Geo-strategic Imperatives for India

The term ‘Known Unknowns’, hitherto fore unheard of in India, and definitely not in the Indian strategic context, is a clarion call for Indian strategists to wake up to the reality of a post modern scenario where the severity of multifarious situations poses new and inexplicable dangers to the very sovereignty of the nation; if unheeded, it threatens to annihilate the very concept of united India as we know it. An initial look did surprise us of the extent to which the Indian establishment chose to ignore or conveniently overlook such very real possibilities. 

We try and put down some thoughts garnered from this perspective; the factual information has been gleaned from very public sources of information and nothing written in succeeding paragraphs purports to be classified at all. In fact such is the free flow of information in contemporary times that it is shocking at times how “frog-in-the-well” our entire attitude has been; though equally encouraging is the role being played by an ever increasingly aware media and the growth of strong, democratic and independent thought which has an increasing influence on public thought and policy & decision making.

Another imperative for prompting such thought is that the world today is no longer a place where entire countries can choose to exist in seeming isolation. Severally connected and hinged economies often give rise to the term ‘shrinking world’, and not without reason. Such has the interdependence of trade and commerce become that it is no longer possible to survive singly. The other facet to this rule is the fact that policies, not only foreign but domestic as well, need to be shaped and re-shaped with each shift in the global tide. Often clarity of thought and purpose is lost in the intertwining of so many factors contributing towards fashioning the strategic and national aims of a country; this especially true when the focus is on new concepts and fresh ideas. As in the post-crisis business world, innovation seems to be the key word.

Concept of Known Unknowns and Relevance in the Indian Context

The concept of Known Unknowns has been studied and written about by Nathan Freier for the US Army War College. It is essentially unconventional strategic shocks in defence. Such shocks that by their sheer strategic impact, surprise and the potential for disruption and violence, they would demand the focused attention of defence leadership, as well as the decisive employment of defence capabilities in response. The US found 9/11 and the events after that catastrophe challenging for its defence establishment, but according to Lt Col Freier, a strategically dislocating surprise would be next, and just around the corner. And sure enough, we have a global war against the Islamic State, which is now threatening to turn into a new cold war between the US and Russia owing its dimensional shift in Syria. What with so many imponderables as Iran, North Korea, and even its failure in Afghanistan and its inability to deal with the Taliban in frontier districts of Pakistan, could the ‘strategically dislocating surprise’ come from this part of Asia? Could the stand off between India and Pakistan, both nuclear states be the catalyst to reorient strategy, investment and missions in so far as the US is concerned? Given that unconventional challenges lie definitely outside the realm of traditional war fighting, does not necessarily mean that it is non-violent, non-state, or unorganized.

Risks to national security which may not be fully anticipated or predicted would thus constitute Known Unknowns; that they exist can be conceived but yet they are not being imagined or expected. Defence strategy usually faces the critical flaws of being reactive in nature and lacking imagination. This is attributed to the otherwise strict hierarchical controls owing to the nature of the job; it however leaves strategy planning and decisions susceptible and vulnerable to surprise. Aversion to institutional change is another key factor. Yet the Known Unknowns stretch conventional wisdom to such an extent that it becomes difficult to ferret out a likely and suitable response, whereas their broad and fundamental implications rise and mature fast leaving little room for the system to adjust itself to the strategic and inherent changes. Concepts face the challenge of change and existing paradigms are questioned; prevailing strategy and assumptions are undermined leaving strategists little choice but to venture into uncharted territory.

What does this concept mean for India? The relevance of such disruptive and strategic shocks would find its roots in the very nature of India’s sub continental environment and the rapidly changing global economic scenario, which forces India to look into newer and unexpected areas of likely conflict. Given the history of animosity that engulfs the country historically, it becomes that much more a lucrative target for various sections of neighbouring establishments. Also with the rapid economic growth of modern India and its increasing clout in global affairs, it needs to forge new and meaningful relationships to further strengthen and consolidate its own position on the world stage. In drawing a parallel to the US, India has had its share of challenges like 26/11 and every new day announces new stories of insurgent and naxalite violence. China and Pakistan continue to be painful thorns in the side, and with both neighbours taking a hostile stand, the security establishment has its work cut out for it. Central Asia has always been strategically important and in the last three decades has faced intense turmoil with it being the new arena for wars, conflicts, socio-political changes and mushrooming religious fundamentalists. Its proximity to India and the vulnerability associated with it, should give a new focus to our policies, both domestic and foreign. New avenues for meaningful dialogue need to be explored and all available means of ensuring territorial integrity and the security of Indian citizens will have to be undertaken. Above all, conceptual framework should be reinforced with a strong military establishment, and a proactive doctrine. Indian strategists will do well to always be on their toes, since most state and non state antagonists are unlikely to change or just disappear; instead they may find new and innovative means to bleed the Indian behemoth.

Points to Ponder for the Indian Political and Defence Establishments

What is India’s geo-strategy?  What are its regional and global objectives? Is there focus on forming a coherent long term strategy or are we just blundering our way about international diplomacy? All these questions and more need to be answered by the Indian polity and thereafter the defence hierarchy. Endemic to the Indian system where the military functions as an arm of and under a civilian government, is the greater role played by the polity and the bureaucracy, in formulating policies. The defence establishment which implements these policies also needs to be given greater autonomy as also an implicit faith imposed in their ability to function apolitically, yet at the same instance provide valuable inputs to further governmental policies. Such a move has historically has been viewed with apprehension by the civilian establishment (and indeed, the sub-continent is rife with enough examples, both Pakistan and Bangladesh being cases in point). However this would also pave the way for flexibility and innovation in the functioning of the defence forces and thereby reduce the chances of getting shocked strategically!

In the regional context of the sub-continent, we continue to face relentless attack by subversive forces under various garbs. Does the fact that a country which is not only one eighth of the Indian landmass, but has been carved out of it, continues to implement strategy with impunity with the sole aim of bleeding India, tell us something? Are we indeed unable to deal with this imbalance for almost 70 years? Where dialogue and diplomacy may not work due to the inherent nature of the Pakistani mindset (it has always found itself threatened by India), can we switch tracks and look at such an infusion of economics, that it will becomes impossible for Pakistan to ignore the impact and therefore be forced to change its policies, or at least reign in those non state players who work towards subversion in Indian territory?

