Will AAP go the Delhi Durbar way? (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER MADHAV NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/madhav-nalapat

M.D Nalapat is the Editorial Director of The Sunday Guardian.

India is a country where human icons get venerated and those questioning them despised. Among the traditions bequeathed by the Congress party of the freedom struggle days was the reality of decisions being centralised in a single individual, Mahatma Gandhi. As Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose or Sardar Vallabbhai Patel discovered, if any steps were taken contrary to the "inner voice" of the Mahatma, he would quickly move to get that rescinded, the way in which Netaji was forced to surrender the presidentship of the Congress or the Sardar had to step aside to allow Jawaharlal Nehru to take over as the first Prime Minister of independent India, despite the former's overwhelming backing for the post within the party. Later, Nehru behaved in a similar manner, for example, in the matter of Purushottam Das Tandon, whom he disliked and reduced to a nullity within the Congress leadership. In such a situation, it would have been foolhardy to challenge the Mahatma or later Nehru, and few did, although there were situations when the Mahatma's or Panditji's decisions may not have been optimal. Clearly, the Aam Aadmi Party's most powerful leader, Arvind Kejriwal, has steeped himself in the history of the Congress during the days of the Mahatma, for he appears to seek to create for his party a model similar to that in the Congress even in recent times, of having an "infallible" leader whom to question would be an act of heresy and base treachery. This columnist has run into Kejriwal only twice, once in a seminar organised by Transparency, and the other at a function held in the Vivekananda International Foundation, and hence cannot claim expertise on the ideology or competence of the Chief Minister of Delhi. However, it would be safe to say that both Kejriwal as well as his party would be the beneficiaries were there to be a culture within which views contrary to those of his and those who think like him get expressed, especially in a context where a few course corrections may indeed be needed. From the outside at least, Kejriwal's Man Friday, Manish Sisodia, seems to be in the Ram Manohar Lohia mode, admirable in some ways but not a perfect fit for the 21st century. Sisodia seems to believe, for example, that lapsing into the English language would be an act of betrayal of the "aam aadmi", never mind that almost all such individuals — including in UP and Bihar — would like their children to learn and to speak perfect English, if only politicians would ensure that state-run educational institutions assure such a result. Those unfortunates (from the South or the Northeast) who do not know Hindi would have to rely on sign language to communicate with Sisodia, given his reluctance to ever speak English despite knowing it well, despite the fact that Delhi is as much their city (being the national capital) as it is Deputy CM Sisodia's. A 21st century vision would have among its centrepieces fluency in the international link language, and rather than seek to snuff it out the way Karpoori Thakur managed to do in Bihar in the 1960s (with consequences which are apparent to this day), what is needed is to shun the prejudices of the past and accept the imperatives of the present, by ensuring that government schools are facilitated to give the same level and quality of education as private schools do. That there has been such blowback from the way in which Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav have been turfed out of the highest deliberative body of the AAP is a sign of health, no matter what it does to the blood pressure readings of Kejriwal loyalists. Across the country, there are millions —mostly young, but others older — who see in the AAP a future ruling party for the country. However, for such a vision to get actualised, what needs to be avoided is for Arvind Kejriwal to create an aura of infallibility for himself and his group within the AAP. Thus far, and it is certainly early days, it must be admitted that Chief Minister Kejriwal has been acquitting himself well in his current job. The AAP ministry is handling its responsibilities without fuss and with efficiency. What it needs is to avoid adopting the models of the past, whether they be that of the Congress or the erstwhile Socialist Party. The collective leadership of the AAP needs to create a paradigm which fits the needs of the present. The voter is watching as Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeks to fulfil his promise of breaking down the colonial governance structure inherited from the past and replacing it with one where the government is (like oxygen) invisible and invigorating rather than intrusive and enervating ( like smog). Should Modi fail to do so, and should the AAP remain true to its first principles, across the country this fledgling force could in 2019 script as big a shock nationally as it did in the Delhi Assembly polls on 10 February this year. What the AAP needs is for a nationwide and open election of office-bearers, so that the will of its cadres prevails rather than the wishes of what seems from media reports to be a Delhi-centric collection of confidants of "Big Boss" Kejriwal. Such a concentration of power within the Lutyens' zone rather than getting dispersed across the country at large has been the bane of the BJP as well as the Congress. If it infects the AAP as well, that party will lose the ability to ensure hope for change across the country, leaving the next Lok Sabha to be a mosaic of regional groups, should the BJP not succeed in transforming the country during the coming four years more effectively than it has succeeded in doing since 26 May 2014. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/will-aap-go-the-delhi-durbar-way

