B.RAMAN
The Press Trust of India has reported as follows on January 31,2012:
“In a significant disclosure, the Union government today told the Supreme Court that the Radia tapes broadcast by media organisations were tampered with and the government agencies were not responsible for its leakage.
“Placing a confidential report in a sealed envelope before a bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi, the government said there were eight to ten agencies, including service providers, involved in the tapping of telephonic conversation of former corporate lobbyist Niira Radia.
“The bench went through a few initial pages of the report which stated there was tampering with the conversations which were released by media.
“The report says the starting and the end point of the conversation do not match with the original tapes, Justice Singhvi said referring to the report.
“He said the report also says that officers, who had conducted the probe, do not know who has leaked it.
"It is quite possible that someone else has done it," the bench said.
2.It is the final end of the agony sought to be inflicted on Barkha Dutt, the shining TV journalist, by some jealous members of Barkha’s journalistc fraternity and by some Hindutva elements which came together in an unholy alliance to damage her personal and professional reputation, demoralise her and drive her out of TV journalism.
3. Each had its own agenda for their determined pursuit of their attempt to destroy her reputation. If professional jealousy was the driving force of the Media McCarthyism unleashed against her by sections of the journalistic community, her consistent and courageous support to various causes dear to her --- whether in Jammu and Kashmir or Gujarat, whether relating to artist M.F.Hussain or writer Salman Rushdie, whether the human rights of the religious or ethnic minorities--- triggered the irrational rage of the Hindutva elements against her.
4. Even before the Government of India informed the court of its findings regarding the fabrication of the tapes, the insidious campaign against Barkha had failed. Her recent celebrated interviews with Oprah Winfrey, the US TV star, and Salman Rushdie showed---if additional proof was needed--- that her adversaries had miserably failed to tarnish her reputation and to damage her personal and professional morale, which has remained as high as ever.
5. She now has reasons to be gratified by the findings. Barkha, a true professional to her hard core, is not the person who will gloat in public over her personal and professional vindication, but if the members of this unholy alliance have even the slightest trace of decency in them, they at least owe her an apology in public even if she does not ask for it.
6.I am giving below extracts from what I had written about the insidious campaign against her since December 1,2010:
There is nothing inappropriate or unethical in Barkha's writings, reportage and actions. As regards her private conversations with Radia over phone she has explained the background and context and denied any malafide or unethical intention. Her explanation should be accepted instead of trying to fix her through an inquisition. ( 1-12-10)---From my article of December 1,2010, titled “Fixing Barkha Dutt” at http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.in/2010/11/fixing-barkha-dutt.html
I chose to defend Barkha because I strongly feel that her hard-earned reputation as a young, courageous and successful journalist, is sought to be besmirched----wittingly or unwittingly---- on the basis of an incomplete and motivated narrative. It is incomplete because only about three per cent of the total number of about 5800 intercepts has been made public. This clearly indicates that there has been a careful selection of the intercepts to be leaked to the press. Who made the selection? With what motive? Unless one has answers to these questions, there should be a big question mark over the narrative.—From my article of December 7,2010, titled IT'S DANGEROUS TO DEFEND BARKHA DUTT at http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.in/2010/12/its-dangerous-to-defend-barkha-dutt.html
Whatever may be the ultimate outcome of the investigation and other enquiries into the Radia tapes, one has strong reasons to believe that this shameful episode represented "Media McCarthyism" of the worst kind in order to tarnish the reputation of Barkha and ridicule and intimidate those supporting her. One would be entitled to expect that the media houses and journalists, who allegedly played a role in fanning this "Media McCarthyism" against Barkha, would now have the grace to apologise to her in public. From my article of April 19,2011, titled BARKHA DUTT : VICTIM OF MEDIA McCARTHYISM ? at http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.in/2011/04/barkha-dutt-victim-of-media-mccarthyism.html
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
NEED FOR A TASK FORCE ON PM’S MEDIA STRATEGY
B.RAMAN
I have been a strong critic of the media shyness and media silence of the Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh. I have written many articles on it and suggested a more activist media strategy marked by a more articulate MMS.
2. I have also been drawing attention to the technology lethargy of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), characterised by its hesitation to use the latest media technologies and particularly the social media outlets for interacting vigorously with our netizens.
3. I have been highlighting the unsatisfactory state of the PM’s interactions with citizens as well as netizens and comparing unfavourably his reticence with the more outgoing media policy of even the Chinese leadership, though China is not a democracy.
4. After discussions with a wide spectrum of political, bureaucratic and media observers and experts, I have realised the difficulties faced by the PM in working out a media strategy in his colours and to suit his image and interests.
5. These difficulties arise from the fact that Dr.MMS is not a PM in his own right. He owes the Prime Ministership to Mrs.Sonia Gandhi, the Congress (I) President, who renounced her right to be the Prime Minister after the 2004 elections and nominated DR.MMS to the PM’s chair.
6. This cramps his style of functioning whether in policy-making or public projection of himself either directly or through the media. All the time he has to be cautious to avoid any articulation or action that could be misread in the party as an attempt to outshine Mrs.Sonia Gandhi.
7. Dr.MMS is a shy, reticent person. His shyness and reticence are more pronounced when he is in India than when he is travelling abroad. The dangers of a misinterpretation of his articulation or action are more in India than when he is abroad.
8. This constraint will continue to inhibit and stunt his media strategy so long as he is in office without a political base and authority of his own. This has to be kept in mind while analysing his media strategy.
9. The best media strategy is through direct and frontal interactions with the media---whether print or TV or journos of the new media such as online publications. A direct and frontal projection of himself and his policies will increase the risks of misunderstanding with Mrs.Sonia Gandhi.
10. Despite this, Dr.MMS and his media advisers have to find ways of enabling him to indulge in such direct interactions without a clash of perceptions and personalities with Mrs.Sonia Gandhi. Unfortunately, there has been a reluctance even to discuss available options in the light of the political constraint faced by the Prime Minister.
11. Unless this exercise is taken up and a via media found which would enable the PM to enhance his media and public image without endangering the political authority of Mrs.Sonia Gandhi, I do not see the likelihood of any qualitative change in the PM’s media strategy.
