For 2Gs, Assembly polls decisive (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER M.D. NALAPAT

Nitin Gadkari While Congress president Sonia Gandhi would like to see a return of the 1947-77 situation, where her party had a majority on its own in both Houses of Parliament, L.K. Advani of the BJP would be satisfied with a US-style duopoly, where two parties take turns at governance. However, for that to happen, they will need to ensure that their respective political parties have a pan-Indian appeal, so that they can win votes and seats across the country. This ought not to have been a difficult task, seeing as to how the middle class is growing in India. While there are certainly regional and other differences within this expanding segment of the country's population (which the average of estimates place at 280 million), overall they share broadly similar tastes in food, entertainment, lifestyle and even language, English being spoken by more than 70% of this class, a figure that goes up to over 90% in those below 30). The middle class voter seeks economic benefit and societal stability, which is why even Mayawati has switched to development as her election pitch. In the Samajwadi Party as well, Mulayam Singh has given way to son Akhilesh, who has adopted a "good governance" plank, even going to the extent of denying re-admission to D.P. Yadav, despite the latter's formidable muscle. Even the ultra-regionalistic Shiv Sena has moved away from its linguistic plank. Now that Uddhav Thackeray has taken over the day-to-day control of the party from his ailing parent, it has been positioned as the outfit best able to provide an effective administration.  Should the Mumbai municipal corporation elections result in the return of the Shiv Sena to civic power, despite the efforts of the tacit Congress-MNS alliance to derail the Sena-BJP combine, that would strengthen Uddhav against party leaders such as Manohar Joshi, who are more comfortable with linguistic than with developmental politics. However, Uddhav has seen the resonance of not just Modi but Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and to a lesser extent, Orissa's Navin Patnaik as well, and understands that the key to power in Maharashtra is to offer a credible promise of a better administration. In that sense, both Akhilesh Yadav and Uddhav Thackeray are second-generation political inheritors who have already made a substantive difference in the approach and chemistry of their parties, with Sukhbir Badal some distance behind the two in Punjab. Rahul Gandhi is the most prominent of the "Rising Sons", but should the Congress tally in UP fall below 50, that would be seen as a reflection on the lack of charisma of Sonia Gandhi's choice to lead both the party as well as (in future) the government. In the case of the BJP, a party that had 220 Assembly seats two decades back is now struggling to go beyond its current level of 51 seats. Should the party win less than 75, it would be seen as a reflection of the performance of Nitin Gadkari, the "young face" who was brought in by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to lead the party in 2009. At a time when the BJP adopted the anti-corruption plank, after the 2G expose by PAC chairperson M.M. Joshi and the anti-graft yatra of L.K. Advani, its embrace of tainted candidates in the Assembly bypolls has diluted this message and reduced the perceived difference in ethics between the Congress and itself, which has suffered severe erosion in its image since 2009. The very "strength" of the party, which is its centralised (in the person of Sonia Gandhi) leadership, has become a liability now that the Congress president is unable to devote much time to party matters, for reasons of ill-health. Sonia's illness has meant a leadership crisis within the Congress. Given the party's reliance on the Nehru family, the only substitute for her is Rahul Gandhi, who has thus far confined himself to the Youth Congress and to UP. Despite the immense potential that he has for appeal to the middle class, thus far his adoption of the populist Indira-Sonia-Jean Dr Drèze model has dimmed his appeal to this segment. The neglect of grassroots cadre, the prominence given to cash and bloodline in the distribution of tickets, corruption at the Centre and in Congress-ruled states, and an economic policy which discriminates against domestic players to favour foreign interests, are each factors working against a party that no longer has a single caste, region or community to call its own.

