Figures and the Plan
EFFORTS to infuse some life into the dormant planning process were revived on Saturday with the Cabinet approving the draft of the Ninth Five Year Plan. In the days to come experts and cynics will give the figures a hard look and pronounce their wise judgements.

Troubled ties
PRAGMATISM demands that India and China should keep their bitter past aside and move ahead to build bridges of understanding. This is in the over-all interest of the two countries.

CPM THEN AND NOW
by K. Gopalakrishnan
RECENT events have proved that the CPM has been a true follower of Karl Marx, particularly regarding his position on motion. Though its leadership may not accept that the party has been moving from one position to another over the years, it has certainly changed beyond recognition since its inception in 1964.

In defence of bureaucracy
by P.H. Vaishnav
IN the on-going controversy over the sacking of Admiral Bhagwat, kept alive by the media, more serious issues have been obfuscated by an obsessive pre-occupation with bureaucracy-bashing and a wholly unjustified allegation of the Defence Secretary’s aggrandisement over the Service Chiefs.

Civil-military panel: back
to Nehru report
by Anupam Gupta
“CIVIL dominance, regardless of how securely grounded it may be in the Constitution and in the statutes, is not self-implementing. Like any other principle, it must be cherished in the public mind if it is to prevail. Like any other policy, it requires translation into effective administration”.

Security mania grips Capital
by Humra Quraishi
AMIDST a tension-ridden scenario gripping the Capital after a group of Shiv Sainiks dug up the Ferozeshah Kotla stadium pitch in a bid to prevent the Pakistan cricket team from coming here, the much publicised bus service from New Delhi to Lahore took off on January 8 morning. And till its return — “expected on Monday unless it is extended by a day” — tension would for obvious reasons continue.

75 Years Ago

Lala Lajpat Rai’s release
THE following are the questions asked by Dr Nand Lal, Bar-at-law, MLA, at the meeting of the Legislative Assembly regarding Lala Lajpat Rai’s release and the answers given by Government:

Figures and the Plan

EFFORTS to infuse some life into the dormant planning process were revived on Saturday with the Cabinet approving the draft of the Ninth Five Year Plan. In the days to come experts and cynics will give the figures a hard look and pronounce their wise judgements. And the chances are that the approval rating will be rather low. The major problem lies in the apparent absence of firm linkages among the plethora of figures. Take budgetary support fixed at Rs 3,74,000 crore for the five years. During the first two years ending in March next, the Centre has allotted a total of Rs 1,32,632 crore, meaning that it will have to release on an average Rs 80,000 crore during the remaining three years. This compares with Rs 70,000 crore this year. Since the calculation is based on 1966 prices, and since inflation will not be less than 7 per cent, the real figure will be more than Rs 1,00,000 crore by the terminal year. Or, 40 per cent higher than this year. With tax collections falling this year and the Finance Minister talking of “rationalising” indirect tax structure, an increase of this order is unlikely to be met. Borrowing is possible, but it will have other adverse side-effects. Even the reduced growth rate of 6.5 per cent is based on agriculture growing by 3.9 per cent a year and exports by about 14 per cent. Both are highly unrealistic: this year farm output is set to go up by about 2 per cent and exports by a miserable 4.5 per cent. And the international trade situation does not induce hopes of a quick turnaround.

Or, take fiscal deficit. It has been pegged at 5 per cent for the Plan period. In the first two years it has been 6 per cent, and to reach the target it should be brought down to 4 per cent in the terminal year. With the tax:GDP ratio stuck stubbornly at less than 10 per cent as against the hope of 10.4 per cent in the last year of the previous Plan, fiscal deficit is more likely to go up rather than remain at 6 per cent. There is one novel feature though. More than Rs 21,000 crore has been hived off from the original draft and brought under the Prime Minister’s Special Action Plan. Under this come such heads as primary education, health care, drinking water, sanitation, housing, agricultural production, roads, ports and information technology.The stress is on rural development, but given the scale of the need, this surely is hopelessly inadequate. One more comment is in order. In the post-reforms period, the elaborate exercise of planning is an anachronism. It is still relevant in the social service sector; but to stretch it to industry and set firm goals is to hark back to the bygone era of planning and licensing. Also over the years two other related activities have ceased. There is no perspective planning, a sort of advance action, and no mid-term appraisal either. If planning is to remain relevant, these two wings too should be reactivated.

