B.RAMAN
During the current visit of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China to Pakistan, the focus has been on projecting China and Pakistan as military allies helping each other in defending their national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
2.The Chinese Government controlled Xinhua news agency quoted Wen as telling Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani on December 17 as follows: "China and Pakistan were, are and will always be good neighbors, good friends, good partners and good brothers.China appreciates the strong support Pakistan has long been offering on issues concerning China's core interests, and will continue backing Pakistan's efforts in defending national sovereignty, maintaining social stability and achieving independent and sustainable economic development.” Noting that Pakistan has made huge sacrifice for and important contributions to the global counterterrorism campaign, Wen said his country is ready to work together with Pakistan to promote regional peace and stability.
3. During a meeting with Gen.Khalid Shameem Wynne, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Chief of the Army Staff, Admiral Noman Bashir, Chief of the Naval Staff, and Air Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman, Chief of the Air Staff, at Islamabad on December 18, Wen , according to the Xinhua, called for enhanced military exchanges and cooperation between China and Pakistan so as to cement the bilateral strategic partnership of cooperation. He said: " The Pakistani military is a steadfast supporter and vindicator of the China-Pakistan friendship, and has played an important role in consolidating and developing their strategic partnership of cooperation."He applauded the close exchanges between the two militaries in the areas of anti-terrorism and disaster relief, and hoped to further enhance the military links to contribute to the development of bilateral ties.
4. According to the Xinhua, the Pakistani military chiefs who called on Wen described China as an all-weather strategic partner of Pakistan and said the bilateral friendship had withstood severe challenges. The Pakistani military was ready to work jointly with China to play a positive role in developing their strategic partnership of cooperation. ( 19-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate, Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Saturday, December 18, 2010
RAHUL GANDHI & WIKILEAKS
B.RAMAN
An unnecessary political controversy has been created over a diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in New Delhi to the US State Department in Washington DC summarising, inter alia, a discussion on terrorism in India which the US Ambassador Timothy Roemer reportedly had with Rahul Gandhi, the General Secretary of the Congress (I), at a lunch hosted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July last year. It is one of the cables leaked out by WikiLeaks.
2. A careful reading and analysis of Rahul Gandhi's observations as reported in the cable would indicate that the theme of the discussions was about the relative threat faced by India from the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), a Pakistani organisation, and indigenous extremist elements belonging to the Hindu as well as Muslim communities. My reading is that Rahul Gandhi had said that the indigenous elements----whether the Indian Muslims who have taken to terrorism or some Hindu elements taking to terrorism--- cause him greater concern than the LET.
3. This is what I have been saying since the Indian Mujahideen (IM) made its appearance in 2007 and since some Hindu elements, angered by what they perceived as the soft policy of the Congress(I) controlled Governments towards Muslim terrorists, took to reprisal terrorism against the Muslims and their places of worship. I have been saying that while we can be ruthless without any qualms of conscience against the LET and other Pakistani jihadi organisations, we cannot be so against our own citizens who take to terrorism---whether they are Hindus or Muslims. We have to be more nuanced in dealing with our indigenous terrorist elements without adding to the anger in the two communities against each other. The LET has been active in India for over 17 years. We are used to dealing with it with no holds barred. The new indigenous elements----Indian Muslims and Hindus--- are of recent origin and it is going to be more difficult to deal with them--- unless we pay attention to the anger in the two communities----- the anger in the Muslim community over perceptions of unfair policies towards their community and the anger in the Hindu community over perceptions of softness towards the Muslim terrorists.
4. I, therefore, do not take serious objection to the views of Rahul Gandhi. However, I wonder whether it was wise on his part to have discussed this with the US Ambassador lest his views be misinterpreted as has happened now following the leak of the cable. (19-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
An unnecessary political controversy has been created over a diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in New Delhi to the US State Department in Washington DC summarising, inter alia, a discussion on terrorism in India which the US Ambassador Timothy Roemer reportedly had with Rahul Gandhi, the General Secretary of the Congress (I), at a lunch hosted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July last year. It is one of the cables leaked out by WikiLeaks.
2. A careful reading and analysis of Rahul Gandhi's observations as reported in the cable would indicate that the theme of the discussions was about the relative threat faced by India from the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), a Pakistani organisation, and indigenous extremist elements belonging to the Hindu as well as Muslim communities. My reading is that Rahul Gandhi had said that the indigenous elements----whether the Indian Muslims who have taken to terrorism or some Hindu elements taking to terrorism--- cause him greater concern than the LET.
3. This is what I have been saying since the Indian Mujahideen (IM) made its appearance in 2007 and since some Hindu elements, angered by what they perceived as the soft policy of the Congress(I) controlled Governments towards Muslim terrorists, took to reprisal terrorism against the Muslims and their places of worship. I have been saying that while we can be ruthless without any qualms of conscience against the LET and other Pakistani jihadi organisations, we cannot be so against our own citizens who take to terrorism---whether they are Hindus or Muslims. We have to be more nuanced in dealing with our indigenous terrorist elements without adding to the anger in the two communities against each other. The LET has been active in India for over 17 years. We are used to dealing with it with no holds barred. The new indigenous elements----Indian Muslims and Hindus--- are of recent origin and it is going to be more difficult to deal with them--- unless we pay attention to the anger in the two communities----- the anger in the Muslim community over perceptions of unfair policies towards their community and the anger in the Hindu community over perceptions of softness towards the Muslim terrorists.
4. I, therefore, do not take serious objection to the views of Rahul Gandhi. However, I wonder whether it was wise on his part to have discussed this with the US Ambassador lest his views be misinterpreted as has happened now following the leak of the cable. (19-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
CHINA: INDIA MORE ASSERTIVE, BUT NOT YET ADEQUATELY---MY REPLY TO A READER'S QUESTION
B.RAMAN
QUESTION:In your article with which I substantially agree, you have said:
>>At the same time, the lack of progress in solving the border dispute in this area has come in the way of the economic integration of Arunachal Pradesh with the rest of India. <<.
Could you tell me why India cannot go ahead and economically integrate Arunachal Pradesh with the rest of India in any manner she thinks appropriate? Why should it depend on any action on China's part?
MY ANSWER:Our policy of economic integration of Arunachal Pradesh has still been half-hearted and hesitant. We have been developing the transport infrastructure, which could add to our defence capabilities. I understand we have also been constructing small-scale hydel stations which could benefit the people. At the same time, we seem to be avoiding projects of a strategic significance such as the exploitation of the oil, gas and other natural resources of the area lest such projects prove provocative and confrontational.Before we go to that stage, we have to further strengthen our defence capabilities in that area.
QUESTION:In your article with which I substantially agree, you have said:
>>At the same time, the lack of progress in solving the border dispute in this area has come in the way of the economic integration of Arunachal Pradesh with the rest of India. <<.