Corrupt officers block PM Modi’s transparency drive (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  New Delhi | 7th Mar 2015

Senior officials say that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called for a review by the Cabinet Secretariat of the indiscriminate way in which documents have been classified as secret. The intention behind the exercise is "to ensure greater transparency in the functioning of government offices, in order to promote disclosure and probity". Although as yet the Modi government has succeeded in bringing to justice only a small handful of corrupt officials during the UPA period, the rest of the tainted flock are nervous at a possible intensification of Prime Minister Modi's quest for transparency and accountability. They are therefore working to ensure that the opaque governance system that is a relic of the British colonial era, continues into the foreseeable future. In particular, they are working to ensure through appropriate notings and interventions that the 2011-13 efforts by the Manmohan Singh government to water down the impact of the Right to Information Act get revived rather than rolled back. Acting on the overall directions of the Prime Minister, units of the Delhi police have uncovered several "corporate espionage rings" operating within key economic and other ministries. Senior officials in sync with PM Modi's desire for clean and transparent government say that relevant agencies have since 2011 had knowledge of these networks, but that the corporate spies were allowed to continue unimpeded "because of protection from the highest political quarters". Interestingly, some of these espionage networks ensured the flow (to selected media channels) of information stolen from ministry files, so as to generate negative (albeit factual) stories about rival groups and hostile individuals, including senior officials as well as ministers. Some of the rings "functioned also as the private detective agencies of friendly officials and politicians, securing for them dirt on their opponents, which could be leaked to friendly journalists or used for purposes of blackmail". For the media, accuracy and public interest trump the motivation of sources in revealing information, hence their case for publishing material stolen from government files by corporate espionage networks. Interestingly, police and other agencies have yet to question more than a third of the individuals known (from preliminary investigations) to have guided such spy rings, or who regularly accessed information gathered by them. However, an official said that these individuals have not been excused, but will be questioned later, after the huge volume of information secured during the raids gets processed by the police. Interestingly, an official privy to the documents said that "more than three-fourths of them should not have been classified as secret". According to him, such documents ought to have been placed on the websites of the concerned ministries, and that to do so would have been in the public interest. "Keeping information secret, which ought to have been in the public domain, ensures that bribes get paid to reveal such data, and also serves to protect corrupt officials", a senior official warned, adding that "more than 90% of classified information is such as to serve the public interest better by disclosure rather than by secrecy". A senior official said that specific measures to increase transparency have been suggested, which include: (a) the placing of draft bills intended for introduction in Parliament on ministry websites, in order to generate the views of civil society on such prospective legislation; (b) televising or live streaming of the discussions held by Parliamentary committees on important issues and the placing of minutes of proceedings in the public domain; (c) placing on relevant official websites all decisions of the Union Cabinet as well as the notes relied upon in the taking of such decisions; (d) making public the assets of officials, and making them fill out a declaration of assets each year for themselves and their family members, with penalties for non-disclosure. In particular, several officials claim that their offspring win scholarships to expensive international institutions of higher learning. Full details of how costs of stay and study abroad of dependents of decision-makers are being met would assist in accountability, officials unhappy at the non-disclosure of such information say; (e) making public via ministry websites the file movements both within each ministry as well as between ministries, so as to keep a check on inefficiency or possible collateral motives; (f) placing information given in public tenders on relevant websites, after technical and financial bids have been opened, so as to keep a check on possible scams based on "fixing" of criteria; (g) strengthening the ambit of the Right to Information Act and set mandatory punishments for ignoring timelines for the handing over of information, as well as ensure that only those committed to transparency would be considered for the posts of Information Commissioners. Senior officials say that except for a coterie of corrupt officials and their accessories, others in the government would welcome greater transparency. Owing to the widespread prevalence of graft in India, disclosure of information has much less of a downside than a continuation of the British colonial era fetish of official secrecy, one of the many features of colonial rule embraced in totality by Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors. These officials say that they are hopeful that Prime Minister Modi will succeed in his mission of ensuring transparent government. They would also like the Cabinet Secretariat to initiate workshops and courses on "open government" for officials at all levels, so as to rid them of the cult of secrecy and a mistrust in the good sense of the general public, both of which are holdovers from the British colonial era, but which still remain embedded within the governance system in India. "Prime Minister Modi can rely on the 'honest majority' of officials to ensure that he succeeds in his efforts at bringing the governance system in India on par with those in other major democracies, rather than resemble those of authoritarian states," according to a senior official. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/corrupt-officers-block-pm-modis-transparency-drive

