Civil Service Reforms-India

Published in B&E

The strange case of mr. patil and the hen

Politicised; pliant & pressurised is what the political class has reduced the civil servants to. Killing the very spirit and purpose of service, the government is hell bent on making good governance an ever elusive goal.

“The civil service should be accountable, effective and transparent in its functioning. It should be proactive and produce results.” What we need is a “fair, just and equitable” system of governance. These prophetic words belong to none other than our reformist Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who in his initial (after taking over as the PM in 2004) rush to change the system had made bold statements. Three years hence all we can say is, it was mere rhetoric; a humbug. Like all politicians, Manmohan Singh too got embroiled in the political mess, with no time to for definitive policy making. The result is, today, we have unnecessary & avoidable controversies pertaining to lack of transparency in filling the high profile posts in the government. If only the PM had persevered, we would not have seen Kiran Bedi washing her dirty linen on television channels. Earlier, another woman in MEA, Veena Sikri was overlooked for the post of Foreign Secretary, Chokila Iyer who finally managed to get the highest post in MEA had to go through a series of struggles. All these examples may make us wonder if gender is the major criterion for the government to fill high profile jobs. However, a closer scrutiny of the system reveals that womanhood is certainly not the sole reason, why Kiran Bedi has been denied the top-cop post in the national capital. The malaise runs far deeper & therefore, cannot be ascribed to one single reason alone.

The rather sick Indian bureaucracy has plunged itself into an unfathomable pit of unholy nepotism, favouritism & corruption, reducing itself to being the midwives of politicians. Adding punch to the negative assertions about civil services and their impact on the armed forces, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Raj Kadyan told B&E, “A bureaucrat in the Ministry of Defence asked me to pay up Rs.5 lakhs, for an assured promotion to Army Commanders’ post. The General added finally “everything boils down to demand & supply. The top posts are very few & the queue is too long. Those who have the power to decide these appointments exploit this demand-supply gap to their advantage & showcase their power and reach.”The bureaucracy is so deeply embedded in a nexus with the politicians that they have simply forgotten the very purpose of the profession. This fact is corroborated even by the politicians from time to time. Former Lok Sabha Speaker P.A. Sangma had remarked “We have a highly flawed system of management of administration.... Our administration, including the police force, has got significantly politicised.” The politicians cannot pass the buck, because it is they who are required to reform the system and create healthy work environment for the civil servants. That the political class has totally failed to provide a congenial workspace culture is proven by the fact that grievances within the services is at an all time high. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT-which deals with the grievances of government employees) has 24,585 cases pending as of June 2006. Although the CAT since its inception in 1985 has been maintaining a case disposal rate of almost 90%, but the fact that these cases are on the rise, shows that somewhere down the line the administrative reform process which the government claims to be pursuing for last so many decades have failed to produce results and provide India with a well-oiled administrative set-up.

The bright, young men & women, who are fortunate enough to enter the corridors of power, are not born corrupt. They are neither traitors, deliberately intending to harm the nation through their misdemeanours. The question is – who converts these talented civil services rookies into crooks of highest order? What lures the civil servants to debase their values system and become subservient to the dictates of the political class? Majority would say that it the system which induces the fear in their minds – the fear of being left behind in the rat race – the paranoia related to being posted to the remote corners of the country, where their families will have to bear hardships. It is these small fears which lead them to abandon their dignity at the altar of power & pelf. Therefore, instead of choosing the harder right, they conveniently opt for the easier wrong. The harder right of course relates to serving the country and its people at large. The easier wrong under which majority of the bureaucracy takes refuge is – in a democracy they serve the nation by genuflecting in front of the elected representatives of the people. Therefore, they are doing no harm by following the illegitimate dictates of their masters. It is this very thought process, which makes aspiring professionals into diminished; pliant individuals, incapable of rendering selfless service to the nation.However, there are a few officers who uphold the principles & values and refuse to compromise with the system. But such ramrod straight individuals earn the wrath of their seniors as well the politicians & end up being superseded. This dejected lot leaves behind a trail of discontent, which not only displays the rot in the system but also adversely affects the overall performance of the service machinery. Noted bureaucrat and former Chairman, Central Vigilance Commission (CVG) N. Vittal, told B&E that the government’s skewed policy “doesn’t adequately reward achievers & punish the non-performers. As the Peter Principle states that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence, if you don’t take adequate measures to stem this tide through proper policy of rewards and punishment all you get is a cipher.” There is absolutely no reason to dispute the former CVG’s assertions, because the motivational plans for the civil servants are simply based on patronage system. The ‘time-scale’ promotion system dovetailed with ‘security of tenure’ adds a sense of complacency among the bureaucrats, thus making them less accountable to the system and prone to corruption.
The entire country understands the ills plaguing the system. The sham & vain efforts of the government to reform the system have produced zero results, aggravating the situation ‘beyond economic repair’ and mercilessly killing the very essence of nationhood & people’s faith in the state.

Mumbai Riots 1992

Published in B&E

1992 MUTINY!

There is a growing clamour in India to punish those guilty of the 1992-93 riots that victimised the Muslim community. But unlike those accused of the bomb blasts, will the guilty here be brought to book?