Where China has had the liberty of implementing various policies to bring it to the point of being an economic giant, India has been progressing too, albeit ponderously. On the one hand is the vibrancy of the Indian democracy and on the other is the lack of political will to implement measures for growth. These have in fact worked to further China’s subversive strategies, giving it a perfect platform to fuel naxalism inside Indian territory. Indeed, the growth story in India sometimes seems to be despite the government, not because of it! With its economic status well cemented, China also harbours ambitions of being a global power militarily. To that end, it has made rapid strides in bringing in technology and upgrading the fighting capabilities of its forces. It postures more frequently in a threatening manner, based on its historic border disputes with India. The recent spate of military/ naval posturing in the Indian Ocean region, the South China Sea, and the upcoming China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or the new Silk Route, are all signs of muscles being flexed by the Chinese dragon. However there seems to be little or no response and definitely a complete lack of coherent and well thought out strategy on our part. This is further taken as a sign of weakness and exploited increasingly. Alarming reports suggest that China has managed to slowly extend its hold over disputed border territory. Its increasing military clout is evident from its growing presence in the Indian Ocean which is essential to China’s projection of its power, but also a potential threat to Indian interests. What are we doing about these issues? At the end of the day, we do not have any cogent long term strategy in place and only now and very slowly waking up and gearing ourselves for a potential conflict with China. In its quest for energy and petroleum globally, China seems to succeed much more than does India. The infusion of Chinese funds into African economies and the number of successful bids in Central Asia and Africa for oilfields, is surely putting China in a more secure position by the day. Even the conduct of the Beijing Olympics in 2008 was meant to announce its arrival on the global stage. Surely these issues need to be examined.

Traditionally India held its non aligned status (but with a dash of convenience thrown in) through the Cold War years. With the break up of the USSR and the US emerging as the single and uncontested global hegemon, India found itself drawn into a closer relationship with the US. On its part the US also cannot ignore the rapid growth of Indian economy and has shown all signs of positive engagement with us. Yet, as they say in diplomat-speak, ‘There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests’. Contradictory to its engagement with India, the US continues to indirectly fuel conflict in the sub-continent through its policies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. To be fair to the US, it is unable to deal with its own creation (yet again!) and therefore cannot afford the collapse of the Pakistani establishment (and the nuclear dimension to boot!) and the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It then becomes incumbent on India to initiate positive relations by whatever means possible. Ultimately, Indian interests must be supreme for India and going by the analogy of permanent interests, it too should re-examine all avenues for its growth, security and consolidation of status. Post the economic meltdown in 2008 the US found itself more and more dependent on economies with strong growth. And what better candidate than a democracy (surrounded by all other forms of governance) with tremendous prospects in the foreseeable future. The question therefore is where are we headed in our relations with the US? Can all these positives not be leveraged to bring about a change in our regional equations? Policies may not change overnight, but concerted efforts would at least pave the way for a brighter future. 

Indian capabilities both overt and covert face the prospect of erosion due to the lack of coherent long term strategies and egoist polity and bureaucracy, which resists the very idea of fresh infusion in thought processes. A paradigm shift in our outlook based on where our national interests lie is essential to the continued economic success and to obviate any possibility of attacks on our security and territorial integrity. It is therefore of paramount importance that a proactive and consistently innovative approach be adopted to geo-strategic concerns. Such a move would invariably herald the renaissance of India.

                                                                                

Authors : Amitabh Hoskote, PHD (Development & Conflict Studies) & Vishakha Amitabh Hoskote, MA, MPHIL (International Relations, Political Science & Development Communication)

How Realistic are Wars and the New Geopolitical Structure

“Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the ineluctable tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action. And it is unwilling to gloss over and obliterate that tension and thus to obfuscate both the moral and the political issue by making it appear as though the stark facts of politics were morally more satisfying than they actually are, and the moral law less exacting than it actually is.” Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realist (1904-1980)

The realignment of ‘Balance of Power’, in contemporary International Politics has resulted in a paradigmatic move in the Classical Realist teachings of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr and Nicholas Spykman, wherein the fulcrum of politics and political action has shifted inexorably towards Structural Realism and Security Dilemma. India’s adversarial relations with Pakistan, rising Chinese interference in South Asia, United States of America intervening in all matters of Realpolitik are all crucial components of new Security Studies and Neo Realism or Structural Realism as propounded by Kenneth Waltz and Joseph Grieco.

Classical Realists like Morgenthau held a pessimistic view of human nature. The ‘ism’ was primarily based on the realities of human nature, hunger for power, survival and how conflict was an intrinsic part of insane human nature. Hence Conflict or War was a natural phenomenon. Classical Realists dissected political action during the inter war years mostly after the second world war hence conflict became an act of individual achievements and since the state comprised of individuals, the power of the state was unchallenged or sovereign. Justice, law and society were circumscribed. Morgenthau opined that when we speak of power, we mean man's control over the minds and actions of other men. By political power we refer to the mutual relations of control among the holders of public authority and between the latter and the people at large. The shift in classical realism was witnessed in the 1980’s when Kenneth Waltz opined that it is the anarchy in International political structure that determines political action or international power structure. How power was distributed in the international political order was the crucial cog of political studies.

With the killing of Burhan Wani, a young Hizb-ul-Mujahidden operative in Kashmir, attacks in Uri, surgical strikes carried out by India to wipe out terror camps across the Line of Control (LoC) in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and China technically putting on hold the listing of Masood Azhar, the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief as an international terrorist, the security dilemma has become an inevitable and an unavoidable reality. In Syria, Bashar al Assad is receiving staunch support from Putin's Russia in the fight against ISIS, What Putin is also trying to ensure is a permanent support base in Syria as a hedge against the power of the US in the middle east. In the new Cold War between Russia and the US, the nuclear dimension is again gaining centre stage, as it is in the stand off between India and Pakistan in the subcontinent. Propaganda has indeed replaced moral philosophy. Offensive and Defensive realism has replaced classical realism. The current international political order is as anarchic as it can be with nations hedging their conventional war waging capabilities with nuclear options. 

