.

EDITORIAL

LAPPING THE TOP

One really does not know what prompts UP Chief Minister to give each of the 425 MLAs a Lap-Top computer. He promises to expose them to the art of computeronics and the beautiful role played by computers in taking the poorest State forward. There could be umpteen reasons to go for the 'IT Revolution'. First, Ram Parkash Gupta believes in competitive living. That explains why he yet remains in the ever doubtful coveted slot in Lucknow, age notwithstanding. Second, it is common knowledge that he mixes up things too often and that his memory fails him when it is needed most. Many jokes based on his memorable memory have gone even on the internet. It is quite another thing whether he is computer-savy or internet-enthusiast. Computer is known to solve many problems and nothing can outclass its quality of retentivity. So it becomes handy to record important things. It is quite another matter whether he obtains the services of PA to do it. After all he happens to be the CM of the largest State of India. Sometime it is difficult to even recollect how many districts are there in UP and.....more

A view point
Truths about Sheikh Abdullah : From the horse's mouth

By Teja Singh IAS (Retd)
Many misunderstandings about Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, popularly known as Sher-e-Kashmir, (the Lion of Kashmir) ...more

Retirement at 58 or 60 ?
Tales of Travesty

By Dr Jitendra Singh
"Would Mailer still love Marilyn if she were alive and well, and fiftysix today ? Now, that she is safely dead, he says he loved her ---". ...more

Exploited teachers
Academic Pulse

By Prof S K Bhalla
Two academically disturbing pieces of information have of late appeared in two different local dailies of Jammu which have by now confirmed beyond ...more

Security and intelligence

By Vijay Shankar
It is understood that the National Security Advisory Board in its "review" has recommended the setting up of a "national intelligence.......more

EDITORIAL

LAPPING THE TOP

One really does not know what prompts UP Chief Minister to give each of the 425 MLAs a Lap-Top computer. He promises to expose them to the art of computeronics and the beautiful role played by computers in taking the poorest State forward. There could be umpteen reasons to go for the 'IT Revolution'. First, Ram Parkash Gupta believes in competitive living. That explains why he yet remains in the ever doubtful coveted slot in Lucknow, age notwithstanding. Second, it is common knowledge that he mixes up things too often and that his memory fails him when it is needed most. Many jokes based on his memorable memory have gone even on the internet. It is quite another thing whether he is computer-savy or internet-enthusiast. Computer is known to solve many problems and nothing can outclass its quality of retentivity. So it becomes handy to record important things. It is quite another matter whether he obtains the services of PA to do it. After all he happens to be the CM of the largest State of India. Sometime it is difficult to even recollect how many districts are there in UP and who could best man the sensitive ones. Computer in the lap could thus retrieve the situation for him. He may also have to record asto how many CMs have ruled the roost in Lucknow and to which party they belonged. That is as far as he is concerned. Third, it is possible that he has been triggered into action by his knowledge-savy offsprings or kins. He has the means to provide them from his personal income. But then CM is CM and why at all he should be so upright when others are downright. Kinship factor has played havoc with the Indian psyche and is very largely responsible for the ills that afflict the nation.

Fourth, it is after all election time. The rumour mill is working full throttle that election is being advanced as BJP-led coalition would have razor thin majority after 22 MLAs go over to the newly carved out State of Uttranchal. The chair is shaky; so is the suspect character of Aya Rams and Gaya Rams. The rumours also have it that before announcing the election Ram Parkash would be shown the door to make way for someone with better memory, memory strong enough to know antecedents of each of the 425 MLAs. To that extent he should play the computer game discriminating none and treating all alike. It would have been quite another thing if 95 Ministers were given the Laptop computers as the cabinet size is almost one-fourth of the total MLAs. But then game is game. Who knows who will switch the side when. All options are open including tie-up with Mayadevi. She of course won't do unless she is again made the CM, earlier abortions notwithstanding. It is all question of opting for the lesser evil. If this is not done than Mulayam could make it, a proposition that is loathsome to the party of 'Karsevaks'.