Could you tell me why India cannot go ahead and economically integrate Arunachal Pradesh with the rest of India in any manner she thinks appropriate? Why should it depend on any action on China's part?
MY ANSWER:Our policy of economic integration of Arunachal Pradesh has still been half-hearted and hesitant. We have been developing the transport infrastructure, which could add to our defence capabilities. I understand we have also been constructing small-scale hydel stations which could benefit the people. At the same time, we seem to be avoiding projects of a strategic significance such as the exploitation of the oil, gas and other natural resources of the area lest such projects prove provocative and confrontational.Before we go to that stage, we have to further strengthen our defence capabilities in that area.
Friday, December 17, 2010
INDIAN PERSPECTIVES ON CHINA
An edited compilation of articles contributed by eminent scholars in India covering key aspects relating to China's economy, politics, military and strategy, with focus, wherever appropriate, on their impact on Sino-Indian relations. Brought out by the Chennai Centre For China Studies. Edited by D.S.Rajan, Director, Chennai Centre For China Studies , with a Foreword by C.V.Ranganathan, Indian Foreign Service (retd), former Indian Ambassador to China.
Price: Rs.425
Available at :T.R.Publications Pvt.Ltd., A-32, 3rd Floor, B-Block, Gulmohar Apartments,, 35, South Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai--600017
Price: Rs.425
Available at :T.R.Publications Pvt.Ltd., A-32, 3rd Floor, B-Block, Gulmohar Apartments,, 35, South Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai--600017
Thursday, December 16, 2010
CHINA: INDIA MORE ASSERTIVE, BUT NOT YET ADEQUATELY
B.RAMAN
India has begun being more assertive against China than it was till the end of last year, but not yet in an adequate measure so as to be able to make an impact on Chinese policy-making towards India. That is the conclusion emerging from a study of the Joint statement issued at the end of the talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao at New Delhi on December 16,2010.
2. In my earlier articles before the visit of Wen, I had drawn attention to two instances of welcome Indian assertiveness against China----firstly, ignoring Beijing’s unhappiness over the visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Tawang in India’s Arunachal Pradesh earlier this year and secondly, attending the ceremony held in Oslo on December 10 to award in absentia the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese human rights activist now in jail in China, ignoring Chinese entreaties and pressure tactics not to do so.
3. A third instance of welcome Indian assertiveness could be read between the lines while analyzing the joint statement of December 16. The standard formulation that India adheres to the one China policy and recognizes Tibet as an integral part of China has been absent. The statement issued during Wen’s previous visit to Delhi in April 2005 had said: “The Indian side reiterated that it recognized the Tibet Autonomous Region as part of the territory of the People's Republic of China and that it did not allow Tibetans to engage in anti-China political activities in India. The Indian side recalled that India was among the first countries to recognize that there is one China and its one China policy remains unaltered. The Indian side stated it would continue to abide by its one China policy. The Chinese side expressed its appreciation for the Indian positions.”
4. The latest statement does not incorporate any such assurances to China. This is an expression of Indian unhappiness over the Chinese coming out in recent months in indirect support of Pakistani claims of sovereignty over Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, including Gilgit and Baltistan, while diluting its post-1999 support to Indian claims of sovereignty over Jammu & Kashmir. China’s reluctance to support us on the issue of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism is a fleabite. We need not lose sleep over it. But, its abandoning the neutral policy followed by it after 1999 on Indian and Pakistani claims of sovereignty over J&K has been a serious development with likely long-term consequences and it is time we made it clear that if China does not respect India’s territorial integrity, India is no longer bound to respect China’s. That is the hint that India has hopefully conveyed to Beijing by not agreeing to incorporate the usual formulations on the so-called One China policy and Tibet.
5. We should not stop with this. We should move further forward by having a second look at our Tibetan policy, including our interactions at the official level with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. There was a welcome surge in Tibetan demonstrations in Delhi during the visit of Wen. This is a hopeful indicator that in future Indian attention to Chinese sensitivities will be in direct proportion to Chinese attention to Indian sensitivities.
6. The bilateral economic relations continue to move forward. Contracts worth US & 16 billion were signed during the visit. It was decided to try to increase the value of bilateral trade from US $ 60 billion expected by the end of this year to US $ 100 billion by 2015. Unfortunately, the economic relations have been moving forward in a direction more favourable to Chinese than Indian interests. The adverse balance of trade in India’s disfavour ( US $ 19 billion) continues to increase despite repeated Chinese assurances to redress it.
7. China has benefited enormously from the bilateral economic relations. Expectations that this could render Beijing more amenable to solving the border dispute and more sensitive to India’s major concerns over the growing China-Pakistan axis continue to be belied. The China advocated policy of keeping the border dispute in cold storage while paying more attention to the economic relations is proving to be detrimental to India. Due to the uncertainties caused by Beijing in the Arunachal Pradesh sector by further developing its infrastructure in the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region and by holding two exercises by the People’s Liberation Army (Air Force) in Tibet this year----one of them involving the suspected movement of missiles by the Qinghai-Lhasa railway and the other involving air-ground exercises with live ammunition at high altitudes by combined units of the Air Force and the Artillery--- India has been forced to spend more on the development of the infrastructure in the North-East. At the same time, the lack of progress in solving the border dispute in this area has come in the way of the economic integration of Arunachal Pradesh with the rest of India.
8. By increasing its presence in the Gilgit-Baltistan area, China has added to the strategic threats in our Leh-Kargil sector, which would necessitate greater attention to the development of infrastructure in this sector at a time when we still seem to be struggling to develop the infrastructure and our defence capabilities in the Arunachal Pradesh sector. Our reviewing our Tibetan policy could help us in the Arunachal Pradesh sector, but not in the Kargil-Leh sector facing Gilgit-Baltistan. A review of our interactions with the nationalist elements in Xinjiang in China and in Gilgit-Baltistan is necessary in this regard.
9. A sustained Indian policy of paying more attention to developments in China’s peripheral areas has to be an important component of our policy of assertiveness. In an article of September 9,2010, titled “ One India and One China”, I wrote as follows: “Our recognition of Tibet as an integral part of China and our acceptance of the one China policy of Beijing without a quid pro quo from Beijing in the form of acceptance of J&K as an integral part of India and of the One India policy have proved counter-productive. In our anxiety to avoid adding to the tensions and distrust between the two countries, we have let Beijing dictate what should be the nature of our interactions with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees. We avoid open interactions with His Holiness and are not even prepared to associate him with the project to revive the Nalanda University. Better relations with China on mutually and equally advantageous terms and not on terms which favour China alone, but not India should be our policy. A clear message in non-provocative language has to go to Beijing that India has been disillusioned by the self-centred policies of Beijing and its lack of reciprocity in respecting our core interests. Strategic relations have to be a two-way traffic and based on quid pro quo. For China, they are a one-way traffic benefiting only its core interests. We should no longer accept this.” (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers41%5Cpaper4026.html
10. Those observations still remain valid. That is the inevitable conclusion from the Wen visit.( 17-12-10)
( 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 )
India has begun being more assertive against China than it was till the end of last year, but not yet in an adequate measure so as to be able to make an impact on Chinese policy-making towards India. That is the conclusion emerging from a study of the Joint statement issued at the end of the talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao at New Delhi on December 16,2010.
