Book Review : God's Terrorists(Charles Allen)

Indira Mukherjee

One of the greatest pressing issues which plague this increasingly inter-connected, materialistic and complicated world is terrorism. And out of the most gruesome acts that we have seen in the recent past, the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre stands out in sharp contrast. It is commonly said that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” and the book “God’s Terrorists” by Charles Allen skilfully explains this thought. It traces the growth of the Wahabi cult and the hidden roots of modern Jihad. It explains how Wahabism makes its entry into India, why the British expansionist policy of the 18^th century comes into conflict with it, how this ideology gets enmeshed with the revolt of 1857 and why the terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda owe allegiance to it. It also tells us that as a theory, Wahabism has a fanaticism attached to it and in practice, it believes in an inherent hostility to people who are not strict adherents of Islam. In short, the author says that Wahabism was always rooted in violent intolerance and it appeared as a champion of the faith of Islam at a time when the triumph of the religion was not proceeding as ordained. This aspect holds true, even today.

To begin with, Wahabism is an Islamic revivalist movement, the guiding ideology behind modern Islamist terrorism. It is named after Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahab [1703-1792] of Najd, Saudi Arabia who under the influence of the medieval theologian Ibn Taymiyyah [1263–1328] aspired to return to the earliest fundamental Islamic sources of learning i.e. the Quran and the Hadith. The movement gained popularity and propaganda due to the financial and political support rendered by the royal house of Saudi Arabia. In terms of belief, Wahabism considers Allah as the only one to be worshipped and leaves no space for tolerance or acceptance of any other religion. Much of this notion is attributed to the experiences of Ibn Taymiyyah who witnessed a lot of Mongol attacks on the Islamic world. The motley group of people from different regions and religions during the medieval period led to a gradual inter-mingling of faiths and consequent dilution of Islam. This led a section of the Islamic society to stress the emphasis on maintaining the purity of Islam by adhering to Quran and Hadith only. Muhammad Wahab carried forward this belief and the formal seeds of Wahabism were sown.  

In early 19^th century, Wahabism made its entry into India as a religious reform movement whose objective was to restore Muslim power in India by overthrowing the Sikhs and the British. Saiyad Ahmad [1786-1831] of Rae Bareilley was the founder of Wahabi movement in India. He believed that India had become dar-ul-kafir [land of unbelievers] and it has to be made dar-ul-harb [land of war] by waging a war against the infidels and the British. For this purpose, he sought the assistance of the Nizam of Hyderabad, the various Pathan tribes of the North West frontier of India and even some Muslim leaders outside India. The regular organisation of Indian Wahabism was set up in Patna and initial spadework done by Vilayat Ali, whereas Inayat Ali, Titu Mir and others popularized it immensely. Since the Wahabis made vigorous preparations to wage a full-scale war against the British, they were looked upon with suspicion. In fact, during the 1857 revolt it was found that the sepoys were in constant touch with the Wahabis at Sittana and there was a supply chain by which men, money and material was being transferred between the Wahabi camp in the north western frontier and Patna. The first two Anglo-Afghan wars in 1839 and 1878 were meant to weed out the influence of the Wahabis so that Afghanistan could be used as a strong buffer state against the expanding kingdom of Russia. In late 1860’s and early 1870’s, the British crackdown increased and many Wahabi leaders were transported for life – this led to a temporary halt in the movement.

The Muslim world again joined hands after the 1^st world war when they rose up against the liberal Government set up in Turkey under the aegis of Mustafa Kemal Pasha Attaturk. Soon after, in 1932 the kingdom of Saudi Arabia was carved out of Nejd and Hijaz. After the oil shock of 1973, the royal house of Saudi Arabia was awash with petrodollars and it became a financial cushion for the Wahabis. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan sparked off another round of jihad wherein the Holy war was waged against the Russians. This war shaped the thought process of Osama Bin Laden, the future leader of Al Qaeda. In fact, the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990 prompted Bin Laden to defend Saudi Arabia by calling his global network of ex-Afghanistani jihadis, beginning with the several thousand Wahabi veterans now back in Arabia. However, the Saudi Government, unlike its traditional support to Wahabis, turned instead to the United States. This feeling of betrayal accompanied with his strong Wahabi convictions led Bin Laden to revisit the Prophet’s injunction that there should not be two religions in Arabia. He became a bitter enemy of the House of Saud and United States, considering them as enemies. Wahabism in the late 20^th century led to the emergence of two different organisations - one tight-knit and localised, the other loose-knit and with global aspirations: the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden eventually ended up supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan and unleashing terror on the un-Islamic world via the Al Qaeda.

      

      Charles Allen is a fine narrative historian; “God’s Terrorist” depicts the germination, consolidation and expansion of an ideology which is the bedrock of Islamic fundamentalism of modern day. Wahabism has captured the imagination of several people ever since the medieval ages but the kind of strong principles it believes in, along with the missionary zeal with which it is being professed, has made it a subject which one just cannot leave out while studying the birth of modern day terrorism. And the ease and simplicity with which the author has explained this huge trajectory, is commendable. Writing a book with historical underpinnings, the author has delved into rigorous research and background work – one which is clearly visible in the numerous references to the personal accounts of the British officers who served in Indian civil services during the 19th century, collection of rare photographs and inclusion of the extremely minute details pertaining to the war, casualties, arms, locations etc. A combination of these, has catapulted the book to a different platform all together.