Fifth, and it is equally relevant, when all Chief Ministers race up to Bill Gate, CM of the largest State deserve to be at the Centre stage of Gate's mindset. But Gate is gate, a businessman to the core. He is all candies for the diabetics that gathered there but did business only with Infosys. Rags in the corridor of power do murmer that Ram Parkash wants to prove to both Bills (Clinton and Gate) that he can lap the top. After all MLAs having Laptops is already great news for the Bills back home. When a poor State of 17 crore people can do it, it is just a matter of few days when all CMs and even PM would announce free Laptops for elected representatives. It is quite another thing whether they know or not how to operate it and what it is all about. But it costs 2 lakh a piece and to that extent a prized possession. One hopes they can all retain it even if defeated at the husting and that life-long maintenance would also be free!

A view point
Truths about Sheikh Abdullah : From the horse's mouth

By Teja Singh IAS (Retd)

Many misunderstandings about Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, popularly known as Sher-e-Kashmir, (the Lion of Kashmir) have been current for quite a long time, in J&K State as well as the rest of the country which have done lot of damage to the national interest. It is, therefore, necessary and proper that the truths about the chief exponent of secularism and socialism in Kashmir and the architect of the accession of the J&K State to India are widely known especially at present when the State is passing through a critical phase of its chequered history.

The main misunderstandings are about his stand on the State's accession, responsibility for introducing Permit System for entry into J&K, ceasefire in Indo-Pak war in December, 1948, role in Dr Shyama Prasad Mukerji's detension and death in Srinagar in June, 1953, failure to hold an inquiry into the circumstances leading to his unfortunate death, and suggestions for an Indo-Kashmir and India-Pakistan settlement for a durable peace in the subcontinent.

It is the moral duty of those who know, to place before the people of the State and the country, the actual facts relating to these matters to enable them to arrive at a correct and proper perspective in their assessment of the issues in question.

Regarding his role in bringing about the accession of J&K State to India in October, 1947, a graphic account is given by Mr Mehar Chand Mahajan the then Prime Minister of the State as quoted on page 125 of Siser Gupta's Book; Kashmir: A Study in India-Pakistan Relations :-

''I met the Prime Minister of India and the Deputy Prime Minister and apprised them of the serious and dangerous situation in the State. I solicited army help and said that the army must be flown at once, otherwise the whole town of Srinagar and all we hold valuable would be completely destroyed. I was asked how an army could be sent at a moment's notice. I was assured that even if Srinagar fell to Pak hands, it would be retaken. I was not impressed and took up a firm attitude and said: ''Give army, take accession, and give whatever power you want to the popular party, but the army must fly to Srinagar this evening, otherwise I will go and negotiate terms with Jinnah, as the city must be saved.'' On this the Prime Minister (Nehru) flew into a rage and gave an exhibition of his temper and told me to get out. Just as I was getting up, an incident happened that saved me and saved Kashmir from falling into Pak hands. Sheikh Abdullah who was staying in the Prime Minister's house was overhearing the talks. The Prime Minister read it and said that what I was saying was also the view of Sheikh Sahib and his attitude completely changed. I have always felt grateful to Sheikh Abdullah for his help at a most crucial time.. It was thus that Kashmir was saved from falling into the hands of Pakistan.'' (Emphasis added).

Regarding his responsibility for cease-fire in December, 1948, the following account given in pages 146-147 of Maj. General Hira Lal Atal's book : Nehru's Emissary to Kashmir (October, 1947) is noteworthy:-

''The war in Kashmir went on unabated proving beyond any shadow of doubt Pakistan's aggression.

I naturally used to follow our progress or failure with great interest and eagerness. In this context it may be stated that it was under the command of Maj. Gen K S Thimayya, who succeeded Maj Gen. Kalwant Singh, that the position in the conflict was stabilised and the Indian Army got the upper hand and the enemy was pressed hard on all fronts. It was only a matter of time when we would have pushed the Pakistan Army out of our territory.

While the situation in Kashmir was under control and to our advantage, we heard on the Radio in the morning of December 31 that a 'Cease-Fire' had been agreed to by both countries- India and Pakistan-which amounted to presenting Pakistan with a New Year's gift on the platter.

This was evidently agreed to by our Prime Minister without even consulting the operational commanders in the field or Sheikh Abdullah who was very much an interested party. This was a staggering blow to all of them.

