. |
. |
EDITORIAL NDA Government headed by Prime Minister AB Vajpayee has completed one year. This is Vajpayee's third stint, the first one lasting 13 days while the second one 13 months. Unlike the earlier stints, this time round there is stability which has helped taking many vital decisions. One can divide the achievements in several compartments. First, National Security has been given top priority to face the various threat perceptions as also prepare the nation for the future. It is for the first time in the post independence history that defence budget has been enhanced by Rs 13000 crore in a single year with the promise of ...more Howsoever big and mighty, the law is above you. It has been amply proved that even when law takes its own course, there is no way out for the wrong-doers. Former Prime Minister Narasimha Rao alongwith his cabinet colleague Buta Singh has been awarded three years rigorous imprisonment under various sections of Prevention of Corruption Act. While hardly any ...more |
|
From B L Kak Census and politicking By Dr R L Bhat Self-imposed restraints
that journalists observe By M L Kotru Restructuring the ifs |
 |
||
EDITORIAL NDA Government headed by Prime Minister AB Vajpayee has completed one year. This is Vajpayee's third stint, the first one lasting 13 days while the second one 13 months. Unlike the earlier stints, this time round there is stability which has helped taking many vital decisions. One can divide the achievements in several compartments. First, National Security has been given top priority to face the various threat perceptions as also prepare the nation for the future. It is for the first time in the post independence history that defence budget has been enhanced by Rs 13000 crore in a single year with the promise of giving more if so needed. Many orders have been placed for latest aquisitions of weapon systems to strengthen all the three services as regards conventional weapons. This includes State of art SU-30 manufacture under license, purchase of top-class T-90 tanks (310) and adding another Aircraft Carrier to take care of India's maritime interests. As on now India has only one Aircraft Carrier INS 'Virat'. Gorshakov is being refitted and refurbished and in three years time it would be at the disposal of Indian Navy. In additions indigenous construction one more Aircraft Carrier has commenced and it is slated for induction by the year 2008. Nuclearisation of the forces and its operationalisation is moving apace. There was a brain storming session of three service Chiefs at Chandimandir to sort out synergisation and operational aspects to take care of the various aspects of nuclear warfare. For a change threat perceptions are no more Pak-centric but China-centric wherein the password is to catch up fast and remain almost parallel to Chinese possessions. Defence Research has been given tremendous boost for indigenous development and production of sophisticated systems for self-reliance. Four Task Forces were created to strengthen national security in its totality. They have since submitted their recommendations which are being deliberated by the Group of Ministers (GoM). The task is being completed by November 15 when GoM would submit the same for approval by the cabinet. These reports are comprehensive enough to take care of borders, internal security, intelligence etc. Above all there is strong motivation that India has to forge ahead to emerge as reckonable military power. From reactive dispensation that ruled the roost ever since independence, it is the pro-active theme in place. Second, economic liberalisation has been given fresh impetus and reforms process speeded up. This is despite strong opposition from the swadeshi lobbyists within and outside. This liberalisation has opened up almost all sectors to FDIs as the country and the Government simply do not have the resources to create massive infrastructure needed for occupying its rightful place in the comity of nations. It is in the light of such constraints that rapid privatisation is going on so that public sector is slimmed for better results. The concept of treating private sector being more efficient and faster on delivery has begun to yield results. It is not that all public sector units are bad. The fact is State control interferes with the free market conditions to the detriment of speedy development. Even a regimental and theocratic country like China has opened up to attract FDIs worth 40 to 50 billion dollars annually which explains their rapid growth. During the next two years liberalisation is slated to attract upto 5 billion dollars FDIs annually while the following three years should attract 15 billion dollar annually. This is needed for faster infrastructural activity. Inflation has remained by and large under control during the year. Foodgrains production logging good increase while erosion in rupee value to the extent of seven percent is reasonable in as much as comparison with other currencies is concerned. The NDA Government also managed the economy well in the face of sanctions and Kargil war. Even excessive hike in crude oil is adequately cushioned though it means hard options. Third, relations with other countries have witnessed quantum jump. Today, India is duly recognised by the big powers