12.The tweet-toeing of the PMO ---not the Prime Minister himself--- into the world of netizens shows a welcome realisation of the need to take advantage of the social media outlets for providing corrections to the PM’s public and media image.
13. Such corrections could be welcome, even if not total if the PM himself takes an active interest in his interactions with netizens. The apparent fact that his tweet connectivity will not be direct, but will be through his Principal Secretary, to be assisted by Shri Pankaj Pachauri, the new media adviser, will reduce the value of the attempted twitter connectivity of the PMO.
14.For a person holding the office of the Prime Minister, Twitter will not be totally shackle-free. As Shri Rajagopalan, the perceptive journalist pointed out in his intervention during a good debate anchored by Ms.Sunetra Choudhury of the NDTV on January 27, the Prime Minister has to be all the time careful to see that he does not step on the toes of the Parliament in his Twitter interactions, if there are any. Otherwise, he may unwittingly commit a breach of parliamentary privilege.
15. Making the Principal Secretary co-ordinate the Twitter strategy without the PM directly getting involved would provide a safety valve, but it would reduce any value-addition to the PM’s media strategy.
16. Instead of experimenting piecemeal as the PMO seems to be doing now, the PM should appoint a high-power task force headed by Dr.Sanjaya Baru, his first Media Adviser, to suggest a comprehensive media strategy, which would address all these factors. ( 28-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
I have been a strong critic of the media shyness and media silence of the Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh. I have written many articles on it and suggested a more activist media strategy marked by a more articulate MMS.
2. I have also been drawing attention to the technology lethargy of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), characterised by its hesitation to use the latest media technologies and particularly the social media outlets for interacting vigorously with our netizens.
3. I have been highlighting the unsatisfactory state of the PM’s interactions with citizens as well as netizens and comparing unfavourably his reticence with the more outgoing media policy of even the Chinese leadership, though China is not a democracy.
4. After discussions with a wide spectrum of political, bureaucratic and media observers and experts, I have realised the difficulties faced by the PM in working out a media strategy in his colours and to suit his image and interests.
5. These difficulties arise from the fact that Dr.MMS is not a PM in his own right. He owes the Prime Ministership to Mrs.Sonia Gandhi, the Congress (I) President, who renounced her right to be the Prime Minister after the 2004 elections and nominated DR.MMS to the PM’s chair.
6. This cramps his style of functioning whether in policy-making or public projection of himself either directly or through the media. All the time he has to be cautious to avoid any articulation or action that could be misread in the party as an attempt to outshine Mrs.Sonia Gandhi.
7. Dr.MMS is a shy, reticent person. His shyness and reticence are more pronounced when he is in India than when he is travelling abroad. The dangers of a misinterpretation of his articulation or action are more in India than when he is abroad.
8. This constraint will continue to inhibit and stunt his media strategy so long as he is in office without a political base and authority of his own. This has to be kept in mind while analysing his media strategy.
9. The best media strategy is through direct and frontal interactions with the media---whether print or TV or journos of the new media such as online publications. A direct and frontal projection of himself and his policies will increase the risks of misunderstanding with Mrs.Sonia Gandhi.
10. Despite this, Dr.MMS and his media advisers have to find ways of enabling him to indulge in such direct interactions without a clash of perceptions and personalities with Mrs.Sonia Gandhi. Unfortunately, there has been a reluctance even to discuss available options in the light of the political constraint faced by the Prime Minister.
11. Unless this exercise is taken up and a via media found which would enable the PM to enhance his media and public image without endangering the political authority of Mrs.Sonia Gandhi, I do not see the likelihood of any qualitative change in the PM’s media strategy.
12.The tweet-toeing of the PMO ---not the Prime Minister himself--- into the world of netizens shows a welcome realisation of the need to take advantage of the social media outlets for providing corrections to the PM’s public and media image.
13. Such corrections could be welcome, even if not total if the PM himself takes an active interest in his interactions with netizens. The apparent fact that his tweet connectivity will not be direct, but will be through his Principal Secretary, to be assisted by Shri Pankaj Pachauri, the new media adviser, will reduce the value of the attempted twitter connectivity of the PMO.
14.For a person holding the office of the Prime Minister, Twitter will not be totally shackle-free. As Shri Rajagopalan, the perceptive journalist pointed out in his intervention during a good debate anchored by Ms.Sunetra Choudhury of the NDTV on January 27, the Prime Minister has to be all the time careful to see that he does not step on the toes of the Parliament in his Twitter interactions, if there are any. Otherwise, he may unwittingly commit a breach of parliamentary privilege.
15. Making the Principal Secretary co-ordinate the Twitter strategy without the PM directly getting involved would provide a safety valve, but it would reduce any value-addition to the PM’s media strategy.
16. Instead of experimenting piecemeal as the PMO seems to be doing now, the PM should appoint a high-power task force headed by Dr.Sanjaya Baru, his first Media Adviser, to suggest a comprehensive media strategy, which would address all these factors. ( 28-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
TIBETAN PROTESTS SPREAD IN WESTERN SICHUAN, POLICE FIRE AGAIN KILLING ONE MORE TIBETAN
B.RAMAN
Protests by Tibetans have spread in Western Sichuan, resulting in one more incident of firing by the local police causing the death of one more Tibetan.
2. According to my sources, there have been three incidents of Police firing since January 23,2012, resulting in the deaths of 12 Tibetans, but the Chinese authorities have admitted only three deaths in three incidents. They have strongly denied reports of larger fatalities.
3. The latest incident of police firing has been reported from the Barma township, where one Tibetan youth died on January 26 when the local police opened fire on protesting Tibetans. The Barma township is located in the Zamthang (in Chinese, Rangtang) county in Ngaba. The Tibetans were protesting against the arrest of Tharpa, another Tibetan, by the police for disseminating anti-Beijing leaflets along with the Tibetan youth (Ugyen), who was killed in the subsequent firing. The death of Ugyen led to nearly 10,000 Tibetans from the nearby areas of Dzitoe and Dzime rushing to Dzamthang to join the protest against the arrest of Tharpa and the death of Ugyen.
