By Aneela Shazad
There have been comparisons between the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars, but scarcely from the lens of the victims themselves. For those whose shattered lives have remained invisible under a thick blanket of media blackout, and for whom there is no hope of progress but only a dismay of digression — how will they assess their misery amid the arrogant, unending impositions of outsiders!
Comparing Afghanistan and Vietnam should not just be an evaluation of how the US has lost in both wars, but to understand how little is gained with such a big toll of human life and suffering. Or maybe there are no gains at all!
The US had stepped inside Vietnam 10 years after the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings of WWII, and five years after the Korean War. In Korea, the US dropped an average of 800 tons daily, including 32,557 tons of napalm. The war took a toll of 2.5million on both sides and General Emmett O’Donnell ordered burning down five North Korean cities, as instructed by Washington. With this blood on their conscience, did the US decide to intervene in Vietnam. Figures from Vietnam are just as heart-sinking, with close to half a million US troops, US planes dropped eight million tons of bombs over South Vietnam — three times more than that used in the whole WWII. Use of napalm and Agent Orange, literally destroyed the whole landscape of South Vietnam. Three million Vietnamese lost their lives in this most expensive war, costing over $140 billion at that time that was eventually lost. It’s like humanity using its own dollars to kill humanity!
To begin with, the Vietnam War was meant to defeat ‘communism’, which according to president Eisenhower’s ‘Domino Theory’, was going to engulf the whole of Southeast Asia if Vietnam was to fall — when the real goal was to regain control over the French colonial estate of Indochina that was slipping away like all other colonies after WWII. Following the pattern, the US created two enemies in Afghanistan, firstly, the vice of ‘Islamist terrorism’, which aimed at destroying the West’s ‘way of life’ and second, the Taliban, which it branded as the ‘totalitarian Shariah regime’ that was especially discriminatory against women. In both wars the US pledged to bring the bliss of democracy to the totalled people of these states.
Yet the first thing the US did in both states was to ensure a permanent divide that would result in prolonged war. Vietnam was divided into North and South, with a puppet regime of the anti-Communists, Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem instated in the South, who was flown in from the US two weeks before becoming the prime minister. Again, this is not dissimilar to the selection of Hamid Karzai, who was made chairman of the interim government of Afghanistan, in December 2001, in the Bonn Agreement in Germany, before being instated in Afghanistan. Karzai was to patronise the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, which were till that time two similar entities fighting against foreign influence. This injected, stranger regime, was seen as alien by the majority and the divide was created.
The course of the two wars has also been similar, the Vietcong had applied guerrilla warfare, resorting to ambushes, booby traps and the tactic of vanishing quickly in the local population, tunnels and the thick jungles. These techniques made it impossible for the US forces to encounter the enemy, forcing them to resort to mass killing. American troops conducted a series of ‘Search and Destroy’ missions, wherein they located, bombed and destroyed the supply lines of the Vietcong, forcing them to come into open combat while the US Generals began measuring their success by the number of dead. But in spite of such a huge death count, the Vietcong won only because it kept on persisting, because this was their home and that they had to stay and the US had to leave, sooner or later.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban hide away in the arid and hilly terrain, crisscrossed with pathways and natural caves that are only familiar to the local tribesmen. If the US had reckoned from the past that ‘the guerrilla wins if he does not lose and the conventional army loses if it does not win’, it would have ensured a quick retreat from Afghanistan. But 17years, and over a trillion dollars spent, the war has turned into an unascertainable ‘mission creep’ for the US, while the Taliban have taken the time to adapt to the advanced capabilities of its enemy. According to a 2013 research, the Taliban units were conducting ‘complex ambushes that demonstrated fire control, fire discipline, interlocking fields of fire, combined arms, fire and manoeuver, anti-armour tactics, cover and concealment, and defence in depth’. And the Taliban Red-Units are said to have occupied the night-space that was previously thought of as a US Special Forces’ domain.
