Have money and stay free (Sunday Guardian)

Arvind Kejriwal with Medha Patkar at a press conference in New Delhi on Friday. PTI o deeply has the colonial experience penetrated into the psyche of the people of India that the definition of "independence" is the right to move from one form of servitude into the other. The media's identification of "Team Anna" with Civil Society (which presumably refers to those outside the magic circle of civil servants and their political bosses) obscures the fact that of the "core team", only Prashant Bhushan has never been a part of the governmental matrix. The senior Bhushan was a minister, Arvind Kejriwal a bureaucrat, Kiran Bedi a policewoman and Anna an auxiliary in the military. Small wonder that their nostrums involve liberal doses of quite illiberal accretions to the power of institutions funded by the exchequer. The arguments used by Team Anna in defence of their plan for a Jan Lokpal are eerily similar to those used earlier by others to justify the several layers of the anti-corruption bureaucracy that has been created over the decades, each of whom became corrupt almost from inception. Team Anna has great faith in the legal fraternity, for at least 40% of its proposed Lokpal bureaucracy would comprise lawyers with experience similar to those of the Bhushans. Especially since the private sector was freed from purgatory in the 1990s, the country has witnessed its sons and daughters making history in numerous spheres, be they business or literature or sport or academics. However, almost none of such high achievers could ever be considered for the post of the Jan Lokpal and his or her colleagues. These luminaries would be sourced from within the pool of those who have had their salaries paid by the exchequer, rather than privately. The UPA's proposed draft of the Lokpal Bill is even more heavily skewed in favour of those within one or the other branches of the structure of governance, be that the executive or the judiciary. Clearly, the only "Jan" that deserves the title are those within the bureaucracy, just as the only people who counted in colonial times were the Brits. The rest was simply a faceless mass that needed to be ignored when it was not being coerced. In fact, the 21st century needs such people to fill sensitive positions, rather than merely those in what is amusingly called "public service" in India. The arguments used by Team Anna in defence of their plan for a Jan Lokpal are eerily similar to those used earlier by others to justify the several layers of the anti-corruption bureaucracy that has been created over the decades, each of whom became corrupt almost from inception.  In an age when question papers (and the correct answers) are available for a price, "public service" is being defined as an effective means towards private riches. There is no longer any sense of shame or even discomfort in the political class at the immense pile of cash that they have accumulated, presumably by investing their salaries in a thrifty manner. In times past, being a mega-billionaire may have been a handicap to advancement in a career of "public service". However, from the time L.N. Mishra taught Indira Gandhi of the benefits of fund collecting, those with money have far outdistanced those without. In such a course, the BJP is hardly different from the Congress party. A Jagdish Shettigar (who was a political appointee in the Atal Behari Vajpayee PMO) has little cachet, because he was unwise enough to refuse to make money through the misuse of influence. The consequence has been an inability for him to travel and to persuade others to support him. The one-time equal of Narendra Modi is now practically out of politics, while the big spenders congregate near the apex. Of course, in the Race for Cash, the UPA has left the NDA far behind, which perhaps accounts for the frustration that causes so many NDA walkouts in Parliament. Under L.K. Advani, the BJP has become the master of walkouts, usually at the very moment when it would be most convenient for the Manmohan Singh government to have Parliament emptied of what should be its most articulate opponent. Given the fact that practically all the scandals now afflicting the UPA had their origins in the hard work put in by a few independent whistle-blowers, rather than be brought to light by the NDA, it is clear that the quality of the opposition in India has been a major factor in giving courage to individuals in the UPA to enrich themselves in an obscene manner. Small wonder that a grateful UPA now seeks to ensure that the possession of money act as a ground for protecting the holder from the processes of law. Fund collectors in the Congress party understand "the economics of politics" very well, a core tenet of which is the ability to transfer huge sums into the offshore accounts of the powerful. Naturally, those generous souls need to be given immunity from prosecution. So what if tens of thousands of women are growing feeble and neurotic in jail, many as undertrials? Kanimozhi is different from them, she has more money. So what if hundreds of thousands are in jail without the ability to argue bail and get it? The wealthy should be given that privilege, exactly as they had before Justices Ganguly and Singhvi intervened in a manner that has led to the joke that while in the past, businesspersons "paid and played", these days, they "play and pray" that some judge not treat them the way the indigent are in India. But unless judges do that, and often, being a crook would be a far more successful way to business success than being a Henry Ford. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/have-money-and-stay-free