Netanyahu is wrong on Barack Obama (Pakistan Observer 6 March 2015)

http://epaper.pakobserver.net/201503/06/comments-1.php

‘National secrecy’ is against national security (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER MADHAV NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/madhav-nalapat

M.D Nalapat is the Editorial Director of The Sunday Guardian.

PM Modi needs to fling away secrecy from the portals of government, so much so that secrecy becomes the rarest of rare exceptions to the norm of transparency.

The welcome exposure of moles within key ministries is leading to calls for a clampdown on information flow, when in fact the opposite is called for. When in difficulties about finding out a plausible excuse for concealing information, the official establishment usually reaches for the "national security in danger" argument. This is usually effective, especially when accompanied by a battery of overwhelmingly sedentary "hawks" warning on television of a correlation between release of information and terror attacks, when in fact the reverse is the truth. Where the public is given access to information, the citizenry become more conscious of the dangers facing them, and therefore better able to recognise early signs of trouble. The first defence against a terror attack is an alert citizenry on the lookout for telltale signs of troublemaking, and such a state of readiness cannot be maintained if there remains a blackout of information. Indeed, it is the opaque nature of decision-making in India, with its corollary of colonial-era discretion, that has led to both a continuation of the fetish of "official secrecy" as well as to efforts at getting access to information. Given the pervasive nature of graft in this country, it is by far the lesser evil to go in for transparency than to continue with a secrecy which only assists the dishonest to continue skewing decisions for personal gain. The argument that such a release of data is what enables terrorists and other security threats to access the same is false, for the reason that these latter usually have their own channels of information, incidentally, sources which thrive on the absence of transparency. Over the decades, and despite the stifling grip of a colonial-era governance system on the populace, education and awareness have grown, making nonsense of the conviction within the bureaucracy that "ordinary" (i.e. non-official) citizens cannot be trusted with information. Such logic runs counter to the fact that many officials have themselves fallen prey to the blandishments proffered by external and internal threats to public order and national security. Other major powers have devised a governance system where the permanent officialdom is leavened by entrants from fields outside government, such as academics or business. Given that decisions of import daily get taken about such fields, to exclude their practitioners from an inside say in the processing of decisions is to ensure that sub-optimal decisions continue to get taken, out of ignorance of the ground situation in cases where corruption is absent. Even ministries such as Home, HRD and Defence expect generalist administrators to master intricacies within days of joining, when what is needed is a mix of such personnel as well as recruits from outside the civil service. In times past, British colonial masters saw only themselves as being fit to run the higher civil service. What is needed is to introduce "natives" (i.e. outside specialists) into its ranks rather than simply relying on modern-day "Britishers" (i.e. career civil servants). Prime Minister Narendra Modi was able to attract tens of millions of youthful voters in May 2014 because of his stance that civil society would — finally — be given pre-eminence over India's colonial-era administrative apparatus. This was best exemplified in his "Minimum Government" pledge. However, it would appear that Modi's message has yet to seep through to those appointed by him, most of whom are from the same "Delhi establishment" crowd that the vote for him was a protest against. As yet, civil society hardly figures in Team Modi, barring a few. What is needed is for the Prime Minister to reconfigure the civil service into a 21st century machine by bringing into its portals specialists in place of generalists, which has already happened in departments such as Space and Atomic Energy. The consequence of conventionality in staffing is a system which is still only 20% Modi, 40% Vajpayee and 40% Manmohan Singh, whereas voters seek a 100% Modi sarkar. Whether it be the defence of Section 66A of the IT Act or the intensification of regulations and controls by ministries such as Home, HRD and Finance, what we are still seeing is a continuation of "maximum government", that seeks to dominate and micro-manage rather than step aside and give the people of India the space needed for excellence, the way they get in countries such as the US. Prime Minister Modi, now that he is nearing the close of a year in his present office, needs to create 21st century institutions in place of the 18th and 19th century constructs preserved from the British period and expanded upon by Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors, barring Narasimha Rao and to an extent Atal Behari Vajpayee. The national security team put in place by Modi needs to move away from a colonial police mindset and accept that blocking an activity both constrains overall growth, as well as results in such activity manifesting itself in clandestine — and far more toxic — ways. The Prime Minister needs to fling away the curtain of secrecy from the portals of government, so much so that secrecy becomes the rarest of rare exceptions to the norm of transparency. Those who insist on secrecy damage rather than promote national security, by perpetuating a culture in which corruption thrives.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/national-secrecy-is-against-national-security