4.On January 26, there were also reports of protest and solidarity demonstrations by Tibetans of Qinghai’s Golog (in Chinese, Guoluo) Tibetan prefecture.
5.According to Radio Free Asia, funded by the US State Department, Chinese security forces have become more aggressive in containing the protests, with two Tibetans reported killed by official Chinese media in protests in the Kardze (in Chinese, Ganzi) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture on Monday and Tuesday.
6.The Police have tightened security in Lhasa, the capital of the so-called Tibetan Autonomous Region, after one incident of anti-Beijing leaflet dissemination near the Jorkhang temple.
7.Chinese micro-bloggers have been reporting movement of trucks carrying police reinforcements to the affected areas in Western Sichuan and cancellation of the Chinese New Year leave of police personnel posted in the Tibetan areas of Western Sichuan. ( 28-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Protests by Tibetans have spread in Western Sichuan, resulting in one more incident of firing by the local police causing the death of one more Tibetan.
2. According to my sources, there have been three incidents of Police firing since January 23,2012, resulting in the deaths of 12 Tibetans, but the Chinese authorities have admitted only three deaths in three incidents. They have strongly denied reports of larger fatalities.
3. The latest incident of police firing has been reported from the Barma township, where one Tibetan youth died on January 26 when the local police opened fire on protesting Tibetans. The Barma township is located in the Zamthang (in Chinese, Rangtang) county in Ngaba. The Tibetans were protesting against the arrest of Tharpa, another Tibetan, by the police for disseminating anti-Beijing leaflets along with the Tibetan youth (Ugyen), who was killed in the subsequent firing. The death of Ugyen led to nearly 10,000 Tibetans from the nearby areas of Dzitoe and Dzime rushing to Dzamthang to join the protest against the arrest of Tharpa and the death of Ugyen.
4.On January 26, there were also reports of protest and solidarity demonstrations by Tibetans of Qinghai’s Golog (in Chinese, Guoluo) Tibetan prefecture.
5.According to Radio Free Asia, funded by the US State Department, Chinese security forces have become more aggressive in containing the protests, with two Tibetans reported killed by official Chinese media in protests in the Kardze (in Chinese, Ganzi) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture on Monday and Tuesday.
6.The Police have tightened security in Lhasa, the capital of the so-called Tibetan Autonomous Region, after one incident of anti-Beijing leaflet dissemination near the Jorkhang temple.
7.Chinese micro-bloggers have been reporting movement of trucks carrying police reinforcements to the affected areas in Western Sichuan and cancellation of the Chinese New Year leave of police personnel posted in the Tibetan areas of Western Sichuan. ( 28-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
CURFEW IN WESTERN SICHUAN: 11 TIBETANS DIE IN POLICE FIRING
B.RAMAN
A curfew has been imposed and a shoot-at-sight order has been given to the police following two days of violent protests by Tibetans in certain parts of Western Sichuan, which has seen 14 instances of self-immolation since March last year following the arrests of a large number of Tibetan monks of the well-known Kirti monastery and their forcible detention in a military camp.
2.The protests by the monks of the Kirti monastery started in support of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and in opposition to the suppression of the Tibetans by the Chinese authorities. It has since spread to the general population of the area in protest against the arrest and prosecution of many bystanders, who were present at the scenes of self-immolation, on charges of abetment of suicide.
3. The anger has been aggravated by the refusal of the Chinese authorities to hand over the bodies of those who committed self-immolation to their relatives for funeral ceremonies in accordance with Tibetan traditions and by the disposal of the dead bodies by the police without allowing the relatives to be present.
4.The protests, which were peaceful till December, have since assumed a violent form with at least two attacks on police stations where, the local residents suspected, the dead bodies were kept.
5.An outbreak of widespread violence involving about 6000 Tibetans was reported on January 23,2012, from the Draggo county in Sichuan province's Kardze prefecture . According to reliable sources, the local police opened fire on the protesting Tibetans, resulting in the death of five Tibetans and injuries to 40 others.
6. The news of deaths in the police firings led to the spread of the violence the next day to the Serthar (in Chinese Seda) area of the same prefecture. The police again opened fire resulting in six more deaths.
7. Reports of demonstrations have also been received from the Ngaba (in Chinese, Aba prefecture) area where several thousand Tibetans have reportedly blocked a local road. The police forcibly dispersed Tibetans who tried to hold a special prayer meeting in the Kirti monastery in homage to those who died in the police firings.
8.It is reliably learnt that the latest violence started when the police beat up and arrested Tibetans in the affected areas who refused to celebrate the Chinese New Year’s Day in protest against the Chinese suppression. They also observed the Chinese New Year’s Day as a day of mourning in memory of all those who have committed self-immolation since March last.
9. The US , which will be hosting China's Vice President Xi Jinping at the White House next month, has expressed grave concern over the latest violence, and called upon Beijing to review its "counterproductive policies" in Tibetan areas that have created tensions and threatened Tibetans' religious, cultural and linguistic identity.
10.A statement issued by Maria Otero, US Special Co-ordinator for Tibetan issues, said: “China should resume talks with the Dalai Lama or his representatives over Tibetan grievances. We urge Chinese security forces to exercise restraint, and we renew our call to allow access to Tibetan areas of China for journalists, diplomats and other observers." (25-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
A curfew has been imposed and a shoot-at-sight order has been given to the police following two days of violent protests by Tibetans in certain parts of Western Sichuan, which has seen 14 instances of self-immolation since March last year following the arrests of a large number of Tibetan monks of the well-known Kirti monastery and their forcible detention in a military camp.
2.The protests by the monks of the Kirti monastery started in support of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and in opposition to the suppression of the Tibetans by the Chinese authorities. It has since spread to the general population of the area in protest against the arrest and prosecution of many bystanders, who were present at the scenes of self-immolation, on charges of abetment of suicide.