Controlling an already tamed media (PO)

By M D Nalapat
In the 1980s,Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Deng Xiaoping took over the reins of the US, the UK and China respectively. All three believed in the maxim that the creation of wealth was the supreme objective of humankind. In Deng’s immortal words, “To get rich is glorious”. From that time onwards, assisting in the accumulation of private wealth became the primary focus of government, with the poor having to make do as best they could. Income inequality grew sharply in all three countries, and indeed in the rest of the world. Speculation replaced productive economic activity, and asset-stripping rather than asset creation became the norm. Till that time, an individual was respected for qualities intrinsic to himself or herself, but once Reaganism, Thatcherism and Deng Thought fused into a global ideology, all that mattered was a bank account. Even at hotel counters, the warmth of the welcome got tailored to the size of the room. In the UK for example, popular culture changed almost as much as it did in China, creating in the process a class of High Spenders, the most egregious example of which is in Russia, where a few have so much while the rest subsist on the margins.

Till that time, what counted in the running of a media empire was the effect that one had on social progress. The more idealistic a publication, the more the owner was honoured. In the UK, an example was Roy Thompson, who allowed the media outlets owned by him to remain free of managerial control over editorial content. Even if major advertisers were rebuked in newspaper columns, and complained to Thompson, he was silent. But he had finally to make way for a new type of owner, one who counted everything in terms of the profit ratio, a breed exemplified by Rupert Murdoch, whose only goal was to make money, and lots of it. Murdoch became the new media icon, feared by politicians across the world and fawned upon by them, including in India. His example got followed by local media tycoons, who began using government contacts to grab prize bits of public land for themselves, or to partake of other official favours. Such media barons fought each other for invitations to the homes of the powerful, promising VVIPs that their interests would be looked after. They ensured that their editors functioned as PROs, doing the bidding of ministers and high officials so that the media proprietor could continue to enjoy official backing. In the process, those few within the upper reaches of the journalistic fraternity who sought to expose high-level misfeasance soon found themselves out of a job. The era of the Fixer-Editor dawned, to the delight of newspaper owners whose only interest was in increasing their personal wealth.

In 2002,this columnist was told by eminent medical personnel that then prime minister A B Vajpayee was unwell to such a degree that he was unable to function effectively in his demanding office. Those meeting him reported a loss of concentration, as well as bouts of inactivity. Medication piled up, to a degree that made it desirable for the 78-year old to finally retire and enjoy the companionship of his loved ones. Those close to Vajpayee were aware of his condition, yet all pretended otherwise. They did not want to see their influence disappear, as it would have were the Prime Minister to retire. The media remained silent about his condition, even though several at the apex of the profession knew otherwise. The only politicians that the Indian media tear into are those who are known never to fight back, such as 1992-96 Prime Minister Narasimha Rao or present PM Manmohan Singh.

The media know that Dr Singh will never ask for an income-tax raid against the owners of a newspaper, even one that incessantly and unjustly abuses him. In contrast, others with powerful posts are known to be vindictive, and are hence left alone. Only lesser fry are targeted, or those who can be expected to not fight back in an effective manner.

However, even this mild show of “independence” is proving to be too much for the unquestioned supremo of the United Progressive Alliance government, Chairperson Sonia Gandhi. The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting is headed by Ambika Soni, who is one of the most devout admirers of Sonia Gandhi. Indeed, the graceful minister has been a loyalist of the Nehru family for more than forty years, transferring her fealty from Sanjay Gandhi (younger son of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi) in the 1970s to Rajiv Gandhi (the elder son) in the 1980s and to Rajiv’s widow Sonia subsequently. While Ambika Soni herself is known to be liberal and progressive, as a loyalist, she has to put aside her own predilections and do what the Supremo wants, which is to bring the media to heel, so that even infrequent criticism of the dominant Nehru family get silenced. Even in the 1980s, an attempt was made to impose leg an shackles on the press, through getting legislation passed that was drafted by P Chidambaram, then a junior minister but now Union Home Minister. Fortunately for the media, so steep was Rajiv Gandhi’s political decline from 1987 onwards that Chidambaram was unable to impose the harsh legal restraints on the press that he sought.

