|
|
|
|
|
Street
justice Riding
high on hope |
|
|
Lord
Curzon's motion
A
dangerously polarised India
The
great escape at NDA
Top Army brass at war with itself
|
|
Riding high on hope Greed
may be good but it is crossing all limits now. It is irrational exuberance at play as the BSE Sensex and Nifty keep scaling new highs day after day. Though Wednesday was a day of pause and profit-taking, the poll results on May 16 will set the next trend. The steep rise, fuelled lately by the exit polls, would continue only if there is a spectacular show by the BJP-led NDA. Any minor disappointment can lead to a free fall. Time was when negative news would halt, if not reverse a rally. Now a spate of bad news has been ignored by foreign institutional investors as well as domestic funds. First, weather experts have predicted a below normal monsoon this year and it will have a bearing on food prices and rural incomes. Secondly, consumer inflation has shot up for the second month in a row, climbing to 8.59 per cent on-year in April from 8.31 per cent in March and slightly higher than the 8.5% forecast by economists. Thirdly, industrial production has shrunk during five of the past six months. The output of factories, mines, utilities companies etc contracted 0.5 per cent from a year earlier in March. And yet all this has not affected the upbeat market sentiment. The relentless inflow of foreign capital has pushed the already stretched prices further north. The rupee too has strengthened, though this does not augur well for exporters. In spite of bad news, stock prices are moving in only one direction: up. And there is no logical reason for this. Agreed, investors and industrialists yearn for a stable, decisive government. There may possibly be one in place led by Narendra Modi, if the exit polls are to be believed, but what can the Central government alone do, at least in the short run, to boost corporate earnings? Modi has a pro-business image and may push decision-making, but he would have to rely on allies with their own economic and political agenda.
|
|||||
|
Thought for the Day
We must let go of the life we have planned, so as to accept the one that is waiting for us.
— Joseph Campbell
|
|||||
Lord Curzon's motion THE debate in the House of Lords on New Delhi was quite unfruitful. Lord Curzon spoke for one hour on his motion, but failed to make any impression on the Secretary of State. He gave expression to mere commonplace remarks, and while claiming to speak on behalf of the Indian tax-payer he was only asking for more money to the continued exploitation of the country by European traders. His apprehensions were that if New Delhi cost fifteen millions there would be less money for railways. He also instanced the provision made under this head which he considered "contemptible." Surely the Indian tax-payer would be the last to vote against New Delhi if no better arguments could be found against the scheme. Even here the ex-Viceroy was very wide of the mark, for he resorted to the not very dignified method of misrepresenting facts. Conciliation Boards AT the last meeting of the Punjab Legislative Council, the Hon'ble R.B. Ram Saran Das raised the question of "the tension of feelings between the two great sister communities of the province, the Hindus and the Mahomedans." The gulf between the two communities was, he said, widening every day. Under the circumstances while the people could make no united efforts in the paths of progress, the Government also found obstacles in their way. He quoted Sir John Hewett who had declared that "the wider the gulf, the more difficult it becomes to bridge over. The more severe the wound, the deeper has the surgeon's knife to penetrate and longer does it heal." He suggested that local officers should foster feelings of brotherliness at such places by forming Conciliation Boards.
