Resolving the Ukraine Crisis Peacefully

In the fast-unfolding events it is difficult to predict which exact course the US-Russia standoff over Ukraine will take, but war as a means to resolve the conflict will be too expensive and deadly.

From a domestic point of view, it is not the best time to engage in a military confrontation. The US recently ended its long war in Afghanistan. The economy is not in good shape though there are faint signs of recovery. Issues such as consumer goods shortages, inflation, unemployment, pandemic weariness are all affecting the polity and economy, and in this backdrop engaging in another military confrontation perhaps is not the best policy decision. Internationally, a war with Russia in distant lands, closer to the Russian border, might further help realize Russian strategy to drain America’s resources. It might also provide China, the increasing assertive power in Asia, an advantage to realize its foreign policy goals in the Asia-Pacific.

Afghanistan should be instructive to the leaders who call for military confrontation. Though the US went to Afghanistan with the goal to rout Al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, it stayed in the mountainous country a decade after Laden was killed. The US spent more than two trillion dollars in Afghanistan.

The Congressman from Florida, Michael Waltz, after his recent tour to Ukraine recommended stronger actions in terms of sending lethal weapons to Ukraine to stop Russian advances. Waltz said, “I would love to see – and would encourage and demand – the White House to take stronger moves now.” He further said, “If Putin invades, I want him to know he’ll have trouble buying a soda from a vending machine in the next five minutes.” True, America and its allies are capable enough to stop Russian advances in Ukraine and give it a befitting reply for its undemocratic and aggressive moves.

From a larger context, the confrontation can be seen as a battle between the values of democracy, represented by the US and its allies, and the values of authoritarianism, represented by countries like Russia and China. The Cold War saw the world divided along the lines of liberal capitalist democracy and communism, resulting in a victory of liberal ideas. The new Cold War may see the repetition of such a war. But in the globalized world with advanced means of communication, social media, and cyber warfare, the battle will not be fought only on the ground but also in other spheres. The deadly weapons will not only ensure the defeat of Putin and its maneuvers, it will also cause civilian casualties, environmental damage, economic underdevelopment, and other spillover effects.

President Eisenhower, who as a military commander played a key role in the victory of the allied powers in the Second World War, said in 1953, “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities…We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.” On another occasion, while making a case for peace by peaceful means, Eisenhower said, “The peace we seek and need means much more than mere absence of war. It means the acceptance of law, and the fostering of justice, in all the world.”

A robust diplomacy must be pursued to address the ongoing conflict. There are already multiple rounds of meetings between the diplomats of the US and Russia, and these meetings need to be continued without giving up. Putin must be made to understand through diplomacy that a war will devastate Russia, which is already suffering on many fronts.

While war can be an option, the US and its allies must listen to the wise counsel of President Eisenhower and explore all means of dialogue and diplomacy to avoid war, while ensuring a safe and secure future for Ukraine. While agreeing with Waltz that Putin understands the language of strength, that strength does not necessarily mean only military strength. It also implies convincing the Russian leader through the means of dialogue, deterrence, and sanctions, that any aggressive move will increase the suffering of Russia. War only proves one’s power of destruction is stronger, and the goals which can be realized through the means of dialogue need not be realized through the weapons of war.

While not rejecting war as an option, the American leaders must use all ingenuity to avoid military confrontation while realizing the goals of peace. There are instances when the US leaders pursued dialogue in times of crisis. President Kennedy, who despite provocation of military confrontation from some of his advisors, addressed the Cuban Missile Crisis with wisdom and astute diplomacy. Perhaps it is time to reenact Kennedy diplomacy.

(Another version of this article was published in Florida Times-Union on February 5, 2022.)

Climate Change Calls for a Long-Range Vision

Queen Elizabeth II in her message to COP26 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow made a moral appeal to the world leaders: “…none of us will live forever. But we are doing this not for ourselves but for our children and our children’s children, and those who will follow in their footsteps.” This message perfectly fits to the argument that the ‘long shadow of future’ is falling on all of us, and if we do not work together now the future generations will suffer. That approach chimes well with what Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights wrote, “We want to build forward with equality and justice and sustainability, sustainability with nature and with our need to have a livable world for our children and grandchildren.”