The ‘Search and Destroy’ missions of Vietnam have been duly replaced by ‘Sweep and Clear’ missions in Afghanistan. These help a lot in recollecting revanchism and strengthening the resolve to fight back. The enemy, the US had created in its imagination was something like a detached, hated other, that could be marked out from the local people, but unfortunately that was not the case, it turned out that the Taliban are the sons and brothers of the people and their loss is mourned.
Another factor that the US miscalculated in both wars was their idea that they could create local armies that would fight the freedom fighters on their behalf, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) in Vietnam and the Afghan National Army (ANA) in Afghanistan. But neither of these armies ever achieved the resilience needed to fight one’s own people for the victory of a foreign occupier, nor have the instated regimes that were supposedly helping in promoting ‘democracy-building’, ever gained the acceptability that would entail a true democracy or reconstruction.
In fact, the Vietcong guerillas were seen as fighting an existential war and a war of national reunification and a freedom-fight against occupiers and this is exactly how the Afghans in general tend to look at the Taliban. In the passing years, the Taliban have moved away from their previous harsh image, a fact depicted in Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar’s 67-article code of conduct for his fighters that ordered them to protect the civilian population. The Taliban have also stopped burning down schools or opposing vaccination campaigns and health clinics.
So, had the US learnt from the Vietnam War, a handful of insurgents would not have held the country in a stalemate for 17 years. Today, for any kind of peace to be achieved, the US is having to approach the Taliban — but this approach is seldom wholehearted, as the US has been trying to create divide between Taliban sections — this has been more damaging. The US has to understand that eventually it will have to take little and give more, and leave amicably, because even though it is the world’s strongest military, it is sitting in someone else’s home.
The contours of contest ahead
By Mahesh Rangarajan
This summer will see a carnival of democracy in the general election. Much has changed in just five years. The elan of Narendra Modi’s party is more muted this time. Last weekend, key opponents, the Samajwadi Party and the BahujanSamaj Party, joined forces in Uttar Pradesh, making the contest real and not a walkover. The Index of Opposition Unity cannot predict outcomes but no one can afford to ignore it.
The Congress’s victories in the Assembly elections in three north Indian States have given it a shot in the arm. Equally important, the older party is firming up alliances in the southern States. The 131 Lok Sabha seats in five States (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Telangana) and two Union Territories (Lakshadweep and Puducherry) have been critical to it in times of trouble.
The Telangana poll outcome was sobering for both the large national parties. Regional nationalism is not new to Indian politics: Jammu and Kashmir and Tamil Nadu were precursors. Regional formations have long governed West Bengal, Odisha and now Telangana. They may well hold the keys to power in New Delhi.
In 2014, it was the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that led in securing allies. Between then and now, BJP president Amit Shah has helped expand its footprint. Not only does it have more MLAs than the Congress, but its cadre fights every election like there is no tomorrow.
The challenge lies elsewhere. The Congress may have lost in 2014 and come down to a historic low of less than one in five votes cast. Yet, only a decade age, in May 2009, the roles had been in reverse. It was Congress that had then polled 29% and the BJP just 19% of the popular vote.
This time is different. It is 1971 that will be the textbook case for the ruling party. When the Grand Alliance said it would oust Indira Gandhi, she replied she wished to banish poverty. She won hands down.
Mrs. Gandhi did not have to contend with a powerful Dalit-led formation in the Ganga valley which commands 20% of the vote. Many of today’s regional parties were yet to be formed. She captured the public imagination. It was a gamble and she won hands down. Mr. Modi too will fight to the last voter. He will try to be the issue. He has sounded the tocsin against dynasty, caste and corruption. Hence the record in getting visible benefits to the individual and the family. The gas cylinder, the light bulb, that rural road: each will, he hopes, add to his appeal.
History has another instance too. The 2004 general election was held early. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was confident that ‘India was Shining’. The dream came apart on counting day. Rather than a unified Opposition (for there was none in the all-important State of Uttar Pradesh), ground-level discontent denied the ruling alliance another chance.
