Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

Our colourful political characters

By Mukund Singh Jamwal
With an occasional hiccup here and there, the great Indian polity has stumbled through its golden jubilee, without of course, ....more

For want of a shoe,
a party was lost

By M J Akbar
A K Antony has enough personal credibility to survive the serious dent made by his alleged inquiry report on the disaster...more

Countering Western
Threats to Asian Security

By Avinash Shirodkar
Moscow and Beijing have joined hands to thwart the US move for a unipolar world order. ....more

EDITORIAL

FAROOQ'S STAND

Dr Farooq Abdullah during his press meet has indicated that All Party Hurriyat Conference leaders are going to be tried for sedition very soon. Necessary evidence is available and charges being compiled. Some months back he had threatened sending these anti-national elements to languish in Jodhpur jail under Public Safety Act. He stood by his word and 25 APHC leaders are detained there for two years. This time round, he moves a step forward by indicating his resolve to book them on substantial charges of treason and sedition under the laws of the land. One expects that there will be no further dilly-dallying on this count and necessary action initiated against those who brought havoc in every Kashmiri home by implementing Pakistan brief in letter and spirit.

It may be mentioned that Hurriyat was formed in 1993 and all these years of turbulence and mayhem they have been given too much rope to make the people hellish. Its track record does not reveal even a single good thing done to preserve cause of Kashmiriat or adopt any pro-people stance. It has consistently been engaging in all types of illegal acts including spreading disharmony, working against the state and sabotaging the national effort for restoration of normalcy. They have received hundreds of crores from various Pan-Islamic countries through dubious channels and funnelled the same for self-aggrandisement and partly in pumping such money into militants activities. Enough of evidence is available for violation of FERA act and the state government has failed to pursue such charges due to lack of political will. When even newspaper tycoons like the Jains can be put behind bars for such Forex violations, how comes that Hurriyat leaders remain scot free. Even in the latest press meet Farooq has not mentioned a word about such charges being framed against the violators of the law of the land.

Worst part of the game relates to funding militancy with such illegal funds received from Pakistan and other Pan-Islamic countries. This tantamounts to lending legitimacy to militancy and sets very bad precedence. No other country in the world would ever have given so much latitude to known culprits. It is safe to surmise that insurgency persists recklessly despite heavy deployment of armed forces and augmentation in police force precisely because there is overt and covert help flowing to the militants from local sympathisers, harbourers and abetters. Hurriyat incidentaly provides all such help to terrorists because many of its constituents are indeed militant outfits. The fact that it funnels money also for sustaining militancy as stated by Chief Minister is proof enough that such leaders and constituents deserve no more latitude. Farooq also informs that he allowed them to say what they liked and do as they wished. This is anti-thesis of governance. You can't allow such proven hostile and anti-national elements so much latitude asto indulge openly in treason against the state and the nation. To that extent state government cannot escape the charge of having ignored something that was visible to the naked eye. It is thus quite heartening to note that there is change of heart and Chief Minister has decided to call a spade a spade. It is appropriate to mention that Pakistan from whom Hurriyat derives inspiration, material and financial help and other support to indulge in seditious acts against India has booked its own Prime Minister on treason charges punishable with death penality. If you compare those charges framed against Nawaz Sharif and the outrageous acts in which Hurriyat leaders have indulged all these years, it is certain that soft-pedalling exceeded all reasonable limits. It is this soft-pedal syndrome that emboldened them to engage in poll-boycott drive. Rest is recent history. The million dollar question that crosses one's mind is why such syndrome remains pre-dominant when action ought to be the password.

Farooq's latest stand deserves appreciation on another count. Keeping such of the anti-national leadership of Hurriyat detained under PSA for two years makes mockery of the Criminal Penal Code which has enough of provision to deal with treason cases. That state has all the evidence is another reason to justify expeditious action on booking them all on substantial charges. Much more than that it is equally appropriate to suggest that Hurriyat itself should be outlawed because all its constituents and leaders are none but outlaws as manifested by their anti-state and anti-people acts while subserving the interests of the hostile neighbour Pakistan. Substantial charges would also humble human rights bodies and fine-tune international opinion in India's favour. This is the most opportune time when USA says that Laden's brand of terrorists are busy entrenching in Kashmir and Chechenya besides threatening American citizens worldwide. The seriousness of insurgency can be best gauged when Chief Minister intends deploying helicopters to flush out the militants from otherwise inaccessible areas. Helicopters would become more effective only when Hurriyat leaders and the organisation is disabled in its perpetuity under the law of the land.

C T B T

The debate on CTBT goes on and on. Whether India should sign it or not remains a million dollar question. Prime Minister says that he is endeavouring for a consensus by inter-acting with all national parties. Jaswant Singh says that lifting of ban on entities list of 51 companies in India by USA is not related to signing of CTBT or any hidden agenda thereof. Congress Party has asked for a white paper from the government on Talbott-Jaswant talks relating to signing of CTBT. Leader of Samajwadi Party who talked to Prime Minister is quite blunt that India must in no case sign the treaty unless two conditions are fulfilled which also include commitment for total disarmament within stipulated time frame. Only leftist parties are loathsome to India becoming nuclear and they are for non-nuclear India and to that extent any treaty that keeps India away from nuclear weapon systems or tests is welcome to them. But Chander Babu Naidu is more blunt when he says that Communist Parties are obsolete and what they do or say is irrelevant . It is also to be recorded that CTBT is the follow up of NPT signed in 1973. It is worth noting that NPT had a specific objective that of total nuclear disarmament. Barring this objective everything else is sacred to its singatories i.e. P-5 countries who have exclusive nuclear rights and the right to prevent further proliferation. It is also to be recorded that both China and America have not ratified the CTBT yet. They therefore lose the right to ask others to sign it. Out of 146 countries who have signed it only 43 have ratified it so far. It is therefore quite logical and that also happens to be the overall consensus that there is neither any need nor urgency to bind the nation at this juncture when it has to move fast in its nuclear weapon systems development. India should sign it only when P5s recognise this country as the Super Power and there is time-bound commitment for total nuclear disarmament. Mulayam Singh's prescription deserves to be adopted as India's official line.

Our colourful political characters

By Mukund Singh Jamwal

With an occasional hiccup here and there, the great Indian polity has stumbled through its golden jubilee, without of course, acquiring the attendant maturity. Naughty naughty kids as they are, our politicians refuse to grow up. Like our cricket team, which, despite an abundance of talent, keeps losing or even while winning, making a rather heavy weather of it, our political class has been routinely digging potholes in the path of democracy and then tumbling in and out of them with predictable frequency.

The antics of politicians have frustrated the common man, while providing enough masala at the same time. Blessed souls that we are, we have the unique distinction of being the audience of the longest running soap opera, replete with all the melodrama, full of real life and not reel life characters, putting to shame even the wildest imagined caricatures of their ilk in a Bollywood potboiler. Having lost out in the race, the reel life has now opted to follow the real life, hence we now have characters based on "Laloo Yadav or a variety of history sheeter dons, masquerading as important political leaders. This, if nothing else, is a creditable achievement of such of our colourful political characters, who have kept us enthralled for the past fifty years and on the eve of the onset of the new millenium, certainly deserving of a tribute, albeit tongue in cheek, from this grateful nation.

The spectrum is infinite and the space rather finite. Within the limited space it is not possible to do justice to all the deserving personalities hence errors and omissions are regretted. At the same time, one must proclaim that all the characters in this article are fictional and any similarity with persons living or dead may be rather coincidental. The article does not in any case intend to hurt the feelings of any individual.

Taking off from Pandit Nehru's famous speech at midnight of 15th Aug. 1947 about India's date with destiny, the country embarked on a rather shaky-even to this day-journey towards its destiny. An autocrat to the core, Indian's first Prime Minister deserves credit for encouraging evolvement of democratic institutions and traditions in the country. At the same time he also must be given credit for saddling us with Kashmir problem for ever, more out of his pique against Maharaja Hari Singh rather than his idealism. Pt Nehru was in love with his image of a world statesman and according to his biographer, preferred to go on international jaunts, whenever the country was beset with a crisis. While deserving credit for development of indigenous industry and encouragement to science and technology, he also must bear responsibility for the emergence of licence permit raj by imposing state control ever virtually every thing, giving filip to institutionalized corruption.

Amongst Nehru's close colleagues there was the arrogant Krishan Menon, the proverbial Nero of the Great fire of Rome fame, who had a rather ignominious fall as defence minister. Considered a genius otherwise, he, while creating a record in delivering the longest monologue in the U.N. over Kashmir, apparently sounded like a lullaby singer and put his audience to sleep, considering the verdict that they passed in the shape of U.N resolution on Kashmir. As defence minister, he considered himself a cut above the Generals-mere mortals-whom he preferred to insult and was the main architect of the General Thinmaya resignation episode. He has an assured and prominent spot in the galaxy of guilty men of 1962 debacle.

Another colourful character of Nehru's cabinet was Morarji Desai, the prohibition and urine therapy specialist, who subsequently became Prime Minister in the short lived Janata Party govt in 1977/78. He could not find any takers for his urine therapy, even though to prove its veracity, the old man managed to stay alive till the ripe old age of one hundred years, remaining his old defiant and arrogant self till the end. The die hard prohibitionist of the "Hum nahin sudhrenge" variety, that he was, he refused to learn any lessons from the experience gained during his stint as Chief Minister of greater Bombay-before the reorganization of states-and tried to impose total prohibition in the country as Prime Minister. He also had the distinction of being blunt in his Press conferences and giving out exact time frame for eradication of problems e.g. "the unemployment problem would be over in ten years" etc etc.

Then there was Lal Bahadur Shastri, the answer to oft. repeated question, "After Nehru who ?", who had a short lived tenure as Prime Minister and an equally short lived bravado. He let his Generals fight the war with Pakistan imposed by that country on us in 1965. However, he could not sustain that bravado-foreign to his nature as it was-for long and soon capitulated on the negotiating table what the country's army had won on the battle field. Overcome, probably by the magnitude of the shock over what he had done, the simple and poor man collapsed of heart attack and died.

Indira Gandhi's finest hour was the 1971 war with Pakistan and the consequent carving out of Bangladesh, from the erstwhile East Pakistan, while her worst was the declaration of emergency in 1975. In between she abolished princely privy purses, embarked on a nationalization spree of free enterprise and gave the country the famous slogan ‘garibi hatao’. Her love for her son, Sanjay Gandhi prompted her to stunt the growth of any challenge to him in the form of strong and capable leaders in the Congress and this led to the emanciation of the party to a great extent. She also had the distinction of being called ‘the only man in her cabinet’. Her resilience and reemergence in 1980, after a near total eclipse in 1977/78 was remarkable. Her miscalculation in ordering ‘Operation Bluster’ in 1984 and her complete faith in her security guards led to her assassination in the same year. All in all, she packed quite a punch in whatever she did throughout the period she was on the scene to have been voted as the greatest woman of the millennium in the recent BBC online poll.

A word about these online polls of BBC regarding personalities of the millennium. With the second largest population in the world and a majority of them being avid listeners of the ‘Beeb’, and hence the voters, the Indians threaten to walk away with most of the personalities of the millennium titles as evidenced by the title of the actor of the millennium already having gone to Amitabh Bachan. The BBC, therefore needs to have a rethink on its mode of polling or maybe in selecting the representative sample out of its voters.

Of Indira Gandhi's two sons, Sanjay made politics his profession, while Rajiv preferred flying. However, while transgressing in each other's domain, both encountered rather unfortunate demise.

The credit for being amongst the pioneers of those introducing raw humor in politics goes to Raj Narain, the ‘gaint killer’, who defeated Indira Gandhi in 1978. This enabled the man to shave off his beard which otherwise threatened its entry into Guinness book of records in the longest category as he had vowed never to shave this ‘Guru Dronacharya’ trademark until he had defeated Indira Gandhi. He was prompt in proclaiming himself as Hanuman to Morarji Desai's Ram and was even prompter in discovering a new Ram in Charan Singh and dumping Morarji Desai as the incarnation of Ravan himself.

Of all the political parties, the Janata Dal, a party with the inherent characteristics of atomicity i.e. the state of being composed of atoms-which keep splitting - has thrown up the maximum variety of colourful personalities, starting with V.P. Singh, the self styled Social Reformer, sometimes also referred to as ‘Bhishm Pitamah’, of Janata Dal. A politician without any confirmed vote bank, he sought to acquire roots by drowsing the unsuspecting OBC's with the social upliftment pill. With an eye on the votes, he adopted the ‘instant votes technique’, by unleashing the Mandal gene of reservations, rather than embark upon the emancipation of the hapless people from grass root level onwards a long and tedious process, hence negative in vote value.

Amongst the contemporary politicians, Laloo Prasad Yadav takes the cake for spawning countless clones in Bollywood fantasies as well as on the tube, and is certainly a fore runner for the most colourful politician of the millennium title. After (mis) governing Bihar in his first term as CM, he made one of the wildest Bollywood fantasies of the eightees called, "Aaj Ka MLA - Ram Avtar" in which the CM's barber is installed as CM to keep the hold of the latter intact - come true, during his second term. When faced with fodder scam scandal, he plucked his own wife from the kitchen and installed her as the CM.

Another interesting personality is Maulana Mulayam Singh Yadav, whose name - Mulayam - is rather a misnomer. This self appointed guardian of minorities had grand visions of Prime Ministership, but now apparently seems resigned to his own turf of U.P.

A literati and linguist, Narsimha Rao of the pouting lips and ‘Main chup Rahoonga’ fame also had his days - eeks - years and full five at that, as Prime Minister. Last heard, he was writing a book entitled, "Mechanisms of transforming a minority government into majority", with a sequel, "How to govern while not governing".

Another Prime Minister, the humble farmer, Deve Gowda, son of the soil, who speaks only in english-as opposed to Italian Sonia Gandhi, who speaks or rather reads in Hindi and gets criticized - could sleep anywhere, be it in a seminar, the perliament or may be even in office, thereby lending credence to the dictum that hunger and sleep can overpower the human of the species even at the gallows.

Constraints of space prohibit detailing the exploits of a number of personalities like comrade Surjit Singh, decoit queen Phoolan Devi, Manu virodhi duo of Mayawati and Kanshi Ram, dalit champion Ram Vilas Paswan etc etc, whose political vocabulary and vision is confined to abstract words like ‘social justice’ and ‘communalism’ only. However credit is definitely due collectively to whole of our political class in creating ‘holy cows’ like Indian constitution, Article 370, Reservations and Mahatma Gandhi etc etc, discussion about whom is sacrilegious and an out and out blasphemy.

Credit is also due to the whole lot of us as a nation of hero worshippers, to have facilitated our politicians in replacing one kind of hereditary kingship with a rather novel version of the same, which is ordained democratically. The democracy in our country could be aptly defined as a government of the politicians, by the politicians and for the politicians. With the nation overflowing with servile sentiments, the ‘democratic Kingship’ or ‘Autocratic democracy’, i.e. the Indian version of the democracy is very well alive and kicking in India and to hell with the world. ‘Vivere la democratia’, long live democracy.
(The author is a former Lt. Colonel).

For want of a shoe, a party was lost

By M J Akbar

A K Antony has enough personal credibility to survive the serious dent made by his alleged inquiry report on the disaster the Congress suffered in the last general elections. The only excuse he can offer is a private one : that this was a command performance. He knows that his reputation has been used to deflect criticism from the Congress president, Sonia Gandhi. Any inquiry that slurs over the foreign origin of Mrs Gandhi and the mismanagement of the Kargil war is an exercise in self-denial. The first factor is an accident for which Mrs Gandhi cannot be blamed; she can hardly change her birthplace. The second is more serious, because the party paid the price for poor leadership. The Congress has come to terms with the foreign origin. The public reaction to any comment is defiance, and the private one is a shrug. Congressmen believe that this will not be an insurmountable factor if the other circumstances turn favourable. They may even be right. Who knows ?

What every Congressman does know, whether he admits it publicly or not, is that Kargil was bungled by Sonia Gandhi. What is often less clear is how. Something went wrong, but precisely what ? What else could she have done ? Was it wrong to be critical of the government ? After all, an Opposition is perfectly within its rights to be critical. Did the mistake lie in the timing ? Should she have been supportive ? But that is a double bind : you cannot shift from praise to allegation suddenly.

The dilemma is more subtle than that.

The first problem in the Congress response to Kargil was uncertainty. At this point, Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin and her role as Opposition leader overlapped, and both were overwhelmed by her inexperience in the management of the political discourse of our country.

Sonia Gandhi started from one correct premise. She was convinced that the real issue in the Kargil conflict was the misjudgment on the part of the BJP government and specially the Prime Minister, who trusted Nawaz Sharif perhaps not too much but certainly too well. Atal Behari Vajpayee was wrong in confusing the goodwill he encountered from Nawaz Sharif with the whole spectrum of Pakistan's Kashmir policy. He was caught - literally - off guard, and India paid a price.

In political terms this was an asset for the Opposition. The Congress squandered it.

Sonia Gandhi did not know how to communicate this to the people. She may have understood her advantage, but she did not have the language for a dialogue with the voter. She was also uncertain about how her foreign origin would echo subliminally in time of war, particularly an unexpected war. She did not know enough Hindi to say what she meant, and so reduced herself to a few, irritating, parrot-sentences on an issue that demanded consideration, complexity and command of oratory.

Contrast this with the political management displayed by Vajpayee. In the first week of the conflict he looked and sounded stunned; after our planes were shot down, there was defeat streaked across the face of government. Then, with impressive assurance, the Prime Minister picked himself up, picked his government up, took the lead with the nodal agencies conducting the war, and began talking to the people without whose wholehearted support he could not have achieved what he did. He eluded a suicidal ditch by accepting that there was intelligence failure, but did not labour on it. As the Congress began to carp, he moved briskly to the task of winning the war and providing the inspirational leadership that could mobilise public support. Sonia Gandhi, unable to communicate, handed the responsibility to spokesmen who were too busy with their own concerns to address the people of India. Even the jawan on the front became convinced that the Congress was trying to exploit a national crisis for cheap political returns. Vajpayee, in contrast, walked into the consciousness of a people whose mood, whose needs, whose emotions he instinctively understood. It was a no-contest.

Sonia Gandhi made an even bigger mistake, for which she had even less of an excuse. She made Kargil into a confrontation between the Congress and the BJP. This was translated by the electorate through the code of simple logic : this woman has been trying to bring down the Vajpayee government by hook or by crook (by crook more than hook, actually), and, having failed to produce that "272" dream, she is trying to use Kargil to defeat the Prime Minister in the next elections. The Prime Minister is trying to save India; the Congress is trying to make Sonia Gandhi Prime Minister. End of story for Congress.

Could this have been handled differently without congratulating the government every day ? Yes. The first need was to think through the position that the party took. There is a first principle in such matters. In a national emergency, the nation becomes more important than anything else. The nation matters more than party, and any leader who attempts to place his or her interest above that of the nation, or even attempts to exploit a national crisis for partisan and political ends, is doomed. The Congress, and Sonia Gandhi, should have adopted a careful stance and explained their logic.

