Are we a soft state?

This topic has attracted huge debate in the academic circle of Political Science and International Relations. Various theories and views have been put forward to explain the true nature of Indian Foreign Policy and its constitution. Before examining the nature of Indian Foreign Policy and constitution, I would like to explain the circumstances and bases which accounted for the formulation. It is important to note here that formulation of any such policies and documents for any country requires a special and concerted efforts and skills. This becomes even more complicated for the country like India as we belong to the nation which is the home of the people of diversified interests and aspirations and any radical and fundamentalist policies will only work for the disintegration of one of the oldest civilization. On the other side policies of the countries like US and countries of north western Europe are much simpler and less complicated due to host of factors like homogeneity in society and their stable boundaries and friendly and developed neighbors and moreover they also share common interest and elitist attitude with each other.

India’s recorded history started with the Indus valley civilization and since then it has come to an age. Various factors helped in enriching her culture and tradition and finally led to the formulation of composite culture. Mauryan King Ashoka was among the first in the subcontinent to spread the feeling of fraternity and brother hood. Further, various attacks and invasions to her frontier led to the accumulation of people of number of cultures. However all the invasion, right from mighty Greeks to ubiquitous Islam, led to enrich the diversity of the land and its people. All of these invaders were not only absorbed by the superiority of her culture but also they settled across her frontier and in due course of time they became as much the part of the land and its people as their earlier counterparts.

However the arrival of Europeans was dramatically different. In the early 18th century society of Hindustan was caught in the vicious web of social obscurantism and religious superstition and had become the pool of brahminical dominance. While on other hand Europeans were enlightened and had already organized on the modern lines in the aftermath of Renaissance. Interaction of these two, altogether different, societies led to the revival of our social structure and rise in the educational base of the country. However the biggest achievement of this phase was the birth of a nation which we today called as India. Here I would like to quote the difference between a nation and a country. Country really refers to geographical characteristics while nation refers to political and social characteristics. A nation is made up of states and a country is a nation defined geographically. This provided the much needed and solid foundation for the freedom struggle as it helped the Indians to be Indian and also provided a common identity to the nation.

With this background, world witnessed the rise of one of the greatest man of the century, known as Gandhi, who led India to independence with his charismatic leadership and principles of truth and non violence. It is often argued that Gandhi delayed Indian independence. Though it is very difficult to test this fictitious hypothesis but one thing is very true and well justified that this man has given India a base around which our might democracy revolves and because of this we earned the accolades of being the largest and one the most stable democracy in last six decades or so, inspite of its diversified interests and aspirations of her sons and daughters.

After the independence, a need for an acceptable constitution and independent foreign policy has risen and subsequently it led to the formulation of constitution and foreign policy. However any document of national important would not be acceptable until it accepts the principles and cultures which it inherits from its history and thus a constitution and a foreign policy was documented by keeping these things in the mind.

Now I would like to look into the notion if we are a soft state. Indian independence came into the time when World War 2 had already come to an end and world was being lobbied into two blocs. For the country like India which has the exploitative past and which was gifted with wretched poverty and has the hopelessly underdeveloped social structure, it would have been the easiest foreign policy to join any bloc especially of the USA in the hope of their merciful response. But what did India do? We not only rejected such proposal to join any bloc but also we went one step ahead and helped in the formation of largest group of nations, after UN, NAM and decided to judge any international issues on the basis of its merit. Can a soft state do this?

On the issue of terrorism and Pakistan, Indian policies have hugely criticized for being soft. Most of the scholar and so called intellectual class of Indian elites compared it with USA and went to the extent of saying that, had USA be in such condition response would have been drastically different. I pity them. The policies and measures opted by USA to counter the 9/11 attack is much different than Indian action would have been. Why? Because USA is not waging these wars in its neighborhood but India is. How can India be as hard as USA? Any aggression with neighborhood will only attract instability and violence in the region as is the case of Israel and south west Asia. Further we should not forget that Indian neighborhood is much different than that of developed world and so called elite states. We are surrounded with number of instable, underdeveloped nations, dominated by traditional society which is divided on number of ethnic and religious lines. The presence of China is only making situation worse. How can India be as hard as USA and other such other nations? Instead, we evolved a novel foreign policy which is based on the ideologies which we inherited from our great ancestors.

