Sorry state of Political Science students in India

The recent attack on Uri army camp in India by Pakistan backed terrorists and the subsequent tension on border and news rooms led to some strange reactions from journalists, politicians and common citizens.
I will focus on the reactions of a few political science students on Twitter that left me wondering whether these young people are really learning anything. These students are currently in a master’s level course in political science. As the tension grew, these students started sending tweets asking India and Pakistan to talk (as if Pak sponsored terrorism has stopped while talks are on), extolling the virtues of mature discussion and negotiations to solve all issues (ignorance of Pakistan’s death by a thousand cuts strategy) and how the inevitable nuclear war (needless panic) will wipe away human civilization. One girl even said that Pakistan and China will join hands (plausible) to nuke India from two sides (laughable).

It was quite disappointing to see such views that betrayed no or at best little understanding of geopolitics and Indo-Pak relations and history. The unfortunate part is some of these people will join think tanks and other institutions and add to the growing tribe of peaceniks who preach to India without understanding that it takes two to tango and Pakistan’s ISI & military will not play ball with any peace driven agenda. These reactions also made it clear that these students don’t understand China beyond its strategic partnership with Pakistan and have no understanding of the issues it faces in Xinjiang and South China Sea. They can’t fathom that China’s strategy of encircling India or its investment in Gwadar is to limit India’s regional influence and not out of any love for Pakistan. So while China will flex its muscles and bail out Pakistan every now and then (like it is doing by blocking India’s bid to get the United Nations to ban Pak based JeM terrorist Masood Azhar), it is not going to wage a nuclear war at Pakistan’s behest or even back Pakistan of it launches a nuclear bomb at India because such actions will hurt its aspirations of becoming the numero uno superpower. China will never want a confrontation with the rest of the world for the sake of Pakistan. Therefore while China will play foster father to Pakistan, that doesn’t really give Pakistan a free hand to launch nuclear strikes against India without repercussions. What these students also seem to have missed is to understand why Modi has elevated engagement with Japan, Vietnam and Phillipines (All of these countries are uncomfortable with the idea of Chinese hegemony in South Asia) and the strategic importance of India developing Iran’s Chabahar port.

As students of political science, it is important that these young people understand global politics and regional power equations and tussles. Therefore, it is good if they are debating scenarios that may happen in case of a conflict between two nuclear armed neighbors as far as those scenarios factor in the ground realities and are not panic reactions. But when they start to make lofty remarks about virtues of global peace and harmony and show displeasure and disdain at politicians playing politics, one wonders if they are learning anything at all.

Modi must change Pak Policy. NOW.

Ever since Narendra Modi became prime minister in 2014, India’s Pakistan policy has been inconsistent. While the opposition has termed the government confused, I have been inclined to see the policy more favorably as it has been one of keeping the enemy guessing. However, with the attack on Indian Army camp in Uri on September 18 by Pakistan backed terrorists, it is clear that this strategy has failed to achieve whatever Modi government set out to achieve. 

Pakistan is not a country that desires peace with India. It is a failed state that desires conflict as its military pursues its ‘death by a thousand cuts‘ strategy against India. Any Indian response that seeks peace and normal relations with Pakistan is bound to fail. Therefore, twiddling its thumbs is not an option for Indian leadership. The previous Indian government led by Manmohan Singh spent ten years desiring peace with Pakistan – it refused to play cricket with the Pakistanis, submitted dossiers on involvement of its non-state and state actors in terrorist acts against India and condemning acts of aggression on its soil. By this India gained nothing and Pakistan lost nothing. And therefore status quo continued. Narendra Modi, then a PM candidate, and his party BJP talked tough about how they would have taken the fight to Pakistan. But two years into their government, the response and reactions have been no different. Modi’s outreach to the Pakistani PM has brought zilch and while supporting the cause of Balochistan’s freedom from Pakistan’s oppressive regime has been a novel move, it is clear that India can no longer treat Pakistan with kid gloves. 

Uri is not the first time Pakistan aided terrorists have attacked India since Modi became Prime Minister. We have seen this happen before at Gurdaspur, Udhampur, Pathankot and Pampore. If Modi wants to win a second term and preserve the ‘decisive leader’ tag his supporters have attached to him, he must walk the talk. Yes, Pakistan is a nuclear power and it will make threats that any military action, even hot pursuit of terrorists, on terror camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) will lead it to press the nuclear button. But India should realize that inaction will mean India will continue to pay the price anyway; therefore why not suffer the cost of war while making Pakistan pay as well. India is a nuclear power as well and while I do not think any limited military action against Pakistan will lead to a nuclear war, India will do well to remind Pakistani generals that any nuclear action by their country will lead to a retaliation that will wipe the nation of Jinnah from the map. There are other ways too by which India can make Pakistan pay. It can sever diplomatic relations with Pakistan, impose economic costs by taking away the MFN status it has inexplicably awarded to Pakistan and cancel the Indus Water treaty as suggested by defense analyst Mahroof Raza on Times Now. Modi government is trying hard to isolate Pakistan at global stage but it must realize that all such efforts will bear no fruits if it continues to engage with Pakistan politically and economically. Any and every action that hurts Pakistan must be pursued. 

In early days of World War II, Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. History is witness to how that strategy failed to buy peace. Indian leadership should take a lesson from that episode. 

The Lord of The Rings

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

As I write this, I am watching The Lord of The Rings trilogy for the umpteenth time. There is something about this story that fascinates me and I never get bored of it. It’s hard to tell what it is. May be it is the characters – I like Samwise The Brave and Gimli among the fellowship members or may be it is the vastness of the plot. Whatever it is, I have thoroughly enjoyed watching Peter Jackson’s adaptation of LOTR and its prequel The Hobbit.

While The Hobbit movie trilogy has been criticized for being longer than necessary, no such criticism can come the way of the LOTR trilogy. I am also planning to read the novel and hope it would add more to my fascination with Tolkien’s masterpiece. My father has read it twice and has already cautioned me that understanding the books in detail requires patient reading. I think given my love for the story, it might be a good idea to take notes to understand the plots, subplots and the backstory better.

Speaking of backstory, I recently came to know about a third book from JRR Tolkien on the middle earth – The Silmarillion. The events in this book precede the events described in The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings and describe in detail the different kind of species we encounter in the latter two books and the history of the chief antagonist Sauron.

When I first saw the LOTR trilogy, I was left a bit confused not only by what was happening in the story but also by the title. My mind wasn’t ready to accept the idea that the most powerful ring was actually answering to the evil. This was before I understood the context and realized what the famous words at the start of this post meant. The confusion, of course, only arose because these two lines are actually part of a rhyme of lore describing the history of the Rings of Power.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Those who have not read the book and are still confused by the plot or fail to appreciate why the ring owes its allegiance to Sauron, here’s a simple explanation. The Dark Lord Sauron aided the Elves in forging the Rings of Power. He did this while hiding his malafide intentions and pretending to be helping them in good faith. However, Sauron then also forged the One Ring for himself in the fires of Mount Doom in order to control the other rings. Since the other rings were quite powerful themselves, Sauron put a lot of his own power in the One Ring in order to exercise influence over the other rings. This made Sauron dependent on One Ring and left him weak without it. Since One Ring contained Sauron’s power, it was actually a part of the Dark Lord and therefore answered only to him.

The novel became an instant hit when it was published in the mid 1950s. The various layers in the plot and the fascinating back story is the reason why it continues to fascinate many of us even today. There are indeed some fans of the book who read the complete trilogy every year. Hopefully, I would join their ranks someday soon.