In an atmosphere of communal polarisation, what does one expect from the police? The guardians of ‘public good’ are expected to be non-partisan; diligently douse the fires of bigotry & display compassion for the victims. And what happens when the police fails to meet these constitutional & of course, the moral obligations? In short-term, such a behaviour flares up the passions, leading to gruesome atrocities against the community failing to find favours with the protectors. In the long-run, the social fabric of the nation suffers an irreparable dent. This heinous crime was committed by the Mumbai police during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots, where the Muslim community was systematically allowed to be butchered at the behest of saffron-clad politicians. Recollecting the police apathy & insensitivity during the riots, Prabhat Sharan, Senior Editor, The Free Press Journal told B&E, “I & a colleague of mine was sitting with a high ranking police officer & we heard police personnel on the wireless jocularly stating, Mandir Wahin Baneyenge and Udhar Landiya (a derogatory term for Muslim) ko marne ki report hai, zara dekh lo. The police officer did not know what to say he just sheepishly grinned.” The evidence of this, rather obnoxious behaviour of the Mumbai police is adequately documented in the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission report on Mumbai riots of 1992-93. These facts have recently been corroborated by a leading television news channel in India, which has released the wireless messages of the policemen, exposing them as accomplices in the brutalization during that period. Explaining the police behaviour Prabhat Sharan added “We cannot say the entire police force is communalised but then a section of it does carry the germ of hatred towards Muslims in their bosoms.” Now, if a section of the police force only carries the germ, it leads us infer that Mumbai police has been deeply infiltrated by communal elements belonging to the majority community & it is this section of the Mumbai police, which acted at the behest of their political masters instead of following the lawful command of their senior officers. And if this is true, then what happened in 1992-93, surely constitutes a mutiny in the police force.

“They neither obeyed nor did they disobey; they did what they felt and most of them were either polarised or scared to even approach any mob.” Prakash Deshmukh, Senior Journalist, Sakal & an eye witness to the riots told B&E.Those who argue that it was neither a mutiny nor a larger conspiracy reason that since the entire society was communally polarised preceding the demolition of the Babri Masjid & thereafter, a few policemen also got infected. Such an argument supports the view, that an aberration, for a few policemen to get infected with communal virus was a natural phenomenon. Outrightly refusing to categorise Mumbai police actions either in terms of mutiny or aberration, a noted lawyer & Counsel for a group of the victims in the Shri Krishna Commision, Niloufer Bhagwat told B&E, that “If it were a mutiny, one would have seen summary trial being carried out against the constables & officials, who disobeyed the constitutional command, but nothing of this sort has happened. The fact is that no tangible commands to help the victims emanated from the top. It was a larger conspiracy played out at the highest levels to divide the country to manage the discontent arising out of neo-liberal shift the economy was making in the 1990s.” Without drawing a macro-picture of the causes & effects of the neo-liberal agenda, one can say that riots were a systematic act of crime against a particular community. The policemen who collaborated with the lumpen element were a part of the plan executed with precision by political elements. The policemen who participated in the genocide did not get infected after the riots had broken out; they were in fact, already suffering from the communal cancer which had infiltrated their nerve centre much before the riots. That the infiltrated policemen were only used by the political class at that juncture to execute their well laid out plan is the moot point. Therefore, to deny this fact tantamounts to burying ones head like an ostrich to the reality that what happened in Mumbai in 1992-93 was nothing short of a mutiny.

The communal elements in the police force disregarded their constitutional & professional duty; switched over their loyalties to openly ally themselves with the political agenda of a particular hue. And if this does not constitute a revolt within, then we certainly need to redefine the word ‘mutiny’. Moreover, one need to appreciate that communal passions were being raised in the society for years preceding the riots. Did the police officials in Mumbai & the administration system in the country take any concrete measures to stop this virus from seeping into minds of their men? What programmes did the higher police management team launch to ensure the integrity of their rank & file is preserved during tough times? What did the police intelligence networks do to identify & weed out the politicized elements within their force? Search for the answers to these questions and all you will receive is a stoic silence from those who consider themselves to be professionals. By letting politics make inroads within the police structures, all that the police personnel have done is to fracture the state monopoly over organised violence. And no doubt it is because of this enfeebled monopoly that communal carnages continue to engulf our nation at repeated intervals.

Indo-US nuclear Deal

Published in B&E

1. 2.. 3... twist!

Is India all set to sell out its strategic interests to meet the growing demands made by Uncle Sam?!

Nine years ago, on May 11 and 13, India had marked its arrival on the global strategic landscape with five underground tests at the Pokhran nuclear range. The event was hailed as the triumph of Indian nationalism over the non-proliferation diktats imposed by the global nuclear club (USA, UK, China, France and Russia). Shakti ‘98 (name of the operation) was celebrated as the reassertion of India’s independent decision-making ability in a largely unipolar world. Although, the pre-test preparations were carried out under total secrecy and the execution was clandestinely conducted, the post-test announcements to the world were loud and clear. The Indian public was empathically informed by administration that the nuclear tests were carried out by effectively evading the US satellites and hoodwinking the CIA. However, the euphoria was short-lived, Pakistan conducted almost similar test on 15 May, albeit with a tacit understanding with the United States. The important question, which the chain of events leading to the nuclear test in 1998 and the subsequent attempts by the US administration to “cap or roll back” the Indian nuclear ambition leads to, was the US administration really caught napping on 11 May 1998? Or was it a deliberate attempt by the US to turn a blind eye to the Indian nuclear escapades and offer it a loose rope to hang with. Scores of SIGINT (signal intelligence) and HUMINT (human intelligence) sources feed the US administration, especially on the nuclear proliferation; this makes it hard to swallow that the US was unaware of the Indian nuclear blasts. Even if we agree that the US intelligence networks were prevented from reading the Indian designs, how does one explain the post-Pokhran US behaviour vis-à-vis the Indian dreams?

