B.RAMAN
The dozens of critical messages that I receive from my readers every day fall into two categories---- the downright abusive and the bewildered.
2. I wrote about the downright abusive ones yesterday. I will write today about the bewildered ones . To illustrate what I mean by "bewildered", I will cite two examples:
* Some messages ask: You had in the past opposed the issue of visas to Pakistanis to come to India to watch sports events because you were afraid they may go missing and indulge in terrorism.This time, you have not opposed visas for Pakistanis to come to Mohali to watch the India-Pakistan cricket semi-finals in the World Cup tournament. Why?
* Some other messages say: We all admired you as a superhawk on Pakistan. We read you every day. We applauded you. We modelled ourselves after you. After making us into superhawks like you, you are showing signs of being less harsh towards Pakistan. You have started using expressions like a "shared future", " need for a vision statement", "need for our Prime Minister to visit Pakistan" etc. What has happened to you?
3. Yes, there has been a transformation in my thinking since the beginning of last year. I have been suggesting in my various articles a more nuanced approach to Pakistan because I have started feeling that a policy of unrelenting hostility towards Pakistan and its total demonisation is leading us nowhere. Hostility begets hostility. Demonisation triggers counter-demonisation.. I have started feeling that the time has come for an alternative policy towards Pakistan without diluting our stand on Pakistan's claim to Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), without giving up our right to act against terrorism emanating from Pakistan and while continuing to press ahead with our co-operation with Afghanistan.
4. The nuanced approach which I have been suggesting for the last one year has the following elements:
* Encouraging Police to police relationship between the two countries by inviting Rehman Malik, Pakistan's Interior Minister, to India, treating him well and having discussions with him on counter-terrorism.
* Reviving the past liaison contacts between the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan and the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) of India. It has always been my view that such liaison contacts on a sustained basis may not lead to any substantive results, but will enable the officers of the two organisations to assess each other in flesh and blood instead of relying on source and media reports.
* Promoting interactions between other Government departments such as the Foreign Offices of the two countries to enable policy-makers such as the two Foreign Seccretaries to discuss freely and frankly how to move ahead in diluting the mutual mental resistance to each other.
* Making a gesture to Pakistan's elected political leadership by our Primer Minister making his long overdue visit to Pakistan in order to discuss the feasibility of working on a common vision statement and to replace the present cynicism and skepticism which cloud the bilateral relations with at least some rays of hope for the future.
5. Nothing may come out of my ideas. But that is not an argument for not trying them out as an alternative.We have to think of ways of changing the present confrontation between two rigid mind-sets marked by mutual suspicions---some real, some imaginary---- mutual hostility and bitter memories of the past. It is in this context that I guardedly welcome the initiative taken by our Prime Minister, Dr.Manmohan Singh, in inviting President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani to Mohali to watch the World Cup cricket semi-finals between India and Pakistan next week. I say guardedly because I do feel that the entire focus should have been on the players of the two teams who should have been Kings during those few hours when the match would be played. Now the players may have to share the limelight with the political leaders of the two countries. That can't be helped now.
6. My only appeal to the people, journalists and analysts of the two countries is: Please, please, please don't project the Semi-finals as another Indo-Pak war to be won or lost. Project it as a long-missing opportunity for shared fun.
7. Had I been the same Raman as I was last year, by now I would have dished out articles:
* opposing visas for Pakistani spectators lest they indulge in terrorism.
* Ridiculing and criticising the Prime Minister for inviting Zardari and Gilani.
* warning of dangers of another 26/11 by the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) to derail attempts towards a thaw in bilateral relations.
* warning of the dangers of a terrorist strike by Ilyas Kashmiri and his 313 Brigade based in North Waziristan
8. All these dangers are very much there. I am sure our intelligence and security agencies are aware of them and will be taking the necessary precautions. I deliberately controlled my itch to flood the public with articles on all these possible dangers because I do want Mohali to create some positive vibrations in the bilateral relations and encourage the search for an alternative approach to Indo-Pakistan relations.
(26-3-11)
( 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 )
Friday, March 25, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
VOWS FOR INDO-PAKISTAN CRICKET SEMI-FINALS & OTHER THOUGHTS
B.RAMAN
(From my Tweeter site (ramthink) )
VOW 1:We will start thinking positively of each other.
VOW 2:We will stop demonising each other.
VOW 3:We will take care not to hurt feelings of each other
VOW 4: Whoever wins, we will respect the defeated.
VOW 5: We will keep these vows even after the semi-finals,
2.Tweets sent by me on the morning of March 25,2011, to a Pakistani woman journalist
@Mehmal: I was sorry to hear of abusive tweets received by you from some people.U R not alone. I receive dozens of them every day.
@Mehmal: Abuses not from Pakistanis, but from fellow-Indians. My articles R carried by many intl web sites.I glance thro the comments.
@Mehmal: The abuses showered on me R mostly from fellow-Indians, rarely from Pakistanis.
@Mehmal: I have written hundreds of articles criticising Pakistan, LET, Tablighi Jamaat, JEM. JEI etc I receive E-mails from their supporters.
@Mehmal: They criticise my writings, but do not abuse me personally. No Pakistani has ever called me senile, dozens of Indians do--every day.
3.The following comments of mine were not tweeted.
4.This tendency to abuse people with whom they do not agree seems to be the unique contribution of some Hindutva elements to Indian culture.
5.I have received hundreds of abuses.Some of them indicative of the disturbing mindset are given below:
• Senile ( I have been so called hundreds of times)
• A lunatic who has escaped from the lunatic asylum.
• His cancer has affected his mental faculties.
• His cancer has spread to his brain.
• He must stop writing and enter a cancer clinic.
• Corrupt. Only a corrupt person will exchange tweets with Barkha Dutt ( the TV personality).
• Has formed a mutual admiration club with Barkha.
• Courier of Niiru Radia, the lobbyist, who carries her money to her Swiss accounts.
• By supporting Barkha,he has become the laughing stock of India.
• Erratic---brilliant in his analysis sometimes, pathetic on other occasions.( What they mean is I am brilliant when I am supportive of the BJP and pathetic when I am not )
6.To illustrate the mindset of these elements, I will cite the following: On the morning of March 23, I wrote an article questioning the fitness of Rahul Gandhi to lead India. They hailed me as a great ever-green analyst whom everybody should read. In the evening, I criticized the political incompetence of the BJP as revealed during the debate on the cash for votes issue in the Lok Sabha. The very same people who hailed me as a great analyst in the morning, condemned me as biased, a Congress (I) man etc.
7. This abusive campaign against me has been triggered by the following:
• My writings that some of the terrorist attacks did not appear to have been carried out by Muslims.
• My writings that some Hindus have taken to reprisal terrorism against Muslims.
• My recent advocacy of greater interactions with Pakistan outside the composite dialogue process.
• My strong support for Barkha and my writings that she has been wronged and sinned against.
8.I have been surprised by the pressure to which I have been subjected on the Barkha issue even by well-known people who do not have anything to do with the Hindutva elements. It is not because of the merits of the issue.
• One very senior Editor based in Delhi “warned” me in writing that he will not carry my writings on other subjects if I did not stop supporting Barkha.
• Another senior Editor expressed his “disappointment” in writing over my praising Barkha.