2. In my earlier articles before the visit of Wen, I had drawn attention to two instances of welcome Indian assertiveness against China----firstly, ignoring Beijing’s unhappiness over the visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Tawang in India’s Arunachal Pradesh earlier this year and secondly, attending the ceremony held in Oslo on December 10 to award in absentia the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese human rights activist now in jail in China, ignoring Chinese entreaties and pressure tactics not to do so.
3. A third instance of welcome Indian assertiveness could be read between the lines while analyzing the joint statement of December 16. The standard formulation that India adheres to the one China policy and recognizes Tibet as an integral part of China has been absent. The statement issued during Wen’s previous visit to Delhi in April 2005 had said: “The Indian side reiterated that it recognized the Tibet Autonomous Region as part of the territory of the People's Republic of China and that it did not allow Tibetans to engage in anti-China political activities in India. The Indian side recalled that India was among the first countries to recognize that there is one China and its one China policy remains unaltered. The Indian side stated it would continue to abide by its one China policy. The Chinese side expressed its appreciation for the Indian positions.”
4. The latest statement does not incorporate any such assurances to China. This is an expression of Indian unhappiness over the Chinese coming out in recent months in indirect support of Pakistani claims of sovereignty over Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, including Gilgit and Baltistan, while diluting its post-1999 support to Indian claims of sovereignty over Jammu & Kashmir. China’s reluctance to support us on the issue of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism is a fleabite. We need not lose sleep over it. But, its abandoning the neutral policy followed by it after 1999 on Indian and Pakistani claims of sovereignty over J&K has been a serious development with likely long-term consequences and it is time we made it clear that if China does not respect India’s territorial integrity, India is no longer bound to respect China’s. That is the hint that India has hopefully conveyed to Beijing by not agreeing to incorporate the usual formulations on the so-called One China policy and Tibet.
5. We should not stop with this. We should move further forward by having a second look at our Tibetan policy, including our interactions at the official level with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. There was a welcome surge in Tibetan demonstrations in Delhi during the visit of Wen. This is a hopeful indicator that in future Indian attention to Chinese sensitivities will be in direct proportion to Chinese attention to Indian sensitivities.
6. The bilateral economic relations continue to move forward. Contracts worth US & 16 billion were signed during the visit. It was decided to try to increase the value of bilateral trade from US $ 60 billion expected by the end of this year to US $ 100 billion by 2015. Unfortunately, the economic relations have been moving forward in a direction more favourable to Chinese than Indian interests. The adverse balance of trade in India’s disfavour ( US $ 19 billion) continues to increase despite repeated Chinese assurances to redress it.
7. China has benefited enormously from the bilateral economic relations. Expectations that this could render Beijing more amenable to solving the border dispute and more sensitive to India’s major concerns over the growing China-Pakistan axis continue to be belied. The China advocated policy of keeping the border dispute in cold storage while paying more attention to the economic relations is proving to be detrimental to India. Due to the uncertainties caused by Beijing in the Arunachal Pradesh sector by further developing its infrastructure in the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region and by holding two exercises by the People’s Liberation Army (Air Force) in Tibet this year----one of them involving the suspected movement of missiles by the Qinghai-Lhasa railway and the other involving air-ground exercises with live ammunition at high altitudes by combined units of the Air Force and the Artillery--- India has been forced to spend more on the development of the infrastructure in the North-East. At the same time, the lack of progress in solving the border dispute in this area has come in the way of the economic integration of Arunachal Pradesh with the rest of India.
8. By increasing its presence in the Gilgit-Baltistan area, China has added to the strategic threats in our Leh-Kargil sector, which would necessitate greater attention to the development of infrastructure in this sector at a time when we still seem to be struggling to develop the infrastructure and our defence capabilities in the Arunachal Pradesh sector. Our reviewing our Tibetan policy could help us in the Arunachal Pradesh sector, but not in the Kargil-Leh sector facing Gilgit-Baltistan. A review of our interactions with the nationalist elements in Xinjiang in China and in Gilgit-Baltistan is necessary in this regard.
9. A sustained Indian policy of paying more attention to developments in China’s peripheral areas has to be an important component of our policy of assertiveness. In an article of September 9,2010, titled “ One India and One China”, I wrote as follows: “Our recognition of Tibet as an integral part of China and our acceptance of the one China policy of Beijing without a quid pro quo from Beijing in the form of acceptance of J&K as an integral part of India and of the One India policy have proved counter-productive. In our anxiety to avoid adding to the tensions and distrust between the two countries, we have let Beijing dictate what should be the nature of our interactions with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees. We avoid open interactions with His Holiness and are not even prepared to associate him with the project to revive the Nalanda University. Better relations with China on mutually and equally advantageous terms and not on terms which favour China alone, but not India should be our policy. A clear message in non-provocative language has to go to Beijing that India has been disillusioned by the self-centred policies of Beijing and its lack of reciprocity in respecting our core interests. Strategic relations have to be a two-way traffic and based on quid pro quo. For China, they are a one-way traffic benefiting only its core interests. We should no longer accept this.” (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers41%5Cpaper4026.html
10. Those observations still remain valid. That is the inevitable conclusion from the Wen visit.( 17-12-10)
( 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 )
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
CHINA---AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
B.RAMAN
One notices two extremes in our analyses on China. At one extreme are superlatives and a tendency to project the Chinese people and policy-makers as super human beings going from one spectacular achievement to another. At the other, are analyses marked by skepticism and cynicism and a tendency to denigrate China. We need a balanced analysis of China devoid of these extremes.
2.A balanced analysis is rendered difficult by a paucity of correct and complete information and by the Chinese success in ensuring that only stories of their successes reach the outside world, but not the stories of their failures.
3.Despite the continuing paucity, one has to note an increasing flow of information from and relating to China. This should make a balanced analysis possible.
4.To draw up a net assessment on China, we have to keep in mind two scenarios. The first is that China continues to progress politically, economically and militarily. How would this enhance China's power projection capability? What implications will this have for India? How should India protect itself from the likely consequences?
5.The second scenario is that Chinese leaders and policy-makers falter at some stage and China runs into serious difficulties. When and under what circumstances can this happen? What will be the impact on China and the region? How would this affect India? Would a faltering China turn its anger against India?
6.Transparency is still missing in China, but policy debates are a little more free now than they were in the past. By closely monitoring and analysing open source information from China, one could identify the contending ideas, but it is still difficult to attribute a name and a face to the contending ideas. Thus, we know that there are different groups in China advocating different policy options, but we do not know who are the individual policy-makers in these groups.
