Prashant – on Centre Right India

The frenzy in the news media that followed after the verdict was expected. Especially given that 2/3rds of the land would now be dedicated to the building of the temple. After observing the debate I made some observations that I think ought to be emphasized.

1) The verdict is based principally on the fact that none of the plaintiffs were able to submit the title deed that proves ownership. That said there was sufficient evidence to prove that the land was used by all three parties in the past for an extended period of time.

Therefore it seems to me that the verdict would have been 1/3rd each regardless of court’s comment on Ram Janma Sthan etc.

2) I heard some “eminent historians” on NDTV who said that the ASI report was controversial as per newspaper reports…to which I ask: Since when did newspaper reports become the basis of crediting or discrediting expert reports? I am still searching for any scholarly critique of the report which is outside the realm of newspaper reports etc.

3) The tone regarding the verdict changed right after the verdict came out. This simply exposes the liberal bias in Indian media. All of a sudden the judgement was not to be “taken in the spirit” [whatever the hell that means :s].

In any case the Wakf board has decided to appeal in Supreme Court. I doubt whether SC decision will be any different in terms of land distribution. At least this will give the BJP to close this chapter, get the temple built and move on to other issues.

It is said about the Mahabharata that: yadihaasti tadanyatra yannehaasti na tat kvachit. This means that “what one find here you shall find elsewhere; what you do not find here does not exist.”

Mahabharata discusses issues related to governance and strategy, and yet is deeply concerned about dharma, or righteousness. After all the Bhagavad Gita is entirely a discourse on Dharma with the battlefield as the backdrop. It is the simultaneous existence of realpolitk and the quest for Dharma that makes the Mahabharata a rich and interesting source of Indian political philosophy. Furthermore, fundamental questions that are constantly and implicitly raised are: what is strategy? And can good strategies yield the results desired? Or are strategies mere illusions – a figment of our imagination and false belief that humans can control the events that are yet to unfold?

A quick look at the major events in the Mahabharata will reveal that the importance of strategy in deciding the future course of events and outcomes may not be as much as it is perhaps believed to be. Shakuni, a brilliant strategist, crafted really good plans which invariably fail. Interestingly, all his strategies enjoyed short term success…be it poisoning Bheem when he was young, or the Laakshagraha conspiracy (lac house) – which led to Duryodhana becoming the new Yuvaraj – and the famous dice game which turned the Pandavas into wandering nomads, but all these strategies had adverse long term effects…

Bheem became stronger after he was poisoned courtesy the Sudharas he was given by the Nagas who lived in the depths of the Ganges, in which he was thrown, upon being poisoned. The Laakshagraha conspiracy did lead to Duryodhana becoming the new Yuvraj, but the Pandavas gained an ally in the form of Drupada, king of Panchala, whose daughter Draupadi was given to the Pandavas. The return of the Pandavas did lead to partition of the Kuru nation, but resulted in the establishment of Indraprastha which became their seat of power. The dice game turned the Pandavas into paupers, but it was during this period that Arjuna acquired divyastras (what we would today call WMDs). There are many other incidents in the epic like this such as the drama around Subhadra’s marriage to Arjuna, Duryodhana’s choice of the Narayani army over Krishna, Bheeshma’s decision to not allow Karna to fight under his command (an exogenous factor which Duryodhana could not control) etc.

A closer look at the epic reveals that there were many events, some big some small and some perhaps unnoticed that led to the war. It is generally stated that the seeds of the war were planted the day Bheeshma took his vow/pratignya to facilitate the marriage between his father Shantanu and Satyavati. But critiques say this with the benefit of hind sight. Bheeshma, in his wildest imagination would not have foreseen what ultimately happened in Kurukshetra, three generations later. K.M. Munshi’s account of Drona is very interesting. He depicts Drona has a power hungry Brahmin who played his cards carefully to first get half of Panchala and then lay his eyes on Hastinapur itself. In the initial stages he supported Yudhisthira because the Pandavas were the ones who had the capability to defeat Dhrupada of Panchala and Yudhisthira was the heir apparent. But once he became the Yuvraj Drona soon found out that Yudhisthira was righteous to the point where he did not give any favors or concessions even to his teacher, Drona. It is at this point Munshi believes he switches his allegiance to Duryodhana and advices his son, Ashwathama to forge friendship with Duryodhana. Karna, in spite of being qualified, always fostered an inadequacy complex, and inferiority complex, which was utilized by Duryodhana; and Karna himself allowed that as he felt that would eventually let him prove his metal by vanquishing Arjuna, thereby, feeling a sense of achievement. Interestingly he was known to be a person who understood dharma. It shows that the personal feeling of inadequacy was so strong in him, that he, knowingly violated dharma. K.M. Munshi’s seven books account various such incidences where each character had his/her own calculations based on which they acted. Therefore it is said that it is difficult to control the course of events despite the best strategies as strategists never truly have complete information.

As we can see, what seemed to be fool proof strategies of Shakuni, Duryodhana and others eventually did not give them the results that they expected, while there were others who got what they wanted, sometimes by planning and sometimes by accident [not discussed in this post]. This happens today as well. Our own lives are good examples. We do all the planning we can to achieve a goal but often, something completely different ends up happening. Hence the question is posed…is strategy and planning futile efforts to try and control outcomes? This urges one to ponder on the question: Though the Mahabharata may teach us the spirit of critiquing and questioning, does it suggest that finally accepting the world as it is over the heavens the highest achievement of humanity? I believe this is a debatable question/statement and is the starting point for a debate on the nature and place of strategy and the Indian political philosophy/psychology.

This is where I believe that the message of the Gita best addresses this poignant dilemma. All that one can do is executing ones’ actions without worrying about the results…for once; this sounds like a strategy rather than esoteric metaphysics.

I just came across an excerpt of a very well written dissertation written by Sunny Jiten Singh at Rutgers University titled “Kautilyan antecedents of the Westphalian order.” The title in itself was intriguing and interesting.  It provoked a rather amorphous thought which I want to share with people anyway.

What the author points out is that many of the aspects of a state that the Westphalian system incorporates, were already done by the Kautilyan State. The author rightly points out that most of the Political Science and International Relations discourse considers the idea of the state as an European phenomena. Consequently, most lessons on political theory and political philosophy do not venture out beyond the Greek Trinity of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and stay within the Western world, with token mentions of Kautilya, Confucius and Sun Tzu (and if the department is really good, a bit of Dharmasastras).

If indeed the concept of a state and a hegemonic state (mandala) in India predates the British and the Mughals, the question ought to be asked: Shouldn’t the study of Indian political philosophy branch out beyond the study of the Indian National Congress and tit-bits of RSS and Jana Sanga? Although Kautilya does capture the imagination of many aspiring political thinkers (myself included) not much is explored about those thinkers who influenced Kautilya himself. After all, even the brightest people are influenced by others! Throughout the Arthashastra, Kautilya draws upon the teachings of previous gurus, including people like Shukraacharya, Brihaspati and Bheeshma (see Kangle’s 3 part series on Arthashastra). Kautilya also refers to various characters and scenes from the Mahabharata to examine the societal and political changes and similarities  (“then and now” type analysis).