• Another person, writing on behalf of some NRIs in the US, cautioned me that they will stop reading my writings if I did not stop supporting Barkha.
9. I have been in receipt of many more such messages warning me, cautioning me, rebuking me on the Barkha issue. These people should remember one thing: I have never succumbed to pressure in my life. I am not going to do so in the evening of my life.
10.If the BJP and other Hindutva organizations do not control the abusive elements, their own credibility will be affected in the long run. It cannot just throw up its hands and say that it is not responsible for the abusive behaviour of its supporters. It is. (25-3-11)
( 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 )
.
(From my Tweeter site (ramthink) )
VOW 1:We will start thinking positively of each other.
VOW 2:We will stop demonising each other.
VOW 3:We will take care not to hurt feelings of each other
VOW 4: Whoever wins, we will respect the defeated.
VOW 5: We will keep these vows even after the semi-finals,
2.Tweets sent by me on the morning of March 25,2011, to a Pakistani woman journalist
@Mehmal: I was sorry to hear of abusive tweets received by you from some people.U R not alone. I receive dozens of them every day.
@Mehmal: Abuses not from Pakistanis, but from fellow-Indians. My articles R carried by many intl web sites.I glance thro the comments.
@Mehmal: The abuses showered on me R mostly from fellow-Indians, rarely from Pakistanis.
@Mehmal: I have written hundreds of articles criticising Pakistan, LET, Tablighi Jamaat, JEM. JEI etc I receive E-mails from their supporters.
@Mehmal: They criticise my writings, but do not abuse me personally. No Pakistani has ever called me senile, dozens of Indians do--every day.
3.The following comments of mine were not tweeted.
4.This tendency to abuse people with whom they do not agree seems to be the unique contribution of some Hindutva elements to Indian culture.
5.I have received hundreds of abuses.Some of them indicative of the disturbing mindset are given below:
• Senile ( I have been so called hundreds of times)
• A lunatic who has escaped from the lunatic asylum.
• His cancer has affected his mental faculties.
• His cancer has spread to his brain.
• He must stop writing and enter a cancer clinic.
• Corrupt. Only a corrupt person will exchange tweets with Barkha Dutt ( the TV personality).
• Has formed a mutual admiration club with Barkha.
• Courier of Niiru Radia, the lobbyist, who carries her money to her Swiss accounts.
• By supporting Barkha,he has become the laughing stock of India.
• Erratic---brilliant in his analysis sometimes, pathetic on other occasions.( What they mean is I am brilliant when I am supportive of the BJP and pathetic when I am not )
6.To illustrate the mindset of these elements, I will cite the following: On the morning of March 23, I wrote an article questioning the fitness of Rahul Gandhi to lead India. They hailed me as a great ever-green analyst whom everybody should read. In the evening, I criticized the political incompetence of the BJP as revealed during the debate on the cash for votes issue in the Lok Sabha. The very same people who hailed me as a great analyst in the morning, condemned me as biased, a Congress (I) man etc.
7. This abusive campaign against me has been triggered by the following:
• My writings that some of the terrorist attacks did not appear to have been carried out by Muslims.
• My writings that some Hindus have taken to reprisal terrorism against Muslims.
• My recent advocacy of greater interactions with Pakistan outside the composite dialogue process.
• My strong support for Barkha and my writings that she has been wronged and sinned against.
8.I have been surprised by the pressure to which I have been subjected on the Barkha issue even by well-known people who do not have anything to do with the Hindutva elements. It is not because of the merits of the issue.
• One very senior Editor based in Delhi “warned” me in writing that he will not carry my writings on other subjects if I did not stop supporting Barkha.
• Another senior Editor expressed his “disappointment” in writing over my praising Barkha.
• Another person, writing on behalf of some NRIs in the US, cautioned me that they will stop reading my writings if I did not stop supporting Barkha.
9. I have been in receipt of many more such messages warning me, cautioning me, rebuking me on the Barkha issue. These people should remember one thing: I have never succumbed to pressure in my life. I am not going to do so in the evening of my life.
10.If the BJP and other Hindutva organizations do not control the abusive elements, their own credibility will be affected in the long run. It cannot just throw up its hands and say that it is not responsible for the abusive behaviour of its supporters. It is. (25-3-11)
( 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 )
.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
CASH FOR VOTES: WHAT NEXT?
B.RAMAN
FACT 1: In July,2008, there were allegations of vote-buying levelled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other opposition parties to influence voting after a motion of no-confidence in the Government of Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh. The no-confidence motion was triggered off by opposition challenges to the Indo-US civil nuclear co-operation agreement. The no-confidence motion failed. The allegations were investigated by a Committee constituted by the Lok Sabha and the Committee concluded that there was insufficient evidence to come to any definitive conclusions. On December 16,2008,the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha Somnath Chatterjee stated as follows in the Lok Sabha:"The finding of the Committee is that material on record does not conclusively prove that the money contained in the bag which was eventually displayed in the House was actually sent by the persons who were alleged to have sent it for the purpose of winning over Shri Ashok Argal, Shri Faggan Singh Kulaste and Shri Mahavir Bagora to vote in favour of Motion of Confidence. The Committee have, however, found the evidence given before the Committee by three persons involved in this episode as unconvincing and the Committee have suggested that their role in the matter needs to be investigated by investigating agencies. I am accordingly referring the matter pertaining to the said three persons to the hon. Minister of Home Affairs for appropriate action in the light of the recommendations of the Committee."
FACT 2: In paragraph 168 of its report, the Committee observed as follows: "The Committee, after taking into account their findings and conclusions in the matter as detailed in para 141, particularly at 14 to 17 relating to roles of Shri Sanjeev Saxena, Shri Sohail Hindustani and Shri Sudheendra Kulkarni, recommend that this matter may be probed further by an appropriate investigating agency." The matter was referred to the Delhi Police for investigation. Further investigation is in progress. One does not know till now the result of the investigation that has been going on for more than two years.
FACT 3: On March 17,2011, "The Hindu", a daily newspaper of Chennai, published details of a cable sent to the US State Department on July 17, 2008, by Steven White, the CDA in the US Embassy in New Delhi, about a visit paid to Satish Sharma, the Congress MP, the previous day by the Embassy's Political Counsellor. The cable of the CDA does not identify by name the Political Counsellor. The cable also has a reference to the interactions of "an Embassy Staff member" with Nachiketa Kapur, described as Sharma's political aide, on July 16. This staff member has not been identified either. It is not clear whether the Political Counsellor and the Embassy staff member are one and the same person. “The Hindu” had obtained the cable from WikiLeaks. The cable spoke of alleged plans of the Congress (I) to pay bribes to certain members of the Lok Sabha in an attempt to influence the voting. It also claimed that Kapur showed the Embassy staff member some boxes said to be containing the money which was to be paid as bribe. This is a new allegation and a new piece of evidence, if true, which had not figured in the enquiry held by the Lok Sabha Committee of 2008. The Government was, therefore, under a moral and legal obligation to refer the details of the alleged contents of the cable to the Delhi Police for further investigation as part of their continuing investigation in the case arising from the Lok Sabha Committee’s report. It did not do so. The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, on his own without even an attempt at an enquiry rejected the contents of the cable as published by “The Hindu” as speculative, unverified and unverifiable. This conclusion was based not on a criminal investigation by an investigating agency, but on the partisan political assertion of the Prime Minister.