The Queen in her speech made a very relevant distinction between politician and statesman. Politicians work for their states and think in narrow terms of relative gains, maximization of national interest and power, but they do not take long range perspectives. They do not foresee what will happen in the future. In the Queen’s words, “It has sometimes been observed that what leaders do for their people today is government and politics. But what they do for the people of tomorrow — that is statesmanship. I, for one, hope that this conference will be one of those rare occasions where everyone will have the chance to rise above the politics of the moment, and achieve true statesmanship.” One rarely comes across such statesmanship from the leaders of the world today. President Harry Truman’s address in San Francisco at the closing session of the United Nations Conference in San Francisco in 1945 reflected such a long-range vision, which prioritized humanity over narrow concerns of a particular state. Truman said, “If we had had this Charter a few years ago-and above all, the will to use it – millions now dead would be alive. If we should falter in the future in our will to use it, millions now living will surely die.”

Though Truman used these words in the context of international peace, they could be applicable in the context of climate change which has in recent decades assumed a devastating proportion, which provoked organizations like Extinction Rebellion to make a radical appeal, “Life on Earth is in crisis. Our climate is changing faster than scientists predicted and the stakes are high. Biodiversity loss. Crop failure. Social and ecological collapse. Mass extinction. We are running out of time, and our governments have failed to act…We have a moral duty to take action — whatever our politics.” But as the deliberations at the climate change summit and the final agreement after the conference revealed, the world leaders lacked the courage and vision to emerge as statesmen as they prioritized their national goals over global concerns for a sustainable climate. This lackadaisical approach on part of the world leaders prompted climate change activist Greta Thunberg calling the deliberations, “blah, blah, blah.”

A report titled, “Welcome to Miami, Massachusetts” argued that if the greenhouse gas emission continues at the current rate, “… by 2100 Boston’s average summer-high temperatures will likely be more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than they are now, ‘making it feel as steamy as North Miami Beach is today’.” According to another report, “global warming has pushed temperatures up to 5 degrees higher in the region since the 1950s and could increase up to 7 degrees more by the end of the century, putting more stress on the ice.” Tony de Brum, the former Marshall Islands Foreign Minister, nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his role in Paris Climate agreement, witnessed the ‘Bravo shot,’ the thermonuclear test at Bikini Atoll when he was 9 years old. He became a champion of nuclear disarmament and environment protection. Brum, whose island home went under waters due to rising ocean, argued, “The thought of evacuation is repulsive to us…We think that the more reasonable thing to do is to seek to end this madness, this climate madness, where people think that smaller, vulnerable countries are expendable and therefore they can continue to do business as usual.”

Like the Queen, Mahatma Gandhi in the 20th century made a moral argument for climate change. His famous exhortation “Nature has enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed” provides a powerful message in this context. Gandhi’s famous talisman is also useful in this context: “I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him.”

The leaders in the Climate Change conference despite days of deliberations failed to develop a consensus on many contentious issues, leading to a very weak agreement. One of the contentious issues was the use of fossil fuel. Fast growing countries like China and India, who still depend on fossil fuel, insisted on changing the words ‘phase out’ and replace them with ‘phase down’ in the final agreement. The developed countries displayed reluctance to share the burden of climate change with developing countries and provide funding to support the efforts to curb carbon emission. The global concerns such as climate change transcend state borders. Isolation as a foreign policy strategy might have worked in the past, but in the contemporary world isolation implies invitation to more problems. A small happening in one corner of the globe can shape international developments. When we have blatantly messed up with Nature, how would we ensure the survival of human race in the decades and centuries to come? The Queen’s message is certainly instructive in this context as it makes an appeal, or rather a moral call, to the world leaders to rise above petty nationalistic thinking and adopt a long-range vision on climate change.

(This article was published in Infinite Discoveries: https://infinitediscoveries.org/climate-change-calls-for-a-long-range-vision/)

Kashmir, Chidambaram, and cheap politics

In a recent tweet, P. Chidambaram, former Home Minister of India, termed Indian government’s abrogation of Article 370 ‘(un)constitutional coup’. At other places he attributed religious motives to the policy and reasoned that India abrogated the Article because Kashmir is Muslim-dominated region, and argued India used its muscle power to keep Kashmir in its fold.

Many other things Chidambaram also uttered recently, with which I have no problem to agree – the abrogation has increased unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, that India should cultivate the people and leaders of Jammu and Kashmir and win their trust, and mere muscle power is not going to help resolve the problem in the valley. Mixing national interest with cheap politics might help his party score some points but the damage his utterances do to India can be far reaching.