Troubled ties

PRAGMATISM demands that India and China should keep their bitter past aside and move ahead to build bridges of understanding. This is in the over-all interest of the two countries. But for nearly a year, little progress has been made in this direction. Immediately after taking over as External Affairs Minister, Mr Jaswant Singh began working seriously to generate a new climate for improving Sino-Indian relations. He established personal rapport with his Chinese counterpart, Mr Teng Jiaxuan. His Press conference on December 24 transmitted the right signal to the Chinese that India attached great significance to the bury-the-hatchet process that gave birth to the India-China Joint Working Group some time ago. Both sides seemed to realise that their interest lay in quickly creating an atmosphere conducive to faster economic growth. But the Chinese side has got upset by two recent happenings. Last Thursday, Tibetan demonstrators could not be prevented from storming the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi which they did in protest against the “Chinese occupation of Tibet”. The Chinese have interpreted this as a “violation” of a “promise” made by India. But the greater damage has been done by a freewheeling interview given to a weekly by Urban Affairs Minister Ram Jethmalani, touching on the Sino-Indian border disputes and the status of Taiwan. Keeping in view the serious efforts of his colleague, Mr Jaswant Singh, Mr Jethmalani should have avoided to express his personal opinion on a highly sensitive subject. He should have realised that this was not the time to say that “there was a lot of hypocrisy about China,” referring to the 1962 resolution of Parliament, or to elaborate on India’s stand vis-a-vis Taiwan. But the manner in which he dealt with the subject shows his being unmindful of his government’s move for a meeting of the Joint Working Group. The Chinese reaction, as available through commentaries carried by People’s Daily and the Xinhua news agency, is on the expected lines. It considers Mr Jethmalani’s remarks as having “further jolted” the bilateral ties.

The Vajpayee government should not rest content with simply issuing clarifications through the External Affairs Ministry’s spokesman as it has done by saying that “there is no change in our position”. There is urgent need to ask the ministers to be extra careful about expressing their views on sensitive issues. There is no harm in being diplomatic when faced with such a situation, or confining oneself to one’s assigned area. This will help in repairing the damaged fabric of Sino-Indian relations. First, the damage was caused when Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee mentioned China’s nuclear status as one of the major reasons for India’s Pokhran-II nuclear blasts. This could have been tactfully avoided. The second blow came when Defence Minister George Fernandes described China as India’s enemy number one. The result was that the much-awaited meeting of the Joint Working Group could not be held throughout 1998. Mr Jaswant Singh’s handling of India’s China policy shows that 1999 will be different from the year gone by. Thus, despair should give way to optimism. A number of Chinese seem to be equally keen on seeing an end to Sino-Indian hostility. One of these optimists is Mr Cheng Ruisheng, a former Ambassador to India, who believes that the foundations of the relations between the two countries remain “solid”. He wants that “the major common interest of the two countries in having a peaceful environment for their economic development and establishing a new world order based on the five principles of peaceful co-existence should not be neglected”. India must not lose the opportunity provided by the presence of realistic thinkers like Mr Cheng on the Chinese side. A cordial relationship with the communist giant may weaken its axis with Pakistan, India’s belligerent neighbour.

CPM THEN AND NOW
Coping with new realities
by K. Gopalakrishnan

“MOTION is the mode of existence of matter.... Nothing reminds as absolutely universally valid except motion” — Karl Marx.

RECENT events have proved that the CPM has been a true follower of Karl Marx, particularly regarding his position on motion. Though its leadership may not accept that the party has been moving from one position to another over the years, it has certainly changed beyond recognition since its inception in 1964. One cannot blame the party for that. Communism the world over is changing in its approach and policies. The CPM is no exception. But the latest transition makes it look like a bourgeoisie democratic socialist party, with all its trappings, including internecine groupism and squabbles involving a few leaders.