And yet, there is the cloud of the horizon. Even in 2004, the Congress was only a whisker ahead of the BJP — just seven seats more in the Lok Sabha. The Congress had 145 seats to the BJP’s 138. The key was on the ground, where the mood had shifted. The economic upturn began in 2003, but voters did not see gains early enough for the ruling bloc to reap an electoral harvest.
In 2014, the challenger drew on the tiredness with a decade of a Congress-led government and promised a fresh start. Runaway inflation and the spectre of corruption undercut the appeal of the Congress. This time the issues have changed. It is the squeeze on farm incomes and rural debt that are the key poll planks. Similarly, the issue of jobs is more pressing than ever. Cultivators across all strata and young people seeking productive employment want answers.
Two States are key. Maharashtra, a State critical in the histories of both the Congress and the BJP, is not only seeing a coming together of Opposition forces; it is undergoing drought and rural distress. Ominously, key farmer-led allies have walked across. Uttar Pradesh, a bastion of the BJP, has rival Dalit- and Mandal-led parties coalesce for the first time in a quarter century. Both States have something in common. In both, sugarcane cultivation is a determinant of electoral fortunes.
Cane (not caste) and jobs (not community slogans) may hold the key. Ganna and Naukri, not reservations or the emotive Mandir issue. What matters more: bread or identity? Even when both count what takes precedence?
Government policy has had a key role in this denouement. By according priority to consumers in cities (who want low prices for cereals, oil seeds and pulses), the government did not have to pay heed to rural residents who need to earn more. The latter, as producers, are larger in number and percentage than in any other democracy.
India still lives and votes in its villages. Under Mr. Shah, the cadre, organisation and outreach have made the BJP a vastly larger party than any other. But economic policies can strain such organisational gains.
Democracy is about more than development. In a polity where people can throw their rulers out, it is centrally about politics. Since 1999, there has been a bi-nodal system, and the choice is not simply between Mr. Modi and Congress president Rahul Gandhi.
We have effectively a one-party government with a firm hand on the wheel (but with the danger of an over-centralisation of power).
Against this, is ranged a looser coalition in which regional forces and rural interests have more play. Needless to add, the latter will be rockier, more contentious and tough to manage in a coherent fashion.
The Modi government is driven by ideology and not pragmatism on a range of issues. This is the first ever BJP government with a view of culture, history and politics that seeks to remake history as much as the future. Is this the party’s agenda or the country’s? This is a question in the background: if the Ram temple issue comes to the fore, it will be a major choice for the voter.
The pluralism and Hindutva debate have another dimension more so than ever, namely the federal question. Across the Northeast (including Sikkim), far more important to the country than its 25 Lok Sabha seats indicate, the idea of citizenship is at variance with the new Citizenship Bill passed by the Lok Sabha. Across the country, State-level parties see an accretion of powers in the federal government unseen since the 1980s.
True, Mr. Modi has a wider mass appeal than any one since Mrs. Gandhi. But history is witness that such appeal can also have limits if voters decide that enough is enough. Has that point been reached? We simply do not know.
More central is the question of questions. Are you better off than you were five years ago, and if not, why not? If so, and even if not, do you think we are moving in the right direction?
In 2014, The Economist observed that if India had the per capita wealth of Gujarat, the country would rank with Spain. Has that dream come true or it is unravelling and fast? How voters answer that will show who they stand with.
(The writer is Professor of History and Environmental Studies at Ashoka University, Haryana. Source: The Hindu)
Headwinds rock Rahul, Modi
By Jawed Naqvi
Recent headlines have offered clues about the way the wind is blowing before the general elections in India. A make-or-break element in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s re-election bid in May lies in Uttar Pradesh. It was here that he swept the 2014 polls on the back of anti-Muslim blood and gore set off in Muzaffarnagar, what some in the prime minister’s choral media have praised as ‘Modi Magic’. Spurring his win in the country’s most populous state was a palpably disharmonious opposition. That may have changed this year — or has it?