Article 370 was supposed to be abrogated at some point of time. It was a temporary provision. Chidambaram can argue that in the abrogation process the government could have consulted the opposition parties but claiming that the abrogation was done for religious purpose is like arguing that Article 370 was incorporated in the constitution for a religious purpose. It is not necessary that one must search for communal motives in all policies. That was one of the reasons why India got partitioned in the very first place. The two-nation theory held that everything is communal, everything can be seen through two-nation, and Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist. By attributing a communal motive to India’s policy to abrogate Article 370, Chidambaram is just subscribing to this two-nation theory.

One can apply Chidambaram’s logic to the policies of leaders like Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru. Patel sent forces to Hyderabad to secure its integration with the Indian state. Chidambaram’s logic would tell us that Patel, a Hindu, was sending forces to integrate the Hyderabad, ruled by Nizam, a Muslim. This logic would also apply to Nehru, who sent forces to Kashmir after the Pakistan-supported forces invaded Kashmir after the partition and occupied significant portions of the princely state.

Mixing national interest with petty political goals, deliberate or not, has increasingly become a norm in recent years. When a seasoned politician, and a former Home Minister, succumbs to this temptation, one can imagine the herds that follow such leaders, and how social media and propaganda machines within and across borders ceaselessly circulate such confusing utterances.

It is true that there is unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, and India has not been successful in addressing the challenges posed by this unrest. The increasing fighting between the security forces and the disgruntled youth in recent years is a testimony to this unrest. As the conflict is entangled with religion (in the shape of two-nation), territorial claims, geopolitical ambitions, blaming one factor and ignoring other factors make a poor understanding of the conflict. Not only that, it does not help address the conflict, but rather provides ammunition to spoilers who will be happy to quote leaders like the former Home Minister to support their activities.

I have no problem in agreeing with Chidambaram that the people of India should stand with the people of Jammu and Kashmir. During my visits to border areas, I came across acute alienation among the people of the valley, and that needs to be addressed. As I argued elsewhere, it is necessary that India must initiate people-centric policies and make the people and local leaders of the region stakeholders in the policymaking process. In this direction, perhaps it will be useful to engage in dialogue with groups like the Gupkar alliance and other stakeholders in the Kashmir conflict. It will be useful to learn from previous governments to steer such a peace process. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh initiated many positive steps in this regard. ‘Round tables’ and ‘heart-to-talks’ could be organized in the valley and other parts of the region. The people must not feel left out from the developments happening in the region, nor must they feel that the policies are imposed from above without their consent. While engaging people and their leaders in a spirit of dialogue, the government must use its muscle power to address the spoilers.

It should be clear to the leaders of India that Jammu and Kashmir conflict is not a Congress party issue or BJP party issue, to be used against each other. It is a national issue and all political parties having a stake in national progress must put serious thought on how to bring peace and development to the region. As India is a democratic country, the opposition must play a positive role when the government does not perform its duty, and at the same time support government policies which are necessary for national unity and development. The difference between a petty politician and a visionary statesman is certainly wide, and the Indian leaders, including P. Chidambaram, are not only accountable to the political party of which they are members but also to the people of India and the posterity even after they are dead and gone.

(This article was earlier published in my TOI blogsite: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/kashmir-chidambaram-and-cheap-politics/)

The Jahajis’ social contract and the Jammu and Kashmir conflict

I have dealt with various dimensions of the Jammu and Kashmir conflict elsewhere, here my goal is to draw attention of the readers to historical developments far away from the Indian subcontinent, as the developments there are instructive for the conflict. I argue that the historical development in the Caribbean islands thousands of miles away hold lessons for the current leaders of Jammu and Kashmir to address the conflict peacefully, while fighting for rights and justice.

In the mid-19th century hundreds of Indians, mostly from U.P. and Bihar, were taken to Caribbean islands as indentured laborers. Known as jahaji (as they were transported through ship or jahaj in Hindi), these gullible people were promised great things before transported to the islands. Their long and arduous journey and life aftermath belied those promises. Their months long journey had no privacy, they were not given proper meals, some of them died on board and some of them jumped from the ship to inevitable death, and even some produced offspring while confined to open spaces in the ship. Depicted well in recent documentaries on these laborers and their harsh life in foreign lands, the stories of the jahajis bring forth the struggle for survival, and despite hardship how these people adapted and thrived.

