The
Inside Truth-IV
When an
Indian official flirted with a foreign
lady
From B L
Kak
A senior
civil servant went as a member of a
delegation to a certain country. He was
hardly ever available to the leader of
the Indian delegation. The Naval attache
in that country sent a written report to
Naval Headquarters in New Delhi about the
"misconduct" of the official.
Yes, the charge against the official was
that he got involved with a young woman
in that country.
This juicy
story is contained in the book written by
former Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral
Vishnu Bhagwat. Nor is this all. Admiral
Bhagwat has chosen to make public the
events after he received the
communication about the
"misconduct" of the Indian
official, under reference.
Admiral
Bhagwat consulted Mr NN Vohra, Principal
Secretary to the Prime Minister. Admiral
Bhagwat was taken aback when Mr Vohra
told him: "But this was not an
equipment purchase delegation".
Admiral Bhagwat had to tell Mr Vohra:
"No, but the compromise of an
individual at that level in the Ministry
of Defence, especially one who is dealing
with personnel matters of the navy, is
perhaps much more damaging than the
purchase of a piece of equipment".
Admiral
Bhagwat did not stop there itself. He
reminded Mr NN Vohra of the case of a
certain military attache, who was not
only recalled, but also denied his
promotion and asked to resign. Mr Vohra,
the book said, finally agreed and
suggested that he (Admiral Bhagwat)
should send the papers to the Defence
Secretary, Mr Ajit Kumar, rather than to
the Defence Minister.
Admiral
Bhagwat forwarded the papers with a
covering note written in his own hand to
convey the sensitivity of the matter. And
Admiral Bhagwat lamented: "I did not
receive any acknowledgement of the note
and Mr Ajit Kumar never discussed the
matter with me, not even once".
After he wrote to the new Minister, he
(Admiral Bhagwat) was orally informed
that the file was lost between March 15
and 20, 1998 during the transition period
from the United Front Government to the
new Government.
Admiral
Bhagwat replicated the relevant papers
and sent them on a newly-constructed file
to the Minister. Thereafter, he reminded
the Minister several times, sent him two
written reminders in August and November,
but there was no reply or even an
acknowledgement.
The book
has also highlighted the second case-that
of Mr D Lahiri, Additional Financial
Advisor (Defence) who had apparently got
very upset that the Chiefs of Staff had
been raising the Pay Commission
disparities with the Prime Minister, Mr
HD Deve Gowda, and subsequently with Mr
IK Gujral and his Defence Minister, Mr
Mulayam Singh Yadav. Admiral Bhagwat has
recalled: "We had expressed our
strong reservations on the matter, in
which Mr Lahiri and others had
deliberately twisted matters. This was
done in such a way that he (Mr Lahiri)
was actually acting in a discriminatory
manner vis-à-vis defence service
personnel".
That Mr
Lahiri had exceeded his brief became
evident with his telephonic conversation
with Vice Admiral Sushil Kumar, then Vice
Chief of Naval Staff, to say that he had
lost his cool and he was sorry. There was
no oral or written apology to the Chiefs
of Staff. After the Vice Chief of Naval
Staff reported the matter to Admiral
Bhagwat, the latter sent a note on file
to the Defence Minister, Mr Mulayam
Yadav, with a copy to the Army Chief,
Gen. VP Malik, and Air Chief Mardshal SK
Sareen. This file was also conveniently
lost between March 15 and 20, 1998.
The matter
was taken up with Mr George Fernandes
after he took over as the Defence
Minister. Admiral Bhagwat apprised the
new Minister of the matter. Mr Fernandes
was quote surprised and promised to get
the necessary file.
Admiral
Bhagwat says in his book: "Again,
nothing happened. So, we prepared another
file and I addressed a fresh note to him
on file, and requested him to initiate
the necessary inquiry and take action as
deemed appropriate. Two more reminders;
yet there was no acknowledgement, no
reply, no action…. Mr D Lahiri was a
senior officer of the Ministry, at an
altogether higher plane, how could he be
touched? Times have changed. Vice Admiral
Soman had Harish Sarin, ICS, transferred
out of the Ministry on an oral complaint
to the Defence Minister. So did General
SF Rodrigues’ complaint result in
the transfer of Mr NN Vohra in
1993".
(To be continued)
|
 |
Solving
Kashmir issue
By
Krishen K Khosa
Although
it may be a little late in the day to
react to the Prime Minister's musings
which he wrote down at the dawn of the
new year, the issues on which he has
reflected at length remain as current and
topical as they have been ever since
their birth. The first one to have
appeared on the Indian scene shares its
date of birth with that of the modern
Indian independent State and has been
plaguing the national scene continuously
until date with no immediate end in
sight. Yes, the Kashmir imbroglio has
been getting murkier and murkier with
each passing year with the dimension of
the problem having undergone a drastic
change in the mean time.
