Agni V nuke; photo courtesy Asahi Shimbun
This past week, two countries fired long-range ballistic missiles presumably capable of delivering a nuclear strike. One of them, much-publicised and (rightly) much-condemned despite its laughable failure, was North Korea. The other has received far less press, and where it has received press, its coverage has been quite nonchalant.
And yet, it is a country that has had a long and flirtatious history with violent nationalism and terrorism, including massacres, rapes and tortures of Christians, particularly Catholics (in which one of its major political parties was complicit). It has gone to war numerous times with most of its immediate neighbours since it gained independence, mostly border conflicts. It has in the past lent material support (in the form of dam-building) to the military government in Burma, much to the consternation of human rights organisations both within its borders and internationally (not to mention the people displaced in both countries by the projects). It is one of only three countries in the world never to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It faces violent left-wing insurgencies in a number of its regions, and its right wing is increasingly leaning towards a religio-nationalist ideology which bears a number of frightening resemblances to fascism.
This is not Iran. It is not even Pakistan. It is India.
Earlier today they successfully test-fired a missile with the capacity to hit targets deep into China and Europe; and international criticism has been low-key to non-existent, with the notable exception of the understandably-concerned People’s Republic. NATO claims that the non-proliferation record of India is ‘solid’, and cites them as having ‘engaged’ the international community on non-proliferation issues, despite their only having gained a level of de facto legitimacy only recently under the keen detectors of threats regarding weapons of mass destruction in the Bush Administration.
I am not anti-India in any sense of the word. I have a profound appreciation for the accomplishments of the Indian government since independence. But, as a general rule, I do not approve any nation chasing after a level of nuclear technology which threatens to escalate into an all-out arms race. I do not approve India’s doing so whilst facing so many domestic human rights problems, particularly regarding Christians, Muslims and Dalits. And I do not approve the disproportionate attention Iran is facing over a non-existent nuclear weapons programme when numerous other countries in the region are much worse offenders.
In considering the rise of India, we must be mindful that we are not necessarily dealing with India as we have known her.
ReplyDeleteThe Hindu nationalist BJP is now about as likely as the Congress Party to be the principal party of government. Within and allied to the BJP are violently fascistic elements such as the Shiv Sena and those who massacre Christians in Orissa. Leadership is passing to Narendra Modi, who is heavily implicated in Gujarat’s anti-Muslim pogroms in recent years. But the party centrally is increasingly seeking to join forces with political Islam around such causes as the strong nationalism that has always been expressed by the Darul Uloom Deoband, the conduct of Waqf Boards, and the recognition of Urdu as one of the “authentically” Indian languages to be promoted at the expense of English. However, the BJP has little or no understanding that patriotism must include economic patriotism.
The hope that the Sikhs, prominent in the Indian Army, will remain a bulwark of the old culturally Anglophile, politically pro-American Indian elite is not assisted by the realisation that the staunchly Sikh SAD relies on the BJP to deliver its majority at State level in Punjab, and therefore supports the BJP at Union level. If there is a third force in India, then it is made up of Far Left parties, it is led by the party that followed Mao when he broke with the Soviet Union, and it includes the successors of Subhas Chandra Bose, who raised an army in support of the Japanese during the Second World War. All in all, India’s nuclear weapons, like those of Israel and perhaps also those of the United States, should be regarded with no less trepidation than those of Pakistan or North Korea, and with considerably more so than those of China, Russia or, purely hypothetically, Iran.
Speaking of Pakistan, the politicians are not even allowed the nuclear codes. The generals keep those to themselves. With the generals comes their intelligence agency, the ISI. And with the ISI comes a veritable cornucopia of Islamist factions. But none of them wants to bomb Britain. Unless we give them some cause. Let’s not. The “Taliban” have no existence apart from the Pashtun in general, who are old Indian allies. “Al-Qaeda” does not exist at all. But as for the ISI’s backing of “Islamist militant groups” or what have you, sooner rather than later, and at least arguably already, what else will Pakistan have? What else will remain of her founding dream of a distinct Muslim nation on the Subcontinent, acting as such? Especially if she is to be sandwiched between India and the restored, Indian-backed “Taliban”.
No wonder that the “Taliban” are open to this. The scholars at Deoband strongly rejected Jinnah’s theory of two nations. So did plenty of other people: just as there have always been more Irish Catholics in the remaining United Kingdom than the entire population of the 26 Irish counties that seceded, so there have always been more Muslims in India than the entire population of Pakistan.
Thanks for the comment, David!
ReplyDeleteVery good commentary on the India-Afghan Pashtun connexion; I had not been aware of it prior to reading your book. I was only aware of the Indian government's connexion with the Burmese military junta, and that was troublesome enough. I certainly share your worries about India, and an India armed with ICBMs is not good news either for her or for her neighbours.