Afridi. Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/charaka/

The fury that came out of the Indian online community either in support of or against Afridi had the usual Aman-ki-Asha defense or Pakistan-is-a-terror-supporter attack. I will not comment on either side of the arguments except that I saw many good arguments on both sides. However, I do wish to make a point about “Pakistan is a terrorist state” versus “Pakistanis are terrorist sympathizers” argument that seems to have conveniently folded itself into the argument associated with Afridi’s statements.

On one side, while many agree that the political establishment in Pakistan sympathizes with and actively supports terrorist acts against India, they caution that one should not claim that the state’s support for terrorism is the same as the people’s support for terrorism much like Muage vs. Zimbabweans. On the other side, there are many who argue that a state establishment cannot function without an approval from the masses (even a tacit approval through silence is sufficient). In the latter camp, Greatbong argues that assassination of moderates like Taseer points to a popular sympathy (albeit a tacit one) for Islamic fundamentalism.

I agree with the sentiment that one should not equate the actions of the political establishment with the people of the state. This statement is easy to defend when talking about the people of the state, but the same arguments do not hold when you are considering individuals. The difference is the similar to how statistical inferences, while applicable to a large dataset, become irrelevant when considering the outcome of a single event. Let me explain. While the American public may not favor massive human rights violations in Iraq and may even be against the war in Iraq, you cannot claim the same to be true of some American individual. I know many Americans who actively support America’s invasion of Iraq and deposing of Saddam Hussain. I also know many Americans who oppose it.

The American I know who oppose the Iraq war are quick to blame their political establishment and, if pressed, are willing to offer their apologies to Iraqies and an outright admission that they oppose their goverment’s actions.

Let’s go back and consider Afridi’s comments specifically with respect to this argument ”Pakistan is a terrorist state” versus “Pakistanis are terrorist sympathizers”. Reacting to Gautam Gambhir’s statement that India’s victory over Pakistan will help soothe the pain over 26/11 Mumbai attacks, Afridi said: “I think they were very stupid comments by Gautam Gambhir. I was not expecting this from Gautam. This is all politics, what do you know about who carried out the Mumbai attacks?” [source]

Despite overwhelming evidence that 26/11 attacks received support from Pakistani establishment, Afridi asserts that there is no knowledge of the perpetrators of 26/11. He could have distanced himself from the whole thing by simply saying “This is just politics.” and stopping there. But he did not. For some reason he felt compelled to defend the Pakistani establishment. That sounds like Afridi is batting for the Pakistani establishment. So I cannot give Afridi a reprieve on the ”Pakistan is a terrorist state” versus “Pakistanis are terrorist sympathizers” schism.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv749SCqzuU

Afridi’s response made it to Facebook and other social media sites and was appreciated by many as a mature and responsible response by a de-fact ambassador of Pakistan and cricket.
The very next day, Afridi is interviewed by a reporter from Dawn news and he says this: “The media in India is very negative. One of the reasons India and Pakistan do not get along well is because of the media there. [...] I tried a lot to reach out to the Indian players, but no matter how hard we try they can never be like us.”
Here is the video [the interview is in Urdu]:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXh8Wk9LkqU

So in 24 hours, Afridi goes from chastising Pakistani media for all the hyperbole and starts blaming Indian media and the Indian team for the less than cordial atmosphere between the two nation.

Wonder what prompted the turncoat act. Any theories?

P.S: Note that Afridi avoids eye contact rather conspicuously in the second video and not the first.

source: http://www.l4dmaps.com/details.php?file=3052

Josy Joseph argues in the Times of India (ToI) article “Farewell to foreign arms?” that India would benefit from a Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) as a “force for good”. Joseph’s argument is that our reliance on foreign powers for adequate military fire power is hurting us in two ways: (a) its draining our economy, and (b) it could be our Achilles heel. The proposal is to establish a MIC to enforce self-sufficiency in weapon production.

While the end (self-sufficiency in weapon production) is justifiable, the means (a MIC) is not.  Where do I even begin my arguments! There are so many. Let me try and coalesce them down to a few key ones.

First, there is Eisenhower who warned the US against the MIC in his famous farwell address where he said, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

We all know how well that warning was heeded to! The US has since become a country that has perpetuated conflict in various parts of the world since world war II, sometimes even to the detriment of its own citizens and soldiers, to ensure that the output of the MIC is sufficiently consumed and adequate profits are generated.

In the ToI article, Joseph argues that the MIC can be used as a force for good, but doesn’t really elaborate on how to ensure that we do not end up with a USA style MIC.

Of course, there are one who argue that the MIC build by the US is something we should strive for.  Let me assure you that its a bad idea!

For starts, the MIC is not working well for the people of USA to begin with; it is ruining their economy. US can afford its MIC because it does not have enemies in its backyard, and any weapons it sells is very unlikely to find its way back to the US mainland. But India shares its border with two enemies (Pakistan and China), and considering the volatility in Pakistan, it will be very difficult to ensure that any arms that India exports will not find its way into Pakistan or China only to be used to against India.

How about India not export its arms? Well, then to keep the MIC active, and hence profitable, India will be forced to engage in a perpetual armed conflict (be it an all out war or low intensity combats) to avoid the dismantling of its MIC by natural economic forces of demand and supply. So any way you look at it, an MIC will only hasten a war with India.

Of course, all my arguments are underpinned on the assumption that the MIC is a private entity whose primary goal is profit. What if India establishes a public-sector based MIC. Unfortunately, Joseph’s own assessment of India’s public sector undertaking DRDO makes a disastrous prediction for the prospects of such an enterprise. Furthermore, India’s abysmal ranking as the 76th most corrupt nation is not lending any confidence to a public-sector based MIC actually producing sufficient weapons in quanity and quality to defend the country in the first place!

So yeah, I have to strongly disagree to the notion of a MIC in India (or anywhere for that matter). Nothing good has come off of MIC so far, and nothing ever will. It is a systemically flawed concept of national security. MIC like any other institution only serves its own self-preservation, and that inevitably involves a perpetual state of war.

source: http://chimpplanet.blogspot.com

My office mate does have the right to complain, and most likely the issue will be taken up with our adviser, the American, and of course she’ll side with my office mate (Since they are both members of NATO, and war on terror on what not). Since Pakistan got the F-16s from the US, my office mate will get better equipment for research. Now its my turn to go crying to someone else. And who would that be? The Russian in my committee of course! Russia and India go way back! He’ll back me up by giving me some of this equipment for my research.

This is almost too perfect :-) I think we are going to have loads of fun this year. Oh, and there’s research too… eh… kinda. ;-)

The best reaction that US could give was that it was ‘disappointed’ (that is was ‘deeply disturbed’ and ‘urges’ Pakistan to return to democracy). Disappointed!? Is that it? Whatever happened to all the rhetoric about being pro-democracy and restoring democracy in the world one botched fiasco (translation: Iraq) at a time? But wait, isn’t Pakistan (translation: Musharraf) an ally in the American war of terror? So I guess anything that Musharraf does is pro-democracy, given that Bush and Mushrraf are bosom buddies and all. I wouldn’t be surprised if Washington tows Musharraf’s line on this one, viz. that he did it for democracy!