Let’s quickly scour the headlines. My first story refers to the Congress party’s bizarre plan to contest all 80 parliamentary seats in UP on its own. What then becomes of the promised coalition?
The second story seemed facetious at first but it describes a crippling fallout on the BJP of its ban on slaughter of cattle in UP. The alarmed party must now contain unwanted cattle in their post-productive state when they become a load on the farmers. Will the revered holy cow be artificially inseminated to produce more cows than bulls, as the animal husbandry minister says? How serious is the looming crisis in a political season?
A fourth story is The Hindu’s damning report by a former Indian supreme court judge, which gathered dust in the vaults of the apex court for over a year, on fake encounter deaths in Gujarat. Will it haunt the BJP together with an equally strong concern expressed by UN rights officials about allegations of widespread killings in Yogi Adityanath-ruled Uttar Pradesh?
And finally, the party’s national convention addressed by Modi where he offered himself as the only choice to lead India, which needs a ‘mazbootsarkar’, a strong government. The opposition alliance can only produce a ‘majboorsarkar’, says he, a government weakened by its own political compromises.
Two of the stories should suffice to indicate the headwinds ahead. The Congress party’s announcement of fighting all seats in UP, came not surprisingly a day after the backward caste Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Dalit BahujanSamaj Party (BSP), once bitter rivals,
declared a joint campaign in 76 constituencies, leaving four for Congress, presumably. In the last vote count, BSP (22.23 per cent) and the SP (28.07pc) totalled more than BJP (41.35pc) and Congress put together. Congress is an insignificant player in UP, and its irresponsible claim to contest all seats makes it a laughing stock given the high stakes in May.
What lies behind the absurdity? The fact is that Congress, perennially described a family enterprise of the Gandhis, is actually a coalition of powerful satraps, usually but not always shored up by Mumbai businessmen.
The business clubs have a chronic allergy to the Gandhis, though they are not averse to backing a Narasimha Rao or a Manmohan Singh in Congress. The allergens are old and damning. Nehru had jailed their leading businessman for corruption, Indira Gandhi had shut their banks, and Rajiv Gandhi ordered them to get off the backs of Congress workers. The tycoons came back hard at him with the Bofors smear though.
In the recent elections in Madhya Pradesh, a local Congress chieftain deemed close to a particular business family, opposed and subverted an alliance with Mayawati’s Dalit party. Congress won but not cleanly and it needs the BSP to sustain a majority. In Uttar Pradesh, the SP has strong ties with key business families, including the one that Rahul Gandhi has named in the Rafael warplanes scandal.
Given the state of play, the young Gandhi should ideally decide whether he wants to be a compromised representative of disparate, even contrary interests as prime minister, something his satraps would like him to be. Or should he be nudging the opposition parties, bereft of common ambition, with a Nehruvian vision to forge a truly durable secular polity?
The left had done this successfully with Indira Gandhi. The model can only strengthen Congress and its essentially left-leaning mass base. See it as a Tony Blair-Jeremy Corbyn moment within the Indian equivalent of the Labour Party. Else, the system in India, a tycoon-run deep state, would continue to harness Congress satraps and the BJP in a bind that undermines the constitution’s fair promise.
Signs of disarray in the opposition should comfort the BJP, but evidently the party for the first time is looking mortally afraid of losing. From ‘Congress-free India’, Modi is now talking about ‘a weak opposition government’. There’s more evidence of panic in Omar Rashid’s story in The Hindu about a cattle market that has collapsed, about stray cows raiding UP farms as impoverished farmers abandon their hungry animals.
Explaining the dilemma, BJP’s minister for animal husbandry said: “UP is a state of small and minor farmers, with two crop seasons. For 15 days of ploughing, a farmer no longer wants to feed two bullocks all year round.” To solve the problem the government has started a sex-sorted scheme under which the chances of a cow producing a female calf would be as high as 90pc to 95pc. Simultaneously, the BJP government is imposing a 0.5pc gaukalyan (cow welfare) cess on liquor and road toll collections, besides doubling an existing 1pc levy on the incomes of wholesale produce markets. The proceeds will fund construction and maintenance of new cow pens.
