Pakistan, India and the Game of Thrones

In International Politics (IP), the Game Theory is a model of a zero sum game which describes a conflict scenario in which a protagonist’s total loss is his enemy’s total gain. The sum total of the loss and gain is zero. In IP as Zawodny opines some international conflicts today can be resolved only by situations in which the warring factions don’t lose and in which both may sometimes win.

So is the Game Theory shifting the fulcrum of conflict between Pakistan and India towards settlement via international and regional agencies? The security dilemma or better still the Prisoners’ Dilemma plays a crucial role here. A nation like Pakistan faces dilemma without knowing about India’s intentions and vice versa. Both the nations want to resolve matters but with the K question being a permanent bone of contention it is very unlikely that something constructive will come up in the near future.

After the Uri attacks by Pakistan backed terrorists and retaliatory surgical strikes by India on Pakistani terror camps, tensions escalated between India and Pakistan; so much so that a well known Indian producer was stopped from releasing his movie for casting an actor from Pakistan. Nationalistic fervour (read tempers) stands at an all time high, with irresponsible media on both sides gleefully cashing in on the state of affairs as they are. In this game of proxy wars and actual wars is it possible to settle matters amicably? Earlier this year, following the killing of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen operative Burhan Wani in the Kashmir valley the media was barred from covering the massive protests in the valley against the Indian Army. Though this was done ostensibly to avoid further escalation of violence, yet amidst all the brouhaha, tensions continued to escalate. The war of words on primetime television kept getting louder and none of the parties was willing to confess. The prisoners’ dilemma was evident.

The cancellation of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit and the boycott of Pakistan by the members of SAARC was a gigantic move, a statement in itself of the growing clamour for intolerance of any act of terror anywhere in the world. Pakistan stood exposed and the generals had nothing much to offer to the erudite discourses on national television about the cancellation of the SAARC summit. Some journalists from Pakistan termed it as a propaganda war set in motion by India, which was nothing less than a national joke. Prime Minister Sharif and the Army Chief, General Sharif both have no political or diplomatic face left to show especially after they have been exposed.

Unidentified people have set fire to dozens of schools in Kashmir. The violence has not stopped. “This is very unfortunate and the responsibility is on the separatists, including Mr Geelani and other people are encouraging such elements to burn the schools. Ultimately, the future of the children of Kashmir is in the dark," said Deputy Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Nirmal Singh. The K question is a serious bone of contention between India and Pakistan and the Valley is still burning. In the end the sum total of the game between India and Pakistan will be zero with maximum casualties at both ends. Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti seems to have maintained a tough stand on acts of violence but nowhere in the near future does the issue appear to be heading towards a resolution. Boycott and isolation of Pakistan is the need of the hour but in a liberal world order isolation may not be possible. Former Chief Minister and National Conference chief Omar Abdullah opined that the attacks on schools was an "abhorrent ploy to destroy the future of the children" and blamed both the state government and separatists, calling the attackers "enemies of our children and the enemies of enlightenment."

From purely a strategic point of view India needs to draw the attention of international community towards state sponsored terrorism in Pakistan. Theoretical understanding of the new world order through the lenses of functionalism and neo-functionalism needs to be redefined. The Indian Army has taken charge of the situation but several actions by the forces have received severe criticism by the mainstream media. The valley is burning and so is India. Dialogue may not be the way out. All this violence calls for serious mediation by the international community. With the US increasing its economic and military ties with India as a counterweight to China in South Asia, this may well be sooner than later.

Beyond The Himalayan Barrier: The Chinese Question Part 1

In the Indian chapter on China, the last word may never be written. From a veritably tiny footprint on the global economy and little influence outside its borders, China has today transformed itself into a remarkable economic power, the world’s manufacturing workshop, its foremost financier, a leading investor across the globe from Africa to Latin America, and, increasingly, a major source of research and development. Its government sits atop an astonishing level of foreign reserves and there is not a single business anywhere in the world not having felt China’s impact, either as a low-cost supplier or as a formidable competitor.

