Democracy talk

There are reasons for this. The main one is the different perceptions of the two countries on China. America’s long-term interests demand an ally in this part of the world whose ports, aerodromes and other infrastructure are available to it if and when it wants to lay low the Chinese dragon. Washington feels, as the Carnegie report of July says, that an unbridled China is not in US interest and that by bolstering India, the US can arrest the ‘‘growth of Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean rimlands and Chinese penetration of Myanmar.’’

New Delhi, on the other hand, has come a long way from 1962. It is cultivating friendship with Beijing and firming up boundaries. India does not think that it needs to align itself with Washington to thwart Beijing. India believes that the clash with China is not inevitable — a different thinking from that of Jawaharlal Nehru — and that the region is big enough to accommodate both. If India can have a peace process with its inveterate foe Pakistan, why not bury the hatchet with China?

The world is not interested in the alliances or agreements America is striking with India. People want to know what the two countries, which loudly proclaim that they are the biggest democracies, propose to do to bolster faith in liberal thoughts and free society, shrinking the world over. That America and India have renewed their determination to fight against terrorism strengthens the global resolve that the fundamentalists, jehadis or others, will not be allowed to hold entire societies to ransom. Yet both countries are missing the larger question: why are terrorists proliferating? The grievances that their guns or brutal killings highlight have not evoked a debate, much less any signs of redress.

Democracy does not mean justice for a few. It connotes fair play even for its opponents. The system assures that even when provoked, democracies will not destroy the individual’s inalienable right to stay free. When democratic America imposed an unnecessary war on Iraq, Washington laid down new rules of morality which do not fit into the values free societies cherish. No doubt, terrorism has blinded normal judgment. But when a democratic country does not have qualms in becoming totalitarian in the face of terrorist acts, there is something basically wrong in its commitment to democratic values. The society adapts to the new thinking because it is fearful and accepts draconian measures without murmur. But why should a state falter? Mangled bodies, orphaned children and destroyed homes following terrorist attacks have hardened the people. But the state must ensure that it does not exploit the mood to close down the spaces in an open society.

Governments are obliged to strike a balance between that which seems to be demanded by the rush of anger and outrage and that which is adequate to deal with the situation. The democratic temperament of a country is tested only when it is challenged by deliberate, indiscriminate violence. How much force is to be used and when, is what differentiates authoritarian functioning from the democratic. Terrorists, with no morals at stake, indulge in blatant and banal killings. They want to brutalise the society. It is for the state not to descend to their level to counter them. It has to sustain faith in justice and fairness. This is where democracies are beginning to fail.

New laws are giving the state sweeping powers without accountability. They are creating an atmosphere of helplessness as well as of acceptance. Legitimate rights of people are being superseded. This process may prove to be dangerous for a democratic structure in the long run. What America did after 9/11 was an expression of anger and vindictiveness. There was little indication of the distilled experience of a mature democratic state. The Patriot Law casts doubts on the values of justice, democracy and human rights integrated into the American lexicon. Even at the height of World War II, both Washington and London saw to it that the demand for a stricter rule did not impinge upon personal freedoms and liberties.

Coming to democratic India, New Delhi is proposing another detention law to fight terrorism. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, which has created havoc in the northeastern states, particularly Manipur, is sought to be extended all over the country. What it means is that the armed forces will continue to use force and to kill when they are convinced that ‘‘the individual is acting in contravention of the law in a disturbed area.’’ I know of no instance where the armed forces have not defended even their mistaken killings.

Democracies all over the world have to introspect on their conduct because what they do or fail to do gives birth to a new bout of terrorism and a new breed of terrorists. It is no more a secret that the Taliban is America’s creation. Today the cult of Taliban has spawned the Al-Qaeda. Stories emanating from Pakistan say that the training camps are back and fundamentalists are queuing up again. If the democratic legacy is to be protected, all countries should restore and enshrine the principles of truth and liberty in their social, economic and political order. As Robert Frost said, ‘‘most of the change we think we see in life is due to truth being in or out of favour.’’