Over the course of the dismal trajectory that it has followed since 2009, the Congress has seen its regional presence diminish in most parts of the country, so that it is today scarcely different from the BJP, which too has only a very attenuated presence in several parts of the country. Indeed, the BJP too has been having major problems, including in its sole southern outpost, Karnataka, as also in three of the states going to the polls, UP, Uttarakhand and Punjab. In all three, infighting is vicious, in a context where central authority seems to be breaking down within the BJP. This weakness has led to a confused stance on economic policy, where the BJP has sought to attach itself to the populist policies and rhetoric of Sonia Gandhi and Sitaram Yechury, oblivious to the impact of such a stance on its credibility. In UP, the BJP manifesto promises voters millions of extra jobs and abundant power and credit to farmers, without saying where the money for such largesse will come from. In Uttarakhand, the party is still suffering the effects of the decision by its central leadership to replace the government of B.C. Khanduri with the graft-prone regime of Ramesh Pohriyal after the 2009 Lok Sabha polls. The re-instatement of Khanduri as CM just six months before the polls may not succeed in limiting the damage done by his ouster, except that the Congress in the state is in even greater disarray than the BJP.Image 2nd In the BJP as in the Congress, nominations get done on the basis of clout with the "High Command" (here referring to the Advani-Gadkari-Jaitley-Swaraj quartet). This has been most pronounced in the case of Punjab, but has afflicted nominations in Goa and UP as well, although in Uttarakhand Chief Minister B.C. Khanduri has succeeded in keeping away some of the more dubious elements. For Nitin Gadkari, a good performance in the February polls is crucial to preserving his post of BJP president. Victory in Goa (possible because of the image of Manohar Parrikar) and Punjab, if followed by the winning of 75 or more seats in UP and the retaining of Uttarakhand, would be the best-case scenario for the BJP and the worst-case outcome for the Congress. Should the other Mr G (Rahul Gandhi) comfortably cross the 50-mark in UP, wrest Punjab and Uttarakhand from the NDA and retain Goa, he would regain the momentum his party has lost since 2010. For the two Gs, the ensuing polls will be decisive. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/for-2gs-assembly-polls-decisive

Why Harish Khare had to go (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  NEW DELHI | 22nd Jan

	Illustration By:- Sandeep Adhwaryu Spin and secrecy are in the DNA of India's ruling Nehru-Gandhi family, which is why few have access to the real (as distinct from the stated) reasons behind changes in personnel. Even discounting conspiracy theories, the media battering that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been enduring since the latter half of 2010 — or a year after Harish Khare took over as media advisor to the PM — may have been reason enough to warrant a change. However, performance has never stood a chance against loyalty and political utility in the calculus of UPA personnel changes, hence the credence given to whispers that it was a lost laptop that finally derailed one of the capital's most clued-in political journalists. If individuals within a key department of the Government of India are to be believed, the purloining of Khare's car, mobile telephone and laptop six months ago was "not a random act of burglary, but a well-thought and executed plan" to get details of his personal emails, "that had been unmonitored till then". According to these sources, the emails showed disillusionment with the higher leadership of the Congress, which (or so Khare was claimed to believe) "had been preventing the PM from setting things right" by getting rid of corrupt bureaucrats. Such changes "took place only after facing down (political) pressure to retain them", and were often swiftly reversed. That Harish Khare was no admirer of the political (as distinct from the administrative) wing of the UPA, was no secret. He had even gone public with criticism of the way that the UPA was functioning a year after joining the Prime Minister's Office. Indeed, given that he was closest to Sitaram Kesri, the Congress functionary who was pushed aside in 1997 to accommodate Sonia Gandhi as AICC president, it was clear that Khare was not among the handful of Delhi scribes who were close to 10 Janpath. However, he had made up for this by keeping in touch with the next best person, Political Advisor Ahmed Patel. Unlike the much younger stars of prime-time television, Khare was from a generation that still regarded the Congress as a political party, or what it had been till the 1969 and 1978 splits which converted in into a family fief. More crucially, while he was liked by several of the politicians whom he covered, Khare had much less chemistry with fellow journalists, most of whom he knew personally and (perhaps as a consequence) saw with a degree of thinly-veiled contempt. Unlike those media persons who have made a lucrative career out of news and newsmakers, Khare has remained tethered to his salary, not venturing beyond his middle-class origins into the world of the upper class that so many celebrity journalists in Delhi have reached. { According to sources, Khare’s emails showed disillusionment with the higher leadership of the Congress, which (or so Khare was claimed to believe) “had been preventing the PM from setting things right” by getting rid of corrupt bureaucrats. Khare's predecessor, Sanjaya Baru, too was known to be less than popular with the Congress president, who apparently could not bring herself to trust the judgement of a man so effusive about P.V. Narasimha Rao. That Baru was loyal to Manmohan Singh and not to 10 Janpath, rankled those tasked with "protecting the interests" of the Congress president. Had these politicians had their way, Baru would have gone well before he finally bid adieu in August 2008, or less than a year before elections were due, as well as the question of Manmohan Singh's re-nomination as PM. To his credit, his skills in business journalism and an anodyne manner helped convince most scribes that it was not Manmohan Singh who was responsible for the policy disasters of UPA I, but the Communists, the hacks within the Congress, the regional parties, the weather. Everyone and everything except Manmohan Singh, who had replaced Narasimha Rao as the object of Baru's admiration. Seeing that the lack of empathy for him in 10 Janpath would block a second term for him, Baru left on a high note, with the PM's image still intact. His replacement was neither a Manmohan nor a Sonia favourite, but got selected on the basis of his performance as Chief of Bureau of the Hindu. It was regarded by the PM's official family that Khare's qualities as a top-class political reporter would ensure a smooth run for him in the new job. Unfortunately, these were not qualities that made him popular with his peers in the journalistic profession. Had Manmohan Singh seen UPA II as what it was, a final hurrah, and sought to push through economic reform the way he did the nuclear deal, Khare may have succeeded in preventing the swelling firestorm of negative stories about a PM seen as unwilling or unable to face up to his own party or quit. However, the PM continued to hew to the line of least resistance, no matter that this meant that the policy options he favoured were shredded in favour of schemes that he knew would cause long-term economic pain. His obstinacy over the nuclear deal seemed to have been a one-off. Manmohan Singh just would not resist pressure that made nonsense of his reputation as an economic reformer. But perhaps he could not.
	Located just a few rooms away from the Prime Minister, the new media advisor could see for himself the political constraints and pressures that Singh operated with. His refusal to join those of his fraternity who profitably mixed journalism with politics kept Khare apart from the media stars close to the UPA leadership. His own understated but acerbic views, often expressed with dark humour, did not help loyalists of the Congress president to believe that Khare had transferred to Sonia Gandhi the warm feelings he had had for Kesri. The re-joining of Pulok Chatterjee (the civil servant most trusted by Sonia Gandhi) as the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister made Khare's position untenable. He had to be replaced with someone who could be trusted to fulfil the mandate of those close to the Congress president, and that is to smoothen the way for Rahul Gandhi to become the occupant of the room that three members of his family have occupied to date. Khare was unprepared — and perhaps unwilling — to work with zeal at the task of ensuring a transition from Manmohan to Rahul. He had to go. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/why-harish-khare-had-to-go