Meanwhile, the US, the world’s sole economic hyper-power so far stands much diminished; humbled by its foreign-policy blunders and a massive financial crisis, its credibility after the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is at an all-time low and its economic model is in shambles. The once-almighty dollar today finds itself at the mercy of China and the oil-rich states. Its Syrian adventure today is held to ransom by the increasing belligerence displayed by Russia, not least because of Putin’s aggressiveness to regain the Russian position on the world map.

All of this raises the question of whether China will replace the US as the hegemon of the world, the rule setter for the global economy and the enforcer, and what it would mean for India. Given the variety of reasons for the growing conflicts of interest between India and China, a careful analysis would be in order. In the following paragraphs, an endeavour has been made to outline the key issues that would impact Indian strategic interests and policies.
How China Perceives Itself

It is important to understand how China’s influential elite perceive their own country before examining other issues. There are several themes consistent throughout Chinese writing, all based on the premise of the Chinese being exceptional. Specifically, the Chinese see their country as unlike any other, given their long history, pursuit of peace, and inherently defensive rather than offensive approach to international relations. China’s influential elite take a comparative and quantitative approach when looking at their country in relation to the rest of the world. They see a China rising in power in a world that is trending towards multipolarity. This trend favours China’s approach to international relations and is bound to further increase China’s role and stature on the world stage. But this time frame, in which their power is growing and the world is becoming more multipolar, is limited and fraught with danger. It is a window of strategic opportunity for China, which must make the most of it, continuing its fast-paced economic developments and social transformation while limiting any external threats to peace and stability. The Chinese influential elite uniformly espouse the idea that China is unique and does not behave as other states do. China is very proud of its 5,000 years of history and culture. For two millennia, China considered itself the hub of civilization. Lieutenant General Li Jijun, in attempting to explain China to an audience at the U.S. Army War College, noted proudly that “China is the only uninterrupted civilization in world history.”

Chinese historians often boast that China has engaged in more than 6,000 battles in 4,000 years. General Li credited the country’s longevity despite these conflicts to “the soul of the Chinese nation, which makes unremitting efforts for self-improvement and stresses morality and respect for others and national unity.” The importance of national unity to the Chinese is a result of invasions and defeats suffered at the hands of the west in the 19th century. This “century of humiliation” had a profound effect on China’s self-image, which long had been one of cultural, technological, and moral superiority. This experience likely contributed to what General Li termed a Chinese “unifying consciousness” dedicated to “maintaining the unity of the country and its territorial integrity and sovereignty.” Despite frequent invasions and threats to China’s territory, China maintained its pursuit of peace.

The story of explorer Zheng He has come to symbolize this uniquely peaceful disposition to the Chinese. Purportedly, eighty-seven years before Christopher Columbus’ voyage across the Atlantic, Zheng He made seven voyages, involving 27,000 people and 200 ships, to more than 30 countries and regions. As General Li told the students at the U.S. Army War College, “Unlike later Western explorers who conquered the land they discovered, this fleet did not subdue the newly discovered lands by force. This was not a voyage to plunder the local populace for treasure nor was it one to establish overseas colonies.” Zheng’s mission was “simply to convey friendship and goodwill and to promote economic and cultural exchanges.” On the 600th anniversary of Zheng’s first expedition, the China Daily featured an opinion piece on Zheng’s peaceful missions, noting how they are still symbolic of China’s peaceful nature: “Six hundred years after Zheng, China cherishes a similar desire to befriend the world. But regrettably its goodwill is demonized because established powers fear a resurgent China.”

