The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

The choice in Karnataka
Congress honours MLAs' wish

Breaking away from tradition, the newly elected Congress MLAs of Karnataka did not leave the selection of Chief Minister to the party president or high command at their first meeting on Friday. Nor did the leadership in Delhi impose on the state its own candidate with proven loyalty to the Gandhi family. Perhaps, Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi's policy of empowering state leaders, outlined at Jaipur recently, is being given a serious thought. The four-member team of AICC observers led by A.K. Antony held a secret ballot and the majority favoured P.C. Siddaramaiah, Karnataka's two-time Deputy Chief Minister who has presented seven budgets but is considered an "outsider" in the Congress since he joined the party only in 2006.

Siddaramaiah (64) is not a hardcore follower of the first family of the Congress. Until 2006 he had been a strong critic of the Congress. Belonging to a backward community of shepherds called Kuruba, Siddaramaiah was groomed in politics by H.D. Deve Gowda but he left the Janata Dal (S), realising that the top slot in the party was reserved for the Gowdas. Starting schooling at the age of 10 in a backward village, he struggled to become a lawyer, then a politician, learnt the tricks of the profession and is finally set to occupy the top position on Monday. Karnataka's mismanaged administration, broken economy and corrupt politics badly need a saviour. Will Siddaramaiah rise to the occasion?

In the Congress, intra-party democracy marks a welcome change. After the death of Andhra Pradesh's powerful Chief Minister YSR Reddy and the subsequent revolt by his son, Jagan Reddy, the Congress leadership has been discouraging strong, rebellious or outspoken leaders at the state level. The Congress chief ministers in Haryana, Uttarakhand, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra all keep a low profile. The party should rather reward performance more than loyalty, encourage democratic practices rather than factionalism or nepotism and rid itself of all tainted leaders to refurbish its badly bruised image.

Glory to Rajasthan forts
Missing ASI sites still a blot

Getting the status of World Heritage Site for six of the hill-forts from Rajasthan must have surprised the Ministry of Culture. Nominations for the heritage status sent to UNESCO from India are notoriously known for poor home- work and incomplete documentation, and UNESCO is in a habit of sending them back. With a list of over 3,675 protected monuments, India has so far been able to get the status of world heritage sites for 29 monuments. Last year’s nomination for five forts, namely Chittorgarh, Kumhalgarh, Ranthambore, Amber and Gargorn, was rejected by UNESCO. The Centre included Jaisalmer fort and nominated the six forts to chart this rare achievement. The six forts, located on Aravalli mountains built between 13th and 19th centuries, are unique for creatively using the landscape to increase protection, are considered by UNESCO as representatives of Rajput military hill architecture.

Such instances that bring glory to Indian heritage are rare. Few months back a vanishing act of 36 structures had woken up the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to the need for better protection of historical monuments. To the horror of heritage lovers, it was discovered that these structures of immense historical wealth were demolished to make way for homes in residential areas or shops in commercial locations. In some places, they could have been razed when they came in the way of development projects. Twelve of the 174 monuments disappeared from Delhi, where the ASI has its headquarters.

UNESCO offers recognition to the monuments that are of interest to the global citizen. The relevance of monuments of local interest for the local population needs to be respected and protected by the ASI, whose job it is to protect of our national heritage. The ASI has demanded recruitment of about 10,000 more guards to aid its existing force of 3,463 guards that looks after the 3,675 monuments under its fold. India also has stringent laws against the usurpation of heritage sites. What we need is sincere implementation of these laws and a sense of pride in our heritage.

Thought for the Day

All generalisations are false, including this one.