Now that the internet has become so important in the creation of public opinion, the UPA has got passed legislation that is dictatorial in its scope, and which can punish almost any internet user with long periods of imprisonment even for opening spam. So vague are the offenses listed (such as “disaffection to foreign governments” or “injurious to public interest”) that wide swathes of commentary can be used as the pretext for harassment. While the government has been ultra-active in seeking to sanitize the internet of content that it sees as harmful (mostly relating to criticism of the Suremo), and in blocking sites, overall fear of adverse public reaction has thus far prevented the full rigor of the internet laws from being imposed. Of course, not that the new laws were needed. The British colonial laws so carefully preserved by Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors give a battery of excuses that enable government to act against the citizen. Now, however, the I&B Ministry is in the process of darting new laws that would place even greater curbs on freedom of expression, an endangered activity in present-day India, where First Information Reports (FIRs) are routinely issued against those who express views unpalatable to any influential group, FIRs that soon get followed by Warrants of Arrest, after which the critic is at the mercy of the judicial system. Once an individual gets into that particular maze, he or she is likely to remain enmeshed in its coils for decades, usually at great cost. Going through a judicial proceeding is like undergoing a chronic medical condition, only more expensive.

Although Ambika Soni is aware that such actions harm her reputation for modernity, yet she has been made by those higher-up within the Congress Party to send a stream of Show Cause notices, especially to television channels. Almost all of these are unjustifiable in a genuine democracy, especially in the 21st century. Many are ludicrous, such as protesting against a program that showed women at a beach, in beachwear. Soon, You Tube will be banned, for showing such scenes. Several notices have been sent in response to television shows that show politicians in less than a flattering light, especially those involving the Home Minister. There is, of course, no danger of the Indian media ever showing the UPA Supremo in a critical light. Such else majesty would be unthinkable. The ministry has even protested against content that won several international awards, on the grounds that they depicted activities that it regards as heinous. No, not murder or mayhem, but hugging and kissing. Recently, thre ministry warned against a show where a nurse was shown as being less than perfect. The reason? Such a portrayal “hurts the sentiments of the entire nursing fraternity”. Clearly, the only shows that would be permissible will be those that show creatures from outer space, as any depiction of human beings can be considered objectionable to some. Sadly, when the world has moved into the 21st century, India is sought to be pushed back to the 19th.
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=119683

Go Bankrupt, Air Force Style (The Diplomat)

By M D Nalapat 

Just weeks from now, Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony will announce whether the Eurofighter or Dassault will win the $12 billion contract for the supply of 126 front-line fighters for the Indian Air Force. 

Consistent delays by Russia in procurement, slipshod service and repeated cost escalations elbowed out the MiG-35,while US reluctance to give India anything other than the 20th century F-16, as well as crippling conditions on local production sharing of the more futuristic F-18, put paid to the hopes of the Obama administration that the Indian taxpayer would bailout Lockheed or boost Boeing. That left the Saab Gripen, which was eliminated by the Defense Ministry from consideration, reportedly on the grounds that it had a less than optimal radar capability.

This columnist favoured the Gripen, not only because it’s much cheaper than the two other European Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) under consideration, but because Saab would have been agreeable to the location within India of far more significant chunks of aircraft production than the Eurofighter consortium or Dassault, both of whom seem seek to confine production operations of higher technology items to Europe rather than partnering with India to lower overall costs. Unlike Germany and France, the Scandinavian countries are far more willing to enter into equal partnerships with Indian industry, and hence the acquisition of the Swedish aircraft would have boosted local capabilities far more than either of the two options now shortlisted.