7.In recent months, one could discern three contending ideas behind policy-related debates. The first relates to the question as to whether the time has come for a political restructuring of China to supplement the economic re-structuring and, if so, on what lines and at what pace the political re-structuring should be undertaken. Since 2007, there was an intense debate on this issue giving rise to expectations that the Chinese Communist Party was about to embark on a major programme of political reforms. The recently held plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in October 2010, was expected by many to come out with such a programme. The plenum turned out to be an anti-climax. It merely underlined the continuing role of the Party as the guarantor of development . After the plenum, the debate on the need for political reforms seems to have slowed down. The party has apparently applied the brakes? Why?
8.The second relates to the sustainability of what China has achieved so far. Previously, the central theme of such debates used to be the need to achieve comprehensive national power or security. An additional theme noticed, of late, is the importance of sustainable political stability, sustainable economic prosperity and sustainable security. This indicates the beginnings of concerns in the minds of some policy-makers about the sustainability of China's achievements, structure and system? Why?
9.The third relates to the wisdom of the recent assertiveness in foreign policy. On the other side of the coin is unpredictability. The Chinese foreign policy used to be fairly predictable. It is no longer so. An element of unpredictability has been creeping in. India has seen it in respect of the Chinese policy on Jammu & Kashmir. The ASEAN countries in respect of the South China Sea. Japan with regard to the East China Sea. This has affected China's relations and image in the neighbourhood. Questions are being raised as to whether China has prematurely embarked on its present assertiveness before it is strong enough to do so. Lee Kuan Yew, former Singapore Prime Minister, and the present Minister Mentor to the Singapore Government, has been cited in one of the leaked Wikicables as saying that the Chinese believed that the collapse of Germany and Japan during the Second World War could be attributed to the fact that they prematurely challenged the then existing world order. Those questioning the wisdom of the policy of assertiveness seem to be worried that China might end up by committing the same mistake as Germany and Japan.
10.Assertiveness where necessary and accommodation where possible---this has become the underlying factor driving the policies of India and China towards each other. After a fumbling initial response to Chinese assertiveness, the Government of Dr.Manmohan Singh has realized that assertiveness has to be met with assertiveness and accommodation with accommodation. The Chinese assertiveness has been seen in the firmness of their positions in matters relating to Arunachal Pradesh and their relations with Pakistan. No changes in their policies on these two issues are likely in the short and medium term. Their desire for accommodation is seen in bilateral economic relations, co-operation with India in multilateral fora and their avoidance of a demonisation of India. They may feel that India is positioning itself to form part of a US arc around China, along with the US, South Korea, Japan and Vietnam, but do not say so openly. They take care not to put India and Vietnam in the same bracket as Japan and South Korea. They do not hesitate to demonise Japan and South Korea at every conceivable opportunity, but painstakingly avoid demonizing India and Vietnam. There are more instances of Indian demonisation of China than the other way round.
11.The tendency of our media and some of our analysts to constantly demonise China needs to be discouraged. It does not help. It can distort our analysis and assessment. Our political leaders and officials of our Foreign Office make a balanced projection of China and its policies towards India in their public discourse.The same cannot be said of the officers of our Armed Forces---- serving and retired. They keep creating a paranoia with regard to China. It is important to keep our eyes and ears open in the border areas and in our neighbourhood. It is equally important to keep ourselves in full strength and preparedness to face any negative turn in the bilateral relations. At the same time, it will be wise to avoid creating unnecessary or imaginary fears in the minds of the people about the intentions of China.
12.Internal security is an issue of great preoccupation for China. According to the “Global Times” of August 23,2010, “the country is facing mounting pressure during its social transition including frequent attacks on vulnerable groups, aggravating pollution, serious corruption, inequality of distribution and a widening income gap. Mounting social unrests in recent years have proved costly. In 2009, the government earmarked 514 billion yuan ($76 billion) to maintain stability, much more than the 480 billion yuan for national defense.”
13.Their internal security problems in the Han core of the country arise from issues such as the increasing inflation, unemployment, industrial unrest over wages, increasing crime etc. Their careful management of the economy should normally enable them deal with the problems, but the spectre of Han anger haunts them. They can be ruthless in dealing with the anger of the ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang as they did in 2008 and 2009, but they cannot be equally ruthless in dealing with any Han anger. One saw an example of the Chinese anxiety regarding any outbreak of Han anger from the abrupt manner in which President Hu Jintao cancelled his participation in the G-20 summit in Italy last year and airdashed back to Beijing on hearing of the Han protests in Xinjiang over the failure of the police to protect them against the Uighur attacks. The anger of the minorities would weaken their hold over peripheral China, but Han anger could weaken the hold of the Chinese Communist Party over the entire country.
14.Keeping the Hans happy, contented and increasingly prosperous is their first priority. Will the Hans be happy with economic prosperity alone? Will they demand greater political freedom? They look upon the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobao , the human rights activist in jail, as part of a Western conspiracy to whet the appetite of the Hans for more political freedom. They look upon him as a Western Trojan Horse in their midst. They try to project and dismiss him as a criminal, but are worried that today’s “criminal” may turn out to be tomorrow’s liberator. They have slowed down their plans for political restructuring partly due to the fears caused by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to him.
15.Can China disintegrate under the weight of its internal security problems? This is unlikely. The undoubted economic prosperity and the interest of the homogenous Hans as a whole in ensuring that this prosperity is maintained guarantees against any tendency towards disintegration in the Han core of the country. The Tibetan and Uighur uprisings have shown that economic prosperity has not diluted their yearnings for freedom. So long as this urge for freedom remains alive, the danger of instability in the border areas will remain.
16.India should closely monitor and study the internal security situation in China without trying to take advantage of it. An unstable and insecure China is not in India’s interest. This should not mean that India should forsake the Tibetans. They are our objective allies. We need to nurse them and help them to keep the flame of Buddhism alive in China. We need to pay more attention to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and interact with him more frequently politically and in religious matters. An alienated Tibet will always look up to India for moral support in its hours of distress. We have a moral responsibility to be attentive to their hopes and fears. How to give back the Tibetans and His Holiness their dignity as a proud civilization without causing the disintegration of peripheral China? This is a question that should keep engaging our attention.
17.Cordial State-to-State, people-to-people, business-to-business and military-to-military relations are in the long-term interest of the two countries. State-to-State relations are improving despite the border dispute and the Chinese propensity to prop up Pakistan against India. Business-to-business relations are moving forward. Indian orders for equipment are creating more jobs in China than in the US. Chinese construction companies have won contracts worth US $ 25 billion in India---- more than in any other Asian country. The power and the telecom sectors have become the main pillars of Sino-Indian economic co-operation. It is only a question of time before the Chinese acquire a strong presence in the Indian automobile sector. The Indian business class has not been able to achieve in China what the Chinese business class has achieved in India. The hesitant attitudes of the Chinese Government are only partly to be blamed for this. The lack of initiative and aggression in our business class is an important contributory factor. The decline in our engineering skills as compared to the advance in our IT skills is another factor.
