Appu Soman is a perceptive writer but his article lacks substance, is short on logic and relies for the most part on unsubstantiated sweeping statements. The American habit of simplifying everything through coinage of new terms such as describing India as a ‘flailing state’ is certainly eye catching but hardly relevant in the context of India’s development paradigm. Whether the presidential or parliamentary form of government is better suited for a country as large and diverse as India is a matter of debate, but to attribute all our ills to the parliamentary system is stretching credulity to its limit.
It is fashionable to blame politicians for all our ills but at least they are accountable and can be removed from power with every election should they fail to perform. It is this element of accountability which must be put into the public domain if we are to address the various malaises which Soman talks off. We remonstrate when the manifestations of poor governance are apparent, but when it comes to substantive structural issues, there is somehow limited proactive engagement to shape governance norms.
Poor governance, mismanagement, inefficiencies and malpractices have eaten into our system like an all pervasive cancer due to lack of accountability. Our administrative echelons however are loathe to strengthen mechanisms which would compel accountability. If we continue to regard responsibility, blameworthiness, liability and other attributes of account-giving, the low level of importance they have been receiving, governance will further weaken and we will continue to face challenges, as we do presently.
Accountability is the unifying thread in governance. Enacting legislation and restructuring an institution should not be about change of name and an opportunity to structure space for maneuverability; instead it should be about substantively mainstreaming change that can strengthen governance. We need to exploit the potential of implicit transparency-building arrangements such as electronic procurement, electronic tracking of supply chains and the use of technology in public finance management - budgeting, accounting and auditing systems, and put all of this in the public domain.
Soman talks of corrupt governments but his remarks would have been better directed at corrupt government officials. If some of our Babus lack integrity and are willing to do the bidding of their political masters for personal gain, then no system of governance will ever work. How to promote integrity within the civil services is the challenge which we face and will continue to face unless both responsibility and accountability are fixed. As of now, too many people in the higher hierarchy of governance are not accountable for their actions. This suits the vested interest of both the bureaucracy and the political class. To blame the latter and leave out the former is merely an attempt to whitewash the malaise of corruption and non-performance in which we are steeped. If the heads of all our intelligence agencies were made to roll post Kargil, the likelihood of a 26/11 occurring would have been bleak. And if, along with the home minister of India and the chief minister of Maharashtra, a few bureaucratic heads had rolled too post 26/11, then the likelihood of another 26/11 occurring would be rare. In the event, I think it would be wise to assume that we have not seen the last of outrageous acts of terror in India and should be prepared accordingly. While the debate over the form of government best suited to India’s needs will continue, a broad-based agenda for systemic reform of governance, which can institutionalise accountability, must be accorded the highest priority if we wish to be taken seriously in the comity of nations as an emerging world power.
This appeared in The Straits Times, May 22, 2009
India: A 'flailing state' By Appu Soman.
The largest election in history involving more than 700 million voters has resulted in the victory of India's ruling alliance, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the Congress Party. The verdict disproved gloomy predictions of a hung Parliament and the further strengthening of regional parties. The new government will be far more stable than many of its predecessors.
But the fact remains that, like previous governments, the new administration will consist mostly of politicians unfit to hold ministerial office. While several provincial satraps have been cut down to size, new, aspiring ones have garnered significant support. Despite the manifest success of Indian democracy, its parliamentary system is not succeeding in providing good governance. Obviously, India is not a failed state. Professor Lant Pritchett of Harvard's Kennedy School has coined a new name for India: a 'flailing state' - a state where the government's extremely competent upper echelons are unable to control its inefficient lower levels, resulting in poor performance. But this analysis gives credit where none is due: India's problem is its top political leadership's lack of competence. The inability of its current political system to provide effective government places the country in a different category: a non-performing state. The idealism of India's freedom movement quickly evaporated after independence in the face of the opportunities for patronage that came with power. The way its political system evolved has made politics the surest path to wealth. The money spent to win elections - often including the purchase of a party's nomination - is recouped many times over once the winner is in office. Half of India's legislators who stood for re-election this time had tripled their assets in the past five years.