Till now the differences and the splits in the Indian communist movement have taken place on the basis of certain ideological positions. At the Communist Party of India’s second congress at Calcutta in February, 1948, the Zhdanov line of insurrection was adopted and rationalised on the premise that India was not really free, but only a “semi-colony of British imperialism”.

The struggles which followed decimated the cadre and led to the emergence of differences on the political line, which almost split the party. As a result, a delegation consisting of C. Rajeshwar Rao, M. Basavapunniah, Ajoy Kumar Ghosh and S.A. Dange was deputed for discussions (read assistance) with Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) leaders. After discussions with Stalin the differences were resolved temporarily. The party was again on the verge of split at its fourth congress held at Palakkad in 1956. Incidentally, on both occasions the international communist movement was united and yet the Indian party was heading towards a split.

Factionalism surfaced again in 1961 at the party’s Vijayawada congress over tactics, between the “rightists” and the “leftists”. The rightists managed, with the help from Soviet theoretician Mikhail A. Suslov who was present there, to endorse cooperation with “all democratic, secular and progressive forces” in the Congress party and outside. To avoid a walk-out by the leftists an untenable compromise was reached in the 110-member National Council by creating a new post of party Chairman to accommodate rightist Sripad Amrit Dange and providing the general secretaryship to leftist E.M.S. Namboodiripad . The compromise also gave a 5:4 majority for the leftists in the nine-member politburo or “secretariat”. However, at the National Council none had a clear majority.

The fact is that differences were brewing and factionalism growing within the united Communist Party of India since the beginning. Most of these were on internal issues based on ideological perceptions. But the Chinese aggression of 1962 led to sharp differences though the National Council held an emergency session after the attack, condemning China as an aggressor, refuting charges that Nehru is an “imperialist” and pledging full support to the Prime Minister to recover Indian territory.

The CPI also supported the purchase of Western arms, including those from America, to strengthen India’s defences.

The 1964 split in the CPI coincided with the split in the world communist movement. However, this did not represent a Moscow-Beijing polarisation. Incidentally, the CPM, formed as a result of the split, decided to postpone taking a stand on the ideological issues dividing the international communist movement. Later it merged as a party toeing an independent line, free from the ideological prescriptions of the Soviet Union or China. Thus the 1964 split was on issues concerning the tactics and strategy to be adopted within the country as the cold war replaced class struggle in the Soviet agenda, and the CPI abandoned the class struggle.

Interestingly, in 1967 the CPM performed better in Kerala and West Bengal and the party looked towards parliamentary methods, which led to another split. This was followed by the extremists in the CPM walking out and forming the All-India Coordination Committee of the Revolutionaries the same year. Later there was the birth of various extremist groups in the country, particularly in Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala.

In 1973 E.M.S. Namboodiripad wrote about the CPI (revisionists) and the CPI (ML) groups thus: “The CPI assesses the present regime i.e. the state and the government headed by Indira Gandhi and her colleagues of the ruling Congress as part of the left and democratic movement in the country. To them, therefore, the strategy and tactics are those of unity with the leaders of the regime. They also believe in the efficacy of the parliamentary path of struggle. Those who call for a militant struggle against the regime are, according to them, “sectarians”, “disruptionists”, “splitters” and so on”.

About the future of the CPI he predicted: “The CPI has reduced itself to a position where it is only propped up by the political and practical support given by the ruling Congress party. Once that support is withdrawn, the CPI will be exposed for what is nothing but a small group of people who lost everything revolutionary which they once had.” About the extremists’ group he wrote “As for the so-called extremist groups, the utter bankruptcy of their policies is now for all to see. With no mass base even in small pockets riven with dissensions among themselves and disowned by the Chinese party itself, they have no role to play in the future except as the willing instruments of the ruling party in its campaign for physical extermination of the revolutionary cadres of the CPM — a role which they effectively played in West Bengal, as well as in such actions as the murder of a CPM leader, Azhikodan Raghavan, in Kerala”.