3. The anger has been aggravated by the refusal of the Chinese authorities to hand over the bodies of those who committed self-immolation to their relatives for funeral ceremonies in accordance with Tibetan traditions and by the disposal of the dead bodies by the police without allowing the relatives to be present.
4.The protests, which were peaceful till December, have since assumed a violent form with at least two attacks on police stations where, the local residents suspected, the dead bodies were kept.
5.An outbreak of widespread violence involving about 6000 Tibetans was reported on January 23,2012, from the Draggo county in Sichuan province's Kardze prefecture . According to reliable sources, the local police opened fire on the protesting Tibetans, resulting in the death of five Tibetans and injuries to 40 others.
6. The news of deaths in the police firings led to the spread of the violence the next day to the Serthar (in Chinese Seda) area of the same prefecture. The police again opened fire resulting in six more deaths.
7. Reports of demonstrations have also been received from the Ngaba (in Chinese, Aba prefecture) area where several thousand Tibetans have reportedly blocked a local road. The police forcibly dispersed Tibetans who tried to hold a special prayer meeting in the Kirti monastery in homage to those who died in the police firings.
8.It is reliably learnt that the latest violence started when the police beat up and arrested Tibetans in the affected areas who refused to celebrate the Chinese New Year’s Day in protest against the Chinese suppression. They also observed the Chinese New Year’s Day as a day of mourning in memory of all those who have committed self-immolation since March last.
9. The US , which will be hosting China's Vice President Xi Jinping at the White House next month, has expressed grave concern over the latest violence, and called upon Beijing to review its "counterproductive policies" in Tibetan areas that have created tensions and threatened Tibetans' religious, cultural and linguistic identity.
10.A statement issued by Maria Otero, US Special Co-ordinator for Tibetan issues, said: “China should resume talks with the Dalai Lama or his representatives over Tibetan grievances. We urge Chinese security forces to exercise restraint, and we renew our call to allow access to Tibetan areas of China for journalists, diplomats and other observers." (25-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
SEQUEL TO L’AFFAIRE RUSHDIE
B.RAMAN
We haven’t heard the last of L’Affaire Rushdie. It will keep haunting us for some time. The following issues could have unpleasant repercussions:
(a) The act of cowardice by the Governments of India and Rajasthan in abdicating their responsibility to protect a well-known personality facing a threat to his life from some extremist Muslims. He could have been easily protected and any untoward incident in Jaipur avoided by restricting his engagements in Jaipur to the session to which he was invited by the organisers of the Jaipur Literary Festival (JLF) and requesting him to leave Jaipur as soon as that engagement was over. In view of the call by the Deobandis for demonstrations during his visit, he could not have been allowed to stay in Jaipur for the entire duration of the Festival. If the Government of India had wanted, such a restricted, sanitised visit could have been easily organised. This was not done apparently because the Congress Party did not want to displease the Muslim community even by allowing a restricted visit. The cowardice exhibited by the Government of India would encourage similar instances of intimidation in future when any community is opposed to the visits of any person whom it does not like.
(b) The action of the Rajasthan Police in allegedly fabricating intelligence reports indicating the likely possibility of an attempt being made to assassinate Rushdie if he visited Jaipur. The denials of the Rajasthan Police do not carry conviction. This will severely damage the credibility of the Indian Police and other counter-terrorism organisations in the eyes of the counter-terrorism agencies of the world. Even in the past, agencies of other countries suspected that the Indian agencies were not beyond such attempts at fabrication of source reports in order to corroborate their allegations. These suspicions would now be strengthened and the word of the Indian agencies would carry even less conviction in future. Fabricating a source report is considered a serious act of professional misconduct and many intelligence officers have suffered in their career for indulging in it. It is shocking that an agency as a whole---and not just individuals--- had indulged in this. There would be a strong presumption that such fabrications would not have been possible without a collusion or a nod of approval from the Government of India. Unless the Government of India acts strongly against those responsible for this fabrication, the suspicion of collusion by it would be strengthened. Intelligence agencies of other countries would be hesitant in future to act on the source reports of Indian agencies which call for follow-up action by them.
(c) The action of four writers in reading out extracts from the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. This was an unwise and impulsive action. The Police may not be able to arrest and prosecute those who read out the extracts because there is no law banning it, but in the eyes of large sections of the Muslim community the Satanic Verses is a blasphemous book and reading out extracts from it is an act of blasphemy. Secret fatwas might have already been issued for carrying out Islamic punishments against these four persons and Barkha Dutt, who has interviewed Rushdie. They will have to be extra careful in future. What we see as a legitimate demand for freedom of expression from the artistic community, is seen by many in the Muslim community as a demand for freedom to indulge in an act of blasphemy against their religion. The extremist mindset of sections of the Muslim community---like the extremist mindset of sections of the Hindus and other religions--- is a harsh ground reality which is likely to continue for some years to come unless there is a better spread of education in the different communities and more enlightened leaderships emerge in them. Till then no amount of public debates and TV talk shows would eradicate this mindset. In the eyes of the Muslim community, the question is not Salman Rushdie’s right to write, but his right to write the Satanic Verses. No individual and particularly no Muslim can write a blasphemous book. By making Salman Rushdie the high point of the debate on freedom of expression, we will be adding to the strength of the extremist elements in our Muslim community and making it even more difficult to change their mind-set. The over-focus on the right to freedom of expression of Rushdie could further radicalise our Muslim community and aggravate the polarisation of the relations between Muslims and others. Rushdie’s argument in his interview to Barkha Dutt of NDTV regarding the absence of any ban on the Satanic Verses in Turkey, Egypt and Libya and other Muslim countries is misleading and irrelevant. In Muslim majority countries, the Governments do not have to be worried about the sensitivities and feelings of their majority Muslim population in the same way as we have to be worried about the feelings and sensitivities of our strong Muslim minority. The rights, feelings and emotions of our Muslim community are more important than those of Salman Rushdie who lives far away from India in the UK. In our over-anxiety to be seen as fair to Rushdie we should not end up by being seen as unfair to our Muslim community. ( 24-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
We haven’t heard the last of L’Affaire Rushdie. It will keep haunting us for some time. The following issues could have unpleasant repercussions:
(a) The act of cowardice by the Governments of India and Rajasthan in abdicating their responsibility to protect a well-known personality facing a threat to his life from some extremist Muslims. He could have been easily protected and any untoward incident in Jaipur avoided by restricting his engagements in Jaipur to the session to which he was invited by the organisers of the Jaipur Literary Festival (JLF) and requesting him to leave Jaipur as soon as that engagement was over. In view of the call by the Deobandis for demonstrations during his visit, he could not have been allowed to stay in Jaipur for the entire duration of the Festival. If the Government of India had wanted, such a restricted, sanitised visit could have been easily organised. This was not done apparently because the Congress Party did not want to displease the Muslim community even by allowing a restricted visit. The cowardice exhibited by the Government of India would encourage similar instances of intimidation in future when any community is opposed to the visits of any person whom it does not like.
