D
oes Prime Minister Manmohan Singh realise how much he sometimes sounds like George Bush? Or is this an accidental result of the chaos that prevails in the Indian government where different ministries write the first drafts for his speeches for different occasions, even though he usually ends up dwelling on the same issues?By the yardsticks of Delhi's political fishbowl, the speech that the PM gives every year at the Armed Forces' Combined Commanders' Conference is not the most important one on his calendar. So perhaps his advisors felt that they could take some liberties in trimming his message to fit his audience, and paying a few debts along the way. Yet it was important enough to draw front-page notice at home if not abroad. Should they not have ensured that what he said there was more or less consistent with what he's said on other occasions?
Here's what he told the armed forces' brass last week: "Terrorism is the principal challenge today to plural and democratic societies. It not only destroys human life and property but also endangers democratic values, social harmony and economic well-being.... Our strategy cannot be restricted only to the perpetrators of terrorist acts but should also seek to modify the behaviour of the states where terrorists find safe haven, sanctuary and material sustenance."
No one would disagree with the first part of what he said. But the second? Read what George Bush said while unveiling the US' new National Security Doctrine at West Point on June 5, 2002. "For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment.... But...deterrence...means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend.... We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge".
The similarity between the two statements is evident. Bush's reference to the use of pre-emptive military force was much more explicit—a threat he carried out the very next year with disastrous consequences. But that apart, how different are Dr Singh's remarks from those Bush made four years ago? And what should we read into the fact that, like Bush, he too made his point to an audience wearing uniform?
We in India may believe that waging pre-emptive war against another nation to stymie terrorists operating from its soil isn't what Dr Singh had in mind. But can our neighbours be sure? Can Pakistan be sure this is not a green signal to the military to prepare for limited incursions across the LoC, should the need arise? Can Bangladesh be sure India won't invade its border belt seeking ULFA terrorists? For that matter, can the Maoists in Nepal be sure India will allow them to form a government even if they win the next election?
What can't be denied is that Dr Singh's remark, indeed the tone of his entire speech, is the most explicit endorsement of the doctrine of pre-emptive intervention any country has as yet given to the US. Dr Singh might not be contemplating military intervention, but, after what he said on October 18, India can't condemn the US-UK invasion of Iraq, Israel's invasion of Lebanon, or a future US-Israel aerial attack on Iran.
What can't also be denied is that his remarks constitute a direct attack upon the UN charter, specifically Article 2, which forbids precisely the kind of unprovoked attack upon another member-state that Bush's National Security Doctrine seeks to legitimise. India has thus joined the US and the UK in dismantling the Westphalian state system which has defined international morality and law for the past three centuries. How far we have fallen from the high-minded tenets of Nehru's foreign policy.
Had Dr Singh's speech been intended, as Bush's was, to unveil a major new principle of defence and foreign policy, one might have retained respect for the government even while one disagreed with it. But how are we to make sense of the declaration of the Havana non-aligned summit that India both helped to draft and endorsed in full only a month ago? Here is what a distinctly unfriendly USA Today, arguably America's most representative conservative voice, had to say about that declaration: "Representatives of 118 Non-Aligned Movement nations condemned Israel's attacks on Lebanon and supported a peaceful resolution to the US-Iran nuclear dispute in the final declaration Saturday of a summit that brought together some of the world's staunchest American foes. The 92-page declaration also broadly condemned terrorism. But it said movements for self-determination and battles against foreign occupiers should not be considered terrorism. And while declaring democracy to be a universal value, the movement said no one country or region should define it for the whole world and defended the right of Venezuela and other countries to determine their own forms of government".
Either we were asleep at Havana, or it was an American lookalike who gave the speech at the CCC meeting.