India’s rubber civil frame (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER M.D. NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/m-d-nalapat

	Jawaharlal Nehru changed the Indian Civil Service (ICS) to Indian Administrative Service (IAS); that, to him, seemed momentous. The Indian Civil Service was commonly regarded at the time as a triple misnomer, being neither Indian nor civil nor even remotely a service. Whatever the factual position, the ICS considered itself the "steel frame" supporting the British Raj. It is uncontestable that for several generations, first the agents of the John Company and later Her (or His) Majesty's loyal servants in the Government of India ensured that the flow of treasure to the UK continued, undisturbed by the growing poverty and pain within the country. One of the most signal achievements of the ICS and its masters in Whitehall was to leave behind a country that had one of the lowest literacy rates and life expectancies in the world. Of course, such a record did not stop Jawaharlal Nehru from continuing in office as many members of the service as could be persuaded to remain in harness rather than migrate to the Mother Country. However, Nehru did make a change that to him seemed momentous, the nomenclature. The ICS became the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), which — together with the IPS, the IFS, the IRS, the IA&AS and sundry other formations — has formed a new steel frame, this one designed to buttress the powers and privileges of the successors to Whitehall, the political leadership of the administrative machinery of the state. It is a task in which they have, unfortunately, been very successful. Since 1947, political dynasties in India have zoomed to the top of the economic ladder, despite having no obvious qualifications except their genetic makeup. As Papa (and Mama) knew that the source of the wealth that the family enjoyed with such abandon came from access to the discretionary powers of the state, both were keen that their offspring should continue to amass fortunes that would in a day's collection feed thousands of families for a month. The best feature of politics is that so little time need be spent in the country. Much of the year can be spent in exotic locales with interesting people, all without attracting the attention of the Income-Tax or the Enforcement Directorate (which was anyway neutered by the understanding A.B. Vajpayee by being divested of almost all its punitive powers). And in this lies the truth behind the so-called "Steel Frame". Since the latter half of the 1950s, civil servants in India have increasingly adapted to the needs of their political masters and facilitated them, despite the fact that in the process, the people of India were being short-changed. So flexible have the spines of so many gallant administrators become that they can now — with justice — refer to themselves as the Rubber Frame. In the process of enriching politicians as they subvert the public good for individual interest, several members of the numerous administrative cadres have themselves become wealthy, able to build mansions to retire in and send their children to the most expensive education providers in the world, again of course without a peep from agencies that are presumed to look into such egregious mismatches between income and outlay. Every now and then, television screens fill with images of some officer or the other being discovered to have assets worth several thousand times his known sources of income. Were that such people be the exception. In many parts of the country, and in several corners of each service, they are becoming the rule. Indeed, so deep has the canker reached that an "honest" police officer such as Kiran Bedi (who is apparently spending much of her day battling graft) does not consider it even moderately unseemly to double charge on travel expenses or overcharge on them. Her conduct is reminiscent of the scenario painted by Chief Minister Devaraj Urs to this columnist in 1978. "If somebody just steals 50% of what is given to him to carry out a particular task, then I define him as honest," a weary Urs said. "A crook would steal 90%." Clearly, given the disproportion between government expenditure and public good, there are far more "crooks" within the system than "honest" persons, even if one uses the standard mentioned by Urs. These days, elements of the political class have teamed up with a section of the administrative cadres to enter into private business, usually in units that are inefficient and need to be eliminated if a healthy churn is to take place. But because they are loath to see their enterprises affected, these policymakers keep efficient units from competing with them, by misuse of state power through unjust recourse to the hundreds of thousands of regulations that Nehruvian India has spawned. Will there ever be a change? Certainly within the civil service there are individuals of outstanding integrity. In the 1950s, the redoubtable ICS officer A.D. Gorwala challenged the statist policies of his Prime Minister, pointing to the harm that these would do to national interest. His bluntness led to an early retirement and to a new avatar as a columnist for a prominent newspaper, which too was persuaded by the powers that were (all great democrats, of course) to stop the column aptly signed "Vivek" that Gorwala used to write. We have Arun Bhatia at Pune and E.A.S. Sarma in Hyderabad, two of many dozens of officers who have refused to accept Business as Usual. However, usually it is not the Bhatias and the Sarmas who thrive in the services, but those with a rubber spine and an absent conscience.
	lthough pliant civil servants claim that they have no option "but to follow orders", the reality is that this has never been the case. Had they stood firm — on record — a multitude of ills could have been avoided. The Indian politician may have a lot of bluster accompanying his words and gestures, but deeper down he or she is still nervous about being held to account. Only the immunity from any accountability that was provided by pliant officers (for example in the CBI) has led to the exponential increase in corruption that we are now enduring. Ladies and gentlemen of the IAS, the IPS and other services, now is the time to show that the rest of the country can feel pride rather than contempt for you. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/indias-rubber-civil-frame