What
started as an essentially bilateral issue
between two neighbouring countries which
would still have been one even now but
for the dirty machinations of the British
who after plundering this country for
well over two countries gave the
partition as a parting gift to the people
of the subcontinent, has over the last
five decades undergone a change in
character with the bilateral angle being
relegated to the backburner and instead
the twin factors of ascendance of
militant Islamic fundamentalists and the
forced migration of a sizable chunk of
the Kashmiri inhabitants having emerged
as the focal points of the Kashmir issue.
All this
goes to show that any future efforts at
trying to resolve the Kashmir problem
have to essentially take into account the
above noted factors and therefore the
measures taken heretofore in this respect
albeit unsuccessfully have also got to be
reviewed and modified. This is
essentially what the Prime Minister has
mused upon and I at once agree with him
but only up to this point His idea that
bold new initiatives shall have to be
taken to find a solution to this vexed
issue is a most timely thought and needs
to be propagated and followed vigorously.
At the same time care has to be taken not
to embark upon any such path, which might
lead us to another fifty years of futile
search for a satisfactory solution.
As a
prelude to launching any new initiative
it would be advisable to introspect upon
the basic causes that have been
instrumental in eluding a solution till
now. This would make it easier to chalk
out a fresh strategy without the
apprehension of repeating the past
mistakes. Time and again most of these
factors have been identified and
enumerated by many an analyst in a
detailed manner as follows. First and
foremost the declaration of a voluntary
and unilateral ceasefire by India even
when all the legally acquired territory
of Jammu & Kashmir was yet to be
fully liberated from the clutches of the
fleeing raiders in 1948, second the
reference to the United Nations
Organization of an essentially internal
issue, third squandering away the gains
after each Indo-Pak war when India was in
a strong position to force a lasting
solution and finally to continue to have
a reactive approach rather than a
proactive one are the major factors that
have inadvertently allowed the entire
dimension of the problem to undergo a
drastic change.
Having
identified the above it is quite clear
that any bold new initiatives, which need
to be taken, now have to be aimed at
ruling out the possibility of repeating
these mistakes of the past and at the
same time catching the bull by the horns
to tackle the new factors that have
emerged in these fifty years.
The peace
process that the Prime Minister had
initiated with the bus ride to Lahore to
sign a declaration and thereafter
offering a unilateral ceasefire against
those who continue to perpetrate violence
might have had a chance of success had
not the very nature of the problem
undergone a change as stated above.
With the
ISI and the Taliban functioning
independently of the Pakistan Government,
a permanent solution can now never be
found, neither by offering peace
proposals to the Pakistan Government nor
by sitting across the table for
negotiations. Such a move would result in
nothing else but the continuous
endangerment to the lives of innocent
civilians day in and day out. Instead
tackling the Taliban first and foremost
has become most imperative in order to
find a solution to this vexed problem.
Pushing the Durand Line back to its
original place has become a prerequisite
before any talks or negotiations with
Pakistan can become meaningful. Unless
this is done, we will yet again be
treating the symptoms of the malady
rather than its root cause.
To achieve
this a twin pronged approach is required,
firstly by ensuring that there is no
let-up in the offensive against militants
so that they are kept on the run all the
time and secondly by preparing for a
major offensive against the training
camps located across the Line of Control
over the next few years. Since a colossal
amount would be required to launch a
cross border offensive no hurry in its
launching should be shown even if
adequate preparation takes a little
longer. Unless this is done. Any
possibility of finding a viable solution
shall remain within the realms of fiction
alone.
It is also
to be ensured that the large Diaspora of
the displaced population is adequately
rehabilitated temporarily so as to
prevent its disintegration so that once
things normalize, return to their native
land can remain a distinct possibility.
The policy
of drift pursued by the Government of
India over the last five decades and the
apparent helplessness of the might of the
State does not behove a great country
like India, which is standing on the
threshold of recognition as a super
power.
|
|
How
relevant is the unilateral cease-fire
By B K Suri
Senseless massacre
of six persons belonging to minority Sikh
community in down town Srinagar during February,
2001, followed by a well-planned assault on a
highly guarded Police Control Room at Srinagar
which left six cops dead, and brutal murder of 15
members of 3 nomad families in Rajouri district
do not bode well for the peace process set
rolling by the unilateral cease-fire declared by
India. Even subsequent to the third extention of
cease-fire, violence has continued unabated in
J&K During the last week only, five persons
including an Army Colonel were killed in an
ambush at Anantnag. Close on its heels came
another big strike at Manjakote in Rajouri
district, which took a toll of 18 personnel
including 16 police cops. Till date, the killing
spree continues unrestrained, engulfing in its
fold hapless citizens and security personnel
alike. Evidently, these assaults are aimed at
scuttling the peace initiatives started by India.
Notably, the
terrorists, as ever, are relentless. They are
ruthless in their murderous pursuits and make no
bones about their target whether lost in sleep or
engaged in worship. Mayhem and murder is their
trait and now a trade. It seems that while
committing heinous crimes there is no pricking of
conscience as it is deeply ingrained in them that
it is 'Jehad' all the way, and all these
massacres are in the name of God. But they are
quite oblivious of the fact that God loves those
who love His creation. No religion preaches
killing the innocents, but they are devoid of
this virtue. They are so because they have been
indoctrinated as such. They comprehend only the
language of grenades, rockets, AK 47 et al.
Against this security scenario, one fails to
understand how safe one is, in the valley or
elsewhere in the State, particularly when the
power apparatus is woefully defensive.
It transpires that
militants' activities are mainly centered round
two objectives-subverting the peace process
initiated by the unilateral cease-fire and thus
keeping the issue on boil and secondly, ethnic
cleansing from the valley/State. It hardly merits
mention that the militant outfits under the
umbrella of Pak-based Muthida Jehad Council of 14
terrorist outfits, rejected the cease-fire
outright and vowed to continue the carnage in
J&K and elsewhere in the country. Minorities
being the soft targets are evidently, the most
vulnerable. Besides, the attacks on the minority
community would, in any case, invite instant
reaction in Jammu and might provoke communal
tension and even riots, which precisely, is the
game plan of its Pak mentors across the border.
In the instant case, the hartals and
demonstrations in Jammu, Udhampur and Kathua are
reflective of the sense of outrage over these
killings. Nonetheless, it is imperative that the
designs and machinations of the terrorists, aided
and abetted by Pakistan, are understood and
communal harmony maintained despite provocations,
in all the regions of the state. We must not be
provoked in to a panic reaction at these sad and
outrageous acts because, in any case, it would
prove counter productive. Communal harmony is the
need of the hour in the present day security
scenario in the country.
Secondly, ethnic
cleansing from the valley/State is the core issue
which is well planned by the adversary. Starting
from the Valley and then descending down into the
plain areas via the high mountains and the hill
slopes, apparently, is a part of their strategy.
Killing and terrorizing the minorities in these
remote hilly areas and thus forcing migration,
fits well in their plan of action. As a sequel,
thousands of people from remote regions of Doda,
Udhampur and Rajouri have migrated to after
places. But for the valiant efforts of our
security forces, the exodus would have been much
higher. Kashmiri pandits, who comprise an
educated community, and who enjoyed a sizeable
share in the Govt jobs, were the first casualty
in the process of ethnic cleansing from the
valley. Once that is over, they have directed
their guns at Sikhs and others belonging to
minority community. Several villages located in
remote hilly areas in Doda, Rajouri and Poonch
districts are being systematically cleared of
non-Muslims through wanton killing and
terrorising, culminating in migration. At this
rate, it would not be in too distant future when
the remaining three districts of Jammu, Udhampur,
and Kathua would be targeted in a big way. But
sadly enough, alarm bells of impending
catastrophe have still not rung in the corridors
of power in the State/Centre. It transpires that
the perceptions of powers that be', with regards
to Jammu & Kashmir are highly misguided and
misplaced and not based on graind realities. Even
till date there are no specifics to send back
over three lac Kashmiri Hindus to their
respective homes in the Valley. It is a sad
commentary on our political dispensation that
such a sizable number of Kashmiri minorities have
become refugee in their own country. Sending
these migrants back would warrant safety and
security and their safety back home is no where
in sight. As on now, the issue is virtually
relegated to a back seat irrespective of the
sentiments of aspirations of this community and
they continue to live in abject misery.
It transpires that
the present dispensation has no definite policy
on Kashmir. Their response to every eruption of
hostility, burst of a grenade or boom of AK 47 is
akin to a fire fighting operation. Instead of
striking at the root of the problem, which would
involve smashing of training centres across LOC,
from where these terrorists emanate, they believe
in the deployment of more and more of military
and paramilitary forces to control a particular
situation as if it is the panacea of all the
militancy-related ills. In the process, more and
more of militants keep on sneaking in and more
and more of deployments are made. This is how the
authorities have been responding to the
terrorists' assaults during the last eleven years
Surprisingly, when our military and para military
forces are being targeted and attacked , when our
police cops have been issued an edict to 'quit or
face the worst', by all reckoning it is an
undeclared war, and in war we are well within our
right to destroy all those training camps that
generate these highly trained and motivated
terrorists, to cause mayhem and murders in our
territory. We have lost many a valiant jawan and
officers belonging to military, para military and
police force, engaged in anti militancy drives,
without any substantial progress. That itself
speaks of the lacunae of our policy to curb and
control militancy.