Security Dilemma, the third dimension of Realism essentially focuses on the rising insecurities among states when one state expands its nuclear and defensive power capabilities in the name of self help or self defence. All this is based on intuition. There isn’t an actual war going on but threat perceptions are such that are used to justify defence preparedness in an era of globalisation, asymmetric threats, changing and increasingly digitized battlefields and strides in weapon technologies. The structure of international political order  is a powerful determinant of state behaviour today. Conflict studies dissect the role of this structure in carrying out research on conflict transformation and peace building. In 1979 Kenneth Waltz in his “Theory of International Politics” stated that anarchy prevents the states from entering into cooperative agreements to end the state of war. Critiquing the Idealistic theory of conflict Neo-Realists argue that structural dimensions of political order determine the trajectory of existing conflicts today.  Wheeler and Booth argued that Security Dilemma exists  when military preparations of one state determine the policies of another.

The recent cancellation of the annual summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) in Pakistan was primarily due to members refusing to attend in view of Pakistan's state sponsored terrorism. There are more and increasing demands for declaring Pakistan as a terrorist state; its isolation eminently gave rise to a new dilemma whether the political order that exists today is capable of doing so. The idea of balance of power as propounded by the realists essentially means an arrangement to control aggression but with Pakistan continuously provoking India through terrorist attacks and proxy war the entire fabric of balance of power has been distorted. The conventional superiority of India has been largely nixed by this proxy war. To add to the dilemma, Pakistan is a nuclear state with a professed 'first use' doctrine, and gets support from China, the other power aspiring to hegemon status.

In response to the terrorist attack in Uri in which 18 Indian soldiers were martyred, India conducted surgical strikes across the LoC in PoK. Pakistan conducted journalists on their side of the LoC to justify its stance that no strikes actually took place. This was followed by (according to reports in the media) the Indian Army taking a team of journalists along the Line of Control to brief them on the situation post the heavy firing across the LoC by Pakistani troops. If reports are to be believed, both countries are claiming their readiness for any eventuality post the strikes. In the narrative as it has unfolded, the role of the fourth estate in conflict scenarios can no longer be undermined. This is equally applicable in the new world order across the globe.

The history of the formation of nation states is intertwined with armed conflicts and bloodshed. War in its protieform manifestation is central to the understanding of International Relations and several other cognate disciplines. When India for example was partitioned in 1947 there were riots and an immense refugee crisis. Similar examples can be seen in the case of Israel, Palestine and all other nations grappling with ethno-national violence and the resultant bellicose tactics used by the governments to suppress such violence.

According to Clausewitz war is an extension of politics by other means .Headly Bull  defined war as organized violence carried on by political units against each other. Nations today are accelerating their defence modernisation process and conducting nuclear tests to augment their conventional capabilities for waging war. The psychological pressures by the international community including the United Nations have fairly managed to control nuclear proliferation across the globe, but this influence seems to be waning now. Both India and Pakistan are traditional adversaries and nuclear states. It is best to avoid full blown war. 

What is war? E H Carr and Hans Morgenthau had opined that nation states will go to any length   to gain power. Geopolitical wars have changed the geography of the world map. Conflicts or wars have existed since time immemorial. Gray, Kaldor, Thornton , Hoffman, Bousquet and Creveld have explored the many dimensions of war, be they hybrid, postmodern or asymmetric. War is essentially rooted in socio-political, psychological, cultural or economic inequalities. Internal conflicts such as the Naxalite movement in India are quintessential cases of resource inequality. War or conflict is more than just an act of violence. It is an action-reaction mechanism based on historical transformations of human societies.

Institutionalization of war is yet another dimension that has been a central theme of political studies and International Relations. In common parlance, Institutionalization refers to the process of embedding some conception (for example a belief, norm, social role, particular value or mode of behaviour) within an organization, social system, or society as a whole. The defence forces in India follow a structural pattern of hierarchy and the institution of the defence mechanism is guided by policy makers from the Ministry of Defence, India. The discipline of International relations was moulded to suit the objectives of the United Nations created in 1945 to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war. But some wars are never ending. They may not be a full fledged armed violence; proxy wars can disrupt the social fabric of political societies as well.

There are several dynamics of war that need to be understood to tackle internal and external disturbances. The first is to deal with economic inequality. Redistribution of wealth or dictatorship of the proletariat as crafted by Karl Marx is an important study in itself. Other factors include religious differences, territorial disputes, violence against women, gender inequality, political non representation etc. The mechanism of war is like a manipulative tool in the hands of the political establishments to suit specific interests. Analogy can be drawn in the case of the fourth estate which focuses on dramatic stories, sensationalism to increase their TRP’s. This is also a war, a war to win the first slot during primetime telecast of debates.

It is very difficult to understand the logic behind conflicts and wars; as Clausewitz opined there is a marked difference between absolute and real wars. Wars are politically motivated. Unless a just social order is put in place inter and intra state conflict will continue to plague human societies. With the disintegration of the Soviet Block in 1991, the world witnessed the rise of United States of America as the new hegemon controlling international politics. In recent years economic development and globalisation has led to many nations competing with the hegemon for their space in the international arena. India is seen as a dominant state in South Asia; the rise of the Dragon is a direct attack on America’s hegemonic superpower status and equally on India's aspirations.

New balance of power always replaces the old one. This is an important tenet of Realism. Realism therefore has not lost its relevance today. World wars may be over, but the new wave of cold war between India and its traditional adversary Pakistan has changed the dynamics of International political order.