Interestingly, while the choice of radar has been given as the reason why the lower cost Gripen was eliminated, the Eurofighter has the exact same radar system as the Swedish aircraft, made by the same manufacturer. Additionally, the lifecycle costs of the Eurofighter are believed to be nearly ten times that of the Saab option, while the costs of the Dassault option are reportedly eight times the cost of the Gripen, for every hour of flight. This will make operation of either of the two shortlisted variants prohibitively expensive for the Indian Air Force.

Purchasing white elephants has become the sport of choice for the Defense Ministry. The Indian Navy has bought the mothballed Admiral Gorshkov from Russia at a price that will cross the $3.2 billion mark, or three times the estimate given at the time the decision to purchase this aircraft carrier was made. Like the Eurofighter or the Dassault options, the Admiral Gorshkov (now re-christened Vikramaditya and awaiting induction sometime in 2012) will be hugely expensive to operate. Of course, as the just-concluded $2 billion deal for the ‘upgrade’ of the Mirage squadrons shows, the higher the cost, the more the hidden ‘sweeteners’ are likely to be.

While there have been news reports of the Italian relatives of a prominent political family in India showing an interest in the MMRCA acquisition, the Indian media has, as is its wont, not dared explore the possibility of any such connection. Instead, they have lapped up the Defense Ministry’s handouts, which tout the deal as giving ‘teeth’ to India’s air attack capability. That such teeth would be false teeth doesn’t seem to bother many. Thus far, the Defense Ministry has refused to budge from its policy of relying on foreign rather than Indian companies for big ticket items.

Antony has presided over the biggest spending binge ever entered into by the Defense Ministry. This legacy is the polar opposite of that of previous Defense Minister V.K. Krishna Menon, who during his tenure sought to deepen ‘self-reliance’ for defence items and technology. Given the financial hole that Europe is in, the murderous expense involved in purchasing, maintaining and operating the Eurofighter or the Dassault Rafaele may be put down to charity.

http://the-diplomat.com/indian-decade/2011/10/12/go-bankrupt-air-force-style/

If, and when, the mighty fall (Sunday Guardian)