Modi woos China in Mandarin (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  BEIJING | 13th Nov

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi at a meeting with Indian Ambassador to China S. Jaishankar in Beijing on Wednesday. PTI rom the time Narendra Modi proffered local dignitaries in Beijing a brand-new Mandarin language visiting card — coloured the favourite red of the Chinese Communist Party for good measure — to the voice-over of his video presentation (which was in Chinese rather than as usual with Indian presentations, indesi English), it was clear that he had researched his hosts as thoroughly as they had studied him, probably a first for Indian politicians visiting the Chinese capital. Modi, who landed in Beijing on 9 November with an entourage of nearly two dozen business leaders from Gujarat, is not the first Chief Minister to come at the invitation of the Central Committee of the CCP. Just this year, Nitish Kumar was here on the same invite, as were B.S. Yeddyurappa, Y.S.R. Reddy, Tarun Gogoi and even Haryana's pride Bhupinder Hooda in past years. However, none of the others came as prepared as Modi obviously was to charm his hosts. Although modestly denying any national ambitions ("I am here to serve my state of Gujarat"), he was pointed in drawing attention to the fact that his state was achieving a growth rate of 12%, with even the agricultural sector clocking a record-breaking 10% last year. And at 40%, the urban population of Gujarat is closer to China than to the rest of India. He claimed that Gujarat was "the Guangdong of India", the province that had kicked off economic reform in the PRC in the 1980s. Listening to his recital of the state's achievements, one of those present whispered to his neighbour that "Narendra Modi may be the Deng Xiaoping of India", should he become the Prime Minister, thereby placing Modi in the flattering bracket of the visionary who steered the reforms which transformed China within a generation from a Third World country to a superpower. His hosts seemed to agree, for Modi had a meeting in Beijing with Politburo member Wang Gang, who for years was in charge of the General Office of the Chinese Communist Party, the crucial job which oversees the working of the giant party that has run China since 1949. In Shanghai, once again his interlocutor is the Party Secretary there, also a Politburo member, and in his last port of call, Chengdu, once again he will have a long meeting with the Politburo member from that metropolis. Clearly, the Chinese are in no mood to follow the lead of the US or the EU, both of which continue to deny a visa to the Gujarat CM. The first nine (out of the top ten) priorities of the CCP is economic development, and Modi made it clear that he had the same regard for the business community as Deng had. The entire business delegation sat in on all his meetings, unlike during those of his predecessors, where businesspersons were made to wait outside while the political bosses conversed. Modi emphasised that as in the prosperous parts of China, in Gujarat there was a business-friendly administration, with quick clearances. And unlike China, Gujarat was a location where bribes did not need to get paid in order to win orders. He invited Chinese businesses in, but in a way "that met the needs" of the country and the state, clearly conscious of the publicity at home (which one of his group saw as masterminded by a few BJP "friends" of Modi in Delhi) that he was selling out Indian business to the Chinese. It was not all economics. In his discussions with Wang and party notables such as the mayor of Beijing (one of the most powerful people in the CCP), Modi pointed to the disquiet in India at "Chinese activities in PoK", and to perceptions that "Pakistan was using China against India". He warned his hosts that playing to the tune from Islamabad would damage all ties with India, including the lucrative business deals that Chinese companies in infrastructure, telecom and energy are seeking to conclude. Modi was also pointed in saying that "in our country, show our maps, not yours", in a reference to the diplomatic faux pas made by the Governor of Xinjiang when his maps showed the Indian state of Arunachal and the territory of Aksai Chin as part of China. He also brought up the arrest of several diamond traders from Gujarat, saying that such ill-considered actions by the police damaged the enthusiasm of Indians to do business in China. His hosts were polite in their silence over such unusually frank criticism. Whether Modi becomes the Deng Xiaoping of India is a matter for the fates to decide. Within his party and outside, the obstacles to such a future are huge, not least the unforgotten ghosts of Godhra. However, what seems clear is that his Chinese hosts have seen in Modi a possible future where India becomes the equal of China, and not a resentful pygmy always griping about Big Brother. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/modi-woos-china-in-mandarin

