Sometimes having to quit your job is a 'reality check'. You understand that the world does not revolve around you. Getting a pay check means thinking about the interests and the values of the people who employ you and those you are meant to serve- not indulging in verbose solipsism of an antagonomic type.
Today, we are going to look at a case where no such 'reality check' has been received by a narcissistic cunt.
In his first post-Ashoka column, Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes in the Indian Express
The unfolding tragedy in Myanmar, occasioned by the military (the Tatmadaw) overturning the election results last month, portends a new cycle of political repression, humanitarian disaster and geopolitical instability.
Equally, it may portend Myanmar becoming stable and prosperous under a highly authoritarian regime which has good relations with its two big neighbors. Alternatively, it could continue to be what it has always been.
India, because of its proximity to Myanmar, its geopolitical role, and its interests, will inevitably be drawn into the train of events.
India is keeping up its relationship with the Army and is trying to ensure 'refugees' don't try to use its territory to strike back at the Burmese Army- because, as we all know, two can play at that gem.
The most immediate challenge is, of course, dealing with the refugee crisis that this coup occasions. The Chief Minister of Mizoram, Zoramthanga, was correct in writing to the Centre that India cannot ignore the humanitarian crisis unfolding in our backyard, and remain “indifferent” to the suffering of those crossing the border.
Of course we can! Monitor a few genuine refugees- who will return when things settle down- and chase away the insurgents and terrorist nutjobs. This is what India should have done with the Tamil Tigers.
The Manipur government has, thankfully, withdrawn a shameful circular that would have prohibited providing meaningful assistance to victims of political persecution.
It was unenforceable. The important thing is that innocents get succor from those who would give them succor anyway- if this does not happen, those locals will be pissed off- while insurgents are chased away.
This circular, if enacted, would have been terrible for India’s image.
Who gives a shit about India's image? Anyway, Mehta & Co have already shat on it. Everybody knows India is a Hindu-Fascist country where Mehta's bum gets politically interfered with even if it is seated in a Chair in Ashoka University.
But how we deal with the victims of this crisis should not be just driven by an exercise in image management, but take the larger humanitarian and political view.
Fuck off! There are some innocents who will be looked after by people not very different from themselves while guys with guns, hopefully, will be chased away. Simples.
To state that the rich and powerful nations have not pulled their weight in crafting an adequate multilateral response to the global refugee crisis is to state the obvious.
No. It is to babble worthless shite. Why not say- 'to state that the rich and powerful aren't sucking off homeless dudes is to state the obvious'?
Myanmar’s other neighbours, and especially ASEAN countries, are also unlikely to do the minimal decent thing.
When did Mehta even do a 'minimal decent thing'? Fuck is wrong with this cunt?
Helping refugees is also not costless, and the burden has to be shouldered by the nation, not just a few states.
No. Some innocent people come in and are looked after by people similar to themselves. Then they go back.
But India now risks moving from what B S Chimni, India’s most important scholar on refugee law,
which is like saying 'Paraguay's most important scholar of Polish'
once called the transition from “strategic ambiguity to exclusion”.
It may be that India thought hosting insurgents from Burma was a good idea. We now want to exclude the fuck out of them.
This is in keeping with the ideological temper of our times, where the complexities of people’s very human predicaments are effaced by xenophobia, paranoia, and discrimination.
Who gives a fuck about 'ideology'? What Mehta is talking about is 'virtue signaling'. But that tamasha is now well and truly over.
No group that is not of use to our new interpretation of nationalism will deserve any consideration.
Nothing which is not in the national interest ever deserves consideration by a nation.
The humanitarian case for providing some kind of safe haven for refugees is too obvious to be stated.
Then don't. Actual human beings don't gas on about humanitarianism.
Surely the real test of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” is
whether it is true or not. If there is no God, it isn't.
not opportunistic displays of noblesse oblige,
Fuck has noblesse oblige to do with a very poor country? On the other hand, opportunities should be seized whether you are a Prince or a pauper.
it is adherence to basic norms of decency.
Which Mehta knows nothing about. He posed as a martyr while leaving his students in the lurch.
The principle of non-refoulement,
if fucking irrelevant! No country in the region accepts erga omnes obligations or recognizes jus cogens- save as it thinks fit. India is not a party to the Vienna Convention on Laws and Treaties.
which has been described as the equivalent of the Magna Carta in treatment of those fleeing persecution, has to be
according to whom? Rich countries which have achieved demographic transition or otherwise require a top up of refugees who will be willing to work their way up from the bottom?
the cornerstone of any civilised state’s response to a politically induced humanitarian disaster. It is not clear where India stands on this.
It is clear Mehta thinks he himself is civilized, but India is not. Why the fuck won't he just fuck off to America already?
But there is also a more political case for crafting a more generous and imaginative policy.
No there isn't. Even if there was, Mehta wouldn't be able to tell us what it might be.
First, the protests for democracy are widespread, involve young people, and are driven by a genuine opposition to military rule.
Sadly, the military is even more genuinely opposed to not ruling. Guns prevail over 'young people'. Their Mehtas run away and virtue signal from afar.
India has to decide whether it is on the side of the future.
China is the future. Either India becomes like it or it will go the way of Myanmar.
Second, Northeastern states like Manipur and Mizoram which will immediately bear the costs of helping refugees, are all, rightly, calling for a more generous and imaginative policy.
No they aren't. They are calling for stuff which is in their interest- i.e. money.
As Avinash Paliwal, one of the most insightful writers on Myanmar, had argued in an important article, “A Cat’s Paw of Indian Reactionaries: Strategic Rivalry and Domestic Politics at the India-China-Myanmar Tri Junction,” the concerns of the Northeast states have often been historically sidelined in India’s handling of the “trijunction”.