While the kitten entangles itself in the ball of wool, the opposition should be taking control of the narrative. But Congress, far from offering a vision, which only it could, is saddled with its recent promise to make cow urine economically viable while discussing the grade of the Brahminical thread Rahul Gandhi wears, neither of which is part of the winning calculation for the SP and the BSP.
The social fibre is in disarray
By Tawfeeq Irshad Mir
Kashmir lost its claim to heaven a long time ago but the debate today is not about ‘why’ but ‘who’ caused the paradise to fly away, leaving behind its miserable and yet romantic claimants.Say Kashmir, and the sweet aroma of pine takes over the mind fluttering among images of valley flowers,
While the valley is brewing to shivered cold, resorting to bone ache, and suddenly you get to hear the act, that tender your muscles and your brain starts oscillating in agony. While I was on the way to home, and as usual my phone keeps on beeping with variable feeds, and at a moment my eyes stuck to a feed, mentioning that a baby was thrown outside in a cartoon enveloped in polythene, across the road from the city’s maternity hospital Lal Ded. Not the first time, I got to hear such inhuman act, previously such incidents have filled the social networking sites with tetra byte data.
Kashmir, a Conservative populace with rigid religious beliefs, where such incidents dwindle the heart, to the core and ionise in the surroundings within fraction of the second.
,,, “oh foetid soul, you aren’t a burden,
Your cravings, your presence, is sacred,
” unworthy are those, who abandon you,
,,, “you are born to take nap at the realm of GOD,
This mischievous act is on surge in Kashmir citing numerous incidents in the past, Now concerning the aetiology of this social chaos, : over the years there has been a paradigm shift in the psychological, behavioural, living style of the people inhabiting valley, leading to variant changes, pertaining to psychosexual onslaught, Now we see pre-marital sexual relations, a non-serious concern leading to apathy in the ethos of society, the ramifications of this are vivid and perturbing, the couple especially in their teen ages, moved by their sudden hormonal changes engage in sexual relationships, and in certain cases, unaware of its complications, maybe due to lack of knowledge, debarring the use of protective devices, the female counterpart conceives and remains unaware for most of the time, as fear of surroundings, the societal rejection, the client fears to express the event to parents, till she develops such symptoms, and in reaction, either they go for illegal termination of pregnancy or wait for the term to deliver remaining in isolation carried out in privacy, and later the baby is abandoned.
In certain cases, the baby delivered from legal couple, go for termination, if it’s unwanted, or a female,, called female infanticide “in Kashmir such incidents are on record where foetus laden with blood were found in toilets, on the footsteps of shrines, some years back, an abandoned baby, caught by mob of dogs was noticed outside Lal Ded hospital, such incident shocked the consciousness of people,.
Congenital defects :Every single creation of God is not futile, but I can say, a sheer ignorance, the babies who are born with genetic defects have every right to continue life, even Stephen Hawkins was born with hereditary defect, still he rose to prominence, even normal human couldn’t think ever, contributes to the cause of abandoning babies, recently a horrendous incident captivated the conscious minds of valley where a father tried to Bury his live baby, citing the reasons of poverty, that he can’t afford the care of baby born with genetic defect.
Now describing the risk factors, loosening bondages from religious acuity, problems in socialisation, faults in upbringing, difficulties in coping up with puberty, lack of education, accelerate such incidents.
The treatment is more of a belief than literal.The old age adage holds true everywhere, we should focus on preventive strategies, we should be more religious, because not a single religion advocates such horrendous act, be more conscious when you go for such a relationship, we should profoundly act on such incidents, awareness schedule should be set up,
We need to develop legal resolutions for those abandoned, because we have many childless couples, so as to create balance.
Certainly at the end, those who abandon live births, are abandoning the humanity, the moment they opt for such gigantic mischief, they turn into wilds, and their ability to be human seizes.
(The writer is perusing graduation in Nursing at GMC, Srinagar. He can be reached at: [email protected])