Within a couple of days, thereafter, Sheikh Abdullah blew into my house at Akbar Road, at breakfast time, and was fuming at the 'monstrosity' of cease-fire that had been committed without even consulting him as he put it and hinted that I was instrumental in giving effect to cessation of hostility. He was terribly agitated and annoyed. (Emphasis added). I gave him some breakfast and tried to calm him down and told him that I had no hand in the matter and the news of cease-fire came as a surprise to me also. I suggested that he had better have it out with out Prime Minister. I presume he did after he had left our house.''

Regarding his views on deciding the issue of accession, following failure of the UN by the State Constituent Assembly, abolition of landlordism and jagirdari, debt conciliation in the State, the circumstances of and inquiry into the death of Dr Shyama Prashad Mukherji, issue of autonomy and secession, Kashmir solution to be acceptable to India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and the necessity of peace in the subcontinent, the following comprehensive account given in his special interview on 30th of January, 1968 to the Editor ''Organiser'' New Delhi published in its issue dated 4th February, 1968 and report of his speech at Idgah Delhi on 2nd January, 1968. (pages 297-303 of the book 'Sheikh Abdullah and Kashmir'- Editors Suresh K Sharma, S R Bakshi) throw the requisite light:-

''Q. Before the 1952 elections to the Kashmir Constituent Assembly were held you had said that since a plebiscite was nowhere in sight the consembly would finally decide the issue of accession.

Yes, I wanted it that way. But the Government of India did not agree. Pandit Nehru became furious. He said he could not back out of an international commitment. India's representative in the UN, Shri B N Rau, also said that more than once in the UN Assembly that while Indian States had the right to convene a constituent Assembly each, the Government of India firmly stood by the pledge to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. Therefore, whatever we did or say with regard to Kashmir's relationship with India should be taken as subject to ratification by the people in a free plebiscite.

Q. Something seems to have snapped between you and Mr Nehru in 1953. Would you like to say how it happened ?

In India there were always two trends. While some people wanted a secular State, others wanted a Hindu State. I have no quarrel with the latter. It was a natural reaction to the establishment of a Muslim State in Pakistan. Sardar Patel understood this. He honestly felt that a Muslim-majority State of Kashmir would be a headache in this situation. He, therefore, assured the Maharaja of Kashmir that he was free to accede to Pakistan. When the tribal raids came, he then offered to accede to India. India accepted accession provisionally. We endorsed that decision.

We, of the National Conference preferred India to Pakistan because we had a progressive socio-economic programme which we could implement only in the more liberal air of India. Actually I left the Muslim Conference and started the National Conference when I found in my tours that Hindu masses were as poor and oppressed as Muslim masses.

Two of our major economic programmes were zamindari abolition and debt conciliation. However, as soon as we started implementing this programme, resistance arose. The two measures affected landlords and money-lenders irrespective of their religion. The Muslim vested interests had no supporters in Delhi. But the Hindu zamindars had contacts in Delhi. Very soon the two measures came to be mis-interpreted in India as anti-Hindu moves. This was most unfortunate.

Since centuries the peasantry in the State as well as other economic have-nots were deep in debt and money-lenders' shackles had reduced them to complete serfdom. We established Debt Conciliation Boards and laid down a procedure for settlement of debts free from legal niceties which often defeat justice. It was purely an economic measure and communal or caste prejudices had no room in it. In fact cases came to notice in which a Muslim moneylender had proved far more merciless and exacting on his co-religionist debtor than a Hindu sahukar. So effective and efficient was the working of these Boards that it won the approbation of Ministers of Government of India. In a short time we liquidated all the debts in which the principal and interest had already been paid. We had a debt-free peasant. Even this purely economic and non-communal measure was misrepresented by the vested interests as directed against Hindus and a deep-laid conspiracy against me was set afoot. I was dubbed as a British agent, then a communist agent, later on as an American agent. They even protected some of my corrupt colleagues. I wanted to take action against them. I asked Nehruji's permission for the same. But instead of giving me such a permission, they dismissed me and detained me. They even hinted my complicity in the death of Dr Shyama Prashad Mukerji