Will Beijing be right on Afghanistan? (PO)

By M D Nalapat

After several months, this columnist was back in the capital of the globe’s other superpower, China. Fortunately, rain was absent, and hence the weather was pleasantly cool rather than chilly, as it will be during the next three months. Beijing has evolved into one of the most impressive cities in the world, with huge avenues and kilometre after kilometre of housing and office blocks. Whereas in the 1970s, the city was known for its million bicycles, these days such transport has been replaced by cars, the downside of which is that traffic can be very slow during office hours. 

However, by now the residents of the city have become used to such inconveniences, as they have to the air pollution caused by vehicles and factories on a scale never before seen in Asia. For a visitor from India, what is noticeable is the chilly tone of several media commentaries on the country. Both Internet as well as print media regularly highlight reports about the “threat” posed by India to China. Details are given of the military acquisitions made by the armed forces over the past few years, including from Europe and the US, two suppliers that thus far have refused to sell weaponry to China. Not that this has held back the PLA. In fact, the arms embargo may have spurred its success in indigenising equipment. China is even developing a 5th generation fighter that can match most US aircraft flying in the skies. Indeed, the fact that the international arms market has welcomed purchases by India has resulted in the present situation, where almost all crucial equipment is sourced from foreign suppliers. Thus far, the Government of India has refused to allow the Indian private sector significantly into weapons production, perhaps because such an entry may slow down the huge volume of foreign exchange bribes that get paid for defence contracts to influential politicians and bureaucrats. Some months ago, a prominent Indian politician made the specific allegation that Carla Bruni-Sarkozy had interceded with the Italian relatives of an Indian politician to ensure that France wins the $12 billion contract for supply of 126 Air Force aircraft. 

It remains to be seen if the French do indeed get the contract, as thus far there has been no denial of the politician’s claim Chinese media are also carrying reports of the increase in infrastructure and military capabilities of Indian forces on the Line of Actual Control between India and China. These fail to mention that Chinese infrastructure and capacities are far in excess of those possessed by India. More importantly, after a few incidents in the 1980s,there has been peace on the Sino-Indian border, unlike the situation on the western side, where incidents still - unfortunately - take place. Not that such reporting is confined to the Chinese media. Armchair warriors abound in India as well, and they regularly churn out stories, such as that China is planning to attack India in 2012. If this is true, then the plans for such an attack must be a secret kept from the entire Chinese leadership, for there is no indication that they favour anything other than peaceful and cooperative relations with India. Economic ties in particular have been growing at a record pace. India represents a bigger market than Brazil and the African continent for Chinese expertise in energy, telecom and infrastructure, with each having the potential to be $20 billion markets in five years for Chinese companies However, the growth in trade has not silenced the armchair warriors in both countries, many of whom are happily predicting a war between the two sides. Almost every day, in blogs or in print, there are forecasts of war between China and India. Those making them are going to be disappointed. 