(b) The action of the Rajasthan Police in allegedly fabricating intelligence reports indicating the likely possibility of an attempt being made to assassinate Rushdie if he visited Jaipur. The denials of the Rajasthan Police do not carry conviction. This will severely damage the credibility of the Indian Police and other counter-terrorism organisations in the eyes of the counter-terrorism agencies of the world. Even in the past, agencies of other countries suspected that the Indian agencies were not beyond such attempts at fabrication of source reports in order to corroborate their allegations. These suspicions would now be strengthened and the word of the Indian agencies would carry even less conviction in future. Fabricating a source report is considered a serious act of professional misconduct and many intelligence officers have suffered in their career for indulging in it. It is shocking that an agency as a whole---and not just individuals--- had indulged in this. There would be a strong presumption that such fabrications would not have been possible without a collusion or a nod of approval from the Government of India. Unless the Government of India acts strongly against those responsible for this fabrication, the suspicion of collusion by it would be strengthened. Intelligence agencies of other countries would be hesitant in future to act on the source reports of Indian agencies which call for follow-up action by them.
(c) The action of four writers in reading out extracts from the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. This was an unwise and impulsive action. The Police may not be able to arrest and prosecute those who read out the extracts because there is no law banning it, but in the eyes of large sections of the Muslim community the Satanic Verses is a blasphemous book and reading out extracts from it is an act of blasphemy. Secret fatwas might have already been issued for carrying out Islamic punishments against these four persons and Barkha Dutt, who has interviewed Rushdie. They will have to be extra careful in future. What we see as a legitimate demand for freedom of expression from the artistic community, is seen by many in the Muslim community as a demand for freedom to indulge in an act of blasphemy against their religion. The extremist mindset of sections of the Muslim community---like the extremist mindset of sections of the Hindus and other religions--- is a harsh ground reality which is likely to continue for some years to come unless there is a better spread of education in the different communities and more enlightened leaderships emerge in them. Till then no amount of public debates and TV talk shows would eradicate this mindset. In the eyes of the Muslim community, the question is not Salman Rushdie’s right to write, but his right to write the Satanic Verses. No individual and particularly no Muslim can write a blasphemous book. By making Salman Rushdie the high point of the debate on freedom of expression, we will be adding to the strength of the extremist elements in our Muslim community and making it even more difficult to change their mind-set. The over-focus on the right to freedom of expression of Rushdie could further radicalise our Muslim community and aggravate the polarisation of the relations between Muslims and others. Rushdie’s argument in his interview to Barkha Dutt of NDTV regarding the absence of any ban on the Satanic Verses in Turkey, Egypt and Libya and other Muslim countries is misleading and irrelevant. In Muslim majority countries, the Governments do not have to be worried about the sensitivities and feelings of their majority Muslim population in the same way as we have to be worried about the feelings and sensitivities of our strong Muslim minority. The rights, feelings and emotions of our Muslim community are more important than those of Salman Rushdie who lives far away from India in the UK. In our over-anxiety to be seen as fair to Rushdie we should not end up by being seen as unfair to our Muslim community. ( 24-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Saturday, January 21, 2012
HIZBUT-TAHRIR ( HT) STEPS UP ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT BD ARMY
B.RAMAN
It is learnt from reliable sources that the Bangladesh authorities suspect that the Hizbut-Tahrir (HT), Party of Liberation, banned in October 2009 had links with 16 middle-level officers of the Bangladesh Army involved in the plot to stage a coup against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, which was discovered in December last.
2. The discovery of the plot was announced at a press conference at Dhaka on January 19,2012, by the Bangladeshi army spokesman Brigadier General Muhammad Masud Razzaq. He said that the Army had specific evidence that up to 16 current and former Bangladeshi military officers "with extreme religious views" were involved in a "heinous conspiracy". The plot was instigated by Bangladeshi conspirators living abroad, he said.
3. He further said that two retired officers, Lieutenant Colonel Ehsan Yusuf and Major Zakir, have been arrested, but did not say when. He added that the authorities were looking for a serving officer, Major Ziaul Haq, who had fled his post after the arrests of Yusuf and Zakir.
4.Giving details about the alleged plot, Razzaq said that Ziaul Haq had circulated emails to different serving officers detailing a plan to overthrow the Government on January 9-10. The Army authorities have accused the HT of helping to circulate the messages. It has been reported that a major general (name not known), who headed one of the country's largest cantonments, was recalled to Dhaka, following the discovery of the plot. Details of his exact role in the plot are not known.