Q. Don't you think you should have instituted an inquiry into the death of Dr Mukerji?''

But in this affair please remember the background facts. Ban on the entry into the State of J&K was imposed at the behest of Defence Ministry of Government of India, which treated Kashmir as war area. Even I, the Prime Minister of the State could move into and out of the State only on a valid pass. I made protests against this practice right from the beginning, but in vain. When, however Dr Mukerji decided to defy the ban, I asked my Home Minister, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, to consult Panditji and find out what was to be done. (Emphasis added). I had very great regard for Dr Mukerji who was my colleague and a friend. Home Ministry decided to arrest him and he was detained in a private house at Nishat. Panditji and Maulana Azad came to Kashmir during these days. I hoped that they would see him, but they did not. I could not therefore go to see him either. I had suggested that he should be sent back to Delhi after he was arrested. This was not done. Bakshi was the Home Minister, incharge of law and order, and Shamlal Saraf was in-charge of Health and Prisons. Though I do not deny my constructive responsibility for general administration, these colleagues were directly in-charge and I had no contact with the doctor except through them. I did not even get his health reports, until one morning the news of his sad demise was broken to me.

Q. But don't you think you should have ordered an enquiry? Why couldn't you appoint the Chief Justice of Kashmir to conduct the inquiry?

In introspect I feel, I should perhaps. But I suggested Dr Roy to come first and make a general enquiry. He agreed but did not come.

I principally wished the Centre to institute the enquiry, so as to avoid all misgivings in regard to the impartiality of the enquiry. As the atmosphere was vitiated, even my own Chief Justice would not have escaped criticism, or even blame of partiality from interested quarters. Unfortunately, the Centre did not institute that enquiry.

Meanwhile, the conspiracy against me was executed on the 9th August when I was overthrown, dismissed and detained against all canons of justice and good conscience. From jail and even after my first release in 1958 I strongly demanded public enquiry into the cause of Dr Saheb's death, but nothing availed. Even today if there is any lurking doubt in any quarter, let there be an impartial enquiry and I am ready to bear the consequences.

Q. You have said that the State acceded to India only for the purpose of three subjects- Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications. Don't you see that if this is conceded to Kashmir it will have to be conceded to all other States?

Not necessarily. Under the Indian Independence Act this special right was given only to princely States.

Q. Don't you think that autonomous States would be a threat to the unity of India?

If they were not threat to British India, why would they be a threat to independent India?

Q. But don't you think that the exit of the British makes a difference to the whole situation.?

The exist of British has made this difference that the entire defence of the country is now solely in the hands of the Centre while during the British period all the native States had their own defence forces. I would say that all the States could safety be autonomous without any risk of secession. USSR Constitution has given the right to her constituent units to demand secession but history has shown that this right was never exercised. Almost similar is the case with Puerto Rico in USA.

Q. In that case why do you make a separate case of Kashmir? Why don't make it part of the larger issue of Centre-State relations?

What others do is their business. I am doing what I think is good for Kashmir. And I am within my rights to do so.

Q. All States signed the same Instrument of Accession. But you alone insist on ''Three Subjects Only''. Does this not give the impression that you insist upon it only because Kashmir has a Muslim majority?

It is for the former Maharajas to say how and why they surrendered their sovereignty. The Sardar was a wonderful man. He used patriotic appeals, cajolery and the pressure of Praja Mandals to line up the Maharajas. My only crime is that while all others bowed down, I didn't.

Q. What makes you think that a solution of the Kashmir Problem can be found that will satisfy both India and Pakistan''

A solution can come if there is the necessary will. Both countries must realise that they have much in common and that they are losing their substance in quarreling with each other. Without such a realisation there is no hope. The worst sufferer in this war of attrition is the Kashmiri. India is a country of many races and many religions. If Hindus become good Hindus and Muslims become good Muslims, all will be well.

Q. A Historical experience is that federations either tend to become unitary or they break-up. Don't you, therefore, think that unless a three-subject accession is enlarged into something ampler, it may lead to secessionist movements?

No.

Q. There is so much in common between the people of India and Pakistan that peace and amity would render partition redundant. The people in India and abroad who master-minded the partition of India know this. They are, therefore, not interested in reconcilation. As Badshah Khan has said, for this reason, even a dozen Kashmirs will not win Pak friendship. What do you think?