|
A dangerously polarised India However, the interval must be used to draw attention to the terrible consequences of what has unquestionably been the foulest election campaign in this country since it embarked on elections on the basis of adult suffrage in 1952. The worst of these is the most dangerous polarisation of India since the nineties when the combat between the votaries of Mandal and Mandir respectively led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992 and to the serial bombings in Bombay (now Mumbai) in March 1993, to say nothing about the senseless slaughter elsewhere. Travelling in Germany then I was asked by several German friends and colleagues: "Has India gone mad?" Sadly, a similar situation has been created again because of reprehensible attempts, for the sake of garnering votes, to create intense communal rivalry on purely religious grounds. In Uttar Pradesh, for instance, there have been a large number of communal riots in recent times. Those in Muzaffarnagar and the adjoining districts in September last were so vicious that victims of the clashes preferred to languish in camps to going back to their homes because of fear for their lives. The Samajwadi Party that rules UP and claims to be a great upholder of secularism shut down the camps and drove the inmates out. It was in such a tense atmosphere that Amit Shah, Man Friday of Modi, advised a particular community's sufferers to "take revenge" from their tormentors. Around the same time the BJP "honoured" at a special rally two of its members accused of inciting and taking part in the communal killing. So did the ruling SP whose men had also promoted communal carnage and were charged with the same offence. Even this paled compared with what followed. Giriraj Singh, a senior BJP leader in Bihar as also a candidate in the parliamentary election, repeatedly declared: “Whoever tries to stop Modi is a Pakistan-lover. There will soon be no place for such people in India. They must all go to Pakistan”. The BJP president, Rajnath Singh, contented himself with “completely disassociating” the party with the other Singh’s statement. Modi, enviably eloquent on every subject at his all too frequent rallies, maintained silence on the subject of forcing millions of Indians to migrate to Pakistan for many days. Only when Hindutva hotheads elsewhere started making equally offensive remarks did he break his silence to “disapprove” such “petty and “irresponsible” statements. How potentially explosive this situation is should be obvious from the reactions to it in the sensitive state of Jammu and Kashmir that is ruled by a coalition of the J & K National Conference and the Congress party. Omar Abdullah, Chief Minister, declared that he would “rather go to Pakistan than stop opposing Modi”. And he added, for good measure, that he would do so “across the LoC” without having to go to Delhi. His father and Union minister Farooq Abdullah went so far as to say that Kashmir “would not be a part of communal India”. This is only one side of the deeply distressing story. The other is the prescription of Abu Azami, a leader of Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party, that any Muslim who does not vote for his party “is not a real Muslim and his NDA should be tested”. The horror is that there was absolutely no horror among those heading the party of either Giriraj Singh or Abu Azami who are the two sides of the same coin. In his book “An Unrecorded Wonder”, a fine biography of the Indian electoral machine, the Election Commission, that has ensured free and fair elections, despite many roadblocks, S. Y. Quraishi has recorded that the “quaint expression” booth capturing is not being heard any longer. Sadly, it has suddenly reappeared during the latest poll. However, incorrigible goons from outside haven’t forcibly taken over booths now. The allegation, particularly in West Bengal and UP, is that the booths were taken over “non-violently” by officials of the state government on election duty. It was that elections were rigged for the benefit of the ruling party of the state. As for West Bengal it is being said that the usual pattern of violence between the Communist Party of India (Marxist) that ruled the state for three decades running and the Trinamool Congress party of the present Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee, has been repeated. However, there were two differences this time. First, apart from stones, lathis and knives, even guns were used. Secondly, and more importantly, the roles of two sides seem to have been reversed. Marxist leaders have been crying hoarse that they repeatedly appealed to the Election Commission but to no avail. Unfortunately, the EC has drawn criticism from other sources, too. The BJP has accused it of double standards by favouring the Congress. The situation worsened when one of the two election commissioners publicly criticised the Chief Election Commissioner. Such a situation should be avoided in future to maintain the integrity of the Indian elections. The paramount task, however, is that the new government and political parties must first get rid of the dangerous polarisation I have drawn attention to. There can be neither development nor governance if the country is overtaken by lawlessness.