FACT 4: In a statement in the Lok Sabha on March 23, the Prime Minister stated as follows: “ I reiterate that it is not possible for the Government of India to confirm the veracity or the contents of such communications. If they exist, they would be communications from the US diplomats stationed in New Delhi to their Government in Washington. This is not open to us to inquire from either of the two regarding the communications they exchanged amongst themselves. In my Statement of 18th March, 2011, I had also stated that many of the persons referred to in these communications have strongly denied their veracity.…”
FACT 5: The Prime Minister’s statement of March 23 was preceded by two significant developments relating to the authenticity of the WikiLeaks cables released all over the world. On March 19, the US State Department accepted the resignation of the US Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual whose cable to the US State Department containing allegations regarding Mexico’s anti-drug policy came in for strong criticism from the Mexican Government. The fact of his resignation and its acceptance by the State Department amounted to an implicit acceptance of the authenticity of this cable as leaked by WikiLeaks. When the WikiLeaks cable containing serious allegations against the Mexican Government leveled by the US Ambassador was published by the local media, the Mexican President did not dismiss it as speculative, unverified and unverifiable. He strongly protested to the US Government against the allegations against the Mexican Government made by the US Ambassador in his cable. The US Government had to ask its Ambassador to resign so that state-to-state relations with Mexico were not affected. Compare the strong reaction of the Mexican President with the weak action of our Prime Minister. He does not refer the matter to the police for an enquiry. Nor does he protest to the US Government over a cable which seeks to cast doubt on the state of Indian democracy and tarnish the dignity of the Indian Parliament. Without referring the matter to the police and without taking up the matter with the US Government, the Prime Minister on his own dismisses the whole thing as unverified and unverifiable.
The other significant development related to a detailed interview of Julian Assange of WikiLeaks by Prannoy Roy, Chairman of the NDTV. The details of the interview were carried by “The Hindu” on March 22. In this interview, Assange, inter alia, stated as follows: “ When we look at the cables in other contexts, they have been used and accepted as evidence in the (Charles) Taylor case in The Hague; they have been using quotes in Spain to reopen a rendition case. They have been used in a number of places; they have been accepted as quotes, as probative evidence, as genuine official documents. Of course, what the officials say and, how they gain their knowledge too must be investigated and interrogated. But the comment I have been hearing from Prime Minister Singh---these, to me, seem like a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by suggesting that Governments around the world do not accept the material and it is not verified….ABSOLUTELY FALSE” (emphasis mine)
The Government managed to wriggle out of a difficult situation in the Lok Sabha on March 23 because the BJP was more interested in securing some partisan political gains for itself than in having the truth established in order to safeguard the health of our democracy and protect the self-respect of the nation. Neither the Congress (I) nor the BJP was interested in establishing the truth. They were only interested in partisan political gains.
It is time for the right-thinking citizens of the country, who have no political agenda, to take over the matter and pursue it doggedly till the truth is established. The matter needs to be raised before the Supreme Court in a public interest petition. ( 24-3-11)
( 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 )
FACT 1: In July,2008, there were allegations of vote-buying levelled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other opposition parties to influence voting after a motion of no-confidence in the Government of Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh. The no-confidence motion was triggered off by opposition challenges to the Indo-US civil nuclear co-operation agreement. The no-confidence motion failed. The allegations were investigated by a Committee constituted by the Lok Sabha and the Committee concluded that there was insufficient evidence to come to any definitive conclusions. On December 16,2008,the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha Somnath Chatterjee stated as follows in the Lok Sabha:"The finding of the Committee is that material on record does not conclusively prove that the money contained in the bag which was eventually displayed in the House was actually sent by the persons who were alleged to have sent it for the purpose of winning over Shri Ashok Argal, Shri Faggan Singh Kulaste and Shri Mahavir Bagora to vote in favour of Motion of Confidence. The Committee have, however, found the evidence given before the Committee by three persons involved in this episode as unconvincing and the Committee have suggested that their role in the matter needs to be investigated by investigating agencies. I am accordingly referring the matter pertaining to the said three persons to the hon. Minister of Home Affairs for appropriate action in the light of the recommendations of the Committee."
FACT 2: In paragraph 168 of its report, the Committee observed as follows: "The Committee, after taking into account their findings and conclusions in the matter as detailed in para 141, particularly at 14 to 17 relating to roles of Shri Sanjeev Saxena, Shri Sohail Hindustani and Shri Sudheendra Kulkarni, recommend that this matter may be probed further by an appropriate investigating agency." The matter was referred to the Delhi Police for investigation. Further investigation is in progress. One does not know till now the result of the investigation that has been going on for more than two years.
FACT 3: On March 17,2011, "The Hindu", a daily newspaper of Chennai, published details of a cable sent to the US State Department on July 17, 2008, by Steven White, the CDA in the US Embassy in New Delhi, about a visit paid to Satish Sharma, the Congress MP, the previous day by the Embassy's Political Counsellor. The cable of the CDA does not identify by name the Political Counsellor. The cable also has a reference to the interactions of "an Embassy Staff member" with Nachiketa Kapur, described as Sharma's political aide, on July 16. This staff member has not been identified either. It is not clear whether the Political Counsellor and the Embassy staff member are one and the same person. “The Hindu” had obtained the cable from WikiLeaks. The cable spoke of alleged plans of the Congress (I) to pay bribes to certain members of the Lok Sabha in an attempt to influence the voting. It also claimed that Kapur showed the Embassy staff member some boxes said to be containing the money which was to be paid as bribe. This is a new allegation and a new piece of evidence, if true, which had not figured in the enquiry held by the Lok Sabha Committee of 2008. The Government was, therefore, under a moral and legal obligation to refer the details of the alleged contents of the cable to the Delhi Police for further investigation as part of their continuing investigation in the case arising from the Lok Sabha Committee’s report. It did not do so. The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, on his own without even an attempt at an enquiry rejected the contents of the cable as published by “The Hindu” as speculative, unverified and unverifiable. This conclusion was based not on a criminal investigation by an investigating agency, but on the partisan political assertion of the Prime Minister.
FACT 4: In a statement in the Lok Sabha on March 23, the Prime Minister stated as follows: “ I reiterate that it is not possible for the Government of India to confirm the veracity or the contents of such communications. If they exist, they would be communications from the US diplomats stationed in New Delhi to their Government in Washington. This is not open to us to inquire from either of the two regarding the communications they exchanged amongst themselves. In my Statement of 18th March, 2011, I had also stated that many of the persons referred to in these communications have strongly denied their veracity.…”
FACT 5: The Prime Minister’s statement of March 23 was preceded by two significant developments relating to the authenticity of the WikiLeaks cables released all over the world. On March 19, the US State Department accepted the resignation of the US Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual whose cable to the US State Department containing allegations regarding Mexico’s anti-drug policy came in for strong criticism from the Mexican Government. The fact of his resignation and its acceptance by the State Department amounted to an implicit acceptance of the authenticity of this cable as leaked by WikiLeaks. When the WikiLeaks cable containing serious allegations against the Mexican Government leveled by the US Ambassador was published by the local media, the Mexican President did not dismiss it as speculative, unverified and unverifiable. He strongly protested to the US Government against the allegations against the Mexican Government made by the US Ambassador in his cable. The US Government had to ask its Ambassador to resign so that state-to-state relations with Mexico were not affected. Compare the strong reaction of the Mexican President with the weak action of our Prime Minister. He does not refer the matter to the police for an enquiry. Nor does he protest to the US Government over a cable which seeks to cast doubt on the state of Indian democracy and tarnish the dignity of the Indian Parliament. Without referring the matter to the police and without taking up the matter with the US Government, the Prime Minister on his own dismisses the whole thing as unverified and unverifiable.