However it is equally important to see this perceived notion of being ‘victimised’ by the west as a likely precursor to Chinese designs of being a power to reckon with. As has been seen in the recent past, almost all actions of the Chinese are more or less aimed at creating this image of themselves in the mind of the world audience. Unfortunately, only limited access exists as to how the Chinese themselves see the future, owing to their extreme focus on secrecy leaving the analyst with little choice but to rely on own perceptions and other analyses done across the globe.
A World Order Centred on China

It would be immature to imagine China becoming like the western countries as it grows in power and in the size of its economy. The Chinese government and people have a different concept of society and polity; community-based rather than individualist, state-centric rather than liberal, authoritarian rather than democratic. China has 2,000 years of history as a distinct civilisation from which to draw strength and would not simply fold up under western values and institutions. The world order that China would construct may look very different from what has been under American leadership. It will reflect Chinese values rather than western ones. Beijing may overshadow New York, the renminbi may well replace the dollar, and Mandarin may take over from English. There may no longer be the evangelism of markets and democracy. Although China is much less likely to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states it may in return demand that smaller and less powerful states explicitly recognise its primacy (just as in the tributary systems of old). Its increasing belligerence towards the littoral states in the East and South China seas is indicative of this urgency for recognition and primacy.

The flip side, however is that China will have to continue its rapid economic growth and maintain its social cohesion and political unity to sustain such an eventuality which may or may not be possible. Beneath the powerful economic dynamo lie deep tensions, inequalities, and cleavages that could well derail a smooth progression to global hegemony. Throughout its long history, centrifugal forces have often pushed the country into disarray and disintegration. China’s stability hinges critically on its government’s ability to deliver steady economic gains to the vast majority of the population. China is the only country in the world where anything less than eight per cent growth year after year is believed to be dangerous because it would unleash social unrest. Most of the rest of the world only dreams about growth at that rate, which speaks volumes about the underlying fragility of the Chinese system. The authoritarian nature of the political regime is at the core of this fragility. It allows only repression when the government faces protests and opposition outside the established channels. The trouble is that it will become increasingly difficult for China to maintain the kind of growth that it has experienced in recent years. China’s growth currently relies on an undervalued currency and a huge trade surplus. This is unsustainable, and sooner or later it will precipitate a major confrontation with the west. Any number of factors could hypothetically trigger such a confrontation; it could be the unrest in the European Union post Brexit, or it could be a Trump victory in the US elections. China may well have to settle for lower growth which results in unrest domestically rather than confront the west; domestic unrest could still be controlled, trouble abroad would indeed be a very different story.

If China is able to surmount these hurdles and eventually become the world’s predominant economic power, globalisation will have to take on Chinese colours. Democracy and human rights will probably lose their lustre as global norms but there may be greater room for experimentation with different economic models.
Relevance for India: China’s ascendancy to the position of hegemon would bring to bear on India pressure both in terms of economic and political systems. Naxalites and Maoists may be supported either covertly or overtly, but more likely this support would become ‘in- your-face’ and India may witness a move towards communism. What could be more dangerous and detrimental to India is such a move creating the scope for secessionism or breakdown of the entity that we know as India. On the economic front, India’s comparable growth may not remain palatable to China, and in a position to dictate terms, it would well do so. The scenario could be the new face or even the reason for conflict.
Chinese Military and Naval Aspirations

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. Two very important issues of Missile Defence and Naval capabilities have been examined to understand the reverberations in Asia (definitely impacting India) and the world at large. Though Beijing was known to be developing or improvising missile defence systems for long, there were very few indicators from the Communist state on how far it has gone in terms of technological prowess and sophistication. It is only recently that information pertaining to this has trickled out, primarily due to the Chinese themselves wanting the world to know of their increasing capabilities. Similarly, the People’s Liberation Army (Navy)’s gradual expansion beyond the South China Sea and the focus on what Beijing calls, “military operations other than war” highlight the shift in policy and strategy towards protecting its international lines of supply, humanitarian relief, and naval diplomacy.