The author of the theory of “working within the Constitution and wrecking it” about his own party, EMS said in 1973 “While clearly demarcating itself from the revisionists, who nurse the illusion that a peaceful parliamentary method of transition is possible in India, CPM refuses to reject in principle (as the Naxalites do) the use of parliamentary and constitutional methods for advancing the cause of the revolutionary movement. It, therefore, urges the combination of firmness with the class revolutionary line and flexibility in evolving tactics for practical action”.

What a transformation! Within a few years the CPI became part of the Left Front in West Bengal sharing power with the arch enemy, the CPM. It looks as though the main enemy of the CPM a few years later becomes its political partner. The Indian National Congress has been its enemy from the very beginning. Even as late as 1992 the party congress at Madras called upon the masses to defeat the Congress and isolate the BJP. At Chandigarh in 1995 the party exhorted the people to defeat both the Congress and the BJP. And at Calcutta in 1998 it called upon the masses to defeat the BJP, asked the cadre to be ready to work together with the Congress and declared its intention to help the Congress to form a ministry at the Centre.

If the pattern of embracing the main enemy to fight the new ones is continued, one should not be surprised at the CPM joining hands with the BJP to fight common enemies in future. After all, in its economic philosophy and policies the party is closer to the “swadeshi” section of the BJP than the Congress, which is totally committed to liberalisation and an unchecked entry of multinationals into the country. At the moment the main difference with the BJP is on the issue of secularism.

However, in the case of economic policies too the CPM is willing to accept the ground realities not appreciated by many. At Chandigarh the party accepted the need to allow sophisticated technology into the country as also foreign capital needed for such transfers. No more does the party nurse its old suspicious towards the comprador bourgeoisie.

The change of heart was evident elsewhere also. Though the inevitable collapse of the capitalist system, a mandatory reference at all CPM congress documents, was duly noted in the documents of the Calcutta congress, at the 30th Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Lecture Mr Jyoti Basu, the emerging strongman of the party, tended to accept the changing realities.

In that lecture Mr Basu found the remarks of the World Bank President, Mr James Wolfensohn, in conformity with the views of the CPM. Mr Basu said: “The belief that the reforms advocated by the World Bank-IMF for structural adjustment would overnight unleash the Indian tiger and usher in prosperity, have not worked in reality. World Bank President James Wolfensohn observed that stabilisation measures alone would not be effective in arresting the global meltdown. He stressed the need for longer-term plans for strong institutions, greater equity and social justice in the interests of ensuring political stability without which financial stability would remain distant. Poverty reduction would be at the heart of the Bank’s mission, he asserted. These views are in conformity with what we have been stating all these years. The IMF Managing Director, Mr Michael Camdessus, admitted the mistakes and asked for introspection on the Fund’s role in a new world order with unpredictable capital flows, and cautioned the world about the onrush of recession”.

Similarly, the attitude of the party towards the trade union movement is also getting diluted. A number of CITU leaders have been sidelined. Even in Mr Basu’s Nehru memorial lecture there are no mandatory references like working class unity, exploitation of the working class or trade union rights.

Of course, these may not augur well for the communist sympathiser. But these clearly show the signs of change in the CPM, which is slowly laying increased stress on industrial production like Deng Xiao-Peng of China. “We have to create the necessary conditions to harness our own resources for productive purposes and to provide adequate opportunities to the country’s scientists, technologists, engineers, doctors and skilled labour so that India can march forward”, said Basu in the lecture. The marked shift in accent on duties from rights is significant.

All these indicate that the CPM is no more aiming at an armed revolution or violent overthrow of the government. The party is willing to go halfway on liberalisation with a regulated multinational entry into the country. And for achieving this objective the party is willing to go along with the Congress at present and, perhaps, with others later on.

Politically, a CPM-Congress alliance at the hustings is not feasible now. The party cadres in West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala would not allow that. But in post-election manipulations and manoeuvres the party is willing to go along with the Congress to keep the BJP out of power. To that extent the party has changed, and this is indeed notable, considering its animosity to the Congress since its inception.