like America, Russia and Japan. Their Presidents/Prime Minister have visited India. They are unanimous in wooing India as the emerging power of the century and for stability of the region besides the global peace. Both Russia and USA treat India as their respective strategic partner. India has been able to bring terrorism on the list of big powers and joint action is being initiated to combat global terrorism. Never before India's status was so high in the community of nations as today. Out of the five permanent members of UN Security Council four have already promised full support for India in the expanded security council as permanent member. This change is in typical contrast to lukewarm relations when these big powers almost ignored India in their respective perceptions and calculations. Today, they tirelessly mention India very dear and important to them. Another feather in the Vajpayee Government is in terms of keeping the flock of 24 parties together by adopting consensual approach on vital issues. It has lent political stability which is so essential for development and security. The only area where delivery has been bad relates to internal security. One really does not know when the citizens would be able to travel, move and perform in their own way free of any threat perceptions. ISI tentacles remain in place and are yet to be marginalised. Terrorism is being tackled in the troubled States but none is ready to give any time calender for wiping it out completely. Various exercises are on and some sort of concerted and determined action is called for. Given the coalition character and several restraints that stem from it, performance of Vajpayee Government during one year has been quite reasonable. Howsoever big and mighty, the law is above you. It has been amply proved that even when law takes its own course, there is no way out for the wrong-doers. Former Prime Minister Narasimha Rao alongwith his cabinet colleague Buta Singh has been awarded three years rigorous imprisonment under various sections of Prevention of Corruption Act. While hardly any ruler is free from temptations of remaining glued unto the musical chairs and all means overt and covert are considered fair, the folly of Narasimha Rao is that he did not cover up the trail well and left many porous aspects for the law to close in on him. For instance, the money paid as bribe was openly deposited in the Bank. It could have been very well paid under the table and left to respective bribe takers to 'safeguard' it away from the scrutiny of law forcing agencies. Second fault was that he brought in too many people, so-called trusted colleagues, to broker the bribes so that he could save the Government from defeat. Some amongst these trusted colleagues did cause the leak for adversaries to follow it up. As regards punishment of three years, pleas have been made for lenient view because of his contribution to the nation in his illustrious political career. Some have also pleaded his old age and ailments to spare him the agony of imprisonment. The learned Judge however feels it was not a mere act of corruption but subversion of democracy itself. In the light of various Supreme Court judgements, proven corruption deserves severest punishment. There is no scope for leniency. Technically, the case would go to High Court and may be Apex Court also. Practically, however Narasimha Rao is politically finished. Congress has already disowned him. In his home State Andhra Pradesh Government has ordered deletion of all lessons incorporated in text books praising performance and personal attributes of Narasimha Rao as the Prime Minister. Soon, even beneficiaries of his benevolence would begin avoiding him. There is indeed a big and strong message to Corrupt Chief Ministers and their team mates as also for the Central dispensation that howsoever big and mighty, the law is always be above you. |
||
|
||
|
From B L Kak Two men of consequence in Delhi’s power corridors are Mr Jaswant Singh, Minister of External Affairs, and Mr Brajesh Mishra, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. If Mr Singh considers himself as a highly important figure because of his coveted External Affairs portfolio, Mr Brajesh Mishra has become a mightier person because he is the head of the all-important Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Mr Jaswant Singh has become highly important because of his Prime Minister’s continuing support to him. And Mr Brajesh Mishra is known as a mightier person-a ‘He-man’, in Indian Bollywood terminology-merely because of Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee’s repeated refusals so far to touch him. The story that Mr Jaswant Singh and Mr Brajesh Mishra are Mr Vajpayee’s men has already travelled across the world. Both Mr Singh and Mr Mishra, many within and outside the Government felt more often that not, were supposed to work unitedly, without offering any opportunity to outsiders, particularly the media, to prepare news stories and commentaries on the prevailing differences within. Curiously, this has not happened. And Prime Minister, for reasons best known to him, has not imparted a lesson or two to the two "great" men, Mr Jaswant Singh and Mr Brajesh Mishra, on how to behave and on the growing need for unity of