The reality is that relations between the two billion-plus countries of the world are stable. Both sides know that only peace will meet the interests of both sides. This is why the Sino-Indian border is quiet, with no incident after a few in the 1980s. In contrast to the chilly commentary about India, references to Pakistan in the Chinese media are usually very friendly. The establishment in Beijing regards Islamabad as being one of the two closest allies, along with North Korea. They want to help ensure economic growth in Pakistan, and are giving the country access to the best technologies that China has on offer. Indeed, several Chinese experts believe that Pakistan will be as helpful to them in Afghanistan after the US withdrawal in 2014 as Islamabad was to Washington in the 1980s. 

The belief is that Pakistan will once again emerge as the major player in Afghanistan, once NATO packs up its bags together with US forces. This view holds that the Taliban will once again spread across the country, capturing Kabul once again. And that Pakistan will be the main international partner of the Taliban, with China the primary international partner of Pakistan. Such a view is in contrast to that of India, which is hopeful that NATO will follow a policy of ensuring that the Karzai government be given the weapons that it needs to keep the Taliban at bay. The view in Delhi is that the Afghan people are at their core moderate, and reject the religious extremism of the Taliban. Certainly the best recruitment agent for the Taliban has been NATO. Patriotic Afghans are angry at the swarm of armed foreigners controlling their cities, and see in the Taliban the only local force challenging them. Once NATO quits, this anger will dissipate, and the support base for the Taliban will get sharply reduced. The process is similar to what took place in Iraq. 

There, several US strategists were reluctant to withdraw US forces from combat, for fear that the insurgents would then gain the upper hand. Instead, once US forces withdrew behind the barracks (the way they keep out of sight in Saudi Arabia or Qatar), local support for the insurgency cooled sharply. A similar result will occur in Afghanistan, where NATO withdrawal will increase rather than reduce the credibility of the Kabul administration Will India be right, in placing its hopes on the Kabul administration? 

Or will those in Beijing who argue that post-NATO Afghanistan will revert to Taliban control be proved correct? Clearly, there is a new Great Game being played in that war-ravaged country, and unusually, Beijing and Delhi are on different sides. Unusually, because in the UN Security Council, both India and China have the same view on almost all issues, especially those relating to the Arab world and Iran. In the latter case, both Delhi and Beijing are opposed to Israel launching an attack on Bushehr. Of course, in this they may be out of step with several countries in the region, most of whom are nervous about Iran and would like to see the regime there humiliated enough so that a Syria-style situation develops in Tehran, Mashad, Qom and other cities.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=124278