Immediately, after the blasts, the US imposed sanctions on India, which were gradually eased in the beginning of the 21st century. This strategy was buttressed by catapulting India to a status of global power and thus appealing and appeasing the Indian elite. The whole drama about India as the future ‘super power’ culminated with, July 18, 2005, civilian nuclear agreement between President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Without reading between the lines, the so-called doyens of Indian strategic community began to shout out that India has been granted the status of a ‘nuclear weapon state’. Although the left-liberals and the concerned scientific community did raise hackles about the actual US intentions, but their voice was drowned in the din. The net result is that two years after the July 18 agreement; the Hyde Act & numerous bilateral talks, India is slowly, but gradually, beginning to comprehend the true US government’s intentions to lure into a deal which primarily intends to put a lid over India’s strategic options, limiting its ability to conduct further nuclear tests. As the growing opposition within the US about approving India’s entry into the exulted nuclear club gains momentum, a feeling of being cheated is beginning to dawn upon the Indian decision-makers. That after 9 years of the carrying out nuclear blasts, India is yet to have in place a ‘credible nuclear deterrent’; develop a viable command & control infrastructure; suggests that India is a reluctant nuclear power, lacking the will to occupy the nuclear high table. Despite these glaring indicators, Project Director Pokharn II and former Director of IDSA, K. Santhanam, is still sanguine about the prospects of India’s nuclear weapons programme, while talking to B&E, he opined “All is not that bad on the nuclear weaponisation front. We are moving gradually, but definitively on fitting the nuclear warheads on our missiles and this would be achieved sooner rather than later.” This probably makes him more confident about the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, he adds that ‘one need not be unduly perturbed of the concerns about giving US the leverage over our reactors.” But don’t we have enough reasons to be concerned when Henry Sokolski, Head of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre, a Washington think tank, devoted to nuclear issues says that, “The Indians are being greedy.” “All that India is asking is, the prerogative of determining the future nuclear tests should rest with New Delhi. The 123 bilateral agreement should not incorporate a clause forcing India to make a de jure commitment to keep away from testing.” said, Dr. Kalyan Raman, member of the Indian delegation at Carnegie Endowment Forum for global issues, while talking to B&E. Agreeing to the US wishes on ‘testing’ would tantamount to signing the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) without being a party to it. All along, India has been opposed to joining the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and CTBT, on the grounds that these treaties encourage “nuclear apartheid” and are primarily designed to preserve the nuclear inequity in the world. Coming to a bi-lateral understanding with the US on this particular issue is bound to harm India’s strategic interest in the long-run.Another contentious issue in the proposed 123 deal relates to the civilian nuclear energy aspect. Those who are favouring the deal, argue that energising our nuclear reactors through a continuous supply of enriched uranium from the US will help us diversify our energy resources & enable us to get the latest nuclear technology. What these shenanigans are forgetting is that nuclear energy provides less than 2% (perhaps, the 123 deal may help this figure to rise unto 7%) of the energy requirements of the country. But what if the US chokes the supply lines? The moot is, does India agree to be a vassal state of the US empire? Are we ready to genuflect in front of Bush and his team? If the Indian government were to sign the 123 Agreement without retaining the right to keep its strategic options open, it will be the greatest betrayal in the history of independent India. If after 60 years of independence we still lack courage to stand up for our rights as a sovereign nation, then we definitely don’t deserve to dream big & play a crucial role in world affairs.

Indian Railways

published in B&E

Does Laloo really deserve all the accolades for engineering a ‘turn around’ of railways? Are the surplus figures quoted in his budget speech the true reflection of the progress achieved?

“A few years back, Laloo used to shout at the top of his voice that he will not allow the privatisation of Railways – same Laloo Prasad Yadav is now the chief proponent of outsourcing even the core functions of railways,” says Gopal Krishna, a trade union leader with Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) in a conversation with B&E. “And all this talk about outsourcing & PPP (public-private partnership) is a euphemism for privatisation,” the union leader critically added. One may agree or disagree with the CITU leader, however, what one cannot deny is that PPP is the new mantra of Indian Railways (IR), being chanted with great devotion & fervour. Yes, over the past few years, a discernable shift in the IR mindset has become apparent. A fertile ground is being diligently laid to transform the behemoth into a dynamic & agile organisation, capable of optimally utilising its assets to enhance profits. Now, the big question is: does this new found love to increase private participation in IR affairs, clash with its social objectives? “It is not correct to view IR as just a corporate body or having corporate functions. It is a part of social fabric of the country, having a far greater role than just meeting economic needs of the country,” Y. P. Anand, former Chairman, Railway Board told B&E. But how does an organisation meet its social obligations, if it continues to operate in the red for years on end? With operation ratio plummeting from 82.6 % in 1994-95 to 98% in 2001 & with staff pensions & salaries accounting for 44% of the total revenues earned in 2004-05, IR was indeed mired in a mess towards the beginning of the 21st century. It was in no position to honour its commitment to pay dividends to the government. A pall of gloom had spread along the 64,000 kms railway networks & 7,000 stations across the nation. It is perhaps these dark hovering clouds of bankruptcy, which led the government appointed Rakesh Mohan Committee to recommend massive ‘structural changes’ for IR, suggesting privatisation as the panacea for the ailing gargantuan.

“Rakesh Mohan would see the issue purely through liberal economist’s view while Indian Railways is a body which is representative of Indian population,” added Y. P. Anand. Since the very word ‘privatisation’ was not considered to be politically correct, the report was obviously put on the back-burner – a via media was sought to turn things around in the IR – chaperon in the private actors, desperately seeking to enjoy a share of pie in this rather large organisation- accounts for 2.3% of its GDP and owns roughly 45,000 hectares of idle land. And what followed this decision to drop privatisation & introduce PPP, is now history. A big media campaign was launched hailing the Railway Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav as the messiah, who through his sheer management skills, had turned around an almost bankrupt public sector enterprise into a profit earning corporation. (In 2007-08 budget, IR generated a surplus of $4.5 billion or Rs.200 billion on revenue of $16 billion. Astonishingly, the revenue & surplus targets for 2007-08 stands at whopping $ 18 billion & $5 billion respectively.) However, Laloo’s tryst with surpluses seems to nearing an end. The recent media reports & Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India’s indictment of the IR’s accounting procedures have revealed that at least Rs.26.89 billion (roughly 13%) have been reflected in the 2006-07 surplus figures not because of any increase in the business, but primarily because of altered accounting policy adopted by IR. Had this 13% not been added the ‘surplus’ figures would have been much closer to what was achieved during the 2005-06 period. And this would certainly have prevented Laloo from receiving accolades from top B-schools across the globe. The question is: did Laloo encourage fudging of figures or was he assisted by the MNCs to pave the way for private entry? Private players too should be held responsible because the IR ‘turn around’ is being celebrated as the victor of PPP. Needless to add that in any partnership both the brickbats & the accolades must be equally shared.