Sadly enough, the CPM is also not free from factionalism. The political organisational report adopted by the 16th congress of the party admits, with a sense of shame, to factionalism assuming serious proportions. While it is intense in West Bengal, Kerala, Tripura and Punjab, very few states are free from it. The report listed in detail this “unfortunate” development and said,”... lobbying or canvassing for individual leaders or groups and for elections to committees are against the principles of the party, and disciplinary action should be taken in such cases.” Glassnost a la CPM?

The harsh truth is that the convergence of interests made Mr Jyoti Basu, Mr V.S. Achuthanandan and Mr Harkrishen Singh Surjeet assumed control of West Bengal, Tripura, Kerala and Punjab among themselves. The lesser lights were given other states. It is to be noted that for the first time groups headed by individuals with no ideological conviction crossed swords with one another within the party. Another development of concern mentioned in the report was the growing leakages to the “bourgeois Press of inner-party discussions”.

The report said, “In Kerala it has become a serious problem while in West Bengal too it is occurring. Even decisions at the PB and CC level have been, on certain occasions, leaked to the Press”. Once again a feature till now seen in bourgeois democratic parties.

What one is witnessing is the slow change taking place in a revolutionary party, which is gradually looking beyond recognition. From the Zhdanov doctrine in Calcutta in 1948 to the Surjeet doctrine in 1998 the transition is, indeed, something revolutionary or reactionary, depending on one’s political commitments. But the change is indeed there for all to see.

The controversy

In defence of bureaucracy
by P.H. Vaishnav

IN the on-going controversy over the sacking of Admiral Bhagwat, kept alive by the media, more serious issues have been obfuscated by an obsessive pre-occupation with bureaucracy-bashing and a wholly unjustified allegation of the Defence Secretary’s aggrandisement over the Service Chiefs. The question raised by Mr Hari Jaisingh in a signed editorial in The Tribune of January 4, 1999, as to the role of Mr Ajit Kumar has not been gone into with reference to hard facts and evidence. Subsequent articles have continued to blame the Defence Secretary and the so-called civil service supremacy.

Before going into the role of Mr Ajit Kumar, it would be appropriate to examine the functioning of the three wings of the Army, their relationship not only with the Ministry (Minister) of Defence but also with the Government of India as a whole. The defence set-up is highly institutionalised and multi-disciplinary. Defence decisions require inputs from not only the Service Chiefs but also from the Finance Ministry, the intelligence service, the Ministry of External Affairs, the Home Ministry and the Cabinet Secretariat. Every matter of any consequence, particularly where the recommendations of the Chiefs are involved, does of necessity receive the attention of the Defence Minister. The scope for a communication gap does not exist, for the simple reason that the Chiefs have a direct access to the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, and rank higher than the Defence Secretary in protocol and salary.

The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) consists of the Minister of the concerned, apart from the Home Minister and the Prime Minister. The ACC is serviced by a secretariat headed not by the Defence Secretary but by the Cabinet Secretary. The proposals coming up to the ACC are scrutinised thoroughly from several angles. There is no scope for the Defence Secretary, therefore, to conceal any facts, much less dictate a particular point of view.

In the specific case of Admiral Bhagwat, the facts have been very clearly brought out not only before the ACC but also subsequently in the newspapers and by the MoD spokesperson. Admiral Bhagwat gave himself away long before he became the Chief by his own writ petition filed in 1990, quoted by Rear-Admiral Satyindra Singh (retd.) in The Tribune of January 4. His writ petition was dismissed and with that the slanderous allegations against the Defence Secretary, the Cabinet Secretary, senior naval officers, the Defence Minister and even the Prime Minister.

It is certainly a pertinent question as to how such a high-risk person was ever promoted to higher ranks and reached the top of the Naval ladder. The consequence of such a fatal error of judgement in promoting him soon became apparent when his actions brought discontent among the senior officers to an extent where they were reduced to making statutory complaints against their Chief.

The Admiral was, therefore, creating a mutiny-like situation against himself. In the result, internal strains created by him erupted into litigation. The Calcutta High Court intervened to direct the Minister of Defence that it was he who would deal with the representation of the Vice-Admiral in question. Therefore, before the matter went to the ACC, it was in the knowledge of all concerned that the Vice-Admiral and the Admiral were at loggerheads. The ACC did not need to be enlightened on the subject by the Defence Secretary.