The problem is that these characters are often attributed to Indian mythology and hence are not given importance from a political science pedagogy point of view. Additionally, study of such people perhaps gets perceived as saffronization.  But then, shouldn’t these things be studied at least at the University level? Where students can be expected to be more discrete and give this subject the careful treatment it deserves? One way to think about it is that regardless of the historicity of the epic and the Puranas, it is a ‘story’ that has been written which contain various political situations and political actions. In the Shanti Parva, Bheeshma’s advice to Yudhishthira is strikingly similar to the Kautilyan world view, and his advice to Chandragupta, which gives me reason to believe that these epics and“Pauranic gurus” like Shukraacharya and Brihaspati should not be passed off as mere cultural/religious/mythological symbols and caricatures but must be studied to understand the origins or may I dare say the inspiration source of Indian political philosophy.

Here I share some of my observations and thoughts on the nature of Hindu culture today and its relation to the Sang Parivar. This is an attempt towards creating a bigger piece on the issue of “Hindu cultural spread.” Some of the ideas are shared here.

Conservative right and Hindu orthodoxy have often been considered to be synonyms. It is true that right wing Hinduism has fueled right wing politics in India, but the scope of “Hindu” involvement at the ideological level is debatable. In all my travels to various parts of India, notably to Bangalore and Tanjore (TN) I found that many people who profess the Hindu faith are rather indifferent towards the Sang Parivar and its ideology (much to my amazement). On the contrary their religious allegiance was limited to a certain saint, swami, temple or matha.

This is one factor that helps explain why politicians of various political parties visit all the significant swamis mathas and temples during their campaign trail to seek the “blessings” of the divine (party ideology not withstanding). The truth is that the temples, mathas and swamis have a significant following and prove to be blocks of vote banks that have  the potential to help politicians win elections. The problem is that many political analysts do not account for the influence of religious institutions such as temples, mathas and various swamis in spreading the faith and practices. Just an analysis of the Sang Parivar which is a much more political outfit does not give a clear picture of the extent to which Hinduism plays a role in the day to day lives of many people all over India.

Many of the towns all over India are temple economies or are home to various religious centers. Hence it is but natural for religion to play a major role in the conditioning of the people who live or visit these places. Furthermore, for the Aam Admi, Hindutva has more to do with his/her day to day socio – religious  chores than anything else. These chores mostly constitute celebrating festivals, visiting religious places and observing vraths etc. Given the influence of the temples and other religious institutions in the society, one can argue that cultural Hindutva needs no assistance as it has been in the hands of the religious centers, various religious heads and various Sadhu Akhadas.

The analytical over kill of the Sang Parivar and the silent and steady growth of various monastic denominations and religious institutions provides an interesting subject of study, i.e. the importance of the Sang Parivar within the context of religious institutions. One thing that I have been forced to consider is the of the existence and emergence of a class of people who are modern and yet traditional (perhaps conservative) without the influence of the Sang Parivar. This perhaps also marks the emergence or evolution of “silent Hindutva.”

“The Aryan Problem”

The background:

Invasions are an integral part of the political history of India. The problem comes when these invasions become instrumental in forming national identities. The Aryan theory not only offers itself as the source of a certain socio-political-religious concept, but has also proved to be a point used by some people [wrongly though] to assert  the diverse nature of the Indian population [ After all everyone is an outsider!]. It is though that if some communities are considered to be outsiders and others are not, it would lead to communalism. Indian diversity can be celebrated even without such assertions.  As a result, an alternative view of ancient Indian history is generally taken to be an attempt by the Hindu conservatives to communalize the society and academia. Therefore, most academicians are extremely guarded while commenting on the Aryan migration/invasion. The content below analyzes this issue.

For over two hundred years, historians have been debating whether there was indeed an Aryan invasion of South Asia or not.  This is a theory that was first introduced by some European historians and linguists in the nineteenth century.  Observing the similarities between Sanskrit and classical European languages like Latin, they came up with the theory that the Europeans and South Asians belonged to the same group of people who lived in Central Asia and then one group went West and the other East.  Based on this premise the theory of the Aryan Invasion was created which claimed that light skinned Aryans invaded South Asia around 1500-1000 BCE.  They overran an earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian civilization from which they took most of what later became South Asian Vedic civilization.  This is a view that has increasingly come under attack by some scholars in India and aborad.

Over time, historians writing popular history textbooks have replaced the Aryan invasion theory with the Aryan migration theory, stating that “there was no indication that the Aryans conquered or destroyed Harappan society.”[1] Originally, some influential European historians introduced the theory of the Aryan Invasion, based on the similarities between Sanskrit and other European languages like Latin.  Similar words, grammatical structure and phonetics caused them to believe that the Vedas were composed by non-South Asian people who invaded South Asia around 1500 BCE.  Therefore, linguistics and etymology were major factors in forming the Aryan invasion/migration theories.  Peter Heehs, a well known writer on modern Indian history in his article ‘Shade of Orientalism: Paradoxes and Problems in Indian Histography’ notes that “not long after the formulation of this “Aryan invasion” theory, it was recognized that conquering or even migrating “races” are not required for dispersion of languages.”[2] The Russian structuralist, Prince Nikolaj Trubetskoj (1890-1938) argued that, “althought it is possible that the similarities between the Indo-European languages are due to a common origin, this hypothesis is not necessary.”[3] He found the notion of an original language more romantic than scientific.  Although differences between the ‘Dravidian’ and ‘Indo-Aryan’ languages is considered as valid, there are many similarities between the Dravidian languages and Indo-European languages too. These similarities are underplayed perhaps due to political reasons.  Colin Renfrew, a British anthropoligist and a retired professor from Cambridge University states that, “there is no inherent reason why the people of the Indus Valley Civilization should not already have been speaking an Indo-European language, the ancestor of the Rigveda.”[4] Furthermore, Colin Renfrew admits that speculations over migration patterns, even based on existing archaeolgical findings are hypothetical in nature.[5]

It is also noted that “the South Asians never knew for thousands of years that there was an Aryan invasion; their sacred literature is silent about the existence of a distant homeland”[6] Therefore  the Aryan invasion theory was framed by Europeans about Indian history during the nineteenth century, which has been blindly reproduced in textbooks in Indian schools by mainstream Indian historians after independence.  This is not to say that there were no European historians, linguists scientists and scholars who disagreed with the theory of an Aryan invasion/migration.  If we were to look into antiquity,  the Greek traveler and historian Megasthenes, in his work, ‘Indika’ states, “it is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as a whole, is peopled by ‘races’ both numerous and diverse, of which not even one was originally of foreign descent, but all were evidently indigenous.”[7] In the eighteenth century and nineteenth century there were many people like the astronomer Bailly, French naturalist Pierre de Sonnerat and Lord A. Curzon, governor-general of India in 1855, hailed India as “The Cradle of Civilization.”[8] However, even these claims of indigenous origin made during eighteenth and nineteenth century by some Europeans, were not based on hard evidence.  The idea of an invasion, “first was an inference, then it became a presumption, and now it has become an article of faith.”[9] Therefore, the idea of a ‘race’ based Aryan invasion was a thought that established itself along with ‘Her Majesty’s’ government in India in nineteenth century.

