Re: Sierra Leone - foreign policy consensus?

[Charu datt <charuX@lucent.com>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vamsi Musunuru wrote:

> Combating violence on foreign lands with Indian lives is unjustifiable.

Agreed. But if participation of individual soldiers is voluntary, and they
are compensated for the risk this could be characterized as their
individual "free entrprise" and I see no reason to get worked up about it.
[If my assumption of the voluntary nature of participation is incorrect,
I reverse my position].

> Improving the efficiency of current weapons and developing new ones that can
> protect the borders is a justifiable venture for the military and for the
> hard-earned tax money of the Indian people.

As stated in an earlier message, the operation is paid for by UN funds,
NOT indian taxpayer money.

> Oh by the way, the Mujahedeen problem is far more complex and India by no
> means "started that fire".

I don't think I said that India started anything & I did not mean to imply
that conclusion.
The point I was making was that an environment such as in Sierra-Leone
breeds a culture of violence that usually only creates more violence and
misery.

Yes I agree the mujahdeen situation is complex- ignited as a response to the
soviet invasion ~79 and fueled by arms and training by the CIA, it created a
generation of individuals who know nothing but fighting in the name of a cause
where religion and patriotism were made synonymous. Though India had nothing
to do with creating and stoking the conflict it has suffered consequences such
as
the effects of narco-traffic used by the fighters to finance their operations
and
later Kargil. So, at least in the abstract, even though we had nothing to do
with starting the fire, we could [in theory]  have benefitted from making
efforts to douse it. I know the practice is much more complex than the theory,
I'm just speculating at the principles that seem to underly such decisions.

>  > In particular to the case of Indian troops involved in UN peace  >
> keeping-
>  > such as in Sierrra Leone- I believe [based on fragmentary  > discussions
> with
>  > relatives in the military, someone please correct me if I'm wrong]
>  > the assignments are voluntary, the volunteers receive pay at
>  > international/western/UN scales over and above their military pay,  > and
>  > the operational expense is paid for by the UN- reimbursing the  > Indian
>  > govt for its expenses.
>
> What is the difference between this and the "voluntary" recruitment of
> Gurkas by the British during WWII?

I'm not familiar with the recruitment methods for gurkhas during WW2.
I seem to recall reading that a gurkha regiment still exists in the british
army

and I speculate that the reasons then were the same as they are now i.e.
Nepal is a desperately poor country. The gurkhas serving in foreign armies
as mercenaries do so [for the same reason some come to india and get jobs
as night watchmen] to make a living- a better living than they can in poor
country with high unemployment and very few alternatives.
Before anyone thinks I'm insulting Gurkha's, I'll point out that entering the
ranks of the military is frequently motivated by economic reasons- in
communities that are poor and have high unemployment the military is
a common means of escaping poverty- whether this is in India where
there are more applicants than positions for positions in the ranks & some
politicians see helping some of their constituents get the few available
positions as a form of patronage or whether it is the US rural south
or inner cities where military service is one of the few ways to get
employment
and escape poverty.

> And how was that done in Indian national interest?

I think you have a valid question here- even if the government is reimbursed
operational costs, and individual soldiers receive extra pay, what are the
true
benefits vs costs of such participation? I'm only saying that I don't believe
the
answer is entirely obvious as I took the the rhetoric in your first post to
mean.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------