Indo-Pak amity should be the cherished objective of all patriots. It is not necessary that this should lead to the merger of one with the other as you seem to imply. India has a friendly relations with her other neighbours like Nepal, Burma and Ceylon, without there being an apprehension of her swallowing them up. Why should Pakistan be singled out? I believe that Badshah Khan was not amongst those ''who master-minded the partition of India''. Anyhow, it is the duty of every Indian to defeat the designs of those who are ''not interested in the reconciliation'', as you put it.''

Speech at IDGAH DELHI On 2nd January, 1968

''After release Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah proceeded to Idgah to say Id prayers. Mirza Mohammad Afzal Beg and G M Shah were with him. Before prayers, Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah extended Id greetings to the mammoth Muslim gathering.

After prayers, addressing the audience Sheikh Saheb said : ''I am desirous of such a solution of Kashmir which would not only be acceptable to India and Pakistan but also acceptable to the people of Kashmir''

He further stated ''in spite of long trials and tribulations I am steadfast in my convictions; and have preferred trials rather than compromise my stand''.

Sheikh Saheb said that not only the people of Kashmir but six crore Muslims of India were also interested in the solution of Kashmir tangle. Indian Muslims he said, were also passing through a critical phase. He appealed to the Muslims to organise themselves because ''the strength of the community does not lie in its number alone''. In this connection he cited the example of Israel and the Arab countries and recalled how a tiny nation like Israel had played havoc with the Arabs.

Sheikh Saheb then dwelt on the necessity of peace in the sub-continent and said that the survival of India and of Pakistan was inter-dependent. He said, ''we have sympathy with Pakistan and wish her prosperity, just as we wish India to progress and prosper. Those who abuse Pakistan do no good.''

Here is the direct historical evidence relating to oft-discussed topics of national interest concerning the vital events in the development of Indo-Kashmir relationship. It is now for the readers to draw such conclusions from it as they may.

Security and intelligence

By Vijay Shankar

It is understood that the National Security Advisory Board in its "review" has recommended the setting up of a "national intelligence board to oversee all aspects of intelligence production, prioritise objectives, allocate resources and monitor performances" and also to ensure full answerability and accountability. They should be "within a statutory frame-word". A task force also has been set up towards this end.

Unfortunately we do not have any clear-cut evidence to show whether Kargil was actually an "intelligence failure or a systems failure in which eagerness to play realpolitik obfuseated intelligence available and obliterated the urgency to act. Whatever it may be, the time is ripe for an assessment of the performance of the agencies and necessary restructuring and re-equipping them to discharge their task in the 21st Century.

To state the obvious, security threats emanate from external enemies and internal recalcitrants who may be insurgents, communal groups, crime mafias and fifth columns. We require to be informed of their designs, plans, agents, infiltrators and area of action and when, where and how they will act. In other words, the government requires, to use a cliche, "processed accurate information" along with a possible line of action suggested for the decision-maker of act, to be given well in advance.

Some of the incidents, such as attack on Pearl Harbor, attack on Singapore and the Yom Kippur War, were initially thought to be intelligence failures. Post-mortem enquiries revealed that some sort of information was available, but overlooked or deliberately ignored on other grounds by decision-makers and their advisors. For instance, Churchill repeatedly warned Stalin of the impending German attack on Russia, but Stalin failed to heed this advice and sleep- walked into a catastrophe.

Human resource is the key for any effective functioning of the organisations. Recruitment practices and the training of the staff have to receive attention. For instance, there are nearly 200 odd tribal groups in the insurgency-infested Northeast. They speak as many dialects. There are intra and inter-tribal rivalries. To obtain intelligence from any one of them is a Herculean task. The life of a field officer has to be seen to appreciate his problems. Further recruitment has to be tailored to local needs. Even though the recruitment rules provide for recruitment by deputation from State government employees in subordinate ranks, it is very negligible. This needs review as this will enable the agencies to have local talents to tap the population. Further there should be provision for the Central employees to function in the State services. One of the things that helped Punjab was taking on deputation Punjabi officers from CRPF/BSF for the operational posts at district level.