Why is this cretin citing an article about the 1967 boundary agreement? The world has changed greatly since then.
This was partly because of counterinsurgency fears, and partly because of suspicion of political forces in the Northeast. But at this historical juncture, to ignore reasonable and accommodative sentiments in the Northeast, would be to potentially signal their marginality in shaping India’s calculations.
Or the reverse.
Third, the counterinsurgency and subversion fears have to be intelligently handled. For one thing, if we are relying only on cooperation with the Myanmar military, without support for the local population, we will once again be setting ourselves up for long-term problems.
That part of the world was a Zomia- a shatter zone for Empires- before there were Empires.
A broadbased reputation for humanitarian concerns and the welfare of people is a strategic asset, not a liability if you are a long-term player.
Reputations can be concocted. Being rich helps in this matter. Being poor and weak- not so much.
India should also now have the confidence that it can both politically and militarily handle any risks that occasionally arise in the context of doing the decent thing.
With what money? Will Ashoka's donors stump up the cash? What if they 'politically interfere' with our arsehole?
Basically, Mehta is saying 'Listen you damn desis. First be rich and powerful and then do the decent thing. Otherwise I will resign and say you are a bunch of Fascists and that you interfered politically with my bum-hole.'
But by closing down its borders, it is not sending a signal of strength but one of weakness; that its position is so fragile, that even an adherence to a principle of non-refoulement poses risks.
A country which can close its borders is strong. India probably can't, but it it doesn't have to be stupid about this. Mehta's position as an Academic was so fragile even an adherence to the principle of non-fouling your student's nest posed risks to his ego.
Fourth, it is not yet clear what India’s position on political developments inside Myanmar will be.
Our position- like the rest of the world- has been clear for as long as Mehta has been alive. We don't give a fuck. Politics in that part of the world is fucked in the head. We hope it will be stable. We'd be happy if it became prosperous. But, frankly speaking, we think the expulsion of Indian origin people from Myanmar was a good thing- for them.
With every major power, from Russia to China now seeing Myanmar in terms of geopolitical terms, the stakes for India are going to be high.
No they aren't. That country is skilled at fucking itself up.
Admittedly, the choices are not easy. The Myanmar military, belying all analyses, has remained mostly united and oppressive.
Which is how come there is a country of that name.
We know from historical experience that unless there is significant elite division in military structures, they can hang on for a long time through brutal repression. Myanmar’s tragedy seems to be that its people seem more ready for democracy.
They did have democracy in the Fifties. It failed for the same reason that every subsequent regime failed-
1) irreconcilable ethnic tensions
2) great stupidity and cupidity on the part of 'leaders'
The truth of the matter is that the Burmese should have got the Brits to hang around for at least a decade. Then they could have developed like Malaysia.
But its military seems more repressive, and its elites, including Aung San Suu Kyi, have been more conservative in harnessing democratic and progressive impulses.
But her maternal Uncle, Thakin Than Tun had gone down the Maoist route and ended up killing students during his own 'cultural revolution' before himself being killed by some 'comrade'. The truth is 'democratic' and 'progressive' impulses can just as easily end in the killing of university students which is why we tolerate them. Nobody likes students. Mehta should know. He ran away from his.
There is also the brute fact that now with even Russia in the mix, the Myanmar military may have more options for support. So under such circumstances, it will be tempting for the so-called realists in India to deeply engage with the military.
Rational- not 'tempting'.
There is also a great deal of exaggeration about Myanmar’s economic importance to India. Certainly, connectivity and trade with Myanmar provide momentum for India’s eastward interests. But frankly, it will be a stretch to say that somehow the benefits from engagement with Myanmar are so great that India cannot put them aside, if the need arises, to act on a modicum of principle.
The reverse is more true. There is no economic dividend in this direction so fuck principles and 'soft power'. Treat these guys as you would a bunch of head hunters.
Presumably, India wants to be a key interlocutor in two contexts.
India needs to steer well clear of that shit-show.
It wants to be a key player in shaping a global response to the crisis.
Nope. Blundering Biden getting the hots for Suu Kyi is the last thing we need.
And it wants to have, perhaps, some role in, if possible, helping with a settlement towards a less repressive transition within Myanmar.
But everybody knows such a settlement is impossible.
But for both of those roles, it is important that India has widespread credibility with the different groups and movements inside Myanmar.
Which it can only get by telling lots of contradictory lies. Credibility means people think you have flesh in the game. But nobody in their right mind wants to have flesh in Myanmar's game- coz the thing is basically a meat grinder.
That is what will give India potential advantage.
Telling lies gives you a potential advantage- but only potentially, not actually.
But it is also important that your own positions are not seen just as a product of strategic cynicism, willing to trade any larger consideration for small short-term gains. For both of these contexts, the exemplariness of India’s conduct matters. That is how we differentiate ourselves from the crowded geopolitical pack.
Fuck is wrong with this cretin? Does he not get that nobody wants to deal with Myanmar? Suu Kyi aint sexy no more.
By sidelining even the most basic humanitarian impulses, under a myopically realist or xenophobic impulse, India will neither realise its ideals nor its strategic objectives.
Mehta sidelined his most basic humanitarian impulses- which involved not leaving his students in the lurch. This may have been because of 'myopic realism'. It may have been a xenophobic impulse. Either way, if this cretin does not return to Amrika pronto, he will neither realize his ideals nor his strategic objectives. This is because, if based on an Ivy League Campus, he can come across like he knows shit about India. If he remains in India, he looks an utter fool. Why? India won't do stupid shit just coz Mehta keeps saying 'guys! we gotta do stupid shit otherwise Disco won't come back and we won't all be able to wear platform heels and flared trousers and sing 'Om Shanti Om'.
No comments:
Post a Comment