Indo-US Relations - Giving Away too much for Nothing

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

In this age of the cable, when soaps are just a button away, few

can be unaware that one of the rules of romance is to play hard 

to get. Should the maiden reveal her feelings prematurely, the 

swain is likely to take her for granted and, consequently, neglect 

her. This is what appears to have happened in the case of India 

and the United States. 

Nowhere did the collapse of the Soviet Union come as a 

greater shock than in Havana and New Delhi. Cuba, at least, had

the excuse of being far away. India and the erstwhile USSR were 

neighbours. .However, even when the putsch against Mikhail 

Gorbachov took place, one of the few embassies to cosy up to the

team of tired apparatchiks that had temporarily taken over the

Kremlin was the Indian one. After the collapse, India appears , 

anxious to enter into yet another comfortable security relationship, 

this time with. the United States. Hence the flow of conciliatory

gestures to that country.

Henry Kissinger, in his book Diplomacy makes clear the U.S.

perspective on unilateral concessions. These, says Kissinger, are

to be taken as signs of vulnerability, and the effort should,

therefore, be to squeeze out yet more concessions, rather than

reward such naivete by positive gestures. As the book had not

yet come out in l991-93 we may perhaps excuse the authors of

the many unilateral concessions this country gave to the U.S.

Alas for them, this policy was reciprocated by renewed American

pressure on sensitive issues like defence technology and Kashmir.

Security Curtain

Earlier, in 1963, this country had come close to entering into a

security curtain provided by the U.S. S. K. Patil, at that time a

Cabinet minister, had said that there had been informal high-

level discussions within the Congress leadership on working out 

security ties with western countries in response to the Chinese 

invasion of 1962. "However, both the British and the Americans 

then started pressuring us to make concessions to Pakistan on

Kashmir, and as a result the idea got dropped". Three decades

later another move for security ties with the United States had

begun to wither in the face of a renewed U.S. tilt towards 

Pakistan. The recent statements of a U.S. under-secretary for

defence that implied that relations with India were conditional 

on Pakistani approval, has at last, led to an Indian reaction. The 

Indian defence secretary's visit to Washington has been

"postponed".

The interlude not just from 1991 but from 1989 to the present 

may be seen as one when India neglected its security systems 

and, slowed down the development of missile and other 

technologies in order to placate Washington. Ironically, it is  

American policy and allies of the U.S. that have been creating 

security concerns for this country in the form of fundamentalist 

terrorism. Afghanistan is the obvious example. During the 1980s,  

U.S.-funded network of terrorist's was created that is now  

active as a mercenary force around the globe. Bolstering the ISI,   

which focused on religion as a means of generating morale and  

fighting spirit during the Afghan war, led to substantial sections 

of the Pakistan army coming under the spell of fundamentalism.  

Its utility as an anti-fundamentalist fighting force is today — 

questionable. 

Fundamentalist Forces 

The significance of this transformation is that should a government

take office in Pakistan that lays stress not on conflicts but on  

business, fundamentalist elements could well induce the armed ,   

forces in Pakistan to intervene and crush attempts at secularising 

that country's polity. Secondly, should there be an upsurge in  

any of the major Gulf countries on the lines witnessed in Iran 

when the Shah was to led, the Gulf sheikhdoms would no  

longer be able to count on Pakistan to provide a counterforce.    

The cry of jihad raised so often by Benazir Bhutto has the  

potential to destroy the cohesiveness of her country.  

Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are financing and supporting 

fundamentalist organisations on a much greater scale than the  

other theocracy in the region, Iran. In the process, their ruling  

elites may be in the process of nurturing a monster that will 

eventually devour them. As for the U.S., just as it supplied arms 

to Iran in the Shah’s time, it is doing so in Saudi Arabia and 

would probably like to in Pakistan, but for Congress. In contrast 

to the economics-oriented policy pursued by the Clinton 

administration in most of the world, in the case of the Gulf and 

Pakistan, little U.S. pressure seems to exist to make the ruling  

elites of these countries give precedence to a civilian 

administration over the military. In the case of Pakistan, in 

renewing a military alliance with that state, the U.S. may be 

sacrificing not just the possibility of a strategic alliance with 

India, but also stability in Pakistan. Any injection of arms there

will lead to a response from this country, thus triggering off an

arms race that will debilitate the Pakistani economy far more and 

far quicker than it can India's. 

However, this does not appear to be clear to the individuals 

at the policy planning centres in the Clinton administration.

Watching them at work, one is reminded of those who steered

to the U.S. into the Vietnam war. All the calculations were right but

most of the conclusions wrong. In the decade ahead, the U.S. is

likely to enter into a conflict against a fundamentalist enemy

nourished in the past by American policy errors. Should Benazir

Bhutto have taken a stand against anti-secular laws, and choked 

off the irregular war against India in favour of economic

cooperation with this country, she would have earned the 

epithet bestowed on her by Clinton of "moderate". Today, this

is far from the truth. By ignoring the financial support given by

Saudi Arabia to fundamentalist organisations and the military

help given to them by Pakistan, the U.S. is acquiescing in 

cultivating an enemy not just of stability in the subcontinent but

of itself. 

U.S. Sanction

In the case of Iran, by attempting at quarantine ignored even by

the United Kingdom—the U.S. is reinforcing the siege mentality 

propagated by the religious zealots, thus weakening among the  

Iranian people the only counterjforce to theocracy, the bazaaris. 

Another country where sanctions "have lasted beyond a reasonable 

stage is Iraq, which unlike Saudi Arabia or Pakistan has attempted 

to craft a secular (though repressive) polity. While India has 

refused to follow the U.S. lead on Iran, in the case of Iraq too this

country needs to be more assertive within the international 

community in calling for an end to sanctions. A generation 

should not be allowed to form in Iran and Iraq that sees major 

democracies as tyrannies out to strangle their national existence,

or else future terrorist organisations may find rich pickings 

within these states. 

To predicate New Delhi's policy on the dictates of a country 

that has repeatedly shown extreme myopia in its dealings with

Asia is folly. Should India neglect to create defences against the 

fundamentalism being propagated by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan 

and others, this may prove fatal to its existence. Policy has to be 

formulated not to meet the political demands of those in 

Washington but to answer the security needs of the region in

which this country is situated.  

From Mahatma Gandhi to Madam Gandhi (Rediff)

Twenty-four years ago, at the Kochi headquarters of the Kerala Pradesh Congress committee, a telegram came to the state chief, the venerable Arecaparambil Kurien Antony. 'Organise spontaneous demonstrations across the state to protest against Sinha judgment', it read. In less than two hours, Antony himself was at the head of a 'spontaneous' demonstration on Kochi's MG Road attacking the verdict of Justice Sinha of the Allahabad high court, which held Indira Gandhi guilty of corrupt practices in her 1971 election. Thanks to orders sent on the phone to units across the state, similar marches took place in all district headquarters. Across the country, an orchestrated protest was spontaneously organized.

Today, almost nothing has changed. Both Vincent George and the (aptly named) Makhan Lal Fotedar have been at work creating the resignations, protests and cacophony of abuse against Sharad Pawar, Purno Sangma and Tariq Anwar. Just as she did when Indira Gandhi was alive -- when any refusal to oblige an Italian friend would be followed by the quick exit of Rajiv, Sonia and the two kids of Europe -- Sonia Gandhi has staged a theatrical walkout, to return only when her whims get fulfilled.