P. Chidambaram during a meeting in New Delhi last month. PTI perception of invincibility is what allows rulers to continue to exercise their sway. For a considerable period of time, the British Raj was seen as impregnable. Although almost all the credit for independence has been gifted to Mahatma Gandhi and his followers, the reality is more complex. Indeed, the turning point was the dilution in loyalty of the Indian component of the army. When naval ratings followed on the "disloyalty" of those who switched to Subhas Bose and the INA during the 1939-45 war, even Winston Churchill knew that the time of the empire was over. A factor in the decision of so many to revolt was the defeat of the British in Singapore and Malaya. Their capitulation ensured that the image of strength that had thus far deterred action against them got dissolved. We have seen a similar process at work in the "Arab Spring". Once Colonel Gaddafi was felled from his perch in Libya, the mobs started to collect in Damascus. Till then, there was fear and doubt. Once Gaddafi fell, both these restraints weakened. Of course, the fact that the UNSC is unlikely to allow NATO the same licence that the coalition grabbed for itself in Libya means that the Sunni population of that country, which has long been restive at the domination of the Shia Alawaites, may once again go back to sullen acquiescence. However, for this to happen, much more blood will need to be spilt in cities all over Syria, and Russia and China will need to ensure that their veto gets constantly used. If they falter, the Gulf sheikhdoms will march behind the cover of NATO and remove a regime that they see as a threat to their own existence. While the debate is about Israel, the reality is that Syria and Iran are seen with caution not because of their policies towards the Jewish state, but because of their opposition to hereditary sheikhdoms. Of course, these days it is the US and the EU that is looking vulnerable. The 2008 financial collapse pushed a coach and six through the fiction that bankers in London and New York (not to speak of Zurich and Frankfurt) can be entrusted with the savings of folks from the GCC, India, China and other locations. The loss of confidence that exposure of the shenanigans of the bankers has created will mean the steady leaching of deposits away from these traditional pools of High Finance into China and — in time — India. Sadly, the Manmohan Singh government seems clueless about the need to make India as attractive a destination for overseas savings as Macau or Hong Kong have become. An example is its negative approach to Islamic Banking. India has more than 150 million Muslims, many of whom refuse to place their savings in institutions that charge interest. Overseas, billions of dollars from the GCC and other countries will come to the safer shores of India, were they offered a choice. However, in tune with its adherence to policies that benefit the US and the EU (as also China) at the expense of India, the RBI opposes Islamic banking. { Chidambaram has been the epitome of the Doctrine of Invincibility of the political class. In the 2009 elections, the returning officer miraculously “discovered” that he had won, when all the evidence was showing a different picture. The RBI and the Finance Ministry can get away with policies detrimental to national interests, only because the top guns there have thus far been insulated from any real accountability. Top politicians in India share with the higher rungs of the bureaucracy an immunity from punishment that is not found in any other democratic country. Over the six decades and more of independence, the number of years spent in prison by the top rungs of the politico-bureaucratic system can be counted in the low dozens. This despite the fact that dozens of depredators continue their destructive work in each city of the country, exactly as they have been doing for so long. Only in the past year has there been some action on a scale that is different from the somnolence of the past, and for this, the Prime Minister needs a word of praise. Given the fetters on him by Congress "fund collectors", it is a miracle that so much has been done to send at least a few VVIPs to jail. The odds are high that A. Raja will soon be joined by D. Maran. Even more striking, there is a chance that Home Minister P. Chidambaram may have to return to the pavilion, should the Supreme Court rule that he needs to be investigated. It is a mystery as to why this has not so far happened, given his propensity to micro-manage major policies, and his penchant for getting involved in major decisions. hidambaram has been the epitome of the Doctrine of Invincibility of the political class. In the 2009 elections, the returning officer miraculously "discovered" that he had won, when all the evidence was showing a somewhat different picture. He has shrugged off reports about his close family members dabbling in the stock market, making fortunes through "guessing" what government policy is likely to be. Across the South, real estate has been gobbled up by his relatives, a lot of it since 2004. Of course, none of this has attracted any attention in the Income-Tax Department. Friends and relatives of Chidambaram are considered to be honest, no matter what the evidence. Should he find himself in a sticky wicket, despite the CBI's desperate efforts to continue his immunity, the odds are that this will have an electric effect on the country. Whistle-blowers will emerge, now confident that even the most powerful can be held accountable. Will this be the "Singapore Moment" for India's VVIPs? Clearly, the time for accountability ought to have come decades back. Unless there is some fear of the consequences, the auction of public interest for private gain will continue. The weeks ahead will show if India has finally come of age, in that its system takes action against the powerful with the same zeal as it moves against a petty thief. Should Maran and Chidambaram fall, then it can truly be said that under the aegis of Manmohan Singh, India has had its Second Revolution.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/if-and-when-the-mighty-fall

Why the US Fumbled Afghanistan (The Diplomat)

A decade after the Afghan War began, it’s clear the US made a mistake in not working more with India. The missteps then have haunted it since.

By Madhav Nalapat

India was one of the first countries to offer the United States unconditional support after September 11 for its ‘War on Terror.’ Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee and External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh called up key policymakers in Washington, offering logistical and other support against the Taliban-al-Qaeda axis headed by Mullah Omar.

Yet the full offer was seemingly rebuffed by a US administration that saw Pakistan as the key to defeating the Taliban. By September 13, the adoption of the 1979-89 play book, and the outsourcing of much of the 2001 campaign to the Pakistani military, became US policy. The United States seemed to look deep into the soul of Pervez Musharraf and accept his claim that Pakistan would turn on the militia that had been nurtured since 1993. As a result, they lost the battle against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The day after 9/11, I was on the phone from a hotel in New York pointing out to friends in policy circles the dangers of relying on the Pakistani military, and the consequences of discarding the first Indian initiative to forge a military alliance with the United States since the 1962 Chinese invasion (when the putative partnership was aborted because of US-UK pressure on Delhi to surrender Kashmir to Pakistan as a precondition for the alliance).