— Mark Twain

ARTICLE

Politics even in tragedy
Sarabjit case hurts Indo-Pakistan relations
by Rajindar Sachar

MANY great men sickened by the way the contemporary society behaves have been exasperated to give vent to their harshest feelings, Author Samuel Johnson remarked, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel”. I had thought that Johnson was unfair to an overwhelming number of ordinary citizens who were in true sense patriots. I was willing to concede that if he had used the word “Politics” instead, I might have gone along with him, especially when I read what V Lenin said, “There are no morals in politics, there is only expediency. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel”. Colloquially, a scoundrel conjures up a ruffian type of a person, but scoundrel is defined in Oxford dictionary to mean an “a dishonest or immoral person” which could apply at any level of hierarchy in society. The crisis, however, arises for us in India (and especially for the older generation) who have lived with Gandhiji’s teaching that “politics without morality is a sin”.

The ugly manifest of this thinking is the way how Sarabjit’s death in Pakistan has been so cynically used by politicians, ignoring completely the damage that has been done to future Indo-Pakistan relations. The undoubted facts are Sarabjit, who, according to his family, while inebriated strayed into Pakistan in 1991, was arrested in Pakistan for being an Indian spy. He was tried by courts in Pakistan and the Supreme Court rejected his appeal. He was sentenced to death, but before it could be executed relations between India and Pakistan eased somewhat, and efforts were being made to persuade the Pakistan authorities to commute his sentence with the welcome and indefatigable efforts made by Pakistani lawyer Awais Sheikh and human rights activists. And then this sudden tragedy happened – his being beaten by co-prisoners resulting in his death. It was natural to expect that this would cause anger and disappointment in India and lead to some protests. But vested interests or small-time politicians thought that it was a fertile moment to spread anti-Pakistan hatred. So some TV channels, newspapers and politicians with vested interests went amuck, shouting treachery by Pakistan, and even suggesting India should break off diplomatic relations with Pakistan. The result has been a near crazy sentiment being fuelled up against Pakistan. Some reckless politicians even provokingly spread the reckless news that Sarabjit had been deliberately got beaten up at the instance of the Pakistan authorities.

And then started the big circus. The Prime Minister of India described him as a “brave son of India”, obviously accepting that he was an Indian spy (what more delicious news could Pakistan have hoped than that India admits it sends spies to Pakistan.)

The Punjab government, to score a point against the Central government and to claim that it was more patriotic announced a reward of Rs 1 crore for Sarabjit. He was also given a State funeral – a rare honour reserved normally for army men who die in the battlefield, further giving material to Pakistan to blame India for sending spies. But so much was reckless thinking that Punjab politicians, irrespective of their party affiliations, completed the farce as the Punjab Legislature unanimously passed a resolution terming Sarabjit as a national martyr.

Such was the atmosphere that the Congress flew Rahul Gandhi specially to attend the funeral in the purported belief that not to do so could be electorally damaging. Alas, what small thinking! Please do not misunderstand. Full sympathy for Sarabjit’s family at his unfortunate death in the circumstances is natural. But what is worrying me is that behind this was the jingoist political symbolism against Pakistan being highlighted as if patriotism in the country has to be judged by the extent of how anti-Pakistan you project yourself. What an ill-fated policy and lack of sense of reality.

And then when the political parties were bathing in this short-lived limelight nature struck a blow. We had the unfortunate incident of a Pakistani prisoner Saninullah in Jammu jail being seriously injured by an Indian co-prisoner – his condition being such that he had to be flown to the Chandigarh PGI, where he died later. This exposed our hollow chant which Indian politicians were making that in Lahore jail Sarabjit could not have been beaten by co-prisoners on their own but must be at the instance of Pak officials. Would the Indian politicians apply the same logic at what has happened at Jammu and blame Indian officials? If not, why the double standards? It is puerile and politically dishonest to ignore the loud condemnation of the Pakistan government in the Sarabjit case by the Human Rights Commission and several intellectuals in Pakistan.

The Rajasthan Congress Chief Minister, facing state elections, has carried jingoism to the limit by publicly forbidding Pakistan pilgrims from visiting the holy shrine of Ajmer Sharif as he expresses his inability to maintain law and order in the aftermath of the Sarabjit case. If this is his thinking, nothing but his resignation is called for.

