Shelley Walia

Professor Emeritus, English & Cultural Studies, Panjab University

Never think that war, no matterhow necessary, nor how justified,is not a crime.

Ernest Hemingway

WRITING about World War I, famous war journalist and communist activist John Reed wrote in 1917: War means ugly mob madness, crucifying the truth tellers, choking the artists, sidetracking reforms, revolutions and the working of social forces. The legacy of violence, especially in the 20th century, is undoubtedly a history of human barbarism, plunder and suppression, torture and genocide, and above all, deception and lies. Indeed, there can be no legitimacy of war and any form of violent action is in itself wrong. War must be resisted because to use violence to end violence would be logically self-contradictory, argued Christopher Caudwell in 1938.

The one thing that enables the authorities to deceive the public, says eminent historian Howard Zinn, is to keep the public from thinking back to the history of war, the history of government deception, the history of media complicity. This statement could very well sum up the history of the pervasive and systematic Indo-China cross-border militancy smacking of war as an instrument of national policy. The frontline war journalists are kept at bay and (mis)information is all that the public is fed on. Understandably, the Chinese foreign policy is the villain at whose hands India faces a slippery situation, which if allowed to escalate, would boomerang on the already declining economy of the country. But there should be no self-righteousness when we are witnessing a moment of loathsome political and social turmoil in the country.

The Charter of the United Nations declares that peaceful coexistence is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all members. This in itself is a laudatory declaration. However, we are faced with a different reality at the crossroads of human nature and international politics, a reality of inequality which is elemental to it. The theory of equality embedded in the Charter misses a noteworthy fact of human nature: the fixation of world leaders with the passion for status which they feel entitled to enjoy on the international stage.

History abounds with examples of nations going to war merely for some damage to, or advancement of, position. The Falklands crisis arose out of Britains unshakable sense of self-esteem receiving a blow if the colony was not salvaged. Russia too could not tolerate any blemish on its status, and consequently took the anticipatory measure of an impulsive war with Germany. George Bush declared war on Iraq presumably to wipe out weapons of mass destruction but more plausibly to avenge the insult heaped on his father by Saddam Hussein.

War has seldom been a worthy initiative, waged for worthwhile causes. Its more likely to be read as a distraction from the socio-political or economic upheaval. Misguided with a fervent ideal of pseudo nationalism, it arouses an ethno-racist pride and delivers legitimacy to a faltering national leadership guarding personal vanity and enabling enhancement of power over the malleable subjects.

The defence of international standing may often supersede any other consideration, as is apparent in the Indo-Chinese territorial skirmishes over the last half a century. The display of military prowess serves as a sense of self-importance, security and economic gain in matters of determining international consequences relating to military dominance and economic hegemony. It is a key factor driving the world, in the words of Steven Pinker, towards the course of war and peace.

China and India today are poised across the borders in a state of belligerence common to nations which, in the words of Shakespeare, are jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel. Ever since the humiliation of India in the 1962 invasion, the Chinese have persistently and periodically disturbed the peace and calm of the border with a periodic wrap on the knuckles of India, a rising power to be kept under check. Moreover, the Line of Actual Control remains obscure and thus susceptible to cross-border disputes if only to exhibit nothing but military arrogance or national assertion. The rugged ice-covered terrain of the border, indeed, has no value in actuality for the antagonists.

The recent spat on the Ladakh border strikingly amounts to the theatre of cruelty reflecting the spectre of medieval barbarism experienced in tribal warfare, leaving Indian soldiers brutally bludgeoned by martial artists dropped near the border. Disturbing the status quo on the border with such bloodthirsty violation of the laws of war at a juncture when India remains vulnerable in a losing battle against the novel coronavirus, undeniably seems to be ethically unneighbourly. In an era of unprecedented militarisation, China, the global hyperpower, has increasingly embraced imperial aspirations with all its military and economic posturing. Empire, which essentially is undemocratic, threatens to define the relationship between China and the rest of the world with its ramifications felt in every successive military intervention.

Both India and China have arrogantly pushed ahead in constructing better strategic infrastructure with the intention to dominate the border through the deployment of heavy forces, and whimsically walking into disputed territories. The Chinese aggression could be another 1962 type of a lesson in subjugation. India has to tread lightly and guard its hard-won equilibrium. Complacency at this juncture would be disastrous.

In spite of the advancing trade relations with India, why has then China brought on this international crisis? Only one answer comes to mind: China would like to defend its dominance in the subcontinent in the context of Indias unremitting rise as a global power. If China needs to become a part of the international comity of nations, it will have to change its posture and stop being an interventionist military power dominating the economies of other countries. The systemic confiscation of land across the border, the policing of the South China Sea or the overrunning of Tibet in the past has further antagonised world opinion against it, especially in the wake of the Wuhan crisis.

The denunciation of the seemingly endless investment in military capacities, of the brutality of war is, therefore, central to the politics of peace and war. To react to the complexity of world affairs with military firepower or predatory economics rather than a realistic political response and diplomatic negotiations is not the solution. War, indeed, can never be the inescapable route to the settlement of differences. It can only signal a dark future at home and abroad.

See the article here:
Lust for dominance defines anatomy of war - The Tribune India