India is supposed to be a democracy. However, as in the Fascist Party that was so dear to her father Stefano, the slightest deviation from II Duce's wishes is treated as high treason. Instead of heeding the message, Sonia is getting the messengers shot.

However, let us assume that she is genuine about wanting to lavish every drop of her blood on the country that every month spends over a million US dollars on her upkeep. In that case, she should lower the financial burden on we taxpayers by moving out of 10 Janpath to the lavish Mehrauli farmhouse owned by her. Care should also be taken to avoid all those expensive phone calls -- all at taxpayer expense -- to Europe and North America. As for her frequent foreign trips, hopefully Sonia will stop the practice of taking along an army of security personnel on each such jaunt.

As Atal Bihari Vajpayee is a chivalrous individual, there is almost no chance that the citizens of India will be told how much is being spent on Sonia Gandhi's travel, telephones, maintenance and other expenses. Like Narasimha Rao, it is only when he is out of office, and at the receiving end of the PILs and cases filed by her minions, that Vajpayee will realize the extent of his error.

The Western press that lionises Sonia needs to subject her to the same inquisition that their own politicians face. In the United States, even the food eaten by the President and the First Lady is public knowledge. In India, few are aware that Sonia and her children love 'boloni', an Italian sausage filled with delicious beef and ham. Back in 1982, George Fernandes talked about Rajiv Gandhi's love for beef and ham. Swiftly, Indira Gandhi made her eldest son visit every second temple in the country, to deflect attention away from such charges. How could a devout temple visitor eat pork or beef? It must be a mistake!

In this writer's view, there is absolutely nothing wrong in eating ham or beef, and it is strange that Sonia Gandhi is taking such pains to keep the food habits of herself and her two children secret. Many Hindus eat ham, and some even consume beef. To admit this openly would reveal character, to conceal it would show a sly personality. In like vein, there is absolutely no crime in the fact that Sonia Gandhi and her two children are practising Catholics. After all, Christianity is one of the great religions of the world, and in India Christians have done much, much more than other faiths to spread health and education.

The present writer is himself the product of Christian schools, and is proud of it, just as he is for winning the Scripture Prizes at an all-India competition. Just as the message of the Gita is universal, so is that of the Bible, and all citizens of India should taught both. Thus, it is strange that Sonia Gandhi acts as though she were ashamed to be a Christian, and pretends to be a Hindu by visiting Tirupati as a 'believer'.

Similarly, there is nothing objectionable in the fact that the language of discourse in the Rajiv Gandhi household was and is Italian. Sonia speaks to her children in that language when they are alone, rather than in two languages that she is not familiar with, Hindi and English. It is because Italian is the language of choice for her and the children that Sonia still has a pronounced Italian accent, thirty years after marrying an Indian. It is the accent of the class that she belonged to, and again there is nothing to be ashamed of in the fact that her father could not afford to complete even the school education of his three daughters. However, in his last years he died an affluent man. Indeed, the tax records (again hidden from the citizens of India, by obliging Italian governments that protect Sonia as fiercely as President Flavio Cotti of Switzerland does) of the Maino family show the rapid ascent into wealth after 1983. It would be churlish to link this to Ottavio Quatrocchi and Snam Progetti.

Rather than behave as though India were Afghanistan and hide behind a purdah, Sonia Gandhi needs to actualise the good in her European heritage, by transparency on her educational qualifications the wealth of her family her lifestyle and the expenses incurred on the upkeep of herself and her children and relatives.

As most of the publishers of Indian publications are drooling for invitations to 10 Janpath, they are not going to allow their editors to investigate such issues. Not, of course, that most editors wish to. They have an eye on jobs in the numerous foundations effectively owned by Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka. Hopefully, one of them is financing a crash course in Italian for Robert Vadra, for unless he speaks the language fluently, his mother-in-law will never save the exchequer crores of rupees by permitting the young couple to live under the same roof as the rest of the Mainos.

It is a commentary on the secrecy surrounding Sonia that thus far her preferences in food and drink, plus the language that she uses to communicate with her loved ones, has not been made public. In the United States, there are thousands of families where Malayalam or Bengali are spoken at home by citizens of the United States. It is an insult to the people of India to believe that they would be turned off it Sonia were to reveal details about her personal life.

Indeed, now that she is trying desperately to become prime minister, she has an obligation to make all this public and not to lie. India is maturing as a democracy, and lies will quickly get found out. No longer can the Nehru family own India, even though it still controls the Congress party.

The candour of Digvijay Singh, Ashok Gehlot, Giridhar Gamang and Shiela Dixit has to be admired. All four have admitted that they owe their loyalty not to the Republic or to the voters of their states, but to the Maino family. Should that clan tell them to do anything, those words would supercede any other. Shiela Dixit in particular was articulate that for her, only Sonia mattered, which was presumably why she worked so hard to defeat the Congress party in 1996.

The four are reminiscent of Ramrao Gundu Rao, who cheerfully said he would auction the Vidhana Soudha if asked to do so by Indira Gandhi. Mercifully for admirers of that superb structure, this request was never made. Rao was explicit that his constituency was Indira Gandhi and her two sons. Not the MLAs, whom he treated with contempt. Not the people of his state, who rejected him with the same contempt in 1983.

Today, watching the tearful performance of the four Maino chief ministers (they have made it clear that to them Maino is more important than the Congress) shows that the spirit of Gundu Rao lives on, and indeed has got further strengthened by the entry of Sonia Maino into the prime ministerial sweepstakes.

However, what of those who are foolish enough to cherish democratic ideals? Who believe that India should remain a society where authoritarian impulses get curbed, and where pluralism reigns? Who believes that a mere expression of (legitimate) concern should not lead to a political execution? Clearly, such individuals have no role in the Congress, just as those who attacked II Duce had very little future in the Italian blackshirts.

The irony is that it is the Left parties who are today supporting such undemocratic tendencies. In 1942, the Communist movement went against the forces of nationalism. It is still paying the price of that decision. Today, once again, by their support to NATO's favourite, Sonia Maino, they are again ranging themselves against the forces of national dignity in India. Hopefully, they will realise their error before it damages them permanently.

In both Kerala and Bengal, the BJP is poised to make huge gains, thanks to both the Congress and the Left being Maino followers. Both the Forward Bloc and the RSP realised this. The CPM and The CPI have -- thus far - not.

The battle of Pawar and his two friends is a fight to restore inner-party democracy in the Congress party. By fighting them, Congresspersons are sealing their own fate. Soon it will be the turn of the Jitendra Prasadas, the Rajesh Pilots, the Kamal Naths and the R K Dhawans... A little over six decades ago, a similar process took place in Germany, and made total the grip of that other admirer of Mussolini, Adolf Hitler.

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/may/2205monu.htm

India First (Rediff)

As predicted, President Kocheril Raman Narayanan gave sanction to the Vajpayee government to prosecute Madhavsinh Solanki, one of the many involved in ensuring that the guilty escape the Bofors net. Rather than blame the President of India for a seven-week delay in approving the prosecution, a finger needs to be pointed at a government that waited eleven months before asking for sanction. Indeed, even today the Vajpayee government is not taking steps against Gopi Arora and Sarla Grewal, two others deeply involved in the decisions associated with Bofors. The case of Gopi Arora is inexplicable unless one factors in the fact of his having numerous friends in diplomatic and official circles.