Gen Singh fights for truth, honour (PO)

By M D Nalapat
In the interests of transparency, let it be recorded that this columnist is a supporter of the present Chief of Army Staff of the Indian army, General V K Singh. Although he has never met him, several have given glowing accounts of the general’s integrity and devotion to service. Unfortunately, because of the extremes of corruption found within the Indian political establishment, those elected to high office usually ensure that civilian officials who are willing to go along with their money-making schemes be given promotions and higher responsibility. A “Gresham’s Law” begins to operate in the civil service, whereby corrupt officers drive out the good from high-voltage posts. Because they know that progress in their careers depends on theMinister Saheb’s favour,and that the shortest route to such favour is to help the minister and his family and friends make money,many officials get tempted into courses of action that are well beyond the bounds of ethics and sometimes,even of law. The nexus between corrupt officials and compliant officials has resulted in India having one of the worst-performing civil service structures in the world,as bad as the worst elsewhere,and far below the standard in countries of similar size.

Although the Indian military is still one of the most honest and professional armed forces in the world,it is a fact that politicians and corrupt civilian officials have for long sought to play favourites within the men and women in uniform. An extreme example of this was Prime Minister Nehru getting appointed a relative, B M Kaul,to a sensitive command,when the general’s primary experience was in ensuring that the military’s motor cars ran smoothly. Soon after the appointment, Lt-Gen Kaul (mis)led his troops to disaster at the hands of the PLA. Although most officers have resisted the siren call of politicians, a few have fallen for such lures and have broken away from the code of conduct expected of an officer in the armed forces.When this fact was pointed out by this columnist in the “Times of India” in 1997,he got some vitriolic rejoinders from a few retired officers,whose claim was that thearmed forces were “spotless and had no black sheep”.Interestingly,the most vitriolic riposte was penned by an officer involved in the arms trade,and who presumably should have known that his protestations of 100% innocence were false.