Given the country's religious, caste and linguistic divides, politicians saw how easily they could leverage even a small following into votes. Soon, political parties began to break up, giving rise to a large number of regional and caste-based parties. Most of these parties are led by political dynasties that prize loyalty over merit. Because of the splintering of political parties, India has had only one single-party government and eight coalition governments in the past two decades. Members of coalition governments have treated the ministries allocated to them as fiefdoms, to be milked for their benefit. Over time, India's government has become primarily a tool for advancing the personal interests of politicians rather than the entity responsible for running the country. The opportunity for personal gains through public office has made electoral politics an automatic career choice for politicians' progeny. Record numbers of sons and daughters of political leaders and millionaires - and people with criminal backgrounds - contested this election. We are seeing the formation of a new Indian caste - a caste of rulers different from the traditional Kshatriya caste - before our very eyes. Like existing castes, the new caste specialises in one occupation: political office. Just as someone became a carpenter or a trader in an earlier era merely through birth, members of India's ruling caste now become leaders of parties, members of legislatures and Cabinet ministers solely because of their parentage. And as with the older castes, there is no need for any qualification for the vocation. Lack of vocational competence never barred Indians from remaining in their caste; likewise, how well one performs in political office is not a criterion for politicians to continue in positions of power. India's parliamentary system requires ministers to be members of the legislature. Party leaders select family members and other loyal followers as candidates for elections, with absolutely no consideration of their abilities to fulfill ministerial responsibilities. The result is Cabinets that are simply not capable of managing the problems confronting the country's national and state governments. Even with the best political leadership, governing India is no easy task. Successive governments staffed with unqualified politicians have failed dismally to carry out the core governmental functions of maintaining law and order, providing the basic services expected of modern societies and promoting economic growth. The country's high-performing private sector has so far masked the failure of the Indian state. In its current form, India's parliamentary system can produce only non-performing, corrupt governments. It rewards ambition, promotes office-at-any-cost politics as well as devalues merit.
Taking away the prize of ministerial office from elected representatives might discourage wealth-maximising politicians from entering politics. It is time, therefore, for India to consider introducing a presidential system of government, which would reduce the scope for 'horse trading' and allow the country's leader to select competent people for Cabinet positions.
The writer is a fellow of the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Response to Mr Aakar Patel
Response to Aakar Patel
Mr. Aakar Patel, like so many present day journalists relies more on the sensational rather than facts. His article lacks research and more often than not uses innuendo as a substitute for the truth. His analytical ability too is suspect which perhaps has more to do with bias rather than a lack of intelligence. While Patel may try to pose as an investigative reporter, he should not entertain visions of being an Indian version of a Carl Bernstein or a Bob Woodward. He often writes with reasonable clarity and focus as indicated by his blog as also his column, published on Sunday in the Pakistani daily ‘The News’ but the present article is more worthy of the trash can.
Mr. Advani matriculated when he was 14 years old; that puts his date of matriculation as 1941. As per Aakar Patel, Mr. Advani joined the RSS because he was forced out by partition. This is not true. He joined the RSS in 1942 and became the President of the Organisations Karachi branch. As he was actively in politics at that time, it is no surprise that he did not complete college. Thousands of young men and women similarly sacrificed their youth for the cause of independence. Aakar Patel could not have been totally ignorant of this fact. That he chose to suppress it indicates ulterior motives which can do no good to the cause of journalism.
Aakar Patel continues to drift towards the inconsequential when all he can talk of is the problem which Mr. Advani had with worms as a young man, the fascination which Mr. Advani had for Dale Carnegie’s writings or the hurt he felt at the defacement of Hindu deities at Chittor. Aakar Patel is also not overly impressed with Mr. Advani’s journalistic skills, but has Mr. Advani ever claimed to be a leading journalist? And what is so wrong about writing film reviews? Will Aakar Patel treat Mr. MF Hussain with contempt because he was a cheap sign board painter in the streets of Mumbai before he became famous! He also talks with certain derogatoriness of Mr. Advani getting his first executive position when he was fifty years old. For a man who spent his life in politics, that is par for the course and Aakar Patel should have known it. Nehru was a lawyer for a few years before he joined public life and rose to become India’s first prime minister. Do we even in our wildest imagination believe that he was unfit for the job? Experience does not come simply by holding a government job, especially when we talk of the political domain.