5.In a leaflet disseminated on January 20,2012, the banned HT said: “Hizb ut-Tahrir organized public speeches outside mosques across the country after Jummah prayers today where speakers called upon the people to protest against the Hasina government’s plot to subjugate the Muslim Army of Bangladesh to US-India. The speakers said Hasina was brought to power by the Americans, in partnership with India. The Americans have a design to prevent the return of the Islamic Khilafah in this region and contain the rise of China. For this purpose she prefers a strategic partnership with India in order to secure her strong presence in this region and tighten her grip over the Muslim countries within the region. These two enemy countries are using the government, the opposition, and some in the military leadership in Bangladesh as agents to solve the long standing issues with India which will free India’s hands. This will facilitate India to join hands with America in implementing her design to prevent the return of Islam and contain China. And they are working to remove all obstacles to this plan and anyone who exposes or speaks against this evil plan. It was for this reason that bright officers of our army were massacred in Pilkhana in which Hasina collaborated. It was for this reason that Hasina banned Hizb ut-Tahrir and is pursuing a policy of brutal repression against the party. And now she is executing a policy of whole sale purge of the army through abductions, arrests and dismissals of officers who stand on the side of Islam, and the country’s sovereignty and security. The speakers called upon the sincere officers in the army to remove Hasina and the current ruling regime from authority at once; and to transfer the authority to Hizb ut-Tahrir which is a sincere and aware political party. Hizb ut-Tahrir will establish the Khilafah state which will eject USA, Britain, India and their allies from Bangladesh. The Khilafah will build this country as the starting point for becoming a global super power. This is by securing the basic needs of the people and solving the long running problems faced by the people such as poverty and unemployment, industrializing the country’s economy, building the army as a strong and advanced fighting force, and unifying with the Muslim Ummah. “
6.In another leaflet addressed to the people of Bangladesh, the HT has said: “O Muslims! You have been victims of Indian aggression for decades. This enemy state killed your officers in Pilkhana, she built the Farakkah dam, she deprives you of your rightful share of water from the common rivers, and she kills your brothers and sisters in the border. And your current rulers have failed to stand up to the Indian aggression against you. There exists only one way of resisting the enemy – establishing the Khilafah state. So stop wasting your time and effort in looking for solutions from the current democratic system and the agent political parties – Awami League, BNP and others. You have to take one action and only one action – call upon the people of power to remove the Hasina overnment and hand over power to Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is the only party offering you the vision of becoming a leading state in the region and the world. We will establish the Khilafah state, and implement the Qur’an and the Sunnah. We will bring an end to your economic plight, and industrialize the economy. We will build a strong advanced military. And we have the action plan ready to regain India as a Muslim land, under the Islamic rule, which is the only true assured way of stopping Indian aggression permanently.”
7. The HT has been active among lower and middle level officers of the Armies of Pakistan and Bangladesh and has been trying to instigate a coup by them in order to introduce Islamic rule in the two countries and eradicate US and Indian influence. After establishing Islamic rule in Pakistan and Bangladesh, it wants to extend its activities to India to help the Indian Muslims. ( 21-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
It is learnt from reliable sources that the Bangladesh authorities suspect that the Hizbut-Tahrir (HT), Party of Liberation, banned in October 2009 had links with 16 middle-level officers of the Bangladesh Army involved in the plot to stage a coup against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, which was discovered in December last.
2. The discovery of the plot was announced at a press conference at Dhaka on January 19,2012, by the Bangladeshi army spokesman Brigadier General Muhammad Masud Razzaq. He said that the Army had specific evidence that up to 16 current and former Bangladeshi military officers "with extreme religious views" were involved in a "heinous conspiracy". The plot was instigated by Bangladeshi conspirators living abroad, he said.
3. He further said that two retired officers, Lieutenant Colonel Ehsan Yusuf and Major Zakir, have been arrested, but did not say when. He added that the authorities were looking for a serving officer, Major Ziaul Haq, who had fled his post after the arrests of Yusuf and Zakir.
4.Giving details about the alleged plot, Razzaq said that Ziaul Haq had circulated emails to different serving officers detailing a plan to overthrow the Government on January 9-10. The Army authorities have accused the HT of helping to circulate the messages. It has been reported that a major general (name not known), who headed one of the country's largest cantonments, was recalled to Dhaka, following the discovery of the plot. Details of his exact role in the plot are not known.
5.In a leaflet disseminated on January 20,2012, the banned HT said: “Hizb ut-Tahrir organized public speeches outside mosques across the country after Jummah prayers today where speakers called upon the people to protest against the Hasina government’s plot to subjugate the Muslim Army of Bangladesh to US-India. The speakers said Hasina was brought to power by the Americans, in partnership with India. The Americans have a design to prevent the return of the Islamic Khilafah in this region and contain the rise of China. For this purpose she prefers a strategic partnership with India in order to secure her strong presence in this region and tighten her grip over the Muslim countries within the region. These two enemy countries are using the government, the opposition, and some in the military leadership in Bangladesh as agents to solve the long standing issues with India which will free India’s hands. This will facilitate India to join hands with America in implementing her design to prevent the return of Islam and contain China. And they are working to remove all obstacles to this plan and anyone who exposes or speaks against this evil plan. It was for this reason that bright officers of our army were massacred in Pilkhana in which Hasina collaborated. It was for this reason that Hasina banned Hizb ut-Tahrir and is pursuing a policy of brutal repression against the party. And now she is executing a policy of whole sale purge of the army through abductions, arrests and dismissals of officers who stand on the side of Islam, and the country’s sovereignty and security. The speakers called upon the sincere officers in the army to remove Hasina and the current ruling regime from authority at once; and to transfer the authority to Hizb ut-Tahrir which is a sincere and aware political party. Hizb ut-Tahrir will establish the Khilafah state which will eject USA, Britain, India and their allies from Bangladesh. The Khilafah will build this country as the starting point for becoming a global super power. This is by securing the basic needs of the people and solving the long running problems faced by the people such as poverty and unemployment, industrializing the country’s economy, building the army as a strong and advanced fighting force, and unifying with the Muslim Ummah. “
6.In another leaflet addressed to the people of Bangladesh, the HT has said: “O Muslims! You have been victims of Indian aggression for decades. This enemy state killed your officers in Pilkhana, she built the Farakkah dam, she deprives you of your rightful share of water from the common rivers, and she kills your brothers and sisters in the border. And your current rulers have failed to stand up to the Indian aggression against you. There exists only one way of resisting the enemy – establishing the Khilafah state. So stop wasting your time and effort in looking for solutions from the current democratic system and the agent political parties – Awami League, BNP and others. You have to take one action and only one action – call upon the people of power to remove the Hasina overnment and hand over power to Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is the only party offering you the vision of becoming a leading state in the region and the world. We will establish the Khilafah state, and implement the Qur’an and the Sunnah. We will bring an end to your economic plight, and industrialize the economy. We will build a strong advanced military. And we have the action plan ready to regain India as a Muslim land, under the Islamic rule, which is the only true assured way of stopping Indian aggression permanently.”