It is a widely known, since Independence, scores of IR functions have been performed by contractors, then why this clamour about private participation now? “IR have a natural monopoly over rail sector in India. The private sector is not enthusiastic in venturing into rail industry.” Anwarul Hoda, member, Planning Commission, told B&E. Endorsing the view, N. M. Balasubrahmanyam, Secretary General, Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport, told B&E. “A lot of investment is needed by a company, which requires a good return, as good a return as in other industries. Hence, privatisation isn’t likely to take off in a big way in India,” Not withstanding the comments, the fact is that both the MNCs and the domestic private players are queuing up to grab the IR contracts both in core & non-core sectors. As opposed to the innocuous contractors’ of the yesteryears’– the fear about the present day private contractors results from the enormity of contracts (see box – IR is seeking investment to the tune of Rs.3,500 billion, in 11th Five Year Plan).Only fools would oppose improvement in financial viability & health of an organisation & therefore, its capacity to meet its social responsibility. But if the process of improving the bottomline is undertaken in a dubious manner; paying scant regard to the long-term sustainability of the reform process, credibility of the participating actors takes a nosedive. Then, whether you name the process as privatisation, PPP or simply an effort for public good, it is bound to be opposed tooth & nail by the public.

NUCLEAR POLICY: UNITED KINGDOM

Published in B&E

1000 reasons for......and against the British government’s nuclear plans

The Brown government in UK is being vigorously confronted by the Greens over the nuclear power issue. The environmental group had recently pulled out of the government sponsored consultations with the public on the issue. The recently concluded London survey, involving 1000 representatives of the British population has revealed that 46% support the use of nuclear power & about 25% disapprove of the government’s plans to revive and renew the nuclear energy resources. However, despite the support extended for the nuclear energy, 92% of the Londoners’ have expressed their concern against the disposal of nuclear waste likely to be generated by reactors.The environment lobby (consisting of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Green Alliance and a few others) is dissatisfied with the government’s consultation exercise. John Sauven, Executive Director, Greenpeace, told B&E that the entire process is a “farce”, & “public relations stitch-up” by the government. Earlier in February, the London High Court had declared the first round of consultation process conducted by the government to be “seriously flawed” & “manifestly inadequate and unfair”. This time again the Greens opposed to the setting up new nuclear power stations and are contemplating moving the Courts against the government plan.The government’s defence in favour of revitalising nuclear power is based on national energy security concerns. The British, who had built their first nuclear reactor in 1956 have a total of 19 reactors – the last one began operations in 1995. All the reactors barring one are likely to complete their life-cycle & decommissioned by 2023. Roughly 18% of the British electrify needs are met by nuclear power. Gas & coal supply 37% & 34 % of the power respectively. Now, according to the government, if the decision to set up new nuclear plants is delayed further, its dependence on fossil fuels will worsen by the day. The other line of defence, which the Brown administration is adopting is that nuclear energy is essential to meet the carbon emission norms laid down by the EU. “Electricity produced by a pressurised light water reactor, when all its carbon costs have been taken into account, emits around 16 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Gas produces 356 tonnes and coal 891,” says the London-based reputed environmentalist Gorge Monbiot.
Besides the government, the other party interested in seeing the revival of nuclear power is of course the corporations like Areva NP, EDF, British Energy, E.On, Iberdrola, RWE npower & Suez, who after the release of Energy policy in 2007 (granting access to private players in nuclear reactors field) have been getting seriously involved in the process. The Greenpeace and other groups however, feel that instead of going atomic, the government needs to invest more in renewable energy, in order to achieve 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.The arguments put forth by all the parties are right. If nuclear waste & safety are a threat to environment, then the depleting fossil fuels too is a reality. The issue needs to be decided squarely & fairly in people’s court and for that the British government will have to involve the majority population rather than merely a set of 1000 people.

Private Security

Dawn of a new era for private military corporations

By Atul Bharadwaj
Posted on April 25, 2006 -www. atlanticaffairs.org

The private provision of security is one of the most crucial
developments in the field of war and peace in the 1990s and after.
According to a report in The Guardian of London, “private military
corporations (PMCs) have penetrated western warfare so deeply that
they are now the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq
after the Pentagon”. Peter Singer, the author of Corporate Warriors,
recognizes this point when he says that the current scale of
operations of private military companies can only be compared to the
involvement of private warriors about 250 years ago.

The moot point is, why is there a splintering of national security, which
for many years was considered to be the sole preserve of the state?
There are two reasons for this development. Firstly, globalization has
led to an unprecedented increase in cross-border business activity.
The existing security arrangements have become inadequate to
ensure the security of trade in far-flung regions of the world.

The multinational companies (MNCs) can neither fully depend
upon the governments in distant lands nor on their home state to give
them the much-needed protection against attacks on their
businesses by natives opposed to the idea of globalization. With
massive cash investments worldwide, the international business has
gradually moved towards appropriating the means of conducting
violence, something that so far only the state could do.

Secondly, in the post Cold War world there has been an increasing
consensus towards greater private participation and reduced role of
the state in conducting human affairs on earth. It is this privatization
movement sweeping the globe which has made its impact on the
defence sector. In an era where the power and resources vested with
the state are continuously on the decline, it is natural for the
corporations to fill the security void created by the “retreat of the state”.