            The best part of the book is the details on the confrontation between the Hindustani fanatics and the British Indian Army in mid 19^th century. The complexity of the missions sent to Afghanistan, the often hurt ego of the Governor Generals, the ferocity of the warring frontier tribes, the disadvantage of unfavourable weather during campaigns, the different mechanisms thought of by the officers to win over the “great game” etc would surely keep the readers hooked on to the book. The way in which a supply chain network develops between the “chota godown” at Patna and the “burra godown” at Sittana during the revolt of 1857 makes one think that probably, the commonly held belief of the failure of the sepoy mutiny might not be entirely true because without systematic planning and coordination, such an activity could not have been carried out under the noses of the British administration. The book also carefully explains the threat perceived by the Government from the aficionados of wahabism. In fact, the entire blame of the revolt was put on the Muslims which got further deepened when soon after, Lord Mayo was assassinated by a Wahabi fanatic Sher Ali in Andamans. Thus, in effect the work of later modern Islamic revivalists like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan of Aligarh started by convincing the British that the Muslims were the most loyal subjects of the British crown.

            The author has told his complex story with concision, insight and wide ranging vision. The thread connecting Wahabism, Deoband School, Taliban and Al Qaeda has been clearly portrayed. The very fact that the Wahabi ideology found its way into the 20^th century by opposition to the anti Islamic heretic forces under the complex relations of international politics clearly shows the current relevance of the notion. The post cold war scenario accentuated this feeling of antipathy – the Arab-Israel conflict; Islamic revolution of Iran in 1979; Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and US military intervention in Middle East alienated a large section of the Muslims, some of whom resorted to violent means to establish the Islamic faith. This ranged from terrorist organisation like Al Qaeda to more radical forms of governments like the Taliban in Afghanistan. These groups were able to sustain due to the money being doled out from the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, when the Taliban Government was established in early years of the first decade of the 21^st century, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were the first ones to recognize it.

            There are a few places in the book where the narrative becomes a bit too extended and the tone overtly pessimistic. But on the whole, Charles Allen has delivered a book which the readers will read with rapt attention. The relevance of the topic of terrorism and the long trail of history that lies behind it, makes a double delight for the audience. The concept of Jihad and the thought process entailing it, has been very aptly described by the author. And all this has been done in the backdrop of the Indian colonial setup, giving a chance to relate to the environment, ambience and surroundings of the events. On the whole, “God’s Terrorists” is a long, bloody and commandingly told story and it does what we long for history to do; tells a tale of yesteryears that throws new and uncomfortable light on the contemporary world

--------------------------------------------------------------

Indira Mukherjee is an IPS probationer of the 88th FC at LBSNAA, Mussoorie. This post is her review of the book "God's Terrorists" by Charles Allen.

Indigenization of Military Hardware is necessary for India to establish itself as a World Power to reckon with

Indira Mukherjee

Irrespective of whether we consider India as a developing country or an "Asian giant", it would not be a terminological in-exactitude to say that our nation has made its presence felt in the global arena owing to strong economic indicators. It is widely believed that this increased visibility will cause India to dabble more in military matters so as to tackle security issues and gain a solid footing in the international platform. If one does a survey of India’s external security challenges in South Asia, the outcome is that of concern – Indo-Pak skirmishes, long outstanding border dispute with China, Tamil issue in Srilanka, precarious political upheavals in Maldives, an un-ending constitutional crisis in Nepal, withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan, an illegal drugs-arms nexus across Myanmar etc. This current geopolitical quagmire with respect to India's borders and the global notion of equating diplomacy power with military strength, make its imperative for us to decide on a path that India should eventually undertake to showcase its might. Atal Bihari Vajpayee once famously said that –

"You can change friends but not neighbours"

And it is largely because of this fact that India has, in a slow but steady pace, indulged in activities related to military expansion, capacity building, technology upgrade and increase prominence in the international arms market. This continues even today and in future will gain pace for sure.

However, the moot point is that in this era of economic globalization and rapid changes in the security paradigm, should a country like India rely on procuring military hardware from other countries to save time crunch, ramp up world-class military stockpile or focus more on indigenization to buttress sovereignty, reduce costs? The answer to this is embedded in the historical backdrop, cold war experience, political mindset and complexity of current world economic coupling. While it might be an easy option to acquire arms from other countries with reasonable expertise in this field, not giving enough incentive and encouragement to domestic military hardware production will enervate India’s self-reliance in the long run. Overseas procurement and indigenization of defence equipments are two sides of the same coin and needs to be balanced carefully for making a strong, mighty and calculative India. To understand the complexity of arriving at a decision with respect to the preferred avenue for enhancing military capabilities, the following aspects should be considered:

• ·         Legacy of military restraint
• ·         Stimulus for defence ramp up
• ·         On indigenization
• ·         Benefits and problems of foreign purchase
• ·         The way forward

Legacy of Military Restraint

Reticence in the use of force as an instrument of state policy has been the dominant political condition for Indian thinking on the military [1]. Be it the delay of sending troops to Kashmir in 1948 or the slackened pace of indulging into nuclear testing, India has always reacted with immense amount of restraint in military matters. One might argue that this approach adheres to the words of Isaac Asimov that –

“Violence...is the last refuge of the incompetent”

But many a times, this slowness gives out a wrong signal to the other side. After all, there is no gainsaying in the fact that the world reacts to and observes muscle flexing with hawkish eyes and not to mere promises or ideology only. 