Getting down to more substantive issues, Ayodhya has always been a cause of concern to the vast majority of Indians. The issue was not created by the BJP but has been the cause of tension even when the British ruled India. A mass uprising in 1949 saw the installation of the images of Ram and Sita in the structure. And the Congress was in power at that time. Another Congress Prime minister opened the door to the Shilanayas many years later. Let us not forget history. I do not support the way the mosque was destroyed. But why is Aakar Patel not ready to accept Mr. Advani’s statement that the destruction of the mosque was the saddest day of his life. It may also be worthwhile if Mr. Patel goes through the ASI report on the excavations conducted at the site in 2003; that is if he is not too lazy to do so – a charge he levels at Mr. Advani.
The way the hijacking of IA 814 was handled was certainly a cause for embarrassment but it reflects more on an institutional failure and our unpreparedness to deal with such situations. To put the entire culpability on Mr. Advani is neither correct nor an accurate reflection of what transpired then. Incidentally, we have not learned much since then as experienced in the shoddy manner we reacted to the Mumbai carnage in November last year. And Dr Manmohan Singh was the Prime minister this time round. Kargil was an institutional failure too, and a systematic overhaul of our agencies is called for to prevent a recurrence. Sadly, this too is not forthcoming regardless of which Government is in power. The sloth in quick decision making will remain the bane of this country unless we start sacking civil and military officials at the highest levels for incompetence.
With reference to the Gujarat riots, it would be worth his while if Aakar Patel, who is himself a Guajarati carries out an analysis of the communal riots that have taken place since independence in Gujarat and work out the statistics for the periods when the Congress was in power. He will be surprised. Also, one poor Muslim family which suffered grievously in the post Godhra riots and was taken with great fanfare to the paradise that is West Bengal has chosen to return to Gujarat. Mr. Patel may like to move from his chair once in a while and find out why.
I personally admire Dr Manmohan Singh so I will not get into a scathing criticism of the man just to score a point. But the fact remains that India went into a process of reforms not because Mr. Singh felt it was the right thing to do but because India was bankrupt at that point of time and international lending agencies forced India to adopt the course. Mr. Singh no doubt needs to be complimented on doing a good job. However, could the good Doctor kindly explain why the impetus given to building highways and harnessing the waters of our rivers was put on the slow burner by his Government? Obviously, politics takes priority over national interest.
Politics ultimately is the art of the possible and both Dr Singh and Mr. Advani have an important role to play. But our journalists must stop this mudslinging and get down to substantive issues if they wish to be taken seriously.
Advani the party man or Singh the economist?
There is one brutally tough man in politics, but it is not Advani. This man is cold and emotionless when you observe him talk
Reply to All Aakar Patel
Fri, Apr 24 2009. 9:46 PM IST
LK Advani might become prime minister next month. What kind of a leader will he make? Let us examine his qualifications. Born in 1927 to a rich family living in a Parsi neighbourhood of Karachi, Advani is from the Amil caste of merchants. In his autobiography, My Country My Life, he tells us “as far as I can remember, I stood first in every class till matriculation” and “when I completed my matriculation, I had just turned 14”.
But at DG National College, Hyderabad, Sindh, he fails to get a degree in five years. His Lok Sabha résumé mentions an LLB from Bombay University, but does not say when he got it. His autobiography’s 986 pages do not mention this degree, or his attending this college, at all.
Forced out by Partition, Advani becomes an RSS worker. He spends years in Rajasthan’s villages, where he is “scared of one thing: tapeworm”.
This is because, over the years, he sees many people with the painful exit wound this worm would make on its way out from their legs. He writes about this at length, showing that his fear, for himself and perhaps also for the villagers he served, was real. But he does no research, else he would have learnt that it was not tapeworm but guinea worm.
On a visit to Chittor fort, he is “pained to see thousands of idols of Hindu deities broken and defaced by intolerant Muslim invaders”. Such experiences “were bringing about a strange transformation within me”.
Then, for seven years, till 1967, Advani is a journalist at the RSS journal Organiser, where he writes film reviews.
His writing is lazy and he leans on clichés and stock phrases. He describes a criminal as “dreaded gangster”. He uses too many adjectives and likes hyperbole. He calls Indira Gandhi’s Emergency the “darkest period in Indian history”, but then reports its years wrong in three places (pages 259, 266 and 270).
I edited newspapers for 10 years and I can place Advani as a journalist immediately. He would not have risen beyond middle rank.
He says Dale Carnegie’s How To Win Friends And Influence People would “clearly rate as one of the five or six life-transforming books I have read so far”.
After a brief term in Delhi’s municipal council, because of his RSS connection, Advani is nominated to the Rajya Sabha. Jailed with other opposition leaders, Advani comes to power in 1977.
