Lessons from Neville Chamberlain

On January 8^th, two of our Jawans were killed by Pakistan, their bodies were mutilated and one of the Jawan's head was carried back as a trophy. In any Nation, one could expect outrage over this gruesome and brutal act, but not in India. In India, today we see News anchors and so called “intellectuals” lecturing us on how we should not do anything but accept the “situation” and that we should continue with talks. Their argument is as follows, that any action would escalate into a nuclear war between the two nations annihilating both the nations, hence it is prudent for India to continue with the “Peace process” a.k.a Aman ki Asha. This line of reasoning appears to me however highly defeatist in nature and more importantly if pursued would result in dire consequences.

Here, I believe that one should take note of History and especially learn from chapter that has come to define the word appeasement.

“Appeasement is a diplomatic policy aimed at avoiding war by making concessions to an aggressor.” – Wikipedia

In the 1930s France and especially Britain were keen to avoid another World war with Germany at all costs. Hence they went to great extent to appease Hitler in the hope that each time they agree to his demands, he would be satisfied and would eventually result in Peace. So each time Hitler and Nazi Germany indulged undertook aggressive measures, retaliation or retribution from the western powers was not undertaken for the fear that it would result in the escalation of the conflict into a World war. When Hitler annexed Saar region with a force of just 3000 soldiers, a single division of Allied armies would have been enough to stop him. And the ensuing defeat in such a conflict would have led to his removal as the German chancellor. But Britain and France were too afraid of starting a world war. Der Spiegel in an article explains the French and British thinking at the time –

When French Chief of Staff Maurice Gamelin, choosing his words carefully, told the cabinet that a French advance would likely encounter the greatest German resistance, probably leading to war, and that France was not prepared for an offensive campaign, the cabinet members nodded approvingly and decided to leave the next move up to the British. Only if they joined in would the French take an active role, they concluded.

But London wasn't about to play along. If the French were unwilling to make a move, why should Britain send its sons to risk their lives?

But the person who is most associated with the failed appeasement policy is British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. He is regarded in history as the person who gave up the most to Hitler and who is blamed the most by the general public at large for failing to stand up against Hitler.

Der Speigel again writes

Chamberlain, the conservative product of a family of politicians, was part of a large faction that sought to appease Germany by fulfilling its wishes, provided they appeared legitimate and were not enforced with violence Appeasement was a policy that fed on emotions as well as intellect, at least with Chamberlain. The British prime minister had lost his beloved cousin in World War I. From then on, he advocated the basic principle of all pacifists: Wars have no winners, only losers. The worst-case scenarios being painted by British and French experts played into the hands of those politicians who wanted to avoid war at all costs

Neville Chamberlain was under the perception that he was a great diplomat and that he will be able to deal with Hitler and bring about lasting peace. He believed that Hitler was a gentleman who will hold to his promises. This deranged and delusional belief resulted in the direst of consequences to global turn of events.

Hitler was able to take advantage of this objective of the appeasers to avoid war at all costs. He was able to threaten and annex the sudentan land from Czechoslovakia and finally Czechoslovakia itself. This made him believe that the western powers would tolerate any of his intransigence which finally led to the invasion of Poland on 1^st September 1939 and the start of World War II.

Sadly, had Britain and France acted as early as 1936, World War II could have been prevented and Hitler deposed. But both the western powers were too weary of another global conflict. Hence they were desperately seeking it avoid it. However Britain and France failed to realize that Hitler had no intention of peace. Anyone who had read Mein Kempf could easily realize what Hitler’s true intentions were. But the mirage of achieving lasting peace fooled the leaders of Britain and France into believing that Hitler also sought for peace. They were ready to forget his intransigence and aggressive actions taken, each time hoping that it will be the last and justifying each of Hitler’s action that it is inevitable and starting a conflict for avoiding the same is meaningless.

The surprising fact is that anyone who reads the above account of the policy of appeasement followed by Britain and France can easily observe the eerie similarity with the present appeasement policy followed by Manmohan Singh and the Indian government. Manmohan Singh like Neville Chamberlain believed that he possesses diplomatic skills that would enable him to deal with Pakistan. There is also his unwavering and near delusional belief that he will be able to reform Pakistan and bring about lasting peace between the two nations. Hence every taunt and aggressive maneuver by Pakistan is sidestepped with a faint and timid warning that this will be the last Lakshmana Rekha that Pakistan will cross, in the hope that it will be indeed so.

Teaming with Prime Minister, is a bunch of Media and Government elite, who also believe in their God given destiny to bring about peace with Pakistan in the hope that they could get more Veena Mallik’s to India and have Gala dinners with their Pakistani counterparts. Hence you have initiatives such as “Aman ki Asha” which have so far achieved nothing but some useless debates and discussions and few cricket matches. The so called people to people initiatives are a farce since for such thing to succeed you need more than few cocktail dinners and cricket matches. But that doesn’t prevent media pundits explaining to the Nation why we must continue pursuing talks with Pakistan even after repeated instances of brutality, cowardice and aggression by other side. Their often quoted reason is that “war is not an option” and any tactical retribution would immediately escalate into a nuclear holocaust. This is entirely ridiculous at the least. Though I completely agree that fighting a war with Pakistan is unacceptable, surely there are enough ways to tackle the issue rather than having useless “Aman ki Tamasha” debates.

What Manmohan Singh and Media pundits do not understand from History is that such appeasement policies never work. Pakistan like Hitler doesn’t really want peace with India. Maybe some of the matured and liberal elements do, but the Army who are the actual rulers of Pakistan do not desire peace with India, Hence like the Western powers in the 1930s, all compromises undertaken by India in the hope that it’ll be the last time and that the other side will reform are truly mistaken. It’ll only further strengthen the other side and make them believe that they can get away with anything; In 1939 Hitler was so convinced that Britain and France will do nothing that he decided to invade Poland starting World War II. Similarly, today repeated inaction by the Indian government has bolstered the radical elements in Pakistan that they can continue with their aggressive posturing with India and that all their actions will go unpunished. Like in the case of Nazi Germany, this appeasement policy ironically pushes elements in Pakistan to undertake even more aggressive and bold measures against India. My fear is that a day may come when one of the radicals can explode a nuclear bomb in India pushing both of us to a nuclear conflict. Though this might today seem highly exaggerated, the continuation of the current policy has great probability of leading India to a tragic destiny.

Surely, the solution to this impending crisis is the discontinuation of the present policy which is fraught with so much danger. There are many viable options, not of all of them leading to a nuclear war with Pakistan. In my next article, I’ll try to elaborate on a few of them. And finally Manmohan Singh and Media Pundits need to revisit history and read elaborately about the decade before WWII to understand just how dangerous their present policy of appeasement is. And all of need to get rid of this defeatist mindset that nothing is possible, surely if mankind can find cures to plagues, find ways to travel to the moon and invent and innovate in unimaginable ways, then a solution to “Pakistan Problem” is not a daunting one and which can be found given enough intellect and determination is applied to solving it.

PS - Der Speigel Illustrates by Maps how appeasement policies resulted in German dominance of Europe in the 1940 from a diplomatically and militarily vulnerable position in the beginning of the 1930s