Similarly on the issue of nuclear deal, we were able to clinch the deal that too without signing CTBT and NPT inspite of strong opposition from China, Pakistan and such other nations. At the same time we successfully demonstrated our support for nuclear disarmament by publishing our “No first use policy” which is unparallel and unmatched in the world politics. How can a country like India be called as soft?

On the issue of Global warming, too, we successfully asserted our opinion and views which was, though, opposed by so called developed world. But instead of succumbing to the pressure we put forward our interest and aspiration regarding the issue which was again based on shared responsibility. How can we soft?

Time and again India has demonstrated the politics of ideology and asserted the power of “Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam”. If being soft means being weak then India is neither weak nor soft but if being soft means following the ideologies and values, based on its cultural heritage, then India is not the soft country but the softest country, showing light to the rest part of the world.

Burning Kashmir and its Solution

Perhaps Kashmir is the most puzzling problem Indian polity has ever witnessed. The exact solution of this problem is yet unknown even to the governments of both sides of border. Before looking into the possible solutions of this problem I will give a brief note on the genesis of problem as most of us don’t know what exactly the problem of Kashmir is.

The dawn of Indian independence was accompanied by the bifurcation of the country which was based on the two nation theory proposed by Mr. Jinnah. With this division, a struggle has begun for gaining the sovereignty over Kashmir between two newly freed nations. At the time of independence the entire Kashmir was under the control of a Hindu ruler of Kashmir however the demographic division was in the favuor of Muslims. Keeping this in mind Pakistan attacked on Kashmir with the intention of claiming its sovereignty over the region. And instead of counter attacking the Pakistan army we went to king of Kashmir with a proposal that we would defend them only when they acknowledge India’s sovereignty over Kashmir. By the time we got the assurance form Kashmir, Pakistan had already occupied almost one third of Kashmir by hopelessly defeating its army. And instead of throwing them out from the portion they have already snatched from Kashmir, which is still in the control of Pakistan and now called as POK(Pakistan Occupied Kashmir), we just blocked their further advancement towards Srinagar. We didn’t stop here and finally we made the biggest mistake in the history of independent India by going to UN and making Kashmir a disputed territory. And henceforth this issue has been pending with UN. Our war with China also aggravated this problem and was one of the main reasons of the friendship between China and Pakistan. Further, we fought 3 wars with Pakistan which has worsened the condition in the region. However in the decade of 80s Kashmir pundits were thrown out from their home region making Kashmir almost a Muslim region. With the rise in Islamic terrorism Kashmir problem has become puzzle to solve. The ultimate tragedy lies in the fact no one has a readymade solution which is acceptable to both side.

Now question arises that what should be the solution of this political dilemma. With the awareness level rising day by day it is almost impossible for any country be it Pakistan or be it India to give up their portion. So it is prerequisite for the ultimate solution that present condition is resumed and LOC should be made permanent boundary. Once India gets its part of land, the next step would be to create a pro Indian sentiment in the valley. For this I would suggest two pronged strategy. Firstly, India should involve itself in the developmental work of the region and by taking suitable and relevant projects a engine of growth can be generated but while doing this, participation of local individual should be ensured so that simultaneous development of a feeling of belongingness should take place among the peoples of region. And secondly, India should also look at the transition of demographic distribution of the area by encouraging Hindus to settle in the valley so that a balanced demography could be achieved.

However this solution is not as simple as it looks to my readers. Certain hurdles are bound to arise, for an example Pakistan is not interested in making LOC a permanent boundary. Moreover, the growing influence of China in the region can not be ignored. This becomes more important when we consider that we are still fighting on boundary issues with China as well and our relationship with our mighty neighbor is not cordial. Further the increasing closeness of Pakistan with China is also a cause of concern. So, according to me, while solving the Kashmir problem, our disputes with China should be settled as early as possible so that Pakistan could not bargain on the name of mighty China. Here the role of geopolitics is inevitable. As India and China both are rising at the same time, a bond of friendship can be developed as the aspirations and interests of both countries are almost same. Further, the historical ties can also be taken as morale booster.

While bargaining with Pakistan Indian should be ready to make some minor sacrifices to maintain the peace in the region as India is a responsible nation in the world and is known for its principle of peace and non violence. It should also kept in the mind that beside being the biggest nation in the subcontinent, India is also surrounded by numbers of poor, underdeveloped and tiny nations, the price of which India has to pay in the name of minor sacrifices . However any such sacrifice should be made by keeping in mind that there are number of separatist movements active in India and such sacrifices in no case should work as a morale booster for these separatist groups

Should States be divided?