In fact, there was nothing to prevent Admiral Bhagwat from speaking to the Defence Minister and the Prime Minister before the matter came to the ACC so that the awkward situation of his having to lump the appointment of the DCNS could have been obviated.

After Admiral Bhagwat refused to implement the ACC’s order, the advice of the Attorney-General, running into three pages, was obtained and it clearly established that the Admiral was absolutely in the wrong. After this the only course for him was to put in his papers. If he had done so, he would have gone in a blaze of glory. The fact of the matter was that the Admiral had created an environment in the Navy that bode ill for its effective functioning.

The Tribune in its editorial of January 7, “Restructuring of the MoD”, has cited two instances against the Defence Secretary accusing him of interference in professional matters. These two cases are really one case relating to Operation Leech carried out in the Andamans in February, 1998. The write-up containing the allegation regarding this operation in a magazine had it that one of the defence officers allowed the Arakanese first to come into the Andaman waters for a consideration and later shot them. The matter is still under enquiry. It should be nobody’s case that the Defence Minister should close his eyes to a matter like this. How is, therefore, the Defence Secretary to be blamed if the Government decides to conduct an enquiry? From the known facts it only appears that if Admiral Bhagwat was sacked for defiance, Mr Ajit Kumar was transferred for compliance.

The reason why caution needs to be exercised in making assertions (without explanation) and allegations (without evidence) is that such reporting demoralises none other than the armed forces themselves, as middle-level officers in the Army are made to believe that civil authority means the civil service which is not the truth. There have been other developments too reflecting the relationship between the Service Chiefs and the Defence Ministry. In all these matters, however, it is wholly simplistic to blame the Defence Secretary.

This is not to argue against decentralisation, delegation and a collective thinking among the authorities already listed above. Even an ordinary civil servant knows that the armed forces’ proposals whether regarding personnel or military matters should not be treated lightly or their judgement interfered with. Reciprocally, the armed forces would also appreciate that it is in their own interest that their cases receive unbiased consideration. It will be a sad day when the institutional subordination of the civil, military and police bureaucracy to the elected political executive is questioned through an inaccurate projection of their role. It will be sadder still if the restructuring exercise being carried out by the Defence Minister results in the weakening of an already weak political executive. In that case, we shall be a short step from disaster.

Civil-military panel: back to Nehru report

by Anupam Gupta

“CIVIL dominance, regardless of how securely grounded it may be in the Constitution and in the statutes, is not self-implementing. Like any other principle, it must be cherished in the public mind if it is to prevail. Like any other policy, it requires translation into effective administration”.

Continuing from where I left last week, it is remarkable how Louis Smith’s words written almost five decades ago in what was perhaps the first serious study of the complexity of civil-military relations in democratic societies, simply yet pregnantly titled “American Democracy and Military Power” and published by the University of Chicago, apply to the controversy thrown up by the unprecedented and unfortunate dismissal of the Navy chief, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat.

From Krishna Menon to George Fernandes, from General Thimayya to Admiral Bhagwat, the failure of the Indian political and constitutional system to translate the principle of civil dominance into effective (and sensible) administration, into anything beyond that sterile constitutional phrase “the President’s pleasure”, has turned the principle into a parody of itself, with increasingly obvious repercussions for the security of the nation.

Civil control, explains Louis Smith — and it is time for lawyers to listen and contribute to the debate, rather than remain content with Article 310 embodying the doctrine of pleasure — must not be too narrowly construed. It means not simply the legal mastery of (or over) the military, but involves also effective administrative management controlled by the civil leadership of government. It involves coordination of the military power with the civil government and not merely subordination to it.

In the period of limited wars of the past, he says, subordination of the military was enough. But in this modern age of total war in which whole nations wage war with each other instead of limiting the fighting to small armies under their banner, coordination is imperative. It is well recognised today that unity of command, strategic harmony and concentration of force call for the coordination of the several major components of the armed forces with each other. It must be equally well recognised that the military force and the civil side are both inter-dependent parts of the nation’s power for war and, as such, they must be made to function together in the furtherance of national security aims in war as well as peace.