But more interesting, and which is perhaps less researched, is that these Indians despite their religious differences shared the same destiny and enjoyed and suffered together. The jahajis included both Hindus and Muslims, and they had an unwritten understanding or social contract that they would live together despite all the travails.

They seldom fought against each other, but they fought together against their colonial exploiters. There are stories in which they protected each other against the colonial exploitation, and even protected women, irrespective of religious identities, against sexual exploitation by the colonial masters at the risk of their lives. As I interacted here in Florida with many of the descendants of these jahajis, who later migrated to the United States and Canada, that spirit of communal harmony persisted those days and even persists today. Hindus and Muslims lived and live together and share happiness and sorrow by taking part in each other’s festivities. There are instances even when male members belonging to one religion died because of exploitation or killed by the colonial exploiters, their vulnerable family members were taken care of by people from the other religion. And that communal harmony survived since the 19th century.

The story of the jahajis is certainly instructive for Jammu and Kashmir conflict. The violence in Jammu and Kashmir became severe when it took a radical religious turn. The conflict persisted since the last seven decades, but became violent in the last three decades as it enmeshed more deeply into the discourse of two nation – Hindus and Muslims – as if they are born enemies, or as if their coexistence is something anathema to peace and harmony. That was the narrative promoted by hardline religious elements, termed as spoilers in conflict resolution literature, and when these elements were supported by Pakistani state machinery actively, the problem became nastier, leading to massive exodus of minorities from the valley. The turn of the political conflict into an identity conflict or religious identity conflict proved dangerous. The region of Jammu and Kashmir became a pawn in the larger radical religious matrix, which further pushed the conflict into a dead end of violence, killing, and darkness.

Hence, when the leaders from the valley emphasize that India must talk to Pakistan to address the conflict, one should not have dispute on this had they also, in the same vein, like the jahajis in the Caribbean talk about the minorities within the valley and the whole of Jammu and Kashmir.

It is true that the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir are minorities in the larger Indian context, but they are majority community within Jammu and Kashmir. How do the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir fare when the issue of exploitation of minorities within the valley comes to picture? It is perfectly alright when they articulate about their marginalization, but they seldom articulate the concerns of minority communities within their society, or the minorities who have fled persecution in Pakistani side of Jammu and Kashmir or from Pakistan.

They have not, at least I have not come across in my research, raised the exploitation of minorities within Pakistani side of Kashmir with the Pakistani establishment or during their engagement with Pakistani leaders in India. Keeping this picture in mind, the argument of Kashmiri leaders that in an independent Kashmir the minorities will be taken care of, and India does not need to worry about the minorities in Kashmir, falls flat on its face as their current action speak louder than their proclamations.

My goal here is not to vilify any leader or group or religion. My goal is to explore pathways for peaceful resolution of the conflict. But a peace process that ignores or undermines the realities will not succeed. While the leaders from the valley have genuine concerns which need to be addressed, their concerns must not be viewed as my group-your group or my religion-your religion prisms as it will defeat the very purpose of conflict resolution and the goal of realizing a peaceful Jammu and Kashmir. Did not B. R. Ambedkar counter the two-nation theory, and articulated that “Isn’t there enough that is common to both Hindus and Musalmans, which if developed, is capable of moulding them into one people? Nobody can deny that there are many modes, manners, rites and customs which are common to both. Nobody can deny that there are rites, customs and usages based on religion which do divide Hindus and Musalmans. The question is, which of these should be emphasized…If the Hindus and Musalmans agree to emphasize the things that bind them and forget those that separate them, there is no reason why in course of time they should not grow into a nation…”

This vision of communal peace as envisioned by Ambedkar must dawn on the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir. It was the same vision that inspired the jahajis in the Caribbean islands. It is up to the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, and also up to the leaders of India and Pakistan, whether they want to be guided by a vision of inclusive of peace, in which all religions and groups live and thrive peacefully, or a vision of exclusive peace in which one group survives and prospers at the cost of the other group. In this direction, the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir need to do soul searching.