Author: Vishakha Amitabh Hoskote, MA MPHIL (International Relations, Political Science, Development Communication)

Reference Reading:

• Clausewitz von Carl "On War" 1832 
• Aday S , The Real War Will Never Get on Television: Casualty Imagery in American Television Coverage of the Iraq War. In: Seib, P. ed. Media and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2015,Print
• Alexander, Yonah. Terrorism and the Media. Brasseys (US): Richard Lalter Inc, 1999.Print. 
• Allan Stuart and Zelizer Barbie, Reporting War-Journalism in Wartime, Taylor & Francis Ltd,United Kingdom.2004.Print 
• Hampson Osler Fen, Crocker A Chester and Aall R Pamela, Negotiation and International Conflict, (Ed) Weber Charles, Galtung Johan, Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, Routeledge, 2007,Print. 
• Forging Peace :Intervention, Human Rights and the Management of media ,Indiana University Press 2007 primarily focusses on role of media in conflict situations and impact of information intervention in escalation, de escalation of conflicts. 
• Media and Political Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 1997. This book gives an insight on the role of news media as participants in conflict. The author has analysed the role of media in the Gulf War, the Palestinian Intifada, and the attempt by the Israeli right wing to derail the Israel- Palestine Peace Accord.3 
• Constructive Conflicts-From Escalation to Resolution Louis Kriesberg and Bruce W Dayton Rowman &Little field 2011 
• Cottle,Simon, Mediatised Recognition and “The Other”, 2007,MIACP 
• Giddens, Anthony, Sociology-6th edition, “The Media”, 2009 Cambridge 
• Morgenthau Hans and Thompson W Kenneth, "Politics Among Nations" 1948

Media and the Politically Negotiated Conflict

“It just is nothing foreign to consciousness at all that could present itself to consciousness through the mediation of phenomena different from the liking itself; to like is intrinsically to be conscious.” Edmund Husserl

Voices all across the journalistic circles have elicited the response that the media plays a critical role in politically negotiated conflicts. Whether it is the uprising in Kashmir over Hizb-ul-Mujahidden  operative Burhan Wani’s death, use of pellet guns  by the forces, the K question in India Pakistan relations, the Israel Palestine conflict or the Naxalite movement in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, west Bengal and Orissa, the mediation process has been effective is some ways in establishing peace in the affected regions.

Mediation is the means by which conflict situations are addressed and catered to in order to not distort the peaceful social fabric of affected lands. Talks, dialogues, military intervention, negotiations, bilateral meetings etc are all various manifestations of mediation. One important aspect of mediation is neutrality. This is to ensure both sides of the warring factions are given a platform to present their viewpoints. The media provides this platform. Unfortunately sensationalism has overshadowed ethical journalism and hence maintaining a neutral stand and showcasing empathy for the warring factions are no longer possible. Those who take sides are branded as pseudo liberals giving rise to a fresh set of debates.

The end goal of any mediation process is conflict resolution and management. In common  parlance conflict resolution is the course of action by which two or more parties engaged in a disagreement, dispute, or debate reach an agreement to resolve the issue. Historically all confidence building measures and mediation by the United Nations has failed as Pakistan continues to create havoc on the Indian soil through terrorism and proxy wars.

What the media can do?

1.       The Media can give a voice to the warring factions to settle their dispute

2.       It can inform the government and the masses about the issue generating a constructive debate

3.       It can act as the negotiator through eminent panellists and experts suggesting measures to mitigate conflict

4.       The media can generate public opinion through digital polls aiding conflict resolution etc.

5.       Through Litigation the media can coax the judiciary to settle matters legally

6.       Media can open the gates to explore many possibilities of resolution

Mediation is essentially a third party intervention to facilitate negotiation for a mutually accepted solution.The mediation process in conflict resolution is distorted if the mediator does not maintain a neutral stand. During the cold war India chose to remain non-aligned with any of the blocs focussing on its internal and external economic growth and development. It is important to note here that the mediation process is often not time bound and can go on endlessly as in the case of Kashmir (1947). More than that, the warring factions must be willing to negotiate to reach a settlement.

Mediation essentially leads to arriving at mutually beneficial solutions for the warring factions. However the mediator may or may not be able to resolve the issue but in International Politics mediation is seen as a powerful tool that has the potential of changing the geopolitical dynamics of conflict. Clausewitz had opined that war or conflict is simply extension of politics by states using other means. Therefore it would not be incorrect to conclude that almost all conflicts are politically driven now-a-days. The channel of communication plays a pivotal role in mitigating conflict. The focus of the mediator should be on solutions and not positions.

The fourth estate has become a larger than life entity and media trials have become a norm in communication studies. But the role of mass media is both escalation and de escalation of conflict cannot be ignored. It is media that could provide a middle path to any pre existing conflict scenarios. Discussions play a key role here. The primetime television debates are designed to provide alternatives to existing conflicts through serious brainstorming sessions. Very rarely a solution has not been discussed but given the history of commercialisation of the media, neutrality has gone for a toss. We are misguided by pseudo liberal journalists.

Whether the media can play the role of the mediator, is open to subjective interpretation but given the outreach of the mass media today it surely can facilitate the negotiation process.

Indian Media-The watchdog needs to be Watched!

In the ‘Need to Know’ versus ‘Want to Know’ debate the media has crossed the boundaries of ethical journalism and has shifted its focus entirely on the TRP game. India is a dominant power in South Asia and has close ties with all nations except with its traditional adversary , Pakistan. Since 2008 onwards Pakistan has not broken the chain of terror related activities to create havoc across the Line of Control and even in the heart of India i.e. Mumbai.

With former Portuguese Prime Minister Guterres now in line for the next Chief of the United Nations, several political analysts believe India will become a permanent member of the Security Council.  Membership apart, what has happened recently is that India has carried out surgical strikes across Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) region to wipe out terror camps. China has maintained a diplomatically safe distance. China has put on hold for three months the listing of Jaish-e Mohammad (JEM) Chief Masood Azhar’s as an international terrorist. The Chinese stand on the Uri attack and surgical strike response issue is obvious. The historical escalation dynamics of conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir reveals a very chequered past.

The Indian Media is playing the role of a watchdog passing on minute by minute updates on the escalation dynamics, proudly claiming Pakistan now stands exposed, and that India has won the game. Recently in the Uri attack, 18 Indian soldiers were martyred and in response India carried out surgical strikes. The nation wanted to know what was happening so the DGMO addressed the media and informed the masses about the safe situation.

India’s qualitative shift in its approach towards diplomatic engagements with its traditional adversary was seen when SAARC meeting was postponed with all SAARC nations asking for isolating Pakistan for its continuous proxy wars and terrorist attacks on Indian soil. India has always won the game of escalation dynamics and media reports sometimes declare victory before it is actually achieved on ground.

