 |
|
Return of terror Nuclear thaw Scurrilous
journalism |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Armed forces at 60
The four that got
away
Benazir-Musharraf
pact Chatterati Avoiding American
decline starts at home
|
|
Nuclear thaw There
is no turnabout in the Left stand on the 123 agreement with the US at all, but the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation seems to be easing considerably. As a result, the immediate threat to the Manmohan Singh government appears to have receded. The main reason for this reality check is political, since realisation is dawning on the Left that it may find its strength greatly diminished if it pulls the rug at this stage and there is a mid-term election. Slowly, comrades have come to feel that the public mood is not in sync with their stand or rhetoric. As a result, they may continue their struggle for form’s sake but the push may not come to a shove. They could have been envisioning ghosts where there was none. Even the critics of the agreement concede that there is nothing in the agreement which is to the detriment of India. In fact, it has been mentioned repeatedly that the deal it has got is better than what China obtained from the US. India virtually gets recognition of being a nuclear power. That should be reason enough to acknowledge – at least in private – that they were pillorying the government for nothing. India also gains access to forbidden technology and fuel for nuclear reactors. Leftists are sharp enough to appreciate that the deal is too far advanced to be thrown into the dustbin now. At the same time, the political price of bringing down the government will be too high. Also, their influence over levers of power will be greatly reduced. They may also come to be viewed as obstructionists. To be looking on the same side as the BJP is a daunting prospect for the Marxists, which they would best avoid. They have been trying to steer clear of the Hindutva party but cannot avoid giving the impression of being cosy with it if they withdraw support for the deal. Perhaps the discussion in Parliament on the subject later this week will provide the right excuse to pull back the forces from the battle-ready forward positions. |
|
Scurrilous journalism IT was gutter journalism at its worst when a news channel telecast a bit of what was shot with a hidden camera kept in the bathroom used by starlet Monica Bedi when she was lodged in the Bhopal jail. The Supreme Court has asked the government to restrain all news channels from telecasting the clipping. What is surprising is that the channel had not found anything objectionable in telecasting the salacious bit necessitating the actor to knock on the doors of the apex court. It is the worst form of invasion of privacy, which is unacceptable under any pretext. The shooting could not have been carried out without the connivance of the jail officials who need to be given deterrent punishment. The issue raises the larger question of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in journalism. News channels and news portals have in the past conducted sting operations on politicians and government officials to expose corruption and other wrongdoing. While it is one thing to catch an official receiving bribe from his victim with a hidden camera, it is quite another to entice him with money, jewellery or liquor to expose his susceptibility. In other words, sting operations need to be defined so that the media does not resort to unethical practices. Every individual is entitled to a measure of privacy, which the media or even the state cannot impinge upon. This was not honoured by the jail authorities, who allowed the placement of a hidden camera in the bathroom, and the news channel which thoughtlessly telecast it. It may be a coincidence that the day the Supreme Court heard Monica Bedi’s plea, report came of the privilege committee of the Rajya Sabha suggesting a suitable law to govern sting operations. We have always believed that the media should have unfettered freedom in the discharge of its responsibilities to the people at large. However, freedom does not mean licence to trample upon civility and all that comes under the generic term of individual liberty. Self-restraint, rather than self-censorship, is what is expected from the media. By telecasting such scurrilous stuff, sections of the media are playing into the hands of those who advocate censorship. In any case, pandering to the base instincts of the viewers in any manner is not journalism. |
|
Your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other thing.