China undertook a Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) test on 11 January 2010, which it claimed was an exo-atmospheric interception. Beijing was known to be developing missile defence systems for long but there were very few indicators on how far it has gone in terms of technological prowess. By releasing very few details on the nature of the test, China has left many questions on its actual capability. China’s demonstration of its ballistic missile defence (BMD) capability in January 2009 was also anticipated for long, though it came with much lesser shock and awe. China succeeded in shaking the world in January 2007 with the display of its Anti-Satellite (ASAT) capability, by intercepting and destroying a weather satellite in low-Earth orbit. Since then, it was expected that China’s next technological breakthrough to be displayed to the world would be its ballistic missile interception capabilities. True to China’s deceptive strategies and postures, there were few indicators to the existence of a new, exclusive longer-range BMD system, outside the Hongqi series.

That Beijing deliberately withheld details of the system involved in the January 2010 intercept only added to the ambiguity on the nature and capabilities of the system supposedly used for this intercept. This has prompted China watchers and military analysts to speculate on the Chinese BMD programme and the permutations of systems and capabilities. On the political side, the January 2010 intercept unravelled yet another instance of Chinese hypocrisy on major security issues including space weaponisation and ballistic missile defence. Similar to the manner in which China conducted the ASAT test in Jan 2007 after years of activism against weaponisation and military uses of outer space, the BMD intercept also contradicted China’s long-standing opposition to ballistic missile defences and concerns over their potential to trigger regional arms races and instability. However, the Chinese demonstration of a BMD capability was long overdue given its innate ambitions to counter the US-backed theatre missile defence (TMD) deployments in East Asia and the potential implications of the Eastern European BMD deployment on its nuclear deterrent.

Relevance for India: It would also be anybody’s guess what this means in the Indian context. This programme would not only provide an effective shield against the Indian (existing and likely future) missile capabilities but also opens up another avenue for the Pakistani military establishment to get its hands on such technology. Also a nuclear weapon state, backed by a BMD shield, is perceived to have a natural advantage through its ability to offset first-strike from the enemy through its defences, while also ensuring survivability of its assured destruction/massive retaliation capability through a second strike. As a result, instead of creating stability, BMDs produce a contrarian effect, one which postulates competition for interception capabilities that consequently triggers arms races rather than containment of proliferation. Just as the US BMD plans in Eastern Europe and TMD deployments in East Asia complicated the deterrence equations vis-à-vis Russia and China, the Chinese demonstration of an exo- atmospheric interception capability is destined to dramatically alter the strategic equations in Asia and especially in the Sino-Indian region.

It is quite typical of China to give bare minimum details on a major technological capability demonstration and then leave the rest of the world to do the guessing. Realising the utility of ballistic missile defence and space weaponry in the military element of its rising power profile and posturing and despite its vehement opposition to space weaponisation and missile defences, China initiated commensurate actions to strengthen its deterrent capability by improvising alternate or secondary response systems to the US missile defence. What is ostensibly against the US systems, poses considerable threat to Indian interests. Missile defences were initially seen as an ideal way out of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) trap. Threats of assured destruction and massive retaliation have primarily guided deterrence equations between nuclear powers; it is equally true that the propriety of leaving space for mutual vulnerability is now finding few takers. This naturally takes away from the credibility of the Chinese argument that such systems are only a means of deterrence against the US and definitely need inclusion in any Indian contingency planning.

A Jan 2010 US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) report analysed the capabilities and the future direction of the People’s Liberation Army (Navy), or PLA(N). The ONI assessment differs substantially with the conventional Indian view of a China racing unstoppably towards being a naval superpower. The assessment notes China’s recent deployment of Task Groups, each consisting of two warships and a replenishment vessel, for anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. This marks the first time in over 600 years that a Chinese flotilla has operated in waters beyond China’s immediate vicinity. But the report concludes that none of these operations indicates a desire on the part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to develop a constant global presence. Beijing’s ambition appears to remain focused on the East Asian region, with an ability to protect the PRC’s maritime interests in distant seas when required. Historically, an inward focus which the Chinese Navy adopted around 1495 continued through Mao’s revolutionary war, which brought the communists to power. Thereafter a coastal navy was sufficient to enforce China’s claims over most of the East and South China Seas, and the need to deter Taiwan from declaring independence. But the US Navy’s dominating presence in the Asia-Pacific and need to protect China’s supply lines convinced Beijing of the need for greater naval power.