Lagarde makes IMF an 'EU aid fund' (Pakistan Observer 27 February 2015)

http://epaper.pakobserver.net/201502/27/comments-1.php

Can Bollywood survive Pahlaj Nihalani? (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER MADHAV NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/madhav-nalapat

M.D Nalapat is the Editorial Director of The Sunday Guardian.

Creative expression cannot survive a CBFC presided over by an individual of views immured in a culture of control, nor can it take blows such as FIRs against AIB.

Pahlaj Nihalani In its wisdom or absence of it, the Government of India has appointed Pahlaj Nihalani as the chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Judging by his utterances since assuming an office which itself belongs in the dustbin of a democracy, this authority on film certification apparently draws inspiration from the Muttawa, the moral police of Saudi Arabia, that exemplar of 21st century values. This columnist is among those who still refer to Mumbai as Bombay. Apparently, this is because he has been seeing too many films in which "Bombay" is used rather than "Mumbai". The CBFC is readying to ban future "errors" of this kind, together with a host of other changes designed to please Nihalani's grandmother, who would have wanted swear words of even a mild variety to be excluded from human discourse. Not knowing the new CBFC boss, it is not clear whether he himself speaks only in the sanitised manner he insists on enforcing within the film industry. Those who have watched some of the films produced by the CBFC chairperson say that practically every other sentence spoken by his characters contains phrases which his grandmother would react to in disgust. Or perhaps Mr Nihalani is wise enough not to watch his own films. Or perhaps he would like to repent such a past (and it must be said that admiring stories about him teem in their effervescence in the Bombay film world), and what better way than to enforce a level of censorship on the film industry as would make the products of Bollywood akin to the films churned out in such havens of free expression as Tehran or Pyongyang? Since the 1980s, successive governments in India have worked hard to destroy domestic competition to major international brands, in the process reducing this country to a trading pygmy. The exceptions were industries such as information technology, and this because they were ignored by the government. However, once Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee appointed an IT Minister, problems began for the industry, with the result that for the past two decades, there has not been another Wipro or Infosys springing up. Instead, almost all social media and internet platforms and most of telecom is controlled by foreign companies, in contrast to China, where producers such as ZTE and Huawei have reached international size, and which has its own versions of Facebook, Twitter. This country expects Prime Minister Narendra Modi to respect the wishes of Babasaheb Ambedkar by retrieving the freedom of speech guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution from the numerous exceptions that have been made by successive governments. Including, it must be said, by that current champion of free speech, Kapil Sibal. Had the dead hand of bureaucracy not rested so heavily on the knowledge industry in India, by now there would have been an Indian competitor to Yahoo! or Google, rather than a situation where these entities dominate the Indian market. Apart from the IT industry, and now that the telecom industry has been sent to the ICU courtesy Manmohan Singh, a bright spot which remains, is the film industry, notably Bollywood. However, the launching of persecutions — sorry, prosecutions — against an event company for simply holding a comedy show in Bombay indicates that the freedom of expression essential for the health of a creative industry seems to have almost completely disappeared in Bombay. Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis was chosen for his youth. It is therefore inexplicable that in the AIB case, in the Shireen Dalvi episode and in other ways, his government is reacting in a manner more suited to the 18th century than even 20th. Unless Fadnavis can defend the freedoms created by Ambedkar, he will witness the demise of the film industry in his capital city. Creative expression cannot survive a CBFC presided over by an individual of views immured in a culture of control, nor can it take blows such as FIRs against AIB and some actors or the fact that Shireen Dalvi is on the run rather than allowed to lead a life of dignity. Interestingly, a glimmer of hope has emerged from Aaditya Thackeray, the son of Uddhav Thackeray. Understanding that a world class city operates 24 hours, the young Thackeray is seeking to prod Fadnavis into abandoning the Muttawa-style approach favoured by the late R.R. Patil, who was one with Kiran Bedi in her avatar as police chief in Chandigarh, that night life should be shut down rather than protected. As Aaditya Thackeray correctly warns us, this country has far too many "Stone Age" laws. Rather than add to that dismal list, those claiming to fulfil the promise of PM Modi to bring India to the 21st century need to know that freedom of expression is core to the process of bringing the country into such a dawn. Seeking to follow Saudi Arabia in using the bludgeon of law to curb and constrain behaviour that does not harm anyone else, government in India is going against the promise of the 21st century establishment which won for the BJP its majority in the Lok Sabha. It is not North Korea, but to an extent South Korea (with its vibrant cultural offerings) that ought to be the model. By its choice of the Nihalanis who look to the Victorians for inspiration, such a modern mindset seems far away from actualisation. Hopefully, PM Modi will place the need for this on his priority list. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/can-bollywood-survive-pahlaj-nihalani