The PMCs are now engaged in conducting both wars as well building
peace. Their clients include not only the MNCs but also states and
international bodies like the United Nations. The services provided by
the PMCs range from laundry services for troops to maintaining
missiles and aircraft.

These companies also guard the heads of state, for example
President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, and the prisoners of war in
Iraq. The PMCs are also known to participate in combat operations
and intelligence gathering.

Despite their increasing involvement in the conduct of military
operations, PMCs are yet to acquire the political legitimacy to conduct
war on their own behalf. One reason for this is that state is yet to be
relegated to the dustbin of history. Therefore, most of the PMCs act
primarily as contractors for state's militaries.

The PMCs claim that they are not the same as mercenaries of the
yore. They are professionally managed corporations, which go about
conducting their business as per the corporate norms. However,
efforts to acquire legitimacy remain the primary concern of the PMCs. It
is important for men and women, who fight on ground, to be given due
recognition as soldiers.

However, soldiers working for a PMC would detest being called
soldiers of fortune or mercenaries. Just as a medicine man,
irrespective of whether he works for a private or public hospital, is
called a doctor, similarly the military professional working for PMCs
would like to be equated with soldiers who fight for the state militaries.

The privatization movement in security sector will only grow in the
coming years. Crucial intelligence and related military activities would
be outsourced to private firms. The emerging needs mean that new
international norms and regulatory mechanism will be worked out to
guide the conduct of PMCs and make them socially responsible and
democratically accountable.

Foerign p;olicy lessons through animals

Let Pakistan remain the most favoured pet (MFP)

After 9/11, the US has been performing the balancing act in the region with great astuteness. The US deftly tilts the balance some time in Pakistan’s favour and some time in India ‘s favour, by rebuking both (India and Pakistan) and annoying none. The constant fluctuations in the US stance have prevented the Indian strategists from drawing a clear-cut strategy to deal with the US.
Ever since the end of the cold war and the non-aligned movement going well nigh defunct, India has been trying to grapple with the vexing question of, how to deal with the USA in a predominantly unipolar world?
In view of the recent developments this question has acquired added significance. Because, developing robust military ties with America is a watershed event in history of Indian foreign policy. Although, India has the past experience of military ties with a major power. However, the terms and conditions of a military tie-up in a unipolar world are at great variance from that of the bi-polar world. How our relationship evolves with United States only time will tell. But, how we behave in our negotiations with the sole super in the world is of crucial importance at this stage. Towards this end our experts, in addition to following the foreign policy doctrines could also enlighten themselves by studying the history of animal kingdom.
Millions of years ago, man established his hegemony over other forms of life. The two small and insignificant members of the animal kingdom were the first to comprehend these developments in the jungle politics. The forefathers of cats and dogs correctly understood the human power. The two animals developed a symbiotic relationship with the human beings to survive the fast changing environment.
The approach, which the two animals adopted for being accepted as human pets, was uniquely different. The dog which is the bigger and taller of the two animals bent itself backward to fit into the human fold. It completely dissolved its identity and started following the dictates of its master without ever complaining. Despite, the occasional flogging it received from its master, the canine continued to serve with unflinching servility and followed his master who always kept him under leash. It wagged its tail to receive two square meals, and became absolutely dependent on man.
On the other hand, the cat had a different strategy to come closer to the human beings. It preserved its sovereignty, without loosing any of the inherited from its big brother Lion. Unlike, the dog, the cat, mainly used its charm to entice the humans to feed it. Despite being hated and considered a bad omen by few humans, the cat continued to enjoy the privileges of a pet and roam the human streets in its typical gait without any fear. Thus the two animals using their distinct methods were able to make inroads into the human habitat and ensured their permanent space in the human kingdom. I have chosen to mention the story of transition of cats and dogs form animal kingdom to human kingdom, mainly because there are a lot of hidden lessons for strategists.
Take for example Pakistan, it is an ardent follower of 'Dog diplomacy' (DD). It blatantly relies on its shouting (On Kashmir) skills to woo America. It has ditched its own brother the Taliban and its own people to follow its master. It continues to wag its tail for free aid to feed its ailing economy and keeps demanding a few crumbs in the form of arms and ammunition to prevent itself from being extinct. The USA had earlier left Pakistan to fend for itself, but soon the US found that stray Pakistan had started biting people and was more of a menace. It has once again given her the status of a US watchdog in the South Asian region.
India, on the other hand is a large and powerful nation with an agenda and philosophy of her own. We need not design our diplomacy and post cold war strategy based on DD. We should neither be unduly perturbed about the developing US-Pak nexus nor should we endeavor to replace Pakistan from the most favored pet (MFP) position in the US list. We need to evolve 'Cat diplomacy' (CD). Because following CD in spirit, we can come closer to the west without threatening our sovereignty. We have already enhanced our charm through IT, naval power and economy, and should continue to wage war against the mice like terrorists without causing any undue alarm and noise. Finally, in a cat like fashion, we can allow ourselves to be cuddled by the big powers but without giving up our ferocity.