(This blog was published earlier in Times of India blogs: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/the-jahajis-social-contract-and-the-jammu-and-kashmir-conflict/)

Beaten track, uncertain horizon: Making a case for moral international relations

The current state of international relations can be captured by the phrase – beaten track, uncertain horizon. The recent developments demonstrate that the major powers behave in expected ways, but from a long-range perspective, they do not indicate whether they will cooperate to build a peaceful world.

The post-cold war 21st-century world is different from the cold war 20th-century world. That was the time when the bipolar world was the definitive character of international politics, and scholars like Kenneth Waltz predicted that this bipolar model would be stable. The United States and the Soviet Union were two major adversaries, representing two ideologies and different poles of attraction, gathering other countries from the world around them. It was stable in the sense that the two great powers drove international politics, and small developments at small places were eschewed under the larger concerns of superpower politics. Though Waltz’s prediction did not prove true as the bipolar system collapsed in the 1990s, the system provided stability in international politics for many decades in the 20th century.

Though scholars like Fukuyama declared the victory of liberal democracy, the world after the end of the cold war appeared more chaotic than earlier. There was no Soviet Union, nor were there raging debates about capitalist and socialist models of development. Capitalism thrived, and also thrived the cocktail of capitalism and authoritarianism. China emerged as a major power despite not being a democratic country. Russia retained its military might, though economically it became weaker. Other countries including India appeared on the international political scene. While scholars like Steven Pinker and Joshua Goldstein adopted an optimistic approach and predicted that we live in a peaceful world, the reality did not corroborate that approach.

We do not have world wars or major interstate wars in the last many decades, but we have what Kalevi Holsti termed wars of ‘third kind’, reflected in the rise of intrastate wars and insurgencies. One could add to these rising religious fundamentalism and terrorism, communal violence, cyber warfare, etc. The recent ransomware attacks in the United States could be included in the rising instances of wars of third kind. The rising global power, China, aggressively pursued its foreign policy goals and used offensive realist methods despite its official proclamation of peaceful rise. Theocratic states like Saudi Arabia flourished despite their suppression of human rights as revealed in the case of Jamal Khashoggi. Liberal international powers reconciled to reality after initial whimpers. Liberal-moral concerns of democracy and human rights were eschewed by prudence and realist concerns of interest and power.

When Biden during his recent meeting with Putin presented the concerns about electoral interference, cyber warfare, and ransomware, and undermining of democratic dissent, they were on expected lines. Also on expected lines were Putin’s denial of charges and recalcitrant posture. Biden acknowledged Russia as a ‘worthy adversary’, thus bringing back the cold war narrative. Putin as a former KGB official and strategist knew well how to play his cards, and it would perhaps be an amusement for him to be considered a worthy adversary. While during the cold war, Soviet Union was the major adversary and other problems constellated around this bipolar rivalry, in the post cold war era, the Biden administration would confront not only Russia but also China.

Relying on old paradigms and narratives may not help in this globalized, interconnected world, in which ideas and values morph quickly and give rise to new ideas and theories. As almost everything is open to public glare, it will be difficult to separate means and ends of foreign policy. The idea of carrot and stick, or the ideas of using soft power at some places and hard power at some other places, or tools such as deterrence and compellence, may not work effectively as earlier as in this globally interconnected world, intentions, howsoever couched in decent languages, cannot be hidden.

In his recent work Joseph Nye, Jr. articulated well that morals matter in foreign policy. If the goal is to establish a peaceful and moral world, then the first step must be developing a peaceful and moral agenda and then giving it a policy shape. Biden’s visit to Europe and meeting with European leaders and G-7 leaders recently is a step in that direction. Prospects of including all countries of the world including the adversaries in this process of building a just and peaceful world need to be explored. While it may appear necessary to have adversaries or rivals to have an enjoyable political game, in international politics it is not necessary that conflict must be the path towards international peace and security. It may sound idealist, but the United States under President Biden can provide moral leadership to the world. Perhaps there is no better time than now.


(This article was earlier published on my Times of India blog site, Periscope: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/beaten-track-uncertain-horizon-making-a-case-for-moral-international-relations/)

Gandhi and Bengal Politics

The communal violence in West Bengal enlivens the debates during the partition of Bengal at the time of independence of India. Those debates reveal while visionary leaders like Gandhi were aware of the communal fault lines and were working tirelessly to bridge the divides, communal leaders like H. S. Suhrawardy, who was Prime Minister (the current equivalent of Chief Minister in an Indian state) of Bengal during the partition, were deliberately stoking communal passion, thus undermining peaceful coexistence between the communities.

