Kanti Bajpai

India and the Crisis in Kashmir

With the end of the Cold War, regional security problems have become paradigmatic. Whereas they were once seen primarily as functions of-or in some cases even epiphenomenal to-superpower rivalry, they are now central. International security is largely regional security in the absence of a global strategic conflict. As a result, attention has shifted from consideration of the global strategic balance to local conflict. Broadly, these local conflicts are a function of two factors: regional distributions of power but also animosities rooted in ethnic, religious, territorial, and irredentist contestation. The problem for policy is that the latter factors are more intractable than the former; distributions of power are more amenable to management than are animosities based on, or evocative of seemingly old quarrels and fears. This article focuses on one of the most costly and dangerous of these animosities, namely, the Indian and Pakistani contest over the divided state of Kashmir.

An Expression of Threats Versus Capabilities Across Time and Space

and liberty of individuals and communities, balanced by capacities to deal with those threats (security = threats minus capacities). Threats and capacities will vary in time and space. Beyond a point, it is futile to insist on a definition and conceptualization that is good for all societies for all time. What is more important than trading blows between national and human security proponents and between various human security ‘schools’ is agreement on a broad research program, with some convergence on the kinds of questions it is useful to ask and the kinds of methods we should follow. First, the study of human security, like that of human development, is a policy science and should focus on audits of threats and the capacities that exist to deal with them. I urge that we focus on threats that can be traced back to identifiable human agents (at least in principle), not to structural or natural causes. Second, in the project on human security in India with which I am associated, we have developed a human security index (HSI) based on eleven or so measures of threat. In addition, we have conducted a public opinion survey of 10,000 Indians. The survey asks questions about both national and human security and how insecure Indians feel. (The more subjective sense of insecurity may or may not match the more objective measure. Convergence or divergence will raise interesting questions and lines of inquiry.) Third, in our project, we expect to match human development indicators to the HSI. 360 Security Dialogue vol. 35, no. 3, September 2004

Security and Saarc

Dr. Kanti Bajpai is Associate Professor, Centre for International Politics, Organization and Disarmament, SIS, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. SAARC DOES NOT formally include security as an area of cooperation, yet security motives and concerns have never been absent in the Association. President Ziaur Rahman’s letter to the other governments in the region in May 1980 hinted at these security anxieties. The letter began with the argument that the ’[c]urrent situation in South Asia and its immediate vicinity seems to call for close consultations and exchange of views and ideas’. The second paragraph of the letter clarified that ’Recent events and developments in, and around South Asia and the Middle East represent a considerable threat to global peace and security. The situation in Afghanistan continues to undermine the security of the countries of the region .... Under these circumstances we believe there is an urgent need for cooperation among the countries of this area for preserving peace and stability’.’ 1

India and the United States

A grand strategic partnership between India and the United States (US) can be constructed at five levels—the planetary, the global, the international, the continental and the regional. The focus, conventionally, is on the last three levels. Planetary and global changes, however, confront both countries with huge challenges. India and the US must find ways to cooperate in dealing with climate change and resource depletion, as also with a revolution in human affairs that promises emancipation but could end in reaction and violence. As two continental-sized, pluralistic democracies, they have unique strengths in building a better world.

Internal Security: The Indian Way

There is a view that India’s approach to national security is largely ad hoc and marked by incompetence. Indians as well as foreign commentators on the country’s security policies seem to share this perception. However, India does have a security approach that has a discernible pattern and arguably has been a success. This comment focuses on how India has dealt with internal security since independence. The problem of internal security arises principally from the country’s social diversity. Indians belong to different religions, castes, tribes, language groups, and regions. Managing this diversity is a constant challenge—for ordinary people as well as the government. Broadly, India has opted for what the political scientist, Arend Lijphart, calls ‘power sharing’. At the core of the Indian power-sharing structure are four elements: liberal constitutionalism, civic nationalism, the devolution of power in a layered federalism, and group rights. In addition, the Indian government has used force in a calibrated way to maintain internal peace. Finally, the government has led a national development effort with a view to bettering the lives of the vast majority of people and thereby promoting their loyalty to, and satisfaction with, the political system. Constitutionalism is the promise that the government will deal with individuals and groups according to established principles, rather than arbitrarily. A liberal constitution consists of principles that limit the authority and power of governments and protect individuals and groups against government tyranny or the tyranny of others including social majorities of any kind who, by virtue of superior numbers, could override the rights and preferences of those who disagree with them. Liberal constitutionalism means that the system of government allows those who feel that their rights have been violated to seek justice and compensation. A liberal constitutional order usually is marked by checks and balances between government agencies so that no one institution can dominate and trample on the rights of citizens. The Indian constitutional system has all these elements, and to that extent it is a resource for the members of any group or community unhappy with the way they are being treated or may be treated. A second basic policy that has underwritten internal security is the commitment to civic as against ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism is the notion that citizenship is based not on ethnic attributes but rather on political attributes, namely the willingness to abide by the values and rules of a common political order. Being Indian, in this view, is not a matter of ethnic belonging, it is not something that is conferred on citizens

Crisis and Conflict in South Asia After September 11, 2001

its second security ’front’ than it has been for the past decade. In sum, the region is more insecure than it was prior to 9/11. This flies in the face of what might have been expected. With the United States (US), the world’s greatest military power, fighting a war on terrorism in Afghanistan and positioning its troops on Pakistani soil, one might have expected terrorists, extremists and governments in the region to be more cautious in their actions and behaviours. The record shows that these three sets of actors have in fact been more audacious and more prone to choose the path of intimidation and violence. In this article we explore why this happened. The security of South Asia has been primarily determined by the interaction of India with its neighbours. The region consists of two ’theatres’, both of which feature India. The first theatre consists of India and Pakistan. The second theatre consists

Book Reviews : ROSS MALLICK, Development, Ethnicity and Human Rights in South Asia. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998, pp. 375, Rs 425:

This is a set of discrete essays on three different topics which have been cobbled together and placed between two covers. Ross Mallick is an independent consultant based in Canada who has worked in various research institutes and has penned reports for the Canadian government and for government-funded agencies. The essays, on development, ethnicity, and human rights, seem to draw heavily on his experiences and writings as a consultant and also on earlier academic work, primarily on West Bengal. Development policies, ethnic feeling and upsurge, and human rights consciousness and violations are undoubtedly related, but this book is not a systematic treatment of the links. It is a curious work: sometimes on target; frequently irksome in its I-knowit-all, I-told-you-so, tone; and always self-righteous. This is a pity because Mallick seems to have passion, a sense of commitment, and has evidently spent a good deal of time in and on South Asia. His spleen and evident disdainfor virtually all fellow researchers in the field, for governments and officials, and in the end for the societies he