The methodology for calcitonins categorised broadly under human intelligence, technical intelligence, covert operations and counter intelligence. While the human intelligence (sources, agents and fifth columns) may give us details of intentions, the technical intelligence will give us the capabilities. Churchill once said, "The bazaars of India, like the London coffee houses of last century, are always full of marvellous tales - the invention of fertile brains. A single unimportant fact is exaggerated and distorted till it becomes unrecognisable. From it a thousand wild, illogical sand fantastic conclusions are drawn." This is a possible drawback to Humint. Hence this has in the words of Regan, "to be trusted but verified". This is where a form of technical intelligence called electronic interceptions is helpful. Conversation of two Pakistani officers helped the Indian Government to apportion the blame accurately.

The growth of technology has made collection more difficult. The same equipment is available to the others. Cellphones initially made use of communication surveillance on phones. Speedposts and couriers have made postal interception unpractical. The ULFA in Assam effectively used couriers and cellphones to organise activities. The LTTE is very much in possession of state-of-the-art technical gadgest. The equipping of the agencies with the latest gadgets for signal intelligence, imagery intelligence and measurement and signature intelligence is of utmost importance. Again to quote Churchill, "if there was one department on which money could be spent with advantage, it was the intelligence department" (Churchill to the House of Commons).

Another area os concern is the need for establishing a research and development group exclusively and these agencies must be in tandem with DRDO. Budgetary constraints and competing demands have prevented any noteworthy action in this sector.

Intelligence thus collected needed to be interpreted by an expert called analyst, so that "Manchausen tales and bazaar gossips" are not given credibility. The technical gadgets will provide an avalanche of raw data. Too many agencies collecting intelligence in "Stove pipe" manner practically do not help a clear picture. Hence the data should be pooled and a single processed estimate has to be given. This requires the fusing and synergising the collection and interpreting the data. An integrated agency with a single individual in control will have to be designated. The task force has two options : (1) they may suggest an umbrella organisation under DIB in which representatives of other agencies are included and this organisation ultimately prepares the report or (2) to allow the existing "stove pipe" set-up each reporting through its own echelons with the existing turf battles, internecine competitions, etc.

Decision makers in a democracy have to marry their political compulsions to the security needs. Pulls and counterpulls of party politics and elections constrict their perception and workload constrains reflection. In a disparate leadership, "filtering the flow" and political tailoring of the intelligence also takes place. It is said "the intelligence failures that hurt the worst have not been those of collection but rather those of dissemination". During World War II, the chief of British intelligence handed over an important note to the Foreign Secretary to be handed over to the Prime Minister. Two days later the Foreign Secretary returned the file with the comment "I had not the time to look at this till today and the PM has gone to Bath, so I send it back to you". This type of systems failure is to be avoided. Direct access to the chief of the government has been a debating point all over the world. A fixed tenure is another topic discussed. One method suggested but declined in the U.S. was to make the DCI of Cabinet rank. The task force has to sort out and come up with a suitable modus vivendi between the chief of intelligence and the Head of the Government.

"Combat support" role of the intelligence in operation needs no emphasis. In the past civilian officers used to be attached with armed forces for negotiations and intelligence. DMI may consider an authorised representative of the intelligence to participate in their tactical exercises without troops (TEWT). This will help them to identify the needs and tasks the sources accordingly. They may even relocate their resources. Secondly this helps the MASINT (dealing specific weapons, identification and outfits capacity, training in handling, etc.). The task force may consider recommending, instead of ad hoc briefing, a formal meeting of NSC, NSAB and ministerial officers once a month to exchange information, priorities the collection process, etc.

Another aspect is providing "legal teeth" to the organisation. Based on the British system of "plausible deniability" the agencies have been made to rely on the State special branches. But internecine feud and political compulsions have made them to be at logger heads. Another aspect is human rights violations; only those who have seen the victims of the insurgent violence will appreciate the efforts. Scores of insurgents who have been apprehended after an encounter with casualties were granted bail and they jumped it. Normal C. P.C. period of laying a CS is not sufficient for the IO as evidence has to be collected from unwilling and terrified victims. To get evidence they require time. Very often they lean on the intelligence agency. Certain aggressive counter intelligence measure have to be adopted to frustrate foreign intelligence activities. For KGB and some other agencies did not hid their activity forcing the other to sweat and toil to collect information. The task force may also ponder these issues.

Information is the key. A rumour nipped in the bud is a greater peace maker than the deployment of a company of armed forces. It is time a proper appraisal of our needs was made and an organisation capable of meeting the expectations of the government proposed. INAV