It is an interesting paradox that many of us indulge in anti-national activities without any qualm but adopt a very self-righteous posture when it comes to taking position with respect to some international issue or a foreign country.
Espionage activities or helping another country at the cost of one’s own country are easily recognisable as anti-national activities. However, other anti-social activities such as corruption, adulteration etc that strike at the foundations of a nation get blurred and not counted in that genre.
It is a fact that nationalism started taking roots in our country much later, compared to the European countries or even Japan or Korea. The heroic acts of martyrdom truly happened for the first time when some Indians started avenging the killings at Jalianwala Bagh and some other wanton acts of the British. It is not really a matter of pride that stories of heroics are found less in our history. This statement is not to undermine the intense patriotism displayed by many Indians from time to time from ordinary folks to defence personnel of great character.
But the paradox being referred here is to draw a contrast between indulging in corruptions (read anti-national) and not having maturity to raise a voice where State action seemed to be suspect from international humanitarian angle. We may give example of some major international events that have been opposed or even resisted by shades of public opinion in some other countries on humanitarian grounds. The Vietnam War was regularly resisted and protested against in the USA. There is abundant literature written by Americans exposing the excesses of the US in Vietnam War and the culpability of American administration in that human tragedy or bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There is sufficient literature regarding American support to Mujahedeen during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and creating the Frankenstein, Osama Bin laden. The Iraqi invasion by America was similarly protested against by scores of people on American streets. The Falkland War started by Britain was severely criticised by many intellectuals at home. There would be many other instances where acts of intervention in foreign countries have been severely criticised not only by political opposition but also by thinking people of those countries.
let’s refer to Dr Stellan Vinthagen, a Swedish academician who launched serious campaign against Bofors deal. He went on to criticise his own country for what he called “perverse profit making and making money by exporting war’’. He launched picketing at the site form where Bofors guns would be exported and also tried to stop the manufacturing. He was sent to jail. lest we forget, despite many excesses of the Imperial rule, there were many sympathetic voices in that country to the Indian Cause. However, any display of such internationalism would be considered no less than sacrilege in our country.
The example could be our intervention in Bangladesh in 1971 or sending the peace keeping force to Sri lanka in 1980s. These were bold steps, calculated to protect geo-political interests of India and definitely right from our perspective. But why was the other voice missingIJ Well-researched literature is available now, showing blunders committed by the deployment of peace keeping force in Sri lanka — including death of large number of Indian soldiers. less contrary opinion is perhaps advanced about the war fought by India to liberate Bangladesh. Maybe, we were right there or did no wrong. But the fact remains that in both these major international conflagrations where Indian forces were involved, no voice was raised then against the State action. But more importantly, any such voice would have been fiercely targeted as traitor’s voice; pointing any question mark on these moves would have invited the charge of treason. It is this intellectual maturity that is missing from the mainstream thinking.
Two illustrations can be cited for making the point clear. Recall dissenting voices of Arundhati Roy and Vir Sanghvi. Both have different political orientations but their views seemed to converge on the issue of J&K. But while the former was scathingly critical of Indian forces and guilty of making politically incorrect statements, the latter reacted more like in desperation. Vir Sanghvi has not ventured out into further indiscretion, and has been kind of let off. Roy stands quite marginalised for holding her radical views. We may further stretch the self-destructiveness of such positions by referring to lK Advani’s visit and statements in lahore and certain references made by Jaswant Singh in his book. These two senior leaders stand marginalised in the national political scenario.
So the lesson is clear. Indulge in huge corruption that harms and weakens the nation from within and yet occupy positions of power, richness and eminence but avoid the risk of resorting to intellectual honesty or airing opinion that is politically incorrect.