Neither infinite nor enduring

For a country that claims to be fighting on behalf of the civilized world, its language is fairly brutish: ‘Retribution’, ‘Get those folks’, ‘Wanted dead or alive’ and so on. But then America has always granted itself latitude in matters of rhetoric. Earlier this week, the US as part of ‘Operation Infinite Justice’ lifted sanctions against us, till recently considered a renegade nuclear power and forged links with Pakistan’s military dictator. The ‘global’ war against terror has frozen the US assets of some terrorist organisations — a list that would leave many governments around the globe dissatisfied.

At a time when the world’s leading nation is reeling under an unprecedented attack on its citizens and property it might seem churlish to quibble about mere words. In this case, however, they are significant. As I write the US-led juggernaut may or may not be edging closer to a military confrontation with Osama bin Laden and his supporters amidst dire predications about the difficulty of the terrain and the potential consequences on the region. Time will tell how this event pans out. What I wish to do is raise some points about language and perceptions of conflict in a changing world.

Recently BBC television produced a fascinating series that reviewed happenings over the last hundred years and came to the conclusion that it had been the ‘People’s Century’. The increased prosperity of the middle classes in the post-war period, the end of colonialism, the emancipation of women, public protests over issues such as nuclear power and so on indicated a surge towards greater egalitarianism and people’s participation in events that affected them.

Developments over the last decade, particularly globalisation and the web revolution, have shown the way ahead to be one of even more interconnectedness, openness and adaptability. Can conflict really be kept apart from these trends?

The American verbal response to the current crisis, a reassertion of might and moral superiority, suggests a belief that it can. Facts suggest otherwise. If the horrific September 11 attacks showed how easily and simply a small band of people could breach a superpower’s defences, the current widespread anxiety over chemical and biological warfare — the hijackers are reported to have made inquiries regarding crop dusters with a view to launch an attack — reveal the possible dangers in store. Even a teenage hacker with an evil mind can cause havoc.

Might is no longer the preserve of powerful states. The weapons of disruption and destruction in the new world are more spread out and widely available than ever before. Then there is the issue of moral superiority. A persuasive argument which at present has managed to rally enormous international support around the US. In this good versus bad guys contest the central theme is the distinction drawn between terrorism or the killing of ‘innocent’ civilians vis-a-vis war.

According to this distinction, the latter is okay, the former is not. It may seem an obvious distinction but in practical terms is it valid? In a free world where civilians elect their governments and participate in decision-making, how long can they be insulated from the consequences of those decisions? Equally significant is the fact that every war these days is played out in the battlefield as much as it is on television. And the viewing public cannot stomach a high human count even of military personnel.

Judging even by these sketchy parameters it is a complex problem with myriad ramifications, all very unsuited to the paternalism displayed by the American penchant for simple, high sounding jargon. It is a fact that seems to have found some recognition, however slight, in the American establishment given George Bush’s backtracking on the use of the word ‘crusade’ and the replacement of the term ‘Infinite Justice’ with ‘Enduring Freedom’ out of deference to its Muslim allies. How well the new appellation holds up remains to be seen.

As more countries with varying agendas pledge support to the US and differences between governments and their people on the issue become visible (Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) the contours of ‘freedom’ too might need to change. Closer home there seems to be an odd reluctance to discuss the current crisis in a manner that is relevant to India. The government’s ready offer of support to the US has been commented upon but not vigorously debated. Nor, despite detailed and sustained media coverage of the attacks on September 11 and the aftermath has there been enough said about the threats to our internal security, our weaknesses and our preparedness to face stepped up and varied attacks in the near future? Should we not be more concerned?

Earlier Columns