The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

EDITORIALS

UTI’s hidden scams

FIRST it was the crisis of disinvestment in government-owned enterprises such as Balco and Air-India. Now it is one of investment by government-owned financial institutions (FIs) like UTI, LIC, GIC MF and several banks. The LIC (Life Insurance Corporation) has suspended two middle level executives charging them with acting without authority and against the financial interests of the organisation. Investigation into the UTI fiasco on US-64 has revealed that several FIs have heavily invested in the Lucknow-based Cyberspace promoted by the Johri brothers, Arvind and Anand, one of them under CBI custody. Also, some other dubious companies have hugely benefited from the amateurish (or is it criminal?) actions of these investment agencies. As is well known, the UTI signed a cheque for Rs 32.80 crore to Cyberspace overruling its own decision and rejecting the recommendations of its in-house economic cell. It is plain that external pressure was at play and it is also equally plain that the pressure was political in nature. Going into the political clout of the brothers, it is obvious that they received much help from one Mr Prem Narain Mathur, a top figure in the Vishwa Samvad Kendra, an offshoot of the VHP and favoured by the present state government. The Johri brothers have or had friends in high places and they went to work. It is now clear that several government-controlled institutions poured crores of rupees into Cyberspace and the influence was not purely commercial. Who took the decision and why?

The General Insurance Corporation Mutual Funds has come under the CBI probe for its heavy buying of Cyberspace shares. The whole process is highly irregular and hence it is surmised that it could not have been a case of either normal and routine mistake or what is inevitable in a volatile stock market. Political pressure or self-interest is the obvious alternative. Both factors seem to be at work but only partly. Experts believe that big-wigs in New Delhi took the decisions and got it through. In the process the FIs lost heavily and so did the common investor. This is unpardonable in a country where wage-earners do not have a fail-safe saving system. What is needed is action on four fronts. The CBI should have a specialist wing to probe economic crimes patterned on the Serious Fraud Office in England. Two, knowledgeable persons, not policemen, should man it. Also, there should be special courts to hear and decide these, cases. Three, the law should be amended to impose a harsh punishment on the offenders, including a hefty fine. Last, the government should stiffen the spine of the officials to resist political pressure. The Supreme Court has upbraided senior officers for buckling down to illegal orders. That should be given wide publicity and government support.

Remembered for a day

THERE is a paradoxical contrast in the way India remembers its martyrs on sundry anniversaries and during the rest of the year. On the designated days, there are grand celebrations of the kind held on Vijay Divas, the day guns fell silent in Kargil two years ago. Brave soldiers' ultimate sacrifice is recounted in glorious terms. Stirring speeches are made and copious tears are shed. On the other 364 days, the families of those killed or injured have to cope with frustration and disillusionment. Most of the promises made by the government to rehabilitate them remain unfulfilled. Some families are yet to get the land promised to them. Others are still awaiting the gas agencies or the jobs that they were offered. The common culprit is the civil administration, which turns its back on the hapless sufferers almost as soon as the firing stops. Their cases are treated with the same apathy and boorishness that mark the dealing of officials with the general public. It is heart-rending to learn that even war widows have to pay "speed money" to certain officials to receive compensation. Such incidents are well known to every common man. Take these to the government and the stock reply is that nothing of this sort ever happens. Collecting proof against corrupt or inefficient officials is not the public's job. It is the government itself which has to be vigilant. Social organisations and the media can only alert it. Do senior officials ever find time to approach the war heroes' families to find out for themselves whether they have any grouse or whether various promises made to them have been fulfilled? Unless the government issues strict instructions and follows these up with exemplary action against those who harass and torment the families of war heroes, things cannot change on the ground. Organisations of ex-servicemen and army wives also have to chip in in a more forthright manner. At the same time, the government itself needs to change its outlook. For instance, the hero's welcome extended to General Pervez Musharraf has opened the wounds of many families who had lost their members during the intrusion masterminded by him. No doubt he has now become President of Pakistan, but the way the administration went out of its way to fawn on him was less than sensitive to the sentiments of those whose dear and near ones had laid down their lives for the country with a smile. Extending hospitality is one thing; bending over backwards is quite another. They also lament the fact that the issue of six Indian soldiers tortured and killed in captivity by the Pakistani army was not taken up with the Pakistan government with the firmness that it warranted. The feeling that they have been abandoned by an ungrateful nation may not be exactly true, but it has to be removed to the fullest extent with compassion and care.