Both the Central and Punjab governments by their short-sighted partisan manner of handling the Sarabjit case have done immeasurable harm to the intelligence agency of India. The extraordinary blow up of the Sarabjit case by the government has led to a large number of Indian spies who had come back to India after having spent 20 to 25 years in Pakistan jails, go public and complain as to how they have been neglected all these years and they have not been given their dues which were promised to them when they were recruited. I hope their public outcry will now at least reach the ears of the Central government.

There are in both countries a large number of prisoners who continue to be in respective jails even after their sentence has been completed. Can one hope that in a sober sequel to the Sarabjit-Sanaullah case, both countries will take immediate steps to send back these prisoners to their respective countries? This is not only a humanitarian but legal demand.

India and Pakistan are like Siamese twins. The pain and tribulation of each will get reflected in the other. Accept that the bleeding of either will bleed the other too. In this approach only the welfare and prosperity of both countries lie.

The writer is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court

MIDDLE

My closure with Paris
by Himanshi Vij

I have had two homes till now. One in Chandigarh, where I belong, where I grew up, the city that defined me. The other in Paris, where my heart belongs, where I evolved, the city that refined me.

It has always been painful to leave one home for the other. When I'm in Chandigarh, at home surrounded by family, I miss Paris. When I am in Paris, at home surrounded by my dreams, I miss Chandigarh. It is so difficult to have two homes because I am never fully at one place. In Paris, I stay awake on so many nights staring at the ceiling hoping that my family is happy, that my old friends still miss me, and I make a mental checklist of things I should do when I’m back home next.

When I'm in Chandigarh, at home, certain nights I just wonder how easy it would be in Paris, to walk on a street and see the twinkling on Eiffel Tower whenever I feel like, to walk in to the Louvre and see new works each time and to randomly discover some magical streets.

Recently, I was hired by a French company to work in their Singapore office, an opportunity that I couldn't refuse.

While at my home in Chandigarh, I kept thinking about Paris and feeling so much pain because I knew saying good-bye to Paris would break my heart. It was painful to know that I won't wake up and go for a run along the Seine, or I won't be meeting up friends at Pont des Arts on a summer evening and neither would I find a cheap flight to Milan for an impromptu trip. It was so painful, just the idea of leaving Paris.

But I had my one last month in Paris. I left Chandigarh with a heavy heart, to board my one last flight to Paris, to pack up, to make final submissions, to vacate my apartment, to say goodbye to my friends and to the Eiffel Tower, with promises of being back as often as I possibly can.

And then I arrived in Paris. With mixed feelings. Of anguish, of separation, of anticipation and of happiness.

From the airport, I took a metro to go to my residence. I had to change trains at Chatelet, which is one of the busiest metro stations in Paris.

Till now, I had only heard from my friends and tourists how often they had been robbed, mugged, or simply fooled by thugs in Paris metros. I always scoffed at these friends for their inattentiveness or negligence in getting their things lost.

But the moment I boarded my metro from Chatelet onwards, in a few seconds I realised that my red suitcase was missing.

The red suitcase that an entire new summer wardrobe for my final Parisian month. The red suitcase that had my unopened birthday presents. The red suitcase that had maa ke haath ka khaana and motichoor ladoos.

I tried to be calm. I quickly gathered three policemen and metro station officials. Within five minutes we searched the entire platform but the red suitcase was nowhere to be found.

We searched for about 2-3 hours. My friends consoled me. Policemen came and went. Officials went from being polite to rude. But for all of them, it was nothing new. Paris was known for thugs and thieves and pickpockets.

And they finally got me.

And in that moment, l realised, all that sadness and unhappiness on leaving Paris just evaporated. I didn't want to live in a city with thugs at every step. I didn’t want to live in the city where I could trust no one. I didn't want to live in a city where policemen would lie to you and disappear. I didn't want to live in a city where metro officials are more concerned about ending their 8 pm shift rather than helping out a teary-eyed girl sobbing struggling with her French in that moment of distress.

I had loved Paris with all my heart, but l hated the people in Paris with all my gut. My last flight into Paris, as a resident, was pretty significant in a way. This was the day l had my closure with Paris.