More so, issues
pertaining to intelligence inputs, unrestricted
flow of funds to the anti national organisations,
madarassas etc, have not been addressed with the
urgency and promptitude as warranted by the spurt
in militancy. Otherwise too, it is immensely
demoralizing to be always at the receiving end
for a country of India's size and magnitude. In
effect, a pro-active policy would involve
liberation of Pak-occupied Kashmir. But this
issue has seldom deliberated upon and hardly been
raised in any international forum.
Secondly, the
present dispensation has been observed to be
highly defensive and their pusillanimous attitude
has emboldened the adversary to expand their
network. India has been termed as a soft state
and Pakistan opines that they can get away with
what ever they do. It is because of this soft
pedaling that the ISI had the temerity to spread
its tentacles in India in a big way. Blasts in
the Red Fort on December 23, 2k is a sad
rejoinder. More so, it has been oft repeated by
Pakistan that she would continue to provide
material, moral and diplomatic support to these
militant outfits for liberation of Kashmir.
Against this security scenario, repeated
extensions of unilateral cease-fire by the
present dispensation become highly questionable.
It might have won us international recognition,
but at astronomical costs at home. We are making
our security personnel tackle the ruthless enemy
with lots of restraints and constraints. As a
sequel, casualty figures, both, civilian and
security have been mounting ever since the
unilateral cease fire, was declared. It has also
generally been felt that for internal duty, the
security forces need be called only for a
specific objective, give clear directions and
then political leadership should keep their hands
off till the goal is realised. But reportedly,
there is a lot of interference and lack of clear
and definite directions and the problem lingers
on. More so, in this one-sided cease-fire the
militants got a reprieve to regroup and
consolidate their position. Thus, good work done
by our forces would in any case get negated.
As on now, Govt's
wooing the Hurriyat conference leadership, seems
to be an exercise in futility, particularly when
they have no control over the militant outfits.
Statements emanating from the highest echelon of
administration that India is ready to talk to any
body on Kashmir, is also seen as misplaced
magnamity. A Govt can only hold talks with a
representative organisation and not to a sundry
array of terrorist groups, lest it undermines its
own stature. In effect, vacillations on the part
of Centre have also emboldened the State
leadership to neglect and ignore Jammu and Ladakh
in a big way. There is unrest and discontent in
these two regions. Hartals and Bandhs are the
order of the day because of gross discrimination.
But surprisingly, centre is a mute spectator to
such like situation.
In any case, India
must abjure the weak-kneed policy. She must say
good bye to soft pedaling. Peace can not be
purchased but can only be established with mutual
good will. 'Turning the other cheek' is no longer
relevant in the prevailing war like situation.
After all, democratic niceties can not be upheld
in the face of organised subversion. It is the
need of the hour that India talks tough and if
her warnings remain unheeded, she must act tough
lest the credibility of the 'powers that be' as
the custodian of this vast country is severely
jeopardised.
|
The
world of George Bush
By Satyabrata Rai Chowdhuri
President George W
Bush, with air strikes near Baghdad on February
16, showed that he plans to get tough with the
so-called 'rogue' states and that the military
component of his foreign policy will be prominent
in a hard-nosed stratagem towards these States.
Many analysts say former President Bill Clinton
would have reacted the same way. It is,
therefore, quite clear that the new
administration intends to be much more brawny to
regimes it regards threats to the security of the
US or its allies. Thus, the 43rd President of the
US seems to have made out a very clear view of
how the world should be run. It should be run not
without direct US involvement, if there are
compelling reasons for it. The US must keep a
finger on the remote control button.
This stratagem
became conspicuous when, on February 16, the US
Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, clubed
India with Iraq, Iran and North Korea and accused
New Delhi of being a proliferator in the
technologies of mass destruction. Worse, he has
openly said that the US is threatened by such
proliferation of missiles and other weapons. The
allegation is the most serious against India's
arms policies since Indira Gandhi ordered the
Pokhran nuclear tests 27 years ago. The charge
came only days after Rumsfeld met national
security adviser Brajesh Mishra in Germany for
the first high-level meeting with the Vajpayee
Government.