The other significant development related to a detailed interview of Julian Assange of WikiLeaks by Prannoy Roy, Chairman of the NDTV. The details of the interview were carried by “The Hindu” on March 22. In this interview, Assange, inter alia, stated as follows: “ When we look at the cables in other contexts, they have been used and accepted as evidence in the (Charles) Taylor case in The Hague; they have been using quotes in Spain to reopen a rendition case. They have been used in a number of places; they have been accepted as quotes, as probative evidence, as genuine official documents. Of course, what the officials say and, how they gain their knowledge too must be investigated and interrogated. But the comment I have been hearing from Prime Minister Singh---these, to me, seem like a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by suggesting that Governments around the world do not accept the material and it is not verified….ABSOLUTELY FALSE” (emphasis mine)
The Government managed to wriggle out of a difficult situation in the Lok Sabha on March 23 because the BJP was more interested in securing some partisan political gains for itself than in having the truth established in order to safeguard the health of our democracy and protect the self-respect of the nation. Neither the Congress (I) nor the BJP was interested in establishing the truth. They were only interested in partisan political gains.
It is time for the right-thinking citizens of the country, who have no political agenda, to take over the matter and pursue it doggedly till the truth is established. The matter needs to be raised before the Supreme Court in a public interest petition. ( 24-3-11)
( 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 )
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
IS RAHUL GANDHI FIT TO LEAD INDIA?
B.RAMAN
Is Rahul Gandhi fit to lead India and enable it to take its rightful place as an Asian power on par with China?
2. It is very difficult to give a comprehensive answer to this question because there is very little known about him and the Congress (I) has seen to it that his personality and stature do not become the subject of public scrutiny. Without any scrutiny and without any enumeration of his positive and negative qualities and track record as a political personality, his followers in the party want to impose him on the country as the next Prime Minister in the unlikely eventuality of the Congress (I) returning to power in the next parliamentary elections whenever they are held.
3.I consciously called him a political personality and not a political leader because his ability to exercise leadership over the country has not so far been tested. Even in his own party, in which he has been holding office as the General Secretary for some time now, he has not set the Jamuna on fire. If one has to prepare a comprehensive CV on him for dissemination through the Internet similar to the CVs on political leaders circulated in the US and other democracies before elections, one will have difficulty in completing the task because there is so little known about him except the flattery disseminated by the members of his party.
4. When we are told by his party members that he is fit to be the next Prime Minister of India, we have a right to know on what basis they have come to that conclusion. Leadership does not necessarily require high educational qualifications.K.Kamaraj, the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, who subsequently became the President of the Congress (I) and played a key role in post-Nehru transition, was hardly educated. And, yet, he turned out to be one of the successful leaders produced by India.
5. Let us, therefore, keep aside the question of Rahul Gandhi's educational qualifications which, in my view, are not important for this debate. My perceptions of Rahul Gandhi are marked by the following thoughts:
* A potential leader must have something more than good personal qualities. He must have an intellectual spark which does not necessarily come from his or her educational qualifications. Rahul Gandhi has not so far given evidence of such an intellectual spark.
* Till now, he has not demonstrated any leadership qualities by way of ideas and actions.
* His ability to understand and logically analyse the complex internal and external problems facing the country is yet to be proved.
* His views tend to be very simplistic and do not indicate wide reading and an ability to think deeply.
* A good leader of the future must excite the younger generation. Rahul doesn't---not even in his own party.
6.. Under such circumstances, the Congress (I) will be doing a tremendous diservice to itself and the country if its tries to have him imposed initially on the party and then on the country as the next Prime Minister of India. His track record till now---whether in respect of contribution to new ideas or new policies---has been mediocre. Apart from the fact that he has come from a highly privileged political family, which has made a tremendous contribition to the nation, he is yet to demonstrate any qualities which compel attention and could make us look upon him as a leader of the future.
7. It is important to have an objective and balanced debate on this subject devoid of rhetoric, abuses and ideological arguments so that we have a complete picture of him before our eyes on the basis of which we can decide whether he is fit to lead India in the difficult years to come.Congress (I) could contribute to this debate by opening a separate web site for him in which they could give all data about him relevant to this debate,
8. If the Congress (I) expects the people of this country to seriously consider him as a potential leader, he should not be treated as a sacred cow which has to be accepted by the people without any scrutiny. (23-3-11)
( 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 )
Is Rahul Gandhi fit to lead India and enable it to take its rightful place as an Asian power on par with China?
2. It is very difficult to give a comprehensive answer to this question because there is very little known about him and the Congress (I) has seen to it that his personality and stature do not become the subject of public scrutiny. Without any scrutiny and without any enumeration of his positive and negative qualities and track record as a political personality, his followers in the party want to impose him on the country as the next Prime Minister in the unlikely eventuality of the Congress (I) returning to power in the next parliamentary elections whenever they are held.
3.I consciously called him a political personality and not a political leader because his ability to exercise leadership over the country has not so far been tested. Even in his own party, in which he has been holding office as the General Secretary for some time now, he has not set the Jamuna on fire. If one has to prepare a comprehensive CV on him for dissemination through the Internet similar to the CVs on political leaders circulated in the US and other democracies before elections, one will have difficulty in completing the task because there is so little known about him except the flattery disseminated by the members of his party.
4. When we are told by his party members that he is fit to be the next Prime Minister of India, we have a right to know on what basis they have come to that conclusion. Leadership does not necessarily require high educational qualifications.K.Kamaraj, the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, who subsequently became the President of the Congress (I) and played a key role in post-Nehru transition, was hardly educated. And, yet, he turned out to be one of the successful leaders produced by India.
5. Let us, therefore, keep aside the question of Rahul Gandhi's educational qualifications which, in my view, are not important for this debate. My perceptions of Rahul Gandhi are marked by the following thoughts:
* A potential leader must have something more than good personal qualities. He must have an intellectual spark which does not necessarily come from his or her educational qualifications. Rahul Gandhi has not so far given evidence of such an intellectual spark.
* Till now, he has not demonstrated any leadership qualities by way of ideas and actions.
* His ability to understand and logically analyse the complex internal and external problems facing the country is yet to be proved.
* His views tend to be very simplistic and do not indicate wide reading and an ability to think deeply.
* A good leader of the future must excite the younger generation. Rahul doesn't---not even in his own party.
6.. Under such circumstances, the Congress (I) will be doing a tremendous diservice to itself and the country if its tries to have him imposed initially on the party and then on the country as the next Prime Minister of India. His track record till now---whether in respect of contribution to new ideas or new policies---has been mediocre. Apart from the fact that he has come from a highly privileged political family, which has made a tremendous contribition to the nation, he is yet to demonstrate any qualities which compel attention and could make us look upon him as a leader of the future.
