It’s Indian secularism that Pak regime fears most

[Guest guest]

It's Indian secularism that Pak regime fears most

 

(The Term "Secularism" does no justice to the fact that true Vedic

Culture tolerated all social groups and cultures. This concept is not

new to humanity and does not need the Western Stamp of Approval known

as "secularism." Vrin Parker)

 

>From L K Sharma

DH News Service

Washington, Sept 22

 

 

If Pakistan is facing a serious crisis, India has no reason to be

complacent. The events of the last few days carry vital lessons for

New Delhi. And these are not just in the area of foreign policy or

economic strategy. These must be learnt in the context of the fight

against terrorism, the state's responsibility to provide economic

justice, to promote communal harmony and to put down sectarian

violence.

 

Many Indian wise men have stated that good principles also make good

policy. The current crisis, seen through the fog of rhetoric, is a

reminder that fairness as an instrument of state policy will be more

effective than a thousand guns in curbing terrorism today and

averting the birth of new terrorists. One of the factors fuelling

terrorism is the impression gathered by a large section of people

belonging to one faith that the US has been unfair.

 

Some of these things can be discussed freely before terrorists

strike. In the aftermath of the strikes, a dispassionate discussion

becomes impossible as America is witnessing it now. Every one is

asking why is America hated so much. And the set answer from the

powerful voices is the mantra: "Because of what we are, not because

of what we do."

More than 10 days after the tragedy, some American voices are

suggesting that the US looks again at its policies, the developments

in the Middle East, the past events in Afghanistan and the Gulf

region and the conduct of the US-supported dictators in the face of

Islamic fundamentalists. But as can be understood in a country that

has just lost 6,000 innocent lives, such voices are muffled.

 

The contradictions and ironies inherent in the current conflict are

lost in an atmosphere in which ordinary Americans fail to distinguish

between a Sikh and a Muslim. The President of the nation, in his

Presidency-defining address, calls it a war between freedom and

democracy and their enemies and goes on to say that the latter were

trying to fight the rulers of Saudi Arabia and such other countries!

Certainly, no one in the White House will dare to suggest to him that

the autocratic rulers of America's favourite countries have failed to

share the benefits of Western democracy with their rich or

impoverished masses.

Any nation following the footsteps of the superpower, even on a

miniscule scale, will be caught in the same contradictions. India's

deep historical empathy for the Israelis, born out of humanitarian

concerns, should not be translated into an admiration for the Israeli

state model of fighting terrorism.

 

This is the model which has failed and which has no bearing on the

cultural values of India. Hatred is the ruling passion in many parts

of the world today. The eye-for-an-eye model does not generally have

the same attraction for Indians who are, of course, not immune to

hatred. But political and so-called religious forces have to work

hard to arouse hatred and it takes extreme provocation to facilitate

their task. That is why an Indian leader enjoys so much leverage in

fraternising with Pakistan. To America, adapting the Israeli model

comes naturally, even though some say that American air passengers

will not put up with half-an-hour personal interview before boarding

a plane. In the current atmosphere, they say they will put up with

anything, even a curtailment of civil liberties.

 

India has to evolve its own model of fighting terrorism even though

the incidence of mortgaging one's thinking has risen in the past few

years in proportion to economic growth. It is a challenge beyond the

Home Ministry or nuclear submarines. If ever a multi-dimensional long–

term strategic planning was required about one issue, it is counter-

terrorism. One should always have 10 more airplanes than the enemy

but ultimately the battlefield of ideas proves more crucial. Tanks

did not win the war against communism. And the same will be true of

the war against "Islamic fundamentalism". America's leaders would

hate to admit it because they must demonstrate retaliation. But even

they have started talking of a 10-year war.

 

To put it in Chinese terms, these are interesting times. More

interesting for India in whose neighbourhood lies the eye of the

storm. At least formally and superficially, India and Pakistan are on

the same side in the global war against terrorism. A country that

used to bristle at the thought of militarisation of the Indian Ocean

will soon find foreign forces in its front yard and backyard, in its

own patches of the sky and oceans. Gen Musharraf may publicly spew

hatred towards India but New Delhi will be well advised to wish him

well, and not because he was born in India. In the present

circumstances, Gen Musharraf's successor will be even worse. If Gen

Musharraf is toppled because of the civilian unrest, India will be

faced with a kind of danger that it has never witnessed since its

Independence. Love your neighbour, even if he is an enemy, because

the fire in his house will not leave you unscathed.

