I’m not those who outright
completely reject the ideas of nationalism and national security, for I believe
that centrally governing the planet to everyone’s satisfaction is impossible (except
if ever faced by a threat from aliens!), when there are disputes even between
provinces within countries, and to imagine the world as a completely, perfectly
peaceful place with no problems is utopian, for humans are imperfect creatures,
and what we perceive as good and evil actually exist with respect to each other
as to light and darkness. Nationalist cohesion is necessary for progress and
security, but it shouldn’t override humanism as Nazism did. Especially in the
Indian context, when it comes to Pakistan, there are those who have made what I
call “peace-mongering” a mindless industry that is different from genuine peace
activism based on attempting at real conflict resolution, and it is more of an
intellectually elitist exercise at distortions to create false equivalences, as
I have discussed in some detail here.
However, in general, as a
principle, long-term peace and stability, which will only be in our interest,
and jingoism perpetuating conflict is not, and blindly believing in the version
of events presented by the government of the country you happen to be born in
is silly (though blindly rejecting it to be biased to the other side is equally
silly and that’s another story), and peaceful resolution may involve
understanding the other side and making even territorial compromises if the
other side has its own valid standpoint too, as India did in the context of border
disputes with Bhutan in the 1970s and 1980s, the recent Land Boundary Agreement
with Bangladesh and even the Rann of Kutch Arbitration with Pakistan in 1968.
One occasion when India did
blunder on this front was the Nehru government’s handling of the Sino-Indian
border dispute. Nehru was not overly trusting of or generous to
the Chinese as many imagine, but in fact, a little too aggressive and tried to
unilaterally impose the Indian position on the Sino-Indian borders, on the
Chinese (his infamous “Forward Policy” among those who know of it), ignoring
the advice of military officers like Thimayya asking him to not provoke the
Chinese, and rejecting the very fair and pragmatic Chinese offer of a swap of
Indian and Chinese claims over Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh respectively (do
kindly study the history of the Sino-Indian border dispute carefully and with
an open mind before calling me anti-national).
Herman Goering is believed to
have said during the Nuremberg trials – “Of course the people don't want war.
But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and
it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy,
a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or
no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That
is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce
the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
Likewise, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks has
stated in an interview in 2011 – “I’ve discovered that nearly every war that
has started in the past 50 years has been a result of media lies. The media
could've stopped it if they had searched deep enough; if they hadn't reprinted
government propaganda they could've stopped it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment