Metaphysics of Peace and Retirement Syndrome

Columnist Dr SM RAHMAN takes the “psychological” route to Nirvana.

Peace is an elusive goal and yet humans find it comforting to dream about it. A great poet (late) Feraq Gorakhpuri - one of the finest ones in modern Urdu Ghazal, wrote a couplet:

Dekha to deti hai behtar hayat ke sapne

Kharab ho kay bhee yeh zindagi kharab naheen

(It lets you atleast have a dream of better days;

The life even though ‘bad’, is no that bad after all)

 General Omar Bradley of US Army who led the Normandy invasion and contributed to the defeat of Germany in World War II, made a very profound statement, in 1948 on the occasion of Armistice Day: ‘Ours is a world of knowledge without wisdom, of power without conscience. We know more about killing than we know about living, more about war than, we know about peace’. About USA, he made a very uncomplimentary comment: ‘We are a nation of nuclear giants but ethical infants.’ Could USA, be otherwise with such enormous power that it wields? Perhaps ‘no’, as per Lord Acton’s famous dictum, there is an inherent element of absolute corruptibility about absolute power. Roosevelt also made a similar prediction: ‘You can not organize civilization around the core of militarism and the same time expect reason to control human destiny.’ History of war, however is essentially a history of suppression of ‘reason’.

The unpredictability of a nation, is much more pronounced than of individuals. ‘Just as they live beyond their financial means’, says Sloane Coffin, ‘so also do nations live beyond their ethical means’. He further contends: ‘Actually the United States and the Soviet Union did both in the 1980s, they went into extra-ordinary debt by pursuing an arms race that gambled recklessly with the fate of humanity. It is, in fact, little short of miracles that the world has so far been spared of a nuclear weapons exchange or accident, for which it is no more prepared than was the Soviet Union for the meltdown at Chernobyl or the United States for Exxon’s ecological disaster in Prince William Sound - which is to say, of course, that nations tend to live also beyond their rational means.’

Why did such ‘insight’ fail to tame power propensity of nations, is an intriguing question, but it appears that the inherent ‘wickedness’ of the homosapian, impels one to assume the delusion of controlling events, and assuming the authority for channelising power to destroy lives, which only God has the authority to do so as He is the only creator. The British historian, Herbet Butterfield brings this human sinful predisposition into focus: ‘The hardest strokes of heaven fall upon those who imagine they can control things in a sovereign manner as though they were kings of the earth playing Providence not only for themselves but for the far future ... gambling on a lot of risky calculations in which there must never be a single mistake.’ This is a symptom of overly inflated ego. But the same human when he relinquishes the seat of power, the conscience makes him realize the folly of conceit and the utter futility of holding an image of infallibility.

Robert Lifton in his profound essay - Imagining the Real: Beyond the Nuclear ‘End’, describes the phenomenon, which he calls the retirement syndrome. He mentions that Admiral Rickover - the father of Americans nuclear Navy - when he was forced to retire at age of eighty-one, made a confessional statement: ‘I think, we’ll probably destroy ourselves and added, ‘I’m not proud of the part I played’. The author concludes: ‘One has to assume psychologically that the man-weapons constellation is so pervasive while a person is in office, the pattern of nuclearism is so dominant, that the world is seen through a prism of nuclear weapons and therefore nuclear weapons-centered policies are promulgated. At the moment of retirement, however, a person can take a step back and, prodded by conscience, voice doubts that were previously suppressed.’

President Eisenhower, made an ethical speech, denouncing military industrial complex, which through an unholy alliance, was promoting the Arms sale to the impoverished world. He said: ‘Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents in a final sense a theft from those whohunger and are not fed, from those, who are cold and are not clothed’. He was essentially voicing his post-retirement sentiments. In contrast, one can see how American President Bill Clinton - during the first tenure of his office made a boastful proclamation: ‘US Arms has been able to strengthen our world-wide market share through the efforts of our arms export and production team. Our marketing division - the Pentagon, the State Department and the Commerce Department ... has worked .. to expand international markets and sustain our industrial base.’ Eisenhower and Clinton, therefore depict two different mind-sets; one, a dehumanized sensibility, and the other tempered with quintessential values of life; a sort of ‘in-office’, and ‘out-of-office’ orientations - dichotomy between ‘power’ and ‘compassion’. The question is, can the prospects of ‘peace’ be bright in the world, under the dialectics of opposing valences?

It goes without saying that peace being a sublime value, must be encouraged from whatever source it emanates and for whatever reasons. Even the scientists who were so enthusiastic about making atomic bombs later repented and sought atonement for their sin by disassociating themselves with such diabolical activities. Robert Oppenheiner, maker and supporter of nuclear weapons, simply refused to cooperate in making the second generation weapons. What is intended to convey is that the proponents of ‘peace’ either they be retired soldiers or typical diplomats, known for their dexterous acumen in stalling peace negotiations and not budging an inch, from their frozen attitudinal postures, of course with some rare exceptions, are conscious of their obduracy in the past. In India-Pakistan context, such messengers of ‘peace’ are abundantly busy through what is generally termed Track Two Diplomacy steered through Neem-Rana, Balusa or other institutionalized sources. Any track is good enough provided norms of justice are not compromised and precedence is not set where ‘might’ is the ultimate arbiter, and ‘right’ is reduced a mere rhetoric, or a proselytizing subject. Such ‘peace’ overtures, therefore would be nothing beyond bringing intrinsic satisfaction for those engaged in seeking symptomatic relief rather than uprooting the malady from its roots. It is not intended to cast aspersions or to doubt their motives and genuine concerns. One would also wish them success, but the morbidity, which vitiates the South Asian climate and Indo-Pak relations in particular, require commitment to put the Track One on the right track. A convergence of approach, between the peoples’ and official channels, must be the essential objective and short-circuiting issues and ignoring the conflict breeder - the Kashmir issue - would be ostrich-like-modalities.

One highly decorated Indian Lieutenant General (Retd). Dr. M. Chibber, known for being a ‘hero’ of Siachen, from Indian perspective, spent three ‘worthwhile weeks’, in Pakistan lately, along with his lady wife Dr. M. L. Chibber. According to him, he has ‘poured his hearts on paper’, in the form of an article, a copy of which he has sent to me, for which I am very grateful. I do wish that retired Generals join the peace-band-wagon. Even late General Sundarjee, the architect of Brass Tacks, became an ardent advocate of peace. One would expect that very soon the present Chief of the Indian Army - General V P Mullick - who propounded the idea of limited war, would also be a valuable addition to this group after he retires in September 2000.

Air Marshal (Retd) Kaul was also a recent visitor to Pakistan, for the same objective, and even more recently retired diplomats and foreign secretaries of the stature of M. K. Rasgotra and Salman Haider and others made very valuable inputs, for building a congenial peace climate in the region. All these are fine. My submissions by way of rejoinder to the esteemed ‘peace scholars’, from across the border, particularly General (Retd) Chibber, who has dealt with the subject quite at length, are as follows:

• All religions, in essence, serve the cause of humanity. In fact, the whole Islam mystic (soofi) tradition is full of compassion for humanity. The last Prophet if Islam (PBUH) is essentially a messenger of peace for the entire humanity and our popular Urdu poet - Sikh by origin - Kunwar Singh Bedy was very right when he objected to the monopolistic right of the Muslims over the Prophet (PBUH): (Muhammad pa kisi ka ijara to naheen). Therefore, what General Chibber mentions about the apostle of peace - Sai Baba; who operates from Puttar Parthi, near Banglore (India) - is in fact, the torch bearer of great mystic tradition. From time to time, such reformers do come to unite humanity as one family and propagate love as a great integrator. We Pakistanis, would fully endorse his views and support his mission.

• Jihad is a value-loaded word, and thoroughly misunderstood. It’s religious connotations are specific, and all wars and ‘violence’ cannot be subsumed under this label. Internecine war between Iraq and Iran certainly does not fall in this category. The Kashmir uprising however, where 70,000 people have sacrificed their lives cannot be for mundane and worldly motives. It is altogether a different transcendental dimension of human existence, where life is an obligation - a commitment. Therefore, the Indian strategic thinkers must not try to label it as an act of terrorism. It amounts to degrading people, who live for ideals. Moreover, acts of desperation, occur only when all roads are blocked and hell is let loose through massive number of soldiers engaged in acts of oppression on people who pine for freedom. It is to be borne in mind that President Kennedy once said: ‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.’

• It is not within the competence of Pakistan to quell the Kashmiri uprising. The ball is in India’s court. This patent reality must be borne in mind. The dynamics of revolution develops its own momentum. Advani himself is on record to admit that between 1990 and January 1999, ‘as many as 1008 foreign militants were killed [in Indian Held Kashmir] among whom were included 266 Pakistanis and 157 Afghans’. When the territorial dimension of conflict starts expanding, it escalates into unpridictable proportions.

• A good deal propaganda bonanza is being made of the Kargil issue. The theme is: but for Kargil, every thing was going right. Actually it is a gross over-simplification. Kargil is a symptom of a greater malady. It is not a cause. If India has encountered a trauma, as Air Marshal Kaul, contended, Pakistan has gone through series of traumas, right from its inception, and there is no point recounting them, as these are well known facts of history.

• A good deal of fetish is being made of Line of Control - LOC. The so called sanctity of LOC is the theme which even Clinton administration also seem to support, in view of the new strategic partnership which is developing between USA and India. LOC can never be sacrosanct. It is only an interim arrangement to defuse conflict. Any permanency to it tantamounts to ‘legalizing’ the status quo and the forceful occupation.

• A pet theme is that let history be left behind. Fine, who wants to carry the heavy load of history? But the deeper reality is lost sight of. Actually, what is ‘present’, contains within it what is called the ‘past.’ The two cannot be separated from each other, unless credible manifestations through actions, change perceptions. It has happened in the case of European Union. Some such modalities are needed to bring about restructuring of attitudes - not mere rhetoric and sermons.

• General Chibber taking support from Pakistan’s Friday Times; analysis, which he terms as ‘truth’ with regard to changing perception of National Security in Pakistan, he quotes the editor: ‘Pakistan, committed to changing the Status Quo, adopted a posture of permanent confrontation with India ... Pakistan’s ideology became India-centric. It’s text books, indoctrinated the nation in favour of security paradigm of permanent confrontation. The penal code was amended to equate opposition to the anti-Indo ideology with treason.’ Notwithstanding the hyperbolic overtones, even if one were to accept the so called ‘truth’, the question to ask is, what propelled Pakistan to adopt such a strategic posture. The answer must be sought by the Indian mind through a deeper self-introspection. Faced with horrendous security situation, what option Pakistan was left with? Accommodation, compromise, adjustment were the basic imperatives of a nascent state of Pakistan -  for its very survival. These proved absolutely of no avail.

• On the partition issue, General Chibber, gives full intellectual weitage to the so called British-hand-hypothesis in the making of Pakistan. If at all it was uni-causual why must the role of Jawaharlal Nehru, who sabotaged the Cabinet Mission Plan be completely ignored? If the British wanted Pakistan,  would it be a moth-eaten one? In the post-1857 India, it is no secret that the British were more favourably inclined towards Hindus rather than Muslims.

• One would acknowledge the ‘power of one man one vote’, as General Chibber so passionately mentions, but he must not lose sight of the fact that it is through this that India’s Secular colour has turned into Saffron - a frightening upsurge of Hindu militant frenzy, dismantling mosques, churches and rendering lives of minorities one of perpetual dread and trepidation. Pakistan has no doubt failed to evolve a respectable and viable political culture, and it indeed is a cause for concern, but its people have never shown predilection for voting any radical party with obscurantist agenda. To quote Rahul Shivshanker - Indian conscientious thinker - who wrote in Times of India: ‘The fact that the electorate in Pakistan has time and again rejected radical Islamic parties is by itself reason enough for India and the international community to engage Pakistan.’ The General himself admits that [more] women are wearing burqa in Delhi, Lucknow and even Bombay than in Rawalpindi, Lahore and Karachi. How can then Pakistan be a fundamentalist state?

There may be many points, on which one may differ with General Chibber and others, but not on the desirability of peace through dialogue. Its resumption is an absolute must, and failure to do so would be nightmarish for the region. Let the people at the helm of power in India, sieze the opportunity, and help extricate the region from the colossal degradation and deprivation. South Asia, may pride itself for having two nuclear powers, but it remains a ghetto of the world. Elizabeth-I - the Queen of England, had once described Russia as a ‘crow with peacock feathers’. It is more true of the twain - India and Pakistan!