Recently in the wake of Telangana issue, once again the issue of dividing the various states has got the ground in the political sphere of our country. A demand of dividing one of the largest state in the country i.e. UP has gained ground to such an extent that its echo can be listened even in state's assembly. A long pending demand of dividing UP in 3 or more part has once again came into prominence.

Now, it is pertinent here to think how useful is to divide any state and create a new one. It is often said that smaller states has more prospect to grow than larger one and this statement can even be supported by citing the example of Punjab,Haryana etc. Perhaps because of this or only because of this belief Assam was ruined and divided into various part keeping in mind that it would also helping creating the engine of growth .But needless to say what happened to our North eastern states, not only they could not ripe the fruits of development but also the demands of further division of states have risen periodically. So dividing larger states into smaller one is not the ultimate solution.

Further, i will ask here a question, which state in India has the potential to be on the top? Mh, GJ or southern states... any guess...i will bet for Jharkhand....it is the most prosperous stete in the country in the term of mineral wealth. Also , it is endowed with natural beauty which only enhances its prospect of becoming prosperous. Bihar was divided and Jharkhand was born in the winter of 2000 with the hope that this would usher an era of development but needless to say what is the present condition of Jharkhand. So even the availability of resources should not be the taken as assurance for the development of state

In India, most of the states are dependent on central aid for their survival as their own income is not high enough to feed their own population. So by just dividing states and creating new one will only aggravate the burden of central government. Moreover the financial assistance required for the setting up the administrative machinery will only do the worse. Further it is the centre which has to bear the additional cost of erratic election caused by irresponsible state politicians. So any further division of any state will thus create only additional burden on the centre. Then what is the solution?

Before looking into the possible solution, just takes a case study. What is the difference between PB, HR and UP,BH . An ordinary person will say that first league of state is more prosperous than later but I will say second league of state has the potential to make 100s of PB and HR out of them. But why are they lagging? Because they are large or they don’t have resources? The eastern UP and northern Bihar has one of the most fertile land not only in India but also in the world but still they are lagging. But what is the reason? The answer is the psycho-social condition of these states.. The reader will be amazed to know that more than 70% of land holding belongs to the elite of respected areas which in no case would be more than 10% of population of related areas. Land being the only resources and agriculture being the single most important occupation of rural folks, this type of inequitable land distribution will only create the havoc in the states and such demand of dividing the state is inevitable. Similar is the case of many states in India.

So instead of dividing the state on the name of development we should look into the matter more deeply and instead of trying the solutions that is cliche we should go for more novel solutions. We should not feed the unsatisfied politicians to make their own career and work for better recourse management and upliftment of socio- economic condition of our citizens

Why I am an ATHEIST

As regards the origin of God my own idea is that having realized the limitations of man, his weaknesses and shortcoming having been taken into consideration, God was brought into imaginary existence to encourage man to face boldly all the trying circumstances, to meet all dangers manfully and to check and restrain his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God both with his private laws and parental generosity was imagined and painted in greater details. He was to serve as a deterrent factor when his fury and private laws were discussed so that man may not become a danger to society. He was to serve as a father, mother, sister and brother, friend and helpers when his parental qualifications were to be explained. So that when man be in great distress having been betrayed and deserted by all friends he may find consolation in the idea that an ever true friend was still there to help him, to support him and that He was almighty and could do anything. Really that was useful to the society in the primitive age.

What does a woman want?

A woman is never interested in an ordinary man – no woman worth anything is ever interested in an ordinary man. A woman is always interested in something extraordinary, something majestic, something beyond the grasp. But once a woman catches hold of the man she was interested in, she starts destroying that very power, because then she becomes afraid: he will dominate, and nobody wants to be dominated.

Before he starts dominating, she has to destroy that very power. And I call it a tragedy, because once that power is destroyed she will no more be interested in the man. This is the dilemma: she is interested in power, then the power feels frightening. If the man remains so powerful then she will remain dependent; she will never be the whole – and soon she starts playing feminine tricks. And because he loves her, the man goes on yielding.

Once he starts yielding, the lion disappears and the mouse is born, and no woman is interested in a mouse