THE HINDU EDITORIAL- MARCH, 14, 2022

 

THE HINDU EDITORIAL- MARCH 14, 2022

Unguided missile Pakistan’s demand for a joint probe is unwarranted, but India must get to the truth   The accidental firing of a missile by India into Pakistan could have led to serious, unintended escalation of tensions between the two nuclear-armed countries, but, fortunately, that did not happen. The Government of India has said the incident, on March 9, happened in the course of routine maintenance, due to a technical malfunction. India has ordered a high-level Court of Inquiry. The Charge d’affairs of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad was called twice by Pakistan to convey its concerns. Pakistan has alleged that the incident “indicates many loopholes and technical lapses of a serious nature in Indian handling of strategic weapons”. Islamabad, which termed the inquiry as ordered by India as insufficient, has demanded a joint probe. It has also sought the involvement of the international community to promote “strategic stability in the region”. As it moved closer to India in recent years, the U.S. has suspended its fixation with the conflict between the two neighbours, but the fear of nuclear escalation in the region is very deep in Washington’s strategic thinking. India’s global image of being a responsible nuclear power has been built over decades of restrained words and thoughtful action. The security of its nuclear command and technical capabilities has never been in doubt. This incident frays that reputation and measures must be taken to restore the confidence of the international community in India. There has been no official word from India on which missile was involved, which Pakistan has said landed 124 km inside its territory. The description by Pakistan – that the missile was travelling at three times the speed of sound, at 40,000 feet, and is a surface-to-surface missile – has led to speculation that the accident involves the BrahMos Supersonic cruise missile which is now in the inventory of India’s three Services. India became a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime in 2016, an acceptance by major powers of India’s status as a reliable defence partner that is capable of handling its strengths and contributing to global security. India is developing more missile systems, including a hypersonic variant. The handling and the launch of any such missiles are highly regulated with checks and balances to avoid accidents. This accident also has echoes of another incident in February 2019. A day after the Balakot air strike, as fighter jets of India and Pakistan were engaged in a dogfight near the LoC, an Mi-17V5 crashed in Budgam shortly after take-off from Srinagar killing its personnel onboard and a civilian on the ground. The Court of Inquiry confirmed that it was shot by an Israeli-origin Spyder surface-to-air missile system of the IAF. India must leave no scope for any doubts about its capacity to handle nuclear and other military assets. That objective can be achieved without a joint probe with Pakistan or any international involvement, but the objective must be achieved nevertheless.   Murderous pride Sentencing of convicts in a caste murder case in T.N. is rare blow for substantive justice   The recent sentencing of the leader of a caste outfit to life-long imprisonment has brought some closure to the horrific killing of a Dalit youth in western Tamil Nadu in 2015, purportedly committed to uphold the pride of a dominant caste. Unlike most emblematic cases of such ‘killings for honour’, the murder of V. Gokulraj, an engineering student, was not done by or at the instance of the family of a girl belonging to the dominant caste. Rather, it was by a gang led by S. Yuvaraj, who ran his own caste outfit and did not know either the victim or his friend, but had chanced upon them engaged in a conversation in a temple. It was likely that he sought to create a sense of awe among his own community’s youth by seizing on the opportunity to punish a man from downtrodden community. After a quick interview to ascertain their caste status, he sent away the girl, who belonged to his own community, escorted by a couple from his own group. In a chilling sequence of events, Yuvaraj and his accomplices abducted the youth in their vehicle and devised a plan on the fly to kill him and make it appear to be a suicide. They forced him to talk about taking his own life and recorded it on a phone, and even dictated a ‘suicide note’ to be planted later on his body. After strangling him to death at an isolated spot, Yuvaraj severed his head and tossed the torso on a railway track and the head nearby. Yuvaraj, who ran a group called Cheeran Channamalai Gounder Paravai, emerged as a key suspect after CCTV footage near the temple showed him and his accomplices leaving the temple with Gokulraj. Over the next few weeks, it was clear that Yuvaraj was after popularity, as during the three months he was absconding, he made public recorded messages and even appeared in a television discussion. Ultimately, this chutzpah proved to be his undoing, as he confirmed on air that he had confronted the couple at the temple but claimed he had left them there. The law, however, went by the principle that the accused with whom a slain victim was last seen, must explain his absence satisfactorily. The investigation saw some setbacks, when a DSP probing it died by suicide, while during trial, several witnesses turned hostile. The victim’s mother, V. Chitra, who obtained an order from the Madras High Court to transfer the trial from Namakkal to Madurai, special Public Prosecutor B.B. Mohan and investigators who compiled technical and forensic evidence deserve plaudits for the successful prosecution. In a State where prosecutions under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act often flounder, the sentencing of 10 persons, all for the remainder of their lives, is a rare blow for substantive justice.