The responses to my remarks ranged from scorn to amusement. After all, Pakistan was a long-term ally of the United States, while India ‘had sided with the Soviets.’ Implicit in such reactions was the memory of the Churchillian perception of India's majority Hindu population as unreliable, and, in Churchill's florid prose, ‘beastly.’ That India had as many Muslims as Pakistan, some of whom were serving with distinction in the uniformed services, and that India’s military had more than two decades of experience in dealing with terrorists of the same chemistry as the perpetrators of 9/11, seemed not to matter in the headlong rush of the Bush team into the waiting embrace of Musharraf's men.

Subsequently, several grave errors were made by US policymakers wedded to the theorem of reliance on Pakistan. Media reports at the time suggest that the Inter-Services Intelligence was allowed to evacuate 3,000 Taliban-al-Qaeda members, most notably from Kunduz. Had they been captured, the organisation would have been decapitated.

Next, assistance was provided to ‘moderate’ Pashtuns and ‘reformed’ Taliban by NATO. However, these were identified by elements within the ISI, which, unsurprisingly, eyed fighters it regarded as reliable for its campaigns against India and others, rather than those who genuinely opposed the Taliban. For some time, I wasted much effort trying to bring to the attention of US policymakers the fact that the Pashtun elements they were lavishing treasure on would in time become the very force that challenged NATO, as indeed began to happen with growing frequency from 2005 onwards.

Although the US sought to prevent the Northern Alliance from actually entering Kabul, the Alliance did so anyway. But when it sought to enter southern Afghanistan and clear out the Taliban-al-Qaeda there, they were discouraged from doing so in the belief that the job could best be done by Pakistan. This decision to ‘bar’ the Northern Alliance from entering southern Afghanistan created the sanctuary that enabled the Taliban-al-Qaeda to challenge NATO in subsequent years.

Meanwhile, the 2001 brushoff by Washington weakened the lobbies within India that sought a firm alliance with the United States, so much so that in 2003, Vajpayee refused a US request that 20,000 Indian troops be deployed in the Kurdish zone of Iraq. This columnist was then – and is now – of the view that such a deployment would have been of immense strategic benefit to India, not least in terms of better access to the petroleum reserves in the Kurdish zone.

Also, the Indian military's counter-terror and counter-insurgency tactics are worlds apart from the ‘all guns blazing’ approach of NATO. The adoption of India’s alternative tactics in Iraq could have served as a lesson to other militaries on how to conduct operations without alienating the local community. Indeed, from 2003 onwards, during infrequent visits to the Pentagon, I would tell officials that US troops should ‘secure the borders and keep out of sight of the population’ and leave policing to the Iraqis. It seems no coincidence that conditions on the ground grew markedly better in Iraq once coalition forces stepped aside and allowed Iraqi elements to take over the responsibility of ensuring security. In Afghanistan as well, only the withdrawal of NATO from population centres and the creation of a well-equipped Afghan Army can rescue the situation from the present war of attrition between the alliance and the Taliban-al-Qaeda.

Now that Admiral Mike Mullen has made public the actual role of the ISI in Afghanistan, the Manmohan Singh government (which has been more deferential to US-EU wishes than any previous administration in India) has stepped forward to sign a strategic agreement with Afghanistan that will ensure that India train the Afghan police and military. The culture blind way in which various NATO partners have been seeking to train the Afghans has resulted only in huge costs – and in training that’s visibly unsuited to local conditions.

Rather than seeking to change the Afghan uniformed services into clones of the Germans, the Poles or the Australians, it would be both cheaper and more effective to have such training carried out by a nearby military that shares several cultural and historical links with the people of Afghanistan. ‘Give us the tools and we’ll finish the job’ ought to have been the Afghan plea that NATO acceded to, rather than entering into an expensive campaign using troops that ought never to be based outside Europe.

Now that India has entered the ring, perhaps Afghan President Hamid Karzai will escape the fate of President Najibullah, who succeeded in beating back extremist militias until Boris Yeltsin cut his supply lines to zero in 1993. Recovering from the errors of Cheney-Powell in 2001 – and ones made subsequently – will take time. But, unlike the strategy of relying on the Pakistan Army, it at least has a decent chance of success. That is, of course, assuming that another US policy disaster doesn’t come by to gift victory to the Taliban.

http://the-diplomat.com/2011/10/09/why-the-us-fumbled-afghanistan/?all=true