My take on the West Asia Crisis

Last month or so has been extremely hectic for me with a lot of work, travel & some changes in personal life. I spend a significant amount of time these days discussing politics with my friends / colleagues, and I come across people with divergent views quite often. It is important that I spend time crystallizing my thoughts and make sure what I think is right is indeed so. I havent found a better way to crystallize your opinion than writing it down, and thats exactly what I plan to do here.

My take on the West Asian crisis is not dependent on a deep knowledge of the ground-level situation there, but on the basis of what news is easily available on the internet. Most people have taken a humanist approach to the whole situation that I do not agree with. I feel there was some justification for the way Israel reacted.

It is necessary for us to compare the other extreme of Israel, India when it comes to reacting to cross-border terrorism. Israel is known for its often knee-jerk military reactions to any offensive against its people, whereas India is often accused of doing the exact opposite.. treating the lives of ordinary Indians (& its soldiers) as expendable. The irony couldn't be starker.. Israel flattens a part of a country for the dominant force in the region possibly having kidnapped two of its soldiers, whereas India was ready to lose men in Kargil to stick to its ideological position of not crossing LoC.

My political view is mostly right-wing secular, and nationalistic. I & several friends of mine who I talk to regularly on this topic believe the correct path is probably somewhere in the middle, but we were hard pressed to find one country that was following the middle path.

Israel's military & confrontationist approach to the recent crisis in West Asia (as in many others) is a reflection of how tenuous the situation is in that region, which is difficult to fathom sitting thousands of kilometers away.. my point is that it is not entirely unjustified. Being a nationalist, I would go to any extent as I deem necessary to assure the safety of citizens & soldiers. Any response that in my view is likely to stop violence against my people or deter my enemies from inciting violence against my nation by increasing the price they pay for the same (e.g. by bombing their country) is a fair response.

The whole humanist angle to this situation stands on the premise that countries in war-like situations should respond to violence in a rational, proportionate manner. Which means, if I kill 50 of yours, you should kill only 50 or 100 of mine, but if you manage to kill 500, then you are overreacting. What crap, I say.

There is no such thing as proportionate response in international conflicts. It is always emotional, and it is always your people vs. mine. There has been a lot of concern on schools, bridges, ports being bombed by Israel in Lebanon, but that is how wars are fought & won. You cannot expect that there will be no civilian casualties, that there will be no excesses in the war and there will be no near-misses of missiles missing intended targets and hitting something else.

While one can question if Israel was intentionally hitting civilians, there has been some proof which has come out which clearly shows that terrorists were hiding, or worse, were being sheltered in the buildings that were hit.

The loss of life in war is always sad, but does that make war unnecessary, or the cause behind the war unnecessary? It is important to remember that war is just a symptom of deep-rooted schism between people belonging to different religions, races, etc. War sometimes may bring lasting peace, and may sometimes linger for long & create destruction all around. There are no good wars, though. The victors in the war are always good, for they write the history.

Israel is a tiny country fighting a lonely battle (except for the logistical support from the US) in a hostile environment, and it needs to do all it can to ensure the safety of its people. If that means some innocent lives will be lost, I believe that is a price that terrorists / state-sponsors of terrorism will have to pay. For, in several countries, terrorists continue to have popular support, and even more importantly, get direct & indirect logistical support from the ordinary civilians. Till that stops, the war will go on.

A black day in India's parliamentary democracy

The President has finally given his assent to the Office of Profit Bill under obvious duress & considerable pressure from the Government (particularly the Prime Minister) who ostensibly asked the President to sign the bill to avoid a constitutional crisis. I wonder if the so-called constitutional crisis could be worse than the bill getting passed in an undemocratic & unconstitutional way. In the meanwhile, even as this shameful act was being carried out, the MPs went ahead & increased their salaries. The only positive thing that happened was the central government chickening out & bowing to pressure from RTI activists & withdrawing, atleast for now, the proposed amendments to the RTI bill.