Commentary/Ashok Mitra
What has this country gained by spending thousands of billions of rupees in the name
of defending Kashmir's tenuous border?
Even political formations possessing the faculty of rational thinking
way above what the rest possess have to swallow quietly the general
line. They may be more rational than the rest, but they have argued
out the problem in intraparty sessions. They have to work amid
the people; the people's basic sentiments have to be respected;
once the story spreads that x,y or z does not believe in the practice
of interminably raising defence expenditure and does not consider
such expenditure as contributing to overall national welfare,
the canard will spread like wildfire that the party x, y or z
belongs to is unpatriotic and nurtures treasonous thoughts.
Were this canard to gain sufficient ground, that would be the
swan song for the party's aspiration to strengthen itself for
the coming battle or social revolution. The policy of the principle
therefore dictates that one must go along with the defence lobby
-- in the hope tomorrow will be a different kind of day.
Under such environment conditions, no inconvenient questions rear
their head. In case you spend annually an extra two or five or
100 billion of rupees on defence, you give up the opportunity
of utilising these sums to raise the level of women's literacy
or to put some extra proteins into the bodies of the nation's
poor or to add to the number of villages with at least a single
source of potable water. Mentioning such issues is not permissible
in polite societies. They are regarded as subversive of the nation's
interests.
They are about as irrelevant as the query what this country has
gained by spending thousands of billions of rupees in the name
of defending Kashmir's tenuous border and pretending to usher
in, at intervals of every seven or eight years, an election determined
civil administration in the valley.
Yes, a kind of 'democratic'
elections was arranged in Kashmir under strict surveillance exercised
by both the army and Election Commission officials. The elections
have been supposedly more or less free and fair. Even so, how
many from amongst our honest and dedicated politicians and civil
servants are in a position to vouchsafe that a civil administration
is capable of functioning in Kashmir without the protective cover
of army and paramilitary personnel?
To argue that had this or
that prime minster not committed this or that gaffe, the circumstances
in the valley would have been more manageable is equally pointless.
We have arrived where we have on account of our collective folly;
exponential increase in defence outlay can hardly alter the landscape
now.
The patriotic lobby will consider mental reservations of this
kind as treason, or just short of it. Across the border too, the
same voices of unreason will hold sway. It is as if the fundamentalists
over here and over there have formed a secret concordant: serving
the interests of the arms merchants and their foreign backers
are what matters; giving the neighbouring country a bloody nose
is what matters; remaining, for ever, a famished, illiterate land
is not what matters.
A small band of Indians and Pakistanis met in Calcutta last week
to discuss, together, some of these issues. But few amongst
the local population cared. It is the great season of unreason;
what will happen to the noble global armament industry if we
cut back on our defence spending, in India as in Pakistan. Machine politicians
and editorial writers
know their oats. They have no time to spare for the mad
hatters who cry hoarse in the cause of people to people understanding
between India and Pakistan. Make war, not love.
|