The problem is that with the commercialisation of media houses and the corporate control on content, it becomes difficult to accept the credibility of news programs and debates. Some seem to be planted; others who report from ground zero tend to exaggerate sporadic events. Notwithstanding the fact that the media is profit driven, we still have ethical war correspondents who pass on factually correct information to the masses.

The media can act as a platform for dialogue between warring factions. It does not always play a negative role in the escalation dynamics of conflict. Sometimes this dialogue is spearheaded by analysts, experts, armchair critics and citizen journalists but moderated by business representatives or anchors who are supposed to maintain a neutral stand but take sides. An interesting twist in the tale is how these media houses are blaming each other for factually incorrect reporting, airing pro Pakistan stories. So much so that a certain section of the media branded as pseudo liberals were accused of taking pro Pakistan side when Indian soldiers were being martyred. Once again there arises a genuine need to control the content that flows through various primetime programs. 

The state has to intervene to protect the masses from jingoistic actions and reactions. Press censorship is essential in times of conflict. Unlike the emergency period when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi put a complete stop on the media today we need an institutionalised mechanism to check the outputs of news channels, digital media and the print media to save our masses from getting swayed by false reporting or dramatised recreation of violent acts leading to hatred towards the Pakistani establishment.India’s foreign policy is peace centric. We cannot have the media destroy the social fabric our country in the name of TRP.

Theorising the Media

“The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.”
James MadisonPolitical Theorist, President of the United States of America (1809–17).

Communication since time immemorial has been a dominant reality of life on earth and has aided progress, growth at each stage of historical evolution of both man and societies. Communication technology has redefined existing realities in the 21^st century. The power of new mass media was realised when terrorists hijacked planes and used them to attack the Twin Towers in New York in September 2011 and roughly a global audience of two billion people watched the attack on television in real time.[i]  Apostles of the CNN effect argue that the changing dynamics of new media has given rise to a new form of media research that revolves around the dissection of qualitative impacts of real time news coverage, and dissimination of information through diverse mediums.

Convergence in production, distribution and consumption of information has brought about profound transformations in the way we look at society and life today. Shrinking of spaces and ability to connect with others instantaneously has led to media gaining prominence as a powerful tool that can bring about remarkable changes in the world especially in times of conflict and peace.

The world today is driven by what we see, hear. The explosion in the means of communication especially the digital revolution has left a drastic impression on the way we form our perceptions about the existing world order, its socio political and economic implications.

Modern mass media essentially is a combination of information sharing tools such as radio, print, electronic and digital which have completely altered the processes of information sharing that existed before. This is rightfully echoed by Canadian Media Theorist Marshall McLuhan who argued that society today is influenced much more by the type of the media that by its content or the messages which are conveyed by it. Electronic media tends to create a ‘Global Village’ in which people all over the world witness major events unfold and thereby participate in them together.

This paper seeks to explore the many dimensions of convergence of information production, distribution and consumption.

Media discourses have undergone discernible changes in the last few decades and with changing global political order, wars, natural calamities and political mobilization a fresh approach towards understanding the functioning of Media in times of conflict and peace becomes inevitable. Equally, the need of the hour is to remember that  arbitration by juxtaposed media, however well meaning may serve to aggravate situations, inflame passions and therefore subvert or frustrate conflict resolution measures.

In all intents and purposes the mushrooming of 24x7 News Channels , widespread use of the world wide web and the rise of Social Media platforms recently have redefined the mental constructs that helped us to understand the functioning of Global political order especially in times of Conflict and Peace. The effect of a strongly linked, cosmopolitan and international neighbourhood owing to superior access to all forms of media may not necessarily be a positive aspect; ideologies, identities, territorial integrities, and indeed the very concept of nation states may be challenged by perceptions of global institutions percolating via the Media.

Access to 24x7 real time information through diverse media forms and their ability to mould perceptions have forced a reevaluation by governments, international businesses and even non state actors to view the heightened role of the Media in the shaping of conflict. Time and Space are two distinct variables in communication studies that have aided paradigm changes in existing theories and questions that have already been answered but need a fresh perspective that can solve key issues which affect the socio political environment in contemporary times.

 With real time broadcasting of on ground events our perceptions about the world around us has undergone significant changes. One of the sterling examples of this was demonstrated during the 9/11 attacks on the American mainland; raw ability to transpose events as they unfolded into people's homes was on evidence, giving a perspective not seen hitherto fore.

It has been widely debated that the corporate nature of commercial Media is prone as well as responsive to influences wielded by governments because of their inherent need to access corridors of power. Contrarily it has also been argued that governments are vulnerable and inclined to pressures by commercial media, due to their widespread reach and their ravenous yearning to connect with the masses.

The architecture of communication technology which is used as a persuasive instrument of psychological warfare forms an integral part of statecraft. Research has proved that Journalism marginalises, denigrates and demonises certain sections of the massed positioning them as stigmatised outcasts[ii] . The ongoing conflict between the military and the media testifies the same. Public scrutiny of strategic decisions and army operations as they unfold through relentless coverage has often has damaging consequences.

Media’s Agenda Setting Role

Case Study 1- American occupation of the Spanish Empire, 1898

Historically, one of the earliest examples of Mediatised conflict was seen in 1898 following the American occupation of the Spanish Empire. It is known that during this period American Media were at their irrepressible best and irresponsible worst.[iii]The well-known so called telegraph between William Randolph Hearst and his combat artist in Florida tells the story. “Everything is quiet.There will be no war.I wish to return,” Frederick Remington called.Hearst replied “Please remain.You furnish pictures,I will furnish war.”[iv]

Censorship failed to control the content that was transmitted for public consumption. Plain stories better known as “Yellow Press” flourished. Richard Harding Davis, well known war correspondent of his times gave a detailed account of exhausted American troops at the San Juan Hills. New York Herald published the story and Madrid took action.The Santiago garrison surrendered.The scene is somewhat similar today. Commercialisation of news media, globalisation and access to information instantly has created a trend in communications which if not controlled can have very damaging repercussions.

