLOBALSECURITY,
GLOBALSECURITY.ORG/MILITARY/WORLD/INDIA/BUDGET.HTM
  1. “BUDGET 2018: HEALTH, EDUCATION, SANITATION ALLOCATION APPEARS TO BE MOST IN 3 YEARS BUT IT ISN’T” FIRSTPOST, FEB 2 2018
FIRSTPOST.COM/BUSINESS/BUDGET-2018-HEALTH-EDUCATION-SANITATION-ALLOCATION-APPEARS-TO-BE-MOST-IN-3-YEARS-BUT-IT-ISNT-4332137.HTML
  1. NICK TURSE, THE COMPLEX, PG 46.
  2. IN MOST COUNTRIES, ESPECIALLY AMONG TOP MILITARY SPENDERS, MILITARY SPENDING ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS AS A COVER FOR DEVELOPING NEXT GENERATION HIGH-TECH ECONOMY. MODERN COMPUTERS, THE INTERNET, DIGITAL CAMERA, WIFI AND MORE ARE PRODUCED BY DECADES OF PUBLIC FUNDING IN NAME OF DEFENSE AND LATER ARE SOLD OFF AT EXTREMELY LOW PRICES TO PRIVATE CORPORATIONS TO MAKE PROFITS. SEE, KENNETH S. FLAMM’S TARGETING THE COMPUTER. SIMILARLY IN INDIA, WITHIN FEW YEARS ALONE, DRDO HAS SOLD IT’S DRONE TECHNOLOGY TO IDEAFORGE. AND IS IN PROCESS OF SELLING RADAR TECH. THIS PRIMARILY MILITARY TECHNOLOGY USE IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY AND DESIGN HAS A CORROSIVE EFFECT OF CREATING WEALTH INEQUALITY AND LIMITING THE SPECTRUM OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
  3. THERE IS NO PARLIAMENTARY LEGISLATION GOVERNING RAW, DIA, IB AND THEIR FUNCTIONING. UNLIKE USA WHERE CIA ACT 1949 AND NATIONAL SECURITY ACT 1947 ARE PRESENT. RAW DOES NOT COME UNDER ANY MINISTRY, IS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO THE PARLIAMENT, IT’S STAFFING IS NOT REGULATED BY ANY FORMAL MECHANISM AND THEORETICALLY REPORTS DIRECTLY TO THE PRIME MINISTERS’ OFFICE. IT HAS IT’S OWN AIRCRAFTS AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE. AND BY SOURCES THAT CANNOT BE INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED THE TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET IS ABOVE INR I LAKH CRORE.
  4. STUART W. LESLIE, ET AL. “EXPORTING MIT: TECHNOLOGY AND NATION-BUILDING IN INDIA AND IRAN” 2006.
  5. HTTP://WWW.INDIAFOUNDATION.IN/TRUSTEE/ AND HTTP://WWW.INDIAFOUNDATION.IN/
  6. HTTP://WWW.G4S.IN
  7. THEINTERCEPT.COM/2016/06/14/ORLANDO-SHOOTER-WASNT-THE-FIRST-MURDERER-EMPLOYED-BY-GLOBAL-MERCENARY-FIRM/
  8. VOICE OF FICCI, AUGUST, 2018.
  9. SIPRI YEARBOOK 2018, PG. 13.
  10. “BHUTAN’S DIPLOMATIC TRIUMPH IN DOKLAM”, THE BHUTANESE, 02, SEPTEMBER, 2017
  11. SECURITY IN DISARMAMENT, RICHARD J. BARNET, RICHARD A. FALK, 1965; REAL SECURITY, ED. KEVIN J. CASSIDY AND GREGORY A BISCHAK, 1993.
  12. A REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON USE OF THE LABEL “TERRORISM” AS A MYTH AND FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES HAS BEEN DONE IN JEFFREY SLUKA, ET AL. “WHAT ANTHROPOLOGISTS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF TERRORISM.” ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY, VOL. 18, NO. 2; AND WILLIAM BLUM, KILLING HOPE, 2004, GIVES A GOOD OVERVIEW OF STATE-TERRORISM BY THE UNITED STATES.
  13. MARK CURTIS, SECRET AFFAIRS: BRITAIN’S COLLUSION WITH RADICAL ISLAM, 2010; CHALMERS JOHNSON, BLOWBACK, 2000.
  14. SCOTT ATRAN, TALKING TO THE ENEMY, 2010; FOR MORE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY IN 2010 AND ATRAN ET AL, “THE DEVOTED ACTOR AS PAROCHIAL ALTRUIST: SECTARIAN MORALITY, IDENTITY FUSION, AND SUPPORT FOR COSTLY SACRIFICES”, CLIODYNAMICS, 5(1), 2014.
  15. “AS UNCERTAINTIES MOUNT IN KASHMIR, MILITANCY REGAINS LEGITIMACY IN THE PUBLIC EYE,” PARVAIZ BUKHARI. SCROLL.IN; A HISTORY OF RESENTMENT AND NOMINAL POWER, KASHMIRIINK; STEPS TOWARDS PEACE: PUTTING KASHMIRIS FIRST, CRISIS GROUP ASIA BRIEFING N°106, 3 JUNE 2010. “A KASHMIRI SOLUTION FOR KASHMIR”, EQBAL AHMAD.
  16. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, INDIA’S SECRET ARMY IN KASHMIR: NEW PATTERNS OF ABUSE EMERGE IN THE CONFLICT, 1 MAY 1996
  17. REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN KASHMIR, OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 14 JUNE 2018.
  18. DANIEL ELLSBERG, THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE: CONFESSIONS OF A NUCLEAR WAR PLANNER, 2017; ERIC SCHLOSSER, COMMAND AND CONTROL: NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THE DAMASCUS ACCIDENT.