|
||||||
The great escape at NDA In the autumn term of 1962, I found myself in the fourth term. Frequently there were talks given by eminent speakers in the assembly hall. At the end of it the Academy Adjutant would usually express his unhappiness on the state of discipline of the cadets and this, in turn, would result in the Academy Cadet Adjutant (ACA) imposing mass punishment. One such evening, we found ourselves at the receiving end of the ACA’s ire. We were running in a squad and right next to me was my course mate and close friend, Cadet Harmeet Singh Dhillon. After doing a couple of rounds we rebelled at the unfairness of it all. We had been attentive and had not spoken a word and yet were getting this punishment. All we wanted was to go to the Cadet's Mess and have our dinner. So we decided to make a break for it when we came abreast the darkened President's Drive. The ACA was standing close by when we made the break sprinting away. As we ran we exulted thinking that we had made a fool of the establishment. However, the ACA, who later went on to become an Army Commander, knew his tactics then also. He had deployed stops to catch chaps like us who dared to attempt an escape. Suddenly out of the shadows a corporal came out ordering us to halt. That took the wind out of our sails and visions of severe punishment swam across my mind. We came to a slow jog as we approached the corporal and then just sprinted around him. He shouted and started chasing us as we ran for our lives. The next horror was the appearance of another corporal further down the road. He stood with his arms spread out ordering us to stop. We decided to go for broke as Harmeet biffed the corporal with his shoulder and I jumped over a ditch. So, here we were the two of us running for our lives and the two corporals in hot pursuit. We ran, rolled over the dividing hedge and then took the periphery road which runs around the NDA. The corporals chased us for a couple of kilometres before deciding to give it up. We kept going for some more distance, waited and then returned to the Cadet's Mess through the jungle. We had learnt that your outbound and inbound routes should be different just in case the enemy is lying in wait. By the time we reached the Mess everyone was back and dinner was being served. After dinner we were discussing that we had run much more during our escape bid than we would have if we continued the Academy jog of the ACA. But that was water under the bridge. The ACA was from our Squadron and as we passed through the Squadron door we saw him talking to one of his course mates. He was telling him about the audacity of a couple of cadets who had dared to make a break from the Academy punishment. He also said that as and when he homed onto these chaps he would deal with them severely. As we passed by him we wished him a good night and proceeded to our cabins. We did a high five. We had made ‘The Great Escape’.
|
||||||
Top Army brass at war with itself
A disturbing trend of politicisation and polarisation is at play in the armed forces, more specifically in the Indian Army, which in turn is adversely affecting the inner health of its officer cadre. Beginning 2005, either the appointment or tenure or both in the case of four successive Army chiefs, starting with General Joginder Jaswant Singh, have been fraught with unpleasant controversies. Controversy has similarly dogged the present Army Chief-designate making him the fifth chief in succession to be figuring in the news for the wrong reasons. There is thus an urgent need for taking remedial measures in order to prevent such controversies and a further downslide in the senior echelons of the world's third largest Army that stands at about 1.1 million. Civilian control On May 13, the government named Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh Suhag, an Infantry officer, as the country's 28th Army Chief. Lt General Suhag, who is slated to assume the top post on July 31, when the present incumbent, General Bikram Singh, retires, will be the third officer of the Gorkha Rifles Regiment to become Chief of Army Staff (COAS) after Field Marshal Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw (June 1969 - January 1973) and General Gopal Gurunath Bewoor (June 1972 - May 1975). But let alone this trivia, appointments of service chiefs in India are considered routine and have at best been evoking a brief and ceremonial mention in the media. After all, India is a democracy where civilian control over the country's apolitical armed forces is well established. In any democratically run country, where civilian control is always supreme, it is the norm for service chiefs to be appointed and to then fade away without