Defence Minister was misled about Terror Boat: Officers (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  New Delhi | 21st Feb 2015

Uniformed officers involved in operations and monitoring say on condition of strict anonymity that Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar was "misled" in January into assuming that the Pakistan-based terror boat blew itself up on 31 December 2014, rather than get destroyed by a Coast Guard vessel on patrol. While the boat was carrying four individuals clearly identified as terrorists, these sources say that the conflagration, which caused the boat to destruct, was caused by combustible substances on board getting ignited by Coast Guard fire, rather than because of any suicidal impulse on the part of the crew. They say that an official may have mis-briefed the minister, because he was apprehensive that the sinking of the boat by the Coast Guard, although justified by the circumstances, "may lead to negative comments by foreign countries on such military activism by India". Certainly, several major powers want India to adopt an entirely different standard from themselves while dealing with external threats. Such concerns about revealing the facts about the 31 December 2014 incident (which took place 197 nautical miles from Indian shores) apparently resulted in an official "misleading" Defence Minister Parrikar about the circumstances of the sinking, thereby leading to the minister's statements that the boat blew itself up and later that cyanide was probably consumed by the crew in order to end their lives. "Manohar Parrikar is an experienced administrator, but like many other ministers past and present, has a habit of relying on the versions of key officials in his ministry," an officer pointed out, adding that in this case at least, the minister did not seem to have made any effort to independently ascertain the veracity of the explanation that the terror boat blew itself up, rather than as a result of firing on it. Unlike in the US and in most other major countries, India does not have a tradition of placing non-official experts on contract in the reporting systems of even specialist ministries such as Home, HRD or Defence, where staffing is still done from within the pool of those who qualify for one or other of the administrative services (IAS, IFS, IPS, IRS etc) after their education. They say that the Defence Minister should, before making any more public statements, ask for: (1) the entire video recording of the destruction of the Pakistani boat, which these sources claim is available with the Coast Guard, rather than simply that segment which shows the vessel in flames; (2) an analysis of the debris, which should, according to procedure, have been brought back from the high seas; (3) the NTRO inputs on the basis of which offensive action was initiated; (4) GPS locater data showing the location during the period of the incident of the Coast Guard vessel and the time it took at various locations; (5) the number of shell casings brought back by the Coast Guard vessel, to find out how many rounds were fired; and (6) the posting order of Coast Guard DIG B.K. Loshali on the day in question. Officials concerned about the credibility of the government say that such information is needed to spare the minister the embarrassment of making a claim, which may subsequently be shown to be incorrect. They say that apart from the "visual clips of the Pakistani boat while it was engulfed in flames, all other images from the concerned camera that these persons have in their possession must be shown to the Defence Minister". These officials say that Defence Minister Parrikar acted in good faith when he said that the boat blew itself up, but that once the Defence Minister said publicly that the terror boat self-destructed rather than caught fire because of combustible substances getting ignited because of firing, it was difficult for the uniformed officials to present contrary facts. "Instead, the version initially given by the high official to the Defence Minister (that the crew committed suicide, by cyanide or by setting fire) was allowed to remain." These sources say that on 30 December 2014, the NTRO