Individual leadership has also led to the evolution of this thought process – India under Jawaharlal Nehru was an example of unified idealism [2]. He was a firm believer in peaceful coexistence and exercised extreme caution before resorting to any military involvement. The case was that of intermittent realism under Indira Gandhi, who waited long for the escalation of the refugee problem before sending troops to East Pakistan. However, India’s stance in 2013 is an example of economic pragmatism and that probably outweighs any other idea, including restraint. A delay in reacting to issues of security undermines the relative strength of a country and India does not wish to be in that category.

This policy of restraint had its own set of ramifications – immediately post independence, the Indian establishment focussed on high ideals and gave less importance to military build up. Once it was struck with the drag of 3 wars in quick succession in 1960s-70s, a quick realization dawned which caused the upper echelons to devise a strategy to scale up military hardware. Socio-economic needs of the country were so pressing during this time that buying arms from other countries seemed to be the quickest way out. This restraint coupled with the polarisation of world support during the cold war and the lack of Indian technical expertise in niche areas, in a way led to a reduced emphasis on indigenization. Thus, to compensate this disadvantage, loss of time and slow pace of research in the previous decades there was a greater zeal to purchase world-class weaponry, especially post 1980s.

India has definitely started moving away from this ideology of restraint, especially owing to its growing affluence and greater presence in the world arena. However, any dramatic changes seem to be at bay because India is a country where the military preparation receives far less attention than it deserves due to the socio-economic dynamics of the political compulsions. Hardly any party manifestoes talk about defence related matters and to be honest, common people are more attracted towards issues that affect them directly, on a daily basis and not issues related to external security. However, it needs to be firmly ingrained in our minds that drawing the attention of the political class towards the increasing precarious situation in south Asia has become ever important. Once this is understood and practiced, India might be able to start shifting from the legacy of restraint and hasten its pace of defence production and procurement – both locally and globally.

Stimulus for Defence ramp up

Though early Indian nationalists such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Gopal Krishna Gokhale saw military service as a means to secure home rule; Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, the two Indian leaders with the greatest influence on the direction of independent India, saw military spending as a burden imposed by the British in defence of their empire. In 1938 Jawaharlal Nehru wrote that India did not face any significant military challenge; the only military role he saw for the Indian Army was in suppressing the tribes of the North-West Frontier Province, who were, in any case, too primitive in his view to fight a modern military outside the tribal areas [3].

The first major stimulus came with the 1962 China war. The debacle was too much of a blot on the face for India at that time which was trying to tread the path of non alignment. The economic and political crisis during 1960’s was so enhanced that India started tilting towards Soviet Russia for its military needs. Developing own hardware during that time was a distant dream, so purchasing arms from friendly nations seemed to be the most practical solution. This pace increased till 1991 when India had to look for alternate sources. Once the economic liberalization regime kicked off, procuring arms from abroad helped in achieving the objective of saving time, ensuring global presence and acquiring the most advanced weaponry of the time. In the 21st century, new actors cropped up for India’s military needs – products of Boeing, Israeli Aerospace Industries [IAI] and MIG started entering Indian soil at a rapid pace. This was coupled with conducting joint army-naval-air exercises with other countries so as to assess comparative strengths, weaknesses, obstacles, threats and eventually, devise the roadmap for increasing military hardware. This included foreign purchase as well as indigenization efforts. However, imports have gained an upper edge over local production. In fact, in 2013 India was declared the world's biggest weapons importer, ahead of China [4].

South Asia might not have witnessed any large scale military event after the 1999 Kargil crisis but it has always been simmering with security issues. In recent times, it has escalated to a different proportion all together, and that too simultaneously – the beheading of Indian soldiers in Pakistan, the lurking head of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the ethnic strife in Myanmar, the political coup in Maldives or the incessant constitutional crisis in Nepal. India lies at the centre of all this and is left with no option but to focus on its external security situation. Piracy along the Indian Ocean is another important root of this equation especially because most of India’s imports and exports are routed through international waterways. A strong and self reliant India with a strong arms base is thus a “sine qua non” - not for attacking but for defending ourselves and assisting our strategic partners.