However,since then,more and more evidence has come to light about the few within the higher ranks of the military in India who do not resist the lure of money and official favour,and who therefore connive at decisions that are sub-optimal for the forces but which generate huge sums as bribes. Sadly,some of these compromised elements have (with political backing) reached the highest levels of the military,and have subsequently been accomodated in prize civilian posts General V K Singh is different from many of his predecessors,in that he has made a determined effort to cleanse the higher ranks of the military of the few whose conduct stains the name of a great institution.India and the people of this country owe much to themilitary,which is why General Singh’s effort to ensure accountability and honesty are so welcome.Naturally,this drive against graft has made the presentChief of Army Staff persona non grata among that section of politicians and officials ( both uniformed and otherwise) who have enriched themselves hugely through the tens of billions of dollars in defense contracts that the Indian taxpayer has funded. However,those who admire the Indian armed forces (as does this columnist) wish that the circumstances of his accession to the top military post were not because of the hounding of a brother officer by those unseen hands unhappy at his zeal in fighting corruption in the giving of defense contracts.

That the general was born in 1951 and not 1950 seems beyond doubt. That a branch of the army (which ought not to have been involved in such an issue in the first place) erred in adding an extra year to his life seems patent. What is unfortunate is the obstinacy of the Ministry of Defense in refusing to accept General Singh’s sporting offer to quit in May 2012 (as though he were a year older than he is),if only the MoD admitted that he had not lied about his age. There are civilian officials in the MoD who seek to constantly thrust the doctrine of Civilian Supremacy” into the faces of the military on every occasion,and it is presumably this mindset that prevented a compromise from being worked out. On being - in effect - called a liar,General Singh exercised his constitutional right and went to the Supreme Court,which has been asked to ascertain just who is a liar,General Singh or the establishment which brands him as one. This must be a sad day for Defense Minister A K Antony,who is himself of sterling character,although prone to accepting the advice of the officials briefing him.

The military,like any other institution spending huge amounts of taxpayer cash,should be subjected to a high level of transparency in its operations. Over the past thirteen years,there have been too many reports of misfeasance in matters of procurement, beginning a year before the Kargil skirmishes of 1999. Although this has been spun as a great victory,the fact is that the army allowed itself to be caught napping when General Musharraf’s special forces occupied peak after peak in one of the most sensitive border zones in India. None of the top generals responsible for this failure has had his career blighted.Instead,some have since been handsomely promoted. The failure to critically examine the lapses which led to the Kargil operation and to fix responsibility at the top of the chain of command (rather than pick off scapegoats lower down) has been a danger sign.

To his credit,General Singh did not follow his predecessors in ignoring it,but began taking strong action to ensure a clean and effective force. Had he been given an extra year,the Indian army would have been the better for it. Apart from a handful of officers who pander to politicians and officials,another anomaly is the recent system of “quotas” in promotion lists. A modern army changes its composition over time,or ought to.Because the Germans recognized the importance of tank corps and the French did not,the former trounced the latter in 1940. In modern warfare,the relative roles of infantry, artillery, engineers and others is very different from the past,which is why it is unfortunate that the various wings of the military have had their promotion quotas frozen in a way that goes against the concept of the evolution of warfare and strategy.

Indeed,India would be best advised to spend the money being used up in the purchase of super-expensive aircraft and aircraft carriers in creating a versatile offensive and defensive missile system. As the efficacy of NATO operations has shown,these days missiles are a core weapon of war. Had the MoD encouraged its production in the private sector,by now India would have been as important a manufacturer of missiles as France. Instead,it has been spending billions of dollars in buying missiles from overseas. Relying on foreign countries for core defense needs carries risks that are obvious. Sadly, these have been ignored by the bureaucrats at the Ministry of Defense,most of whom know about as much of missiles as a high-school student.Indeed,less,because these days,such students are far more aware than those much older,thanks to the internet. That Civilian Control is crucial in a democracy is a given,and it is to the credit of General Singh that he has never challenged this axiom. However,when decisions get taken on the basis of considerations extraneous to the professional,then it is the duty of a true officer to seek to ensure that ethics get followed. General Singh has distinguished himself for such a quality,unlike some predecessors who concentrated on picking up expensive tracts of land and property at hugely subsidised prices,and who are today ranged against him.