communicated to the Coast Guard intercepts received by it, which identified the vessel in question as "suspicious" and which indicated that the four on board were not ordinary smugglers, but were a terror task force on the 26/11 model. Interestingly, the apparel worn by the four was similar to that worn by the terrorists who came ashore off the Mumbai coast on 26 November 2008, and were of the sort useful for commando operations, with side pouches in the western-style trousers and extra shirt pockets. Such a dress is never worn by smugglers, it was pointed out. "It was clear from the intercepts that this was a terror boat," the officers claimed, adding that the crew were within the hour planning to rendezvous with a Sri Lankan vessel coming from the opposite direction. This leaves open the possibility that Pakistan's ISI and affiliate terror organisations have begun recruiting Tamil Tiger fighters for use in operations directed at India, which is presumably where Parrikar's reference to the use of cyanide capsules comes in, as these were part of the kit of every LTTE suicide bomber. Images of the four crew members of the Pakistani boat were inconclusive in determining whether they were from Pakistan or Sri Lanka, but officials confirm that intercepts revealed that the two boats planned to dock close to each other, and according to the evidence collated, exchange explosives, weapons and personnel for a planned operation against India, most likely in Gujarat. What happened to the Sri Lankan boat, whether it escaped or was sunk as well, was not revealed by these sources. These sources claim that the Coast Guard was "fully justified" in firing on the Pakistani vessel and causing its doom, as the evidence was overwhelming that it was on a terror mission. They say that "DIG Loshali is being blamed for revealing classified details of the consensus within the Gandhinagar operations room of the Coast Guard that the terror boat be destroyed before it escaped with its crew." "The suspect boat refused to obey repeated commands of the Coast Guard vessel to stop and allow itself to be boarded for inspection. Instead, it speeded up and tried to escape back to Pakistan. The interception took place in the nick of time," these sources say. The officers say that "had a different leader been the Prime Minister, the Coast Guard may have hesitated to sink the terror boat, but now that Narendra Modi is in that chair, the uniformed services felt confident in carrying out whatever steps are needed to ensure security for the country". They are unhappy that "an officer who responded in an appropriate manner has been pilloried and may be proceeded against, for simply doing his duty". They further warn that action against DIG Loshali (against whom a smear campaign has already begun by those in the Ministry of Defence anxious to protect the initial version of events) would impact morale adversely and thereby discourage strong action of the kind which could avert 26/11 and has almost surely prevented another mass terror attack. They point out that had the Coast Guard been "emboldened and empowered in 2008 the way it is now, it could have destroyed the vessel carrying the 26/11 terrorists, as the vessel carrying the terrorists was sighted by units of the Coast Guard, but was allowed to get away". These sources say that Defence Minister Parrikar needs to ensure that the full facts of the encounter be made known to him, so that he, in turn, can brief the nation. They warn that otherwise, by once again making a uniformed officer the scapegoat for what appears to have been an error of perception and communication, morale within the services may be affected. Defence Minister Parrikar is known for his efficiency and integrity, and the uniformed services expect that he will find out the truth of the events of 31 December 2014 and make them public, "before making a scapegoat of an officer who supported the consensus for swift action, in what would otherwise have been a national security disaster".

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/defence-minister-was-misled-about-terror-boat-officers

NATO's 'Unity & Struggle' with ISIS (Pakistan Observer, 20 February 2015)