Should the Vajpayee government prosecute Gopi Arora, it is to be hoped that both he as well as former defence secretary S K Bhatnagar will not hesitate to reveal the truth. Should both come clean, they should be treated with leniency, as the goal should be to ascertain who were the actual beneficiaries of Bofors, rather than just the minions who rubber-stamped whatever was put in front of them. Both Arora and Bhatnagar will redeem themselves if they were to tell the whole truth about the decision to switch from the French gun to the Swedish. That is, if the Vajpayee government actually files chargesheets against them, and gets them arrested. Both in Delhi as well as in London, there are powerful individuals against such a course.

A list of the journalists and officials who have been given jobs, assignments and scholarship -- for themselves and their family members -- by the many government-funded trusts controlled by the Maino family will be instructive. This will indicate the depth of the reach of the family into the core of the decision-taking apparatus in India, and why newspaper editors (to the satisfaction of their proprietors) are so hesitant to uncover the facts about India's most powerful family: Predebon Maino, her three daughters and her two grandchildren from the Indian son-in-law. Not their assets around the world, nor details about their lifestyles or their travels.

To take just one example, Priyanka Vadra is much more often seen at 'watering holes' of the elite Delhi circuit than she is in orphanages. Many are the editors who have bumped into the young lady at such places, and yet such sightings are NEVER written about. Just as the "free" press in India has not mentioned the whereabouts of Rahul, Indian citizens can be pardoned for not being aware that he spends more time in Europe and the United States than in India. At whose cost, no one is told. Unlike Priyanka, who for example was given a handsome fee by a Japanese association in exchange for her 'expertise' on the Nehru family, Rahul has not so far been occupied as an authority on his father's branch. As he seldom talks to his Indian relatives, preferring to spend time with the Italian ones, this is no surprise.

In a truly democratic country, much would have been written about the Sunday brunches at Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's official residence, how the guests at these intimate affairs were drawn from diplomats and visitors, with Indians largely excluded. The phone bills of Sonia Maino would have been made public. However, thanks to an indulgent government, the lady goes undisturbed even in the various state-funded organisations that she and her family control. The Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, for example, has yet to submit properly audited accounts for several expenditures to the Government of India.

However as (in effect) a No Objection Certificate is needed from Sonia before any Indian official gets appointed to an international organisation, any number of obliging officials are quietly working to ensure that the institutions remain covered in secrecy. India is the one country where an individual often sells the national interest in order to get a job at the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. Those seconded to these and other UN-affiliated bodies usually defend alien interests rather than New Delhi's. Indeed, they appear every now and then in India as spokesmen for such interests.

Not that they can be blamed. From the choice of Louis Mountbatten as India's first Governor-General, the Nehru culture has been to subtly denigrate Indian culture and traditions, and make a selection only from European alternatives. These were seldom mainstream options, as Jawaharlal preferred esoteric versions such as Fabian socialism or Leninism. He ensured that advice from both stunted Indian industry and spawned a huge army of babus on the USSR model. Today, it is in the fitness of things that the CPI and the CPM are working hard to ensure that the Nehru heir, Sonia Maino, becomes prime minister of India. Only Sonia can revert India to the Nehru days, away from the freedoms introduced in the Narasimha Rao period.

Any visitor to 10 Janpath will be able to grasp the nuances of Sonia's style of governance. For hours each day, Arjun Singh waits outside her room, in the anteroom occupied by V George. On some days, the curtains get parted and Singh can actually behold the object of his adoration, seated on a sofa inside. Very rarely, she speaks a few words to him, either scolding him for some plot gone wrong, or patting him on the back for a success. On those days, Arjun Singh is ten feet tall. He strides into the AICC and barks out orders, with the glow of Sonia speak surrounding him.

The entire episode that saw the fall of the Vajpayee government and the sabotage of an alternative Sonia regime was marked by the absence of consultation with the Congress Parliamentary Board and the Working Committee. In this, Sonia was following the Nehru model, of seeing subordinates as kitchen staff, to be given orders to rather than consulted. In 1984, after the death of Indira Gandhi, President Zail Singh was ordered to fly back to India and install Rajiv as the new prime minister. These orders were transmitted by Arun Nehru and R K Dhawan to the President, who merely nodded in assent without giving any verbal reactions. Service staff are meant to be seen and not heard. Thus a pilot with zero governmental experience was made the head of the government.

Of course, he claimed credit for the 1984 sympathy wave, overlooking the fact that even Pranab Mukherjee would have got 400 seats in the fevered Lok Sabha polls that followed the killing of Indira Gandhi, just as a rudderless Congress got the full benefit of the (weaker) wave that followed the Rajiv assassination in 1991.

Had Sonia Gandhi called a Working Committee meeting, she would have faced no problem. In the meetings of this august body, it is not very long before Arjun Singh shouts out "Let's leave it to Madam". At this, there is pandemonium as the others scramble to say "Yes, Yes," to this brilliant idea. After the "Empower Sonia" resolution gets passed, the tension eases. Members of the CWC crack jokes about P V Narasimha Rao and Sitaram Kesri. Some may even say a few uncomplimentary things about the BJP. Others speak about how Sonia is just like the other Madam, Indira Gandhi. At this, someone may protest: "No, our Soniaji is even better", at which cries of approval will rend the air and the new Madam smile at her "advisers".

Had President Narayanan sworn in a Sonia government, it would have been one dominated by the Maino family. No existing Indian leader in the Congress dares to even look in her direction these days. In towns across Italy, the expectation is that the 600 million voters of India will soon make the Right Choice and install Sonia as prime minister of India. If the Congress tally crosses 180, this will become a near-certainty. If 220, then a certainty.

In this age of tribal loyalties, one cannot fault the Western media for ignoring Sonia's lack of formal education or the fact that her only 'qualification' is that she married Rajiv Gandhi three decades ago. Few write about the total absence of unrehearsed appearances, or the frightening fact that the Indian (and international) public do not know what her views on major issues are. That is, if she has any. No one mentions the dictatorial grip of the Maino family on what was once a political party. That would be letting down the tribe, and as the Western reporting on Kosovo has shown, the Western media are as "patriotic" as the Stalin press during 1929-52.

Clearly, standards for India have been pegged a wee bit lower than for Europe or North America, where any attempt to make an individual prime minister on the basis of marriage would have been rejected. Ask Dimitra Liani, the air hostess who married Andreas Papandreou of Greece, and who has now vanished into obscurity.

The ironic fact is that the private Sonia is actually a likeable person, warm and friendly to those she trusts. Had she remained out of public life, there would have been no reason to comment on her. But a prospective prime minister of India needs to come not just under the magnifying glass, but an electron microscope. This is what happens in mature democracies, and what would have taken place here, had there been a free press in India.

Unless the Congress party sheds its dynastic baggage, it will not survive. It is pathetic to watch the Ghulams (so aptly named) wail for Priyanka to stop her other activities and enter into the electoral fray. It is disconcerting to watch senior Congress leaders wait in the 10 Janpath anteroom for hours in the hope of catching Sonia (or Priyanka's) attention. Unless internal democracy returns in that party, it will atrophy.

Both Manmohan Singh and Sharad Pawar have the capacity to lead India. Their boss does not, as even they know. However, if the Congress gets enough seats, it is only Sonia who will come as prime minister, with Laloo holding one side of the apron and the CPI-CPM the other. The BJP is showing its capacity to respond to the future, by casting off its hardline agenda and by openly accepting the reality of coalitions. The Congress will need to cast away Dynasty if it is to survive. Those who point this out are not the enemies of the Congress. That position is reserved for those who wait in the 10 Janpath anteroom in the hope that the wind may shift the curtains enough for them to scurry out shouting, "I've seen Sonia!"

