The Acorn  

From Rabbi Shergill’s album Avengi Ja Nahi, available here.

Why is there so much of it?

“One of the salient features of our culture,” writes Harry Frankfurt “is that there is so much bullshit.” And since “we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us” wrote a little monograph On Bullshit. Given the profound geo-political, geo-strategic, geo-climactic and geo-olfactory importance of this issue, we have decided to publish a brief extract for the benefit of our readers.

Why is there so much bullshit? Of course it is impossible to be sure that there is relatively more of it nowadays than at other times. There is more communication of all kinds in our time than ever before, but the proportion that is bullshit may not have increased. Without assuming that the incidence of bullshit is actually greater now, I will mention a few considerations that help to account for the fact that it is currently so great.

Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. This discrepancy is common in public life, where people are frequently impelled—whether by their own propensities or by the demands of others—to speak extensively about matters of which they are to some degree ignorant. Closely related instances arise from the widespread conviction that it is the responsibility of a citizen in a democracy to have opinions about everything, or at least everything that pertains to the conduct of his country’s affairs. The lack of any significant connection between a person’s opinions and his apprehension of reality will be even more severe, needless to say, for someone who believes it his responsibility, as a conscientious moral agent, to evaluate events and conditions in all parts of the world.

The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These “antirealist” doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective enquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.

But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial—notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit. [Harry Frankfurt/On Bullshit pp 62-67]

Perspectives on foreign policy, defence, strategic affairs and governance

Rohan Joshi joins us on INI with The Filter Coffee, a blog “dedicated to raising awareness of issues relating to foreign policy, defense, strategic affairs and governance so that India’s citizens can demand the accountability they deserve from their elected representatives on the pursuit of India’s national interests.”

Smell the coffee. Better still, sip it every day.

Why India’s offer of talks with Pakistan might not be that bad

So India has offered Pakistan “open-ended talks on all outstanding issues affecting peace and security”, emphasising counter-terrorism, at the level of the foreign secretaries. The offer was made two weeks ago and Pakistan is yet to respond. Also, Siddharth Varadarajan reports that “this is the second time in three months that India has proposed an official-level meeting.” For a government that has been incessantly chanting “dialogue must be resumed”, Islamabad seems reluctant to take up the offer. Now that India’s offer is in public, it will be harder for Pakistan to remain reluctant and continue its chanting.

It is not hard to find fault with the UPA government’s decision to resume bilateral negotiations even as Pakistan continues to brazenly avoid taking action against the instigators of the terrorist attacks on Mumbai. First, the Zardari-Gilani government will project it as yet another political triumph. This will reinforce the state of denial in Pakistani society. Second, the dialogue process itself is unlikely to yield anything substantial in terms of resolving bilateral disputes. The military-jihadi complex has vested interests in creating new disputes—river water sharing, for instance—not in resolving old ones. It is unlikely that the back channel near-deal on Kashmir discussed during General Musharraf’s final months can be concluded now. Third, it will reinforce the military-jihadi complex’s conviction that India does not have credible instruments of retaliation even in the face of highly provocative acts of terrorism like 26/11. This will raise the risks of more such attacks against India.

So was India’s decision foolish? Was it a result of “US pressure”? While the case against resuming the dialogue with Pakistan is solid, there is also a case for it. Why? Because Pakistan has been offering bilateral tensions with India as the excuse for not fighting the taliban in its own territory. The excuse is ridiculous in the presence of nuclear deterrence, but when has logical inconsistency and factual inaccuracy stopped Pakistan? The Obama administration is not without its own sad combination of inexperience and opinionatedness, resulting in some of its quarters taking Pakistani protestations at face value.

It will be much harder for Pakistan to use the excuse if, hey, “open-ended talks on all outstanding issues” are in progress.

There is, however, a caveat. This policy of destroying Pakistan’s excuses—and acting as an anvil—makes sense only if the UPA government has the intention, capacity and will to compel the United States to hammer the military-jihadi complex. If it doesn’t, then, like similar events in history, India’s decision will be nothing other than folly.