OPED — SECURITY

Ladakh intrusion: Beijing’s strategic shift
The Chinese action is a violation of the 1994 Agreement on maintaining ‘peace and tranquillity’ on the borders. It is thus fair to assume a serious thought process behind it. It could be that the new leadership in Beijing wishes to speedily establish a new set of rules of engagement — both political and military — for other states in its neighbourhood
Lt-Gen (retd) VR Raghavan

External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid shakes hands with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi during a meeting in Beijing, China, on Thursday. — PTI

AFTER many decades of carefully developed consensus on avoiding military conflict and resolving the boundary dispute through negotiations, Beijing sprung an unpleasant surprise. Its military action of occupying a forward position in Ladakh, though not wholly unanticipated, only reinforces the image of a belligerent state. While the ‘five-tent action’ was not in itself a military threat of significance, it is indicative of a new approach on the border dispute. Since the Chinese action is a violation of the 1994 Agreement on maintaining ‘peace and tranquillity’ on the borders, it is fair to assume a serious thought process having gone behind it. In this instance, Chinese actions speak far louder than the shrill language used by it officers in the meetings of border commanders.

It is useful to recall that China’s 1962 military offensive in Ladakh had commenced with similar military moves. Its forces had closed up to Indian posts, almost surrounding some, and insisted on their withdrawal. The Indian Army, not wanting to commence a shooting match, did likewise and opened new posts. The Forward Policy, as it was termed, where this writer led such a group in erstwhile NEFA, now Arunachal Pradesh, ultimately unfolded into a full-scale war. As we now know from documents in public domain, the Chinese plan had been carefully thought out and approved by Chairman Mao, who had larger strategic purposes behind this.

The repeat of the Chinese forward border move, 50 years after 1962, can also be seen as part of a strategic continuum. At the time it was couched by Beijing as response to Indian moves, an argument now ominously repeated. Indian moves in 1962 were in response to China’s construction of a major highway through Aksai Chin in Indian territory. The reality in 2013 is vastly different, in which the Chinese have over a decade and a half improved their military infrastructure significantly against Indian border, both in Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh. The Indian side is attempting, albeit belatedly, to improve infrastructure and military capacity on its side. There should thus be no cause for complaint since all this is taking place within Indian territory. The case being made out that Indian forces acting aggressively have led to the Chinese action is thus only a weak explanation for the belligerent Chinese military action. It is also similar to the sequence of events in 1962.

Actual control

Indian activity on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh is worth a thought or two. The LAC is in fact a non-existent line! During the 1962 war, the PLA advanced many miles into Ladakh. This was to secure enough territory to provide depth to its highway in Aksai Chin. On achieving this operational purpose, the PLA withdrew but retained a meaningful presence in Aksai Chin. Its military thereafter patrolled regularly and demonstratively up to the Karakoram Pass in northern Ladakh and to other areas in the south. In the lengthy negotiations which followed, the Chinese indicated that the area which they patrolled was the de facto Line of Control. Indian and Chinese patrols have over the decades adhered to this line, which is neither marked on maps, nor by any pillars, etc., on ground. Chinese have often referred to the LAC as “you know where it is, as we do where it is”. Patrols from both sides would leave evidence of their having visited points on the LAC by way of cigarette packs, food tins, etc. If occasionally they saw each other, they waved, looked at each other through binoculars and went their ways.

This arrangement of mutual acceptance of the LAC and Rules of Engagement worked adequately over the decades, even as Beijing and New Delhi engaged strenuously to define the boundaries in all sectors, extending from the Karakoram Pass in Ladakh, through UP-Tibet, up to the MacMahon Line to the tri-junction of China, India and Myanmar. This was hugely reinforced by the 1994 Sino-Indian Agreement, which confirmed the commitment of both sides not to use force to change status quo and established clear Rules of Engagement for each other’s military. President Jiang Zemin, during his visit to India, where he addressed the Lok Sabha, had reinforced this Agreement.

