The Cancer Within

EDIT: Upon consideration (and due to feedback I've received from many friends), I decided to post this edit.

This is a rant, and as such, the argument presented here does not have concrete reasoning, and has a much more personal tone than all my previous posts. But is one I believe in. You will see very few rants on my blog, so you may choose to ignore them if you wish.

Jane Fonda.

That name means different things to different people. To some, it is synonymous with a (formerly) attractive woman and to others it may be with the leading lady in various Hollywood projects (most of them failures).

To me, however, the name Jane Fonda is associated with the term bitch. Now, I hesitate to use that word, for it is a harsh, and usually undeserved adjective. In this case, not only is it warranted, but it goes hand in hand with other despicable character traits, such as treachery and duplicity.

Many will have heard of Fonda's overwhelming opposition to the Vietnam War (and now Iraq). And to some, this is acceptable. After all, she was living in a democracy, and was free to voice differing opinions. However, while vocal opposition is one thing, posing on an enemy AA gun is another. That shot alone caused immeasurable damage to the morale of Vietnam War veterans, already under flak back home, and only heightened the abuse they were facing. Veterans returning home were termed baby-killers, butchers and psychopaths. The now-famous Norman Swarzpkof, architect of Desert Storm was snubbed even by his own family. All this against soldiers who were trying to do their duty by their country and by their people.

Undoubtedly, there were psychopathic killers who served in Vietnam. But as Max Hastings, that great institution of British journalism pointed out, each army has its killers. If one rewinds to the days of Xerxes I, you would hear some of his soldiers commenting on the slaughter of civilians at Athens after the victory at Thermopylae. Or the slaughter of Chinese civilians by the Imperial Japanese Army, or any other conflict in recorded history.

Let's get back to Vietnam. As is infamously known, the Americans lost that war. Why?
American forces won almost every military engagement in that campaign. They possessed control of the sea-lanes, total air-superiority and the territorial advantage. So where did they lose?

They lost on the Public Relations (PR) front.

PR? Surely that’s not very important in a war?
But it is. Many associate war with the 'big bang' factor and with comparisons of military strength. But to win a war, a nation must win both against its enemy, and at home. Because the war was so unpopular in the US and South Vietnam, the Americans were forced to pull out of a conflict they very likely would have won. As a result, South Vietnam was overrun in months, and lost a million civilians, who were butchered by the Communist North.

And now it’s happening again. This time in Iraq. This is why current US military leaders are eager to win the cliched 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people, for without that they are nothing more than an occupation force, both to the Iraqi’s and to Americans. Yet, public and vocal opposition in the US threatens to force a withdrawal far sooner than the US would like, and far sooner than is good for Iraq. For say what you want about the American presence in Iraq, they don’t go around butchering civilians for being 'infidels' or 'great Satan’s'. Yes, there have been many unfortunate incidents in Iraq, be they accidental bombings of weddings, shootings at roadblocks (an action I agree with) or one of several others. But these were mistakes. Inquests have been ordered, punishments doled out, and suspensions of military personnel made. When was the last time you saw this done by terrorists? I don’t see terrorist leaders condemning suicide attacks that kill innocent civilians (women, children and unfortunate wedding guests included).

About now, you'll be thinking: 'This is all very interesting (or not, depending on whether you agree), but what does it have to do with India?" After all, I usually discuss matter pertaining to Indian interests. I'm coming to that.

Such activists are becoming more common in India. Recent activities of student organisations in India, led by anti-nuclear and anti-war demonstrators, threaten to compromise India's national security. Outcry's over issues such as whether terrorists are given human rights or how a possibly hostile civilian populace is treated are becoming common.

Recently, there was a protest over the killing of two innocent youths in Kashmir by army men.
This is understandable, and one I agree with. The troops in question were mistaken, and their incorrect judgement had caused them to shoot innocent, unarmed civilians. What bothers me, however, are when Indian citizens further these calls to one advocating India's total withdrawal from Kashmir, or to reduce the military and paramilitary presence there. These same people are queerly mute when Pakistani or local Kashmiri terrorists massacre villagers, or innocent moderate muslim (I highlight this for those who say Kashmir is a religious issue, and you know who you are) civilians, who refuse to back them in their quest for separation from the Indian Union. Calls made by Indian civilians to end our nuclear program, scale back military presence, and cut down on counter-insurgency operations are nothing less than seditious. What is more worrying is when such talk is taken seriously by politicians who wish to further their agendas, or by uninformed youth without direction, looking to take up a cause.

Not only to viewpoints like this damage the morale of the troops (and thus damage national security), they strenghten the hand of India's enemies without them having to fire a shot. They weaken our position both internationally and domestically. How are our troops supposed to fight if they have one hand tied behind their backs? How are we supposed to hold onto a piece of our land when our own people are against it? How are we supposed to generate clean electricity if the people are against nuclear reactors? How are we supposed to raise employment and rid ourselves of poverty if people go against economic reform, claiming it to be a corporate plot?

As long as these viewpoints, put across by the 'intellectual elite' are taken seriously, India will be forever taking one step forward and two steps back, and we will cede supremacy to the rapidly growing Chinese, forever to remain in second place.

- Mrinal Sharma.