His life’s first executive job comes to him at 50 and he becomes minister of information and broadcasting.
This lasts two years.
In the 1980s, he finds his cause at Ayodhya. He begins a campaign, but does not understand the nature of India, and what his movement represents.
When his fired-up audience screams: “Jo Hindu hit ki baat karega, vahi desh pe raaj karega (Whoever promises to ensure the welfare of Hindus will form the government)”, Advani says he did his job by telling them they should instead say: “Jo Rashtra hit ki baat karega, vahi desh pe raj karega (Whoever promises to ensure the welfare of the country will form the government)”.
But how many of us remember this modified slogan?
As the procession rolls, riots flare across India. Advani is disturbed by references to “Advani’s blood yatra”. He is not responsible, he tells us, because “there were no riots at all along the Rath Yatra trail”. Six hundred Indians are killed.
The mosque falls on 6 December 1992. He calls this a “tragic happening” and the “saddest day of my life”. Having led the mob to its goal, he’s surprised by its behaviour. Three thousand Indians are killed. He does not understand that his movement is not positive, for the temple, but negative, against the mosque. And that is why the issue has died after the structure was flattened.
Advani’s second executive job comes at age 71, when he becomes home minister for six years (1998-2004). The three major events concerning his work during this period are at Kandahar, Kargil and Gujarat. Advani’s home ministry fails to immobilize the hijacked Indian Airlines flight when it lands at Amritsar. The BJP then surrenders to Jaish-e-Mohammed and releases the leader of the Deobandi warriors, Masood Azhar. He’s still doing terrorism.
At Kargil, Advani’s spies are unable to predict or detect infiltration. Over 400 Indian jawans are martyred. In Gujarat, 1,000 Indians are killed on the BJP’s watch. The prosecution is so bigoted, or incompetent, that the horrified Supreme Court transfers cases to Mumbai.
If Advani has such a poor record on security, why do his supporters refer to him as strong? Sadly, this image comes from his willingness to do violence to India’s Muslims.
Having had only eight years of executive experience, the same as the average 32-year-old, Advani has no long view. He does not understand strategy.
He thumps his chest and warns Pakistan to behave after taking India nuclear, but is taken aback when Pakistan’s generals immediately use this as an excuse to weaponize their own programme. This has destabilized South Asia for generations.
He opposes the Indo-US nuclear deal. Why? Because America does not treat India as “equals”. He views strategic policy through honour and emotion.
Of his autobiography’s 48 chapters, not one is on economics. Muslims, Kashmir, terrorism, Pakistan, Musharraf, Kargil, Shah Bano, Naxalism, Godhra, Assam, Ayodhya. These are his concerns. His passion is all about what other people should not do.
Under Advani, the BJP’s three policy thrusts were all negative: Muslims should not keep Babri Masjid; Muslims should not have polygamy; Kashmir should not have special status.
He offers nothing creative, even to Hindus, only resentment.
There is one brutally tough man in politics, but it is not Advani. This man is cold and emotionless when you observe him talk.
If power means the ability to influence change, he is the most powerful leader in the history of India.
His policies, 18 years old, cannot be bent, forget changed, by leaders who came after he wrote them.
He shamelessly laughs off the sneering accusation that he hides behind a woman, and cannot even get himself elected. He is ruthless enough to discard his allies and embrace his enemies when it suits him.
He is cold-blooded enough to ignore the corruption of his allied ministers, because he understands it’s unimportant in the long run.
He has risen in the world by merit alone. Born in the hamlet of Gah in West Punjab, he studied under kerosene lamps and walked miles to school. He never stopped walking. He went to Punjab University, Cambridge University (where he won the Wright’s Prize in 1955 and the Adam Smith prize in 1956). He went to Oxford University and wrote his DPhil thesis on “India’s export trends and prospects for self-sustained growth”. At 30, he understood the problem with Nehru’s economic model. At 59, he got the chance to set it right, and he did.
He is the most qualified man ever to hold office in India, and it would be difficult to find another as qualified across the world.
Like Harvard’s Obama, he has supped at the table with the world’s intellectual elite and absorbed their ideas. Now, facing a crisis, the world looks to Manmohan Singh for answers.
At the G-20 this month, London’s Financial Times put him on its masthead next to Obama and sent three editors to interview him. All Indians who are ashamed of the quality of our leaders must try to read this interview: www.ft.com/indepth/g20. First question: Do you agree with China on the failures of the global monetary regime and the case for a new reserve asset in place of the dollar?