The new situation may be unpalatable, he adds, to a people habituated to disregard the military in times of peace, but it cannot be omitted. The safety of the people, the protection of the State, the perpetuation of the democratic form of government, the preservation of our territorial integrity — a Spartan definition of these overarching national interests is to be avoided, but the chronic crisis of our time demands that the military requirements for safeguarding them cannot be neglected. The “advice of military specialists must be institutionally planned for and systematically considered”. Though, in the well-known cliche of public administration, the “generals and admirals must be on tap, not on top.”

Civil-military relations is the principal institutional component of military security policy, Prof Samuel Huntington has written in another seminal work on the subject, “The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations”. In the long run, the nature of decisions on the immediate operating issues of military policy is determined by the institutional pattern through which these decisions are made.

Previously, he says — and let lawyers, especially constitutional lawyers pay heed once again —the primary question was: what pattern of civil-military relations is most compatible with American liberal values? Now this has been supplanted by the more important issue: what pattern of civil-military relations will best maintain the security of the American nation? Read “Indian” for “American”, especially after the Bhagwat dismissal, and the domestic relevance of the question (and the change of question) will become palpably clear.

Nations which develop a properly balanced pattern of civil-military relations have a great advantage in the search for security. Nations which fail to develop a balanced pattern squander their resources and run uncalculated risks, says Prof Huntington. A balanced system of civil-military relations “maximises objective civilian control and military professionalism through a greater degree of specialisation”.

Contrast this model with the situation obtaining in India, despite three conventional wars in the past and a possible nuclear confrontation with Pakistan in the future. There is, we know now on the high authority of a former Naval chief, Admiral R.K. Tahiliani (writing in the The Times of India on January 7), a “total and deliberate lack of communication in an institutional manner between the uniformed fraternity and the bureaucracy”.

In retrospect, the silence of the Indian Constitution on the subject, or its failure to institutionalise civil-military relations, is costing the nation dear. One is always wiser with hindsight but, even for its times, the silence is only partly justifiable. The Kitchner-Curzon dispute of 1905 — the dispute between the Viceroy, Lord Curzon, and his Commander-in-Chief, Lord Kitchner of Khartoum, over the position and power of the Military Member of the Viceroy’s Council — might have been considered by the founding fathers to be somewhat remote. But the Nehru Report of 1928, the report of the committee headed by Motilal Nehru many of whose recommendations were later enacted in the Constitution, was too important a precedent to be ignored.

Had the proposal made in the Report to establish a combined civil-military Committee of Defence, headed by the Prime Minister and including the Defence Minister and the three service chiefs, to “advise the government and the various departments concerned with questions of defence and upon general questions of policy” and to recommend legislation affecting the “discipline or maintenance” of the armed forces, a Committee to be provided for in the Constitution itself, been accepted, crises such as Admiral Bhagwat’s dismissal could hardly be expected to occur.

Security mania grips Capital

by Humra Quraishi

AMIDST a tension-ridden scenario gripping the Capital after a group of Shiv Sainiks dug up the Ferozeshah Kotla stadium pitch in a bid to prevent the Pakistan cricket team from coming here, the much publicised bus service from New Delhi to Lahore took off on January 8 morning. And till its return — “expected on Monday unless it is extended by a day” — tension would for obvious reasons continue. The threat is not only from the Sainiks here but also from fanatics across the border and in this scenario many are left questioning the actual viability of such a bus service. And though on this first run there are only government officers as passengers so security level is utmost but can such high security be guaranteed on each run and along the entire route ? (The destination-Lahore is reached from New Delhi via Pipli, Sirhind, Kartar, Amritsar). And those aboard on this first run include K.K. Sharma, DC Customs, Amritsar, H.K. Chopra, Under Secretary, MEA, Amrik Singh, Traffic Manager, Punjab Roadways, Kishan Kumar, DCP, Delhi, Abhijit Sarkar, Secretary of the State Transport Authority, G.S. Cheema, CMD of the DTC, S.K. Jha from the Surface Transport Ministry, some other officials of DTC and STA, three drivers and three conductors.