A massive disinformation campaign has been launched by the middleman fraternity to discredit General Singh (who may be forced to go on leave immediately,thereby bringing his efforts at cleansing the military to be ended). However,he has refused to bow to such innuendo,and is holding his head high,aware that truth and honour are on his side.Even if he loses the administrative battle,and even the legal (because of the volumes of evidence that is being created against him, General V K Singh will enter the annals of military history in India as An Officer and a Gentleman who sought to ensure transparency and accountability at the very top of the ranks of officers of what remains a superb military force . 
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=136284

Stand by democracy in Pakistan, Mrs. Clinton! (USINPAC)

By M D Nalapat

If the U.S. is floundering in a region hosting some of the world’s most dangerous religious extremists, a leading cause is the tribe of “South-Asia experts” nestling comfortably in think tanks, government agencies, and university departments across the U.S. Almost all of them have been apologists for the Pakistan army, as even a cursory reading of their published works during the previous three decades would testify. For years, these analysts and scholars have fed off the disinformation abundant in the ISI trough. Even after 9/11, when the BJP-led government then ruling New Delhi offered Washington an alliance against Wahabbi terror, these “experts” ensured that the offer got spurned, and that once again, the Pakistan army was entrusted with the job of guarding the chicken coop. Unfortunately for U.S. interests, the Clintons’ share with the Bushes’ and the Cheneys’  enormous faith in the “South-Asia” experts who evolved from the crucible of the Cold War, when India leant towards the USSR while the Pakistan army was an alliance partner, albeit on its own terms.

What those in charge of the formulation of policy towards Pakistan have consistently failed to factor in is the contradiction between a stable Pakistan and a strong military.”South-Asia” experts in the U.S. have been voluble in their claim that it is the military that is imparting stability to Pakistan, and have been dismissive of the few who have pointed out that the reverse is the case. That instability in Pakistan is caused by the bloated power of the military, principally the army, which controls domestic and foreign policy within Pakistan to the same degree as the junta in Myanmar did before the last election.

It is the irredentist adventurism of the Pakistan military and its nurturing of terrorism as a strategy of war that has combined with its Wahabbi outlook and its huge demands on the economy to steadily bring Pakistan to the edge of collapse. Although the “experts” favored by successive U.S. administrations may not be aware of this, the reality is that the Pakistan army is involved in a host of criminal activities, including the transport and refining of narcotics, counterfeiting of currency, and the training of extremist groups. Sadly, all this has been facilitated by the U.S. policy of (effectively) unconditional support for the Pakistan army.

This is not the occasion to recite a litany of the policy errors made by the Clinton administration in South Asia, except to point out to a grievous error of judgment made by the Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2009, when she secretly joined hands with the Chief of Army Staff Parvez Ashfaq Kayani in forcing the Zardari-Gilani civilian government in Pakistan to reinstate the dismissed Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Choudhury. At that time, this columnist had warned that this move would neuter the efforts of the Zardari-Gilani duo to establish civilian supremacy over the military. And unless this is done, there is zero prospect of a “stable” Pakistan. The military is the wild card in the pack that has ceaselessly fomented a jihadist mentality within Pakistan society, and has created conditions that have led to contempt for democracy within the establishment in that country.

Secretary of State Clinton has not hidden her antipathy for the President of Pakistan, nor her backing of the Chief of Army Staff.

Perhaps the “South-Asia experts” she relies on for guidance have not told her that General Kayani comes from a fundamentalist background: one that is almost completely Wahabbi. Or that throughout his career he has been a votary of the Zia Doctrine of the unity of jihadis with the Pakistan army. In contrast, while President Zardari shares with Bill Clinton a propensity for making overtures towards seductive females, he comes from a Sufi background, one where there is zero space for religious extremism. Indeed, the ethos of the Zardari family is even more moderate than that of the Bhuttos, whose apparent lack of fundamentalist beliefs cloaks a vacuum in religious attitude that was filled by a pseudo-western lifestyle. The Zardaris are religious, but in the Sufi rather than the Tablighi tradition favored by Kayani