7. It is important to have an objective and balanced debate on this subject devoid of rhetoric, abuses and ideological arguments so that we have a complete picture of him before our eyes on the basis of which we can decide whether he is fit to lead India in the difficult years to come.Congress (I) could contribute to this debate by opening a separate web site for him in which they could give all data about him relevant to this debate,
8. If the Congress (I) expects the people of this country to seriously consider him as a potential leader, he should not be treated as a sacred cow which has to be accepted by the people without any scrutiny. (23-3-11)
( 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 )
Monday, March 21, 2011
LIBYA: INCREASING CONFUSION
B.RAMAN
“The rebels' strategy is to push west but this has got off to a halting start, and without further concerted air strikes it is difficult to see how this rag-tag army will ever achieve its aim of unseating Col Gaddafi.”
---Ian Pannell, the BBC correspondent in East Libya, in a dispatch of March 21,2011
-----------------------------------------------
Increasing confusion over basic aspects of the Western-led military operations --- ostensibly with the authorisation of the UN Security Council (UNSC)---- in Libya doesn't bode well for the achievement of the principal objective of the operation as authorised by the UNSC, namely, the protection of civilians in the areas outside the control of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan despot.
2. The No Fly Zone was authorised by the UNSC to protect the civilians from air strikes by the Libyan Air Force. States of the Arab League supported the proposal for a No Fly Zone under the impression that it meant patrolling by the planes of the members of the coalition in the Libyan skies in order to immobilise the Libyan Air Force.
3. The UNSC resolution has been interpreted by the US, the UK and France as authorising not only the immobilisation of the Libyan Air Force, but also its destruction on the ground. Hence, the repeated air and missile strikes for three nights in succession on ground positions in Tripoli, the capital, and other areas under Government control. This destruction, instead of immobilization, is causing large civilian casualties in the areas under the control of the Government. Even if one does not accept the figures of civilian casualties as given out by the Libyan Government, the fact that there have been civilian casualties in the Government-controlled areas cannot be denied. Civilians are being killed in Government-controlled areas in attempts to protect the civilians in the rebel-controlled areas.
4. The severity of the air strikes----- which is totally disproportionate to the requirements of a No Fly Zone to protect the civilians--- has already started causing disquiet in the ruling circles of the Arab world, but not yet amongst the population. There has not yet been any public demonstration against the disproportionate air and missile strikes under the pretext of preparing the ground for effective enforcement of a No Fly Zone. Amr Moussa, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, has been the first to give expression to this disquiet. One could expect others to do so in the days to come if this disproportionate resort to air and missile strikes continues.
5. The reported destruction by a missile strike of a building near Gaddafi’s place of residence under the pretext that it housed the command and control of Libyan air defence forces has given rise to suspicions that the Western-led coalition has arrogated to itself without the authority of the UNSC the objective of removing Gaddafi through military action. There have been vague answers from Western leaders to the question as to Gaddafi’s removal is one of the objectives of the military action. While the Americans have been somewhat vehement in their denial, the British have not been. While denying that Gaddafi is a direct target, the British do not rule out the possibility of his becoming an indirect victim of the air and missile strikes.
6. This calculated ambivalence results from Western realization that there is unlikely to be an early end to the military operations so long as Gaddafi continues to be in power in Tripoli. Even if the Libyan Air Force is totally destroyed on the ground, the rag-tag army of the opponents of Gaddafi is not in a position to move by road over a 1000 kms from Benghazi to Tripoli, defeat Gaddafi’s forces and remove him from power unless it is assured of sustained air support. Moreover, it has to pass through areas inhabited by tribes loyal to Gaddafi. Unless their ground fighting capability is degraded, the rebel army could face difficulty in reaching Tripoli. Having degraded Gaddafi’s air capability under the pretext of facilitating the No Fly Zone--- which itself was more than what was authorized by the UNSC--- the West now faces the prospect of having to mount more air and missile strikes on Gaddafi’s ground troops in order to degrade their fighting capability. This could aggravate the disquiet among the Arab members of the coalition.
7. If the rebel army does not capture Tripoli in another two or three weeks it is likely to face another adversary en route to Tripoli----the desert storms which could increase in frequency and intensity in the days to come. During the Iraq invasion of 2003, desert storms immobilized some US tanks and slowed down the advance to Baghdad. Fortunately, the desert storms did not last long. If they last long in Libya, not only it could slow down the rebel advance to Tripoli, but it could also hamper air strikes due to poor visibility thereby increasing the reliance on missile strikes which generally cause more civilian casualties than air strikes.
8. These problems---actual and potential---have been confounded by the lack of convergence over the command and control of the entire operation. Presently, the command and control is being temporarily exercised by the Americans, but President Barack Obama is anxious to erase as rapidly as possible the impression that this is an US-inspired, US-led and US-manipulated military action using the fig-leaf cover of the UNSC resolution. He wants one of the European members of the coalition to take over as quickly as possible the leadership of the command and control. What role should the NATO play in this command and control? Germany, Turkey and the Arab members of the coalition are not comfortable with the idea of a NATO role. The UK and Italy are in favour of it.
9. If these problems are not sorted out in the coming days and if there is no convergence on what exactly the UNSC resolution means and how to achieve the objectives as laid down by the UNSC resolution, one could find the situation in Libya becoming messier than it is today. ( 22-3-11)
( 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 )
“The rebels' strategy is to push west but this has got off to a halting start, and without further concerted air strikes it is difficult to see how this rag-tag army will ever achieve its aim of unseating Col Gaddafi.”
---Ian Pannell, the BBC correspondent in East Libya, in a dispatch of March 21,2011
-----------------------------------------------
Increasing confusion over basic aspects of the Western-led military operations --- ostensibly with the authorisation of the UN Security Council (UNSC)---- in Libya doesn't bode well for the achievement of the principal objective of the operation as authorised by the UNSC, namely, the protection of civilians in the areas outside the control of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan despot.
2. The No Fly Zone was authorised by the UNSC to protect the civilians from air strikes by the Libyan Air Force. States of the Arab League supported the proposal for a No Fly Zone under the impression that it meant patrolling by the planes of the members of the coalition in the Libyan skies in order to immobilise the Libyan Air Force.
3. The UNSC resolution has been interpreted by the US, the UK and France as authorising not only the immobilisation of the Libyan Air Force, but also its destruction on the ground. Hence, the repeated air and missile strikes for three nights in succession on ground positions in Tripoli, the capital, and other areas under Government control. This destruction, instead of immobilization, is causing large civilian casualties in the areas under the control of the Government. Even if one does not accept the figures of civilian casualties as given out by the Libyan Government, the fact that there have been civilian casualties in the Government-controlled areas cannot be denied. Civilians are being killed in Government-controlled areas in attempts to protect the civilians in the rebel-controlled areas.
4. The severity of the air strikes----- which is totally disproportionate to the requirements of a No Fly Zone to protect the civilians--- has already started causing disquiet in the ruling circles of the Arab world, but not yet amongst the population. There has not yet been any public demonstration against the disproportionate air and missile strikes under the pretext of preparing the ground for effective enforcement of a No Fly Zone. Amr Moussa, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, has been the first to give expression to this disquiet. One could expect others to do so in the days to come if this disproportionate resort to air and missile strikes continues.