Related Post: Operation Markarap

The incredible silliness of buying out insurgents

Michael O’Hanlon and Hassina Sherjan inject some sense into the discourse over ‘negotiating with the taliban’. In the Daily Beast they write:

One idea voiced at London was to offer money to the Taliban to switch sides. This kind of approach must be handled delicately. While Afghans are suffering from a lack of sewage systems, roads, canalization, garbage collection or job opportunities, spending $146 million on reconciliation to pay off the Taliban is unacceptable to most Afghans.
If financial incentives are to be part of our approach to convincing former insurgents to support the government, there should not be discrimination in favor of the Taliban. That is not only unfair, it also creates perverse incentives for people to join the resistance first in order to be bribed by the government to switch sides. Economic incentives should be offered to communities willing to do their part in support of the building of the country. That approach can sometimes include former insurgents if there are adequate monitoring mechanisms on their future behavior, but they should not be the primary beneficiaries of government largesse. [The Daily Beast]

That’s similar to what Atanu Dey argued in Pragati in the context of an Indian government plan to purchase Naxalites. The real solution—as Bibek Debroy points out—is “governance, not public expenditure per se”

Almost three years ago, the Percy Mistry Committee report recommended that India develop Mumbai into an international financial centre. Like other plans to modernise the city’s infrastructure and public services, the Mistry Committee’s recommendations were substantially unimplemented.

This month, we argue that it is time for the Indian government to revisit the Mumbai project. It is also time for India to embrace an entirely new urbanisation paradigm.

Another highlight of this issue: Shashi Tharoor defends India’s continued engagement with the United Nations. On that topic, don’t miss the infographic on India’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations elsewhere in the issue.

We also cover topics in naval strategy; the importance of defence economics in planning and budgeting; intelligence relations between the CIA & ISI and the conflict in Balochistan. There’s a lot more.

Read & Share

Digital Community edition (Free)
In print: 12 issues at Rs 800/US$ 80 (subscribe)

A picture and many strong words

In the January 2010 issue of Pragati, accompanying an article titled “Telangana Liberated”, we published the following photograph.

March and Dharna against Operation Green Hunt - Bharath Margabandu

This image is part of a series of photographs taken by Bharath Margabandu on a protest march against Operation Green Hunt, the Indian government’s new security initiative against the Naxalite movement. We didn’t know (and didn’t care) who the persons in the photographs are. We chose the photograph because, in our judgement, it is relevant to the article alongside which it was published.

This morning we got an email from a Dr Ashley Tellis from the Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad (not the well-known Washington-based international relations scholar). We produce the email exchange in full and leave readers to arrive at their own judgements.

From: ashley tellis
Date: 2010/1/27
Subject: Photograph
To: pragati@…

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to register my surprise at your profound stupidity. In the article ‘Telangana Liberated” (wrongly spelt in your Highlights section at least online, so please change it) by Ram Yadav ( a former DGP of AP, which shows just how “fresh” and “bold” your magazine is) in the latest issue of your pathetic, right-wing rag of a magazine, you carry a picture of me in an APCLC march against Operation Greenhunt in Hyderabad.

The march had nothing to do with Telangana, your article has nothing to do with Operation Green Hunt and the poster I am carrying has nothing to do with your article. It says (for non-Telugu readers) “Murderers of Adivasis in the forest/ The forced occupation of the natural resources by MNCs and Operation Green hunt Opposition Committee”. It says nothing about Naxalites or about Telangana and to carry this photograph with this raving and ranting rightwing article which shows the mindset of a five year old with a war video game is nothing short of ridiculous. The march was and is against the killing of tribals by people like Mr. Yadav through a fascist “operation” like Green”hunt.” The march had no position on Naxalites or on Telangana. Please get some basic facts right and learn to read a photograph before you carry it.

Please grow up and if you can’t carry a decent article at least carry a relevant photograph, you sad and sorry idiots.