controversy. In recent years, however, the appointment of Army chiefs has begun to invite considerable attention, all of it unsavoury. This unnecessary development is reflective of an increasing dysfunction within the Army. It is also reflective of a paradoxical mix of a dubious complicity of the Defence Ministry and a growing strain in civil-military relations. Until a few years ago, attention to the appointment of Army chiefs was reserved solely for neighbouring Pakistan where ever since General Ayub Khan, a self- proclaimed Field Marshal, became that country's Chief Martial Law Administrator in 1958, the Pakistani Army has played a pivotal role in either governing the country or in propping up or dislodging democratically elected governments. Critical attention, unfortunately, is also beginning to focus on the appointment of Army chiefs in India. The latest is the appointment of Lt General Suhag. The outgoing UPA-II government's decision to appoint Lt General Suhag on the well-established principle of seniority invited objections from the main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is hoping to win the elections and form the government at the Centre this month. The BJP advised the outgoing Manmohan Singh government to desist from appointing the next Army chief in view of the election results being announced tomorrow, which is two-and-a-half months prior to the present chief retiring. Prima facie, the BJP's objection is uncalled for considering that it is not unusual for the government to name a successor to a service chief in the midst of elections and up to three months in advance. A well-cited example is that of the BJP-led NDA government announcing the appointment of Admiral Arun Prakash as Chief of Naval Staff on May 11, 2004, just two days before the Lok Sabha election results were declared on May 13 and 11 days before the UPA-I government took charge on May 22, 2004. However, Admiral Arun Prakash had not figured in any controversy prior to his appointment. Nor did the then opposition Congress have an issue with the Navy officer. Lt General Suhag, on the other hand, has been in the news for the wrong reasons with a section of the main opposition party, the BJP, having issues with him for reasons that figure later in the article. In the absence of any transparency by the Ministry of Defence and the Army Headquarters, the truth in Lt General Suhag's case remains a matter of much speculation which is both cause and fuel for an unpleasant controversy involving the office of an Army chief. Seeds of controversy The controversy involving Lt General Suhag dates back to 2012 when General Vijay Kumar Singh was Army chief. On May 19, which was 12 days before his retirement on May 31, 2012, General VK Singh had ordered an inquiry against Lt General Suhag and imposed a discipline and vigilance (DV) ban on him, preventing his further elevation on charges of "abdicating responsibility" in handling an intelligence and surveillance unit in Assam in a "most unprofessional and lackadaisical manner" that was under his command when he was General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the Dimapur (Nagaland) headquartered III Corps. Earlier, in March that year, General Singh recommended a CBI inquiry against Lt General Suhag for his alleged involvement in a scam in the Cabinet Secretariat but was overruled by the government. Lt General Suhag was then with the Special Frontier Force, a secret Special Forces unit of the Research and Analysis Wing that is officered and trained by the Army. General Bikram Singh, who took over as the COAS on May 31, took the extraordinary decision of not filling the post of GOC-in-C of the Army's Eastern Command which became vacant on June 1, 2012, and a week later, lifting the DV ban on Lt General Suhag. A fortnight after taking over as Army chief, General Bikram Singh posted Lt General Suhag as GOC-in-C of the Eastern Command, which is entrusted with defending India's borders with China, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Bhutan and quelling insurgency and political violence in the security sensitive north east. Although the ban on Lt General Suhag was lifted, the general court martial against several concerned Armymen had continued. Towards the end of 2013, which was a year-and-a-half after the inquiry had been ordered, 15 Armymen that had comprised the intelligence unit's raiding party were found guilty. Yet, they were let off with little punishment, leaving the Gauhati High Court to ask for details of the quantum of punishment. This invited criticism of a cover up by the Army which affected its credibility and image in a sensitive part of the country. Reversing the ban Meanwhile, in an extraordinary development, the post of GOC-in-C Eastern Command was kept vacant for a fortnight. It was clear that General Bikram Singh favoured giving Lt General Suhag a chance to head the Eastern Command and had kept pending his recommendation to the government for an appointment to this top post until the officer's name had been cleared. Neither did the government appear to have shown concern for allowing an operational Army command to remain headless for half a month. The swiftness with which the ban on Lt General