And though after the Kotla pitch incident, security mania seems to have gripped New Delhi — DTC and private buses being stopped at random for special checking and frisking of passengers, policemen in groups of twos and threes are to be seen around most major intersections — an atmosphere of unease hangs all over. Lawlessness had never been so palpable. And if the Pakistani cricket team cancels its tour then we might as well be perceived the world over as jungle-law country. In fact, in this context it would be important to mention here that the Chief Minister of Delhi, Mrs Sheila Dikshit, openly told the delegates at the CII Summit at Jaipur that she cannot invite or encourage them to set up business in the capital city of India as there is no water, power and the law and order situation is sliding down.

At the President’s iftaar

The only ‘iftaar’ which I have attended so far (anyway, just a week left for Eid) was the one hosted by the First Lady and President K.R. Narayanan at Rashtrapati Bhavan this weekend — January 8. It was attended by the PM together with a great majority of his Cabinet ministers, Arab and West Asian diplomats with their spouses, the Vice-President and his wife, former President Shankar Dayal Sharma, former First Lady Begum Abida Ahmed and very obviously ailing Mohammad Yunus Khan. In fact he had come on a wheelchair and the other two persons who had to be assisted were Begum Abida and also the well-known writer Qurratulain Hyder. The latter was seen being constantly assisted by NCM member Syeda Saiyandin Hameed. Not to be seen was V.P. Singh, though I have been told that he returned from the USA last fortnight. And the other guests included some prominent Congressmen, several Janata Dal faces and many retired bureaucrats. And it was one of the best managed “iftaars” where care was taken to spread out typical “iftaar” fare and the invitees seemed to be doing much justice to it all. In fact, before I move on I must write that the former Union Home Minister Mufti Sayeed sat on the same table as I, in fact almost facing me, and though he didn’t eat much (though one of his aides had filled up his plate frightfully high) but spoke non-stop on the political situation and his views on the reservation for women. And though several other politicians sat close to where he sat but they seemed so preoccupied eating that they paid little heed to all his utterances.

At the Naval House

Last Friday noon also saw me heading towards the Naval House, situated on the Rajaji Marg. Ironically total quietude prevailed in the sprawling campus, nothing to betray the raging controversy over the manner in which Naval Chief Vishnu Bhagwat was dismissed overnight. Packing seemed to be going on at one end and when I asked Niloufer Bhagwat details about their shift from here to Bombay she said: “Being in an armed forces one learns to pack up swiftly ... by midweek we will be going from here. We have a little flat in Bombay and that’s where we will live”.

Looking preoccupied she mentioned that everyday friends and well wishers drop in and it got obvious from her talks that soon details and circumstances leading to the Admiral’s dismissal would be made public. Probably by the Admiral himself.

And as of now the first casualty of this dismissal has been the couple’s pet dog who died last week. Probably it sensed the pain around.

Well witnessed

Never before witnessed so many administrative and police heads at a private venue as one witnessed last Sunday, on the occasion of former CBI Chief R.C. Sharma’s son’s wedding reception. You just have to name the officer — serving or retired — and he was there. Most were pleasantly surprised and happy to see Sharma totally recovered and back to shape (remember last year at the Guwahati airport he fell from the Indian Airlines aircraft after the ladder was pulled back prematurely).

75 YEARS AGO

Lala Lajpat Rai’s release

THE following are the questions asked by Dr Nand Lal, Bar-at-law, MLA, at the meeting of the Legislative Assembly regarding Lala Lajpat Rai’s release and the answers given by Government: —

Questions (i) Is the government of India aware that according to section 401, sub-section I, of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Governor-General in Council is empowered to remit the unexpired portion of a sentence?

(2) Will the Government of India state as to whether the Governor-General in Council is prepared under Section 401 (i), Criminal Procedure Code, to remit the unexpired portion of Lala Lajpat Rai’s sentence?

Answers:

(1) Yes.

(2) No