— Abraham Lincoln |
Armed forces at 60
Sixty
years after Independence, India’s armed forces are the fourth largest in the world though size, as the Chinese have learnt and we have not, does not convert into operational élan. At the time of independence, though India inherited the trappings of the British imperial legacy, the necessary strategic vision and military power were missing. British military traditions were selectively imbibed by the services and many retained to this day. However, the appreciation for military power and strategic sense permeated slowly as Whitehall in London ran the show. British Service Chiefs commanded the Army, Navy and Air Force till well after independence and only a handful of senior Indian officers (the seniormost was a Brigadier) had operational experience. The political leadership was so far removed from the geostrategic reality that Prime Minister Nehru said the country could do with a police force and did not need an Army. The corollary to this naivete was the national humiliation in the high Himalayas in 1962 when the IAF was not used. Indian troops have not ceased being in war or in action since 1947 but for the most part, minus a grand strategy or higher direction of war. Continental strategies have evolved without political guidance. The full potential of military strength has not been realised due to lack of synergy between political, diplomatic, economic and military power and the absence of jointness and integration between the three services and between the services and the Ministry of Defence as each service has developed independently. Barring 1971, wars have been fought as three separate forces. Consequently, the forces have failed to create usable operational capabilities to fight or deter threats.This is vital if a rising India is to continue maintaining an economic growth rate of 9 to 10 per cent. India, a nuclear arms state, is a status quo power. But for cosmetic changes, the armed forces too have been status quoist in outlook. This has led to the slow pace in change and modernisation of the fighting forces. It is the absence of unity of command and political guidance which has resulted in the less than optimum performance of the armed forces. Never has a National Security Strategy document appeared in print. Military strategies and operational doctrines grew in a political void and single service. The Army was programmed to “defending every inch of territory” while the Air Force, which was generally left out of battle till the D Day, would find itself in conflict between maintaining a favourable air situation and providing air support to land forces. The Navy was seldom, if at all, able to influence the outcome of a land battle. In a short span of 60 years, the armed forces have fought more wars and internal stability operations than any other military. Their record in and contribution to national integration and bringing into the union, recalcitrant state of Junagarh and Hyderabad, liberating Portuguese colonies and thwarting secession in the North East and Punjab is impressive. Despite holding the initiative, the performance in the 1965 war against Pakistan was patchy. This was made up by the historic victory in 1971 but the opportunity to seal the J&K dispute was lost due to political and diplomatic failure. The ideal objective of war is securing lasting peace, but military success alone does not ensure this. No conventional war has been fought since 1971 (and is unlikely in the future) though on request, India sent out expeditionary forces to the Maldives and Sri Lanka in the late 1980s. While the Maldives intervention was a resounding success, the IPKF discovered that it had forgotten its basics: tactics in counterinsurgency. By the time IPKF recovered its balance, it was virtually evicted from Sri Lanka marking the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord as a failure of coercive diplomacy. The unlearning of lessons followed: like the Henderson Brookes report after the 1962 debacle, the after action Sri Lanka report was put under wraps. None of the war reports has been declassified. The lessons of Kargil came by default from investigating the intelligence failure and its sequel, the Group of Ministers’ Report. The GoM’s appraisal of the Higher Defence Organisation was the first ever serious attempt at defence reform. Of the 100 odd recommendations 70 per cent have been implemented though the appointment of Chief of Defence Staff conspicuously avoided. He holds the key to integration and jointness and in his absence, the multi-service Integrated Defence Staff is headless. The three star in charge of IDS is actually the VCDS but cannot be appointed as there is no CDS. The IDS, even such as it is, should have happened at least two decades ago to obviate the compartmentalised development of the three Services and minimise inter-service rivalry. Seminars on the nature of future wars are in fashion but organised separately by each service though they will fight the war together. The Army is meshed in network centric warfare, the Air Force on a high on aerospace and the Navy bent on ruling the waves. Impressive plans are made but have no political backing. What the three Services should be doing is forging a joint doctrine after obtaining from the government, a clear mandate on what it expects from its armed forces during war and peace against Pakistan, China and other contingencies. Political guidance has neither been sought nor given. US commanders are telling their government and Congress that they expect the global war on terrorism to be fought for the next 30 years, some say, for a generation. Our commanders must get right the type of conflict or war the armed forces will prevent or fight besides the ongoing proxy war and internal security operations. The IDS must effectively take over most of the planning tasks of the Services to weld an operational triad. For a start, create a Joint Warfare School sending a clear message that jointness is the need of the hour. The Aerospace Command, if and when it comes, ought to be triservice and like the Andaman and Nicobar Command and Strategic Forces Command, placed under IDS. The IDS has forced a legitimate role in the Defence Acquisition Council by supporting the Services Capital Acquisition Programme Committees. It is also in charge of collating the Five Year Defence Acquisition Plans. In the Tenth Plan its role was simply one of aggregation of single Service Plans. Will it graduate to integrating and determining inter se priorities in the Eleventh Plan or will that remain the prerogative of the Defence Secretary who, till last month, was managing the nation’s surface transport or could have been in charge of animal husbandry. This is the job of the CDS whose appointment has been delayed beyond reason. Celebrating 50 years after the Raj in 1997, BBC described the Indian Army as the last bastion of democracy in India. Ten years on, cracks have appeared in the bastion urging a revisit to the basics of maintaining traditional standards in morale and man (and woman) management in the Armed Forces. While the political class is meticulous in strategising the acquisition of political power, it spends little time optimising the country’s military strength. In that sense, little has changed for the Armed Forces since
Independence.