action and of purpose. Mr Jaswant Singh is known for "Saheb" mentality. And he would not like to get disturbed when he wants to be left to himself for quite sometime. But Mr Brajesh Mishra, who is known for the "bad" habit of working for long hours like a machine, seems to have made Mr Singh a bit restless, a bit perturbed, a bit desperate, a bit angry. And Mr Jaswant Singh too has not left Mr Brajesh Mishra undisturbed. Both of them are competent. And both of them are keen on the undisturbed continuance of the Vajpayee Government. But considering the fact that each wants to outwit the other, the job of making them work as relaxed human beings is somewhat difficult. Mr Jaswant Singh is said to be against Mr Mishra’s "unnecessary" interference in the working of the External Affairs Ministry. And Mr Brajesh Mishra is said to be of the opinion that the PMO’s enhanced importance and relevance in matters of appointment of envoys abroad and persons in key position in various Ministeries and Departments has to be reckoned by one and all. The Ministry of External Affairs has an effective mission in the United States. The US President, Mr Bill Clinton, and the entire US State Department knew the fact that "meaningful" head of the Indian External Affairs Ministry, is Mr Jaswant Singh. Yet, the US administration was made to accept the "fact" that Mr Brajesh Mishra is Mr Vajpayee’s Man Friday when the former spent some days in America working out details prior to the latter’s "historic" visit to that country. After the "successful" completion of the US visit by Mr Vajpayee, a quiet exercise began to locate a suitable person to replace Mr Naresh Chandra as India’s ambassador in Washington. Practically, the job has to be handled by Mr Jaswant Singh in consultations with his Prime Minister. In fact, days before his departure for Mumbai for his treatment, Mr Vajpayee was sounded on the question of having a new ambassador in Washington. According to insiders, in the initial stages, Mr Vajpayee was found interested in the continuation of Mr Naresh Chandra in Washington for the time being. He, however, changed his mind after Mr Jaswant Singh convinced him that appointment of a new person has become highly important. Obviously, Mr Jaswant Singh had his ‘darling’, Mr Arun Singh, in his mind. One more than one occasion in the past, it has been found that what Mr Jaswant Singh proposed was opposed by Mr Brajesh Mishra. No wonder, the spread of a report this time, making it clear that the two men of consequence (Mr Jaswant Singh and Mr Brajesh Mishra) are once again engaged in the task of outwitting each other on the question of having India’s new ambassador in Washington. Mr Jaswant Singh wants his "backroom boy", Mr Arun Singh, while Mr Brajesh Mishra is reported to be keen to send Mr NK Singh, who is currently Secretary to the Prime Minister. Mr Naresh Chandra is due to complete his term in Washington early next year. There is no denying that politicians and bureaucrats jostle for the top posts in the Indian missions at Washington and London, with Washington having been always considered highly important from a diplomat’s career point of view. Mr Nareshwar Dayal, India’s High Commissioner to UK, is also due to retire. Will he get an extension? This, insiders point out, will mainly depend on the Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary. Mr Jaswant Singh brought Mr Arun Singh, a former loyalist of Mr Rajiv Gandhi, into the Foreign Office for what has been reported as "effective coordination" between the Ministries of External Affairs and Defence. Mr Brajesh Mishra, on the other hand, brought Mr NK Singh, former Revenue Secretary, into the Prime Minister’s Office. And at a time when the report was circulated with regard to the Government’s move to have a new man in Washington, attention was drawn by yet another report that Mr Brajesh Mishra’s "candidate" (Mr NK Singh) possessed two important qualifications, namely, his proximity to the US lobby and his personal equation with Mr Vajpayee’s foster son-in-law, Mr Ranjan Bhattacharya. Mr Bhattacharya, according to this report, is "very influential" in the PMO. |
||
|
|
Self-imposed restraints
that journalists observe By M L Kotru Despite the much-vaunted free and fearless press in Western democracies, there are some self-imposed restraints that journalists observe in those countries. One of them is not to jeopardize security interests in the midst of a crisis. Most of the exposures come years later as part of history. Even the most controversial exposures by former intelligence agents of the CIA in America and M16 in Britain have come much after the event, when certain retired officials might be damaged, but not the country's vital security interests. This is how things were in India too. Until the Kargil hostilities, that is. Even during the peak of crisis one prominent weekly gave vent to the frustrations of Brigadier Surinder Singh whose conduct during the crisis was questioned by his superiors. The Brigadier launched a counter-attack in the media and gave his side of the story. Sections of the media not only lapped it up, but also published information found later to be spurious. Not only was it bad for journalism. It was bad for national interests. Especially since the media version