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/may/14monu.htm

Changing to Conquer-Adjusting the BJP to Indian Reality

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

Despite the electronic help he gets both onboard and from the
control tower, the pilot of a large aircraft has to make several
course and engine pitch corrections before he finds the right
approach for a safe landing. Similarly B]P leaders, who today ,
appear to be at loss over how to deal with being the party of
governance rather than a permanent opposition, need to identify
and actualise the course corrections required for their party to
replace the Congress as the natural beneficiary of the public
trust. What served the party well during its ascent may prove
less effective now that it has become the largest national party.

The reaction to the destruction of the Babri masjid on
December 6, 1992, is an illustration of how different India is from
countries like Pakistan and pre-Hasina Bangladesh. In both of
India’s neighbours, numerous temples have been destroyed over
the past 50 years, yet there was no national outcry. In India, the
destruction of a disused mosque generated a national uproar.
Six years after the event, the antics of the kar sevaks are still
highlighted by the international media, though neither CNN nor
BBC has yet got around to a news story on the destruction of
temples in Bangladesh or Pakistan. This is not owing to double
standards, rather it is a recognition of the belief in India as a
secular state.

Strong Centre
By behaving like Pakistani fanatics, the vandals who
lowered the prestige of 970 million people on December 6, 1992,
have gone against the very heritage that they claim to project.
Another example of such behaviour among the self—proclaimed
‘Hindutva’ fold was the ransacking of Maqbool Fida Husain's 
home in Mumbai. Any Indian citizen has a
right to the history of the subcontinent, including the mythology.
Indeed, the concept of a unified ’Hindu' society is a relatively
recent phenomenon. Logically, all those who believe in
moderation and respect for different perspectives that characterise
the philosophy of Hinduism should be accepted as being within
the fold of 'Indutva', or Indian culture.

The Congress party, which is trapped in the Nehruvian
strait-jacket, keeps harping on about the need for a ’strong
centre'. By this, it means a Nehru—style government that forces
state governments to accept its diktat on most aspects of policy.
However, rather than an all—powerful central government, what
will preserve the unity of India is the acceptance of a strong social
centre that avoids extremes and works towards a synthesis
of different trends. With Punjabis learning Bharatanatyam and
relishing dosas, and Malayalis taking to tandoori food and Daler
Mehndi, this is already happening. Jugalbandhis of north and
south, east and west, have by now become so common that they
are hardly noticed.

'Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai’
Thus, rather than return to a political centralisation that was the
economic ruin of India, our major national parties need to focus
on social and cultural ecosystems, linking them together across
regions and communities. For example, the BJP will never realise
its goal of getting a parliamentary majority on its own unless it
can attract a significant part (at least 25 per cent) of the Muslim
vote. The Bajrang Dal rhetoric which scares away Muslims will
also keep away the moderate Hindus who this time, especially
in the south and east, have increasingly preferred the BJP to the
Congress which today has adopted an unrealistic position on
both domestic and foreign policy.

An example is China. Beijing repaid Jawaharlal Nehru’s trust
in its good intentions by stealthily expropriating Indian territory,
launching a war in 1962 and repeated incursions since then.
Today, China covertly arms Pakistan with strategic weapons
against India, using so-called private companies and countries
controlled by the People's Liberation Army. It also encourages
insurgency, especially in the north-east, and is the primary
strategic partner of the ISI in its drug—financed terrorism. Despite
such a record, the Congress party has joined the CPM in
supporting Beijing in a confrontation with Indian interests.
While the Marxists have been consistent in their support for
China, it is disquieting to see the former party of Indian
nationalism in its corner.

Conspiracy theorists see a link between the muscular China
lobby in New Delhi and the flood of journalists, academics and
others visiting Beijing as state guests. However, this would be an
unfair allegation. As for reports that the Chinese regime is
covertly funding political and other groups in India through
fronts, this has not yet been conclusively proved. Unlike in the
United States, where funds originating from the Chinese
Communist Party have become a live issue, in India the activities
of the China lobby have so far escaped attention.

Strangely enough, one reason for this is the fact that the
dominant strand in strategic thinking in the United States is still
very positive about China. Those influenced by such thinking
have also absorbed the pro-China message implicit in such
scholarship. Thus, even in the political and NGO sphere, pro-US
and pro-China groups have entered into a tacit alliance. The
difference, however, is that the United States, being a moderate
democracy, is a long-term strategic partner of India, whereas the
present Chinese regime cannot be. Until the Han people enjoy
the full benefits of democracy, it will not be possible to actualise
the 'Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai’ that Nehru talked about.

Foreign Capital
The rejection by the Congress party of the nationalist centre has
given the BJP an opportunity, provided it does not subscribe to
the Nehru—style romanticism about China and Pakistan. Within
the BJP government, L. K. Advani appears to have the clearest
perspective on foreign affairs. A combination of the Advani line
of external relations and the Vajpayee thinking in domestic
policy would serve the country well. However, elements in the
BJP appear to want to reverse the order, putting into play a soft
external approach with a more exclusivist domestic approach.

What India needs urgently is to concentrate on economic
development, which includes welcoming foreign capital fuelled
not by speculative but by investment motives. Clear signals have
to be sent to Pakistan and China that India will no longer play 
possum when confronted with their covert war. Above all, we
must preserve the moderate traditions that have nurtured Indian
culture for millennia. These are among the stands that the BJP
needs to knit together for its future survival.

The enemy within (Rediff)

The silver lining in the fiasco that saw the country being pushed into yet another general election is that politicians in the 13th Lok Sabha are likely to be supercautious rather than frisky. The post-defeat inability of the anti-BJP parties to form an alternative government shows up the dangers of adventurism. This, plus the 'Narayanan Precedent' of asking for written evidence of a majority before swearing in an alternative team, is likely to prevent a short life for the next Lok Sabha.

President K R Narayanan is now the subject of an intensive whispering campaign, centred around his and his wife's friendship with the Nehru family. It is being claimed that Mrs Narayanan -- allegedly because she follows the Christian faith -- wanted Sonia Gandhi to succeed in her Operation Topple, and therefore used her (considerable) influence on the President to rig decisions against the BJP.

As evidence, these critics point to the President's immediate order to the prime minister to prove his majority; his indulgence in giving Sonia Gandhi several days to win over recalcitrants; and his refusal to give the Vajpayee government a second chance to prove its majority after the Congress's bid for a Sonia ministry collapsed.

Such comments are unfair to a deeply sincere and straightforward individual. Usha Narayanan's faith is not relevant to the political discourse. Even if she were Christian, the fact remains that the Christian community in India has done wonders in the fields of health and education. The faith is an Asian one, even though these days most believers come from Europe and the Americas. One of the unfortunate side-effects of Sonia Gandhi's pell-mell rush to become prime minister (a process she began in 1995, with the attack on Narasimha Rao) is a backlash against the innocent Christian community in India. These individuals have nothing to do with the Maino family's shenanigans, and should not be made political pawns. To target them is as unfair as it was to target the deeply patriotic Sikh community for the murder of Indira Gandhi, or to blame the Hindus for the killing of Gandhiji.

President Narayanan has one way of showing to the nation that he is not bound to the apron-strings of 10 Janpath. This is by speedily allowing the prosecution of Madhavsinh Solanki in the Bofors matter. By sitting on the file for nearly two months, the President has generated avoidable controversy over his motives, just as a similar tardiness over the Shiela Kaul file did some months ago. True, the President knows both Solanki and Gopi Arora personally -- the latter more than the first -- but such personal considerations will never come in the way of national interest where Kocheril Raman Narayanan is concerned. Clearly, the President was waiting for the political weather to clear before giving his assent, lest he be accused of partisanship. Now that stage one of the storm is over, it is likely that he will soon give assent to the prosecution of Solanki.