|
The four that got away The
morning of June 1975 dawned routinely, but it was a dawn with a big difference. Numberless newspaper readers were perplexed as to what had happened to their hawkers. Muttering “what has befallen the guy… to make him forget dropping my paper in the balcony? May be there has been some unforeseen breakdown… but what can it be when most important journals have stand-by arrangements …..?” they turned to the next item of their daily routine. Quite a number of those at the sleepy “tehsil” town of Charkhi Dadri (Haryana), however, had to rush through it, on learning of the demise of L. Charanji Lal Bagla — the grand old man of the town who happened to be the father of the local R.S.S. chief Ramjilal. The crowd that had collected — and was still growing — was too engrossed talking about the venerable deceased to refer to anything else. One thing, however, which could have otherwise raised many an eyebrow was the appearance of some police personnel on the scene. Presumably, they too were taken to be mourners who had social contacts with advocate Ramjilal — the bereaved. Later in the day, of course, there was nothing to discuss and opine about except the “Emergency” — something nobody had feared or even heard about. As the country settled to the new order of things — Government staff reaching offices punctually, sitting upright in their seats, trains running in time — a feeling of fear filling occupiers of all “wet” jobs who began looking all round for peeping eyes before touching confidential matters and shunning uncomplimentary references to Chaudhry Bansi Lal — the iron C.M. of Haryana. From countrywide massive arrests of Sangh workers Mr. Bagla had guessed the meaning of policemen’s presence that day. So, after completing the rituals with visarjan of ashes on 11th July, he presented himself before the S.D.M. saying — “I hear I am wanted by the law. Arrest me”. The latter advised him to go the police station to ascertain if they had anything. As the S.H.O. was not there the next man said, “You may go home sir, we will contact you if needed”. Mr Bagla, however, refused to leave unless he was assured there was nothing against him. The S.H.O. returned shortly and admitted there was a matter involving him. Bagla was, therefore, arrested and sent to the lockup. A bail application was moved before the S.D.M. He had been shown as “conspiring with three others — all members of an unlawful organisation RSS — to wage war against the state, arrested on 26th of June — obviously too serious a matter to be taken lightly”. The lawyer accused noted the serious flaw in the F.I.R. — R.S.S. had not been declared unlawful on the 26th — but the bait had to be followed up before the District Judge who behaved ditto. Their next step had to be to approach Chandigarh High Court. There the Hon’ble Judge granted bail but directed the Distt Judge to give daily hearing and decide the case within three weeks. Bhiwani Distt Judge Vasishtha did as directed and rejecting the charge released the “conspirators”. This is believed to be the only case in Haryana which was tried on the charge of waging war “against the country” and dismissed. Does it prove our national motto: Satyameva Jayate? Hardly. It failed because of a technical mistake in F.I.R. Thousands of MISA detenus would have been freed on merit if the courts had not been gagged. The four who got away proved only this that if you want to kill a truth, smother it foolproof. A bad deed is unfortunate enough, done incompetently is
worse. |
Benazir-Musharraf pact Begum
Benazir Bhutto’s one statement is that she has reached an “understanding” with President General Pervez Musharraf. Another is that she expects him to shed his uniform. She is making too many contradictory statements to raise the dust. However, this reminds me of the talks the political outfits had with London on transfer of power to India. They too would say that their negotiations were for a “transition” to sovereignty. Their helplessness was understandable because they were negotiating with the foreign rulers. How can Benazir bring in the word “understanding” when she is talking to a person in uniform? Such people, however high, have no independent entity in a democratic setup. To arrogate men in uniform to the place of authority first and then treat them as the dispenser of power has been Pakistan’s tragedy. Benazir has only aggravated the problem by reaching a “settlement” with them. All along, Benazir has said that Musharraf would have to take off his uniform before she accepted him as someone with whom she could share power with. What has happened behind the scenes to make her change if the office of Prime Minister was not on the agenda? This age-old pattern of having a settlement with the fauj for coming to power has been the bane of Pakistan. It should have changed after the unprecedented victory of lawyers on the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary. They, the civil society, represented the voice of people – the people who were pinning their hopes on the restoration of democracy. The military, however key to the affairs of Pakistan, cannot supplant popular say. The country cannot afford to go back to square one and have the same exercise which Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir’s father, did. The result was that the military came back. Benazir made sense when she said that fundamentalism might come to prevail if the elected representatives were kept out for a long time. But her formula to “share power” with the military would create two parallel lines of authority as had happened in the past. It would be a matter of time when the line, backed by force, took over. What is the guarantee that it would not be repeated? That Beanzir should be oblivious of the danger means an undue haste to come to power. The contours of settlement are beginning to be clear. The Musharraf government has removed the bar on her election for the third time. The earlier decision that no person can be Pakistan’s Prime Minister for a third term has been rescinded. Benazir, in turn, has given an undertaking that her Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) members in the National Assembly and the state legislatures will not vote