It’s not the question they would ask of Advani.
Aakar Patel is a director with Hill Road Media.
Write to Aakar at replytoall@livemint.com
Mr. Aakar Patel, like so many present day journalists relies more on the sensational rather than facts. His article lacks research and more often than not uses innuendo as a substitute for the truth. His analytical ability too is suspect which perhaps has more to do with bias rather than a lack of intelligence. While Patel may try to pose as an investigative reporter, he should not entertain visions of being an Indian version of a Carl Bernstein or a Bob Woodward. He often writes with reasonable clarity and focus as indicated by his blog as also his column, published on Sunday in the Pakistani daily ‘The News’ but the present article is more worthy of the trash can.
Mr. Advani matriculated when he was 14 years old; that puts his date of matriculation as 1941. As per Aakar Patel, Mr. Advani joined the RSS because he was forced out by partition. This is not true. He joined the RSS in 1942 and became the President of the Organisations Karachi branch. As he was actively in politics at that time, it is no surprise that he did not complete college. Thousands of young men and women similarly sacrificed their youth for the cause of independence. Aakar Patel could not have been totally ignorant of this fact. That he chose to suppress it indicates ulterior motives which can do no good to the cause of journalism.
Aakar Patel continues to drift towards the inconsequential when all he can talk of is the problem which Mr. Advani had with worms as a young man, the fascination which Mr. Advani had for Dale Carnegie’s writings or the hurt he felt at the defacement of Hindu deities at Chittor. Aakar Patel is also not overly impressed with Mr. Advani’s journalistic skills, but has Mr. Advani ever claimed to be a leading journalist? And what is so wrong about writing film reviews? Will Aakar Patel treat Mr. MF Hussain with contempt because he was a cheap sign board painter in the streets of Mumbai before he became famous! He also talks with certain derogatoriness of Mr. Advani getting his first executive position when he was fifty years old. For a man who spent his life in politics, that is par for the course and Aakar Patel should have known it. Nehru was a lawyer for a few years before he joined public life and rose to become India’s first prime minister. Do we even in our wildest imagination believe that he was unfit for the job? Experience does not come simply by holding a government job, especially when we talk of the political domain.
Getting down to more substantive issues, Ayodhya has always been a cause of concern to the vast majority of Indians. The issue was not created by the BJP but has been the cause of tension even when the British ruled India. A mass uprising in 1949 saw the installation of the images of Ram and Sita in the structure. And the Congress was in power at that time. Another Congress Prime minister opened the door to the Shilanayas many years later. Let us not forget history. I do not support the way the mosque was destroyed. But why is Aakar Patel not ready to accept Mr. Advani’s statement that the destruction of the mosque was the saddest day of his life. It may also be worthwhile if Mr. Patel goes through the ASI report on the excavations conducted at the site in 2003; that is if he is not too lazy to do so – a charge he levels at Mr. Advani.
The way the hijacking of IA 814 was handled was certainly a cause for embarrassment but it reflects more on an institutional failure and our unpreparedness to deal with such situations. To put the entire culpability on Mr. Advani is neither correct nor an accurate reflection of what transpired then. Incidentally, we have not learned much since then as experienced in the shoddy manner we reacted to the Mumbai carnage in November last year. And Dr Manmohan Singh was the Prime minister this time round. Kargil was an institutional failure too, and a systematic overhaul of our agencies is called for to prevent a recurrence. Sadly, this too is not forthcoming regardless of which Government is in power. The sloth in quick decision making will remain the bane of this country unless we start sacking civil and military officials at the highest levels for incompetence.
With reference to the Gujarat riots, it would be worth his while if Aakar Patel, who is himself a Guajarati carries out an analysis of the communal riots that have taken place since independence in Gujarat and work out the statistics for the periods when the Congress was in power. He will be surprised. Also, one poor Muslim family which suffered grievously in the post Godhra riots and was taken with great fanfare to the paradise that is West Bengal has chosen to return to Gujarat. Mr. Patel may like to move from his chair once in a while and find out why.