18.People-to-people and military-to-military relations are very weak, This can be attributed to the continuing trust deficit between the two civil societies and between the security machineries of the two countries. This needs to be addressed. Our business class, which has been contributing money to endowments in US universities and think-tanks, should think of Chinese universities and think-tanks too. We should invite more Chinese military officers to courses in our military institutions to which foreign officers are eligible----on a reciprocal basis. We need to invest more in creating a new pool of China scholars and researchers whose China view will not be stymied by memories of 1962. ( 15-12-10)
( 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 )
One notices two extremes in our analyses on China. At one extreme are superlatives and a tendency to project the Chinese people and policy-makers as super human beings going from one spectacular achievement to another. At the other, are analyses marked by skepticism and cynicism and a tendency to denigrate China. We need a balanced analysis of China devoid of these extremes.
2.A balanced analysis is rendered difficult by a paucity of correct and complete information and by the Chinese success in ensuring that only stories of their successes reach the outside world, but not the stories of their failures.
3.Despite the continuing paucity, one has to note an increasing flow of information from and relating to China. This should make a balanced analysis possible.
4.To draw up a net assessment on China, we have to keep in mind two scenarios. The first is that China continues to progress politically, economically and militarily. How would this enhance China's power projection capability? What implications will this have for India? How should India protect itself from the likely consequences?
5.The second scenario is that Chinese leaders and policy-makers falter at some stage and China runs into serious difficulties. When and under what circumstances can this happen? What will be the impact on China and the region? How would this affect India? Would a faltering China turn its anger against India?
6.Transparency is still missing in China, but policy debates are a little more free now than they were in the past. By closely monitoring and analysing open source information from China, one could identify the contending ideas, but it is still difficult to attribute a name and a face to the contending ideas. Thus, we know that there are different groups in China advocating different policy options, but we do not know who are the individual policy-makers in these groups.
7.In recent months, one could discern three contending ideas behind policy-related debates. The first relates to the question as to whether the time has come for a political restructuring of China to supplement the economic re-structuring and, if so, on what lines and at what pace the political re-structuring should be undertaken. Since 2007, there was an intense debate on this issue giving rise to expectations that the Chinese Communist Party was about to embark on a major programme of political reforms. The recently held plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in October 2010, was expected by many to come out with such a programme. The plenum turned out to be an anti-climax. It merely underlined the continuing role of the Party as the guarantor of development . After the plenum, the debate on the need for political reforms seems to have slowed down. The party has apparently applied the brakes? Why?
8.The second relates to the sustainability of what China has achieved so far. Previously, the central theme of such debates used to be the need to achieve comprehensive national power or security. An additional theme noticed, of late, is the importance of sustainable political stability, sustainable economic prosperity and sustainable security. This indicates the beginnings of concerns in the minds of some policy-makers about the sustainability of China's achievements, structure and system? Why?
9.The third relates to the wisdom of the recent assertiveness in foreign policy. On the other side of the coin is unpredictability. The Chinese foreign policy used to be fairly predictable. It is no longer so. An element of unpredictability has been creeping in. India has seen it in respect of the Chinese policy on Jammu & Kashmir. The ASEAN countries in respect of the South China Sea. Japan with regard to the East China Sea. This has affected China's relations and image in the neighbourhood. Questions are being raised as to whether China has prematurely embarked on its present assertiveness before it is strong enough to do so. Lee Kuan Yew, former Singapore Prime Minister, and the present Minister Mentor to the Singapore Government, has been cited in one of the leaked Wikicables as saying that the Chinese believed that the collapse of Germany and Japan during the Second World War could be attributed to the fact that they prematurely challenged the then existing world order. Those questioning the wisdom of the policy of assertiveness seem to be worried that China might end up by committing the same mistake as Germany and Japan.
10.Assertiveness where necessary and accommodation where possible---this has become the underlying factor driving the policies of India and China towards each other. After a fumbling initial response to Chinese assertiveness, the Government of Dr.Manmohan Singh has realized that assertiveness has to be met with assertiveness and accommodation with accommodation. The Chinese assertiveness has been seen in the firmness of their positions in matters relating to Arunachal Pradesh and their relations with Pakistan. No changes in their policies on these two issues are likely in the short and medium term. Their desire for accommodation is seen in bilateral economic relations, co-operation with India in multilateral fora and their avoidance of a demonisation of India. They may feel that India is positioning itself to form part of a US arc around China, along with the US, South Korea, Japan and Vietnam, but do not say so openly. They take care not to put India and Vietnam in the same bracket as Japan and South Korea. They do not hesitate to demonise Japan and South Korea at every conceivable opportunity, but painstakingly avoid demonizing India and Vietnam. There are more instances of Indian demonisation of China than the other way round.
11.The tendency of our media and some of our analysts to constantly demonise China needs to be discouraged. It does not help. It can distort our analysis and assessment. Our political leaders and officials of our Foreign Office make a balanced projection of China and its policies towards India in their public discourse.The same cannot be said of the officers of our Armed Forces---- serving and retired. They keep creating a paranoia with regard to China. It is important to keep our eyes and ears open in the border areas and in our neighbourhood. It is equally important to keep ourselves in full strength and preparedness to face any negative turn in the bilateral relations. At the same time, it will be wise to avoid creating unnecessary or imaginary fears in the minds of the people about the intentions of China.
12.Internal security is an issue of great preoccupation for China. According to the “Global Times” of August 23,2010, “the country is facing mounting pressure during its social transition including frequent attacks on vulnerable groups, aggravating pollution, serious corruption, inequality of distribution and a widening income gap. Mounting social unrests in recent years have proved costly. In 2009, the government earmarked 514 billion yuan ($76 billion) to maintain stability, much more than the 480 billion yuan for national defense.”
13.Their internal security problems in the Han core of the country arise from issues such as the increasing inflation, unemployment, industrial unrest over wages, increasing crime etc. Their careful management of the economy should normally enable them deal with the problems, but the spectre of Han anger haunts them. They can be ruthless in dealing with the anger of the ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang as they did in 2008 and 2009, but they cannot be equally ruthless in dealing with any Han anger. One saw an example of the Chinese anxiety regarding any outbreak of Han anger from the abrupt manner in which President Hu Jintao cancelled his participation in the G-20 summit in Italy last year and airdashed back to Beijing on hearing of the Han protests in Xinjiang over the failure of the police to protect them against the Uighur attacks. The anger of the minorities would weaken their hold over peripheral China, but Han anger could weaken the hold of the Chinese Communist Party over the entire country.