Managing Stress

Art and Adversity

Experts say that in the modern or rather post modern world every person has to cope with lots of stress both at work place and at home. Somebody’s wife is not kissing; secretary not licking; boss is constantly kicking. There could be numerous other reasons causing increased levels of stress. But despite all these stresses man/woman continues to live and survive. Each one of us devise our own methodology to deal with stressful situations. I will tell you a story from my National Defence Academy (NDA) days- on how I dealt with one particular situation through the use of art form.
During my childhood the movie which had influenced me the most was Anand. The way Rajesh Khanna (Babu mushei) deals with the adversity left a lasting impression on my mind. This belief was reinforced by Munshi Premchand’s story ID Gaha, which we had read in our Hindi text book in 9th or 10th standard. The core of the story was “dukuoon mein bhi takhake (Laugh) lagana sikho”. Both the movie and the piece of literature helped me to develop my indigenous variety of stress management tools.
Coming back to my NDA story. It is a story about the last and final camp which we were required to undergo before the passing out parade. After finishing the camp fire, and enjoying loads of tipsy pudding (trifle fruit), the last exercise was a 20 Km padyatra (walk) beginning at 2’0 clock in the night.
My squadron consisting of 20 guys gathered together with all our packs and tummies full with tipsy pudding. The report was made to a surdy army officer. He looked at us from tip to toe and said “look guys this is tough exercise, the sis’s can fall out”. Somehow during my entire stay at the NDA, I had never been able to impress this guy. He had always considered me to be big shammer, a passenger who just did the required bit. He looked at me again and said “when the going gets tough the tough report sick”.
During the last exercise I had developed a big blister at the back of my ankle and the heavy ammunition boot, which I was wearing, was troubling me. I was seriously contemplating falling out and taking the easier route of traveling in an ambulance. But the contempt in that surdy officer’s eyes and sarcasm in his voice emboldened me to take the plunge. Moreover, since I was a naval cadet that army officer considered us little inferior in physical work. I did not want to pass out without completing this last exercise.
The padyatra started at two in the night. We started moving through bushes and mountains. As we progressed my blister started getting worse and the pain began to increase. I started falling behind. It was becoming increasingly difficult to carry my rifle and other load. My course mates who were not aware of my blister kept encouraging me, and I kept walking. As the sun began to rise my hopes of completing the walk started to diminish. The pain was almost unbearable and the fever was also beginning to shoot up. But there was no question of giving up. So, I kept walking bringing up the rear. I finally completed the walk reached NDA around 11:30 in the morning and just fell flat hurting my forehead with the tip of the rifle.
I don’t know what gave me the strength to achieve my aim but throughout the walk I kept humming Gulam Ali’s gazal to myself: Jinke Honton (Lips) pe hasie (smile) paoon (Feet) mein Chale (Blisters) hoonge, haan wahi mere chaahne wale hoonge.” These few lines gave me tremendous strength to cope with the adverse situation.
Did you discover, that I am writing this to cope with some stress in my life? Yes, writing is giving me tremendous satisfaction and energy to cope with the stress caused due to a young girl in my office insisting on calling me ‘sir’ and not Atul.

India Defence Privatization

C all to Arms!

Will the Indian establishment show consistency in nurturing an indigenous arms industry and make Indian defence self-reliant?

Imagine, the hostilities have broken out between India and its primary adversary. The Indian naval warships & airforce combatants deployed in the war zone are all set to launch their missiles onto the enemy vessels & territory. And suddenly, they find their navigation equipment – dependent on feed from the US-based global positioning system (GPS) – giving erroneous output. The war machines go blind because they don’t know where they are and in which direction to turn. The missiles with faulty navigation technology are flying helter-skelter. All plans go haywire. This is a possible scenario, which the defence strategists often discuss to bring out the dangers of over-dependence on foreign defence technology & the importance of indigenisation. One needs to understand that any country, which aspires to be a global power, cannot remain indefinitely dependent on the outside world for too long (during the period 2004-2007, India’s defence import expenditure stood at whopping $10.5 billion. India is the third largest arms importer in the world; among the developing countries, it tops the list of defence hardware). India’s current dependence on foreign arms is quintessentially a stop-gap arrangement before it can attain the expertise to stand on its own feet in terms of arms production. It is this realisation, which has led the government to reform the Indian arms manufacturing industry. Much in consonance with the DRDO objectives of achieving 70% indigenisation in defence production by 2005 (unfortunately, only 30% has been achieved till date); guided by the recommendations of Dr. Vijay L. Kelkar committee (constituted in 2004) and Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) 2007 paper titled ‘Avenues for Private Sector Participation in Defense’, the government finally decided to undertake revolutionary measures to chaperon the Indian private firms into hallowed precincts of the Indian defence. That the government has finally agreed to grant the status of “Raksha Udyog Ratan” (RUR) status to a selected few Indian companies, to provide products and services support to the Indian armed forces, is indeed an unprecedented step in the history of independent India. According to Brigadier Khutab Hai, CEO, Mahindra Defence Systems, “We should be allowed to develop high-tech weapons platforms by benefitting from R&D funding, sharing knowledge with the DRDO and working with the services headquarters to have a clear idea of their requirements well ahead of time.”