The very concept of race has been a recent development, a development made by the Europeans during the colonial era.  The word ‘Arya’ in Sanskrit means kind or noble, and not a race or ethnicity.  The racial aspect has been an addition of the nineteenth century imperialism.  Furthermore, biologists like Sir Julian Huxley far back in 1939 spoke out against the concept of an ‘Aryan race’.  He stated that:

“In England and America the phrase ‘Aryan race’ has quite ceased to be used by writers with scientific knowledge, though it appears occasionally in political and propagandist literature….In Germany, the idea of the ‘Aryan race’ received no more scientific support than in England.  Nevertheless, it found able and very persistent literary advocates who made it appear very flattering to local vanity.”[10]

In recent times there have been other geneticists and biologists who have not only discredited the existence of an ‘Aryan race’ but have also argued that the genetic evidence suggests that the people of South Asia do not show signs of any foreign origins. Dr. Cavalli Sforza, Emeritus professor at Stanford University regarded as one of the most respectable population geneticist, along with seventeen other scientists, geneticist and biologists representing seven genetics and biology departments world wide states:

“…Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene.”[11]

Anthropologists like Todd Disotell of the New York University in his article ‘Human Evolution: Southern Route to Asia’ seems to endorse this stand point which states that the current genetic heritage of South Asian people goes back to the Pleistocene, or approximately 50,000 years ago and have received “limited external gene flow due to any invasion or mass migration since the Ice Age ended…[12] Dr. Sforza and his team of scientists went on to state that, “Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab rather than in Central Asia…This finding suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup.”[13] Dr. Sforza also suggests that “The phylogeography of the primal mtDNA and Y-chromosome founders suggests that these southern Asian Pleistocene coastal settlers from Africa would have provided the inocula for the subsequent differentiation of the distinctive eastern and western Eurasian gene pools.”[14]

Jim G. Shaffer and Diane A. Lichtenstein in their article “South Asian Archaeology and the Myth of Indo-Aryan Invasions” state that:

“The existing interpretative discussions postulating large scale human “invasion” [Renfrew 1987, Allchin 1995] simply do not correlate with the physical, archaeological or paleoanthropological, data [Kennedy, 2000].”[15]

“No matter how prevalent some population intrusions have been within the South Asian context since the time of Alexander the Great, the archaeological data currently available do not support a parallel scenario being drawn for the prehistoric context.”[16]

Stefan Arvidsson, assistant professor at University of Halmstad and the author of the book, ‘Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science’, says that even archaeologists cannot confirm the existence of any migration or invasion.  He states that “the archaeologists often place the arrival of the Indo-Europeans at a time when the archaeological source situation is confused and archaeological material is damaged, hard to interpret, or nonexistent.”[17]

Besides the genetics and archaeological evidence, there is other scientific evidence that suggest that the Vedic civilization is possibly much older than what was originally thought to be.

There have been scholars in recent times who have asserted that the Rig-Veda is older than what is widely accepted.  The Rig-Veda speaks of an ancient mighty river, Saraswati, which flowed from the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea.  For a long time it was thought to be a mythical river until “satellite pictures [from LANDSAT satellite] revealed the bed of an ancient river running from the Himalayas to the western gulf of the Arabian Sea, roughly paralleling the course of the Indus River, but lying to the east of the Indus.”[18] In spite of reservations expressed by some scholars, it is widely understood by scholars that the Saraswati River dried up sometime around 1900 B.C.E. Therefore it is now believed that the Rig-Veda had to be composed at least before 1900 B.C.E.[19] The Saraswati River had become a seasonal river around 3000 B.C.E before completely drying up in 1900 B.C.E.  Considering that the Rig-Veda mentions the Saraswati River as a mighty river flowing from the high mountains of Himalayas to the Arabian Sea, some scholars “drew the conclusion that the Rig-Veda must have been composed before 3000 B.C.E.”[20] That said, the dating of the Rig-Veda remains an unresolved issue.

Some European historians, during the colonial era had gone to great lengths to try and present Indian history as an extension of European culture.  The Indo-Aryan issue which is a topic of intense debate today has been so only for the last two hundred and fifty years.  The idea of an ‘Aryan race’, an Aryan Invasion/migration had all been attempts to root out the Indian culture from the minds and hearts of Indians and Anglo-Saxonize them so that ruling India would have become much more easy for the British government.  The idea that the Vedic culture was a product of western invasion was a way of legitimizing British rule in India.  This was done by establishing an education system that taught the British government’s interpretation of Indian history, traditions, culture and scriptures.  This was necessary if the British had to rule India as without the subjugation of the Indian people, it would have been impossible to control the whole South Asian subcontinent.  The establishment of such an education system was done by Englishmen like Thomas Babbinton Macaulay, the Chairman of the Education Board in India.  In a letter to his father in 1836, he wrote:

“Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully.  The effect of this education on the Hindus is prodigious…It is my belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence.”[21]

However, there was more to this than just legitimizing British rule in India.  By introducing the hypothesis that the invading Aryans forcefully pushed the indigenous dark-skinned Dravidians to the South, the British also divided the Indian society on the false notions of race.  This was a classic example of ‘Divide and Rule’ policy of the British Empire.

Friedrich Max Muller [December 6 1823- October 28 1900] is best known for his translation of various Sanskrit texts, the Rig-Veda being the most prominent of his translations.  He was a German national who worked at the Oxford University.  He was also one of the major proponents of the Aryan race theory.  The Aryan race theory was later used by the Nazis who believed his the concept of a superior Aryan race.  Max Muller however did not necessarily believe the concept of Aryan race as the Nazis did or even some of the earlier German nationalists did.  “In 1872…he dramatically denounced the German doctrine of the Aryan race!  But his past position kept dogging him, and politicians and propagandists kept citing him as authority for their race theories.  Finally he lost all patience and burst out in 1888 and said:

“I have declared again and again that if I say Aryan, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor skull nor hair; I mean simply those who speak the Aryan language…”[22]

This shows that even Max Muller’s idea of Aryan race/people was based on linguistics.  His work on India and on Sanskrit language have been very widely read and accepted in academia around the world including in modern India.  His theories on Indian civilization taught that the Vedic Indian culture was the result of foreign invasions/migrations thousands of years back.  This was used as a way of legitimizing Britsh rule in India as according to this theory, India had always been ruled by foreigners and its culture was noting but a “melting pot” of different cultures.  However, in recent times, controversy has arisen in India over Max Muller’s interpretation of Vedic culture and of the Sanskrit language.