This being the case, Asif Ali Zardari has from the start shown his willingness to take on the Pakistan military and cleanse it of extremists and their sympathizers. Instead of assisting him in this task, the Obama administration drove a dagger into its heart by conniving at the re-instatement of Iftikhar Choudhury as Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) in 2009. While there has been a much effusive comment about the “corruption-fighting” credentials of the CJP, what the U.S. “South-Asia experts” have failed to mention is the fact that Choudhury has not a word to say against an institution that is among the most corrupt in South Asia, which is the Pakistan army. The generals, as also lower-level staff, wallow in graft, to be met by a Nelson’s eye from the Chief Justice, who is equally indulgent towards Mian Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League, whose family leapfrogged from poverty to plenty within a generation by use of methods that defy characterization as ethical or legal. The U.S.-facilitated re-instatement of Choudhury has turned out to be a disaster for democracy in Pakistan, because of the CJP’s obsession with ensuring the dismissal of the elected PPP-led civilian government in Pakistan. Once Kayani got his man in as Chief Justice, and forced through an extension to his tenure as COAS (again with help from Washington), he became even more open in implementing the policy that has been his signature tune since the time he took over as chief of the army.

This is to do to NATO in Afghanistan what the Pakistan army did to the USSR during the 1980s, ensure defeat. It is no secret that China has entered the Great Game as a major player, or that Beijing is adopting the same strategy in Afghanistan that the U.S. followed two decades ago, which is to use the Pakistan army to ensure the defeat of rival militaries active in the Afghan theater. In 1998, this columnist first mentioned that China was more influential among the senior levels of the Pakistan military than the U.S. This and pointing out the Punjabi domination of the army earned him an effort from Pervez Musharraf to block him from writing in the Times of India. The Pakistan strongman complained to the former Times of India Editorial Director Dileep Padgaonkar about the unflattering comments (though accurate) being made about the Pakistan army and asked why “such writing was being tolerated by the newspaper”. Today, the most recent Kayani visit to Beijing, and his long meetings with Xi Jinping, Wen Jiabao, and other top Communist Party leaders have made clear that Beijing supports the brass in Pakistan in its struggle with the civilian establishment. After all, it is the Pakistan army that is expected to ensure that NATO leave Afghanistan in disgrace by 2014.

This is the precise reason why President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton need to avoid repeating their 2009 mistake (of backing Kayani over Zardari), and instead support the civilian establishment in Pakistan. If President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani are given backing from the U.S. and the rest of NATO, they can resume the task that was aborted in 2009, which is to de-radicalize the Pakistan army and make it a professional force that would battle terror groups rather than nourish them.

http://blog.usinpac.com/madhav-nalapat/stand-by-democracy-in-pakistan-mrs-clinton/

Madhav Nalapat

Will Hillary again trip Zardari? (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER M.D. NALAPAT