Another very important reason for India to step up its defence production/procurement process is its geographical proximity with China. It is interesting to note that both India and China achieved their independence at roughly the same time, they have similar population but after about 65 years of their free existence, there is a huge difference between their military capabilities. A relative comparison between the two may be tabulated hereunder [5]--> 

	India	China
Total Aircraft Strength	1962	5048
Total Helicopter Strength	620	901
Total Mortar Strength	5000	10050
Anti-Tank Weaponry Strength	51800	31250
Total Navy Ship Strength	170	972
Submarine Fleet Strength	15	63
Active Military Personnel	1325000	2285000

The numbers speak for themselves and a fuel to this, is the discussion in foreign policy think tanks on “String of Pearls”. At the ground level, it means that China is indulging into an encirclement strategy across the Indian coastline by setting up points of strategic influence like Coco Islands off Myanmar, Hambantota port in Srilanka and Gwadar in Pakistan; this has created an immense pressure on the military establishment of India to resort to different means to catch up with the military inventory of China – be it via local production or via importing arms from other players in the world.

On Indigenization

Indigenization of military hardware is a conscious effort on the part of the defence establishment to develop products which suit Indian needs, circumstances and demands. In recent months, our Defence Minister, Shri A K Antony, has been repeatedly exhorting the armed forces to procure their weapons and equipment from indigenous sources. It is a well-established fact that no nation aspiring a great power status can expect to achieve it without being substantively self-reliant in defence production [7]. It is widely held that the growing influence of India in the African continent and in Latin America will hugely be enhanced, provided India is able to tap their arms import market and sell off its indigenously developed military hardware. There is a strong local lobbying force in India which wishes to garner the benefits of investment and production in this sector. Also, it is also commonly believed that indigenization of defence equipments is the best possible way to move away from the corruption at the top-level owing to inter-country defence deals.

One of the earliest initiatives towards indigenization is the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme [IGMDP]. India has gradually achieved self reliance in the area of ballistic missiles and the epitome of this feat is the successful testing of the Inter-continental Ballistic missile [ICBM] Agni V. Similar efforts in this regards are the Main Battle Tank Arjun, HAL’s Light Combat Aircraft Tejas and INS Sunayna - India’s largest Offshore Patrol Vessel OPV. A very seminal role in this regard is played by the Defence Research and Development Organisation [DRDO], which is an arm of the Ministry of Defence [MoD]. It caters to the research needs of all the three wings of the army-navy-air force and develops products on a pilot basis for onward mass production by the Ordnance factories.

One of the major and recent most efforts towards indigenization has been the F-INSAS project which is meant to equip the Infantry with state-of-the-art equipment. F-INSAS means Futuristic Infantry Soldier as a System.[8] It basically aims at "converting an infantryman into a fully-networked all-terrain, all-weather, weapons platform with enhanced lethality, survivability, sustainability, mobility and situational awareness" for the digitised battlefield of the future. Most of the equipments are being developed by DRDO.

However, there are some basic issues surrounding this, and for that matter any military hardware indigenization program in India which has to go through the unavoidable process of trinity - DRDO "creates" on a pilot basis, Ordnance Factories "produces" on a mass basis and the Army/Navy/Air Force expects on "State-of the Art" basis. DRDO complains of not having quality engineers owing to “brain drain” while Ordnance factories complain of getting impractical solutions from DRDO and the latter is unable to understand the bottlenecks in a mass production assembly line. Thus, there is a disconnect between the DRDO and Ordnance factory board. Quality control, adherence to specifications, bureaucratic hassles and corruption are additional bottlenecks.

Another aspect related to the Government of India’s official policy towards purchasing military hardware is the procurement process. The Defence Procurement Procedure [DPP] manual was introduced in 2005 and was amended once again in April 2013 to reflect the current thinking on ‘buying Indian’. However, the emphasis on self-reliance remains wishful thinking at present as most weapons and equipment continue to be imported. Thus, even if products are locally made, the dependency on foreign countries continues as the constituent parts are often made abroad. Moreover, the lack of clarity on guidelines for local procurement, differences between the political establishment and military personnel with respect to the percentage of private participation and relative dichotomy of their approach towards indigenization makes the situation complex.

Benefits and problems of foreign purchase

The two world wars and the arms race during the cold war gave an obvious advantage to US and USSR in terms of accumulating military stockpile and investment in defence research. For countries like India, purchasing arms from these countries was an attractive deal and still is. Be it Akula-II nuclear submarine or INS Vikramaditya or AWACS or Sukhoi or Brahmos cruise missile, each purchase/joint venture has acted as a feather in the military cap of India – it has given India a relative edge in the world military stage. The Indo-US nuclear deal has also led to an enhancement of Indian presence in the global nuclear arena and with India winning the confidence of the Nuclear Suppliers Group [NSG], the possibility of a nuclear foray into the military sector in near future cannot be ruled out all together. Moreover, generally speaking, an increased military trade relation between two countries is advantageous to the economic prowess of the constituent parties. It boosts the global economic cohesion and strengthens the pan-world business network.