Max Muller was appointed to translate the Hindu scriptures by Thomas Babbinton Macaulay [Chairman of the Education Board, India].  Helped by his Prussian patron Baron Bunsen, Max Muller, accepted the challenging task of translting the Hindu scriptures, The Vedas.[23] Max Muller was appointed for this task as “Macaulay needed someone who could translate and interpret Indian scriptures, especially the Vedas, in such a way that the newly educated Indian elite would see the difference between them [Vedas] and the Bible and choose the latter.”[24] In a letter to his wife in 1866, Max Muller observed:

“It [Rig Veda] is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years. (See Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civlization, op.cit, pp.33-4).”[25]

In a letter to the Duke of Argyle [acting Secretary of State for India] he wrote; “the ancient religion of India is doomed.  And if Christianity does not take its place, whose fault will it be?”[26] His Divinity, Swami Prakashanad Saraswati, a Sanskrit scholar and an authority on Hindu scriptures has commented on Max Muller’s translation of Sanskrit into English.  Among many other examples, he gives examples of basic words that were mistranslated into English.  For example:  The word Hiranyagarbh, means the “manifested form of maya which is associated and represented by God, which holds and contains all worlds within.  This word was translated by Max Muller as “the golden germ.”[27] There are other examples like Pashupati, one of the names of Lord Shiva that means ‘Lord of Souls’, which was translated as ‘Lord of the creatures’.  “Garbha griha, which means the inner chamber of the temple was translated as ‘the womb house’.”[28]

Based on his inability to accurately translate Sanskrit into English, and his apparent limited knowledge of the Sanskrit language, it seems unfair that he call the Vedic language absurd, foolish and childish.  In one of his many statements he stated that “It is easy to call these utterances (of the Vedas) as childish and absurd…”[29].  In his defense, not all of his mistranslations may have been deliberate.  For example, the word Pashu, not only means soul, but it also means animals.  The word garbh, not only means temple, but also means the womb.  Therefore to term all his mistranslations as deliberate would be wrong.  But Max Muller in no way was the only one mistranslating the Sanskrit scriptures.  There were others like H.H.Wilson [translated Rig-Veda into English] and F.E. Pargiter [Vice President of Asiatic Society, London] who contributed to the mistranslations similar to the ones mentioned above.  Such inaccurate theories about ancient South Asian civilization have made their way into accademics and continue to exist in one form or another.

However, recently the California State Education Board came under the spotlight when many of the changes regarding Indian history were taken into consideration including changes regarding the Aryan migration theory.  However, certain groups have accused these changes as ‘saffronizing of Indian history’.  Dr. Stan Metzenberg who is a professor of biology at California State University, Northridge, and the commissioner of California Carriculum Commission denied these allegations on the basis of DNA evidence that did not seem to hint towards either an Aryan invasion or an Aryan migration.[30]

It is important to understand that all the attempts at rewriting history or taking a fresh look at this issue must not be patented as being Hindu fundamentalism or quasi-Facist ideology.  What needs to be understood is that there is a genuine controversy regarding the Aryan invasion or migration of ancient South Asia which needs critical examination.  There is also a need to include a greater number of South Asian scholars with reasonable influence over what is written about South Asian history in textbooks.  It is time to shed off old Imperial world view of South Asian history and acknowledge the presence of legitimate views on South Asian history based on credible evidence and which is contrary to the widely accepted version of South Asian history.

---

[1] Bentley & Ziegler, Traditions & Encounters, A Global Perspective on the Past, 2 edition, McGraw-Hill 2003, pg. 96

[2] Heehs, Peter. Shades of Orientalism: Paradoxes and Problems in Indian Historiography. History & Theory 42, no. 2 (2003): 169-195. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 28, 2007).

[3] Arvidsson, Stefan.  Aryan Indols: Indo-European Mythology As Ideology and Science.  University of Chicago Press 2006. pg. 296

[4] Renfrew, Colin. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins.  The Aryan Debate. Ed. Trautmann, Thomas R.  Oxford University Press, 2005.  pg.208.

[5] Ibid. pg.210

[6] Bryant, Edwin. The Quest For The Origins Of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford University Press 2001. pg. 293

[7] Megasthenes: Indika, http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/docs/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm

[8] Bryant, Edwin. The Quest For The Origins Of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford University Press 2001. pg.  18

[9] Bryant, Edwin. The Quest For The Origins Of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford University Press  2001. pg. 293

[10] Rajaram, N.S, Sarasvati River and the Vedic Civilization, History, Science and Politics, Rajatha Manor 2006, pg.127

[11] Kivisild, T., et al. The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 72, no. 2 (2003): 313. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 28, 2007).

[12] Disotell, Todd R,  Human evolution: The Southern route to Aisa, Current Biology, Vol.9, Issue 24, December 30, 1999, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-44F75JB-D&_user=2832429&_coverDate=12%2F30%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000058898&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2832429&md5=2f99c2e66ac1214d5b841695fb4fa8b6&artImgPref=F

[13] Kivisild, T., et al. “The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations.” American Journal of Human Genetics 72, no. 2 (2003): 313. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 28, 2007).

[14] Kivisild, T., et al. “The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations.” American Journal of Human Genetics 72, no. 2 (2003): 313. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 28, 2007).

[15] Shaffar, J.G, Lichtenstein, D.A, “South Asian Archaeology and the Myth of Indo-Aryan Invasion”. The Indo-Aryan Controversy, Ed. Bryant, Edwin and Patton, Laurie,  Routledge 2005, pg.81.

[16] Ibid. pg.81.

[17] Arvidsson, Stefan.  Aryan Indols: Indo-European Mythology As Ideology and Science.  University of Chicago Press 2006. pg. 297

[18] Chandler, Kenneth,  Origins of Vedic Civilization,   http://sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/ORIGINS.PDF

[19] Gautier, Francois,  Rewriting Indian History,  India Research Press 2003, pg. 7

[20] Chandler, Kenneth,  Origins of Vedic Civilization,  http://sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/ORIGINS.PDF

[21] Rajaram, N.S,  Sarasvati River and the Vedic Civilization, History, Science and Politics, Rajatha Manor 2006, pg. 46

[22] Ibid. pg50

[23] Ibid. pg. 48

[24] Ibid. pg. 48

[25] Ibid. pg. 48

[26] Ibid. pg. 48

[27] Saraswati, Prakashanand Swami,  The True History and the Religion of India, A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism,  Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat 2003,  pg. 291.