The major change in the situation came about by the wide-ranging development of infrastructure in Tibet. It included the now famous Lhasa rail line, numerous airfields and permanent military garrisons. This impressive engineering and economic investment surprisingly extended close to Indian borders in Arunachal and to the Indian claim lines in Ladakh. In its usual meandering fashion, the Indian government took a decade to start work on its side and the network of tracks, roads and creation of new military capacity began to emerge. The forces which manned the LAC and the Arunachal border began to improve and strengthen their tactical position through observation towers and defences. Patrolling became frequent, leaving no one in doubt of the Indian determination to defend its positions. The Indian decision to raise two more Mountain Divisions in Arunachal Pradesh evoked considerable attention.

The developments in Ladakh are more likely to be guided by a shift in strategy in dealing with India than response to Indian capacity-building in Ladakh.

What next

Should India expect some more of such ‘five tent’ actions elsewhere in Ladakh, or even in Arunachal Pradesh on the McMahon Line! The reality of a deliberate violation of a carefully drafted 1994 Agreement, in the face of improved dynamic of India-China relations, is therefore at best a provocative step and at worst part of a larger inimical politico-military strategy. What can be India’s options, given its memories of 1960s and the evidence of Beijing’s choice of assertive and even muscular PLA actions in the Asia-Pacific and the South China Sea?

The actions of the new leadership in Beijing are being closely watched in all major capitals. Its demonstratively different and militarily visible measures in the South China Sea have not left anyone in doubt of a new politico-military dynamic operating from China. This was in evidence even before the US ‘Pivot,’ now framed as a rebalancing of relations and military postures, was announced. It will be true to say that the Chinese shift in operational postures had led to the US response.

Indian policy makers will need to determine if the developments in Ladakh are a spillover of the new Chinese strategy for dealing with its neighbours. It could be that the new leadership in Beijing wishes to speedily establish a new set of rules of engagement — both political and military — for other states in its neighbourhood. These leaders had also unmistakably suggested that the India-China boundary issue should be settled before long. Does it mean that Beijing no longer looks at this as an issue left over from colonial history, requiring time to resolve! If that be the case, Indian diplomacy and military establishment will find a new set of challenges ahead.

Sophisticated handling

Notwithstanding the hyper response from the Indian media, particularly the electronic, New Delhi handled the mini-crisis with skill. The Foreign Office, MOD and the Army, backed by the IAF’s substantial assets in reserve, worked closely. National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon’s role in allowing all players to have a say and yet bringing about a single coherent plan requires special mention. The Cabinet accepted the option analysis and gave a go-ahead, in itself an achievement for a beleaguered group of political leaders. Only those who know the challenges in such operational coordination can understand the effort it entails. The Army had offered more than one contingency plan which would put pressure on the Five Tent elements and on Beijing. Such initiatives would have placed the Five Tent position in jeopardy and in turn forced Beijing’s hand, to avoid a loss of face.

Not long thereafter, the Chinese team changed tack and sought a way out through a mutual pullback. The peremptory demand for the Indian troops to go back had mellowed. A small but carefully planned military initiative, backed by diplomatic skills, had brought about a positive response, without escalating the situation. The Foreign Minister’s carefully crafted statements left many wondering about the future of the Chinese Foreign Minister’s trip to New Delhi. All this combined to get Beijing and its PLA Command to descend from its arrogant posture. The longer the standoff lasted the greater would have been Beijing’s loss of credibility as a ‘rising but responsible’ power.

India will need to brace itself to other new demonstrations of Beijing’s belligerence, requiring a long-term strategy involving politico-military plans. We may see the Chinese return to showing intransigent postures, perhaps even during its PM’s visit. The demonstration of sturdy resolve, confident military action, and skilful diplomacy during the Ladakh standoff has set new markers in Indian crisis management. As has been famously said, military action without a diplomatic plan never succeeds while there can be no diplomacy without a military backup.

— The writer is a former DGMO and was a Commanding General in Ladakh