14.Keeping the Hans happy, contented and increasingly prosperous is their first priority. Will the Hans be happy with economic prosperity alone? Will they demand greater political freedom? They look upon the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobao , the human rights activist in jail, as part of a Western conspiracy to whet the appetite of the Hans for more political freedom. They look upon him as a Western Trojan Horse in their midst. They try to project and dismiss him as a criminal, but are worried that today’s “criminal” may turn out to be tomorrow’s liberator. They have slowed down their plans for political restructuring partly due to the fears caused by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to him.
15.Can China disintegrate under the weight of its internal security problems? This is unlikely. The undoubted economic prosperity and the interest of the homogenous Hans as a whole in ensuring that this prosperity is maintained guarantees against any tendency towards disintegration in the Han core of the country. The Tibetan and Uighur uprisings have shown that economic prosperity has not diluted their yearnings for freedom. So long as this urge for freedom remains alive, the danger of instability in the border areas will remain.
16.India should closely monitor and study the internal security situation in China without trying to take advantage of it. An unstable and insecure China is not in India’s interest. This should not mean that India should forsake the Tibetans. They are our objective allies. We need to nurse them and help them to keep the flame of Buddhism alive in China. We need to pay more attention to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and interact with him more frequently politically and in religious matters. An alienated Tibet will always look up to India for moral support in its hours of distress. We have a moral responsibility to be attentive to their hopes and fears. How to give back the Tibetans and His Holiness their dignity as a proud civilization without causing the disintegration of peripheral China? This is a question that should keep engaging our attention.
17.Cordial State-to-State, people-to-people, business-to-business and military-to-military relations are in the long-term interest of the two countries. State-to-State relations are improving despite the border dispute and the Chinese propensity to prop up Pakistan against India. Business-to-business relations are moving forward. Indian orders for equipment are creating more jobs in China than in the US. Chinese construction companies have won contracts worth US $ 25 billion in India---- more than in any other Asian country. The power and the telecom sectors have become the main pillars of Sino-Indian economic co-operation. It is only a question of time before the Chinese acquire a strong presence in the Indian automobile sector. The Indian business class has not been able to achieve in China what the Chinese business class has achieved in India. The hesitant attitudes of the Chinese Government are only partly to be blamed for this. The lack of initiative and aggression in our business class is an important contributory factor. The decline in our engineering skills as compared to the advance in our IT skills is another factor.
18.People-to-people and military-to-military relations are very weak, This can be attributed to the continuing trust deficit between the two civil societies and between the security machineries of the two countries. This needs to be addressed. Our business class, which has been contributing money to endowments in US universities and think-tanks, should think of Chinese universities and think-tanks too. We should invite more Chinese military officers to courses in our military institutions to which foreign officers are eligible----on a reciprocal basis. We need to invest more in creating a new pool of China scholars and researchers whose China view will not be stymied by memories of 1962. ( 15-12-10)
( 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 )
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
NIXON'S INDIA--TELEPHONE TAPPING RUNS AMOK
B.RAMAN
Inaugurating an India Corporate Week at New Delhi on December 14,2010, the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is reported to have stated as follows:"I am aware of the nervousness in the corporate sector arising out of the powers conferred upon the government authorities to tap the phones for protecting national security and preventing tax evasion and money laundering. While these powers are needed, they have to be exercised with utmost care and under well defined rules, procedures and mechanism so that they are not misused. Legal mechanisms already in place should be stringent for more effective enforcement. I am asking the Cabinet Secretary to look into these issues and report back to the Cabinet within the next month."
2.The Prime Minister’s observations came in the wake of concerns recently expressed by some corporate personalities such as Ratan Tata and Deepakh Parikh, the Chairman of the mortgage giant HDFC, over the uncontrolled leakage to certain journals of the supposedly clandestine recordings and their transcripts of the telephone conversations of Ms.Niira Radia, a lobbyist reportedly working for the Tatas and one other corporate house, with people in different walks of life.
3. The episode has led to three questions---firstly, why was her telephone tapped ?; secondly, was it done in accordance with law? ; and, thirdly, how did the results of the tapping become available to some journals in a manner that sought to damage the hard-earned reputation of some leading personalities? In a court affidavit filed last week, the Government has reportedly said it had begun tapping Ms Radia's phone after an allegation that she was spying for foreign intelligence and to make enquiries regarding her business network in order to see whether she had violated laws relating to taxation.
4. The US Congress enacted provisions in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C.A. § 2510 et seq.) that established procedures for wiretapping. All wiretaps were banned except those approved by a court. Wiretaps were legally permissible for a designated list of offenses, if a court approved. A wiretap may last a maximum of 30 days and notice must be provided to the subject of the search within 90 days of any application or a successful interception. In 1986, Congress extended wiretapping protection to electronic mail in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 8 U.S.C.A. § 2701 et seq. The law, also known as the Wiretap Act, makes it illegal to tap into private E-Mail. ( My comment: This has been taken from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Telephone+tapping).
5. There were similar controversies in India in the past too. In 1991, the Indian media had reported that hundreds of telephones of senior political leaders and journalists, including Chandra Sekhar, former Prime Minister, had been tapped unauthorisedly. In 1996, there was a controversy regarding the alleged tapping of the telephone conversation of Amar Singh, the leader of the Samajwadi Party. Some months ago, one of the journals had alleged that the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), India’s equivalent of the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US, had equipment and capability that enabled it to indulge in extensive telephone tapping.
6.Amongst those to strongly protest against such illegal telephone tapping and express concerns over methods akin to those employed by former US President Richard Nixon was Shri L.K.Advani, former Deputy Prime Minister. In a posting on April 25,2010, in his blog, he wrote as follows:
“In 1977, President Carter asked Congress to approve a plan which would make it impossible for the executive to intrude upon a citizen’s privacy without judicial authorization. This plan, Carter contended, would successfully resolve the “inherent conflict” between national security and the basic right to privacy of a citizen. Subsequently legislation has been enacted wherein all security authorities, including the FBI, have been obligated to seek prior judicial approval for any wire-taps.
”In Britain, there is no law governing wire-tapping. But several parliamentary committees have gone into the question in depth. In 1957, a three-man committee of Privy Councillors headed by Norman Birkett was set up to inquire into the “interception of communications”.
”The Birkett committee described wire-tapping, or for that matter, all forms of intercepting private communications as “inherently objectionable”, but felt that the practice may be permitted within certain clearly defined areas, and with appropriate safeguards. It laid down that wire-tapping may be allowed to the police and security agencies only for the purpose of crime investigation or to check subversive or espionage activity. Even for this field, the committee laid down rigorous guidelines. Till date, no one in Britain has ever accused their government of abusing these powers.
”What is really required in this context is to set up a parliamentary committee on the lines of the Birkett committee to examine all aspects of the problem, scrap the outdated Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 and replace it by a new legislation which forbids invasion of an ordinary citizen’s privacy, but which formally recognizes the right of the State to use the latest IT devices of interception to deal only with crime, subversion and espionage. The law must provide statutory safeguards which make it impossible for Government to abuse its powers against political activists and pressmen.”