against Musharraf’s re-election as President for another five-year term. They will abstain. The election is scheduled to take place between September 15 and October 15. There is no word from Musharraf or his supporters that he will shed the uniform. Her plea to him to take off the uniform is only an appeal, apparently not part of the agreement. The settlement that Benazir has reached is not to the liking of the radicals in the party. There are rumours that she has made many compromises in her anxiety to become the Prime Minister. How do those who led the lawyers’agitation reconcile their uncompromising stand against Musharraf to Benazir’s acceptance of him as President? It is obvious that they do not want to raise the standard of revolt. There is one lesson: it is easy to take part in agitations but difficult to fight against the political leadership. The wilderness which may follow deters those who are not happy over the outcome. Maybe, Benazir honestly believes that the military has to have a role in any future setup in Pakistan. Turkey has such an arrangement and the three service chiefs are members of the apex body on governance. If this is the reason why she has accepted Musharraf in uniform, she should say so. There should be a public debate on it in Pakistan. Let the next election be fought on the proposition whether the military should have a role in governance. In contrast, Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League looks firm not to have any truck with the military. The League may not come to power in the near future but its credentials for a democratic setup will gain support as the days go by. Nawaz Sharif has stuck to the Charter of Democracy while Benazir has not. However, both are signatories to the document. Benazir’s stand against fundamentalists should have distanced her from the military. It has created them and supported them. And one does not know how sincere it is to put up a fight against them. US official documents reveal that Islamabad gave substantial military support to the Taliban in the years leading to the 9/11 attacks, sending arms and soldiers to fight alongside Al-Qaida. According to The Guardian, a daily from London, Pakistan’s officials concede privately that the ISI was instrumental in turning the Taliban into an organised force till 2001. Benazir correctly diagnosed that the uprising in Waziristan could not be curbed until Musharraf was in power. But then how does she explain her “agreement” with the same person? When power is the end, the means seem to matter little. Her entry into the government gives one positive message: relations between India and Pakistan would normalise. She told me in London that she believes in a “borderless” subcontinent. I hope she implements this desire of hers. If nothing else, she should allow the Pakistanis to come to the Wagha border on August 14-15 night – something which people on the Indian side have been doing unilaterally for the past 14 years. Once again, despite the blackout of the Indian media, the crowd on the Indian side exceeded five lakh. Some 30 MPs and MLAs from Pakistan participated in the function despite New Delhi’s delay in issuing visas. They received the okay just a day before the event. |
|
Chatterati Andhra
Pradesh Chief Minister YSR Reddy used unparliamentary language against TDP supremo Chandrababu Naidu in the state assembly recently. George Fernandes, while speaking on the nuclear debate, made a personal remark against the Prime Minister. MPs and MLAs today think that the Parliament House and state assemblies are meant for only displaying their histrionic talent hence the shoutings and acts of rushing to the well of the House, leading to frequent stoppage of the proceedings. The hapless Speakers of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies have to adjourn the Houses because Opposition members rely more on sound bites than a logical presentation of facts. It’s shameful Some MLAs also give a steller performance outside the assembly. Some of us may not think that Tasleema is the best writer or that she is the best presenter of the religion of Islam, but to beat her up at a public forum, in the eyes of one and all, is perhaps something to be ashamed of in our democracy. Worse still, it was done by representatives of a political party! Of course, our pseudo-secularists will not raise their voice against them. Do these representatives actually represent the public or merely the communal and caste ridden vote banks in their constituencies? Is it, therefore, possible to expect them to take a national stand on important issues? Some MPs and MLAs are always flaunting their authority and privilege to all and sundry. A brave Deputy Commissioner of Police went to the House of an MLA in Maharashtra a few days back to arrest him after his supporters refused to obey the law. Let us see what the officer has in store for him from the law-makers in the Maharashtra Assembly. I am sure he will be taken to task on some lame excuse. Now our U.S. Ambassador has also got into trouble for his unparliamentary language. What are our youngsters supposed to learn, I wonder. Left: the real loser The firm stand by the Leftists has political parties gearing up for mid-term Polls. Whatever happens in the coming weeks, the Congress leaders think they are in a win-win situation. If they do not give in to the demands of the Leftists the 123 agreement would go through. Mid-term polls will then be combined with various assembly polls like Gujarat, Himachal and Rajasthan. Mayawati, who still has a hold over Uttar Pradesh, feels she will get at least 50 of the 80 seats. Mulayam feels he will get the Muslim vote. The Congress is dependent on the anti-incumbency factor in the BJP-ruled states. The BJP, of course, is in a mess. In Sharad’s NCP infighting is already going on and Sharad’s health is no good. Congressmen are waiting for an enthusiastic Rahul Gandhi to step in as General Secretary and do wonders. Well, after the U.P. debacle, one is not too sure whether the common man is taken in by just guest appearances. Whether the elections are now or as scheduled two years later, Maya Behanji is all set to hold the centrestage. In all this, it looks as if the Left will be the greatest loser.