Dr. Ashley Tellis
Department of Liberal Arts
Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad
Estamos en la lucha

From: Nitin Pai
Date: 2010/1/27
Subject: Re: Photograph
To: ashley tellis

Dear Prof Tellis,

Thank you for your email. If you permit, we would like to publish it on our website.

regards

Nitin
(via Mobile)

From: ashley tellis
Date: 2010/1/27
Subject: RE: Photograph
To: nitin.pai@..

Please do. That was the whole point in sending the email to you.

Estamos en la lucha

From: Nitin Pai
Date: 2010/1/27
Subject: Re: Photograph
To: ashley tellis

Thank you.

We treat all correspondence as private by default. That’s the reason I asked.

Regards

Nitin
(via Mobile)

From: ashley tellis
Date: 2010/1/27
Subject: RE: Photograph
To: nitin.pai@..

There is no such thing as private. Everything in the world is public. The stupidity of your magazine is a prime example.

Estamos en la lucha

Note: We have edited out the email addresses to protect everyone’s privacy, including Dr Tellis’s

Where we stand

In a land of over a billion minorities, the Indian republic—which owes its existence to the loftiest moral struggle in modern times—presents the best hope for the well-being and development of all its citizens. The survival, security and strengthening of the Indian nation and its institutions, therefore, is not only a matter of supreme moral consequence, but of immense human importance.

Frequently imperfect application, repeated attempts at its perversion and creeping cynicism about its effectiveness must not prevent us from recognising that the Constitution of India offers an enlightened way for us to organise our society and ensure the greatest welfare of all citizens. Surely this is something worth defending. We at The Indian National Interest community strongly believe so.

The above lines are from the inaugural editorial of Pragati. Today is a good day to renew our commitment.

Did the United States’ man in Kabul advocate action against Pakistan?

In a secret cable opposing the McChrystal plan to inject more troops to bolster counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, US ambassador to Kabul (and a former commander of US troops in the country) wrote:

[Friday November 6th, 2009]
More troops won’t end the insurgency as long as Pakistan sanctuaries remain. Pakistan will remain the single greatest source of Afghan instability so long as the border sanctuaries remain, and Pakistan views its strategic interests as best served by a weak neighbor. There is reason to be encouraged by Pakistan’s current military offensive in Waziristan, but the lasting result of this effort is still unclear. Nor does the Pakistan military action address the role of the Quetta Shura, which has the most influence over the insurgency in southern Taliban strongholds, or the Haqqani network, the most lethal killer of allied troops and Afghan civilians. Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, the gains from sending additional forces may be fleeting.
– We are always looking for game-changers. If we are looking for a strategic partner and military or political moves likely to have decisive results, those might be in Pakistan. As we contemplate greatly expanding our presence in Afghanistan, the better answer could well be to further ratchet up our engagement with Pakistan.

[Monday November 9th 2009]
Among the issues this panel should examine are:
– the prospects for the Pakistani security services putting meaningful pressure against the Afghan Taliban, the insurgent sanctuaries and leadership, and al Qaeda.[NYT]

Mr Eikenberry’s phrase—”to further ratchet up our engagement with Pakistan”—is intriguing. In the context of the paragraph of which it is a part of, it seems to suggest that he is advocating military coercion against Pakistan. He was only reiterating what he had already told a Congressional committee in February 2007, when, after leaving his position as commander of American troops in Afghanistan, he noted that “a steady, direct attack against the command and control in Pakistan in sanctuary areas is essential for us to achieve success.”

Tailpiece:It is astounding how many secret documents are making their way to the public. Overall, it conveys an impression of an establishment soaked in defeatism, with individuals trying to protect themselves by leaking correspondence selectively. In this case, one official took it upon himself to hand over a secret document to the New York Times, because a “reporter requested them…(because) “it was important for the historical record that Mr Eikenberry’s detailed assessments be made public.” Seriously, now!

On putting people first; on fixing drains; and on expanding geopolitical horizons

For reflection on Republic Day—why territory is not a big deal; why fixing drains will help counter terrorism and on the need to see beyond the subcontinent.

Also, don’t miss the brilliant editorial at Mint—that points out that “while we have protected the process of democracy, we have deeply violated its spirit.”

From the archive: Three thoughts on on Republic Day 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and Independence Day 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004.