A special mention in this regard is to be made with respect to the rising stature of India in the world arms market as a buyer. Very recently, India floated the tender for 126 Medium multi role combat aircraft MMRCA in which the finalists included the French Dassault, American Lockheed Martin, Euro-fighter, Sweden’s Saab and Russian MIG. The deal after rounds of discussion on technical specifications, cost implications and suitability of requirements, was clinched by the French manufacturer Dassault’s Rafale. This is the biggest defence deal that India has floated and is meant to inflate the image of India as one of the countries which are to be taken as having a no nonsense attitude towards stepping up their military hardware. An enhanced co-operation in military matters has a domino effect on other sectors as well leading to cost optimization for the receiving country. For e.g. – the Dassault deal is allegedly clubbed with the French Areva nuclear reactors in Jaitapur. It also gives some kind of fuel to the items of track II diplomacy, be it in cultural or social or educational initiatives.

However, an indiscriminate buying of foreign military hardware has its own set of issues. While India has been manufacturing Russian fighter aircraft and tanks under license for many years, the Russians never actually transferred weapons technology to India [7]. For any problems, maintenance and upgrade, we have to depend on Russian technicians. Additionally, with respect to US, any arms purchase is tied to a host of agreements like End Use Monitoring Agreement [EUMA]. EUMA is rooted in the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, which demands “reasonable assurance” that the recipient state is complying with American regulations regarding the use and security of defence articles and services. The avowed aim is to enhance American national-security and foreign-policy objectives [9].

There is no such thing as a “free lunch” – quid pro quo is one of the biggest realities of today’s world and it works in the field of defence deals as well. When a country wishes to export its top class military products to India, it usually ends up engaging itself in a lobbying practice in India. Unhealthy competition in this area leads to corruption, which is the most dangerous predicament of such foreign defence deals. Military scams like Bofors, Tatra, Scorpene deal, Chopper gate etc have grossly tarnished the image of the Indian political establishment which often pushes such deals in return of kick backs. At the end of the day, it is the poor tax payer’s money which goes to a waste. Billions are spent on such deals and many a times it does not serve the purpose of strengthening security as most of the equipments need to be frequently sent abroad for non-adherence to performance expectations, retro-fitting and upgrade. This process traps us in the loop of everlasting foreign dependence.

The way forward

The Security scenario around us is so volatile that we cannot afford to take any risks. We are living in dangerous surroundings, so armed forces need the most modern equipments at the earliest. Our armed forces is the most vital asset of the country – disaster management during floods, earthquakes, tsunami or prevention of communal riots or efforts towards counter insurgency operations; none of these work without their assistance. There is a perceived feeling in the political circles that the armed forces have a mindset of relying on imports to meet operational requirements [10]. This is primarily because of the displeasure shown by the Tri-services towards delay in indigenous production coupled with non-performance of locally made military hardware. While this cannot be entirely denied but it simultaneously undermines the vast potential that the domestic defence production sector has and the kind of long term stability that it can impart to India’s military sector. In the short run, procuring arms from abroad might be the preferred route, but for long term sustainability, there needs to be an equal stress on indigenization of military hardware.

As the largest buyer of arms in the world, India should stress on joint ventures and partnerships with the foreign arms suppliers and should not restrict itself as a buyer only. A successful example in this regard is the Indo-Russian joint production of the Brahmos cruise missile which is the fastest supersonic missile in the world currently. Such collaboration helps in achieving technical expertise and knowhow in a stepwise fashion leading to gradual self reliance. Arranging for simple clearance rules for FDI in selected sectors of defence production will also act as an incentive to the foreign players. Popularizing defence expo to showcase the latest military equipments and clubbing associated deals with offers in other sectors will also act as a booster for India’s military image.

Additionally, with the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan in 2014, India will have a larger role to play in South Asia and a stockpile of the best of world weaponry will actually help us in protecting the Central Asian country from relapsing into chaos. Considering the piracy threat along the littoral states of Indian Ocean, acquiring sophisticated naval equipments from the big players of the world will help us in curbing the menace of piracy with even more alacrity.  Organizing naval, army or air exercises with other countries on a regular basis will help us in assessing our situation, preparedness and learn the best practices across the world. This will fall in place once the constituent parties indulge in trade related to military hardware.  

As far as local production is concerned, there should be more synthesis between the interests of the armed forces and the political establishment towards improvising indigenization, maintaining transparency and continuous monitoring. Ensuring some kind of tandem via collaborative research between the creativity of the DRDO, the capability of Ordnance Factories and the demand of armed forces will surely help to reduce the friction among the stakeholders of the defence establishment. Additionally, it is very important that India steps up its defence budget. Indigenization cannot happen overnight and hence, a strategic plan should be formulated by the tri-services to map short term and long term interests, assumptions, constraints, issues and risks so as to align them with the defence procurement policy of India. In fact, the procurement process should be simplified and made into a “single window” business. The PSU’s and private sector should be encouraged to deliver efficiently and effectively so that India can come out of the vicious cycle of reliance on foreign technicians.

