Water has an incalculable significance in human life, it's not merely an economic resource that can be substituted. It is the life blood of nations, the cradle of civilisations, one of the most basic human rights and increasingly now, the most controversial geo-strategic topic of the world.
From Chinese incursions into the rights of lower riparian states, to the perennial conflict on Cauvery, we already had a lot on our hands till the Indus Water Treaty meeting between India and Pakistan that had endured the worst wars fought between the both nations was cancelled by Modi and we can expect another big flare up on the water issue.
Retired generals and 'brave' T.V anchors have all sounded the clarion call to at least cut off the rivers and dehydrate millions of Pakistani 'enemies' to death by abrogating IWT (Indus Water Treaty) and diverting rivers. For every military strategist sitting in his/her bedroom, the prospect seems tempting, to operate on a strategic chess board where killing the people are merely words like collateral damage, where shutting off the tap for a thirsty, underdeveloped country is a strategic move to secure national interests.
Deadly Jargon
Dehumanising language allows the shift of priorities, from the individual to the greater good of the nation in which he/she is a mere cog. Nationalism can be a good thing, if it serves to increase cooperation, to increase sympathy and brotherhood. But nothing of that sort was visible in the post Cauvery decision flare up and only the ugly side is visible in case of the Indus. Is destroying the perceived enemy is now the only definition of nationalism?
Who is this enemy anyway, who is it that we so desperately want to crush, even at the cost of our own lives? Is it the Pakistani General, the ISI agent, the terrorist commander, who is this Pakistani?
For most part, believe it or not, the hated 'Pakistani' that we've conjured is just another human being like you and me. The average one is probably a farmer, working hard under an unjust system to make ends meet. They too are fed the same vitriol of jingoism, religion, patriotism that makes them forget the 'real' troubles, of inequity in resource distribution and focus on the 'reel' troubles of the lurking nuclear armed enemy. They're also told to keep supporting the soldiers, to keep making sacrifices, while their upper classes clink their crystals and berate the foolish masses.
For an average citizen, Pakistan is the 'demonic other', an identity in itself that cannot be shown mercy or be sympathised with. There's no scope for rationality either. In this morbid atmosphere of constant hatred and threat, anything becomes possible. But what would happen if a common man is given a knife to murder an innocent child of the 'other' nation? Would he do it? What will the nation do as our leaders propose that they're cutting the life blood of the other nation? Will the nation stand up?
Idiosyncratic Possibilities
If, and this is an if laden with lot of consequences, if we are able to somehow divert the waters of the rivers that go into Pakistan and still not suffer flooding in our own cities, then what would happen?
First of all, a vast scale human tragedy would be generated and the poorest lot of the Pakistanis would suffer the most. Thousands would die, millions would suffer. This is the script that the T.V anchors have been raring to follow.
But, the real question is; what would happen next?
Short of a full fledged nuclear war, the Pakistani military would step up infiltration attempts and the intelligence network in India would suffer consequently. India would also lose it's moral stance internationally and several nations, especially the OIC ones would come out in support of Pakistan. The tragedy aired live across televisions sets of world would force us to release the water and apologise, maybe even lose hold on Kashmir.
And if we refuse to give in, there's a distinct possibility of a nuclear war, simply because Pakistan would see that option as the most logical given the public pressure and the fact that their lands having been already destroyed, they'd want to destroy ours too. China can make a case for diverting our waters and we wouldn't be able to put forth any moral defence.
Blood and Water
For several years, India has held out a promise to the world. A promise that growth can take place in a moral and principled way, that poverty of millions can be vanquished that a better life is possible in the 'third world' too. We're finally near the realisation of that dream.
The question that needs to be asked is that whether we are ready for the kind of tragedy that would unfold once we decide to up the stakes, are we ready to give up on our promise for the sake of our competing concepts of nationhood? Are we ready to deprive millions of a chance to lead a dignified life, only because our security setup was too weak to predict and stop handful of terrorists?
Our Prime Minister recently said that blood and water cannot flow together. Blood and blood can, but is that what we really want? A nation hostage to it's own deluded elite has to be dealt with in a nuanced way. It's always the people who hold the ultimate power, who recognise that they have more in common with the poor across the border and want peace if allowed to.
Pakistan can also develop, give its people education and economic growth required for the nation to mature. By stopping it's water, we will only delay the process, empower the generals and the ISI and derail it's democratic growth. Even if we were to win a pyrrhic war against it by starving millions, would our nation still be worthy of Gandhi's legacy? The militants would have won in the truest sense.
Does that mean that we do absolutely nothing about the attacks? We absolutely should, but our response cannot be a copycat of Israel or North Korea. This is where the wisdom of our thousands of years of continuous existence comes into play, this is where we show that India can remain being India and not turn into the demon that Pakistan imagines us to be.