No ovation for India’s stand on the Ukraine war Refusing to take a firm line on the invasion while continuing to see itself as the world’s teacher is not credible PULAPRE BALAKRISHNAN Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has placed considerable moral responsibility on India, both as one of the world’s largest countries and its most populous democracy. However, at the United Nations (UN), India has refused to condemn the violation of the rights of the Ukrainian. It has, instead, put out a homily that speaks of resolving differences through dialogue. It has moved with alacrity to save its citizens without expressing compassion for the people of Ukraine who face an onslaught from a much larger military power than them. It would be natural for observers to equate the actions of the state in a democracy with the will of the people. So, as we are a democracy, the Indian government’s abstention in the UN Security Council vote on Ukraine is sure to rebound on Indians in their interaction with the rest of the world in the future, unfavourably. No commitment to principle Arguments justifying India’s stance in the UN have emanated from the erstwhile grandees of India’s diplomatic corps and current members of the national security community. The first of these is that in international affairs, a country must be guided by its national interest and not some abstract principles. What these principles could be is left unspecified, but what India’s interests are have been stated with clarity. Of the later, it is pointed out that due to the very high dependence of India on the Soviet Union for defence equipment and the likely need of support on the Pakistan issue in the Security Council, India must not offend Russia by condemning the invasion. The result is that India makes statements that convince no one, only drawing attention to its lack of commitment to principle in international affairs. Actually, interests and principles are not that apart. If a people’s principles are their most deeply held beliefs about how the world must be ordered, then their interest lies in ensuring that their principles prevail in international relations. Thus, if India does not want to see itself to be the victim of territorial aggression in the future, it must communicate strongly on the world stage that it condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The difference now Those in charge of India’s foreign policy must reflect on its choice to be on the same page as China – a habitual violator of the norm of peaceful coexistence – on an issue of unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state. At a time when India’s abstention on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is being likened to its abstention in the UN on the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 it would do to recognize the difference. In the 1950s the West was clearly unsympathetic to India, playing its card openly on the Kashmir issue at the UN as early as 1947. On the other hand, the Soviet Union, the precursor to the present-day Russian state, had rescued India several times by exercising its veto in the UN Security Council. Now, close to 75 years later, the situation has changed Public opinion in the West does not favour unconditional support of Pakistan vis-à-vis India while Russia encourages Pakistan. Moreover, we know by now that some limited support at the UN matters little, as taking the Kashmir issue to the UN Security Council has not go Pakistan to withdraw from the territory, it need not rely on any particular country that is a permanent member of the Security Council to support its future plans. The defence supply argument Now on the matter of reliance on the Russians for defence equipment. It is indeed correct that India relies on the Russians for such equipment and their spare parts. At the same time there is a global market for arms. It is not evident that anything withheld by the Russians cannot be sourced from that market. We have in the past bought guns from Sweden, ships from the U.K. and aircraft from France. It is the unpalatable truth that there is considerable spare capacity in the production of weapons in this world, and ready money is sure to get you to the goods you seek. For India to base its public stance on the Russian invasion of armaments is to really drag ourselves down to the bottom of the pit terms of ethics. As an east-west conflict A second response from India’s security establishment has taken the form of a rationalization of the decision to abstain on grounds that the Russian invasion and the West’s reaction, that has not included war so far, is a conflict between the east and the west, and India should stay out of it. While the argument about our need for defence equipment has at least a Kautilyan veneer, this position is contemptible. To avert one’s eyes from unprovoked aggression towards an independent country by one 10 times stronger would be to reveal a total lack of moral fiber. To say that this is just another east-west conflict from which India should stay out is tantamount to seeing the Russian invasion and the brave defences of their country by the Ukrainians as a mere marital squabble. If there is a maxim that conveys an ancient belief of Indians, it is Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, implying that the world is a family. Families do not usually tolerate the bullying of the weak by those stronger among them. If India and allowed this principle to fall by the wayside in 1956 when it refused to condemn the Soviet invasion of Hungary, its action today is much worse. At that time, Jawaharlal Nehru was only concerned with propagating the Five principles of peaceful coexistence, christened Panchsheel. Today, empowered by its economic ascent over the decades, Narendra Modi talks of India being the ‘Vishwa guru’ or World Teacher. By continuing to see herself as the world’s teacher while refusing to take a stand on the invasion of Ukraine, India mocks her chosen self-image. A teacher is granted respect for speaking truth to power. The invasion of Ukraine, rather like Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, is a once-in-a-century event. India’s foreign policy establishment seems to have missed its significance for the world. India must take a long view of how it wants to engage with it. Its actions so far leave it in the company of Russia and China. These are not democracies as understood; indeed, most of their recent actions militate against that description. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have ensured that they will have unusually long tenures as leaders of their states. Reminiscent of the fascists in Europe, they make expansionist claims based on ethnicity, persecute their own people based on religion or sexual orientation, and exude an ethnic chauvinism. Most Indians abhor these practices. The final word India is democracy, even if a somewhat diminished one of late. Moreover, it has not officially discarded Panchsheel as yet. It cannot took away from the violation of widely accepted norms contained in the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine for fear of losing access to is supply of armaments or of reciprocal support in the UN on matters of concern to it. Nor does it have the option of playing the ostrich, as suggested by some, for that would fool no one else. Standing up for what you believe in brings with it the possibility of encountering hardship. But then, sticking to its principles is not just in India’s nation interest, it is also its own reward.         The mandates, voter messages, political takeaways A welfare-plus-development combination has struck a chord with voters, who now back the ‘change-makers’ VINAY SAHASRABUCCHE Mandate always have a message and it depends upon how the recipients read the same. This is true with the recent round of Assembly elections. In India, electoral verdicts have always underscored the fact that continuity and change always go together, and this round of elections is no exception. Voters have continued with the change-makers and sought to change-makers and sought to change those who wanted to continue with the status quo. Voters speak There are four lucid aspects from the clear and loud message from the voters. First, the Uttar Pradesh results in particular have shown that voters have graduated and risen above caste and community considerations and voted resoundingly in favour of a welfare-plus-development combination. From the V.P. Singh era onwards, the political discourse has been dominated by political engineering effected through smart social coalitions or social engineering. Now, democratic polity has been taken to a different level and the effective management of aspirations has replaced social engineering. People prefer a party that delivers on the ground than parties that ask for votes in the name of caste and community. Also remarkable is the fact that the decimation of the Bahujan Samaj Party in the State is indicative of the fact that Scheduled Castes have refused to be bracketed with a single community-based party. No thumbs up for dynasties The second important message is that the days of dynastic demigods are over. Voters have rejected dynasties one after the other, from the Badals to the Yadavs to the Banerjees, and above all, the Gandhis. The Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, had all along on the campaign trail cautioned voters about Parivarvadi parties, and they seem to have paid heed to his appeal. In an aspirational democracy, people have realized that supporting the leaders of dynastic parties is like endorsing birth-based discrimination, something that our Constitution-makers had rejected lock, stock and barrel. Parties where the leadership is reserved for families have no glorious future any more, and the sooner dynasts listen to this message, the better it is for their survival. Let us hope that parties such as the Dravida Munetra Kazhagam (DMK), the Shiv Sena, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) pay heed to this message seriously. Make no mistake; the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is not, per se, a dynastic party although it is being run on the same lines almost single-handedly. Nonetheless, the victory in Punjab is also a clear rejection of a traditional alternative that has been a dynastic party. Focus on performance The third message is about the politics of performance. Parties that ensure that their government delivers in governance, ably convert anti-incumbency into pro-incumbency. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has proved this several times in Gujarat, in 2019 in Maharashtra, in 2020 in Bihar, in 2021 in Assam, and now in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Manipur and Goa. The BJP’s victory in all these rounds of elections was not simply thanks to a weak Opposition. In fact, the Opposition in U.P., Goa, Uttarakhand, or earlier in Gujarat or Maharashtra cannot be described to be weak at all. And yet, if people have unequivocally shown their preference for the BJP in these elections, it is a clear indication of pro-incumbency. Curiously, anti-incumbency had become the rule, a kind of status quo; now, this rule clearly stands changed. The fact that the BJ: has increased its vote share in most States also underscores what the Prime Minister has described as ‘an endorsement of the BJP’s pro-poor, pro-active governance’. The leader does matter Lastly, the verdicts in 2022 also underscore that national leadership always matters no matter how small or big a State is. There have been many times in the past where political pundits have said that verdicts in national elections mirror aggregation of State politics. Today, the verdicts in 2022 remind us that State verdicts too reflect national aspirations. These elections happened under the shadow of COVID-19. Also, when voting rounds had actually begun, the shadow of the Ukraine crisis was looming large as thousands of Indian students were stranded there. Whether it was the novel corona virus pandemic or Ukraine, the way the Government faced these challenges seems to have gone down well with the people across the country. This also indicative of the fact that people all over India believe that the nation needs Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership for many more years. The State verdicts reflect this feeling. These election results are also important for democracy. As mentioned in the latest Pew Research Center survey report on satisfaction with democracy. ‘The global pandemic has, if anything intensified perceived political and social divisions. Across the 17 advanced economies we surveyed in 2021, a median of 61% say that their country is more divided than before the outbreak’. And in India, in the first major elections held after three waves of COVID-19, people from diverse regions and far-off States seem to be speaking in one voice. Clearly, the Prime Minister has emerged as a unifier par excellence, across States, castes and communities. Having mastered the art of implementation, he has established that liberal democracy can go hand in hand with efficient state craft, making democracy deliver. All said and done, the 2022 verdicts are as much about credit going to the Prime Minister as they are about the BJP’s periodically galvanized organization and its ideology-driven cadres.