“War is the continuation of politics by other means” – Carl Von Clausewitz
The Election Commission of India has recently proclaimed the date for the elections to the Parliament. While the polls are within the hailing distance, hassles on the border have altered the dimensions of the votes significantly. The failure of the ruling party in four states in the federal elections conducted in November 2018 was an impetus for the opposition party and provided a glimpse of hope for numerous other parties who were ready to join hands with opposition for a plausible coalition. However, the explosion in Pulwama and the followed air strike and capture and the return of Indian fighter pilot dropped a bomb on their dream castle. The ruling party BJP is back on the full throttle, to fight the election and they will hurl the thunderbolt of nationalism upon anyone who tries to be in their way back to Parliament.
Notably, diversionary war is a political tactic used by the leaders of the countries from time immemorial. It is the instigation of war to divert the attention of the population of a particular country from its domestic strife. According to Simmel and Lewis A. Coser, diversionary foreign policy is exercised by a ruler if there are poor economic conditions and social conditions looming over the nation and as a result, his popularity grows thinner. During such situations, the ruler would push a contemporary or traditional enemy of the state with considerable military capabilities to warfare. Such war would automatically elevate the support for the domestic regime and the government could buy time to solve the internal issues. Also, the tensed situation manufactured from the international conflicts justifies the use of force to suppress the dissent inside the country. Also, the tensed situation manufactured from the international conflicts justifies the use of force to suppress the dissent inside the country. More importantly, an external war could unify the population of a country, also known as ‘Rally Round the Flag Syndrome’. A war also provides a scapegoat for the people of a country to blame upon for all their problems. The battle of Agincourt by Henry V of England, Franco-Prussian war by Otto Von Bismarck and even the recent Gulf wars were considered as the political gimmicks of the then rulers to consolidate their autonomy. The possibility of a war with Pakistan is actually reaping benefits for the incumbent Prime Minister of India.
If the two countries are at daggers drawn, the situation is mainly affecting the people of both countries. The deterrence policy followed by the countries, building their arsenal to match that of the enemy is not viable. Firstly, the investment in military weapons is a dead investment. There won’t be any further income or development from the weapon investment. Secondly, if both the countries are nuclear powers, then the additional building up of the arsenal won’t create much impact. Thirdly, if the threshold is crossed and both nations are dragged to war, then it would result in the devastation of one part of the globe. Interestingly, if two neighbouring countries are increasing trade relations, then it would lead to the development of the entire region. Also, people from both sides would be benefitted. Also, there would be cultural exchanges and higher people-to-people contacts as well. Hence, if a war breaks out the trade would be deflated and the people of both countries would pressurize their respective governments to stop the war and to maintain the status quo of peace and harmony. So, it is now the people’s turn to roll the dice.
About the Author