China’s Defence White Paper of 2008 called for expanding the navy’s operating range and a greater role in international security. The PLA(N)’s most key acquisition is a sophisticated anti-air capability, which would allow its ships to operate in distant seas, far from land-based air-defence systems. The already formidable Luyang-I class of destroyers have been upgraded to the Luyang-II class and the Jiangkai II frigates have been introduced both of which are linked with an air-surveillance network as good as America’s world-standard Aegis system. Submarines, both conventional and nuclear, are seen as key deterrents in the PLA(N). Finally, any argument tending towards the analyses offered by the ONI report puts paid by the acquisition of the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, renamed the Liaoning, with 24 J-15 fighter aircraft, 6 Z-18F Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) helicopters, 4 Z-18J Airborne Early Warning (AEW) helicopters and 2 Z-9C Rescue helicopters. This is being projected as a training ship while China is now in the process of designing its indigenous aircraft carrier. Given the rate at which the Chinese churn out military hardware, it may not be very long before they are a recognised and thorough-bred Blue Water Navy.

Relevance for India: China is likely to replace its large number of low-tech submarines with smaller numbers of modern, high-capability submarines. But, while the number of surface ships may remain constant, the fleet of 62 submarines will increase over the next 10-15 years to 75. In that time-frame, India’s submarine fleet will be about one-third that of China’s. Even more worrisome is the programme to develop the world’s first Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM), a variant of China’s Dong Feng–21 missile. This may not even have a US equivalent for another few years to come. The ASBM’s peculiar flight path involving a mid-course trajectory correction will make it very difficult to intercept. What may seem as China trying to protect its own interests (to the Americans) may well turn out to be another attempt to create a ring around India in the Indian Ocean. Knowing fully well Indian vulnerabilities in the Indian Ocean rim, and given its equations with its neighbours, all recent Chinese overtures seem to be aimed at ensuring supremacy in the region. The activities in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, with massive infrastructure development of ports and military/ naval facilities are an indicator of the same.
Indian Defence Imperatives with the Chinese Factor

Certain defence analysts had predicted that China may attack India by 2012. At that time this prophecy seemed farfetched because China would not want a war till it became a true super power by 2050 and would only go to war with a 100 percent chance of success. China is also India’s leading trade partner, and common sense dictates that good economic relations are a logical antidote against war. Finally, in the event of war in the foreseeable future, the Indian Navy would be in a position to wreck havoc with China’s oil tankers ferrying the Middle East oil through the straits of Malacca, Sunda and Lombak straits. The Indian Air Force would also be utilised.

Unfortunately increasing signs of belligerence such as the large number of border transgressions in the last few years, the September 2009 Chinese firing across the LAC (the first since 1986, and the first since the 1996 “no firing agreement”), and in northern Sikkim may be the early signs of conflict. At this stage a very serious mistake to make is assuming that the United States would lend any credible support by deterring China and pressurising Pakistan. While New Delhi’s broad national interests do generally appear to coincide with Washington, it must be remembered that no country will go to war against nuclear armed foes unless directly threatened. Given Pakistan’s undeniable geo-strategic location, the Americans cannot be expected to “take out” or “neutralise” Pakistani nuclear weapons, to prevent them from falling into the hands of the terrorists. Neither should it be assumed that America has joint control over Pakistani nuclear weapons. It is good to have close ties with the USA, but it’s prudent not to outsource Indian national security to any external power. By the same analogy, it can be safely assumed that the US will have no part whatsoever to play in any possible Sino-Indian conflict except perhaps that of a mediator, but that too, only remotely and at a later stage.