7. Shri Advani, who was outraged by the previous instances of tapping, has not been outraged by the present instance probably because it has provided him with ammunition that he could use against the Government of Manmohan Singh. His stand seems to be---- tapping is OK if it embarrasses my opponents, but is illegal if it embarrasses me. That seems to be his line. On December 14,2010, he has attacked the Prime Minister for asking the Cabinet Secretary to look into the issue of telephone tapping, saying he seemed to be more concerned about the leakage than the credibility of his Government on the issue of corruption. "He (Prime Minister Manomhan Singh) is worried about that (leakage). What is the aspect of concern? Common man's concern is about the credibility of the Government. There should be concern about this but that is not there."
8. In an article of February 2006, in the PUCL Bulletin under the title “Telephone-tapping an invasion of individual’s privacy”, Shri Rajindar Sachar wrote, inter alia, as follows:
”The current slanging match between political parties arising from telephone-tapping of Amar Singh, General Secretary of S.P. has again highlighted the menace of unauthorized telephone tapping. This evil was highlighted in the press in 1991 showing hundreds of telephone tapping of top politicians (including Chandra Shekhar, former Prime Minister) and journalists. In India telephone tapping is provided under Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. But it could not survive after the Constitution and the Second Press Commission suggested some safeguards to be provided in the Act, but legislature did not act.
”It was in this background that Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) took the matter to the Supreme Court, which agreed that “Telephone-tapping is a serious invasion of an individual’s privacy, and increasingly susceptible to abuse.” More importantly it held right to privacy is a part of the right to “life” and “personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and Right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed also under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and when a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising this fundamental rights. This Court laid down that officials could pass an order of interception only after recording its satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of (i) sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) the security of the State, (iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv) public order or (v) for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. It is only when any of the five situations mentioned above to the satisfaction of the competent authority require that the said authority may pass the order for interception of messages by recording reasons in writing for doing so.
”Thus the Court emphasized that the security of ones privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to a free society and enforceable against the state through the Courts. Lamenting the present position and noticing that though the Act was enacted in the year 1885, and the power to make rules under Section 7 of the Act has been there for over a century but the Central Government has not thought it proper to frame the necessary rules despite severe criticism of the manner in which the power under Section 5 (2) has been exercised. Though conceding that it is entirely for the Central Government to make rules on the subject but till the time it is done the right to privacy of an individual has to be safeguarded, against arbitrariness in the exercise of power under Act.
”The Court therefore gave certain directions under which alone telephone tapping could be done. It directed that telephone tapping order will not be issued except under authorization by Home Secretary of the Central Government or of the State Government. The order should indicate the kind of communication which is to be tapped. The order passed by the Home Secretary was to cease to have effect at the end of two months from the date of authority, though it could be renewed for six months.
”A further direction was also given that original order would have to be reviewed by Committee consisting of Cabinet Secretary, Law Secretary and Secretary for Telephone Communication at the Central level and also a Corresponding Committee at the state level and if it considers that there has been a contravention of Act it will set aside the order and also destroy copies of interception material. In the background of Constitutional violation one is amazed at the indifference and levity being shown in political circles.”
9. From his article, it is evident that the position laid down by the Supreme Court is as follows: Firstly, tapping can be authorized by the Home Secretary only in one of five specified situations; Secondly, a tapping could normally last for two months, but could be extended to about six months. There cannot be indefinite tapping nor can there be tapping off and on. Thirdly, the initial authorization of the Home Secretary has to be reviewed by a committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Telecom Secretary. If the initial order was found to be incorrect, it would be set aside and all intercepts under the incorrect order would be ordered to be destroyed.
10. The following questions arise from the tapping of the telephone conversations of Radia:
QUESTION No.1: When was the initial authorization by the Home Secretary to tap her telephone given?
QUESTION 2: What was its duration?
QUESTION 3: Did the tapping stop after the specified duration had ended or was it continued after the duration had expired? Who authorized the extension of the duration? Was a fresh complaint against her filed while seeking the extension giving a summary of the evidence collected against her, which called for a further extension?
QUESTION 4: Was a review of the initial order made by a committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary? Did it conclude that the initial authorisation and the subsequent interceptions were in order and in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court? If not, did it order the recordings and the transcripts to be destroyed?
11. These questions need to be gone into in detail during the enquiry ordered by the Prime Minister. One gets an impression that the entire case has been handled by the Government as well as the opposition and even the media with a certain levity to use an expression of Shri Sachar. This does not bode well for any exercise to prevent the misuse of the Government’s powers of interception of the communications of its citizens.
12. In their glee over the embarrassment caused to the Government and certain others by the unexplained leakage of the intercepts, the importance of ensuring that everything was done in accordance with the law has been overlooked. The right questions have not been asked. ( 15-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Inaugurating an India Corporate Week at New Delhi on December 14,2010, the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is reported to have stated as follows:"I am aware of the nervousness in the corporate sector arising out of the powers conferred upon the government authorities to tap the phones for protecting national security and preventing tax evasion and money laundering. While these powers are needed, they have to be exercised with utmost care and under well defined rules, procedures and mechanism so that they are not misused. Legal mechanisms already in place should be stringent for more effective enforcement. I am asking the Cabinet Secretary to look into these issues and report back to the Cabinet within the next month."
2.The Prime Minister’s observations came in the wake of concerns recently expressed by some corporate personalities such as Ratan Tata and Deepakh Parikh, the Chairman of the mortgage giant HDFC, over the uncontrolled leakage to certain journals of the supposedly clandestine recordings and their transcripts of the telephone conversations of Ms.Niira Radia, a lobbyist reportedly working for the Tatas and one other corporate house, with people in different walks of life.
3. The episode has led to three questions---firstly, why was her telephone tapped ?; secondly, was it done in accordance with law? ; and, thirdly, how did the results of the tapping become available to some journals in a manner that sought to damage the hard-earned reputation of some leading personalities? In a court affidavit filed last week, the Government has reportedly said it had begun tapping Ms Radia's phone after an allegation that she was spying for foreign intelligence and to make enquiries regarding her business network in order to see whether she had violated laws relating to taxation.
4. The US Congress enacted provisions in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C.A. § 2510 et seq.) that established procedures for wiretapping. All wiretaps were banned except those approved by a court. Wiretaps were legally permissible for a designated list of offenses, if a court approved. A wiretap may last a maximum of 30 days and notice must be provided to the subject of the search within 90 days of any application or a successful interception. In 1986, Congress extended wiretapping protection to electronic mail in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 8 U.S.C.A. § 2701 et seq. The law, also known as the Wiretap Act, makes it illegal to tap into private E-Mail. ( My comment: This has been taken from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Telephone+tapping).
