The liberal's dilemma

The Pulwama terror attack and subsequent developments have exposed a gaping hole in our liberal conscience: The lack of a cogent view on national security.

The result is for everyone to see. Any such incident catches us liberals on the wrong foot. We readily condemn any such attack. We ritually, and these days hastily, pay homage to those who are ‘martyrs’. And after that, we don’t quite know what to say.

We know what is not to be done. Warmongering is obviously no solution. We point out, rightly so, that any knee-jerk reaction would be counterproductive. No doubt, an armed offensive by itself is not an enduring solution. We are quick to point out that the problem is not just external. Outsiders would not be able to do very much if there was no domestic support for the cause that the terrorists espouse. Clearly, it is not just a law and order problem. And, needless to say, targeting of our own citizens, mostly minorities, would only compound the problem.

This is all fine. The question is: What, then, is to be done?

Our answer is usually placed in a time horizon called “the last instance”. We say, again rightly so, that in the last instance, Kashmir is a political problem that can only have a political solution. In the last instance, you have to address the deep alienation affecting the population in the Valley. And this is not possible without demilitarisation of Jammu and Kashmir and beginning of a genuine democratic process. We have all the good answers, in the last instance.

But, what about this instance? What about all the instances before the last one? The trouble is that most of us live most of our lives in those in-between instances. And this liberal response does not equip us to deal with real life questions that we face.

Let me clarify. By “liberals”, I do not mean only those who believe in a doctrine called Liberalism, as opposed to Socialism or Communitarianism. I use it in a more generic sense to mean all those, the present author included, who share the vision of a constitutional order that guarantees basic liberties, human rights, rule of law, institutional autonomy and procedural norms. Those who share this belief may hold left or right economic visions. They may have different political preferences. But they are united by their opposition to creeping authoritarianism, a majoritarian culture that sanctions lynching and a growing xenophobia and by their desire for a more plural and tolerant India.

We liberals, honourable exceptions apart, do not think through our position on national security. Take the Pulwama attack, for instance. A terror group operating from across the border owned up the act. The Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) has a free run in Pakistan and is known to play to the tune of Pakistan’s “deep state”, the army’s GHQ and the ISI.

How should we respond to it, here and now? To this, we have no cogent answer. Not to put too fine a point on it: When it comes to national security, we live in denial.

This denial comes from two sources.

One, our post-Independence liberal elite feels awkward about nationalism. Like the European elite, we have started associating nationalism with negativity, jingoism and ethnic supremacists. In doing so, we have cut ourselves off from the rich and inclusivist legacy of Indian nationalism. We want to live in a modern nation-state without caring for our nationhood.

Two, we all partake in civilised hypocrisy: In liberal circles, it is not politically correct to discuss unpleasant matters like defence. At the butcher’s shop, we politely look away after ordering minced meat. We all wish to be protected. We want better policing, better law and order, and more secure borders. But we don’t want to discuss security.

This denial results in political schizophrenia or a perverse division of political labour: The Bharatiya Janata Party-led (BJP) government is in charge of the security of our borders, while we take charge of human rights. The flip side of this division of labour is that right-wing hawks, if not amateurish TV studio gladiators, have captured popular imagination on national security. Over the years, the BJP has captured this issue despite its poor record during Kandahar or the worsening of national security situation during the Narendra Modi regime. 

No wonder, at a moment like Pulwama, the liberals are on the defensive. Their condemnation of terror attack and condolences to the victims appear suspect. Their suggestions seem woolly or beside the point. In the wild world of political rhetoric, it opens them to false but powerful allegations of being unpatriotic.

This can be the starting point of making amends for this deep rooted error. There is no shortage of sensible and knowledgeable defence experts in the country, including those who have served in the armed forces and those with liberal disposition. Some of the sanest advice and analysis over the last fortnight has come from those who have themselves donned the uniform. But their view does not become our common sense, as it is not integrated into a liberal vision.

Let our response to Pulwama be the starting point of a fuller and serious engagement with a national security doctrine. While everyone talks about Pakistan, we need to think hard about the more serious long-term security challenges — especially from China. The size and resources of our armed forces need to be aligned with the requirement of India’s security challenges in the 21st century. And we need to refurbish the entire security apparatus to respond to the internal security challenges in a professional and humane manner. That can provide us with the space not just to respond to terror attacks like Pulwama but also to resolve the Kashmir issue and Maoist insurgency within a democratic frame.

By special arrangement with ThePrint
 

The author is the National President of Swaraj India