It is a national disgrace that several countries have got back huge amounts of kickbacks from Swiss banks, even though India has (deliberately) failed to make much headway on Bofors. Part of the reason is the open linkage between the Swiss authorities and 10 Janpath. Recently, the President of Switzerland made it a point to call on Sonia Gandhi at her government-provided residence, thus giving a clear signal of the Swiss government's determination to protect her. In the same way, the Malaysian government under Mahathir Mohammed is protecting Ottavio Quattrocchi from extradition. Clearly, both Switzerland and Malaysia can be expected to put the personal interests of 10 Janpath above the need for justice.

In this, they are joined by several bureaucrats in the HRD, home and finance ministries in India who have secretly been working overtime to protect Sonia Gandhi. Thanks to the influence of an NRI business family, the Prime Minister's Office too has thus far served as the highly effective office of Sonia's defence team. Vajpayee has paid with his job for listening to this NRI family and following the footsteps of Narasimha Rao in protecting Sonia, even to the extent of pulling up Human Resources Development Minister M M Joshi for looking into the various government-funded Nehru trusts, all of which are illegally controlled by Sonia and her children.

Hopefully, at least now Prime Minister Vajpayee will not block ongoing probes into the Nehru trusts and into the armaments and pipeline deals that made a family in Italy super rich. During the 1980s, both the brothers-in-law of Sonia Gandhi -- Walter Vinci and Jose Valdemoro -- became affluent, by means that numerous identifiable public officials in India are anxious to keep secret. Sadly for Sonia's sisters Nadia and Annouscka, both their husbands divorced them as soon as they became rich. As a result, they moved to Delhi to live in 10 Janpath, along with their mother Predebon. India being a rich country and Italy a poor one, New Delhi can certainly afford to pay for the telephone, transportation and housing charges of the Maino family, as it has been doing for years, without complaint.

Indeed, a host of visitors from Italy descended on Delhi a fortnight ago, eager to watch as their relative formally took possession of the family inheritance, the Government of India. Hopefully when the results of the next election get announced, these friends can return to watch Orbassano's first-ever prime minister get sworn in. After that, Sonia can more openly reward her friends and punish her critics, all out of taxpayer's money.

It is noteworthy that the country to which the Hope of the Nation still looks for inspiration -- and airline and telephone bills, as well as the roster of mealtime guests will confirm this -- is among the 19 pounding Yugoslavia to dust. If there should be a conflict between NATO and Indian interests, where will Sonia's preference lie? Will she be able to order missile strikes that can hit targets in Italy? More to the point, why has she so far not uttered a word of condemnation of the barbaric bombing of an independent country from bases in Italy? These are questions that should interest strategic planners in India as much as the dog that did not bark caught the attention of Sherlock Holmes.

However, it is not only in Europe that Sonia has backers. One of the worst-kept secrets in Delhi has been the interest of the Communist Chinese in a Sonia-led government. Natwar Singh needs to reply to suggestions that he indicated a willingness to implement a freeze on Agni and on nuclear tactical warheads when he spoke to Chinese officials in Beijing. All Natwar needs to do is take a lie detector test to disprove such charges, spoken by unhappy left cadres who secretly say their comrades in China forced them to back Sonia Gandhi as prime minister. It is perhaps not entirely coincidental that a CPI delegation was in Beijing at about the same time as Natwar was.

The Chinese need to realise that they should not interfere in domestic politics. The hotheads in the PLA have already done much future harm to China's long-term interests by helping Pakistan develop strategic muscle. They should not convert a future ally -- India -- into an enemy by their reckless adventurism. India and China must work together, but this is not possible so long as China gives nuclear and missile secrets to Pakistan and dabbles in Indian politics.

NATO's new doctrine of the 'divine right' of the (European-race) alliance to intervene militarily anywhere in the world means that India needs to expand the range of Agni to intercontinental levels, and to refine weaponry. This is the only deterrent to some idiot in London or Washington who may seek to duplicate a Kosovo in Kashmir.

The East Timor agitation is being fuelled by NATO in order to set up a protectorate in a volatile region. Both India and China have to concert to block these efforts, by supporting Indonesia in protecting its territorial integrity. Here too, Sonia Gandhi is silent. Perhaps she, like NATO, favours an 'independent' East Timor that will serve as a NATO base

Kashmir in India, Tibet in China, East Timor in Indonesia and Chechnya in Russia are all examples of how NATO seeks to use ethnic differences to weaken states that are likely to emerge as superpowers. The NATO-subservient regimes of Yeltsin and Habibie have thus far not been able to oblige their patrons, only because of strong public opinion. The friends of Indonesia and Russia need to convey forcefully to Moscow and Jakarta to retain the multi-religious nature of their states, and not succumb to NATO pressure.

Hopefully, instead of being a dupe of NATO, China's leaders will join with India in creating a multi-polar world order. The worst enemies of India have always come from within. The Mughals and the British could never have subjugated the land without the support of hundreds of traitors. Even today, the loudest voices against India framing sensible economic policies or creating a minimum credible deterrent come from within. In the Jawaharlal Nehru University, for example, the joke is that there are professors to spout the Chinese, the German or the American line, but none who support the Indian one. The trouble is that this is no joke. As the fawning supplication before Sonia Gandhi (and by implication her backers) has shown, we have a long way to go before being free.

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/apr/30nala.htm

Congress: Dreamland or reality? (Rediff)

In a very short while, the entire country is likely to follow the Congress party to bliss. Sonia Gandhi, nee Maino, will be the leader of the government, just as a year after she took over formally as Congress president. No doubt many wise commentators will write about her 'reluctance' to assume office, and about how circumstances forced her into South Block despite her misgivings.

However, history tells a different tale. This is of a lady who decided in 1995 that she wanted to take back the family jagir from the benami who had taken control of it in 1991, Pamulaparthy Venkata Narasimha Rao. She made it clear to Rao that "in the party's interest" she expected him to announce that he would not be contesting the 1996 Lok Sabha poll, but would hand over the baton to the proprietor of the Congress party, Sonia Gandhi.

Bad luck for Rao, he did not oblige. While ensuring that her control over public funds via the family trusts continued, and that inconvenient investigations into various deals were killed off, Narasimha Rao consulted his cardiac specialist -- a young and brilliant doctor from Andhra Pradesh with political traditions -- and decided to attempt a second term. This meant a declaration of war.

Soon various public spirited individuals began filing PILs and circulating documents about Narasimha Rao. His road to prison began to get prepared, using both the criminal charges track and the other tack of getting a Justice Jain to dream up a conspiracy theory in which everybody other than the Tamil Tigers were responsible for the Rajiv assassination. Justice Jain, however, did not dwell on those Congress leaders who insisted in June 1991 that Rajiv should visit Tamil Nadu, despite a clear warning that there was danger.

Even on the day of his death, angry Congresspersons operating from 10 Janpath insisted that Rajiv should fly to Chennai. Indeed, one particular office-bearer of the AICC insisted that Rajiv spend the night in Sriperumbudur in the home of a businessman with Singapore links. However, the security staff vetoed this order. They did not, however, raise serious objections to the Sriperumbudur programme, despite the clear warning from the Tamil Nadu government against the visit.