OPINION

Gen Shelton’s pathbreaking journey
A new Indo-US equation on the cards
Ashok K. Mehta

PREOCCUPIED with Pervez Musharraf, the Indian media has ignored serious developments in Nepal and Sri Lanka. Likewise, the import of the first ever visit of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), USA, Gen Henry H Shelton. He made a brief but pathbreaking journey to India acknowledging “its global influence as a major power”. He did not go to Pakistan or any other country except a 12-hour visit to Qatar. The genesis of the Shelton visit is anecdotal. When Defence and External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh went calling on Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the former recommended the level of defence contact be upgraded. Rumsfeld agreed immediately. Singh suggested he send his CJSC Shelton, who was present at the meeting, to Delhi. Rumsfeld and Shelton looked at each other and nodded. The visit was clinched and dates fixed but later deferred due to the US defence review, but quickly rescheduled.

The impromptu decision to revive military-to-military relations is in harmony with the bigger picture of an evolving strategic relationship between the USA and India. Previously only the C-in-C Pacific Command (PAC) in whose area of responsibility India falls, or single service chiefs from USA have visited India. Never the CJSC who is the single point of military advice to the President of the USA. Unfortunately his counterpart, Admiral Sushil Kumar, widely expected to have become the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) is still only Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (CCOSC) and Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) and therefore strictly not Shelton’s equal.

Shelton had a back-to-back business only programme in Delhi unlike the Agra tamasha for another General. The centrepiece of his interaction was a triservice briefing by the Defence Planning Staff on the security situation on the subcontinent and the maritime environment in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). The briefing focused on the operational situation in J&K, the standoff in Siachen and the no-peace no-war along the Line of Actual Control with China. Each of the three service chiefs and defence secretary had separate discussions with Shelton, which he described as “very productive”. He also exchanged views on regional security with National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra and Jaswant Singh. The outcome of the Musharraf visit and specifically Pakistan and China-related security issues were discussed.

The military ties with the USA go back to the aftermath of the Chinese invasion in 1962 and their subsequent modernisation of the Indian armed forces. The first set of sanctions was clamped on India in 1974 following the peaceful nuclear explosion. The hiatus between the two militaries grew after the Emergency in 1975. Barring a brief period in the mid eighties, India never figured on the US radar screen. Except for exchange of military training education programmes, defence relations were merely figurative. It was only at the end of the Cold War that military ties were rekindled. The credit for this must go to Gen Kicklighter of the USA and Gen SF Rodrigues, then Army Chief. The revival of defence ties came to be known as the Kicklighter Initiative of 1991, which was institutionalised after the visit of Mr William Perry, Secretary of State for Defence.

Three groups were formed: Defence Policy Group (DPG) headed by Defence Secretary for consultations with the Department of Defence, USA, Executive Steering Group (ESG) for service to service cooperation and Defence Research and Production Cooperation Group (DRPCG). The service-to-service steering group has made substantial progress leading to significant military-to-military interaction between India and the USA, in terms of force on force equation - the Malabar series of joint naval exercises from 1992 to 1996. These started from basic exercises and advanced to anti-submarine warfare type of manoeuvres. Similar progress but on a smaller scale was observed between the two armies and airforces. The US Army did some joint training with the parachute brigade at Agra as well as units located in Siachen.

The US core interest has been on receiving high altitude warfare skills and expertise from the Siachen brigade as well as the fighting forces deployed in the northeast. The US Army is so impressed with the fighting skills of the Indian soldiers at Kargil that they are the Indian infantry’s biggest admirers. Some of their personnel have exchanged knowhow on jungle warfare and survival techniques. The IAF pilots were given access to sensitive simulator training at US air force basis, but no joint training had been initiated. Discussions on training, operational concepts and doctrine were also held. This was the story up to 1998.

The Shelton visit marks the defreeze in military relations consequent to the Pokhran blasts in 1998 and the picking up of threads after the Kicklighter Initiative. During the meeting it was proposed to establish a new equation between the US CJCS and our COSC/CDS whenever one is appointed. Sushil Kumar will be the first COSC visiting the US next month at the invitation of his counterpart. Previously Gen Ved Malik had visited the US as COSC but at the invitation of Admiral Dennis Blair, C-in-C PAC.

It was agreed that the existing pattern of interaction between the service chiefs of India and the US armed forces for issues related to force level training and associated activities be maintained as decreed in 1995. The Shelton initiative is designed to raise the threshold of interaction to the strategic level and also consider other levels of engagement with the US armed forces both in Washington and at the theatre level. The levels of interaction proposed are reinforcing the existing interaction as well as building new vistas of contact. The suggestions made to Shelton were for institutionalising linkages at the highest service levels between CJCS and CDS/COSC and call this the Services Policy Group (SPG). At the next tier would come the Training and Logistics Policy Group (TLPG) headed by respective service chiefs of both countries as well as C-in-C PAC.