No specialists, please, we’re Home and Defence (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER M.D. NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/m-d-nalapat The military top brass in Ghaziabad last month. “The men and women in the military are still being ignored by the Nehruite establishment, which has kept them wholly out of the higher direction of the Ministry of Defence.” PTI isaffection within the "native" segment of the armed forces based in India during British rule led to Whitehall finally deciding to quit India, five years after Mahatma Gandhi's (spectacularly ill-timed, as it coalesced UK opinion behind the "loyal" Jinnah) call for the same. The role played by the fiery rebels in uniform in the winning of freedom has been ignored by historians eager to deify the Mahatma and his protégé, Jawaharlal Nehru. Not that much has changed since then. The men and women in the military are still being ignored by the Nehruite establishment, which has kept them wholly out of the higher direction of the Ministry of Defence. Despite their flags and flashing lights, the reality is that the senior brass in all three services are at the mercy of the generalists of the IAS (and on occasion the IFS) when decisions involving their very lives are at stake. In the US or in Japan, or in numerous other democracies not known to be under martial law, those in uniform are integrated into the defence establishment rather than excluded, the way they are in India. Since the 1950s, after Jawaharlal Nehru (and later Indira Gandhi) developed fears about the military in India going the Pakistan (or Indonesia or Chile or, or, or...) way and mounting a coup, generalists have been in control of all key decision points within the Defence Ministry. Small wonder that the Indian Army is so inferior in equipment and infrastructure to the PLA all across the Sino-Indian border, and decisions on procurement of billion-dollar items leave the services with white elephants sure to bleed them to impotence. In times past, the white man (and very rarely, woman) was judged to be of so superior a cut that he or she was given charge of a multiplicity of departments. These days, it is the Central Services that play the role of the white man. Once the IAS, IPS or IFS entrance examination gets passed, that is taken as proof of such genius and versatility that the initiates are given responsibilities that range from the cultural to the economic, from sports to — yes — matters relating to national defence. While the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Finance have a permanent cadre (that does not get transferred to Education and from there to Fisheries), the Ministries of Home and Defence are left with birds of passage who flit into and out of the department, much in the manner of IAS and IPS officers, who float from institution to institution, depending on the influence of their godfathers within the system. Fighting terrorists is not the same as fighting street criminals, yet IPS officers join RAW or the IB immediately after years spent on the latter task, going back to their regular beat when a plum post offers itself. In no other major democracy has internal security and both domestic as well as external intelligence been placed entirely in the control of the police, the way it has in India. To give them credit, both Indira Gandhi as well as Rajiv Gandhi recognised the importance of specialised professionals in the intelligence community. They sought to groom a cadre of professionals. However, none of their successors has had the courage (or the energy) to block the systematic takeover by the IPS and generalist IAS officers (with a few from the IFS thrown in, to add a bit of variety) of the entire gamut of national security. Small wonder that the law and order situation in India is dire, while miscellaneous terrorists strike almost at will, killing more in this country than in any other save Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both the IPS as well as the IAS or the IFS have their role in the governance of the country, especially if they were to get augmented by horizontal recruits from fields that are crucial in national life in the 21st century. However, national security needs to be liberated from the Amateur Hour into which it was first consigned by Jawaharlal Nehru. espite the immense sums that are being spent in the name of national defence, the equipping of our armed forces is taking place in a piecemeal and haphazard manner. India Todayrecently did a national service by comparing the equipment of a PLA soldier with that given to a jawan on our side of the border. However, this was met by total silence, especially by India's Loyal Opposition. The reality is that the Ministry of Defence needs to have within its echelons service officers, who can bring into core decisions their experience and expertise. The Home Ministry needs to have within its cadre specialists in national security and in the study of conflict. The successors of the white man, i.e. the Central Services, cannot do justice to their tasks unless they work side by side with those having "battlefield experience". The country has been waiting a long time for Rahul Gandhi to show that he is less than 90 years old, by backing genuine reform. Hopefully, the Heir Apparent will take a break from judging the quality of village food and focus on the fact that his party is presiding over a 19th century administrative construct in a country whose other young are eager to enter the 21st century. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/no-specialists-please-were-home-and-defence

China wary as India looks East (PO)

By M D Nalapat 
In China, smaller publications in landlocked provinces are a better guide to the actual thinking of the immense cadre of the Chinese Communist Party than the bigger media outlets, especially those in English. The latter usually give a more restrained and santised assessment of situations, which is why it was a surprise to South Block (home of the Prime Minister’s Office and the External Affairs Ministry) to note the harsh language of even leading English-language publications in Beijing ( such as “Global Times”) about India’s outreach to Myanmar and Vietnam. The ire was mostly against the oil prospecting contracts signed by state-owned Indian companies with their Vietnamese counterparts.

The Chinese media saw this as “interference in the South China Sea”, all of which is claimed by China. The sea has immense deposits of hydrocarbon and other minerals essential to a fast-developing and large economy such as India, hence it is not likely that Petroleum Minister Jaipal Reddy will abandon the joint venture with Vietnam. The policy of Delhi is that the disputes between different countries in the South China Sea is a matter for them to settle, but that in the meantime, India will undertake commercial and other transactions with each of the governments whose territories abut the sea. Beijing wants all countries to deal only with itself in any such activity, an in effect wants a monopoly over the resources of the South China Sea.