Case Study 2- The Kargil war and the Media

Media coverage of the Kargil war in 1999 was without dubitation outstanding. However there were also serious instances of “sensational reporting”. Media coverage evoked war hysteria. Aggressive nationalism was practiced by the journalists. Indians were swayed by jingoistic anti Pakistan rhetoric.[v] It was believed that the news coverage was strictly controlled by the political elites echoing the views of the Atal Bihari Government.

The Kargil war coverage generated a public debate calling for more censorship. There were diverse views on whether access to information and transparency in the work of the armed forces for their citizens is important or should media’s role be neutered to boost the morale of fighting soldiers in times of conflict. It is evident that peace is no news for media. It is conflict and war that generates more curiosity.

Case Study 3- The Danish Cartoon Controversy, 2005

In September 2005, Conservative Danish weekly Jyllands- Posten’s  culture editor solicited sketches of the Prophet Mohammed  to elicit views from people about self-censorship in Denmark.On 30^th September , the weekly published 12 cartoon caricatures of the Prophet.Outraged by the act , some 5000 Muslims of the Danish Islamic Society  gathered outside the office of the editor to protest against the blasphemous caricatures.

Ahmed Akhari gathered a group of Danish Muslims and travelled to the Middle East to inform the community about the cartoons.Hate mails were shared that were never exchanged. An emergency meeting was held in Mecca attended by more than 50 Muslim nations to condemn the act. Tensions escalated thereafter.

---

[i] Giddens, Anthony, Sociology-6^th edition, “The Media”, 2009 Cambridge UK

[ii] Cottle,Simon, Mediatised Recognition and “The Other”, 2007,MIACP

[iii] Singh,Kumar Anil Dr. Military and Media,Lancer Publishers and Distributors 2006 New Delhi

[iv] Cited in HDS Greenway, “The Warring Century”,Columbia Journalism Review October 1999

[v] Singh,Kumar Anil Dr. Military and Media,Lancer Publishers and Distributors 2006 New Delhi

Changing Dynamics of Conflict Management and the Role of Media

The media is more than just a primetime circus in India Today (Pun Unintended). Given the outreach of the media and the significant rise in citizen journalism through social media platforms it can be said without dubitation that the media plays a purposive and pragmatic role if not positive in conflict scenarios. It is the media that can prevent information attack by ethical reporting. But the changing dynamics of broadcast and print media and digitisation have pushed ethical journalism over the edge. Sensationalism has replaced factual reporting. In spite of its limitations, the media can play a purposive, pragmatic and positive role in de escalation of conflict by giving a voice to the warring factions.

In common parlance the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) programme of correspondence instructions in peacekeeping operations defines conflict as 'pursuit of incompatible goals by individuals or groups'. In other words conflict situations arise when individuals or groups pursue positions, interests, needs, or values that may lead to actions that come up against the interests, needs and values of others when they also want to satisfy their goals. Conflict resolution is a set of techniques for resolving conflicts with the assistance of a third party. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a concept that encompasses a variety of mechanisms by which conflicts are resolved. In other words, ADR offers alternatives to litigation which has often times been associated with delays, exorbitant fees, and discontentment. (Amoh).

When it comes to Conflict Management, Mediation plays a very crucial role. The advocates of mediation adopt ADR techniques including, Negotiation, reconciliation and personal intervention in possible scenarios through delegation to resolve conflicts.

Dascal Marcelo opines that “the use of violence and the use of argumentation belong to a set of “communicative acts” structured by a double conceptual/rhetorical grid of metonymic and metaphorical relations. While the metaphorical relations conceptualize argument as analogous to war, the metonymical relations conceptualize argument as continuous with war. Metaphor permits to identify the warlike aspects of argument, both in intellectual operations such as criticism and in emotive operations such as propaganda (as in Popper’s quote).  But it keeps these operations strictly apart from physical violence, to which they bear only a relation of similitude. Metonymy, on the other hand, conceptualizes the operations involved in argument as being themselves part and parcel of the power game. As such, they function either as a continuation of war in another register (as in Foucault’s quote) or as nothing more than violence’s temporary replacements (as in the belief that as long as the contenders negotiate they at least don’t wage war).”

Creating dialogues in conflict scenarios is a crucial cog of Conflict Management. The media today is a powerful tool which can change the dynamics of any conflict with information dissemination and mediation. Experts and eminent personalities are called on national television to suggest alternatives to existing conflict and remedial measures to mitigate the conflict. The media can provide a platform to the warring factions to reach a level of adjustment compromise. The media is a very crucial link between the government and its people. It acts as a watchdog almost playing the role of the opposition party in India. Every governmental policy is under media scrutiny, and under public eye.

Conflict management is the way forward if we want a stable geopolitical world order. Violence and Bloodshed has never resulted in anything constructive. The world witnessed two great wars; a period of cold war ensued, followed by the disintegration of USSR and emergence of the United States of America (USA)  as the only superpower on the international stage. But a lot has changed since then. The increasing interference of China in South Asia, the rise of India as a dominant power in South Asia have brought about a dynamic shift in the balance of power structure in international politics, resulting in increasing multipolarity. The rise and phenomenal growth of the mass media and the digitisation process has also contributed to this changing dynamics of balance of power. By highlighting issues of geopolitical importance, the media has become the centre of study especially in conflict and peace studies. A study of Mediation techniques would remain incomplete without the dissection of the role of mass media in creating dialogues. Newspapers, broadcast media, digital platforms, radio, mobile phones, social media platforms all play a crucial role in conflict management.

However it must be kept in mind that propaganda stories tend to distort the conflict management process. There is a very thin line between truth and lies and given the commercialisation of media houses ethical journalism goes for a toss and sometimes instead of de –escalation media plays and active role in escalating conflict. A middle path must be taken.

Reference Reading

Marcelo Dascal, Argument, War and the Role of the Media in Conflict Management 

ON WAR

On War

The history of the formation of nation states is intertwined with armed conflicts and bloodshed. War in its protieform manifestation is central to the understanding of International Relations and several other cognate disciplines. When India for example was partitioned in 1947 there were riots, refugee crisis. Similar examples can be seen in the case of Israel, Palestine and all other nations grappling with ethno national violence and bellicose tactics used by the governments to suppress such violence.