From Chinese incursions into the rights of lower riparian states, to the perennial conflict on Cauvery, we already had a lot on our hands till the Indus Water Treaty meeting between India and Pakistan that had endured the worst wars fought between the both nations was cancelled by Modi and we can expect another big flare up on the water issue.
Retired generals and 'brave' T.V anchors have all sounded the clarion call to at least cut off the rivers and dehydrate millions of Pakistani 'enemies' to death by abrogating IWT (Indus Water Treaty) and diverting rivers. For every military strategist sitting in his/her bedroom, the prospect seems tempting, to operate on a strategic chess board where killing the people are merely words like collateral damage, where shutting off the tap for a thirsty, underdeveloped country is a strategic move to secure national interests.
Deadly Jargon
Dehumanising language allows the shift of priorities, from the individual to the greater good of the nation in which he/she is a mere cog. Nationalism can be a good thing, if it serves to increase cooperation, to increase sympathy and brotherhood. But nothing of that sort was visible in the post Cauvery decision flare up and only the ugly side is visible in case of the Indus. Is destroying the perceived enemy is now the only definition of nationalism?
Who is this enemy anyway, who is it that we so desperately want to crush, even at the cost of our own lives? Is it the Pakistani General, the ISI agent, the terrorist commander, who is this Pakistani?
For most part, believe it or not, the hated 'Pakistani' that we've conjured is just another human being like you and me. The average one is probably a farmer, working hard under an unjust system to make ends meet. They too are fed the same vitriol of jingoism, religion, patriotism that makes them forget the 'real' troubles, of inequity in resource distribution and focus on the 'reel' troubles of the lurking nuclear armed enemy. They're also told to keep supporting the soldiers, to keep making sacrifices, while their upper classes clink their crystals and berate the foolish masses.
For an average citizen, Pakistan is the 'demonic other', an identity in itself that cannot be shown mercy or be sympathised with. There's no scope for rationality either. In this morbid atmosphere of constant hatred and threat, anything becomes possible. But what would happen if a common man is given a knife to murder an innocent child of the 'other' nation? Would he do it? What will the nation do as our leaders propose that they're cutting the life blood of the other nation? Will the nation stand up?
Idiosyncratic Possibilities
If, and this is an if laden with lot of consequences, if we are able to somehow divert the waters of the rivers that go into Pakistan and still not suffer flooding in our own cities, then what would happen?
First of all, a vast scale human tragedy would be generated and the poorest lot of the Pakistanis would suffer the most. Thousands would die, millions would suffer. This is the script that the T.V anchors have been raring to follow.
But, the real question is; what would happen next?
Short of a full fledged nuclear war, the Pakistani military would step up infiltration attempts and the intelligence network in India would suffer consequently. India would also lose it's moral stance internationally and several nations, especially the OIC ones would come out in support of Pakistan. The tragedy aired live across televisions sets of world would force us to release the water and apologise, maybe even lose hold on Kashmir.
And if we refuse to give in, there's a distinct possibility of a nuclear war, simply because Pakistan would see that option as the most logical given the public pressure and the fact that their lands having been already destroyed, they'd want to destroy ours too. China can make a case for diverting our waters and we wouldn't be able to put forth any moral defence.
Blood and Water
For several years, India has held out a promise to the world. A promise that growth can take place in a moral and principled way, that poverty of millions can be vanquished that a better life is possible in the 'third world' too. We're finally near the realisation of that dream.
The question that needs to be asked is that whether we are ready for the kind of tragedy that would unfold once we decide to up the stakes, are we ready to give up on our promise for the sake of our competing concepts of nationhood? Are we ready to deprive millions of a chance to lead a dignified life, only because our security setup was too weak to predict and stop handful of terrorists?
Our Prime Minister recently said that blood and water cannot flow together. Blood and blood can, but is that what we really want? A nation hostage to it's own deluded elite has to be dealt with in a nuanced way. It's always the people who hold the ultimate power, who recognise that they have more in common with the poor across the border and want peace if allowed to.
Pakistan can also develop, give its people education and economic growth required for the nation to mature. By stopping it's water, we will only delay the process, empower the generals and the ISI and derail it's democratic growth. Even if we were to win a pyrrhic war against it by starving millions, would our nation still be worthy of Gandhi's legacy? The militants would have won in the truest sense.
Does that mean that we do absolutely nothing about the attacks? We absolutely should, but our response cannot be a copycat of Israel or North Korea. This is where the wisdom of our thousands of years of continuous existence comes into play, this is where we show that India can remain being India and not turn into the demon that Pakistan imagines us to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment