MISGIVINGS ABOUT NAMO BEGIN TO SUBSIDE IN WEST

 

B.RAMAN

The misgivings entertained till now in the West regarding the advisability of doing business as usual with  Shri Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, are showing signs of subsiding.

2.That is the message that comes out loud and clear from the visit of Mr.James Bevan, the British High Commissioner to India, to Gujarat on October 22,2012. Till now, the UK was following in the footsteps of other European Union countries in avoiding any governmental, including diplomatic, interaction with the Government of Gujarat in general and Shri Modi in particular. This policy of avoidance of interaction was a sequel to the widespread communal riots in Gujarat in 2002 and the deaths of three Muslims of British origin in the State during the riots. This policy of avoidance of Governmental interactions did not, however, stand in the way of British investors---of Gujarati as well as non-Gujarati origin---investing in Gujarat.

3. The decision to end the policy of avoidance of Governmental interactions was announced by Mr.Hugo Swire, a Minister in the British Foreign Office, some weeks ago. While announcing the decision, he said: “ This will allow us to discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest in Gujarat. We want to secure justice for the families of the British nationals who were killed in 2002.” It was in pursuance of this announcement that Mr.Bevan visited Gujarat.

4. Among those he reportedly met during his visit were Shri Modi himself, Ms. Kamala Beniwal, the Governor of the State, and Mr.Arjun Modhvadia, the President of the State Congress. Reading between the lines of the statements and observations of Mr.Bevan, two significant points are evident.

5.Firstly, the UK continues to attach importance to the question of human rights in Gujarat. Secondly, it decided to resume interactions with Shri Modi and other members of the Gujarat Government because it sees no reason to blame Shri Modi personally for the violations in 2002. The British move is a clear indication that the British Government no longer feels that alleged sins of commission and omission of Shri Modi contributed to the massacre of the Muslims in 2002, as alleged by his detractors.

6. Sections of the Muslim community of sub-continental origin in the UK have strongly protested against the British decision. It is significant that the British High Commissioner went ahead with his visit to Gujarat despite these protests. This shows that the British Government took its decision after a careful consideration of its implications and there is little likelihood of its reversing the decision under pressure from its Muslim community.

7.Mr.Bevan has also been quoted as saying that the British Government took the decision on its own without prior consultation with the  Governments of other EU countries. There is an element of surprise that Mr.Bevan undertook the visit during the current election campaign in Gujarat, but he did not seem to be worried that this could be politically misinterpreted in India.

8.The only other EU country which has officially commented on the British decision is Germany. Its officials have been quoted as saying that Germany would wait till the elections to the Gujarat Assembly are over before examining the matter.

9.It is likely that after the State elections, other EU countries may follow the British example. The ultimate attitude of the US is not yet clear.

10. If the British decision is followed by other EU countries, it will pave the way for the end of the diplomatic avoidance of Shri Modi followed by the EU countries since 2002. If the US also joins, it could lead to a collateral strengthening of the Prime Ministerial claims of Shri Modi.

11. While Shri Modi has a very good record as the Chief Minister, what stands in the way of his prime ministerial aspirations is his image as non-secular among political elements outside Gujarat and the diplomatic avoidance by the Western countries.

12.With the seeming beginning of the end of the policy of diplomatic avoidance, only the mental reservations still in India outside Gujarat about his credentials as a pan-Indian and all-community leader will stand in the way of his aspirations. But if the BJP, under his leadership, fights the next elections to the Lok Sabha  unitedly and scores a significant victory, it may be difficult for other political formations in the NDA coalition to oppose the acceptance of Shri Modi as the post-2014 P.M. ( 23-10-12)

(The  writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com  Twitter @SORBONNE75)

 

OBAMA-ROMNEY: WHO CAN BETTER MANAGE THE SAME OLD WORLD?

 

B.RAMAN

 The third and the  last US Presidential debate, a fortnight before the polling day, was held on the morning of October 23,2012 (Indian Standard Time).

2. It was supposed to have been devoted almost exclusively to foreign policy, but economic issues kept intruding into the debate quite often and sometimes in a substantive manner.

3.Even before the debate, it was known that Mr.Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger, is weak on foreign policy issues. He did remarkably well in the first debate which was totally devoted to economic and social issues. He, therefore, kept bringing in economic issues in context and out of context and President Barack Obama found himself forced to react to him in kind.

4. On purely foreign policy issues, Mr.Obama did much better than Mr.Romney, but even then he could not cross the 50 per cent mark in terms of support from the sample voters ( 48 per cent) polled by the CNN after the debate.

5. After the conclusion of all the three debates, it is evident that while Mr.Romney did overwhelmingly better than Mr.Obama in the first debate on the economic issues, Mr.Obama did better than Mr.Romney in the second  and third debates devoted to a mix of the economic and foreign policy issues----but not overwhelmingly so. The election campaign seems to be moving slowly in favour of Mr.Obama but not yet in a decisive manner.

6. The Republican camp has reasons to be disappointed by the performance of  Mr.Romney in the second and third debates. Mr.Romney is bruised, but not yet beaten beyond recovery.

7.It was evident that both the candidates came to the debate with the belief that foreign policy issues may not be crucial in influencing the as yet undecided voters on the polling day. In their calculation, it is economic issues that will influence their preferences. Both the candidates were, therefore, looking for an opportunity to bring in the state of the US economy even while debating the state of the world. As a result, the debate became a bit repetitive and stale.

8. While discussing China, one would have expected them to dwell on questions such as the rapid modernisation of the Chinese Armed Forces, the possible threats to freedom of navigation from the Chinese Navy, China’s cyber and space warfare capabilities etc.

9. Surprisingly, none of these questions were raised in a substantive manner. Instead, they focussed on China’s perceived currency manipulation, its continued violation of intellectual property rights and the threat posed to the US industries from their Chinese counterparts. This showed that while purely foreign policy issues like West Asia, Iran, and the Af-Pak  decisions preoccupy their minds, the impact of foreign policy on the state of the economy was an equally worrisome issue. The spectre of a worsening economy came in the way of the formulation of a clear vision---whether in respect of economic or foreign policies.

10. When the three debates are taken as whole, it is clear that a fortnight before the polling day, the campaign is shaping up to be a contest between the lack-lustre record of an incumbent President and the lack-lustre policy vision of his challenger.

11.This has been a lack-lustre election campaign---with no exciting vision for the future articulated by either Mr.Obama or Mr.Romney. What they were debating was not how they would usher in a brave new world, but how they would better manage the same old world that they have inherited. In the absence of exciting new ideas and new visions for the future, an incumbent even with a lack- lustre record may do better than a lack-lustre challenger, who tries to play it safe and is not a risk-taker.

12. There is no reason for us to feel disappointed that India did not figure in the debate even once. Even the European Union, Japan, South Korea, the ASEAN and Australia did not figure even in passing. This is because these are areas of future opportunities for US policy-making. Today’s debate was mostly about areas of present concern to the US.

13. This may please be read in continuation of my article of October 7,2012, titled “Romney’s Ambivalence on India” at http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.in/2012/10/romneys-ambivalence-on-india.html ( 23-10-12)

(The  writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com  Twitter @SORBONNE75)

 

BANGLADESHI IN FBI NET: A COUNTER-TERRORISM STING OPERATION

 

 

 

 

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR: PAPER NO. 769

B.RAMAN

The media has reported as follows regarding the arrest of a Bangladeshi national in the US on a charge of plotting to carry out an act of terrorism on behalf of Al Qaeda in the US:

“Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, 21, was arrested on Wednesday (October 17,2012) and faces charges of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempting to provide material support to al Qaeda.

“ Nafis appeared in a Brooklyn court on Wednesday. The criminal complaint against him said he had entered the United States in January and that he had said he was in contact with members of al Qaeda overseas. The complaint said he had travelled by van with a man to a New York warehouse where Nafis assembled what he thought was a 1,000-pound (450-kg) bomb.

“ The man he believed to be an accomplice was in fact an undercover agent working for the FBI and the explosives were not in working condition. He was arrested later in a hotel . Nafis had been a business student at North South University, a prestigious private institution in Bangladesh, before leaving to study computer science in the United States. His father, a senior vice president of a private bank, said Nafis was the more religious of his two children, but in no way a fanatic.”

2. Other details available through media briefing by the US authorities indicate as follows: “ Nafis actively sought out other Al Qaeda contacts in the US to help him carry out a terror attack. One of the individuals he had attempted to recruit was a source for the FBI.FBI agents and the New York Police closely monitored Nafis as he attempted to implement his plan.” He wanted to blow up the Federal Reserve building in New York.

3. Even though the criminal complaint filed against Nafis in the Brooklyn court alleged that he “was in contact with members of Al Qaeda overseas”, no details of these contacts have been given. All that one knows is that Nafis wanted to recruit a person in New York, who was, in fact, a source of the FBI. He reported the matter to the FBI and on their instructions introduced Nafis to an FBI operative.

4. It would seem that all the subsequent meetings of  Nafis were with this FBI operative who posed as close to Al Qaeda and that this FBI operative arranged for him what he described as explosives which, in fact, were not. All the discussions of Nafis took place not with an Al Qaeda member, but with the FBI operative who posed as an Al Qaeda facilitator. It is not clear to what extent the ideas for the attack such as the selection of the target etc came from Nafis and to what extent these were planted in his mind by the FBI operative in order to make out a case for arresting him.

5. No other arrests have been made. This would indicate that he was not part of any terrorist sleeper cell. The FBI has not produced any evidence so far to show that Nafis was already in touch with Al Qaeda when he was in Bangladesh or that he had travelled to Pakistan to meet jihadi terrorists for undergoing any training. This is not the way Al Qaeda operates----send a novice without any training to the US to procure explosives and blow up important buildings.

6. This appears to be one of those counter-terrorism sting operations being used by the FBI since 9/11 for preventing identified elements with a radical bent of mind from taking to terrorism. It is quite likely the FBI will keep him in custody for some months, enter into a plea bargain with him under which he will be made to confess before the court, get him sentenced and then deport him to Bangladesh on the ground that he co-operated with the FBI in the investigations.

7.Such counter-terrorism sting operations as a way of controlling terrorism are not encouraged by courts in other countries, but in the US convictions are awarded by courts in such operations despite their dubious legality.

8. One should not over-state the significance of this arrest. (19-10-12)

(The  writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com  Twitter @SORBONNE75)

 

 

MORE UNREST IN XINJIANG

 

 

 

B.RAMAN

 

According to a belated report disseminated by Radio Free Asia, there has been a suicide attack in the interior areas of Xinjiang.

2. Coinciding with the observance of the Chinese National Day on October 1,2012, an unidentified motorcyclist reportedly  drove into a post of the People’s Armed Police at Kargilik (in Chinese Yecheng) in the Kashgar Prefecture causing an explosion which killed a number of policemen. A local villager has been quoted as saying that the PAP post suffered about 20 casualties, but there has been no confirmation of the details of the attack from the local authorities.

3.This area had seen three incidents since December last. In the December incident, the Chinese border authorities allegedly shot dead seven Uighurs-including some women and children-- who were trying to illegally flee to Pakistan through the Guma area. After the incident, they projected them as terrorist suspects.

4.In the second incident, believed to be in retaliation for this, 20 persons, mostly Han Chinese, were stabbed to death in the Kargilik area in February. The third incident on October 1,2012, is also believed to be in retaliation for the December incident.

5. For the last one month, the Chinese authorities have stepped up physical security in the Xinjiang province as a precautionary measure before the forthcoming 18^th Congress of the Communist Party of China on November 8. Despite this, the suicide attack of October 1 has taken place. Following this suicide attack, more PAP units from outside the province have been inducted into Xinjiang to further tighten security.

6. Meanwhile, like the Tibetan diaspora, representatives of the Uighur diaspora have also held  on October 1 a brain-storming session at Munich in Germany to discuss the likely policies of the new CPC leadership which will be taking over on November 8 towards the Uighurs. Mr.Xi Jinping will be taking over as the General Secretary of the Party from Mr.Hu Jintao. He will take over as the State President from Mr.Hu in March next year.

7. Xi is the  son of liberal-minded former Vice Premier Xi Zhongxun, who was purged from the CPC ahead of the Cultural Revolution. Before his purge, it used to be said that he was sympathetic to the ethnic minorities and had a close personal friendship with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Moreover, the wife of Mr.Xi Jinping is reported to be a practising Buddhist.

8.Despite these factors, Mr.Xi Jinping has till now subscribed to the party’s two-pronged policy of firm enforcement of law and order in Tibet and Xinjiang and a rapid economic development of these areas in order to bring them on par with the economic development in the Han areas of China. He has also been subscribing to the policy of stepped-up Han migration to these areas to give the Hans an effective control.

9.In view of this, any hopes among members of the Tibetan and Uighur diaspora abroad that Mr.Xi Jinping might soften the policy towards the ethnic minorities may not be based on reality.(18-10-12)

(The  writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com  Twitter @SORBONNE75)

 

INDIA-AUSTRALIA: NEED TO DIVERSIFY COOPERATION

 

 

 

B.RAMAN

The current three-day visit of Australian Prime Minister Ms.Julia Gillard to India for talks with Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh and other leaders and captains of Indian industry indicates the poverty of bilateral strategic thinking in both the countries in the Government and the non-Governmental levels.

2. Most of the analytical articles that I have read are preoccupied with the question how soon India can hope to start importing uranium from Australia for its civilian nuclear power programme. India has had reasons to be thankful to Ms.Gillard for reversing her Labour Party’s opposition to the sale of uranium to India on the ground that India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement.

3. Ever since her arrival in India, the Australian Prime Minister has been at pains to discourage exaggerated expectations in India that the uranium sales may start immediately. She has been pointing out that the sale of uranium has to be preceded by the conclusion of a civil nuclear co-operation agreement with India with appropriate safeguards to prevent the diversion of the uranium sold by Australia for military purposes. In her estimate, it will take at least another two years before uranium sales can start.

4.Ever since India’s relations with the US started improving under the administration of then President George Bush ( 2000-08), it has had a beneficial fall-out for Indo-Australian relations too with increased military-to-military contacts and exercises, particularly greater co-operation between the two Navies and greater intellectual exchanges with a strategic focus. Australia’s diplomatic and consular presence in India has expanded, more Indian students have been going to Australia for higher education and more Indian academics are being invited to Australia on short or long-term fellowships. However, the academic exchanges have largely remained one way from India to Australia and not the other way round.

5.The poor infrastructure and other facilities in Indian universities have come in the way of the exchanges being two-way. Surprisingly, even in the prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology and Business Administration Schools, Australian presence has been an exception. The fascination in Indian academic circles for exchanges with institutions of higher learning in Europe and the USA have come in the way of an increase in exchanges with Australia.

6. Australian concerns over jihadi terrorism after the Bali terrorist strike of October 2002 directed largely against  Australian tourists by the Jemmah Islamia have led to a greater exchange of counter-terrorism intelligence between the two countries. While the military-military relations between the two countries have picked up momentum, the police-police relations have not expanded.

7.Some years ago during a visit to the National Police Academy at Hyderabad, I did come across two Australian police officers who were doing an attachment with the Hyderabad Academy, but no thought seems to have been given by our National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) to the scope for greater exchanges between the police institutions of the countries for strengthening  the capabilities of the Indian police in the field of forensic examination, with particular reference to use of modern technology for the prevention and detection of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).Many ASEAN countries have benefited from Australian expertise and capabilities in forensics and scientific methods of investigation. There is no valid reason why we should not do so too.

8. When our policy makers and strategic analysts talk of strategic co-operation with Australia, their minds are over-focussed on military-related co-operation. The scope for expanding non-military dimensions of the co-operation has not received the attention it deserves.

9.An important field that has remained untapped is the modernisation of our agriculture. For some time now, our Prime Minister has been talking of the need for a second green revolution to further improve our  wheat production. There is a tremendous scope for Indo-Australian co-operation for modernising the cultivation of fruits and vegetables through the establishment of Special Agricultural Zones.

10. Even as the Australian Prime Minister was holding talks in New Delhi, Ms.J.Jayalalita, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, inaugurated on October 17,2012, a joint Indo-Israeli project for co-operation in the improvement of vegetable and fruit cultivation in Tamil Nadu. There is no reason why we cannot supplement it with Australian co-operation.

11. There is a need for a more comprehensive thinking on the scope for multi-dimensional co-operation between India and Australia. It is hoped that the Australian Prime Minister’s visit will lead to such thinking. ( 17-10-12)

(The  writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com  Twitter @SORBONNE75)

 

 

US PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: NO KNOCK-OUT

 

B.RAMAN

 

 The first US Presidential debate a fortnight ago devoted exclusively to economic and social policies was won by Mr.Mitt Romney, with 67 per cent of the sample votes polled as against only 25 per cent for President Barack Obama. Only eight per cent of those polled were not sure who did better. It was thus an overwhelming endorsement of Mr.Romney by those polled.

2.The results of the second Presidential debate held on the morning of  October 17 (Indian Standard Time) have not been overwhelming. Mr.Obama did much better and was more aggressive than he was in the first round, but despite that, he won the endorsement of only 46 per cent of those polled after the debate. Mr.Romney got only 39 per cent. Fifteen per cent of those polled were not sure who did better.

3. While neither candidate could cross the 50 per cent mark, there was a dramatic increase of 21 per cent in the case of Mr.Obama and a major fall of 28 per cent in the case of Mr.Romney.

4. The format of the second debate was different from that of the first. The first was a one-to-one debate on the economy whereas the second was a Town Hall style debate with the two candidates facing questions  from a selected audience of 82 undecided voters. While the questions were largely devoted to economic and social issues, one question was also about Mr.Obama’s perceived mishandling of the incident outside the US Consulate in Benghazi in Libya on September 11, 2012, when the US Ambassador in Libya and three other US nationals were killed by a group of terrorists.

5.One saw a noticeable improvement in Mr.Obama’s aggression, style, body language and self-confidence in the second debate.. While Mr.Romney’s style and body language were the same as in the first, his aggression and self-confidence wilted under relentless pressure  from Mr.Obama.

6.While Mr.Romney did not fumble even once during the first debate, he fumbled thrice in the second. He overlooked countering the allegations of Mr.Obama about the China contacts of some business companies with which he was associated. He realised this a bit late and then tried to counter it. His reply was not convincing. When talking of Obamacare, he initially said that “when Obamacare legislation is passed” and then corrected himself by saying “ it is already passed, when it is fully implemented.” On Benghazi, the question posed to Mr.Obama was why he failed to enhance security for the US mission when advance intelligence of a possible threat was available. Instead of pinning down Mr.Obamka on this, Mr.Romney raised the question as to whether Mr.Obama described it as a terror attack or not. He was found to be factually incorrect.

7.The two debates have been between an incumbent President and his contender. An incumbent is always at a disadvantage because it becomes a comparison between the record of the incumbent and the promises of the contender. Mr.Romney kept the focus mercilessly on Mr.Obama’s inadequate record  and unfulfilled promises. As in the first debate, Mr.Romney’s focus was all the time on jobs and the bad unemployment situation under Mr.Obama.

8.Mr.Obama’s aggression, style and self-confidence might have improved, but his colourless record in failing to improve the economy will remain the same. This made him even defensive and unconvincing while talking of his record even today. He ,therefore, focussed on undermining the confidence of the voters in the workability of Mr.Romney’s promises. In the coming days, one will know to what  extent Mr.Obama succeeded in sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of the voters about Mr.Romney’s promises.

9. There have been no knock-outs in the two rounds. If one takes into consideration the accumulated voter impression of the two rounds, Mr.Romney would appear to have succeeded more in planting seeds of doubt in the minds of the voters regarding Mr.Obama’s economic record and promises than the other way round. It is difficult to say now whether this will be reflected in the actual voting. It continues to be a neck and neck race.

10. The next round to be exclusively devoted to foreign policy will be on October 23. Unless one of the candidates commits a major blunder or faux pas, one should not expect it to prove a turning point.

11. Jobs continues to be the most important issue in the elections. Mr.Obama will continue to play on a weak wicket. Mr.Romney is weak in his understanding of foreign policy, but strong in his comprehension of the economy. He will continue to use Mr.Obama’s unsatisfactory handling of the economy as the stick to beat Mr.Obama with during the rest of the campaign. Mr.Obama has no stick to beat Mr.Romney with. (17-10-12)

(The  writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com  Twitter @SORBONNE75)

A SAD DAY FOR SALMAN KHURSHID & “INDIA TODAY”

 

B.RAMAN

October 14,2012, was a sad day for Shri Salman Khurshid, India’s Law Minister, and the “India Today” group , which owns a number of print journals and TV channels.

2.A non-governmental humanitarian trust for assisting physically disadvantaged people with which his wife Ms.Louise is reportedly associated has been the target of allegations of wrongful use of funds amounting to about eight million rupees sanctioned by the Government for humanitarian relief.

3.A Hindi TV channel of the “India Today” group and the India Against Corruption (IAC) group headed by Shri Arvind Kejriwal, a non-governmental activist, seeking to enter politics by highlighting instances of political corruption have been spearheading the campaign against Shri Khurshid on these allegations against the humanitarian trust.

4.The two campaigns have been trying to project themselves as separate from each other without any orchestrated co-ordination, but an undeclared, but evident convergence of objective between the two is discernible to any objective observer. That objective is to exploit the suspected misuse of the funds to cause public discomfiture to Shri Khurshid .

5. The agenda of the IAC against Shri Khurshid is obvious. Shri Khurshid as the Law Minister was in the forefront of a group of Ministers of the Dr.Manmohan Singh Government which had mounted a spirited public defence of Shri Robert Vadra, the husband of Ms.Priyanka Gandhi and son-in-law of Mrs.Sobnia Gandhi, the Congress President, who has been accused by  the IAC group of accumulating huge wealth beyond his known sources of income. The IAC group is trying to use the allegations against the humanitarian trust for discrediting Shri Khurshid and disabling him from defending Shri Vadra. The agenda of the “India Today” group in its campaign is not clear to me.

6. A campaign whose objective should have been to ensure that public funds meant for humanitarian relief of the physically disadvantaged are  properly used for their benefit has been submerged in an overall political campaign to weaken the credibility of the Law Minister and add to the public anger against the Congress and the Government of Dr.Manmohan Singh.

7. The allegations against the Trust are very sensitive from the point of view of the likely impact on the public mind. Any allegation or suspicion that the physically disadvantaged were sought to be exploited for individual financial benefit will go to the heart of any right-thinking person.

8. Shri Khurshid is a highly sophisticated Minister and individual with a sophisticated mind. He should have immediately realised the implications of the likely public impact of the allegations and taken action to establish the truth. The proper course of action for him would have been to step aside from the post of Law Minister by either resigning or asking the Prime Minister to transfer the portfolio to another Minister and  to order an impartial enquiry into the allegations.

9. Instead, Shri Khurshid got involved in an unedifying and undignified slanging match with the IAC and “India Today” groups. His Press Conference on October 14, which was totally unnecessary, was a spectacle of outbursts of anger and intimidation unworthy of him.

10.The equally unworthy behaviour of the IAC group is understandable because of the political ambitions of Shri Kejriwal. What is not understandable is the unworthy and unprofessional behaviour of the “India Today” group in this controversy. One had never seen such media viciousness as one saw in the behaviour of this group.

11. A highly reputed and highly admired  journalist member of the “India Today” family kept disseminating gleeful Tweets from the Press Conference about the discomfiture being caused to Shri Khurshid and about the way he was making a spectacle of himself through his self-righteous outpourings.

12. In a brilliant article in the “Hindustan Times” of October 13,2012, Ms.Barkha Dutt, Group Editor of NDTV, who is presently on a three-month fellowship to the Brown University of the US to write a book, has drawn attention to the phenomenon and perceptions of bias in the conventional media and the counter-bias in Net-based new media and social media networks. 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/BarkhaDutt/A-Rashomon-moment/Article1-943755.aspx …

13. Bias has always been there in Indian journalism since we became independent in 1947. This has become aggravated due to the growing polarisation of the Indian society. What is new is the growing viciousness in the Indian media. We saw an example of such viciousness directed against Shri Khurshid on October 14,2012.

14. There is a need for an introspection by the Indian media over the direction in which it has been going.

( 15-10-12)

(The  writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com  Twitter @SORBONNE75)