Suhag was first imposed and later revoked gives rise to speculation that considerations other than professional and biases may have been at play. In the process, Lt General Ravi Dastane, who was in the running for becoming GOC-in-C, became a "casualty". He was denied the opportunity of becoming an Army Commander and took the government to the Supreme Court on August 6, 2012, saying he was not assigned the Army's Eastern Command even though the post of GOC-in-C had been vacant and a DV ban was then in force against Lt General Suhag disqualifying him as of then from becoming an Army Commander. The BJP's objection to the UPA-II government naming General Bikram Singh's successor again lies in intense rivalry and probable prejudice. General (retd) VK Singh, who spearheaded the BJP's protest, is the BJP's candidate from Ghaziabad. It is widely known that General VK Singh's daughter's father-in-law, Lt General Ashok Singh, who is currently GOC-in-C of the Army's Pune-headquartered Southern Command, is the second senior-most lieutenant general after Lt General Suhag who can be considered for the Army's top post. Yet, interestingly, had Lt General Dastane been made GOC-in-C of Eastern Command, he would have been in the reckoning to become Army chief with Lt General Ashok Singh not necessarily figuring on the list. Part of the recent politicisation in the Army arguably dates back to when General Joginder Jaswant Singh was Army Chief. It is alleged that during his tenure, he had altered the seniority-based succession line for the post of Army chief. His own appointment as Army chief had evoked some lobbying, including most infamously from Tarlochan Singh, then chairman of the Minorities Commission, who wrote to then defence minister George Fernandes in January, 2004 eulogising the possibility of General JJ Singh becoming the first-ever Sikh Army chief. General JJ Singh, however, was appointed strictly on the seniority principle. Critics, however, allege that General JJ Singh's “succession plan” included General Bikram Singh's elevation to the post of Army chief. General VK Singh's supporters allege that in 2006 his year of birth was deliberately fixed as 1950 instead of 1951 so as to give General Bikram Singh the opportunity to become Army Chief. Else, the line of succession would have changed with Lt General Kaiwalya Trivikran Parnaik becoming the senior most lieutenant general in the reckoning for the top post. The PIL Whether or not the above is true, the fact is that General Bikram Singh too had found himself at the receiving end prior to his appointment as Army chief. A group of seven persons comprising two retired lieutenant generals and a major general among others and led by Admiral Laxminarayan Ramdas, a former Navy chief who had earlier retired in September 1993, filed a PIL in the Supreme Court against General Bikram Singh's appointment alleging that he has been involved in a fake encounter in 2001 when posted in Kashmir and Indian troops misconduct, including rape, during a UN peacekeeping mission in Congo under his command in 2008. The PIL, which was subsequently dismissed, unfortunately ended up dragging both a senior lieutenant general and the office of the Army chief into unnecessary spotlight. It is not known what was the motive of the petitioners. General Bikram Singh's predecessor, General Deepak Kapur, had similarly faced insinuations from Lt General Hargobind Singh Panag. General Kapur had been GOC-in-C of the Army's Udhampur-headquartered Northern Command prior to his taking over. He was succeeded in Udhampur by Lt General Panag who had ordered a string of inquiries relating to questionable financial transactions made during General Kapur's tenure as Army Commander. A year later, in 2008, Lt General Panag found himself being controversially posted out of Northern Command to the Army's relatively less important Lucknow-based Central Command. Clearly, the top Army brass seems to be at war amongst themselves. Such controversies, manoeuvring and manipulation does not augur well for the Army which has long, undefined and troublesome borders to defend, asymmetric warfare to handle and is required to be in a state of constant preparedness in a complicated and adversarial, if not hostile, neighbourhood. Elan, morale, honour and respect are critical for an armed force. It takes a long time to build an armed forces. And once it begins to decay, the downslide can be quick making rebuilding very difficult. The next government that comes to power must not attempt to reverse the decision on the Army chief's appointment taken by the outgoing UPA-II government. At the same time it is time to take corrective measures and put a stop to such manipulations and manoeuvring. The Army’s senior leadership must introspect, reflect character and put an end to cliques and cronyism while the
civilian-run Ministry of Defence must play honest broker. Past forward
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
A
T