|
|
Avoiding American decline starts
at home Are
we Rome? Is America like the Roman Empire – you know, Declining and Falling, and all that? No less than the comptroller general of the United States, David Walker, answers yes, citing "striking similarities" between America today and Rome then. And while it's tempting – at a time of falling bridges, faltering currencies and failing foreign wars – to spot ominous parallels, one huge difference exists, which happily is still in our power to control. Walker, head of the federal-watchdogging Government Accountability Office, has been warning for years against unsustainable financial deficits. But he went much further this month when he described Washington, D.C., as a "burning platform," adding to the litany of woes: "declining moral values and political civility at home, an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government." So yes, the idea is in the air – as it always has been in the West. Why? Because the Roman Empire was the greatest politico-military achievement of all time. For the better part of six centuries, one city in Italy managed to control much of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Given that historical footprint, it's little wonder that Rome is always popping up in culture, as well as politics. A just-opened movie, "The Last Legion," recounts yet another tale about the fall of the Western Roman Empire, in A. D. 476. And it was exactly 1,300 years later, in 1776, that two Rome-inspired events took place. The first, of course, was the American Revolution and the subsequent establishing of a new republic. The founders were English-speakers, but as they looked around for political inspiration, they settled on the ancient Roman Republic, even dredging up such Latin-derived official titles as president, senator and supreme court justice. Secondly, 1776 brought a wistful note, as well. By coincidence, that same year, Englishman Edward Gibbon published the first volume of his monumental series, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Gibbon's erudition and poetic pessimism had a massive effect on Western historical consciousness, bolstering an already powerful human instinct: to search the past for clues about the future. The latest such past-as-prologue effort comes from Cullen Murphy, whose new book, "Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America," argues that then-now comparisons are indeed valid. Reflecting the times in which we live, Murphy emphasizes the issue of military ambition; the Romans in their day, he observes, believed that they were uniquely destined to manage the world. And they were – for a while. OK, so there are many similarities, of which we should be mindful. Now here's the big difference: As with any empire, the Roman Empire was always a multicultural construct. That is, for all those centuries a few million Latin-speakers managed to conquer and control other populations, who outnumbered the Romans by perhaps 25 to 1. And when Roman military might failed, the empire fell. It was only natural that the various conquered peoples – Britons, Germans, Egyptians – would all then go their separate ways. What was left of Rome, politically, was the idea of Italy as a distinct entity. And so today, 16 centuries later, there's an Italian state, with its capital in Rome, composed mostly of Italians. Multicultural empires may fall, but unicultural countries endure. So what's the lesson for America? What is it that's still within our power to control? Our overseas military prizes will come and go; it's this country that we must keep. To be blunt, we are better off having let go of the Philippines and Vietnam, and will be soon enough with Iraq. Because the fate of America will be determined right here, on this continent. For as long as we can protect our border and our sovereignty, while preserving our language and culture, there will always be an
America. By arrangement with LA Times-Washington Post
|
A faithful is he, from whose tongue and hands Ishwara’s creation is safe. — The Vedas They who always sing of
His glory, are blessed and radiant with His beauty. — Guru Nanak Let us not use bombs and guns to overcome the world. Let us use love and compassion. —
Mother Teresa Reason has to be strengthened by suffering; it opens the eyes of understanding. —
Mahatma Gandhi The Wind God exults in his strength. But that too comes from the Supreme. —
The Upanishads |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