According to Clausewitz war is an extension of politics by other means .Headly Bull’s defined war as organized violence carried on by political units against each other

 Nations today are accelerating their defence modernisation process and conducting nuclear explosions to test their capabilities and war preparedness. The psychological pressures by the international community such as the United Nations have fairly managed to control nuclear proliferation across the globe. Both India and Pakistan are traditional adversaries and nuclear states. Hence in all probability its best to avoid any full blown war in spite of India following a “No First Use” nuclear policy.

What is war? E H Carr, Hans Morgenthau had already opined that nation states will go to any length   to gain power. Geopolitical wars have changed the history and geography of the world map. Conflicts or wars have existed since time immemorial. Gray, Kaldor, Thornton , Hoffman and Bousquet, Creveld have explored the many dimensions of war, hybrid, postmodern asymmetric etc. War is essentially rooted in socio political and psychological inequalities. The internal conflicts such as the Naxalite movement in India are quintessential cases of resource inequality. War or conflict is more than just an act of violence. It is an action reaction mechanism based on historical transformations of human societies.

Institutionalization of war is yet another dimension that has been a central theme of political studies and International Relations. In common parlance, Institutionalization refers to the process of embedding some conception (for example a belief, norm, social role, particular value or mode of behaviour) within an organization, social system, or society as a whole. (Source Wikipedia). The defence forces in India follow a structural pattern of hierarchy and the institution of the defence mechanism is guided by policy makers from the Ministry of Defence, India. The discipline of International relations was moulded to suit the objectives of the United Nations created in 1945 to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war. But some wars are never ending. They may not be a full fledged armed violence; proxy wars can disrupt the social fabric of political societies as well.

There are several dynamics of war that need to be understood to tackle internal and external disturbances. The first is to deal with economic inequality. Redistribution of wealth or dictatorship of the proletariat as crafted by Karl Marx is an important study in itself. Other factors include religious differences, territorial disputes, violence against women, gender inequality, political non representation etc. The mechanism of war is like a manipulative tool in the hands of the political establishments to suit specific interests. Analogy can be drawn in the case of the fourth estate which focuses on dramatic stories, sensationalism to increase their TRP’s. This is also a war, a war to win the first slot during primetime telecast of debates.

It is very difficult to understand the logic behind conflicts and wars as Clausewitz opined there is a marked difference between absolute and real wars. Wars are politically motivated. Unless a just social order is put in place inter and intra state conflict will continue to plague human societies. With the disintegration of the Soviet Block in 1991, the world witnessed the rise of United States of America as the new hegemon controlling international politics. In recent years economic development and globalisation has led to many nations competing with the hegemon for their space in the international arena. India is seen as a dominant state in South Asia and the rise of the Dragon is a direct attack on America’s hegemonic superpower status.

The realignment of nation states and changing dynamics of war has transformed the academic discipline of international Politics. In the years to come, there will be more bloodshed if a just uniform political order is not put in place. In my opinion anarchy also leads to war. Some form of control is must. This control can only come through a strong judicial system and civil codes across the globe and doing away with discriminatory policies.

Understanding Conflict & War Reporting in India

“Why is there so much research about the role of news media in political conflict & war and so little concerning the media & peace?. There is not one major study which has looked at the role of the news media in an ongoing peace process…Even the most casual observer cannot fail to be impressed with the ability of the news media to serve an either constructive or destructive role in the promotion of peace”

Gadi Wolfsfeld

General Eisenhower had said that the essence of successful warfare is secrecy; the essence of successful journalism is publicity. We live in an era wherein the fourth estate has become a larger than life entity, moulding perceptions of the viewers, readers, listeners to suit their business interests. Mahatma Gandhi opined that one of the objects of a newspaper is to understand the popular feelings and give expression to it, another is to arouse among people certain desirable sentiments, and the third is fearlessly to express popular defects.

Fearlessly to express popular defects has made media a powerful manipulative tool in the hands of corporate houses, using which truth is suppressed and propaganda stories make it to the primetime. If we take a closer look at the ongoing debate around the surgical strikes, the aftermath of Uri Terror attacks we will be able to get a fair amount of idea about how newsrooms have turned into battlefields. The task of a news anchor or reporter is primarily to inform the masses about what is happening in the world they live in. However, news channels today, in the mad race to win the number one position in the TRP game are designing their news programs in a manner which is almost like a 3D version of any event. Dramatic recreation, props, animations, background music are all used to catch the viewers attention.

Let me emphasise yet again that the task of the anchor/journalist is to inform the viewers and maintain a neutral stand on the issue they are reporting on. This however is no longer the case. There has been a pragmatic paradigm shift in the way war reporters’ pitch in their reports today. Some report from the battlefield taking risks, some sit in the studios with eminent speakers moderating debates on national security and defence. As I write this, a local journalist was injured as Pakistan continues to indulge in firing and heavy shelling along the Line of Control. Some are asking for proofs of surgical attacks. So does the credibility of war depend on whether it has been communicated to the world or not?

Every exclusive war reporter in India today wants access to battlefield. The Indian example of Barkha Dutt in Kargil is more than just a story of war reporting gone haywire during the Kargil War in 1999. It is important to note here that Barkha Dutt is probably the only woman in Indian journalistic circles known for her fearless war reporting from conflict zones. That during the Pathankot attacks the Supreme Court asked NDTV, a New Delhi based private news channel to control its content during conflict is another question altogether. Off late we have Shweta Singh from India Today Group who has ventured into the conflict zones but her reports are mostly happy interactions with the soldiers during peace times. There are some army kids too who now proudly present news as though they are the men in uniform themselves. India, being the patriarchal society that it is, does not allow women journalists to enter into conflict zones it seems. This is a sad state of affairs. We have women writing on conflict but being far away from ground zero and depending on “secret sources”, the credibility of the reports by them cannot be established. So why aren’t there many women venturing into the conflict zones in India? Is the risk too high? Is sexual assault a factor? Do women prefer studio jobs? Are men not allowing women to venture into the strategic affairs arena because they feel they know more about war and conflict? Are women made to report only  on Peace and Human interest stories?