[28] Ibid. pg. 291

[29] Ibid. pg. 290

[30] Chaudhary, Ved. P,  California School Board under pressure to show fairness to the heritage of India, December 5, 2005, http://www.eshiusa.org/PressRelease/ESHI_Press_Release_120605.pdf

In search of ways to combat asymmetric warfare

Prashant Hosur

Introduction:

Asymmetric warfare has been a topical and an important subject since the attacks on 9/11.  However, the concept of asymmetric warfare is not as new as it is sometimes made out to be.  Perhaps it is the first time that asymmetric warfare has captured the attention of the American public, the media, and the administration.  It is now understood that security sector reforms are needed to tackle asymmetric warfare.  This paper claims that it is extremely important for big powers to not only understand asymmetric warfare, but to master the art and science of it.  In discussing this hypothesis, the paper will try to answer the question; why have states failed to adapt to asymmetric warfare in the modern age and?

This paper will consider the issue of asymmetric warfare and try to understand the problems states face in dealing with it.  The paper will also suggest some viable options that the states could consider to effectively fight asymmetric wars.  In doing so, the paper will consider the U.S. war in Afghanistan and the Punjab insurgency movement in India during the 1980s and 1990s as illustrations. The objective of using illustrations will be to understand as to why it is extremely important for big powers to devote more resources towards understanding and to master the art of asymmetric warfare. The paper will look at the seminal text, the Arthashastra, by Kautilya which was written in the third century BCE to understand the importance of understanding non – traditional methods of warfare like asymmetric warfare and why he considers tools of guerrilla warfare and other methods of sabotage and subversion to be a quintessential tool of statecraft.

The paper comes to the conclusion that states could learn some valuable lessons from the strategists of the past regarding the underlying principle behind asymmetric warfare.  This paper claims that while there has been an evolution in guerrilla warfare over time, the basic philosophy that drives a weaker actor to fight asymmetric or guerrilla warfare is still the same as it was twenty three hundred years ago, hence making the philosophy and ideas of Kautilya valuable and perennial.  The paper also outlines the importance of formulating a holistic strategy to combat asymmetric warfare which includes cultural, political, social and military aspects.  Finally the paper concludes that the biggest challenge for the U.S. and other big powers is to change its mind set if it wants to tackle asymmetric warfare effectively.

Philosophy of ‘Asymmetric’/Guerrilla warfare: Past and Present

Dr. Rod Thornton, a lecturer at King’s College’s War Studies departments states that “asymmetric warfare is violent action undertaken by the ‘have – nots’ against the ‘haves’ whereby the have – nots, be it state or sub – state actors, seek to generate profound effects – at all levels of warfare (however defined), from the tactical to the strategic – by employing their own specific relative advantages against the vulnerabilities of a much stronger opponents.”[1] Thus asymmetric warfare is defined rather broadly that can include different methods as long as the principle of asymmetry and lop – sidedness in resources between two actors holds true.

Kautilya in his work, the Arthashastra states that “a single assassin can achieve, with weapons, fire or poison, more than a fully mobilized army.”[2] While Kautilya’s tactics of subversion is certainly different from modern day asymmetric warfare, the idea and philosophy of asymmetry behind the use of assassins and guerrillas in past and the present is the same. In both cases the ‘have – nots’, be it states or non state actors can have profound effects by employing asymmetric tactics irrespective of their strengths and weaknesses.  Conversely, through asymmetric tactics, even strong states can achieve their goals by spending an insignificant amount of resources.  In the words of Colonel Clinton J. Ancker, “asymmetric warfare deals with unknowns, with surprise in terms of ends, ways and means.”[3] This shows that the ways adopted by Kautilya can give us insights into an earlier form of asymmetric warfare.

In his philosophy of ‘concealed war’ and ‘silent war’ he discusses the use of guerrilla warfare, assassination, use of prostitutes as assassins and informers, and contrived conflicts to win battles against an adversary king.[4] However, the interesting aspect of ‘concealed war’ and ‘silent war’ is that he advises both the powerful kings and the weak kings to use ‘concealed war’ and ‘silent war’ as a way to keep the enemy kings in check.[5] He also states that weaker states will always resort to the use of silent war as defeating a bigger and stronger state in the battlefield is impossible for them.  Thus he believes that the biggest threat that a ‘super power’ state (in his time, the Mauryan Empire) is not on the battlefield, but is from silent and proxy war that invariably involve asymmetric warfare tactics.  Similarly the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu stated that an army should avoid strength [of the enemy] and strike at weakness.[6] The reason why Kautilya is being cited as an example here is because he, being the Prime Minister of the strongest empire in South Asia, and perhaps in Asia at that time, understood the relative importance of and the threat from non – traditional methods of warfare to his empire, which included the use of assassins and guerrilla warfare, which could not be tackled just by the traditional army, irrespective of its size and power.[7] Non – traditional methods were used to spread a sense of chaos to unnerve the big power and drive it towards making unwise decisions which in turn would eventually lead to its downfall.

It sounds logical to think that a weaker power or entity would never challenge a powerful country through traditional means.  Therefore, it leads us to ask another, perhaps a rhetorical question, as to why big states, like the U.S. have failed to understand the incapability and irrelevance of traditional military tactics to tackle asymmetric warfare? Interestingly, many of the tactics that are used by militant/terrorist organizations to recruit people into their outfits are similar, if not identical to the tactics that Kautilya used to sow the seeds of discord in the kingdom of the adversary king.  Many of the extremist outfits tend to recruit people who are alienated or feel a sense of alienation and dissatisfaction.  Kautilya in the Arthashastra states that “miraculous results can be achieved by practicing the methods of subversion.”[8] Kautilya was aware of the deadly effect that non – traditional methods of warfare.

Kautilya uses methods of ‘silent warfare’ to establish contacts with people who are willing to work against the enemy king.  Kautilya approaches those individuals who are dissatisfied with the enemy.  He approaches those who are “angry at the enemy and want to see him out of power; those who are frightened by the enemy; those who are insulted by the enemy, those disappointed in their expectation from the enemy, those who are impoverished or suffering from adversity, those denied their rewards for meritorious service and those whose loyalties had been secretly tested.”[9]In other words, Kautilya systematically tries to gathers people who are dissatisfied and frustrated with the enemy or have grievances (legitimate or illegitimate) that have not been addressed by the enemy king.  Similar tactics are used my terrorist organizations like al – Qaeda.

Recruiting the Dissatisfied:

While the process of recruitment for terrorist organizations like al – Qaeda has evolved over time, the basic principle even today is to attract those who may be alienated or dissatisfied in their societies for various reasons.  The process of recruitment of terrorists is rather systematic and a certain section of the population that may be socially or economically vulnerable is targeted.  Many of the recruits seem to have come from the lower strata of the economic ladder.  Various terrorist organizations tend to guarantee a compensation for the family of the militants.  However, in addition to this, terrorist organizations like al – Qaeda have also started the use of technological tools like the internet to attract the youth from the middle class and upper classes in the Muslim world.