sympathetic to the Brigadier was based on false information. The matter reached the Press Council of India. The Council, after due consideration, reprimanded the weekly. Now, months later, the same weekly has come out with another cover story that is thinly disguised attempt to incite disaffection in the armed forces. A national daily also gave a milder version of the same half-baked story. It is a matter for lawyers to decide whether or not such reports invite action under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The cover story entitled ''Revenge of the Generals'' reads more like the ''Revenge of the Editors'' who were snubbed by the Press Council. If there are any shortcomings in the conduct of the armed forces, there are ways of handling them. But to leap into half-baked exposures that in no manner improve matters but cause disaffection among the ranks is bad nationalism and worse journalism. Army top brass, under constraints, has until now maintained a stiff upper lip. But refired senior officer are freely giving vent to their disgust. The crisis for the armed forces with neighbouring countries is far from over. The attempts to glorify disgruntled servicemen and cause divisions in the army at this stage is either insanity or sabotage. It is for journalists themselves to decide. It is also for the authorities to decide whether or not such reports should go unchecked in the press when serving army officers are restrained from joining public controversies. Having said this, it is not as if I am opposed to public debate on matters related to the nation's security. Indeed it is essential that such debates are encouraged. Equally essential is the fact that we look back on the history of past conflicts, if only to ensure that mistakes are not repeated. There is no reason why successive governments should choose to hide from public glare events that took place more than half a century ago (in Kashmir) or for that matter the debacle against the Chinese in 1962. Of the five wars India has fought since independence official account of only the first, the Kashmir conflict, is available. Histories of the wars of 1962. 1965 and 1971 do exist but continue to rest in the dust-laden cupboards of the Ministry of Defence. Whatever little we know of the 1962, 1965 and 1971 wars is based on memoirs of senior commanders engaged in those conflicts. Without seeming to be casting aspersions on any of the authors, their work must only be treated as a personal account, often coloured by personal predelictions. They can at best serve as source material for researchers. It also causes confusion. It leaves people free to impose their own interpretation on what may or may not actually have taken place on the battlefield. An authentic history could in such a situation be of help in any realistic appreciation of a particular battle or of a war as a whole. But given the obsession of successive governments, egged on by meddlesome bureaucrats, with secrecy, an honest investigation into any conflict or an aspect of it becomes impossible. And you can trust the bureaucrats to find a thousand reasons why such information should be suppressed. Or, why the history of these wars should not be made public. The bureaucrats are not driven as much by reasons of State as by the trivial concerns and imaginary fears harboured by some among them. Take the case of the 1965 war. Lt. Gen. Harbaksh Singh, one of our most distinguished soldiers, waited for official permission to publish his memoirs till 1991, and a revealing document it turned out to be. If its publication has caused some controversy it is so only because the official history of the war is yet to be released. The document (history) was prepared by the Defence Ministry's history division and handed over in late 1992. The Government, guided by the committee of Secretaries, decided to treat it as a secret document. Permission to publish it was denied. Even more amazingly the Defence Ministry was not even allowed to provide copies of the official history to the officer training institutions run by the Government. It seems unthinkable that a responsible Government should bar its officers from having access to the history of the conflict of 1965 or for that matter to the history of the 1962 or 1971 wars. How does one learn to avoid the mistakes that might have been made during these wars or to hone one's capabilities in other related spheres. But then you have to be more than tough, if not clever, to get the better of the bureaucracy and its obsession with secretiveness. The committee of secretaries more often than not specialises in vetoing any move to reveal, even in part, anything which it considers to be of national interest. Like, when it decided not to release the history of the 1965 conflict. There are so many accounts of this particular Indo-Pak war, beginning with the launching of operation desert hawk by Pakistan in the Rann of Kutch, followed by operation Gibraltar which involved induction of infiltrators into Kashmir, the capture by Indian troops of Haji Pir, the Indian offensive towards Lahore etc (I had occasion, as a uniformed war correspondent, to cover most of these sectors) that obviously are a part of the official history and would therefore be of much interest. For instance