Justice Jain did not ask too deeply how Dhanu was allowed into the inner cordon, and who got her in, such questions would have led to embarrassment -- for those close to a Madhya Pradesh leader who has since 1995 been Sonia's chief advisor. Thus the good Justice ignored the complicity of Congress dignitaries close to the MP politico, and went off instead in pursuit of the real target of the 'investigation,' Narasimha Rao. Had Justice Jain been a wee bit more credible, there may by now have been a trial in which it would have been argued that Rao killed Rajiv to become prime minister. That Rao, in effect, knew that the Congress would get a poll boost from the murder, and that Sonia Gandhi would back him for the top post. Which is what she did, believing that he was the most temporary of stopgaps.

Since 1995, the Sonia people in the Congress began trying to wreck the party, setting up candidates against it in most states, often even helping BJP candidates to defeat Congress nominees. Today, those who worked so actively against the party in the 1996 polls have taken it over, because they acted at Sonia's behest. Today Arjun Singh, Shiela Dixit, N D Tiwari, Natwar Singh, M L Fotedar, Mohsina Kidwai, Manish Tiwari and others dominate the Congress party. Conversely, those who were loyal to it during the Rao period have got pushed into the rathouse (the doghouse being too good for them).

If in 1998 the Congress under Rao was 'weakened' by the exit of the Sonia brigade, by 1998 it was effectively led to the polls by the lady herself, with the entire charisma of the Tiwari Congress added to the scales. Despite this, the party did worse than in 1996. The explanation given was that it would have got 'obliterated' but for Sonia, small wonder that the ingenious Arjun Singh is a favourite at the Sonia Court.

After taking over as AICC president on the strength of his supplications before Narasimha Rao, Sitaram Kesri had periodically mouthed the mantra that Sonia should take over. On March 7, 1998 he declared at a press conference that Sonia was needed. As fate decreed, Sonia evidently watched Kesri's performance on television and decided to make the old courtier happy by agreeing to his request. A week later, both A K Antony and Ahmed Patel suddenly told Kesri that it was time for Sonia to take over. Confident that she would not, Kesri agreed.

On 14 March, 1998, at a Working Committee meeting, most of the members demanded that Kesri step down. An angry Kesri stormed out with Tariq Anwar, confident that the CWC members would run after him asking him to stay. Instead, they went to 10 Janpath and brought back Sonia Gandhi just 17 minutes after Kesri had left. The 'reluctant' lady thereupon assumed charge as AICC president. It must be torture for her to wait longer before claiming the other part of the Nehru inheritance, the Government of India.

It was their exclusion from power that irritated Congress MPs enough to support first Kesri and then Sonia (via Arjun Singh) in bringing down the Gowda and Gujral governments. Today almost no Congress MP wants a repetition of 'outside support.' They want to serve the country by becoming ministers. Sonia too wants to serve the famished millions of India by being the first Orbassano-born individual in history to ever become a prime minister. Ideally, Sonia and her flock would like to see a Congress ministry supported from outside by the other parties. In other words, exactly what that other great strategist, Sitaram Kesri, had in mind when he toppled Deve Gowda in 1997.

The problem is that Mulayam Singh Yadav, Laloo Prasad Yadav and others who voted out the BJP a few days ago are not sanyasis. They will not be happy to provide the majority for Sonia and her 141 Congress MPs to enjoy the fruits of office -- sorry, suffer the burden of being in power. They, being generous souls, would like to share the burden with their Congress friends. Thus, any setup that relies on outside support of the allied parties will be as stable as an aircraft with one wing. Unless the Congress party enters into an equitable power-sharing arrangement with its now allies, its stint is likely to be brief. And the impact of the disaster will be reflected in the polls that follow. The Congress will need strategic alliances with SP/BSP in UP, RJD in Bihar and AIADMK in Tamil Nadu. Excluding them from power will not enhance the Congress chances of getting a good deal then.

If the Congress believes that it can get 300 seats in the next poll courtesy the charm and dash of Sonia Gandhi, a reality check is needed. The odds are that coalitions are here to stay. That being the case, it would be better for the party to accept a full-fledged coalition on the Kerala model rather than seek to go it alone. It can then see just how capable Sonia Gandhi really is in facing Parliament and in keeping a non-docile flock together. Unlike the modern Congressman, who is indeed proud of his or her servitude to the Nehru family, Mayawati, Laloo and Mulayam will expect to be treated not as retainers but as equals. This will be a culture shock for Sonia, who has left her origins far behind, and singlehandedly pushed her family up the social ladder.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, stability would be best served by a coalition that has a non-Congress prime minister. It is relevant to recall that the most stable ministry in Kerala was the one headed by Chelat Achutha Menon between 1970-77. Although the Congress was the largest party in the coalition, it was the CPI that was given the chief ministership. Should the Congress show a similar magnanimity at the central level in 1999, there is a good chance that the resulting coalition will be stable. However, this would mean a shelving of Sonia's burning desire to serve the masses by moving back into 7 Racecourse road. This time as both the de facto as well as the de jure prime minister of India.

The chances are that a Sonia regime would be just what the BJP needed to get back into the reckoning. Apart from Laloo and Mulayam, large sections of the Left are likely to quickly realise that the best way to boost the BJP presence in Bengal and Kerala is to support a Sonia-led government that is not even a coalition. It would be suicide for the Left to accept this, no matter that Jyoti Basu (whose love for Europe is no secret) feels differently. All allies of such a government would lose large chunks of the nationalist vote to a resurgent BJP.

By trying so hard to grab power just for herself, Sonia is making the same mistake that the hardline faction in the BJP made when it cut a secret deal with the DMK to launch a hidden attack on Jayalalitha. The hardliners were unhappy at having to run a minority government, and sought to behave as though the BJP had 280 seats rather than a hundred less. Thanks to the clumsy diplomacy with the AIADMK, Jayalalitha got alienated. Thanks to the Kalyan Singh episode, Mayawati became a foe. Thanks to shoddy handling, Chautala walked away. That Vajpayee had a very incompetent set of crisis managers must be clear even to him. Indeed, the Vajpayee team created rather than doused fires. However, Sonia's kitchen cabinet is no better. In weeks, they are likely to plunge her government into disrepute.

The BJP is down, but it is not out, despite the best efforts of Sonia Gandhi. Unless the Congress adopts a practical and realistic approach, it is likely to see a BJP-led government emerge out of the wreck of the confidence motion. Sonia Gandhi does not have the cards Arjun Singh has made her behave are hers. 1998 proved that, 1999 will, once again.

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/apr/20nala.htm

If Vajpayee prepares to leave in a blaze of glory, he may yet stay (Rediff)

At the outset, let me state a bias in favour of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The prime minister has set in motion the process of converting India's largest political party into a moderate outfit where all religious can feel comfortable. He has sought peace with Pakistan, though hopefully not at the expense of strategic concessions. More importantly, he has implicity accepted the strategic power of a Delhi-Moscow-Beijing triangle crucially, he has sought to implement economic reforms designed to free the country from the shackles of Nehruvian dogma.

It will be, therefore with some regret should the Vajpayee government fall, as now appears likely. However, the episode has important lessons, chief among them being the reality that junior players can often exercise great influence over events. If the Vajpayee government is in extremis today, the credit for that should go to two individuals, Tamil Nadu BJP chief L Ganesan and former defence secretary Ajit Kumar.