In addition to these two new levels of interaction the government has proposed “way-ahead” proposals in order to lay a foundation for future cooperation essentially as add-on tiers to the new architecture of defence relationship. What was therefore recommended was the revival of service to service level interaction that existed prior to 1998: the ESC which dealt with training courses, release of tactical publications, joint exercises and high level visits of military personnel. The management of the ESC was vested in the vice chiefs of the individual services and their US counterparts at C-in-C PAC.

The cooperation at the civilian bureaucratic level, previously in place was the Defence Planning Group (DPG). The Defence Secretary headed this, on the Indian side. Since the USA has no equivalent it was the deputy or under secretary of defence who handled this. Some years ago Defence Secretary Ajit Kumar was met by low-level officials, which led to protocol problems. It is now being suggested the DPG could get upgraded to ministerial level which could result in a periodic defence dialogue between the US Defence Secretary and Indian Defence Minister. Yet another proposal is the revival of the Defence R&D group consisting of scientists and bureaucrats from both countries previously known as DRPCG.

For such a revamped framework of defence and security cooperation to take off, political impetus from both sides is essential. An incremental development of this architecture is most likely. In the meantime, India and the USA are signing the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), which includes sharing, and protection of classified information. Shelton’s agenda included discussions on nuclear stability, security of sea lanes, search and rescue missions, including submarine rescue facilities in IOR, humanitarian assistance, UN peacekeeping operations and ballistic missile defence. He was informed that India’s area of strategic interest in the IOR extends from the Malacca Straits to the Gulf of Oman and therefore, the need for it to engage with not just the Hawaii based PAC but also US Central Command located at Diego Garcia.

The flowering of the new defence and military ties is contingent upon the withdrawal of sanctions, the transfer and sale of defence equipment and spares as well as access to sensitive technologies and facilities. While lifting sanctions may take a little time, the military-to-military relations are not likely to become hostage to old taboos and predilections. Jaswant Singh’s recent loud thinking in Australia on providing military bases to the US reflects the possibility of natural allies becoming strategic partners. Shelton’s historic visit is part of that emerging alliance.

The writer is a retired Major General.

MIDDLE

My best brief
J. L. Gupta

ON March 17, 1771, Sir William Jones in a letter to Count Reviezki observed that, “The only road to the highest stations in this county is that of the law.” More than two centuries later, I experienced the truth of this statement. May I share?

In all probability, it was the year 1979. Thanks to my degree in law, I was sitting in front of Mr Mohd Hidayatullah. He had studied at Cambridge. Was called to the Bar from the Lincoln’s Inn on January 13, 1930. He was “one of those few under-graduates (if any) who, while reading for the Law Tripos, were Barristers!” He had been teaching law for years before I was even born. An eminent lawyer. A distinguished Advocate General. I learned judge. Had retired as the Chief Justice of India. For a few days, he had acted as the President of the country. At the time I met him, he was the Vice-President. Also the Chancellor of the University.

I was asked to appear for him. In a court of law. To defend an order that he had passed. I had got an appointment. Reached punctually. To talk to him about the case. He was already in his study. The discussion about the case had taken no more than a few minutes. And then he had talked about various things. Law, lawyers and literature. Men and matters. He knew Shakespeare and Salmond like the palm of his hand. I had sat like a student listening to a distinguished Professor.

He had written his memoirs. Chosen the “title of the book from Oliver Wendell Holmes” subtitle to his “Aristocrat of the Breakfast Tables”: “Everyman his own Boswell.” The book was under print at that time. I guess the chapter dealing with the visit of the President of America — Mr Richard Nixon had been just received. He had very kindly shown it to me. May I share?

It had a reference to the crowds that had lined the route. It reads — “In the car President Nixon seemed relaxed and quite flattered by the response of the people. Characteristically, he asked me: ‘Mr President, do people always turn out like this to greet the Indian President or is this because of the President of the United States”’ I sensed the comparison. I quietly replied: “Mr President, I would not know, but I do suspect that many youngsters are here to see what a bulletproof car looks like!’ He smiled and replied — you have a point there!” An appropriate answer from a dignified Indian to an arrogant American!

The meeting should have been over at 4.30 p.m. It was already 5.30. He was being kind and generous. I thought it was time to take leave. He had come out to see me off.

There was no man at the door. He had opened it himself. I learnt that the entire staff had instructions to leave at 5 p.m. No official was allowed to stay after the office hours. He polished the shoes and ironed his clothes himself. He looked after the people who worked for him. Once he had sent the entire staff to see the performance of a foreign ballet that was visiting the Capital. And so on. Here was an example to emulate.