there is a controversy over whether India was hasty in accepting a cease-fire, that there were differences between the Army Chief Gen J N Chaudhuri and Lt Gen Harbaksh Singh, that there were command failures in at least one major sector. But given out bureaucratic ways all these must remain a matter of conjecture or must be seen through tinted personal accounts by one or the other commander. The history of these wars, it has been suggested, would have leaked information about certain aspects of command and control and that the operational decicions incorporated in it could not be made public. The Army Chief of the day, when the history of the 1965 conflict was prepared, Gen SFJ Rodrigues, as quoted by a national daily, feels that the objections raised by the committee of Secretaries to publishing the history represented ''a very naive way of looking at things''. According to the journal the Army Chief lamented that even he had not been shown a copy of the history. 'The committee of Secretaries is totally soulless. They take decisions on the basis of incomplete knowledge and no one can then question them,'' Gen Rodrigues is reported to have said. The General was stating the obvious when he aruged that ''unless you get a fair and impartial account of the past, you cannot deal with the future challenges. If you don't know what the problems are, how on earth do you correct them?'', he asked. How very true. And come to think of it, you are denying access to your serving officers to the lessons already drawn from the past. And imagine the audacity of the man who wouldnot allow even an Army Chief to take a peek at war history ! That is one aspect of their problem, a stupid one on the face of it. It is counter-productive in the extreme. On the other hand it would be dangerous if the columns of our newspapers and journals are thrown open to commanders of our newspapers and journals are thrown open to commanders of our Armed Forces to indulge in mutual mudslining. You just won't know where to stop. If senior commanders routinely start questioning each other's ability through the media you can only be sure of one thing: a total collapse of discipline. The silly campaign carried on by some journals has already sullied several reputations. We are also witnessing public airing of inter-Services rivalries which again doesn't enhance the reputation of our Services. Nor does it help the country. It, of course, makes juicy copy. |
|
Restructuring the ifs A few stray thoughts on a matter that merits a detailed study - the need for changes in the mechanism for implementing the country's foreign policy, that is, the Indian Foreign Service. It was the subject of a recent workshop at New Delhi's India International Centre, the initiative for which was taken by senior retired officials who also accounted for the bulk of the participants. The involvement in the exercise of those who till recently occupied top positions implied a recognition that changes were called for, thought opinions differed on their extent and nature. The IFS was established in the early 1950s to handle independent India's external relations. Before Independence, foreign affairs were the responsibility of the colonial power, which did not consider it necessary to set up a specialised Indian service. This was in sharp contrast to the line of action in the domestic area where the Indian Civil Service (ICS) was formed to take care of internal administration, especially revenue collection and law enforcement, main concerns of the rulers. Dubbed then by Jawaharlal Nehru neither Indian nor civil nor service, the ICS distinguished itself in serving the interests of the regime of the day. After 1947, Nehru, however, did not hesitate to commend its professionalism which was of considerable help in meeting the heavy administrative burdens of the new state, particularly the dislocation caused by Partition and large-scale migration of the people. As regards the instrumentalities for conducting foreign relations, Nehru had to start from scratch. To meet the immediate needs, he made ad hoc arrangements - drafting seniors from the ICS, prominent persons from the princely order, retired generals and public figures. The IFS was set up as a permanent response to the new situation - to take charge of the wide range of requirements and to man the posts at various levels in the Ministry of External Affairs, at the headquarters and in diplomatic missions abroad. Nehru's vision thus put in place a badly-needed structure. Any delay would have cost the country heavily. However, despite his fasightedness he could not have visualised the demands of the fast-changing situation and the shape of all future problems. The world today is vastly different from what it was four or five decades ago, thanks to the inexorable march of economic and technological forces, apart from the emergence of new complexities in global, regional and bilateral relations. To cite one example, the end of the cold war and the disappearance of bloc rivalries have not simplified matters but have rather added new knots. To say the mechanisms for discharging foreign policy responsibilities have to keep pace with the times is to stress the obvious. But, regrettably, what was obvious was not grasped. The country will come to grief