7. The HT has been active among lower and middle level officers of the Armies of Pakistan and Bangladesh and has been trying to instigate a coup by them in order to introduce Islamic rule in the two countries and eradicate US and Indian influence. After establishing Islamic rule in Pakistan and Bangladesh, it wants to extend its activities to India to help the Indian Muslims. ( 21-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Friday, January 20, 2012
L’AFFAIRE SALMAN RUSHDIE
B.RAMAN
1962: There were intelligence reports of likely threats to the life of John F.Kennedy, the then US President, if he visited Dallas. The US Secret Service advised him not to go. He decided to go despite the reports. He was assassinated.
1984: There were intelligence assessments of likely threats to Indira Gandhi from her Sikh security guards following the military raid in the Golden Temple. Those responsible for her security quietly removed all Sikh security guards from her house. She noticed it and ordered that they should be reposted. She said: “ How can I call myself the Prime Minister of secular India if I distrust my Sikh guards?” Her security set-up was told to ensure that no Sikh would be alone by her side. There was negligence in implementing this. She was killed by two of her Sikh guards who managed to have the duty roaster manipulated in such a manner as to ensure that they would be alone by her side.
1991: There were intelligence assessments of likely threats to Rajiv Gandhi from the LTTE during his election campaign in Tamil Nadu. The intelligence agencies and the Tamil Nadu Police failed to strengthen security for him. He was killed by a LTTE suicide bomber.
2004: There were intelligence assessments of likely threats to the security of Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister, if he went to Islamabad for the SAARC summit. Despite this, he decided to go. The intelligence agencies of India and Pakistan strengthened his security. Nothing happened.
2. Shri Salman Rushdie is a well-known literary personality--- loved and admired by many non-Muslims and hated by many Muslims whose feelings were hurt by his Satanic Verses. He was and is a highly threatened non-Government personality in the world. The threats to his life arose from individual Muslims angered by his book and from the intelligence agencies of Iran where religious clerics had announced a handsome reward for his assassination.
3.The British security agencies and Police strengthened his security and he was advised to cut down his public exposure. He complied with their advisory and had practically no social life for some years till the fatwa was withdrawn in Iran. The threat to him from the Iranian intelligence subsided, but the threats from individual Muslims remained as high as ever. Intelligence and security agencies of the world felt confident of being able to protect him from potential individual assassins with no State sponsorship. He increasingly became more active socially and started interacting with the civil society and the media in different countries. He started travelling frequently. He developed a love relationship with a woman of Tamil origin in New York and was often seen with her in public in NY. He visited Chennai with her to meet her relatives and friends. He participated in the inaugural session of the Jaipur Literary Festival in 2007.
4. Though the threats to him remained high, the intelligence and security agencies of different countries, including India, had no difficulty in ensuring his security. He and his hosts also facilitated their task by maintaining a low profile about his visits and by avoiding advance publicity. Many of us came to know of his visit to Chennai along with his Tamil woman-companion only after he had come and gone.
5. Ensuring his security for his participation in the Jaipur Literary Festival that started on January 20 became a complicated affair because the fundamentalist Deobandi group came to know of his planned visit much in advance and made a public issue of it. Statements and comments emanating from the Deobandi office-bearers and some sections of the Muslim community amounted to open, verbal intimidation meant to intimidate the Government of India into not allowing him to come and intimidate him into not coming.
6. The situation became sensitive and complex. One would have expected the Government of India to stop this intimidatory campaign initiated by the Deobandis in the bud and make it clear to them that the Government of India was determined to protect him and would not succumb to the intimidatory campaign.
7. The Government of India did nothing of the sort. It adopted what seemed to many as a deliberately ambivalent attitude by highlighting his right to visit to India as a person of Indian origin , but maintaining a political silence on the intimidatory campaign against him. The Government and the Congress seem to have seen political advantages in such an ambivalent attitude on the eve of the forthcoming elections in UP.
8. As it normally happens in such an increasingly-charged atmosphere, reports started flowing to intelligence agencies of alleged plans of some elements to assassinate him when he came to India. The open intimidatory campaign of the Deobandis was compounded by the flow of reports about the alleged clandestine plans of the Mumbai underworld to assassinate him. The reports were of a general and not specific nature.
9. These clandestine reports called for three actions by the Government of India:
(a). The Government of India taking over the responsibility for strengthening and co-ordinating his security.
( b ).Informing Rushdie of the clandestine intelligence reports.
(c ). A formal assurance to him that security for him would be strengthened and that he need not cancel his visit just because of these reports.
10. It is apparent that the Government of India only informed him of these clandestine intelligence reports. It did not take any other action to give him confidence that it would do everything necessary to protect him. The Government of India’s deliberately ambivalent attitude continued.
11. Apart from odd statements and remarks by individual spokesmen of the Government of India and the Congress Party that Rushdie would be protected, nothing was done to strengthen his confidence in the Government of India. In the face of this ambivalence of the Government of India, he decided to cancel his visit. I felt disappointed and let down by his decision which will give fresh oxygen to extremists of any persuasion. But I can understand his decision. Many of us would have probably reacted in the same manner in the face of the ambivalent attitude of the Government of India which was marked by a mix of partisan opportunism and State cowardice.
12. The ill-advised actions of some of the participants in the Jaipur festival such as reading out extracts from Satanic Verses have added to the confusion. Certain things need to be clearly stated and understood. L’Affaire Rushdie is not a moral issue. It is not a question of the right of Rushdie to freedom of expression.
13. It is pure and simple an issue of the obligation of the State to protect a highly-threatened person by whatever means possible and not to let itself be intimidated by extremists. The way the whole affair has been handled by the Government of India would legitimately strengthen the suspicion that the handling of the affair was vitiated by partisan opportunism, which encouraged the creation of a crisis in the hope of reaping electoral dividends.