Other systems of recruitment like ‘the funnel’ are also used whereby a potential member is transformed over the training period and those who do not go through the transformation exit the recruitment process.  Both these methods are geared towards recruiting people outside the circle of people and communities that have traditionally supported al – Qaeda. [10]

It has been said that poverty alone does not explain the existence of terrorism and the link if any is indirect and weak.  It has therefore been argued that ‘terrorism is a result of political frustrations and indignation (imagined or real) and not poverty.[11] Martha Crenshaw, a political scientist at Stanford University, states that “It is a strategy rooted in political discontent, used in the service of many different beliefs and doctrines that help legitimize and sustain violence. Ideologies associated with nationalism, revolution, religion, and defense of the status quo have all inspired terrorism.”[12] Her views also resonate with those of kautilya who exploits the discontent and dissatisfaction in the people and uses it to his own advantage.

One of the main events that Crenshaw believes has shaped modern day ‘terrorism’ is globalization.  While globalization is not considered as a direct cause of terrorism, it is considered as a facilitator.  In other words, globalization is the catalyst that gives stimulus to social, economic, nationalist, religious or cultural variables which in turn affect the way terrorism evolves under certain circumstance.  This means that the causes for terrorism in different areas of the world are exclusive to that area as different sets of variables may be predominant in different areas and in different times.[13]Therefore, terrorism is the response of a section of the population which feels vulnerable, alienated and threatened because of globalization. In other words, terrorism in modern times is predominantly the response of the weak (with the exception of state – sponsored terrorism).

How states respond: Exploring alternative responses

Unfortunately, states in most cases have failed to understand the importance of understanding and preparing for counter – terrorism or asymmetric warfare.  States continue to use outdated techniques that were never meant to be used to combat asymmetric warfare.  This also includes the way a state negotiates.  For instance, during the Punjab insurgency, the Indian government strictly followed the model of “tactical concession of political power at the state level as quid pro quo for deflection, diffusion and de – emphasis on ethnic demands.”[14]

The negotiation process led to the Rajiv – Longowal Accord in 1985 that guaranteed compensation for the innocent victims of the insurgency and guaranteed justice for them.  However, this turned out to be a symbolic agreement and was never really implemented. The inability to implement the Rajiv – Longowal Accords coupled with the hawkish negotiation tactics of the Indian government gave a picture of an uncaring and arrogant regime, further justifying the cause of Khalistan for many Punjabis.  Furthermore, Punjab under President’s rule from 1987 to 1993 was under a virtual ‘police raj’ which led to some of the worst human rights violations.  However, the police officials have time and again stated that while the police may be partially guilty, a certain degree of human rights violations are inevitable while fighting insurgency.  The fact that the situation in Punjab has returned to normalcy has led many to believe that the government’s strategy of “bullet for a bullet” has worked. K.P.S. Gill, the former chief of police ruthlessly prosecuted the anti – insurgency campaign. During his time as the chief of police, while many insurgents were caught or killed, a number of innocents were also killed. Till today there are pending cases of human rights violation against police officers who were in charge of the anti – insurgency campaign.

However, some have given an alternative explanation for why terrorism ended in Punjab.  Many believe that the militants were defeated not just because of the anti – terrorist policies of the government, but more so because of the rural society, where the militants were primarily located.  “Militants in their daily operations became ensnared in existing social networks, including local feuds and factional enmities, kinship retribution, and the social underworld of criminality as well as in the private accumulation of wealth and personal aggrandizement.”[15] Therefore, the movement died because of factors endogenous to it rather than external forces, like the police or the army.  Furthemore, because of the criminalization of the movement, it lost a significant amount of support from the Punjabi population.  This some believe was the final blow to the Khalistan movement.  Thus, it is said that K.P.S. Gill and his police department killed a ‘dead tiger.’

The point being made here is that the lack of societal support led to the end of the insurgency and militancy in Punjab.  States need to break out of their traditional methods of dealing with insurgency.  States must stop dealing with insurgency like a war and consider other methods.  If the Indian government had spent a little more time and attention on understanding the significance and the relevance of Punjab rural society it could have crafted a much more effective anti – terrorist policy which would not have led to so much blood shed, violence and human rights violations.  Antulio Echevarria, who is the director of research at Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, states that one of the ways to tackle asymmetric adversaries, or any adversary for that matter, is by “looking for connections among the various parts of an adversary, or adversaries, in order to determine what holds them together.”[16] By identifying the fault lines in the enemy camp one can defeat the enemy or enemies even without engaging them on the battlefield.

The idea is primarily to separate out the radicals from the moderate which would give a more lucid picture of the situation. John Jandora, an analyst at the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, states that while the tendency is generally to club all the “Jihadists” into one group. However, “one finds evidence of doctrinal discord”[17] between different Jihadi groups like the Mujahedeen and al Qaeda. Unfortunately, we see that states tend to rely solely on force which tends to backfire because, if a state itself legitimizes the use of force, how can it expect other militants to give up arms?  Thus, the state must not resort to the use of force every time there is an emerging crisis and must give dialogue and diplomacy a chance.

However, the modern face of terrorism does differ from the kinds of terrorist and militant activities witnessed in the past.  Rod Thornton states that terrorist organizations in the past like the ETA, IRA and the Red Army Faction conducted “small – scale propagandistic attacks against symbols of state – such as its security forces.  If innocent bystanders were killed, it was usually unintentional.”[18] He goes on to say that the “Islamist terrorists have modified Sun Tzu’s edict from “kill one person, frighten a thousand” to “kill a thousand, frighten a million.””[19] Thornton believes that the modern terrorists have given up making the distinction between state and its citizenry thereby including the ‘whole enemy society’.  This has certainly contributed to an increased awareness about terrorism among the public.  Furthermore, Thornton states that the characteristics that define the new breed of ‘terrorists’ are “1) increased degree of fervor. 2) their increased ability to implement attacks and 3) their increased ability to cause mass destruction.”[20]

While Islam does not support or advocate terrorism, there are a few misguided Muslims who misquote the Quran and misrepresent Islam for their own vested interests, or sometimes out of sheer ignorance.  The idea behind the use of religion in recruiting militants is convoluted and unfortunate.  It can be argued that the twisted use of religion tends to justify the killing of innocent people for the militant.  Furthermore, the promise of going to paradise upon death tends to make the prospect of death less scary and depressing, if not desirable, given the poor living conditions many of the militants come from.  Simply put, while religion does not support terrorism and may not be the driving force behind it, it is the ‘opium of the masses’ that mobilizes people.

Other factors that lead to an increase in extremism and fervor in ‘terrorists’ are occupation of the holy land by American troops, a sense of disrespect of Islam (imagined and real)  by the West and intractable issues like the Israeli – Palestinian conflict where the U.S. has consistently shown partiality towards Israel.  The lack of even handedness in the U.S. in dealing with the Israeli – Palestinian conflict has enraged many Muslims around the world, enabling some leaders to use this rage to incite hatred and recruit militants.