Hillary Clinton hat successive US administrations tango with the Pakistan military is no secret. The men in khaki appear to exercise the same fascination over otherwise hard-bitten US officials that Ingrid Bergman had over Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. Even the incoming US envoy to Delhi, Nancy Powell, has been an admirer of the generals in the Pakistan Army, especially the one going by the name of Pervez Musharraf. The dapper commando may not have been able to hold on to Kargil, but he certainly succeeded in winning over US envoys to Pakistan. Support from Washington was a critical factor in Musharraf's success in persuading the world that the very military that was propping up the Taliban was somehow the only agency that was succeeding in the battle against this terror group. This columnist has been a critic of Pervez Musharraf, especially his (lack of) sincerity in fighting against terror groups, but it needs to be admitted that it was under his rule that the Pakistan media finally secured its independence. These days, even the Sacred Cow of Pakistan, aka the Pakistan Army, is finding itself the subject of some unpleasant commentary. Although Chief Justice Iftikhar Choudhury of the Pakistan Supreme Court seems unaware of this, the Pakistan Army is engaged in some of the most unpleasant and criminal activities that take place in the subcontinent, including narcotics, counterfeiting and the use of terror groups to inflict punishment on selected targets. Apart from the grants of house plots and other largesse that have been taken to be a normal perquisite in the life of a top-level officer in that military, several of the generals are involved in other businesses, using to pecuniary advantage the clout they enjoy in a country that has been dominated by the army since Ayub Khan launched his 1958 coup against Iskander Mirza. Thus far, while Chief Justice Choudhury has been fulminating against elected politicians (all from the People's Party, he being strangely indulgent towards Nawaz Sharif), he has ignored corruption in the military, as indeed has the US. Not that he does not have reason to be grateful. It was Kayani, with the backing of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who forced the PPP-led civilian government in Pakistan to reinstate Choudhury as Chief Justice in 2009, nearly two years after he had been dismissed by Musharraf. Indeed, by re-instating Choudhury, Kayani placed a stiletto into the political heart of the government, given the jurist's antipathy towards Zardari and his party. Since he took over, Choudhury's single-point programme has been to engineer the removal of Zardari (and now Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani as well), an outcome that would be welcomed by Kayani and the ISI. Asif Ali Zardari That Asif Ali Zardari did not want Choudhury to be reinstated is no secret, nor is the President's desire to establish civilian control over the military, and to clean up its act, especially in the matter of helping terror groups. Had Hillary Clinton backed him and not Kayani, the military in Pakistan may have finally gone the way of its counterpart in Turkey and been banishe0d to the barracks, something essential if Pakistan is to save itself from a meltdown. Unfortunately for democracy in Pakistan, the Clinton team teems with "South Asia experts", who in effect have long acted as publicists for the Pakistan military. Combine this with the numerous Pakistan Army boosters in the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and it becomes clear why the Clinton Lite "Obama" administration has continuously weakened the civilian establishment vis-à-vis the military. Interestingly, this is despite the fact that from 2007 onwards, the majority of the top brass is much more pro-China than it is pro-US. Today, it is Beijing that holds the levers of influence within the Pakistan Army, even more than it influences the military in North Korea and in Myanmar. Indeed, Chief of Army Staff P.A. Kayani has just returned from what may be called his "operational headquarters", Beijing. There, although a mere soldier with no legal post in the civilian administration, Kayani was given a 75-minute meeting with Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. He also met key Politburo members, including incoming General Secretary Xi Jinping. Such access would be impossible for any visiting Indian Army Chief of Staff, who would be fortunate to even have a meeting with the PRC Defence Minister. That Beijing has joined hands with Hillary Clinton in supporting Kayani became clear when People's Daily online blacked out their own interview of Prime Minister Gilani. Spiking an interview given by the Head of Government of an ally is no everyday event, and shows that the Chinese leadership has taken sides in the ongoing battle between the military and the civilian government in Pakistan. Beijing backs the brass.

nless the Pakistan Army is made to behave as a professional force, so that "the government controls the gun", to paraphrase Mao Zedong, it will continue to boost the capabilities of extremists and terror groups, the way it has done since its inception. Nawaz Sharif, when Prime Minister of Pakistan the second time around, sought to take power away from the generals, but his own record in office was similar to that of Z.A. Bhutto or Benazir Bhutto, both of whom had little hesitation in seeking to impose their will over the people and the establishment. Both the Bhuttos as well as Sharif have dealt much more harshly with the media and with civil society in Pakistan than has Pervez Musharraf, a military dictator. Asif Ali Zardari may perhaps want to follow in their path, but he is too weak politically to attempt such a clampdown. Hence, a continuing Zardari administration is a far better guarantor of civil liberties in Pakistan than another military-inspired regime, such as the one being planned under a Musharraf-Imran Khan combo. The military hopes that the PR skills of the two will be enough to once again lull NATO into complacency, while it goes about ensuring that the Taliban retake control over Afghanistan. If NATO is facing defeat in Afghanistan (and the abject surrender to the Taliban reflected in the grant of a base office in Qatar for the militia indicates this), it is because of the alliance's outsourcing of key components of the war to the Pakistan military. Rather than guard the chickens, the fox has busied itself by eating them up. Hence, the need for major democratic powers to stand by the civilian government in Pakistan and to warn the generals of consequences, were they to engineer a "soft coup" by replacing Zardari and Gilani with puppets. While there seems very little likelihood that the much-feted (including in India) Chief Justice Choudhury will ever acknowledge that corruption is present not only within the PPP but in the military and the PML as well, hopefully, this time around Hillary Clinton will side with the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan, rather than with the generals. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/will-hillary-again-trip-zardari