The letter that he wrote in his own hand is a prize possession. Despite the lapse of twenty-three decades, the words of William Jones are still true. Even in India. Law took me to a very high station in life. I met a tall man there. An excellent human being. Learned. Yet, a picture of humility. May his tribe flourish.

This was my best brief.

ON THE SPOT

More visas: the route to peace and better understanding
Tavleen Singh

AT the Prime Minister’s lunch for Gen Pervez Musharraf I ran into Javed Akhtar. For some reason whenever we meet conversation usually turns to matters related to secularism and communalism, Hindus and Muslims, and this time was no exception. He had seen some of the television programmes on Pakistan I did recently for Aaj Tak under the title of Ek Safarnama. In them I interviewed a large number of ordinary Pakistanis many of whom expressed clearly their hatred for India. Some went to the extent of saying when I asked that they had been taught in history classes at school about India that they had heard mainly bad things. In the words of a young man I talked to in Lahore, ‘about Hindus what we know is best expressed in the saying baghal mein churri, munh mein Ram Ram.

There was more stuff along similar lines and Javed felt I had got it wrong and that there was, in fact, more hatred for Pakistan among Indians than the other way around. “Proof lies in the success of the film Gadar” he said “which is one of the biggest hits ever and is a film that is totally anti-Pakistan”. The film has been attacked by Muslim groups in several Indian cities and even Muslim academics have reviled it as an inflammatory and dangerous film. Since I have the deepest respect for Javed Akhtar’s views — even when they do not agree with mine — I made it a point on a free evening after the Agra summit to go and see it. This is not a film review but let me begin with a small comment: the first half is quite good — by the standards of Bollywood — and the second half so utterly dreary that I left before the end.

The film is indeed deeply anti-Pakistan but at no stage is it, at least in my view, anti-Muslim which makes the anger of Indian Muslims slightly hard to understand.

Countries that consider each other enemies as a result of wars and disputes usually end up trying to tell the story from their own point of view. We only have to look at the number of anti-German war films that still get made in the West of know this to be true. So if some film-maker in Mumbai makes a film about the terrible violence of partition from an Indian perspective I personally cannot understand why Indian Muslims should find it offensive. When they do, they provide grist to the communal mill of the likes of Bal Thackeray because surely whatever their religion their loyalties in a situation of war or conflict must be with India. So why the fuss over an anti-Pakistan film? Lagaan, also a huge hit, is a very anti-British film and there have any number of Hindi films that have demonised the Chinese.

Muslim academics and thinkers argue that Gadar comes at an unfortunate time because with friendship and peace in the air (however ephemerally) it is not a good moment to reinforce bad feelings about Pakistan. Unfortunately, bad feelings exist because of Partition and because of fifty years of acrimony, enmity and three wars, not counting Kargil. They exist not just among the semi-literate and the uninformed but among those who count among the opinion-makers in both countries and even among those who make policy.

At the same lunch at which I ran into Javed I found myself seated beside a senior official from the Pakistan Foreign Office and opposite Farooq Abdullah and Dilip Kumar. After everyone had exchanged the usual pleasantries Farooq, addressing out Pakistani guest, said: “When you insist upon Kashmir coming to Pakistan you should remember that there are 18 crore Muslims in India outside Kashmir and you need to think about what could happen to them”. The official from Pakistan chose to say nothing but the following evening at the banquet the Governor of Uttar Pradesh have for the Pakistanis in Agra the subject came up again at the table I was seated at.

This time in front of another official from the Pakistani Foreign Office who, when I repeated what Farooq had said, took slight umbrage and said, “Well, that is blackmail”. No it is not but we cannot get away from the possibility of terrifying communal violence if India were broken up once more in the name of Islam. The signs are already there. In my mail I routinely get literature from fundamentalist organisations — both Hindu and Muslim — and last week received a pamphlet whose title was: Are you aware of the outcome of Islamic Fundamentalism? Below this menacing title came a long list of atrocities allegedly perpetrated by Muslim mobs during Partition along with black and white photographs of the remains of massacres and desecrated temples. If Gadar is considered dangerous and inflammatory it is hard to find the appropriate words to describe this kind of pamphlet. Many like it are in circulation but they are not half as dangerous and inflammatory as the sudden arrival of Islamic fundamentalism in the villages is of India.

Last week I met a lady from Rajasthan, who had been staunchly opposed to militant Hinduism all her life but who said she was now no longer sure if she had been right. The change in her attitude came, she said, from the fact that in remote Rajasthani villages there had been in the past ten years or so a sudden mushrooming of mosques and madrassas. Muslims and Hindus in these parts had always lived together in peace, she said, but now there were tensions and clear attempts to make religious and cultural differences.

