The geopolitics of South Asian jihad
There is a proliferation of literature today on the geopolitical aspects of jihad and Islamic extremism in South Asia. And yet, the discourses on jihad in the region are rarely nuanced or problematised. They have an inherent tendency to explain the phenomenon from a religion-centric perspective infused with grand civilisational definitions and also to see it as a practice of statecraft. In other words, contemporary literature and discourses on jihad treat it as an essentialist problem and often address it by communal shaming and ruthless eradication.
What is missing is a sociological reading of Islamic extremism, one which looks at it in the light of people's (or victims?) daily lived experiences, one that highlights their appalling existential conditions, and one that scans the structural conditions that are shaped by faith, indoctrination, misperception, ignorance, and the general inability to make free choices.
It is the narrow and ‘anti-intellectual' understanding of such social — not primarily geopolitical — problems that render state policies so helpless when confronted with the high levels of social legitimacy and popular acceptability commanded by jihad and the jihadis. That is precisely why the international community is forced to make peace with the Afghan Taliban today, after exhausting every other option, although Taliban was the reason why Afghanistan was attacked in the first place. Dilip Hiro's book Jihad on Two Fronts is an excellent example of such broad-brush treatment of an important subject.
Rich in detail
Written by an experienced journalist whose knowledge of the region is commendable, the book does have its strengths. It is rich in detail and in personalised narratives of the various aspects of jihad in the region. Hiro also attempts to draw a big picture of geopolitical developments in the region viewed from a historical perspective. This surely is a layperson's introduction to the origins of jihad in contemporary South Asia. Moreover, if you have a dislike for complex intellectual formulations, there is no reason to worry, for reading Hiro's narrative is like looking at a picture that is pleasing to the eyes: simple, yet rich in detail.
However, the book suffers from a number of serious weaknesses. In a sense, its strengths are also its weaknesses. The narrative is far too simplistic and suffers from an overdose of details. The book is not well structured and hence lacks a sense of direction. The narrative style shifts from autobiographical to historical to political and to religious, not necessarily in that order. Above all, there is little attempt to neatly tie the multiple aspects of the jihad phenomenon.
Sometimes, one begins to wonder whether Hiro is writing a novel or a serious book on jihad; indeed, he has written both in the past. Witness this sentence: “In the heart of bustling, noisy, sprawling port city of Karachi lies a grand park occupying 185 acres, which is incredibly quiet except for the chirping of sparrows and cawing of cows.”
Conspiracy theory
The big picture Hiro has endeavoured to produce is faulty, I am afraid. He sees a conspiracy theory in every important event of the region and hardly any scope for hope. Some of his arguments are clearly untenable. For example, an entire chapter puts up the argument that Afghanistan is America's second Vietnam, but at the end of it the reader remains not fully convinced that it is indeed the case.
Intellectual enterprises need to be geared towards a set purpose. What is presented is nothing more than a rehash of available material on terrorism, Islamic extremism, jihad etc., some of it from Hiro's own earlier books. There is hardly any attempt to break new conceptual ground or put forth any new empirical argument.
It is claimed that, using the “archival material released by the Kremlin in 2009, as well as the secret and classified cables sent by embassies in Kabul, Islamabad and Delhi, the author challenges the conventional historical narratives of the main layers: Afghanistan, Pakistan, America, India and the Soviet Union”. But the book doesn't do justice to this claim. By bringing in too many variables and covering a vast expanse of spatio-temporal territory, it seems to complicate the picture, and the complication is clearly not positive or useful.
After going through the book that has no refreshing intellectual insight and no significant suggestion to offer on the policy front, an informed reader is inevitably left with the question: And so, what's new about Hiro's narrative?
JIHAD ON TWO FRONTS — South Asia's Unfolding Drama: Dilip Hiro; HarperCollins Publishers, A-53, Sector-57, Noida-201301. Rs. 699.
COMMENTS:
Dr. Jacob's recommendations are based on a western rationale, which presupposes fuctionability and integrity of CBMs and risk management institutions. An existential institutional asymmetry (a representative government in India, and military in control of nuclear assets in Pakistan) between the two countries nullifies such rationale. Any amount of agreements between the two rival governments, will come to naught unless this asymmetry is removed. A classical example of dubiousness in Pakistani establishment's stance to agreements is the discovery of Osama Bin Laden's presence in Pakistan's heartland. Inspite of multifarious military and strategic understandings with their biggest benefactor (the United States) over the years, their establishment was found cheating. Expecting same establishment to honor track-II agreements and CBMs, is a little far fetched in my opinion.
The declared and undeclared nuclear doctrines of both Pakistan and India are of no consequence in the event of a war. Both countries can renounce their doctrines as and when required. The declared and undeclared nuclear doctrines of China follow the same path. China is the first country to declare that they will not use WMD first. The Chinese military threat is the tilting point in the event of a war between India and Pakistan. It is important to resolve the border issues with China so that the Chinese nuclear threat is not of future concern. Yet, the conventional military threat of China with or without war between India and Pakistan cannot be ignored. The Chinese intervention, in the event of a war between Pakistan and India, can overwhelm the Indian defense capability, though India can overcome the conventional military of Pakistan. In the event of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, there will not be a winner, both countries will be loosers.
We must give up our policy of no-first-use doctrine,which pakistan
has not adopted, in order to counter the pak strategy and we must be
ready 24*7 to deter the pakistan in case of any possible nuclear
attack on us. Its the need of the hour to augment our efforts to develop technology to effectively detect the nuclear submarines,radars and such other nuclaer armed missiles by upgrading our defence R and D the global
standards.
I have pity for people like this author and India's stratgists. The naked truth is this that Pakistan has no policy on any issue. Their credibility is zero and I want anyone to challenge me on the fact that there is not even a single treaty/agreement signed with Pakistan which was not violated by the latter or Pakistan did not allege that India violated the treaty. Look at the violations of ceasefire by Pakistan, repeated exposure of their duplicity on terror not only by India but by their allies, Simla agreement, Nuclear proliferation. I might come across as a Pakistan basher but have a look to what is happening to pledges/agreements signed between different institutions of Pakistan. These talks will lead us nowhere. India must prepare itself for the worst case scenario, rather than, relying on Pakistan to keep its word. Also see the fate of 26/11 accused case. It is a huge challenge to deal with Pakistan.
Lot of arm chair generals commenting. Regardless of stated doctrine, both are rational enough to realize that a nuclear war, even if you don't get nuked is a disaster for all of South Asia. I actually pity the ones who would survive the blasts, it would be a living hell. Imagine just one nuke on top of the Indus and Ganges. These sustaining natural wonders will turn to death streams polluting the soil that feeds a population of over 1.5 billion humans.
In pespective of China and USA,these two countries are mere toys.Till they settle such talks have no meaning.Irony is they will never settle and life goes on in all countries under tension.
"An eye for an eye only makes the world blind" is still relevent here. Rether than first use policy, why not use no use policy and dismantle the arsenal. If Pakistan should choose to use nuclear weapon against India successfully, before the polulation dies away, exhaust all our waste towards the north west and both populations should be taken care of. That is the stupidity of the stances of both governments that if nuclear weapons were to be used, there will be unmitigated disaster on our hands. The semantics of who uses this first will be truly lost as there will be very little left of the glorious civilisation in this region. China is not being strategic either as a huge nuclear expolsion is not going to be too far of chinese inhabitants.
Here is a modern indication for Gandhain principles. Destroy our nuclear arsenal and prove our intention to Pakistan. If they are foolish enough to chuck a few here, well then there will be very few to debate the rights and wrongs then!
Any dialogue, whether an official or track-2, between these two
cultural partners appear nothing more than reiteration of the long
known rhetoric that characterizes these talks "they(Ind. & Pak) can
talk-on-the-table but can't turn-the table."
The deeds and the diplomacy resorted to by both the countries seldom
care about the agreements accepted by them at the table. Taking in
account the skewed political conditions in Pakistan with military,
judiciary, and parliament engaged in long played "hide and seek"
game and classical "blame-game" its quite natural that violations of
the T&Cs often stem from their sides. But India's responses to Pak's
military erection should be more prudent and more responsible
keeping in reckoning it's international stature. After all can we
afford to be as irresponsible as pak, as draconian as China,as
selfish as USA and deaf to our own ethos and appeal of non-violence
and "PANCH-SHEEL".
India and Pakistan War.Shall we call it as a 3rd world war?A World War involving Asia.As endorsed by the Author,the time has come to mull over the consequences of this war if it happens.Surely,the losers will be the pakistanis and the hindustanis,AS Nuclear War is imminent.So,this causality of War and Nuclear War should be dealt internationally.India has always tried to offer an olive branch to the Paks,which the Paks have considered and ascertained as an ACT OF HUMILIATION AND MOCKERY.India has always maintained its NO-FIRST-GO policy and every Indian including me firmly believes this hypothesis.But,Pakistanis have never promised the same and will never do the same.Always ebullient with the support of USA and China ,they always try to instigate the cold relationship into fire.The reason lies behind the cloak of democracy which Paks are wearing.So,internationally some efforts should be entertained.
As a Pakistani, I believe that both countries should renounce their nuclear weapons programs We both have too many malnourished and uneducated people to take care of
is India enough capable to handle situation if pakistan use nuclear
weapoons against us?? What is the role of China in Indo-Pak nuclear unstability?
nice article, but i think author should also have advocated for both the countries to sign CTBT. which can act as one of prominent grounds in CBM to avoid use of nuclear arsenals. Not only it will help in removing the ambiguity but also both nation can send a clear message of non-usage of nuclear bombs/devices during war.