The letter exchanges between Gandhi and Suhrawardy show the different priorities of both the leaders. Gandhi believed from the very beginning that Hindus and Muslims belonged to the same sociocultural tradition. He failed in his mission to halt the partition juggernaut but tried his best to stop the communal violence triggered by the partition politics. The nonviolent worker in him worked tirelessly and travelled violence affected parts of India including Bengal and Bihar to address public gatherings and engage people and leaders in dialogue.

When Gandhi decided to visit Bengal, to areas like Noakhali, Suhrawardy, the Prime Minister of Bengal, was not in favor of such a visit. How could he tolerate Gandhi who opposed partition and worked for communal harmony? Suhrawardy and his political party used communal violence as a tactic to pressure the Congress leaders and the British government to accept partition as the only viable solution. This was in line with Jinnah’s two-nation theory, that Hindus and Muslims are two nations, and they can never live together. Without delving deep into this two-nation theory, it is sufficient here to make the point that Suhrawardy’s communal politics was in clash with Gandhian nonviolence and peaceful coexistence.

Gandhi believed that Hindus and Muslims are part of the same family, inheriting the same historical and cultural tradition. There are differences between the two communities, he acknowledged but argued that differences, as in a joint family, do not imply discord, separation, and violence. But Suhrawardy, following the line of Jinnah, believed that as a Hindu Gandhi represented only the Hindus, not the Muslims. He suggested that Gandhi represented Hindu interests and it cannot be expected of him to play a pacifying role in communally tense areas. Suhrawardy also doubted that Gandhi’s visit to violence affected areas in Bihar, where Hindus were majority, would help restore Muslim confidence in him. This logic of religious politics appalled Gandhi and hurt him the most.

In a letter to Suhrawardy in December 1946 from Noakhali, Gandhi quoted parts of Suhrawardy’s letter. He wrote, “you proceed to say: ‘It is true that it is the Muslims who have suffered in Bihar and not Hindus. And then you insinuate, therefore, perhaps, your going to Bihar will not have any effect in re-establishing confidence amongst Muslims’…” He retorted, “Let me say that I do not regard the Muslims to have less claim on my service or attention… This distrust is so utterly baseless. I regard myself as an efficient servant of India.” Gandhi even did not lose hope and appealed him, “Let me tell you, whether you as a late friend and other members of the Muslim League believe me or not, that I am here to regain the lost confidence. Nothing will move me away from Noakhali unless the lost confidence is regained, which will be the case if the Hindus and Muslims in these districts trust one another without needing the presence of the police or the military.”

Suhrawardy viewed with suspicion Gandhi’s presence in Noakhali, where the Hindus were the victims of communal violence. He told Gandhi that the situation in Noakhali is fine and there is no need of his presence. Gandhi in his reply wrote, “You have painted a rosy picture of things in Noakhali. I wish I could share your estimate. …If the information imparted to me is correct, things are not safe enough in Noakhali. Hindus have not shed their fear and from what you say even the Muslims are not free from it. My business in coming here is not to sow or promote dissensions between the two. I regard myself, as I have ever been, an equal friend of both.”

Gandhi was suspicious of authority, whether that of Prime Minister Suhrawardy, or that of British government, to restore communal peace. In March 1947, he wrote to Suhrawardy to reconsider his decision to support public celebration of Pakistan Day. Gandhi’s reason was that such a public celebration would incite communal violence, particularly in the areas which witnessed communal killings. He wrote, “I have seen your press note…I must confess that it does not give me much satisfaction. May we hold Pakistan Day celebration meetings in parts of Bengal where Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code is not in action or where there is no other prohibitory order? And if meetings can be held indoors, are they not likely to be far more dangerous than public meetings?”

Are these Gandhi-Suhrawardy exchanges relevant for a discussion on current politics in West Bengal? The answer is YES. They show that there were communal leaders who stoked communal passion and engineered violence then, and there are communal leaders now who did not learn from history and engage in communal politics for petty gains. It also shows us the mirror that divisive politics rigidifies the feelings of hatred, generates more violence, and narrows the scope for peaceful coexistence.