Similar stories come from other states like Madhya Pradesh and even distant Tamil Nadu. There appear to be huge amounts of money suddenly available to build spanking, new mosques and print Islamic literature. There would be nothing wrong with this if along with it did not come clear attempts to make Muslims think of themselves as belonging not just to a different religion but to a different culture.

Far from discouraging either sectarianism or fundamentalism politicians from all sides encourage it because vote bank politics are always the easiest kind. So, while our ‘secular’ political leaders pander to the Muslim sense of exclusivity our ‘communal’ ones encourage Hindus to think of Muslims as somehow fundamentally anti-national.

It is a situation fraught with volatility and tension and it does not help when Muslims attack cinema houses because they consider a film anti-Pakistan. Having said that let me also say, as I have done before, that one of the best ways to lessen tensions on the subcontinent would be to make it easier for ordinary Pakistanis to come to India. If visas have not become easier to get it is because our officials insist upon reciprocity. We can wait forever for that, what we need right now is the courage to take some steps unilaterally so that even without a solution to the Kashmir problem we can start moving towards peace not just with Pakistan but with ourselves.

WINDOW ON PAKISTAN

A proponent of India-Pakistan friendship
Syed Nooruzzaman

HE would love to come to India to participate in mushairas (poetic symposiums), specially the one held annually at Ambala under the auspices of the Shaam-e-Bahaar Trust, now a thing of the past. He had friends and admirers on both sides of the Indo-Pak divide. Whenever he was in India he would, as a matter of principle, talk of establishing friendly relations between the two neighbours. He was Qateel Shifai, a towering poet of Pakistan. In the second week of July he was snatched away from our midst by the icy hands of death at the age of 82.

At mushairas his admirers would invariably force him to recite his popular compositions twice or thrice and he would never disappoint them. He had a distinct style.

Qateel spent his entire life propagating the message of peace, friendship and brotherhood through his ghazals and songs----two popular forms of Urdu poetry. And he had equal mastery over both forms. As the Jang editorial on him says, with his death has ended the era of creative song-writing in the subcontinent.

Qateel was a front-ranking poet like Faiz Ahmed Faiz and belonged to the progressive school. Being the most sought-after lyricist in Pakistan's film industry, he penned over 2,500 lyrics and won at least 20 awards.

For over half a century he strode like a colossus in the world of literature. He had a paralytic attack before he died. He enriched poetry immeasurably, but had little to spend on his proper medication. Even in this age when lyricists make millions!

Facade of freedom

Ever since Gen Pervez Musharraf usurped power in October, 1999, it was generally believed that the military ruler was not resentful of what was being reported or commented upon by his country's newspapers. The belief was false. He allowed press freedom so long as it suited his interests. This has been proved by the punishment meted out to the brilliant Chief Reporter of Nawa-i-Waqt, a mass circulation and respected Urdu daily of Pakistan.

Those who watched the much-hyped press conference addressed by the General-turned-President last Friday would remember that the brave journalist, Masood Malik, had tried to convey the message through his highly meaningful question that diplomacy was not the forte of a military man. Or in the area of diplomacy a politician has certain obvious advantages owing to his training in comparison to a military ruler. Which meant that if President Musharraf had been a politician, he would have come out with something like the Lahore Declaration or the Simla Agreement after his parleys with Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

The question reflected the reporter's perception and he wanted the General's opinion or reaction on the subject. A democracy-loving Head of Government would have simply given his reaction, even if the question was inconvenient, and the matter would have ended then and there. In the present case, it did not happen like that. First the General got angry. The expression on his face said everything. What he said in Urdu in response to Malik's question could be translated like this: "Are you joking with me? You are talking of politicians. Political rulers did not have the guts to discuss Kashmir with India. There is no mention of Kashmir in the Simla Agreement. Kashmir finds mention in the Lahore Declaration perhaps only once in an insignificant manner...."

The answer did not end there. When the Islamabad conference concluded, one of the General's loyalists running the Ministry of Information approached the newspaper management, which also owns The Nation, to show Chief Reporter Malik the door. Or if his job was to be saved, he must be demoted to propitiate the ruler of the day.

Malik has been punished and demoted as sub-editor, but he remains a journalist that he was. Now he has to his credit a great achievement. He has exposed General Musharraf's facade of being a lover of democracy. The General may be anything but not a democrat.

The Malik episode has also exposed the weaknesses of the press in Pakistan. The media has taken it lying down at a time when it could have got enough support for espousing the cause of press freedom despite functioning under military rule. What a shameful scenario!