For various reasons, many of these ‘terrorist’ organizations that engage in asymmetric warfare have also attracted many educated people who come from middle class backgrounds.  This has among other things made technology more accessible to ‘terrorist’ organizations.  For instance, one of the prime accused in the recent Ahmedabad bomb blasts was a software engineer who worked for one of the leading software companies in India.[21] Even Mohamed Atta who was one of the hijackers on 9/11 was a student at the Technical University of Hamburg.  Therefore, with the increase in fervor, recruitment of technically educated militants and the availability of information on building explosives on the internet and books, ‘terrorist’ organizations have increased their ability to cause mass destruction.

Recent reports have been suggesting that the U.S. forces have been finding it difficult to tackle asymmetric warfare in Afghanistan. After fighting a technology driven war in Afghanistan where air strikes were extensively used to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, people in the U.S. defense establishment have started understanding the futility of the use of air power and excessive reliance on technology.  It is now thought that conventional military force does not prove to be effective against irregular/asymmetric warfare.  This is because asymmetric warfare not only defies the traditional rules of engagement and “calls for cultural, political and military qualities that are not the traditional strengths of Americans.”[22] Standard tools of warfare do not prove to be adequate in meeting the new challenges that have been posed by asymmetric or irregular warfare.  While the use of air power, which is very important for the U.S. may have been successful in killing a few militants in Afghanistan, the majority of the victims of air raids have been civilians. At the same time militants have tended to take shelter in heavily populated areas which cause more civilian causalities. Such events have led to a backlash against the Afghan government and the international forces.[23]

In the case of the U.S. the biggest hurdle in adapting to asymmetric warfare seems to be changing the existing mind set.  America’s excessive reliance on technology while may be a great advantage when fighting a state, it does not prove to be helpful in fighting an asymmetric war like the one in Afghanistan.  Thornton states that “in the American case there has always a great deal of technological help available, and the temptation is to let that deal with the problem.  This thinking is flawed in that it can lead to the exclusion of better alternatives.”[24] In cases of asymmetric warfare, nothing can ever replace human intelligence.  However, the use of human intelligence can prove to be tricky because it can potentially lead to an increase in the risk to the lives of agents and the troops.  Technology and air power tend to be destructive and reduce the risk to the lives of the troops on the ground.

However, given the technological disparity between the Taliban and the U.S. troops, and the landscape of Afghanistan, technology may not prove to be as effective.  It will be important for the U.S. to switch to using human intelligence and rely more on people who know the terrain of Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan very well.   That having been said, the involvement of technology in the fighting ‘terrorism’ is necessary to a certain extent.  Many militants have started using cell phones as a way of communication.  The availability of such technology at a low cost has certainly given a boost to the ‘terrorist’ networks.[25]

Understanding culture and social structure of the opponent also provides valuable information on how these militants think, behave and what their worldview is.  As seen in the Punjab case, the government of India underestimated the influence that the rural social structure had on the militants. In the case of Afghanistan, understanding the tribal culture and code can help the U.S. troops a lot to not only understand the opponent, but respecting the tribal culture will also earn them a lot of goodwill.

Another very important aspect that needs to be understood by the U.S. is the importance of using the appropriate amount of force.   During the Grenada war a Cuban officer in Grenada stated that the American “reaction was to destroy everything with their planes and artillery fire and see what’s left.”[26] Similarly the UN official, Carl Bildt stated that there was “little between doing nothing and a massive use of military force”[27] for the American troops.  Therefore, finding the middle ground with respect to the use of force is very important for the Americans, if they want to have a successful strategy against ‘terrorism’ and insurgency.  This is because; finding militants in a region is equivalent to trying to find a needle in a haystack.  The militants tend to blend themselves into the local population which makes it difficult to distinguish them from the civilian population.  The use of planes and artillery make it very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between the militants and the civilian population.  At the same time, one must understand the fact that given the terrain of the region in Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan, it is very difficult to mobilize tanks and artillery in such mountainous regions.

Discretion shown in the use of military force will be a lot more helpful in winning the ‘hearts and minds of the people’ as it is the civilian population that suffers the most because of military force.  Even if we look back in time, the British government in its campaign against the Communist ‘terrorists’ undertook a “campaign of public information, civic action, and other persuasive measures by which the government won the crucially important support of the populace.”[28] Even Kautilya states that the biggest power of a king is the goodwill of the populace inside and even outside his kingdom.[29] This shows that it is just not enough if there is a moderation in the use of military force.  It is also important for the U.S. government to involve the local populace in defeating extremism and ‘terrorism’ in Afghanistan or in Iraq.  Involving the populace in the ‘war on terrorism’ will automatically alienate the militants who tend to rely on public support.  In fact the Taliban has been losing members because members have been returning to their tribal obligations and primal allegiance.[30] A Similar pattern was seen during the Punjab insurgency in the late 1980s when many militants were not able to completely isolate themselves from their society which led to the extinction of the insurgency movement.  This further proves the influence and strength that social rules and obligations tend to have on even rebellious militants and insurgency movements.

Conclusion:

In sum, the basic point this paper makes is that the basic philosophy that drives asymmetric warfare is not necessarily a new phenomenon as history does have some valuable lessons that modern strategists could learn.  Furthermore, this paper tries to make the point that it is important for big powers to understand and master the art and science of asymmetric warfare.  Kautilya in the third century BCE stated that “a single assassin can achieve, with weapons, fire or poison, more than a fully mobilized army.”[31] Thus Kautilya understood the effectiveness and the importance of non – traditional methods of warfare and expected the strong king to understand and master the art of such non – traditional methods of warfare.

He advised the strong kings not only to keep a close eye on his associates and allies, but to surround the enemy kings and the weak kings with his agents so that no one could use subversive and guerrilla  tactics to either assassinate the strong king or create disruptions within his empire. Similarly the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu stated that an army should avoid strength [of the enemy] and strike at weakness.[32] That said, the modern concept of asymmetric warfare and ‘terrorism’ has evolved over time and have characteristics of their own given the circumstances.  However, they are similar to ‘silent war’ because both fall under the category of non – traditional warfare, for their time periods.

Furthermore, the problem seems to be that governments tend to have a set model on how to deal with insurgencies.  We have seen how both the Indian government and the U.S. government have used standard methods, like the use of military force to try and resolve issues of insurgencies.   It is now believed that asymmetric warfare and counter – terrorism is so complex that standard responses are not only ineffective, but tend to be counterproductive.  Tactics employed against asymmetric warfare must be flexible and there cannot be a checklist for a set of tactics that ensure success.  This is because each case of counter – insurgency and asymmetric warfare is different and thus tactics and strategies need to be flexible and adjustable.[33]

In the case of the U.S. Dr. Rod Thornton states that it is the “U.S. armed forces, more than all others, that need to think most about how to counter asymmetric adversaries,”[34] His views seem to be in agreement with even ancient strategists like Kautilya who states that big states need to be prepared to fight ‘silent wars’ and not just conventional wars, as other states would tend to choose subversive ways to attack and defeat the major power than choose to challenge it on the battlefield.  Given the threats faced by the U.S, it must not rely heavily on technology and must understand the importance and value of human intelligence.  Human intelligence will prove to be more effective because unlike technological intelligence, human intelligence can predict the motives, present and future intentions and the state of mind of the enemy.