(This article was earlier published on my Times of India blog site, Periscope: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/gandhi-suhrawardy-exchanges-and-bengal-politics/)

Kabuliwala: Reflections on India-Afghanistan

Recently the US President, Joe Biden, announced the withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan by 9/11, typically reminding the day when the attack on the World Trade Center in New York happened two decades ago. The president visited Arlington crematory and pointed to the stone marks around and lamented that so many lives were lost in the past. The major goal of the US – the end of Osama bin Laden and decimation of Al Qaeda – is now realized, the US has no reason to sacrifice the lives of more Americans, the administration reasoned. The announcement expectedly received mixed reactions. While the democrats in the US and many of the US allies support it, some of the republican leaders at home are skeptical that the withdrawal would help the US goal of peace and stability in Afghanistan. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, was in Kabul recently to engage the Afghan leaders for the withdrawal process and for assuring them of the US support after the withdrawal.

The announcement has sent jitters across the region. Fear of the rise of Taliban, and its support to forces like Al Qaeda and Islamic State, and Islamic extremist groups from all over the world including from Pakistan, has gained ground. Pakistan has a major influence in Afghan politics, due to its geographic proximity, religious and ethnic affinity, and it is known to use these forces as strategic tools against India. The withdrawal of the Soviet forces led to rise of terrorism in Kashmir as Pakistan mobilized these forces to destabilize India, and those memories are still fresh in the mind of the Indian leaders and strategic thinkers. General Rawat’s concern that the withdrawal will give a boost to the ‘disruptors’ makes sense in this context.

But the India of 21st century is not the India of the 20th century. India must play its cards astutely. India’s Foreign Minister, S. Jaishankar, said at the ‘Heart of Asia’ Conference in Tajikistan recently, probably anticipating the withdrawal, that “India has been supportive of all the efforts being made to accelerate the dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban, including intra-Afghan negotiations.” During the visit of Afghan foreign minister to New Delhi last month, India’s foreign ministry emphasized “on peaceful, sovereign, stable and inclusive Afghanistan”, which could be realized through “democratic constitutional framework.” India needs to use its rising economic and military clout in the region, and its soft power to gain a leverage in Afghanistan. And this can be possible through astute diplomacy and engaging India’s neighbors Pakistan and Afghanistan and ally Russia. India has contributed to Afghanistan’s development, and it can play a creative role to adjust to the new reality.

It is not that India will not face challenges while initiating peace measures in Afghanistan. Pakistan will play all its cards including Kashmir and Islam to undermine India’s initiatives. It has been established many times in the past how Pakistan inspired terrorist groups target Indian facilities in Afghanistan. China will try to ensure that it fills the vacuum left by the US, and as a major economic and military power, it will try its best to keep democratic India out of the equation. Pakistan, inspired by political Islam, and authoritarian China will not feel comfortable to welcome democratic India’s aspirations in Afghanistan.

But that is not and should not be the end of the tunnel. India’s foreign policy establishment needs to navigate through this complex scenario and explore all possible diplomatic options to engage both China and Pakistan to have its due place in Afghan peace process. Besides engaging these states, India also needs to engage Taliban. As a pragmatic policy, it needs to engage Taliban leaders and motivate them for a peaceful solution of the conflict. Contrary to some beliefs, Taliban would likely be more amenable to India’s soft power attractions. In contrast to Pakistan hard core anti-India policy, it is possible that Taliban, a majorly Pashtun community group, will be interested to develop closer relations with India. Such a scenario will not be easy as Pakistan will play all tricks to keep the Taliban away from India, but India needs to use its hard and soft diplomacy to win Afghan Taliban to its side.

The cultural relations between India and Afghanistan are deep. Unlike Pakistan, Afghanistan as a state has no history of hostility and rivalry with India. Kautilya’s Mandala theory would aptly describe Afghanistan as a natural ally of India. Tagore’s story of Kabuliwala, in which Abdul Rehman Khan from Afghanistan sees his daughter in Mini in Calcutta is not just a creation of the Nobel Laureate’s mind, but a true reflection of deep sociocultural and historical ties between the two countries. Besides reviving these ties, India must capitalize the withdrawal of the US forces to increase its presence in Afghanistan. In this, the US and Russia can support India’s aspiration, and India, with Pakistan and China, can be part of a multilateral and multinational process for peace and stability in the region. The withdrawal is portrayed as a challenge for India, but it can be an opportunity.

This article of mine was published in TOI blogs:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/kabuliwala-reflections-on-india-afghanistan/