5. The reported destruction by a missile strike of a building near Gaddafi’s place of residence under the pretext that it housed the command and control of Libyan air defence forces has given rise to suspicions that the Western-led coalition has arrogated to itself without the authority of the UNSC the objective of removing Gaddafi through military action. There have been vague answers from Western leaders to the question as to Gaddafi’s removal is one of the objectives of the military action. While the Americans have been somewhat vehement in their denial, the British have not been. While denying that Gaddafi is a direct target, the British do not rule out the possibility of his becoming an indirect victim of the air and missile strikes.
6. This calculated ambivalence results from Western realization that there is unlikely to be an early end to the military operations so long as Gaddafi continues to be in power in Tripoli. Even if the Libyan Air Force is totally destroyed on the ground, the rag-tag army of the opponents of Gaddafi is not in a position to move by road over a 1000 kms from Benghazi to Tripoli, defeat Gaddafi’s forces and remove him from power unless it is assured of sustained air support. Moreover, it has to pass through areas inhabited by tribes loyal to Gaddafi. Unless their ground fighting capability is degraded, the rebel army could face difficulty in reaching Tripoli. Having degraded Gaddafi’s air capability under the pretext of facilitating the No Fly Zone--- which itself was more than what was authorized by the UNSC--- the West now faces the prospect of having to mount more air and missile strikes on Gaddafi’s ground troops in order to degrade their fighting capability. This could aggravate the disquiet among the Arab members of the coalition.
7. If the rebel army does not capture Tripoli in another two or three weeks it is likely to face another adversary en route to Tripoli----the desert storms which could increase in frequency and intensity in the days to come. During the Iraq invasion of 2003, desert storms immobilized some US tanks and slowed down the advance to Baghdad. Fortunately, the desert storms did not last long. If they last long in Libya, not only it could slow down the rebel advance to Tripoli, but it could also hamper air strikes due to poor visibility thereby increasing the reliance on missile strikes which generally cause more civilian casualties than air strikes.
8. These problems---actual and potential---have been confounded by the lack of convergence over the command and control of the entire operation. Presently, the command and control is being temporarily exercised by the Americans, but President Barack Obama is anxious to erase as rapidly as possible the impression that this is an US-inspired, US-led and US-manipulated military action using the fig-leaf cover of the UNSC resolution. He wants one of the European members of the coalition to take over as quickly as possible the leadership of the command and control. What role should the NATO play in this command and control? Germany, Turkey and the Arab members of the coalition are not comfortable with the idea of a NATO role. The UK and Italy are in favour of it.
9. If these problems are not sorted out in the coming days and if there is no convergence on what exactly the UNSC resolution means and how to achieve the objectives as laid down by the UNSC resolution, one could find the situation in Libya becoming messier than it is today. ( 22-3-11)
( 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 )
Sunday, March 20, 2011
WE THE MERE INDIANS
B.RAMAN
The publication in instalments of leaked WikiLeaks diplomatic cables by selected newspapers such as the “Guardian”of the UK, the “New York Times”, “Le Monde” of France, “Der Spiegel” of Germany and “El Pais” of Spain started a year ago.
2.The initial documents were about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The subsequent ones were about other subjects and other countries, including Pakistan, China and Singapore.
3.Some countries such as China and Singapore ignored the leaks with contempt without making any comments. Others such as Pakistan painstakingly avoided any impression of panic or embarrassment. They successfully created an impression of taking them on their stride. There have been very few instances of the documents causing any political or diplomatic or other bureaucratic heads to roll except the resignation of the US Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual whose cable to the US State Department containing allegations regarding Mexico’s anti-drug policy came in for strong criticism from the Mexican Government. The fact of his resignation and its acceptance by the State Department on March 19 amounts to an implicit acceptance of the authenticity of this cable as leaked by WikiLeaks. After this, it would be difficult for other States, including India, to take up the position that the WikiLeaks cables are not authentic.
4.The Mexican development is also the only instance so far in which the leaks have had a serious impact on state-to-state relations. Otherwise, barring Mexico, practically all the countries affected by the leaks as well as the US itself have shown a certain maturity in dealing with the leaks. They have been helped in this by the advance warnings given by the US State Department to other countries about the impending leaks.
5.One could already discern a diminishing interest in these cables in countries which faced the initial deluge of the leaks. In those countries, one hardly speaks any longer of the leaked documents. Despite the leaks, Government business goes on, diplomacy goes on, state-to-state relationships go on as before .
6.Leaks may come and leaks may go, but diplomacy and statecraft will go on for ever.
7.India was among the last countries to be hit by the Wiki deluge. It took “The Hindu” of Chennai nearly three months to work out with WikiLeaks an arrangement by which it has been allowed to have access to at least some, if not all, of the documents relating to India------ the majority of them consisting of diplomatic cables with various degrees of classification exchanged between the US Embassy in New Delhi and the State Department.
8. It was reported last year that WikiLeaks has about 3,000 such India-related documents in its possession. It is not known whether “The Hindu” has been allowed to have access to all of them or only some. If “The Hindu” is going to publish all of them, a leak fatigue is bound to set in---even earlier than it did in other countries.
9. Some of the documents published by “The Hindu” so far are of trivial importance. There was no need for it to have published them and given them over-stated importance. A typical example is the cable to the US Embassy in New Delhi asking for a personality profile on Pranab Mukherjee. There is nothing ominously significant about it. All countries have such personality profiles on leaders of other countries in their diplomatic database and keep updating them. The State Department’s cable on the subject is part of the updating exercise and there was no need for “The Hindu” to have gone to town over it.
10. The majority of the cables published so far would come under one of the following categories----- minutes of discussions of US diplomats with their Indian interlocutors, observations of US diplomats on the ground situation in states such as Manipur and assessments in general of US diplomats on various issues of interest to the US. These are largely based on facts as they became available to the US diplomats. I have gone through all the cables published so far. I have not come across a single instance where one could accuse the diplomats of fabrication or willful distortion. There is no evidence of any mala fide in the way the cables have been recorded.
11. Most of the facts as stated or discussed in the leaked cables are already known to well-informed sections of the Indian public. For example, everything that has been recorded in some of the cables about M.K.Narayanan, former National Security Adviser, was already known in India through our media reports. The only interesting thing is that the cables enable us to have a look at these facts through American and not Indian eyes. One finds that American eyes could be as jaundiced as Indian eyes.
12. There are some tell-tale leads for our investigative reporters. The most interesting of these leads, in my view, is the one about a planned tripartite meeting in the US on the initiative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to discuss developments relating to the investigation into the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai. This meeting was to be attended by officers of the intelligence and investigating agencies of India, Pakistan and the US. The cables are,however, silent as to whether this tripartite meeting was held as scheduled, if so, who attended and what transpired.
13. During the tenure of Rajiv Gandhi and Chandrasekhar as the Prime Minister, the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had three meetings at the level of their then chiefs held at the initiative of a Jordanian dignitary. Nothing much came out of these meetings. After the Mumbai blasts of March 1993, the US had tried to organize such a tripartite meeting in a third country. P.V.Narasimha Rao, the then Prime Minister, and J.N Dixit, the then Foreign Secretary, were not enthusiastic about it. So the suggested US initiative remained a non-starter
14. The leaked cables suggest that the US had again taken up this idea after the 26/11 terrorist strikes and that the Government of Dr.Manmohan Singh had reacted positively to it. This is something interesting and significant and could make a good story if properly followed up by our investigative journalists.
15. There is at least one cable relating to a possible commission of the serious crime of bribery to influence voting in the Lok Sabha and the role Satish Sharma of the Congress (I) and one of his aides had allegedly played in it. This, if true, is a fresh piece of evidence which has come to notice now. This evidence was not in the possession of the committee which had enquired into a related allegation on the same subject after the confidence vote in 2008. The Government cannot escape the responsibility for re-opening the closed investigation or enquiry of 2008 in the light of this fresh evidence.
16. As I read the various cables leaked in different countries, what strikes me is the frankness and lack of inhibition with which our political leaders and bureaucrats discuss sensitive matters of State policy with US diplomats. They confide in US diplomats sensitive things that they never confide in the Indian public or parliament. There is much greater transparency during their interactions with US diplomats than during their interactions with Indian political leaders, media personnel and public. A typical example is the discussion of P.Chidambaram, our Home Minister, with a visiting head of the FBI regarding the constitutional implications of the manner in which the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was set up in a hurry after the 26/11 strikes. He had apparently discussed with his US interlocutors things which he had never broached with us mere Indians. It is as if we mere Indians cannot be trusted with discussions of such sensitive matters whereas the Americans can be. One finds many such instances right across the cables.
17. I find this the most galling. ( 21-3-11)
( 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 )
The publication in instalments of leaked WikiLeaks diplomatic cables by selected newspapers such as the “Guardian”of the UK, the “New York Times”, “Le Monde” of France, “Der Spiegel” of Germany and “El Pais” of Spain started a year ago.
2.The initial documents were about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The subsequent ones were about other subjects and other countries, including Pakistan, China and Singapore.
3.Some countries such as China and Singapore ignored the leaks with contempt without making any comments. Others such as Pakistan painstakingly avoided any impression of panic or embarrassment. They successfully created an impression of taking them on their stride. There have been very few instances of the documents causing any political or diplomatic or other bureaucratic heads to roll except the resignation of the US Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual whose cable to the US State Department containing allegations regarding Mexico’s anti-drug policy came in for strong criticism from the Mexican Government. The fact of his resignation and its acceptance by the State Department on March 19 amounts to an implicit acceptance of the authenticity of this cable as leaked by WikiLeaks. After this, it would be difficult for other States, including India, to take up the position that the WikiLeaks cables are not authentic.
4.The Mexican development is also the only instance so far in which the leaks have had a serious impact on state-to-state relations. Otherwise, barring Mexico, practically all the countries affected by the leaks as well as the US itself have shown a certain maturity in dealing with the leaks. They have been helped in this by the advance warnings given by the US State Department to other countries about the impending leaks.
5.One could already discern a diminishing interest in these cables in countries which faced the initial deluge of the leaks. In those countries, one hardly speaks any longer of the leaked documents. Despite the leaks, Government business goes on, diplomacy goes on, state-to-state relationships go on as before .
6.Leaks may come and leaks may go, but diplomacy and statecraft will go on for ever.
7.India was among the last countries to be hit by the Wiki deluge. It took “The Hindu” of Chennai nearly three months to work out with WikiLeaks an arrangement by which it has been allowed to have access to at least some, if not all, of the documents relating to India------ the majority of them consisting of diplomatic cables with various degrees of classification exchanged between the US Embassy in New Delhi and the State Department.
8. It was reported last year that WikiLeaks has about 3,000 such India-related documents in its possession. It is not known whether “The Hindu” has been allowed to have access to all of them or only some. If “The Hindu” is going to publish all of them, a leak fatigue is bound to set in---even earlier than it did in other countries.
9. Some of the documents published by “The Hindu” so far are of trivial importance. There was no need for it to have published them and given them over-stated importance. A typical example is the cable to the US Embassy in New Delhi asking for a personality profile on Pranab Mukherjee. There is nothing ominously significant about it. All countries have such personality profiles on leaders of other countries in their diplomatic database and keep updating them. The State Department’s cable on the subject is part of the updating exercise and there was no need for “The Hindu” to have gone to town over it.
10. The majority of the cables published so far would come under one of the following categories----- minutes of discussions of US diplomats with their Indian interlocutors, observations of US diplomats on the ground situation in states such as Manipur and assessments in general of US diplomats on various issues of interest to the US. These are largely based on facts as they became available to the US diplomats. I have gone through all the cables published so far. I have not come across a single instance where one could accuse the diplomats of fabrication or willful distortion. There is no evidence of any mala fide in the way the cables have been recorded.
11. Most of the facts as stated or discussed in the leaked cables are already known to well-informed sections of the Indian public. For example, everything that has been recorded in some of the cables about M.K.Narayanan, former National Security Adviser, was already known in India through our media reports. The only interesting thing is that the cables enable us to have a look at these facts through American and not Indian eyes. One finds that American eyes could be as jaundiced as Indian eyes.
12. There are some tell-tale leads for our investigative reporters. The most interesting of these leads, in my view, is the one about a planned tripartite meeting in the US on the initiative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to discuss developments relating to the investigation into the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai. This meeting was to be attended by officers of the intelligence and investigating agencies of India, Pakistan and the US. The cables are,however, silent as to whether this tripartite meeting was held as scheduled, if so, who attended and what transpired.
13. During the tenure of Rajiv Gandhi and Chandrasekhar as the Prime Minister, the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had three meetings at the level of their then chiefs held at the initiative of a Jordanian dignitary. Nothing much came out of these meetings. After the Mumbai blasts of March 1993, the US had tried to organize such a tripartite meeting in a third country. P.V.Narasimha Rao, the then Prime Minister, and J.N Dixit, the then Foreign Secretary, were not enthusiastic about it. So the suggested US initiative remained a non-starter
14. The leaked cables suggest that the US had again taken up this idea after the 26/11 terrorist strikes and that the Government of Dr.Manmohan Singh had reacted positively to it. This is something interesting and significant and could make a good story if properly followed up by our investigative journalists.
15. There is at least one cable relating to a possible commission of the serious crime of bribery to influence voting in the Lok Sabha and the role Satish Sharma of the Congress (I) and one of his aides had allegedly played in it. This, if true, is a fresh piece of evidence which has come to notice now. This evidence was not in the possession of the committee which had enquired into a related allegation on the same subject after the confidence vote in 2008. The Government cannot escape the responsibility for re-opening the closed investigation or enquiry of 2008 in the light of this fresh evidence.
16. As I read the various cables leaked in different countries, what strikes me is the frankness and lack of inhibition with which our political leaders and bureaucrats discuss sensitive matters of State policy with US diplomats. They confide in US diplomats sensitive things that they never confide in the Indian public or parliament. There is much greater transparency during their interactions with US diplomats than during their interactions with Indian political leaders, media personnel and public. A typical example is the discussion of P.Chidambaram, our Home Minister, with a visiting head of the FBI regarding the constitutional implications of the manner in which the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was set up in a hurry after the 26/11 strikes. He had apparently discussed with his US interlocutors things which he had never broached with us mere Indians. It is as if we mere Indians cannot be trusted with discussions of such sensitive matters whereas the Americans can be. One finds many such instances right across the cables.