Being masters of the art of long term strategic planning, Chinese strategy seems to be to keep India tied down by the triple threats from China, Pakistan and Pakistani sponsored terrorists. It would be in Indian interest for the foreign ministry to stop justifying China’s daily incursions by talking about differing perceptions on the Line of Actual Control. China will stop its incursions only when it’s deterred by India’s conventional and strategic defence capability. A possible change in the “no first use” nuclear policy and simultaneous increase in defence expenditure from the present percentage of GDP to a more substantial amount would also give the right signals.
Conclusion

While China’s influential elite may seem concerned about a direct military confrontation with the United States, Japan, and India, they are far more concerned about the possibility of containment efforts by any—or all—of these countries. The threat of containment, however, is less of a military threat and more of a diplomatic, political, and economic one. The influential elite also express concern over the fluctuating, unpredictable, and seemingly unstable nature of the democratic process in all of these countries. This has been dealt with in more detail in Part II of this analysis.
TOPICS:ChinaForeign PolicyIndiaMilitaryNavyPakistanRussiaSouth AsiaUnited States

Feminism And US President: A New Change

Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely – and the right to be heard.’ — Hillary Clinton on Feminism.




The fight between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is in the last stage. Political analysts all across the globe believe if Clinton wins, women power will win and feminist policies will get a boost. Feminists reject the very Realist notion of war and state being the ultimate protector of liberties. Feminists argue that there are gender discrimination’s based on economic inequalities and the stereotypical roles assigned to women because of structured patriarchal institutional set ups existing in society. This includes the military and explains the role of women in non combatant roles. Rosemary Grant argues that the Realist theory of war endorses patriarchy and it is patriarchy that needs to be checked if women are to be treated as human beings having human rights.

The Convention on the elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) proposed by the United Nations in 1979, questions patriarchal discriminations directed against women that subject them to economic and emotional torture.

Statistics reveal that the maximum casualties in almost all conflicts are women and children. Biological factors play a crucial role in determining political Participation. During the freedom movement in India, several women participated in the fight against the British Rule but post independence this gender division is very evident. Women are expected to perform roles that do not cover politics and military engagements. Recently the Indian Air Force commissioned women officers into services and such a move was widely welcomed by the Indian establishment and vox populi. But the roadmap has still not been made.

In the opening statement of the UNESCO charter it is stated that wars are made in the minds of men. Men, being a strong word here since it excludes women from constructive roles they play in times of conflict and peace. In Vietnam and El Salvador the victims were women and children and after the war was over pesant women had a tough time assessing the damages.

If Clinton wins, this will be a victory of feminist movement and it is being speculated that more and more women will be assigned positive roles in political decision making processes. National Security and Balance of power in International Politics strictly fit into male narratives excluding women totally. It is hoped that if Clinton comes to power national security will no longer remain a male centric concept.

Feminism, analysts believe is the advocacy of the rights of women. National security is a patriarchal concept that gives men the power to control the masses including women. It is this notion that needs to be challenged. CEDAW needs to be strengthened and restructures. For justice fast track courts need to be set up. It was in 2000 that Rape was identified as a war crime.

Clinton says that one needs to understand that there is no formula for how women should lead their lives. That is why we must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to realize her God-given potential. This can only happen if patriarchal notions of state, national security and war are redefined and women are included in the decision making process. That women are soft on terror is another debate in itself but Clinton’s win will be a win for all the women trying to break the stereotypical roles and assert their rights in a patriarchal world.


TOPICS:ElectionsGenderHillary ClintonHuman RightsPoliticsUnited States

The New Liberal World Order- Is Isolation Possible?