Apart from the vituperative articles against Vietnam, the Philippines and India written in English-language and Mandarin publications published from China, numerous China-based internet sites have gone much further in their verbal attack on the three Asian neighbours of China. Some have even alluded to the “racial inferiority” of people from India, Vietnam and the Philippines when compared to Han Chinese, and called for them to be slaughtered by military might “in the manner of roadkill” ie animals killed by vehicles while crossing a road. The overwhelming majority of the Chinese people are highly cultured, steeped as they are in a civilisation which goes back 5000 years, but clearly there are some who in their thinking resemble followers of Adolf Hitler. Although such arrogant and aggressive voices are almost certainly not representative of the view of the Chinese Communist Party, yet the frequency with which they have appeared in the Chinese media have led to calls to strengthen Indian defenses on the border with China, a border which has been tranquil except for four brief instances since the 1962 war.

Since 2009, the Indian Air Force has moved a squadron of Sukhoi-35s to the China border, while the army has placed nuclear-capable missiles within easy reach of PLA fortifications and concentrations. On both sides of the border, there is hectic increase in activity relating to the creation or the strengthening of infrastructure, although as yet conditions on the Chinese side are far superior. Even in relation to equipment, PLA forces are much better off than their Indian counterparts. They have lighter bulletproof vests, better rifles and night-fighting capabilities, all of which has been documented in a recent issue of “India Today”. Where India’s military scores lies in the fact that it is battle-hardened. Constant sorties against hostile elements within the borders of the country has improved the fighting capacity of the Indian soldier, and made him or her better able to prevail, even against a better-equipped enemy. In this sense, even NATO soldiers are better prepared for war than troops from countries that have been at peace for long periods, such as China, which last fought a war in 1979 (against Vietnam). In the case of Pakistan as well, its soldiers are battle-hardened as well, because of action seen in numerous conflicts, some within the country.

However, this columnist is among those who believes that the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party has the wisdom to avoid war. There is a huge difference between the China since the time Deng took full control of the party in 1981 and the past, when Beijing was involved in the Korean, Indian and Vietnamese conflicts, besides skirmishes across the Taiwan Straits and with (the then) USSR. There is no doubt that Deng Xiaoping was a great statesperson, who is responsible for modern China.

During his time, civilian spending was emphasised and military budgets reduced. Deng made it clear that he favoured a policy of peace, and although China was a huge country, took a very conciliatory line on external disputes. He was also searching for a solution to the Sino-Indian boundary dispute when ill-health and age forced him to take a much more reduced role in governance by the start of the 1990s. While his successor Jiang Zemin occasionally adopted a tough line, General Secretary Hu Jintao has reverted to the wise policies of Deng Xiaoping, stressing the importance of harmony in relations between states. However, since China is much richer today than it was during Deng’s time, Hu has presided over an immense quantitative improvement in the capabilities and provisioning of the PLA.

The rapid economic growth since China took firmly to the Path of Peace is evidence that conflict may not be the best way to promote the national interest. Those who glibly talk of going to war against Vietnam and India, for instance, ought to examine the condition of China during the 1950s or the 1960s and see it in the 21st century, the second-biggest economy in the world, with $3 trillion worth of cash reserves, almost higher than the rest of the globe combined. Indeed, Sino-Indian trade has zoomed over the past decade, now crossing $60 billion and headed to $100 billion in two years time. In fact, the prospects are for trade between India and China to cross $300 billion in ten years, providing income and employment to millions of people on both sides of the border. This prosperity would be at risk, were there to be the cataclysmic event of a fresh Sino-Indian war.

Both the leaders of India as well as China are aware of the centrality of peace and friendship to the economic health of both countries. Which is why the hotheads who write vituperative essays against the other country are ignored by the top leadership in Beijing or Delhi. Indeed, both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao are to meet in the beautiful island of Bali on November 19,when they attend the East Asia Summit. Both will also be meeting (albeit separately) with President Obama of the US. Such meetings will help ensure that temperatures remain cool and that differences over the South China Sea get resolved peacefully, and in a way that ensures access to resources andeconomic development for all sides.
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=123356