By continuing his close relationship with Karunanidhi, and helping the latter push his agenda in the BJP, Ganesan has made relations between the AIADMK and the BJP almost untenable. As for Ajit Kumar, by goading George Fernandes into sacking Vishnu Bhagwat, the civil servant has done a great favour to the Congress camp. Hopefully this will be remembered when that party enters government.

Machismo is seldom a good tactic, whether in personal or in political situations. However, thanks to the goading of their followers, who thrive on panic and instability, many political leaders adopt aggressive postures that make reconciliation difficult.

Govindacharya is an example. In pursuit of a sound byte that makes him look bold, the BJP ideologue frequently provokes both BJP office-bearers as well as that party's allies. Every -- repeat, every -- party collects funds. Neither the BJP nor the Congress nor the revolutionary CPI-M finance their party machine through hot air. It needs cash, and lots of it. It is therefore hypocritical to mutter about the venality of certain parties, just because the media has made certain formations and individuals whipping persons.

Most Indians cannot keep a secret, and journalists follow the trend -- sorry, market. In private conversations with them, top BJP leaders have often been scathing about AIADMK supremo J Jayalalitha. Not surprisingly, many of the recipients of such confidences have been quick to convey the same to Chennai.

By a strange coincidence, scribes known to frequent the Advani household have been the most vociferious in denigrating Jayalalitha. Not the best way to win friends, but very good tactics if the plan is to bring down the Vajpayee government, hope for a shaky coalition under Sonia Gandhi, wait for that to fall, and sweep back to power in the ensuing election on the back of another Toyota rath.

Certainly L K Advani is too much of a gentleman, too disciplined a soldier, to intentionally cause the Vajpayee government to fall. However, by their barbs and their machismo, many of his supporters are busily ensuring just that. Should the Vajpayee government get defeated in the coming trial of strength in the Lok Sabha, hopefully the BJP will not take it as the defeat of the Vajpayee doctrine of moderation.

Hopefully, he will continue to lead the party, this time again as leader of the Opposition, and continue to take it towards a moderate stance on social issues. Only thus can the BJP break through from the 20% to the 30% vote level and emerge as a political superplayer with long-term viability.

Any regression to fanaticism will cost not just the party but the country dear. The fall of Vajpayee will not be because of the prime minister, but despite him. It will have been caused by the hotheads and the hardliners that the prime minister has thus far been unable to distance from both his government as well as his party.

As for the Congress party, it too needs to take both a long view as well as one that takes into account national considerations. This implies it should get the Yashwant Sinha Budget passed, even if the BJP-led government is defeated in a no-confidence vote. This will show the world that the Indian polity has matured and that political instability will not impact upon economic expansion.

Sonia Gandhi will need to talk to AIADMK supremo Jayalalitha and other leaders to ensure that the Budget gets passed, over the certain objections of the Left and perhaps the Laloo-Mulayam duo. Should the Congress leave the Budget to the hurly-burly of the coalition that will follow the defeat of the current government, it will commit an act not just of folly but of irresponsibility.

Indeed, the same irresponsibility now being shown by the Vajpayee government in refusing the demand for a Joint Parliamentary Committee probe into the circumstances connected with Admiral Bhagwat's sacking. Crooks and cheats flourish in the dark, fetid atmosphere of secrecy. A democracy needs no fear of transparency. An example is the United States, where there are open hearings into several sensitive matters.

The superb system of parliamentary oversight that prevails in the United States ensures that bureaucrats are unable to compromise national interests for gains that may be as petty as arranging a scholarship for a son in a foreign university or landing a job at an international institution.

Thanks to the obsessive secrecy that surrounds government decisions in India, everyday policies get followed that would not bear scrutiny. India too needs a rigorous system of parliamentary oversight into the activity of government departments.

Bureaucrats, however, resist this. Even matters such as the appointment of non-official directors to the boards of public institutions are held up for years, on the ground that such directors would interfere with the efficiency of the unit. In reality, the fear is that such individuals would probe into the cosy symbiosis between bureaucrats and suppliers. In a democratic system, the presence of individuals who have either been directly elected or who are selected by those who have been directly elected is needed for efficiency and to ensure a system of checks and balances.

George Fernandes was completely housebroken by his defence secretary. As a consequence, his relationship with armed services officers deteriorated to a level that they had to give a written complaint about their inability to meet him. Going to mountain peaks or sharing a soldier's lunch will not compensate for the destruction of service traditions and morale.

As defence minister, George Fernandes has behaved as though he were interested in the votes of the troops, rather than in creating a climate through which their needs are effectively met. Even the much ballyhooed changes in the higher defence administration have not taken place.

The bureaucrats still retain a strangler's hold over the armed forces. Only the Japanese system, in which armed forces officers fill key slots in the defence ministry, will help matters. Another requisite is to set up a dedicated cadre in the defence and the home ministries -- as indeed in all other key ministries -- on the lines of the ministry of external affairs. The standards of entry into the central services have fallen so much that such on the job specialisation is essential if the civil service is to promote -- and not retard -- national interests.

Prime Minister Vajpayee has been calling for a blue-ribbon committee that would focus on changes in the Constitution of India. Fortunately, this idea has gone unimplemented. Unlike Pakistan, which has changed its constitution every few years, the admittedly imperfect document put together by Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and others has thus far served us well. There is no need to go the Pakistan route and undertake major surgery on it.

Rather, what is needed is to pay more attention to procedures. So that efficiency can be generated through more transparency. It is unfortunate that instead of replicating Ram Jethmalani's proposal for opening up files to public scrutiny, the urban development minister was himself prevented from carrying out this very desirable change in procedure.

What has happened to the Freedom of Information Act that both Mr Vajpayee and Mr Advani were harping on when they were in Opposition? It has obviously gone the way of their commitment to an official media freed of governmental interference.

These may be the last few weeks of Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee as prime minister. He needs to spend them undoing much of the shackles of the dogma of the past. He needs to follow Jaipal Reddy in freeing the official media, and Ram Jethmalani in opening government files. He needs to call for a consensus on the Budget even as he steps back from the present refusal to investigate the Bhagwat sacking. If he prepares to leave in a blaze of glory, he may yet stay. 

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/apr/10nala.htm

Vajpayee's 'friendly' enemies (Rediff)

In his five-plus decades of political life, Atal Bihari Vajpayee served a little over two years in the Morarji Desai Cabinet during 1977-79, if we exclude his 13 days as prime minister following the 1996 Lok Sabha poll. Almost all his active life has been spent in the Opposition, and it shows. Today, the prime minister has fashioned around him a team that is great for boosting the (ever-flagging) ego of an Opposition politician, but is a handicap now that he is in charge of the government.

While P V Narasimha Rao, H D Deve Gowda and I K Gujral (to name a few) selected trained administrators as their principal secretaries, Vajpayee nominated Brajesh Mishra, who even while in service had the political instincts inherited by him from his father, the Madhya Pradesh political strategist Dwarka Prasad Mishra. Thus Brajesh has been unable to carry the bureaucracy along with him in his -- it must be admitted -- energetic drive to improve the functioning of the government.

In a system where inaction is rewarded by absence of controversy and the reputation of a "sound" officer (as witness the famous Ajit Kumar, who is known within South Block for delaying even a decision as to whether he should delay taking a decision), the rasping of order staccato-style cannot generate the chemistry needed to persuade the babus to carry them out. Thus, despite working even while ostensibly at play (amazing what these cell phones do!) poor Brajesh is falling hopelessly behind his agenda, a lack that is reflecting on his tolerant boss.