if there is delay in or resistance to changes in the service from within or outside. This is not a reflection on the performance of the IFS which deserves the highest ratings among the three services, the others being the IAS and the IPS. Because of the new formidable challenges, its composition, if not the structure, has to adapt to the new context. Equally important is the change of the mindset within the service - it would need to accept inductions from outside at various levels, senior slots not excluded, in certain situations. If, in the past, Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vijayalakshmi Pandit, Mr. I.K. Gujral, Mr. D.P. Dhar, Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. Abid Hussain (non-IFS) could handle crucial diplomatic assignments with distinction, there is no reason to take a grim view of the "outsiders" in the future. However, it will be necessary to guard against recklessness in the appointments made from outside, in the interest of the morale of the service. Also the use of diplomatic assignments as rewards or as a haven for disgruntled politicians will need to be avoided, to check the despatch of wrong signals apart from causing damage to the national interest. There is a strong case for changes at the stages of recruitment and training as also for minor structural adjustments. The head of the service. Foreign Secretary, is overburdened - or allows himself to be overburdened - with all manner of responsibilities. A harassed person, he spreads himself thin and at times finds it hard to fully apply his mind to matters deserving undivided attention. One of the incumbents in the past had a "be brief" signboard displayed on his office table for visitors, both official and non-official. He has to brief the Minister concerned (and the Minister of State) and at times the Prime Minister, has to go through telegrams received from the missions, perform protocol functions which become particularly gruelling during the visits of VVIPs from other countries or the trips abroad of the Prime Minister and the Minister, and attend to all that is necessary to supervise the work of the Ministry and as ex-officio member of important official panels. In addition, he has the direct charge of important subjects - Pakistan, the U.S. and other big powers. At times, he is just a notch higher than the next person and, to establish his supremacy, tends to concentrate in himself as much of responsibility as possible. One way out is to restore the practice of designating him as the Secretary-General so as to remove all doubts about his pre-eminence. At any given point of time, the person at the apex would not be required to attend to more than two or three subjects. The functions and responsibilities thus shed by him could be entrusted to the Secretary-level officers for, not all of them, as experience showed, were fully occupied. The desk officers, the heads of the territorial division, normally of the Joint Secretary rank, are the kingpins at the middle level with a large reservoir of information, knowledge and expertise on their areas. Any step to strengthen them would make for a sound and reliable base for decision taking. A high degree of specialisation - absolutely necessary in today's world - is not possible without streamlining the training for freshers and mid-career re-training of the existing staff. Two other propositions - lateral entry and horizontal mobility - could help to enrich the IFS, enabling it to meet the challenges in the areas of trade and economy, media relations, defence and security. The professionalism of the service and the specialised knowledge of experts have to be blended for the best results. Economic diplomacy has of late emerged as a major dimension of external relations, be it in the immediate neighbourhood or in dealings with major powers or other important players. The issues connected with the World Trade Organisation, especially the gap in the positions of the industrialised countries and the developing world, the use in diplomacy of the leverages accruing to the country from large scale procurements from abroad and, in the case of South Asia, the new trade regimes call for special skills which only experts can provide. Similarly, media projection, never an easy job for the developing nations, has become tougher what with the emergence of television and the new rules of the game. It is in this context that the induction of those well-versed in trade and economic affairs and of journalists at the upper middle level - from outside or from other Ministries - becomes important. At the same time, greater use could be made of the practice of sending suitable persons from the service on deputation to other Ministries (for instance, commerce or information and broadcasting). Unfortunately those given this opportunity feel sidelined and are keen on getting back at the earliest. And those from the other Ministries sent to the foreign office or missions abroad feel the pinch of the caste system of the service. It is not hard to imagine the consequent damage. What happened to policy planning - a job that acquired the deservedly high profile when it was entrusted to the veteran G. Parthasarathy? Its downgrading does not augur well for the service - and the country. INAV |
|
|
|