In fact, this understated revolution in armed forces is of far greater significance than the much touted “Revolution in Military Affairs” (resulting from advanced computing and communication technology). By identifying a few companies as RURs and bringing them at par with the Defence Public Sector Units (DPSU), the government has unequivocally asserted that the Indian defence has “nothing to lose, but chains.” The chains which had tied the defence sector to whims and fancies of the DPSU. It is not that the private sector was never involved with the defence production (in the period 2001-07, the private sector had got outsourced jobs worth $700 million from DPSUs and Ordnance Factories). Despite these impressive figures, the private role in defence has been confined to production of ‘nuts & bolts’ only, “the DPSUs with roughly 200,000 employees will continue to dominate this sector for some time to come,” K. Santhanam, an eminent scientist, former Project Director Pokharan II nuclear tests, told B&E. “The current policy envisages to catapult the private firms to play a bigger role now; promoting private participation in key areas like production of sensitive equipment including aircrafts, submarines, missiles, radars, underwater sensors, communication equipment and, last but not the least, a role in developing the strategic nuclear assets too.” Deba Mohanty, senior fellow with the Observer Research Foundation told B&E. A range of companies: TATA Power, Mahindra & Mahindra, Kriloskar, Ashok Leyland, Wipro, & others, are likely to be identified to supply products and services. India’s defence expenditure, which is slated to gallop at 7% annually for the next decade, is certainly an attractive proposition for Indian business community. However, it is equally appealing to the economists, as well the government, who intend to save huge foreign exchange & enhance the manufacturing base by enabling the Indians to produce, what for years we have been importing from Russia, USA, France, UK and Israel. Furthermore, reading the fine print in the MoD “Guidelines for the Selection of Industry ‘Raksha Udyog Ratnas’/ ‘Champions’ In Defence Production”, (No.9(8)/2005/D(S-III), 09 May 2006), it is revealed that the outsourcing being talked about is not confined to equipment and platform production only. The government is not just talking about creating Indian versions of Raytheon & Lockheed Martin. The concept also includes building the Indian Halliburtons’ & L3 (companies engaged in providing security, logistic management, training and other services to the US army, engaged in Iraq and elsewhere). If this was to happen, we would soon find the Indian firms more closely associated with defence logistics and training in India. The training on state-of the art aircraft & ship-handling simulators could be easily provided by Indian computer giants. We could have big retail players, like Reliance Retail, take over major functions, now performed by Army Supply Corps (ASC). This is not an artists dream, it is a global trend widely prevalent in the USA and the UK. The enormity of reforms under way in the defence sector is nothing short of a tectonic shift in the way defence has been perceived for years. The private players will soon begin to shed their corporate attire and begin to adorn the camouflage fatigues, because the dilapidated & decrepit DPSU’s infrastructure is in urgent need of competition. And India surely needs a military industrial complex, which can help it gain dignity in a predominantly Darwinian world.

BANGLADESH: ELECTIONS

Dhaka democracy!

A military backed democracy is a sham to fool people

A military ruler announcing the election dates in a country & urging the people, “Don’t sell your vote and don’t allow others to do that”, is a perfect example to understand the meaning of the word ‘oxymoron’. Because, the moment, the Generals’ begin to decide the fate of democracy, one should start counting the days left for the death of freedom. And that is exactly what is transpiring behind the scenes in Dhaka, where constant trampling of democratic norms has pushed the nation towards a political mess.With the general elections slated to be held in December 2008, one is hardly sanguine about the prospects of a well-intentioned liberal set-up to emerge in the near-future. The sight & sound of polls may make the US Charge d’ Affaires Geeta Pasi sing a happy note, “Bangladeshis have entrusted the caretaker government with a great responsibility, including to put into place a foundation for a free & fair election by the end of 2008 & a healthy, functioning democratic system that Bangladeshis deeply desire.” But, the facts on ground indicate that the military backed caretaker government will produce only an ‘embedded democracy’, devoid of powers to sustain people’s choice.Recently, when Bangladesh Army Chief General, Moeen U. Ahmed pronounced the forthcoming election dates, one wondered why does a General (enjoying all the powers and privileges of running a proxy administration in a nation), go in for elections. One is pretty sure that the General and his cohorts do not have any genuine love for democracy. It is mainly the intense pressure exerted by the international community & the Bangladeshi expatriates living in the West that has forced the General to relent. But one and a half year is a long period in the history of an instable & poor nation like the Bangladesh. And when the army will do an about turn and decide to renege on its promise to restore democracy, will remain a million dollar question.

Earlier, elections that were scheduled to be held on January 22 were cancelled; emergency installed and political leaders of the two major political parties – former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League and her arch rival Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) were asked to pack their bags and leave the country. Through this rather bizarre act, the military, ostensibly intended to introduce a ‘new brand of democracy’ in the nation, bereft of leadership capable of providing stability. But little did they realise that “in their urge to get back the lost power, the two parties are likely to add to the political chaos”, says Sanjay Bahadur of the School of International Studies, JNU, while speaking to B&E.In 1971, when India had helped create Bangladesh, it had believed that its eastern neighbour would be a political model distinct from its erstwhile colonial master, Pakistan. But ‘old habits die hard’. Today, Bangladesh is a carbon copy of Pakistan. Just as military is considered to be an indispensable part of Pakistani politics, Bangladesh Foreign Adviser, Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury too feels that since Bangladesh is a “violent and crime-inflicted society with trans-border links, the army must assume a more robust role.” Now how does one reconcile this love for military dictatorship with their urge to dream democracy? All one can say is, insha’Allah!
B&E

Civil-Military Relations-India

Published in B&E

Down down babudom!

Improved civil-military ties is a must for a nuclear nation

Management & governance are the buzz words in a globalised world. It is not just the corporates who are spending sleepless nights to re-model their structures – the sloth-ridden government is also getting into action to catch up with market forces. The example of this trend is provided by the recently released Group of Ministers (GoM) report dealing with Defence Management. In April 2000, the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpaee had tasked the GoM to do a thorough review of the national security. The GoM under the stewardship of L. K. Advani (then Minister of Home Affairs) had constituted four different task forces for the purpose of studying the intelligence apparatus, internal security, border management & the management of defence. The Defence Management task force under former Minister of State for Defence Arun Singh was delegated to look into the India’s Higher Defence Control Organisation (HDCO) and suggest ‘out-of the box ideas’ to integrate the three Service HQs with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) & also deal with matters as important as Procurement Organisation & Procedures; Planning & Budgeting; Defence Production; Defence Research & Development; Personnel Matters & National Defence University. Despite some good recommendations to establish synergy between the MoD & the armed forces, “the hand of babudom is clearly visible in the report. In fact it has a touch of humour. It is proposed that the Defence Secretary & the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) should be treated at par, irrespective of the warrant of precedence, and each should attend meetings called by the other. Similarly, it recommends that civilians in the MoD should be provided certain facilities available to the Armed Forces, like membership of clubs, medical facilities et al, so that they develop a sense of ‘belonging’ to the defence establishments and vice versa. So you will soon find the Army Golf Course and the clubs full of the babus of MoD and their families. That will certainly promote belonging, because after some time, these institutions will belong to them, not us,” Maj. General (Retd.) V. K. Singh sarcastically put across his point to B&E.