The U.S. will now have to get used to a new kind of warfare that will tend to prolonged, highly variable in form and complex. The U.S. army cannot have the luxury of planning every move out and expect the plans to materialize.  Given the amorphous form of asymmetric warfare, there will be a greater need to adopt a more flexible doctrine to combat asymmetric warfare.  This also means that there has to be a greater degree of moderation shown in the use of military force.  The culture of a Manichean or dualistic strategy of either using no force or excessive military force has to give way to a more multi layered approach with each layer representing a gradual increase in the use of military force.

Another aspect that needs to be addressed by the U.S. military establishment is the need to factor in culture in fighting asymmetric warfare.  For instance, in Afghanistan, it would be very beneficial to the U.S. army if it spent some time and effort understanding the tribal culture and codes of conduct.  This will certainly give a context to the fight against ‘terrorism’ in Afghanistan and will also help differentiate between the extremists and the moderates in the society.  It has been illustrated earlier that even though insurgents tend to operate outside the societal norms, these insurgents have tended to get involved in their society. This has been true in Punjab during the 1980s and in Afghanistan today.  Thus cultural and social norms could be used to reintegrate many of the insurgents into their tribe or society which would weaken terrorist organizations like al – Qaeda and the Taliban.  However, to do so, the U.S. military must earn the goodwill of the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.  By understanding and respecting the cultures and practices of the Afghan and Iraqi societies, the U.S. would not only be able to earn the goodwill of the general populace, but will show the world that the U.S. does respect Islam, thus giving one less tool to the extremists to indoctrinate the youth against the West.

Most importantly, the U.S. government must reform its mind set if it has to be able to fight asymmetric warfare.  At present the problem seems to be that the U.S. prefers traditional wars because it is the best at it.  Furthermore, as Dr. Thornton puts it, fighting traditional wars gives the U.S. a chance to display its technological prowess.  Asymmetric warfare tends to neither give the U.S. the opportunity to display its technological prowess nor the opportunity to end the war quickly and secure a decisive victory.  Thus the need of the hour is to rethink American military strategy with respect to asymmetric warfare and nurture a military culture that is not only discreet in its use of military force, but also uses military force smartly.

---

[1] Thornton, Rod.  “Asymmetric Warfare” Polity Press, 2007. pg. 1.

[2] Kautilya. “Kautilya: The Arthashastra.” Ed. Rangarajan, L.N Penguine Books, 1992. pg. 498.

[3] Ancker, Col. Clinton J. “Doctrine for Asymmetric Warfare.” Military Review. July – August 2003.http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/ancker.pdf. pg.18.

[4] Boesche, Robert.  “Kautilya’s Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India.” The Journal of Military History, Vol. 67, No.1. January 2003.http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_military_history/v067/67.1boesche.html.  pg.  10.

[5] Ibid.  pg. 28

[6] Thornton, Rod.  “Asymmetric Warfare” Polity Press, 2007.  pg. 2

[7] Boesche, Robert.  “Kautilya’s Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India.” The Journal of Military History, Vol. 67, No.1. January 2003. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_military_history/v067/67.1boesche.pdf. pg.22

[8] Kautilya. “Kautilya: The Arthashastra.” Ed. Rangarajan, L.N Penguin Books, 1992. pg. 498

[9] Ibid. pg. 520, 521, 522.

[10] Gerwehr, Scott.  Daly, Sara. “al – Qaeda: Terrorist Selection and Recruitment.” McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook, 2006, Chapter 5.  http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/2006/RAND_RP1214.pdf. pg.76 , 77.

[11] Krueger, Allan B. Maleckova, Jitka. “The Economics and the Education of Suicide Bombers: Does Poverty Cause Terrorism.” The New Republic Online.  July 20, 2002. http://www.alanalexandroff.com/nr-krueger.pdf

[12] Crenshaw, Martha. “Political Explanations.” “Addressing the Causes of Terrorism.” Ed.  Neumann, Peter R. Club de Madrid.  2005. http://media.clubmadrid.org/docs/CdM-Series-on-Terrorism-Vol-1.pdf. pg. 13.

[13] Ibid. pg. 13

[14] Singh, Gurharpal. “Punjab since 1984, Disorder, Order and Legitimacy.” Asian Survey, Vol. 36, No. 4. April 1996. pg. 412

[15] Ibid. pg. 416.

[16] Jandora, John W. “Center of Gravity and Asymmetric Conflict: Factoring in Culture.” JFQ, Issue thirty – nine. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1439.pdf . pg. 78.

[17] Ibid. pg. 81

[18] Thornton, Rod.  “Asymmetric Warfare” Polity Press, 2007. pg. 26

[19] Ibid. pg. 26

[20] Ibid. pg. 27

[21] “Ex – Wipro engineer’s role in Ahmedabad blasts under scanner.” The Indian News. August 16, 2008.http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/ex-wipro-engineers-role-in-ahmedabad-blasts-under-scanner_10084982.html

[22] Gray, Colin S. “Irregular Warfare: One Nature, Many Characters.” Strategic Studies Quarterly. Winter 2007.http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/ssq/2007/Winter/gray.pdf.  pg. 54.

[23] “Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths from Airstrikes.” The Human Rights Watch. September 2008. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/08/afghan19766.htm

[24] Thornton, Rod.  “Asymmetric Warfare” Polity Press, 2007. pg. 157

[25] Meige, Montgomery. “Unorthodox Thought about Asymmetric Warfare.” Parameters. Summer 2003.http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03summer/meigs.pdf .  pg. 11

[26] Thornton, Rod.  “Asymmetric Warfare” Polity Press, 2007. pg. 151

[27] Ibid. pg. 151

[28] Sunderland, Riley. “Winning the Hearts and Minds of the People: Malaya, 1948-1960.” RAND Corporation, Memorandum RM – 4174 – ISA. September 1964.http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/2005/RM4174.pdf

[29] Boesche, Robert.  “Kautilya’s Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India.” The Journal of Military History, Vol. 67, No.1. January 2003. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_military_history/v067/67.1boesche.pdf. pg. 28.

[30] Jandora, John W. “Center of Gravity and Asymmetric Conflict: Factoring in Culture.” JFQ, Issue thirty – nine. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1439.pdf . pg. 82

[31] Kautilya. “Kautilya: The Arthashastra.” Ed. Rangarajan, L.N Penguine Books, 1992. pg. 498.

[32] Thornton, Rod.  “Asymmetric Warfare” Polity Press, 2007.  pg. 2

[33] Ancker, Col. Clinton J. “Doctrine for Asymmetric Warfare.” Military Review. July – August 2003.http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/ancker.pdf. pg. 18, 25.

[34] Thornton, Rod.  “Asymmetric Warfare” Polity Press, 2007. pg. 150.