Our defence minister recently said that –

“Import is the last resort not the easiest resort” [10]

Striking a balance between indigenization and foreign purchase is the key to ensuring India’s military stability and capability. The approach of the political establishment towards army needs must be more focused and pragmatic. The government must give a firm commitment in terms of funds and the MoD should streamline its procedures and processes for speedy procurement of high priority weapons and equipments. On the other hand, the tri-services should appreciate the political compulsions and set forth their agenda and roadmap very clearly so as to extract maximum assistance from the political class. A seamless coupling between the two will lead to a stronger, mightier and resilient India. After all, a synergy between a theoretical plan and implementation of the same in the field of arms purchase and indigenization of military hardware is the key to making India a global power to reckon with.

References:

[1] – Arming without aiming; Stephen P Cohen and Sunil Dasgupta

[2] – Can the Elephant Dance? David Malone

[3] – The Indian Army: Its Contribution to the Development of a Nation; Stephen P Cohen

[4] – http://www.sipri.org ; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

[5] – http://www.globalfirepower.com

[6] – http://www.iiss.org/ ; International Institute for Strategic Studies

[7] – http://www.idsa.in/issuebrief/DefenceTechnologyIndigenisation_gkanwal_190913

[8] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-INSAS

[9] – http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/27/stories/2009072755490800.htm

[10] – http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indigenisation-only-way-to-avoid-defence-scams/article4436266.ece

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Indira Mukherjee is an IPS probationer of the 88th FC at LBSNAA, Mussoorie. This post is a replica of her entry for the essay competition.

DEBATE: At this stage of economic development, India should focus more on local environmental issues than global ones?

Indira Mukherjee

The butterfly effect is a phenomenon, wherein a relatively insignificant event in one part of the world leads to a major consequence in another part. So if tomorrow someone tells us that the recent droughts in Maharashtra were an effect of the indiscriminate felling of trees in Brazil – let’s not get surprised. 
It is probably because of this far sightedness that the UN Summit in 2000 adopted 8 Millennium Development Goals and kept one of the aims as “Ensuring environmental sustainability”. 

There is no gainsaying the fact that environmental issues plague each and every country today - India is no exception. Because environmental issues do not recognise territorial borders, the solutions too, need to have a global dimension.  

Good Afternoon respected teachers and my dear friends; I am Indira Mukherjee and to speak against the motion, I would like to draw your attention towards three things:

• “There is a very strong coupling between environment and trade”

Considering the burgeoning ties with the WTO, can India remain sequestered from Environmental Agreements which have trade implications; like CITES, Basel convention and others?
Let’s take an example. Suppose 2 WTO members indulge in trade and out of them one is not actively into resolving global environmental issues. What can such a situation lead to? This might eventually cause the first country into imposing trade sanctions against the other. Quite a jam, isn’t it?

At this stage of economic development, can India afford to face such a predicament? A strained trade relationship might have an impact on financial support and technology transfer in other sectors as well.

• “There is an inextricable link between globalization and environment”

Environmental resources provide the fuel for economic globalization, which in turn affects environmental resources. Let’s take the example of green house gas emission reduction. 

The Kyoto protocol actually allows member states to reduce GHG, not only in their own countries but also elsewhere via the mechanism of Joint Implementation, Emissions Trading and Clean Development Mechanism. Interestingly, India is the largest beneficiary of CDM in the world under the Kyoto protocol.

So if a developed country wishes to invest in India to reduce its emission and helps us with money and technology, and just expects an active collaboration in return, it is a win-win situation for both.  
Moreover, in this age of increased networking and de-territorialisation, not making use of the global effort to fight a malaise is a waste of resources available at our disposal.

• “There is a seamless interaction between global and local environment policies”

Let’s consider NAPCC-2007. It was India’s response to the IPCC’s 4th assessment report on climate change, in accordance with the principle of CBDR.
Also, let’s not forget that India formulated the Biodiversity Act in 2002 to meet its obligations under Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - an outcome of Rio Earth Summit, 1992.

Thus, it would not be a terminological in-exactitude to say that global efforts to curb environmental issues boil down to local initiatives. Hence, ignoring global environmental issues at the cost of local environmental issues does not augur well on the part of a responsible nation like India. The way I look at it, local environmental issues are more about follies of implementation at the grass root level.

In sum – India owing to its economic position has the capability to actively engage in multilateral negotiations in the global arena. Such an approach must be based on Mahatma Gandhi’s dictum – 
“The earth has enough to meet people’s needs, but will never have enough to satisfy people’s greed.” 

The success of our national efforts would be significantly enhanced, provided the other countries affirm their commitment towards fixing global environmental issues. It is in this field that India can play a significant role.
Environment is a collective global asset which needs to be nurtured. To stress the fundamental, resolving local environmental issues would be within the projection of the global mapping. 

India has made its presence felt in the international environmental scene and in future, should continue to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indira Mukherjee is an IPS probationer of the 88th FC at LBSNAA, Mussoorie. This was her speech at the Homi J Bhaba debate competition which was conducted on 27th of September, 2013.

"Gandhian Ideology" in the Quit India Movement, really?

Few things never age out.  Similar is the case with the ideology of Gandhiji - an emblem of non-violence or as he popularly called it-ahimsa. His principles can be followed by anyone and in any age for achieving what one wishes to. Even he practiced it rigorously, but wasn’t born with those traits. His experiences taught him the values of satya and ahimsa. Gandhiji explains his philosophy and way of life in his autobiography ‘The Story of My Experiments with Truth’.