I personally admire Dr Manmohan Singh so I will not get into a scathing criticism of the man just to score a point. But the fact remains that India went into a process of reforms not because Mr. Singh felt it was the right thing to do but because India was bankrupt at that point of time and international lending agencies forced India to adopt the course. Mr. Singh no doubt needs to be complimented on doing a good job. However, could the good Doctor kindly explain why the impetus given to building highways and harnessing the waters of our rivers was put on the slow burner by his Government? Obviously, politics takes priority over national interest.
Politics ultimately is the art of the possible and both Dr Singh and Mr. Advani have an important role to play. But our journalists must stop this mudslinging and get down to substantive issues if they wish to be taken seriously.
Advani the party man or Singh the economist?
There is one brutally tough man in politics, but it is not Advani. This man is cold and emotionless when you observe him talk
Reply to All Aakar Patel
Fri, Apr 24 2009. 9:46 PM IST
LK Advani might become prime minister next month. What kind of a leader will he make? Let us examine his qualifications. Born in 1927 to a rich family living in a Parsi neighbourhood of Karachi, Advani is from the Amil caste of merchants. In his autobiography, My Country My Life, he tells us “as far as I can remember, I stood first in every class till matriculation” and “when I completed my matriculation, I had just turned 14”.
But at DG National College, Hyderabad, Sindh, he fails to get a degree in five years. His Lok Sabha résumé mentions an LLB from Bombay University, but does not say when he got it. His autobiography’s 986 pages do not mention this degree, or his attending this college, at all.
Forced out by Partition, Advani becomes an RSS worker. He spends years in Rajasthan’s villages, where he is “scared of one thing: tapeworm”.
This is because, over the years, he sees many people with the painful exit wound this worm would make on its way out from their legs. He writes about this at length, showing that his fear, for himself and perhaps also for the villagers he served, was real. But he does no research, else he would have learnt that it was not tapeworm but guinea worm.
On a visit to Chittor fort, he is “pained to see thousands of idols of Hindu deities broken and defaced by intolerant Muslim invaders”. Such experiences “were bringing about a strange transformation within me”.
Then, for seven years, till 1967, Advani is a journalist at the RSS journal Organiser, where he writes film reviews.
His writing is lazy and he leans on clichés and stock phrases. He describes a criminal as “dreaded gangster”. He uses too many adjectives and likes hyperbole. He calls Indira Gandhi’s Emergency the “darkest period in Indian history”, but then reports its years wrong in three places (pages 259, 266 and 270).
I edited newspapers for 10 years and I can place Advani as a journalist immediately. He would not have risen beyond middle rank.
He says Dale Carnegie’s How To Win Friends And Influence People would “clearly rate as one of the five or six life-transforming books I have read so far”.
After a brief term in Delhi’s municipal council, because of his RSS connection, Advani is nominated to the Rajya Sabha. Jailed with other opposition leaders, Advani comes to power in 1977.
His life’s first executive job comes to him at 50 and he becomes minister of information and broadcasting.
This lasts two years.
In the 1980s, he finds his cause at Ayodhya. He begins a campaign, but does not understand the nature of India, and what his movement represents.
When his fired-up audience screams: “Jo Hindu hit ki baat karega, vahi desh pe raaj karega (Whoever promises to ensure the welfare of Hindus will form the government)”, Advani says he did his job by telling them they should instead say: “Jo Rashtra hit ki baat karega, vahi desh pe raj karega (Whoever promises to ensure the welfare of the country will form the government)”.
But how many of us remember this modified slogan?
As the procession rolls, riots flare across India. Advani is disturbed by references to “Advani’s blood yatra”. He is not responsible, he tells us, because “there were no riots at all along the Rath Yatra trail”. Six hundred Indians are killed.
The mosque falls on 6 December 1992. He calls this a “tragic happening” and the “saddest day of my life”. Having led the mob to its goal, he’s surprised by its behaviour. Three thousand Indians are killed. He does not understand that his movement is not positive, for the temple, but negative, against the mosque. And that is why the issue has died after the structure was flattened.
Advani’s second executive job comes at age 71, when he becomes home minister for six years (1998-2004). The three major events concerning his work during this period are at Kandahar, Kargil and Gujarat. Advani’s home ministry fails to immobilize the hijacked Indian Airlines flight when it lands at Amritsar. The BJP then surrenders to Jaish-e-Mohammed and releases the leader of the Deobandi warriors, Masood Azhar. He’s still doing terrorism.