The recent cancellation of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit that was supposed to be held in Islamabad, Pakistan and the natural corollary to the cancellation i.e. demand for isolating Pakistan calls for a serious theoretical understanding of the new world order. The Liberal approach to the study of foreign policy and world order that developed in the 17^th century focussed on the liberty of the individuals to enter into a social contract for establishment of rule of law. John Locke’s understanding of the world order was based on this premise of cooperation. Liberals believe that human beings are perfectible and that Democracy is necessary for that perfectibility to develop. However the concept of Democracy has undergone significant paradigmatic changes in the recent years.

 Liberals reject the Realist notion of war being a natural phenomenon. So any action from Pakistan according to the liberal approach is an outcome of economic inequalities, and failed bargaining between developed and developing nations for resource accessibility and economic development. An important aspect of Liberalism is the emphasis it lays on the possibilities for cooperation in all fields, military, economic and technological. Liberals identify multinational corporations, non state actors and terrorist groups as central actors on the international stage apart from sovereign nation states. Realists put nation states on the forefront. Liberals focus too much on human beings and their right to enter into contract for rule of law, which by modern definition means or refers to a democratic set up.

With the dragon raising its head and the United States trying to balance South Asia by taking India into confidence as a counterweight to China the entire balance of power is shifting inexorably towards the new bilateral equation between China and the U.S. The very idea of a liberal constitutional set up is to protect individual liberty. Let us replace individuals with states. So the very idea of an organisation like SAARC is to protect the interests of the member states and promote regional cooperation. However with Pakistan’s repeated acts of terror on Indian soil and its relentless proxy war against India the very notion of Liberal democratic set up has turned turtle. Several analysts and policy experts have called for total isolation of Pakistan declaring it a terrorist state. China continues to maintain a diplomatic distance from the issue while in the same instance vetoing Indian interests at various multinational fora. Several other nations have strongly condemned the attacks on Indian soil by Pakistani terrorists. Liberals argue that mutual interests can sustain cooperation in the new world order but proxy wars and terror attacks defeat the very purpose of mutual cooperation.

Neo liberals have no confidence in the logical reasoning of human mind and human progress. Zacher & Mathew opine that neo liberals have not wanted to be branded as idealists as were many inter war liberals, the international events in this (the 20^th Century) century including the two world wars and the cold war have made them wary about being too optimistic.

Free trade and western democratic values are the focus points of Neo Liberalism. However given the rise in state sponsored terrorism many have questioned the tenets of Neo Liberalism today. Liberals argue that the world order does not depend on balance of power but on individual interactions between states which is forever in a state of dynamic flux. The concept of security plays a very crucial role here. All the military exercises and pacts we read about in the media emerge from this need to protect individual state interests. Institutions play a key role in establishing peace. Keohane opined that institutions are persistent and connected sets of rules and practices that prescribe roles constrain activity and shape the expectation of the actors. This is ideally what SAARC was crafted for.

 David Mitrany argued that greater interdependence in the form of transnational ties between countries could lead to peace. But what do you do when all acts of terror are traced back to one notorious nation? Will Joseph Nye’s functionalism work here? Should we engage in constructive dialogue with a nation that is known for sponsoring terrorism all across the globe? The cancellation of the SAARC summit has given rise to a new set of debates. Liberals have tremendous faith in human reason and rationality of the human mind in resolving international disputes without resorting to coercive means. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye’s theory of complex interdependence that focuses on transnational actors as important agents of peace and cooperation sidelining the military needs to be studied in great depths. This is especially true in the case of Pakistan, whether the government or the Deep State (a term coined for the stranglehold that its military and intelligence apparatus exerts on any form of government) should be engaged in dialogue; further whether such an engagement would result in any meaningful restoration of peace.

SAARC seems to be losing its relevance in the new liberal world order. Or maybe not. In either case, recent developments clearly lead to a different understanding of cooperation as well as the limits to which it should be extended. Will isolation of states that sponsor terrorism or engage in coercive means to promote their agenda restructure the definition of this cooperation? For all intents and purposes we are talking about India’s well known neighbour.

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.