The US Secretary
of Defence levelled these charges in a highly
respected TV programme News Hour with Jim Lehrer.
His unexpected outburst came when Lehrer asked
him why Russia was objecting to the Bush
administration's pet project for National Missile
Defence. Let us be very honest about what we are
doing. Russia is an active proliferator; they are
part of the problem, ''he told Lehrer. ''They are
selling and assisting countries like Iran, North
Korea and India with these technologies which are
threatening other people, including the US and
western Europe.
Only a few days
before Rumsfeld made these comments, India had
bent backwards to please the US by refusing to
join China in condemning the proposed missile
shield. The clubbing of New Delhi with Iran, Iraq
and North Korea renegade states in the eyes of
Washington also show that South Block's
calculations about bonhomie with the Bush
administration are misplaced.
More significant,
Rumsfeld's remarks came as a four-member
Congressional team left for India after
announcing its intention to play a role in
settling the Kashmir dispute. They also coincided
with report that New Delhi and Moscow were close
to finalising a deal to lease a Russian nuclear
submarine for the Indian Navy. The charges also
came at a time when military contacts between
India and the US are at their height and an
American naval ship is in Mumbai for the
International Fleet Review. Rumsfeld's comments
are, therefore a reminder to New Delhi that
relations with the Bush team will strictly be on
American terms and not the other way round.
Though President
Bush may not know the names of world leaders and
may find their affairs too messy, he is not
running away from the world. He want to manage
the US and the world affairs more like the
chairman of a board of directors of a complex and
the necessary power to do the job, and be held
accountable. Unlike his father, he is not a world
statesman with a grand vision of humanity. He is
a rancher with a management degree. The Bush team
believes that the world is a dangerous place and
the US has to prepare not only for the eruption
of seemingly random though well planned attacks
from the likes of Osama bin Laden; but also from
emerging cyber-terrorism and the possibilities of
footloose militant groups and hostile nations
acquiring and developing missiles to strike the
US and its allies multinational corporation,
where every manager should have clearly defined
responsibility. Missile development is becoming a
national defence priority in many parts of the
world, North Korea and Pakistan may be
financially bankrupt but they are capable of
developing long-range missiles, with the help of
China and technology stolen from the erstwhile
Soviet Union, to threaten any country.
In this new
international environment of uncertainties, where
local conflicts and nuclear-tipped missiles are
proliferating, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
of 1972 with the Russians and Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty in general have no place. Nor does
China fit into this reformulated international
equation as America's 'strategic partner', an
irresponsible diplomatic expression used by the
former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to
kowtow to the Chinese leadership in pursuit of
the policy of engagement. President Bush would
have never apologised to the Chinese as abjectly
as President Clinton did after the accidential
bombing of the Chinese Embassy building in
Belgrade, Yugoslavia, during the allied bombing
attack in 1999. In this narrowly focused
worldview, the proposed National Defence system
falls into its proper place.
The Bush team has
no illusion about China's ambititions to diminish
the US position in Asia and how it uses North
Korea and Pakistan to advance its regional and
international interests. India has been paying
the price of the Chinese intrusiveness and its
ambition to extend its influence into the Indian
sub-continent. Therefore, India has to build up
its own national missile defence system and
minimum nuclear deterrent. The Bush team also
believes that the pursuit of human rights cannot
be the corner stone of the US foreign policy.
Compassionate conservatism is for domestic
consumption, not a sufficient reason for getting
into every nook and corner of the world to engage
in nation-building a view George W Bush the
candidate expressed repeatedly during the
campaign. American interests should take
precedence over American values in foreign policy
and if the struggling humanity gets served
indirectly, or as an unintended consequence of
America's pursuit of its national interests, that
is good. So believes Ms Condoleeza Rice, the
National Security Advisor.
Ms Rice does not
believe in humanitarianism as a goal of foreign
policy. How strange that a woman politician of
Afro-American origin should turn her back on
compassion. She seems to be a woman of the ice
age, not cyber age. Well, the USA should not be
taken as unit of the International Red Cross or
the Salvation Army.
But how would
President Bush persuade the American public, when
he has neither the popular mandate nor a strong
voice in Congress, that it would be all right
with the world if the US pursued its own narrow
national interests and gave up it traditional
role as a keeper of the flame of freedom and
human rigthts? How would the Americans live with
themselves when the 24-hours news cycle, the age
of the Internet, the global dynamics of
interdependence, brings tragedies to their
laptops and living rooms? Compassionate
conservation at home and callousness abroad will
create a terrible feeling of discomfort, a
national sense of shame and embarrassment and
guilt.
PTI Feature
|
|
| |
|
|
