Discerning the intentions of Mombatti Brigade

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

By - Dikgaj

Posting this few hours after today's terrorist attack on Delhi-High-court. How true are the intentions of the candle-lighting brigade of India, which comes out after every terrorist attack, to light candles and profess the "aman-ki-asha" type projects? How true are the intentions of those who wish for peace with Pakistan, ignoring all the imminent threats posed to India in general and Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhists of India in particular, owing the rabid hatred of pakistanis towards latter? It seems that everyone from Prime-Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh to ex RAW chief Sri. Bahukutumbi Raman, to strategic analysts and thinkers like Sri. Bharat Karnad have been towing the lines of "aman ki asha" type projects. 

The information coming out from various sources seems to be confounding and confusing, given the general understanding in Indian community that a stable and prosperous Pakistan is not in India's interest, but neither is a failed and Talibanized Pakistan. The only pakistan that is in India's interest is one which is in constant struggle within itself. When this is known, why the deliberate misinformative posturing by Government of India and strategic and intelligence community?

First danger is that of "tagging". If a person is officially in a position where he is known to be getting information/seeking information/ and analyzing them for potential policy decisions - then he may attract deliberate misinformation, or cleverly entwined misinformation within correct ones. Of course superior intelligences would have thought of all of this and keep multiple sources for cross-checks. But it is still possible to release informations from centralized disemination mechanisms combined with tactical visible ground movements - which will give a coordinated "disinformation".

Second danger is that there can be a saturation of false/semi-false/true information all mixed up together - so that a time comes when the analyst no longer sees value in any of them. This is a process of conscious rejection and wipe-out of what is seen as old ideas which are no longer working - without perhaps being aware that some of this rejection could the result of an earlier failure to recognize the real processes.

Over and above all this, perhaps the larger issue is whether an analyst also consciously analyzes himself. Is he aware or constantly trying also to explore the basis of his own ideologies - value-systems - and axiomatic proclivities, and their changes over time and experience? If he had really made that "stereotyping" Hindutvavaadi comment - did he stop and think as to what internal or subconscious processes brought out that reaction in him? 

Trying to be "neutral" is a sadly funny business - because it forces one to be constantly over attentive to the two extremes one is trying to be neutral - relative to. Thus the "purely" neutral person is in constant and unsure undefined "middle ground", and perhaps much much more aware of "extremes" than those he clubs as extremists.

Because of lack of clear cut ideological or value-system commitments that can order given situations or positions, over-anxious to be "neutral" persons in constant touch or with a heightened awareness of "extremes" are always at the risk of at one point of time, identifying with one of these extremes as a means of ideological certainty.

I think it is most important to encourage what we call Mombatti brigade. There is no point in badmouthing and lambasting the Paki aam-Janta. People are not targets of criticism - it is what they do, their ideological apparent drives, as matching with actions [people run multiple identity forgeries - they may represent themselves as one of many according to opportunity and hopes for gains - not necessarily of silver but also of esteem and power] - which are targets of criticism. Perhaps my sympathy for Mombatti-brigade shows in this too - because I have always stood for a future of absorption of both the people and the land into India.

A huge test of proper Mombatti-ism comes up when anyone expressing overwhelming softness for parts of Pak - people/culture/gov/society whatever, is asked his feelings about whether he would be ready to accept inclusion of Pakistani people and territory into an enlarged future India. Inevitably - the greatest love for Pakis in the form of Mombatti-ism mostly appears to accompany an intense anguish at even the thought of incorporating these dearly beloved people and lands into close societal proximity.

Not wanting Pakis in our midst - while becoming "soft" on them as a rashtra/people - is the height of self-deluding deception. But then again, such turns of ideological attitudes over a life time, and given high-ranks and exposure to "information" - should be studied. I would see it as almost inevitable and a good illustration as to how people in position could have gone towards greater accommodation with hostile ideologies in our history - while having fought such ideologies for a major part of their lives. This is no accusation against B.Raman ji - but for me a curious window into a very real intellectual process. A very crucial process needing observation and studying.