What is the logic ? The Indian National Congress is Indian first, National second and Congress third. The country was facing a serious problem, irrespective of who was to blame. The Congress therefore offers to help in the war cause, in any way that the government suggests, and wants the government to take the lead in assigning whatever responsibility it feels the party should take. This obviously cannot be at the administrative level ; but there is far more to a war effort than the warfront. The party, however, reserves its right to be critical of the government whenever it feels that such criticism will lead to beneficial national consequences; no criticism will be permitted to any Congressman in a partisan interest. The Congress flags the intelligence failure for future reference; as soon as the war is won, there must be an enquiry which makes those who were guilty accountable.

Instead, Sonia Gandhi made Kargil a quarrel between her and Vajpayee. It was a blunder.

This was not a mistake that the BJP made in 1971, once again emphasising the difference between a political party and poor advice. In 1971 Atal Behari Vajpayee led the applause for Indira Gandhi, calling her an incarnation of Durga. Sonia Gandhi, in 1999, refused to give Atal Behari Vajpayee any credit at all for Kargil !

This was astonishing, if not mean-spirited. Sonia Gandhi praised the Army for winning the war, not the government. By that yardstick the Congress should officially give all the credit for 1971 to Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw. You cannot insist that Indira Gandhi won the war in 1971 and the Army won it in 1999.

Voters measure these things on the scale of common sense. Sonia Gandhi would have risen in popular estimation if she had paid the Prime Minister the compliment that was his due. But then in 1971 Vajpayee was not thinking about replacing Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister of India. There lay the flaw in the Congress mindset. Personal ambition interfered with political judgment. The metaphor can be carried further. Vajpayee did not declare that Indira Gandhi had become a permanent Durga. When the war was over, and the national interest had been served, he got back to the business of being an Opposition leader. Soon enough there was a lot of opposing to do as the economy floundered, the trade union turned militant, social violence erupted and the government began adopting draconian measures leading up to the Emergency. When Dev Kanta Barooah called Indira Gandhi India, the Opposition laughed and was rewarded for standing by the people against the government.

That is always the key. A political party cannot succeed merely by pursuing its own interests. It has to represent the people's interests. One instance from Kargil itself. There was a moment in the war that offered a perfect opportunity to a leader with a sure foot and some sense of history. When our troops were mobilised from other parts of the country and sent into the high mountains, they were underequipped. They did not even have proper shoes. Defence Minister George Fernandes was mobbed on one of his first trips to the front by jawans asking what they should fight in.

The Congress could have intervened on behalf of the jawan, and, to make its point, offered to mobilise resources and buy the footwear from wherever it was available in the world as its contribution to the war effort. There is a historical resonance to this. India has still not forgiven the brilliant Krishna Menon for sending our jawans into the Himalayas in the war against China in canvas keds. But when George Fernandes was buying shoes, and earning gratitude, the Congress was picking holes in the Lahore agreement. There is a time and a place in which to do this; mid-conflict is not the time. Shakespeare comes to mind (and I hope I am reasonably accurate): for want of a nail a shoe was lost, for want of a shoe a horse was lost, for want of a horse a kingdom was lost.

Pakistan was not defeated in Kargil; one Pakistan effort was defeated. Pakistan continues to fight for Kashmir through its tactics of sabotage and terror in the Valley. Some reports suggest that mercenaries in huge numbers have already infiltrated the Valley and are waiting for the signal for a fresh attempt at havoc.

The Vajpayee government will have to deal with this threat with the same seriousness it showed eventually towards Kargil. If it is complacent again, the price will heavier in 2000.

President Clinton is visiting India in March and will snub Pakistan by excluding the generals from his list of hosts. Pakistan will strain to do what it can to remind him that Kashmir is a nuclear problem. There will be trouble in the Valley, and Delhi should do some serious pre-emptive thinking.

Pakistan is not yet defeated. But two politicians were defeated in Kargil. One of them was Nawaz Sharif. The other was Sonia Gandhi. In a democracy, we do not topple leaders or, thank God, arrest them. Democracy also demands some degree of honesty. A.K. Antony has done his bit for his leader. Even Sonia Gandhi will not be able to help her party if everyone refuses to understand the nature of the problem. The Antony report was meant to be a wake-up call. It has become only another sleeping pill.
(21st Century Media)