14. January 20,2012, was a day of tragedy, shame and disquiet. Tragedy because the events were manipulated in such a manner as to discourage Rushdie from coming. Shame because of the opportunism and cowardice of the Indian State and political leadership. Disquiet because it showed once again that for our political class partisan interests come before national interests. ( 21-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
1962: There were intelligence reports of likely threats to the life of John F.Kennedy, the then US President, if he visited Dallas. The US Secret Service advised him not to go. He decided to go despite the reports. He was assassinated.
1984: There were intelligence assessments of likely threats to Indira Gandhi from her Sikh security guards following the military raid in the Golden Temple. Those responsible for her security quietly removed all Sikh security guards from her house. She noticed it and ordered that they should be reposted. She said: “ How can I call myself the Prime Minister of secular India if I distrust my Sikh guards?” Her security set-up was told to ensure that no Sikh would be alone by her side. There was negligence in implementing this. She was killed by two of her Sikh guards who managed to have the duty roaster manipulated in such a manner as to ensure that they would be alone by her side.
1991: There were intelligence assessments of likely threats to Rajiv Gandhi from the LTTE during his election campaign in Tamil Nadu. The intelligence agencies and the Tamil Nadu Police failed to strengthen security for him. He was killed by a LTTE suicide bomber.
2004: There were intelligence assessments of likely threats to the security of Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister, if he went to Islamabad for the SAARC summit. Despite this, he decided to go. The intelligence agencies of India and Pakistan strengthened his security. Nothing happened.
2. Shri Salman Rushdie is a well-known literary personality--- loved and admired by many non-Muslims and hated by many Muslims whose feelings were hurt by his Satanic Verses. He was and is a highly threatened non-Government personality in the world. The threats to his life arose from individual Muslims angered by his book and from the intelligence agencies of Iran where religious clerics had announced a handsome reward for his assassination.
3.The British security agencies and Police strengthened his security and he was advised to cut down his public exposure. He complied with their advisory and had practically no social life for some years till the fatwa was withdrawn in Iran. The threat to him from the Iranian intelligence subsided, but the threats from individual Muslims remained as high as ever. Intelligence and security agencies of the world felt confident of being able to protect him from potential individual assassins with no State sponsorship. He increasingly became more active socially and started interacting with the civil society and the media in different countries. He started travelling frequently. He developed a love relationship with a woman of Tamil origin in New York and was often seen with her in public in NY. He visited Chennai with her to meet her relatives and friends. He participated in the inaugural session of the Jaipur Literary Festival in 2007.
4. Though the threats to him remained high, the intelligence and security agencies of different countries, including India, had no difficulty in ensuring his security. He and his hosts also facilitated their task by maintaining a low profile about his visits and by avoiding advance publicity. Many of us came to know of his visit to Chennai along with his Tamil woman-companion only after he had come and gone.
5. Ensuring his security for his participation in the Jaipur Literary Festival that started on January 20 became a complicated affair because the fundamentalist Deobandi group came to know of his planned visit much in advance and made a public issue of it. Statements and comments emanating from the Deobandi office-bearers and some sections of the Muslim community amounted to open, verbal intimidation meant to intimidate the Government of India into not allowing him to come and intimidate him into not coming.
6. The situation became sensitive and complex. One would have expected the Government of India to stop this intimidatory campaign initiated by the Deobandis in the bud and make it clear to them that the Government of India was determined to protect him and would not succumb to the intimidatory campaign.
7. The Government of India did nothing of the sort. It adopted what seemed to many as a deliberately ambivalent attitude by highlighting his right to visit to India as a person of Indian origin , but maintaining a political silence on the intimidatory campaign against him. The Government and the Congress seem to have seen political advantages in such an ambivalent attitude on the eve of the forthcoming elections in UP.
8. As it normally happens in such an increasingly-charged atmosphere, reports started flowing to intelligence agencies of alleged plans of some elements to assassinate him when he came to India. The open intimidatory campaign of the Deobandis was compounded by the flow of reports about the alleged clandestine plans of the Mumbai underworld to assassinate him. The reports were of a general and not specific nature.
9. These clandestine reports called for three actions by the Government of India:
(a). The Government of India taking over the responsibility for strengthening and co-ordinating his security.
( b ).Informing Rushdie of the clandestine intelligence reports.
(c ). A formal assurance to him that security for him would be strengthened and that he need not cancel his visit just because of these reports.
10. It is apparent that the Government of India only informed him of these clandestine intelligence reports. It did not take any other action to give him confidence that it would do everything necessary to protect him. The Government of India’s deliberately ambivalent attitude continued.
11. Apart from odd statements and remarks by individual spokesmen of the Government of India and the Congress Party that Rushdie would be protected, nothing was done to strengthen his confidence in the Government of India. In the face of this ambivalence of the Government of India, he decided to cancel his visit. I felt disappointed and let down by his decision which will give fresh oxygen to extremists of any persuasion. But I can understand his decision. Many of us would have probably reacted in the same manner in the face of the ambivalent attitude of the Government of India which was marked by a mix of partisan opportunism and State cowardice.
12. The ill-advised actions of some of the participants in the Jaipur festival such as reading out extracts from Satanic Verses have added to the confusion. Certain things need to be clearly stated and understood. L’Affaire Rushdie is not a moral issue. It is not a question of the right of Rushdie to freedom of expression.
13. It is pure and simple an issue of the obligation of the State to protect a highly-threatened person by whatever means possible and not to let itself be intimidated by extremists. The way the whole affair has been handled by the Government of India would legitimately strengthen the suspicion that the handling of the affair was vitiated by partisan opportunism, which encouraged the creation of a crisis in the hope of reaping electoral dividends.
14. January 20,2012, was a day of tragedy, shame and disquiet. Tragedy because the events were manipulated in such a manner as to discourage Rushdie from coming. Shame because of the opportunism and cowardice of the Indian State and political leadership. Disquiet because it showed once again that for our political class partisan interests come before national interests. ( 21-1-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)