Early life: In May 1883, the 13-year-old Mohandas was married to 14-year-old Kasturbai Makhanji  in an arranged child marriage, according to the custom of the region. In the process, he lost a year at school. Recalling the day of their marriage, he once said: "As we didn't know much about marriage, for us it meant only wearing new clothes, eating sweets and playing with relatives."

However, as was the prevailing tradition, the adolescent bride was to spend much time at her parents' house, and away from her husband. In 1885, when Gandhi was 15, the couple's first child was born, but survived only a few days. He further says,

“I have still to relate some of my failings during this meat-eating period and also previous to it, which date from before my marriage or soon after. A relative and I became fond of smoking. Not that we saw any good in smoking, or were enamored of the smell of a cigarette. I realized that it was not as easy to commit suicide as to contemplate it. And since then, whenever I have heard of someone threatening to commit suicide, it has had little or no effect on me.”[1]

It was these experiments, if we can call them thus, which made him vegetarian, celibate, follower of satya and ahimsa and a statue of resistance.

His ideologies were not in-born but cultivated and enhanced through the experiments life conducted on him. They showed him the truth.Returning to India from South Africa, where he had enjoyed a successful legal practice; he gave up wearing Western-style clothing, which he associated with wealth and success. He dressed to be accepted by the poorest person in India. He advocated the use of homespun cloth (khadi). Gandhi and his followers adopted the practice of weaving their own clothes from thread they themselves spun, and encouraged others to do so.[2,3]

Beginning of the movement: In March 1942 Cripps came to India with an offer repeating the promise of a constitution making body after the war and till then demanding effective execution of the war against the threat of mounting disaster in Asia - consequent upon Japan's entry into the arena. Gandhiji described the offer as a postdated cheque; appealed to the British to withdraw from every Asiatic and African possession, at least from India. In other words: "Quit India". Gandhiji appealed to Chiang-Kai Shek, President Roosevelt to see the truth behind his "Quit India" call to the British. In August first week, he groomed the historic "Quit India" resolution at the Bombay A I C C.:

"The freedom of India must be the symbol of and prelude to the freedom of all other Asiatic Nations…" Gandhiji's call was "Do or Die" 

‘Quit India,’ ‘Bharat Choro’.

This simple yet powerful slogan launched “the legendary struggle which also became famous by the name of the ‘August Revolution.” In this struggle, the common people of the country demonstrated an unparalleled heroism and militancy.

   

The Agenda: Gandhiji’s speech also contained specific instructions for different sections of the people. Government servants would not yet be asked to resign, but they should openly declare their allegiance to the Congress, soldiers were also not to leave their posts, but they were to ‘refuse to fire on our own people. The Princes were asked to ‘accept the sovereignty of your own people, instead of paying homage to a foreign power.’ And the people of the Princely States were asked to declare that they ‘(were) part of the Indian nation and that they (would) accept the leadership of the Princes, if the latter cast their lot with the People, but not otherwise.’ Students were to give up studies if they were sure they could continue to remain firm independence was achieved.

Government had been constantly exhorting him to condemn the violence of the people during the Quit India Movement. Gandhiji not only refused to condemn the people’s resort to violence but unequivocally held the Government responsible for it. It was the ‘leonine violence’ of the state which had provoked the people, he said.

Gandhiji was not condemning violence!!! Did he give in? Did he leave behind his principles of satya and ahimsa? What happened to his ideologies, what made him say this? Numerous questions popped up one after another, and nobody seemed to have no reason to believe these facts.

Let us take a few steps back to see the trail of incidents which led Gandhiji to say and make such a decision.

On 7 August, Gandhiji had placed the instructions he had drafted before the Working Committee, and in these he had proposed that peasants ‘who have the courage, and are prepared to risk their all’ should refuse to pay the land revenue.

The Government, however, was in no mood to either negotiate with the Congress or wait for the movement to be formally launched. In the early hours of 9 August, in a single sweep, all the top leaders of the congress were arrested and taken to unknown destinations. In anticipation of the AICC’s passing the Quit India resolution, instructions for arrests and suppression had gone out to the provinces. The sudden attack by the Government produced an instantaneous reaction among the people. Meanwhile, many provincial and local level leaders who had evaded arrest returned to their homes through devious routes and set about organizing resistance. As the news spread further in the rural areas, the villagers joined the townsmen in recording their protest.

The ‘Violent’ Protest: For the first six or seven weeks after 9 August, there was a tremendous mass upsurge all over the country. People devised variety of ways of expressing their anger. In some places huge crowds attacked police stations, post offices, kutcheries (courts), railway stations and other symbols of Government authority. National flags were forcibly hoisted on public buildings in defiance of the police. At other places, groups of satyagrahis offered arrest in tehsil or district headquarters. Crowds of villagers, often numbering a few hundreds or even a couple of thousand, physically removed railway tracks.