 

The irony of the situation is that Afghanistan has once again come to

the rescue of an embattled leadership of Pakistan. Afghanistan kept

Gen Zia in power for many years. It remains to be seen whether

Afghanistan could do the same to Gen Musharraf. Even after America

lost interest in Afghanistan, Pakistan's Taliban connection kept it

as well as Taliban afloat. The maps of dirty money's travel now being

displayed on American TV channels show how Pakistan was the parking

station for funds for Taliban.The challenge before India is manifold.

India has to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Pakistanis in the

face of a new public posture struck by President Musharraf, the new

hero of the West. Some in India may suggest the very dangerous course

of fighting Gen Musharraf on his chosen battlefield of religious and

communal animosities. India must stick to its tradition and refrain

from giving that twist to this sub-continental contest.

 

The biggest long-term threat to the Pakistani establishment is not

from India's army but from India's secularism, which challenges its

very founding principle. What Pakistani leaders in the post-

Independence era found difficult to understand was how India's

different religious communities were living together and building the

new nation. In the aftermath of the Ayodhya tragedy, this

correspondent met in Oxford University a Pakistani economist who had

just returned from Pakistan. With clinical precision, he said the

Ayodhya incident was being celebrated among the think tanks in his

country. For the first time, Pakistan is feeling vindicated about its

model of nationalism by proving the hollowness of the secularist

credentials of the Indian state. He was only confirming that

religious fundamentalists are a band of brothers.

 

India's policy-makers may have to debate such issues when charting

out a long-term strategy to counter terrorism. Of course, in a

limited perspective, the law enforcement authorities may have already

grasped the message that while international cooperation and allies

are needed, self-reliance remains the basis of preparedness. Over-

dependence on any external source for fighting your battles never

helps, especially when even friends may differ on categorising "good

terrorists" and "bad terrorists".India has its own model of conflict

resolution based on its value system and the clear message coming

from America is that it should have its own distinctive strategy

against terrorists. Even an FBI agent in every Indian town may be of

little help in times of a real crisis. Perhaps India could make

inciting communal violence to be as serious a crime as it is in the

Muslim-majority Malaysia. Indian leaders must resume the task of

nation-building along with boosting the markets. They must

demonstrate the fairness of the state power.

 

That India and America differ conceptually on such issues is clear.

The Indian system of medicine concentrates on the root cause of the

malady, not the symptoms. In America, right now, no one wants to even

talk about the root cause.

This basic difference has just been highlighted by the expected

official American reaction to the Pakistan President's address to the

nation. He talked about the infidels in the history of Islam but that

has gone unnoticed in Washington because he has acted within the

Western paradigm. The fact that this speech will create an atmosphere

in which more terrorists will be born to menace India and also the

West can hardly be realised by those accustomed to see the world in

binary terms.

"If you are not with us, you are against us" is not a language that

will ever be understood by a civilisational state such as India. The

Hindu tradition has no concept of the other and does not think in

terms of black and white. It does not go about demonising the other.

It recognises that even real and proven demons have certain virtues.

In the current conflict, the two sides are engaged in a competition

to demonise each other. Just compile a list of epithets used by the

leaders in the rival camps.

 

India's secularism is not Western secularism and non-communalism does

not challenge the dharmic tradition but nurtures it amid harmony so

that its roots spread wider and deeper. Different faith communities

share it. One may say what has all this to do with India's foreign

policy. It has. It was such a basic and conceptual difference, the

different ways of seeing and believing, a different worldview, that

put a distance between America and India in the past despite the

sharing of many other quintessential values of America. That is why

India's non-alignment was seen as "immoral" in Washington.

 

But can one imagine what India's fate would have been if it had

rushed to hug a bear or an elephant or a lion immediately after

Independence as Pakistan did. In the area of foreign policy, this has

given New Delhi an opportunity to pause and reflect. No radical shift

is warranted as yet but some minor adjustments are required in the

nuances. When India's National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra meets

his American counterpart this week, he will be aware of the fact that

he represents a civilisational state. Any Indian gesture showing that

New Delhi is jockeying for America's affection in competition with

Pakistan will not be dignified. It will also be futile in the current

atmosphere. America's new policy towards Pakistan should not have

caught India by surprise. Though because of its self-generated

euphoria, New Delhi may find it hard to understand the new American

policy.

 

The Ministry of External Affairs has to harness its intellectual

resources and recover the capacity to think in its unique way rather

than finding a given uniform agenda as an answer to every crisis. As

for Pakistan, more than ever before, New Delhi needs to distinguish

between the leader and the people of Pakistan and refrain from any

action which facilitates his task of demonising India.And if

Pakistan's leadership undergoes a change of heart again, India should

be willing to grasp its hands.