The above questions are open to subjective interpretation. War reporting is an arduous task and it takes a toll on the mind and the body. The psycho-social implications of conflict reporting are very hard hitting. Bloodshed and violence force a reporter to take sides no matter how much they may try to remain neutral. All classroom teachings of unbiased news reporting goes for a toss when a person sees 18 dead  bodies of soldiers or mutilated bodies of soldiers, like it was during the Kargil conflict.

I strongly condemn the way newsrooms have turned into battlefields. Using props and dummy globes the journalists are trying to evoke anti Pakistan sentiments which is not a healthy sign for future diplomatic course of actions with Pakistan.  Our traditional adversary never fails to surprise us with terror attacks and proxy wars but what is more disturbing is the way the journalists behave in the newsroom. They scream, they disrespect the soldiers, they call panelists and not let them speak, they feel their curiosity is far more important than getting to the truth and getting their facts correct. Gender bias is obvious. Men take charge even in newsrooms.

Technological advancements and with the massive increase in the usage of social media platforms more and more women are coming forward and expressing their views on strategic affairs. They may not be skilled reporters but their opinions are capable of giving rise to a new set of debates. The tug of war between the military and the media unlike in the west is also  a major component of the way the military keeps the media away from their operations. Perspectives matter. Unfortunately everyone has an opinion, the soldier, the journalist , the politician and often there is a clash of interest but in this tussle, the journalist wins because he/she has an access to the platform from which information is passed on to the rest of the population. But ultimately it is the 140 characters that make news these days. Skilled journalists cannot be replaced and are here to stay but given the outreach of social media platforms, every citizen is a journalist, every citizen can talk about national security and the government will have to listen. After all it is free speech guaranteed by the constitution of India, free press and democracy i.e government of the people, for the people, by the people. The buck stops here!

The Geopolitical Dynamics of Ethno- National Conflicts Today

One of the many dimensions of conflicts today especially ethno-national is that it is one of the biggest challenge to national security of all nation states that are grappling with it. According to statistics, (Horowitz), since 1945, millions of lives have been lost due to such conflicts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan had opined that a lot of nations will be born in bloodshed. Such was the outreach of ethno national conflicts. Historically the notorious Nazi leader’s ethnic cleansing madness changed the history and geography of geopolitics forever .To develop deeper insights it is important to understand the concept of nation first. Wolfe defined nation as a concept denoting a common ethnic and cultural identity shared by a ‘single people’. As per the Primordialist approach to understanding nationalism, common dissent plays a very important role in determining ethno-national conflict.

After the Gulf War, President of the US George Bush first introduced the new world order to other states.  With the new world order came Ethno National Conflicts as collateral damage, to pre existing history of violence, territorial dispute etc. Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Bosnia, Chechnya, Burundi, Quebec changed the geopolitical dynamics of ethno-national conflicts as we witness today. Strategic realignments have undergone significant changes in the last one odd decade. With the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 the fulcrum of power shifted inexorably towards the United States (US). However the fear of spread of communist ideology even as the cold war was on led to a massive increase in ethno national conflicts all across the globe. This type of conflict arises essentially out of the identity crisis faced by ethnic groups asserting a separate identity for them, to protect the interests of their community. The Tamils in Sri Lanka for example wanted a separate Eelam state for themselves. After the death of their leader Prabhakaran, the strife still continued. Nations are built over centuries. The feeling of nationalism is a strong sense of belongingness to a specified territory. But the building of nation-states was not essentially based on ethnicity.

The aspiration levels of ethnic groups are sometimes so high that clash of interests with the state can lead to violent uprising. According to George de Vos, ethnicity consists of subjective, symbolic, emblematic use by a group of people. Ethno Nationalism is a sub division of nationalism based on ethnicity/race. Language, religion, social norms etc are crucial components of ethno-national conflicts.

The uprising in Syria over Shia Sunni divisions among the Muslims, the rise of ISIS are all linked to ethnic identity assertiveness. Latvians, Kurds etc are all fighting for their identity, for their space in geopolitics. Ethnicity historically was linked to specific territorial areas but with globalisation ethnicity transcends borders of nation states. Migration is an issue along with refugee crisis. Situational and subjective approach studies ethno-national conflicts as sporadic cases of clash of interest over rights and duties.

There are several dimensions of ethno national conflicts. Political deprivation, economic exploitation, hard stands of belligerent leader’s etc. economic development that goes haywire supporting the elites causes a great deal of frustration among ethnic minorities. The quintessential kurds have faced the consequences of economic underdevelopment pursued by the leaders in Iraq.

Demographic pressures have redefined ethno-national movements. The Mujahir Quami Movement in Pakistan focuses n separating Karachi from other states in Sindh. The baloch assertiveness is another example. Recently Prime Minister Narendra Modi said India is with the people of Balochistan and strongly condemns any violation of human rights in that area by the Pakistani establishment. This angered many and after the Uri terrorist attacks and surgical strikes, one thing is crystal. Ethnic conflicts are here to stay and for centuries there will be bloodshed unless diplomatically the leaders of the new political order decide to follow a uniform nation code to tackle ethnic problems and uprisings.

Rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the ISIS, Saffron terror are all examples of how ethnicity plays a pivotal role in determining nationalism today. Refugee crises, bloodshed, disruption of peace are all collateral damages of such a mad fight for ethnic identity assertiveness. Ethno National conflicts are challenging the nation state system and this is a very serious issue the leaders of the world need to address to first. Divisions on the political map of the world will lead to more anarchic interpretation of balance of power with each ethnic group claiming to be superior to the other.

Identifying Bosnia as a nation according to Henry Kissinger was an irresponsible mistake. But in today’s era, it is only wise to focus on larger goals of economic growth, progress, job creation, education, human rights and not on ethnic conflicts. Only then can we have a just stable geopolitical order. Ethno national conflicts consume time and since their legacy is built on the ethos of identity it is important to not ignore it completely as well. A middle path must be taken.

Image Courtsey-Google Images

Reference Reading

Weiner Myron, Sons of the Soil - Migration and Ethnic Conflict in India (Princeton Legacy Library)

Maria Koinova, Ethnonationalist Conflict in Postcommunist States: Varieties of Governance in Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Kosovo (National and Ethnic Conflict in the 21st Century Series)