There is a historical background to the existing tensions in the civil-military relations. Ever since Independence, one of the major cribs of the defence forces has been their declining status in the national security management structures. During the British period when the Commander-in-Chief (a single head of all the three services was also the Defence Member of the Governor General’s Council), his was the last word. When on August 15, 1947, the C-in-C post was abolished, the job of coordinating & integrating the three services went into MoD’s lap. The Armed Forces, which had occupied a higher position in the government’s protocol list under the British dispensation, have perceived their power and position being severely compromised. Immediately after throwing away the yoke of British rule, the Indian political leadership wanted to consolidate democracy & was surely vary of the army, which had been brought up under the tutelage of British Imperial Defence. However, as the Indian democracy matured, the political trust in the Armed Forces also increased. Although, the army was unable to prove its mettle in 1962 war with China, the event was watershed in the nation’s history, because it made the Armed Forces a part & parcel of the nation-state. Subsequent wars proved the professionalism of the defence forces & their willingness to strengthen the democratic polity. However, despite these efforts the defence forces were kept out of the higher decision making loop. The blame for this state of affairs is shared equally by the bureaucracy & the political class.One cannot dispute the need to solve the civil-military conundrum. Any attempt by the civilian authorities to usurp the perks enjoyed by the forces will only lead to aggravating the problem. The civilians directly involved in defence affairs need to be made more aware of the environment and the conditions under which the forces operate. It is only by creating a more congenial relations that the democracy will be strengthened.
B&E

US Iraq Policy

Mercenaries of the world unite

Even if the troops withdraw, occupation will continue in perpetuity
“You can fool some people sometime, but not all the people all the time.” While majority of the sane world understands the wisdom ingrained in this ancient thought, Bush simply refuses to learn. First, he fooled the world by spreading the canard about Iraqi nuclear weapons and now, he is busy making a mockery of the American democracy by keeping the Congress and the world engaged on the issue of reduction & withdrawal of 160,000 official US troops from Iraq. The reality is, apart from the official army, “a ‘shadow force’ – 180,000 mercenaries working for more than 630 ‘Private Military Companies’ (PMCs) are assisting US in perpetuating the illegal occupation of Iraq. And the top beneficiaries of the privatisation of war are: British firm Aegis Defence Services ($293 million contract from Pentagon); Texas-based DynCorp. International ($1 billion contract to provide personnel to train Iraqi police forces) & Blackwater USA ($750 million contract from US State Department for diplomatic security),” Jeremy Scahill, a noted expert on private security shared with B&E. And if you thought that these are innocuous looking private security companies, you are mistaken! These companies are armed to teeth with latest arms & engage in combat.Bush is certainly not the pioneer in resurrecting mercenarism; however, he cannot be absolved of the sin of giving the phenomenon a fillip. And this he has done simply to subvert & circumvent both the international & domestic laws curtailing the use of force for aggression of a sovereign land. And also to ensure that even if he loses elections and the troops withdraw; his most favoured MNCs will continue to suck the Iraqi blood & oil with impunity.

B&E

Malaysia

Published in B&E

bondage & state brutality

The in-human Malaysia laws prevent multi-racial couples from living in peace & harmony

Years back, noted Indian author & journalist Khushwant Singh, writing on the man-woman relationship, had remarked that only death & adultery can end a relationship. Khushwant, may have been right, if the bonds were only dependent on the internal dynamics operating within a relationship. However, there are scores of religious & social pressures, which add malleability to an otherwise strong relationship. This fact is being regularly proved right in Malaysia, where married men & woman belonging to different faiths are being ruthlessly separated to prove the predominance of faith over an individual’s right to lead a life of his/her choice.Recent reports have revealed that Malaysian authorities adhering to Islamic tenets have declared the marriage between a Muslim girl, (Najeera Farvinli Mohamed Jalali – an ethnic Indian) & a Hindu boy (Magendran Sababathy) as illegitimate & charged them for “illegal cohabitation”. Not only this, before pronouncing the verdict the authorities had imprisoned the girl for four months under gruelling conditions. The archaic Malaysian laws prohibit cross-religious marriages. However, with Najeera denying adhering to Muslim religion, it is arguing that she isn’t obligated to follow the Islamic law. “I don’t think there’s a legal basis for them to do it,” says Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, a human rights lawyer.The so-called ‘progressive Islamic’ state (which claims to be secular) has three major ethnic communities (Malays, Indians & Chinese). However, the polity is overtly pro-Malay. The constitution guarantees freedom of worship but forces Islam on all ethnic Malays & treats them under the ambit of Sharia law. While Indians & Chinese can seek justice in civil courts, the Malays perforce have to go through the rigours of Sharia courts. And this Malaysia proudly describes as its unique form of pluralism, distinct from the European discourse on multiculturalism. It is this very distorted form of secularism, which has prevented Najeera from conjoining with her husband.Earlier in May 2007, the country’s apex civil court had denied Lina Joy to remove ‘Islam’ from her identity card. The court had denied her the right to convert to Christianity on the grounds that “You can’t at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another.” All these laws and actions of the Malaysian state are only widening the racial fissures in the society. The government cannot go on endlessly appeasing the cohorts of political Islam and then take refuge under the fact that their definition of Human Rights is different from that of the Europeans. The defiant Malaysian couples should continue their struggle humming the English poets words – “One who falls in love without taking it to the final conclusion, is like one who goes on a sea voyage only to become sea-sick.”

B&E