In 2004, the world saw
evidence of one of the most horrific acts of torture and sexual abuse by an
army on captured prisoners. The soldiers did not belong to the army of a banana
republic or a military dictatorship(absolute rule,तानाशाही) but to the U.S., a
democracy. The prisoners were Iraqi, held at the Abu Ghraib prison.
At present, India is
going through a staggering(unstable,विचलित) phase of amnesia(memory
loss,भूलने की बीमारी): that it is a democracy. War clouds have
caused a flight of reason. The valorization(value,मूल्य) of the Indian military
after the “surgical strikes” has culminated(highest,पराकाष्टा) in a perverse(distorted,विकृत) logic amplified(enhance,बढ़ाना) by a shrill media: you
cannot question the government on matters military as it is equivalent to
insulting the army, which itself is beyond scrutiny(examine,जाँच) and reproach(insult,तिरस्कार).
Aggressive
nationalism
The question here is not of the veracity(reality,सच्चाई) of the surgical strikes but whether questions can be asked of the government and the army. The logic that answers in the negative is one that suits a military dictatorship, not a democracy.
The question here is not of the veracity(reality,सच्चाई) of the surgical strikes but whether questions can be asked of the government and the army. The logic that answers in the negative is one that suits a military dictatorship, not a democracy.
If this logic held, we would
have never known how the American and British governments led their people to
the catastrophic(destructive,विनाशकारी) Iraq war over flimsy(weak,कमज़ोर) reasons of national
security. The Abu Ghraib expose too would have never seen light. Nor would have
our own Kunan Poshpora. That such logic shows a tendency towards the
militarisation of society, especially now when an aggressive nationalism gains
ground.
Witness the closing of
public mind since Uri and the surgical strikes. Actors are facing a public
outcry either for “disrespecting” soldiers or for “supporting” Pakistani
artistes. Parties are being condemned for demanding “proof”. And farcically(laughable,विनोदपूर्ण), television guests are
thrown off studio debates for speaking over martyred soldiers’ fathers. The
army, in essence, has become a holy cow.
This is a dangerous
tendency, for the militarisation of society and the predominance(supremacy,प्रबलता) of militaristic values
is opposed to some fundamental tenets(belief,सिद्धांत) of democracy like
critical thinking and questioning of hierarchy. Militaristic values are also
intrinsically(internally,आंतरिक) connected to notions(opinion,मत) of hypermasculinity(bravery,बहादुरता). Of course,
unquestioning obedience is useful in the institutional context of the army and
in limited situations of war, but it cannot become a general value of society
for all times.
More crucially,
militarisation fundamentally obfuscates(unclear,अस्पष्ट) society’s real problems.
Fear becomes the basis of society, and a soldier’s job becomes the most
important occupation. People who clean the sewers with no protective equipment,
and at great threat to their lives, do not, in this narrative, serve the
nation. As the writer Aakar Patel asks, why are sewer cleaners, dying in the
hundreds, and sanitation workers not considered martyrs?
The tragedy of a dead
soldier is justifiably commemorated by all. But millions die unsung, performing
jobs in hazardous(risky,जोखिमपूर्ण) conditions. The precariousness(uncertainty,अनिश्चितता) of soldiers on the
Siachen Glacier is rightly sympathised with, but not the horrors of manual
scavengers who have to handle human faeces and die due to diseases.
Shouldn’t there also be outrage(anger,गुस्सा) over men carrying their
dead daughter and wife on their shoulders because hospitals refused ambulances,
as was the case in two separate incidents in Odisha? Where is the outrage and
TV coverage about the 1.2 million (preventable) child deaths in India last
year, the highest in the world? How does this number compare with deaths caused
by terrorism? For society’s well-being, should this not be the most important
problem exercising discourse?
Ironically, a militarised
society despite valorising the soldier does not actually speak for him/her.
Warmongering could only lead to the deaths of more soldiers. While Kargil and
its 527 war heroes entered India’s military folklore, Operation Parakram and
its 798 dead soldiers are little discussed by the public. How is it justifiable
to lose nearly 800 soldiers without even fighting a war?
Further, in every violent
conflict like Uri, the overwhelming numbers of the dead are sepoys and
non-commissioned officers hailing from the most marginalised strata of society.
It is a tragedy at many levels.
The
uniting factor
The valorous(brave,बहादुर) soldier versus the pusillanimous(coward,कायर) civilian and the patriotic soldier versus unpatriotic civilian are false binaries on which a militarised society thrives(grow,पनपना). On the one hand, defence arms procurement, and land and recruitment scams show the involvement of both higher echelons(group,टोली) of the military, and civilians (politicians and bureaucrats). On the other, what unites both is that tragic social conditions are disproportionately shared by the soldiers and civilians from the poorest and most oppressed groups, especially the costs of war. After all, the shrieking TV anchors and the elite(specific,विशिष्ट) civilian classes wanting a war are not the ones fighting the war, or are among the 15 lakh people forcibly evacuated from border village homes and living in makeshift camps.
The valorous(brave,बहादुर) soldier versus the pusillanimous(coward,कायर) civilian and the patriotic soldier versus unpatriotic civilian are false binaries on which a militarised society thrives(grow,पनपना). On the one hand, defence arms procurement, and land and recruitment scams show the involvement of both higher echelons(group,टोली) of the military, and civilians (politicians and bureaucrats). On the other, what unites both is that tragic social conditions are disproportionately shared by the soldiers and civilians from the poorest and most oppressed groups, especially the costs of war. After all, the shrieking TV anchors and the elite(specific,विशिष्ट) civilian classes wanting a war are not the ones fighting the war, or are among the 15 lakh people forcibly evacuated from border village homes and living in makeshift camps.
The valorisation of the
military in a democracy is ironical. Ultimately, what is the military fighting
for? Is it merely Indian territory? The military, while protecting the nation,
does not dictate India’s constitutional values. By conflating the two, a
fundamental mistake is made. In the eyes of the world, what distinguishes India
from Pakistan is not that it has a bigger military, but that it is a settled,
even if flawed, democracy. The Indian Army is different from the Pakistani Army
because it is, ultimately, under the control of the people.
Every public institution,
including the military, has to be subject to public accountability and
scrutiny. There is no maxim in a democracy that says you cannot ask questions
of its army.
Similarly, striving for
non-violent resolutions is not being anti-national. An army veteran writes:
“It’s easy to ask for peace when you are a thousand miles away from the Line of
Control.” This is why soldiers facing bullets at the border are not the ones in
charge of public policy in a democracy. As Onkarnath Dolui, who lost his son in
Uri, painfully pleads, “Believe me, I don’t want war as it demands countless of
lives, like that of my son, on either side.”
Soldiers and their
sacrifices deserve respect in society, but they cannot overwhelm every other
aspect of society. Military fables have their place, but they cannot substitute
democratic debates. While we mourn the deaths of soldiers, we have to
understand that poverty is the biggest killer in India, by a million times
over. A militarised society prevents us from seeing that.
No comments:
Post a Comment