Elsewhere, small groups of individuals blew up bridges and removed tracks, and cut telephone and telegraph wires. Students of the Banaras Hindu University decided to go to the villages to spread the message of Quit India. They raised slogans of ‘Thana jalao’ (Burn police station), ‘Station phoonk do’ (Burn the railway stations) ‘Angrez Bhag Gaya’ (Englishmen have fled). They hijacked trains and draped them in national flags.

In rural areas, the pattern was of large crowds of peasants descending on the nearest tehsil or district town and attacking all symbols of government authority. There was strong government repression, but the rebellion only gathered momentum. According to official estimates, in the first week after the arrests of the leaders, 250 railway stations were damaged or destroyed, and over 500 post offices and 150 police stations were attacked. The movement of trains in Bihar and Eastern U.P. was disrupted for many weeks. In Karnataka alone, there were 1600 incidents of cutting of telegraph lines, and twenty- six railway stations and thirty-two post offices were attacked.

This doesn’t sound non-violence yet Gandhiji was not ready to condemn it? That definitely leaves us clueless but the other side of the story is yet to be said. The brutality with which the rebellion was crushed was no less than martial law.

British Action: Unarmed crowds faced police and military firing on 538 occasions and they were also machine-gunned by low-flying aircraft. Repression also took the form of taking hostages from the villages, imposing collective fines running to a total of Rs 90 lakhs (which were often realized on the spot by looting the people’s belongings), whipping of suspects and burning of entire villages whose inhabitants had run away and could not be caught. By the end of 1942, over 60, 000 persons had been arrested. Twenty-six thousand people were convicted and 18,000 detained under the Defence of India Rules. Martial law had not been proclaimed, but the army, though nominally working under the orders of the civilian authorities, often did what it wanted to without any reference to the direct officers. The brutal and all-out repression succeeded within a period of six or seven weeks in bringing about a cessation of the mass phase of the struggle.

Gandhiji’s Stance: It doesn’t need a microscopic analysis to find out which side was brutal and who committed the excesses and the ‘real’ violence. But is there anything called real and unreal violence. Well there definitely is one, if not Gandhiji would have condemned it, but he did not. This was what he did. In February 1943, a striking new development provided a new burst of political activity. Gandhiji commenced a fast on 10 February in jail. He declared the fast would last for twenty-one days. This was his answer to the Government which had been constantly exhorting him to condemn the violence of the people in the Quit India Movement. Gandhiji not only refused to condemn the people’s resort to violence but unequivocally held the Government responsible for it. It was the ‘leonine violence’ of the state which had provoked the people, he said.

The popular response to the news of the fast was immediate and overwhelming. All over the country, there were hartals, demonstrations and strikes. Calcutta and Ahmedabad were particularly active. Prisoners in jails and those outside went on sympathetic fasts. Groups of people secretly reached Poona to offer Satyagraha outside the Aga Khan Palace where Gandhiji was being held in detention.

He was again successful in bringing back the non-violent character of the movement back. Gandhiji, as always, got the better of his opponents, and refused to oblige the British by dying. The fast had done exactly what it had intended to achieve. The public morale was raised, the anti-British feeling heightened, and an opportunity for political activity provided. A symbolic gesture of resistance had sparked off widespread resistance and exposed the Government’s high-handedness to the whole world. The moral justification that the Government had been trying to provide for its brutal suppression of 1942 was denied to it and it was placed clearly in the wrong.[4]

Unanswered Questions: But the question that still haunts us: Did gandhiji for a moment budge from his opposition to violence and embrace it or his sympathy towards the Indians at the hands of brutal British soldiers made him see a greater violence dominating over the smaller one? Did the cause justify it? Had the British not been overwhelmingly brutal, would Gandhiji still have endorsed it?

The matter of the fact is Gandhiji had indeed moved along his own trajectory of non-violence and quite far, this time around. From 1920, the Non-Cooperation Movement, when Gandhiji was staunch, and may be obstinate in his endurance of oppression – so much so that the heavy lathicharge by the police at Chauri-Chaura was to be accepted not as a humiliation but part of the struggle towards ‘imbibing’ satyagraha – to Civil Disobedience in 1930 where upon he was a bit more militant; that is – overlooking sporadic violence by masses in the territorial periphery of the struggle. Finally, ten years down the lane – in 1942, Gandhiji seemingly had enough of the British, his faith in British-like attitude petering out towards the tangential touch of any form of reaction by the masses.

With Gandhiji remaining tight-lipped towards condemnation of violence in 1942, the countless forms of struggle that India was harbouring since 1757 found the oceanic assimilation. And with Subhash Chandra Bose punching in from North-East – India was progressing towards the dawn of freedom – without factually knowing it as soothsayers, yet confidently believing in the same. 

References:

1.    My experiments with truth-M.K. Gandhi

2.    Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

3.    http://www.mahatma.com/php/showContent.php?linkid=8

4.    India’s Struggle for Indepedence-Bipan Chandra

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rajan Agarwal is a student of History and wishes to draw comparison between ahimsa and its Gandhian version. You may write to him at indianpolicy2010@gmail.com