5. There were similar controversies in India in the past too. In 1991, the Indian media had reported that hundreds of telephones of senior political leaders and journalists, including Chandra Sekhar, former Prime Minister, had been tapped unauthorisedly. In 1996, there was a controversy regarding the alleged tapping of the telephone conversation of Amar Singh, the leader of the Samajwadi Party. Some months ago, one of the journals had alleged that the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), India’s equivalent of the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US, had equipment and capability that enabled it to indulge in extensive telephone tapping.
6.Amongst those to strongly protest against such illegal telephone tapping and express concerns over methods akin to those employed by former US President Richard Nixon was Shri L.K.Advani, former Deputy Prime Minister. In a posting on April 25,2010, in his blog, he wrote as follows:
“In 1977, President Carter asked Congress to approve a plan which would make it impossible for the executive to intrude upon a citizen’s privacy without judicial authorization. This plan, Carter contended, would successfully resolve the “inherent conflict” between national security and the basic right to privacy of a citizen. Subsequently legislation has been enacted wherein all security authorities, including the FBI, have been obligated to seek prior judicial approval for any wire-taps.
”In Britain, there is no law governing wire-tapping. But several parliamentary committees have gone into the question in depth. In 1957, a three-man committee of Privy Councillors headed by Norman Birkett was set up to inquire into the “interception of communications”.
”The Birkett committee described wire-tapping, or for that matter, all forms of intercepting private communications as “inherently objectionable”, but felt that the practice may be permitted within certain clearly defined areas, and with appropriate safeguards. It laid down that wire-tapping may be allowed to the police and security agencies only for the purpose of crime investigation or to check subversive or espionage activity. Even for this field, the committee laid down rigorous guidelines. Till date, no one in Britain has ever accused their government of abusing these powers.
”What is really required in this context is to set up a parliamentary committee on the lines of the Birkett committee to examine all aspects of the problem, scrap the outdated Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 and replace it by a new legislation which forbids invasion of an ordinary citizen’s privacy, but which formally recognizes the right of the State to use the latest IT devices of interception to deal only with crime, subversion and espionage. The law must provide statutory safeguards which make it impossible for Government to abuse its powers against political activists and pressmen.”
7. Shri Advani, who was outraged by the previous instances of tapping, has not been outraged by the present instance probably because it has provided him with ammunition that he could use against the Government of Manmohan Singh. His stand seems to be---- tapping is OK if it embarrasses my opponents, but is illegal if it embarrasses me. That seems to be his line. On December 14,2010, he has attacked the Prime Minister for asking the Cabinet Secretary to look into the issue of telephone tapping, saying he seemed to be more concerned about the leakage than the credibility of his Government on the issue of corruption. "He (Prime Minister Manomhan Singh) is worried about that (leakage). What is the aspect of concern? Common man's concern is about the credibility of the Government. There should be concern about this but that is not there."
8. In an article of February 2006, in the PUCL Bulletin under the title “Telephone-tapping an invasion of individual’s privacy”, Shri Rajindar Sachar wrote, inter alia, as follows:
”The current slanging match between political parties arising from telephone-tapping of Amar Singh, General Secretary of S.P. has again highlighted the menace of unauthorized telephone tapping. This evil was highlighted in the press in 1991 showing hundreds of telephone tapping of top politicians (including Chandra Shekhar, former Prime Minister) and journalists. In India telephone tapping is provided under Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. But it could not survive after the Constitution and the Second Press Commission suggested some safeguards to be provided in the Act, but legislature did not act.
”It was in this background that Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) took the matter to the Supreme Court, which agreed that “Telephone-tapping is a serious invasion of an individual’s privacy, and increasingly susceptible to abuse.” More importantly it held right to privacy is a part of the right to “life” and “personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and Right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed also under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and when a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising this fundamental rights. This Court laid down that officials could pass an order of interception only after recording its satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of (i) sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) the security of the State, (iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv) public order or (v) for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. It is only when any of the five situations mentioned above to the satisfaction of the competent authority require that the said authority may pass the order for interception of messages by recording reasons in writing for doing so.
”Thus the Court emphasized that the security of ones privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to a free society and enforceable against the state through the Courts. Lamenting the present position and noticing that though the Act was enacted in the year 1885, and the power to make rules under Section 7 of the Act has been there for over a century but the Central Government has not thought it proper to frame the necessary rules despite severe criticism of the manner in which the power under Section 5 (2) has been exercised. Though conceding that it is entirely for the Central Government to make rules on the subject but till the time it is done the right to privacy of an individual has to be safeguarded, against arbitrariness in the exercise of power under Act.
”The Court therefore gave certain directions under which alone telephone tapping could be done. It directed that telephone tapping order will not be issued except under authorization by Home Secretary of the Central Government or of the State Government. The order should indicate the kind of communication which is to be tapped. The order passed by the Home Secretary was to cease to have effect at the end of two months from the date of authority, though it could be renewed for six months.
”A further direction was also given that original order would have to be reviewed by Committee consisting of Cabinet Secretary, Law Secretary and Secretary for Telephone Communication at the Central level and also a Corresponding Committee at the state level and if it considers that there has been a contravention of Act it will set aside the order and also destroy copies of interception material. In the background of Constitutional violation one is amazed at the indifference and levity being shown in political circles.”
9. From his article, it is evident that the position laid down by the Supreme Court is as follows: Firstly, tapping can be authorized by the Home Secretary only in one of five specified situations; Secondly, a tapping could normally last for two months, but could be extended to about six months. There cannot be indefinite tapping nor can there be tapping off and on. Thirdly, the initial authorization of the Home Secretary has to be reviewed by a committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Telecom Secretary. If the initial order was found to be incorrect, it would be set aside and all intercepts under the incorrect order would be ordered to be destroyed.
10. The following questions arise from the tapping of the telephone conversations of Radia:
QUESTION No.1: When was the initial authorization by the Home Secretary to tap her telephone given?
QUESTION 2: What was its duration?
QUESTION 3: Did the tapping stop after the specified duration had ended or was it continued after the duration had expired? Who authorized the extension of the duration? Was a fresh complaint against her filed while seeking the extension giving a summary of the evidence collected against her, which called for a further extension?
QUESTION 4: Was a review of the initial order made by a committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary? Did it conclude that the initial authorisation and the subsequent interceptions were in order and in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court? If not, did it order the recordings and the transcripts to be destroyed?
11. These questions need to be gone into in detail during the enquiry ordered by the Prime Minister. One gets an impression that the entire case has been handled by the Government as well as the opposition and even the media with a certain levity to use an expression of Shri Sachar. This does not bode well for any exercise to prevent the misuse of the Government’s powers of interception of the communications of its citizens.
12. In their glee over the embarrassment caused to the Government and certain others by the unexplained leakage of the intercepts, the importance of ensuring that everything was done in accordance with the law has been overlooked. The right questions have not been asked. ( 15-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)