17. I find this the most galling. ( 21-3-11)
( 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 )
Saturday, March 19, 2011
LIBYA : OBAMA'S IRAQ
B.RAMAN
"Despite the fact that it was French war planes which launched the first attacks, it's clear that this early phase of the operations is an overwhelmingly American affair - all but a very small number of cruise missiles have been fired from American ships and submarines, " said Paul Adams, the BBC correspondent in Washington DC, while commenting on the air and missile strikes launched by the US, France and the UK against ground targets in Government-controlled areas in Libya on the night of March 19,2011.
2. As I watched the TV visuals and read reports on the strikes, I was reminded of what the George Bush administration called the decapitation strikes before it started the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The military action in Libya has been projected as having the limited objective of a humanitarian intervention to protect civilians in the areas under the control of the rebels. But its real objective is to have Muammar Gaddfi, the Libyan despot, removed from power as quickly as possible and instal a pro-Western leader at Tripoli so that Western oil and gas companies could return to Libya and resume oil/gas production.
3. Oil--- and not human rights or concern for democracy--- is the driving force in Libya as it was in Iraq. Saddam Hussein paved the way for his own isolation and destruction by antagonising his own people through cruel repression and his neighbours through his arrogance. Muammar Gaddafi has similarly paved the way for his own isolation and ultimate destruction through similar policies of repression and arrogance. No force on earth could have saved Saddam in 2003. No force on earth could save Gaddafi in 2011.
4. Gaddafi is politically doomed. When a ruler---- be a democrat or a despot---- loses the support of his people his end is inevitable. The question is no longer whether Gaddafi will fall, but when and under what circumstances. What suffering it would cause to the Libyan people? Are they going to be the real beneficiaries of the UN-authorised and Western-manipulated intervention or the consumer economies of Italy and other European countries dependent on the flow of oil and gas from Libya?
5.The Iraq invasion set in motion the train of events that ultimately led to the discrediting of the policy-makers of the Bush Administration in the US and the Tony Blair Government in the UK. As Obama himself had often conceded, the involvement in Iraq contributed to the USA's difficulties in the Af-Pak region.
6.One thought Obama had learnt the right lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq. It is apparent he has not. After the Second World War, the US had rarely covered itself with glory when it embarked on external adventures----whether it be in Kora or in Vietnam or in Somalia or in Afghanistan or in Iraq. If Obama thinks Libya could be an exception, he is mistaken.
7. The only effect of the Libyan adventure will be that the march of democracy, which started in Tunisia and spread to Egypt, will be stopped.The Arab despots, who have jumped into the Western bandwagon against Gaddafi, have done so not because their hearts bleed for the civilians in Libya and for their human rights. They have done so because they calculate that the diversion of the Western attention to
Libya enables them to crush the human rights and aspirations for democracy of their own people.
8. The Western need for Arab support in Libya in order to show it as a truly international coallition of Western crusaders and Islamic people has already led to a cruel suppression of the pro-democracy agitators in Bahrain with Western voices and conscience remaining muted as the Sunni ruler, with the help of 2000 ground troops from the States of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), crushes the Shia protesters. Western near-silence in Bahrain today and in Saudi Arabia tomorrow is the quid pro quo for the Arab support in Libya.
9. Whatever be the outcome in Libya, its echoes will be heard wherever American lives are threatened and American interests are endangered---whether in the Af-Pak region, or in Yemen or in Egypt or elsewhere. We have seen the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan with a Neo Taliban keeping the NATO troops bleeding. We will be seeing a resurgence of Al Qaeda with a Neo Al Qaeda endangering American lives and interests everywhere. Anger breeds terrorism. More anger will breed more terrorism. 20-3-11)
( 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 )
.
"Despite the fact that it was French war planes which launched the first attacks, it's clear that this early phase of the operations is an overwhelmingly American affair - all but a very small number of cruise missiles have been fired from American ships and submarines, " said Paul Adams, the BBC correspondent in Washington DC, while commenting on the air and missile strikes launched by the US, France and the UK against ground targets in Government-controlled areas in Libya on the night of March 19,2011.
2. As I watched the TV visuals and read reports on the strikes, I was reminded of what the George Bush administration called the decapitation strikes before it started the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The military action in Libya has been projected as having the limited objective of a humanitarian intervention to protect civilians in the areas under the control of the rebels. But its real objective is to have Muammar Gaddfi, the Libyan despot, removed from power as quickly as possible and instal a pro-Western leader at Tripoli so that Western oil and gas companies could return to Libya and resume oil/gas production.
3. Oil--- and not human rights or concern for democracy--- is the driving force in Libya as it was in Iraq. Saddam Hussein paved the way for his own isolation and destruction by antagonising his own people through cruel repression and his neighbours through his arrogance. Muammar Gaddafi has similarly paved the way for his own isolation and ultimate destruction through similar policies of repression and arrogance. No force on earth could have saved Saddam in 2003. No force on earth could save Gaddafi in 2011.
4. Gaddafi is politically doomed. When a ruler---- be a democrat or a despot---- loses the support of his people his end is inevitable. The question is no longer whether Gaddafi will fall, but when and under what circumstances. What suffering it would cause to the Libyan people? Are they going to be the real beneficiaries of the UN-authorised and Western-manipulated intervention or the consumer economies of Italy and other European countries dependent on the flow of oil and gas from Libya?
5.The Iraq invasion set in motion the train of events that ultimately led to the discrediting of the policy-makers of the Bush Administration in the US and the Tony Blair Government in the UK. As Obama himself had often conceded, the involvement in Iraq contributed to the USA's difficulties in the Af-Pak region.
6.One thought Obama had learnt the right lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq. It is apparent he has not. After the Second World War, the US had rarely covered itself with glory when it embarked on external adventures----whether it be in Kora or in Vietnam or in Somalia or in Afghanistan or in Iraq. If Obama thinks Libya could be an exception, he is mistaken.
7. The only effect of the Libyan adventure will be that the march of democracy, which started in Tunisia and spread to Egypt, will be stopped.The Arab despots, who have jumped into the Western bandwagon against Gaddafi, have done so not because their hearts bleed for the civilians in Libya and for their human rights. They have done so because they calculate that the diversion of the Western attention to
Libya enables them to crush the human rights and aspirations for democracy of their own people.
8. The Western need for Arab support in Libya in order to show it as a truly international coallition of Western crusaders and Islamic people has already led to a cruel suppression of the pro-democracy agitators in Bahrain with Western voices and conscience remaining muted as the Sunni ruler, with the help of 2000 ground troops from the States of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), crushes the Shia protesters. Western near-silence in Bahrain today and in Saudi Arabia tomorrow is the quid pro quo for the Arab support in Libya.
9. Whatever be the outcome in Libya, its echoes will be heard wherever American lives are threatened and American interests are endangered---whether in the Af-Pak region, or in Yemen or in Egypt or elsewhere. We have seen the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan with a Neo Taliban keeping the NATO troops bleeding. We will be seeing a resurgence of Al Qaeda with a Neo Al Qaeda endangering American lives and interests everywhere. Anger breeds terrorism. More anger will breed more terrorism. 20-3-11)
( 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 )
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)