Apart from behaving as though he were in the armed forces (where unthinking obedience was the norm till the dynamic George Fernandes teamed up with do-nothing Ajit Kumar in the defence ministry), another problem concerning Vajpayee's principal secretary is that he behaves as though he were the prime minister, with "Atal" (his term for the prime minister) as his deputy. Several non-BJP ministers are smarting at the manner in which they have been treated by Mishra.

Among the many delightful habits of this old friend of the prime minister is his habit of using civil servants to block proposals by Cabinet ministers. Clearly Brajesh is in the wrong country. He would have been an excellent chief of staff to a president of the United States whose cabinet members serve at his pleasure.

Unfortunately for Vajpayee, his is no residential or Gandhi Family government, with single-family rule and a brute majority in both houses of Parliament. While the Samata Party ministers dance to their constituencies in Bihar, the AIADMK ministers have not Vajpayee but Jayalalitha as their commander. By acting as though he were D P Mishra advising Indira Gandhi, Brajesh Mishra could very soon cost the prime minister his job. Of course, that may make poet Atal secretly happy, as Opposition politics did not prepare him for the hellish grind that being in power is during these democratic times.

Just as Inder Kumar Gujral never made an appointment unless the individual concerned had won his affection over a leisurely series of meals, Brajesh Mishra cannot look beyond his cronies when he (in the name of the prime minister, of course) fills up even sensitive appointments such as the National Security Council. The only common thread linking this disparate (and now desperate) team is that they are all personally known to the principal secretary.

Small wonder that the Pokhran bang appears to be dissolving into a Babel in which Vajpayee may follow Narasimha Rao in scuttling missile and nuclear weapons programmes to please an NRI family that has close social and other connections with an organisation based in Langley, Virginia, in the United States. Rather than operate through cutouts, it would be better for this charming family to openly step forward and take over the top posts in the government, seeing for example how they have delayed the launch of Agni II.

The Vajpayee government survives because of the support given by the AIADMK and its remaining ally, the DMK. Yet a minister in the government goes to every district in Tamil Nadu spewing personal venom against AIADMK supremo Jayalalitha. Clearly dear Vazappady Ramamurthy wants to show his gratitude to the Puratchi Thalaivi for insisting in March 1998 that he be appointed petroleum minister.

For reasons that Vajpayee evidently finds difficult to understand, Jayalalitha objects to a Cabinet minister abusing her and wants him replaced by another individual who does not share Ramamurthy's repertoire of Tamil curses. The same prime minister who went to Lahore to meet a Nawaz Sharief who daily clamours for Kashmir to get delinked from India does not feel it right to agree to such a demand. No doubt he will be surprised if one day the AIADMK supremo tells the President of India in writing that she and her 18 MPs no longer support the Vajpayee government.

Were Ramamurthy a paragon of virtue or even efficient as a minister, one can understand the prime minister's hesitation. But to put his very survival at risk for the sake of a single MP indicates the depth of the love that has blossomed between himself and the vociferous petroleum minister. In personal relationships, however, there is no accounting for tastes. Raksha Mantri George Fernandes for instance counts P Nedumaran as a very close friend. Nedumaran is an ardent follower of that inspiring leader of the masses, Velupillai Prabhakaran of the LTTE, whom he knows well. Just last week he was in the capital, discussing with his friends in the Cabinet how India should follow a more supportive policy towards that spirited group in northern Sri Lanka.

Once an individual is in government, s/he needs to undergo a process of rebirth, in which some old ties get loosened, and an effort be made to locate professionals who may not be pleasant company in the evenings, but who can get a job done. Fernandes the Firebrand can declaim on Myanmar and China. Raksha Mantri Fernandes should never forget that China and Myanmar combined can make the North-East a hellfire that is far more difficult to douse than Kashmir was.

By continuing to patronise rebels with Myanmarese and other connections, George Fernandes is putting the security of the country at risk for his friends. Certainly he has a right to do so, but only after he resigns and becomes Citizen George Fernandes again. If the defence minister of India promotes Tibetan independence and the urban development minister calls for full statehood for Taiwan, it will (to put it mildly) be difficult to persuade Beijing to stop the transfer of nuclear and missile technology to Islamabad.

Only the locking-into of China into a strategic alliance with India will show China that India is a far better partner than Pakistan. Till now Beijing had been cultivating Washington by spurning the Primakov Theorem of an India-Russia-China strategic alliance. However, on March 24, the Chinese envoy to New Delhi declared before an audience of Indian military officers that a link-up with India would benefit "all mankind". Three days later, guests at a party hosted for visiting AIADMK supremo Jayalalitha witnessed a long and friendly exchange between China's Ambassador Zhou Gang and Prime Minister Vajpayee. The next day, the prime minister declared his support for the Primakov Theorem.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee as external affairs minister between 1977 and 1979 presided over the re-entry of Pakistan into the Commonwealth and the entry of that state into the Non-Aligned Movement. In both fora Islamabad has since continued its vituperation against New Delhi. Thus, Vajpayee's generosity proved almost as much of a mistake as Indira Gandhi's generosity was at Simla in 1972, when she handed over 93,000 prisoners and captured land in exchange for a grimace from Bhutto that was interpreted as a smile by those who convinced her to give away the gains won by the armed forces so that a Nobel Prize for Peace could be won. One of the key actors of that drama told this correspondent in 1986 that this was the 'clinching" argument that got her to sign the one-sided, smile accord, which was broken by Pakistan after it got the land and prisoners back.

Today, if Pakistan is a little less belligerent about India than it has been since 1947, that is because even the ISI recognises that in the process of trying to avenge the 1971 defeat, Pakistan is itself creating the conditions for a repeat by 2015, in which Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan and Pakhtunistan break away into independent republics on the Yugoslav model. The danger in appearing too conciliatory towards this fundamentalist state is that it may encourage the (many) hotheads there to launch a fresh offensive in Kashmir on the 1989 model. Pakistan needs to be firmly told that Kashmir is Indian and will remain so. At best the Line of Control can be frozen, as has taken place with China. Sadly, the noises coming out of the Vajpayee government on Pakistan do not appear to reflect this reality.

Hopefully, the prime minister will ignore the advice of those who drafted his infamous letter to Bill Clinton (that pointed explicitly to China, rather than make a general argument about the need for security in a tough environment) and follow his own instincts about making Primakov's formulation a reality. Together, India, Russia and China can in a short time reverse the aberration of the past 500 years, when Europe dominated over Asia rather than the other way about. Of course, none of these three countries seeks to dominate Europe the way Asia was colonised, they seek only to ensure their proper diplomatic, security and economic space.

If he is to survive as prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee needs to select not cronies but competent professionals to man his PMO and PMH. One of the current few who qualify is Nandu Singh, secretary to the PM, who has silently pushed for a modern economic agenda. Foreign policy is a fog, with a rabid anti-China group at war with a pro-America faction who are even more slavish followers of Washington than the British. Sadly, all these are "Vajpayee men".

Atal Bihari Vajpayee is a sensitive, brilliant human being with a sense of mission for India. He needs to forget his cronies and think about his obligation to History. He needs to create an efficient PMO and functional structures in both domestic security policy and external defence. Today, his worst enemies are his friends, most of who have got into comfortable positions thanks to his high personal comfort level with them. The promise of this administration can only get translated into reality if he realises that the Nehru era has passed, and exchanges his Nehruvian pals for those in tune with Superpower India 2020. If he does not, he should not blame the rest of us for moving away from a man who could not break out of the limitations of crony administration. 

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/apr/03nalap.htm