At Kargil, Advani’s spies are unable to predict or detect infiltration. Over 400 Indian jawans are martyred. In Gujarat, 1,000 Indians are killed on the BJP’s watch. The prosecution is so bigoted, or incompetent, that the horrified Supreme Court transfers cases to Mumbai.
If Advani has such a poor record on security, why do his supporters refer to him as strong? Sadly, this image comes from his willingness to do violence to India’s Muslims.
Having had only eight years of executive experience, the same as the average 32-year-old, Advani has no long view. He does not understand strategy.
He thumps his chest and warns Pakistan to behave after taking India nuclear, but is taken aback when Pakistan’s generals immediately use this as an excuse to weaponize their own programme. This has destabilized South Asia for generations.
He opposes the Indo-US nuclear deal. Why? Because America does not treat India as “equals”. He views strategic policy through honour and emotion.
Of his autobiography’s 48 chapters, not one is on economics. Muslims, Kashmir, terrorism, Pakistan, Musharraf, Kargil, Shah Bano, Naxalism, Godhra, Assam, Ayodhya. These are his concerns. His passion is all about what other people should not do.
Under Advani, the BJP’s three policy thrusts were all negative: Muslims should not keep Babri Masjid; Muslims should not have polygamy; Kashmir should not have special status.
He offers nothing creative, even to Hindus, only resentment.
There is one brutally tough man in politics, but it is not Advani. This man is cold and emotionless when you observe him talk.
If power means the ability to influence change, he is the most powerful leader in the history of India.
His policies, 18 years old, cannot be bent, forget changed, by leaders who came after he wrote them.
He shamelessly laughs off the sneering accusation that he hides behind a woman, and cannot even get himself elected. He is ruthless enough to discard his allies and embrace his enemies when it suits him.
He is cold-blooded enough to ignore the corruption of his allied ministers, because he understands it’s unimportant in the long run.
He has risen in the world by merit alone. Born in the hamlet of Gah in West Punjab, he studied under kerosene lamps and walked miles to school. He never stopped walking. He went to Punjab University, Cambridge University (where he won the Wright’s Prize in 1955 and the Adam Smith prize in 1956). He went to Oxford University and wrote his DPhil thesis on “India’s export trends and prospects for self-sustained growth”. At 30, he understood the problem with Nehru’s economic model. At 59, he got the chance to set it right, and he did.
He is the most qualified man ever to hold office in India, and it would be difficult to find another as qualified across the world.
Like Harvard’s Obama, he has supped at the table with the world’s intellectual elite and absorbed their ideas. Now, facing a crisis, the world looks to Manmohan Singh for answers.
At the G-20 this month, London’s Financial Times put him on its masthead next to Obama and sent three editors to interview him. All Indians who are ashamed of the quality of our leaders must try to read this interview: www.ft.com/indepth/g20. First question: Do you agree with China on the failures of the global monetary regime and the case for a new reserve asset in place of the dollar?
It’s not the question they would ask of Advani.
Aakar Patel is a director with Hill Road Media.
Write to Aakar at replytoall@livemint.com
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Response to Jug Suraiya’s Article: Behenji and Bane-ji
Response to Jug Suraiya’s Article: Behenji and Bane-ji
Jug Suraiya is way off the mark. He perhaps aims to be the new poster boy of the downtrodden, underprivileged classes a la VP Singh by writing such drivel which not only does an injustice to Ms Mayawati and the Indian electorate but is especially offensive to the Indian middle class.
The thought of Mayawati as prime minister is not repugnant because she is a Dalit. Nor has it anything to do with her being a woman, classy or otherwise. I think the Indian voter finds the thought of any of the pretenders in the numerous regional parties we have equally repugnant as prime ministerial material. That goes for the likes of Sharad Pawar, Sharad Yadav, Paswan, Lalu Prasad, Jayalalita, Deve Gowda, Karat and wife Brinda, Naidu and a whole lot of other pretenders and wannabes.
The reason has nothing to do with caste, class, race, colour, creed or any personal animosity with the above persons. It is simply that these leaders have no base outside their own state. A Dalit from Andhra or Assam or Gujarat may not have even heard of Mayawati. Outside of UP, her party has restricted appeal and that is what irks the thinking voter. That we may actually get a Prime Minister from a hotchpotch conglomeration of small parties, each having differing and in many cases opposing ideologies, each aiming to make good while the going lasts is not a pleasant thought. And the Prime Minister's party may have no more than forty to fifty seats in Parliament. Imagine the compromises, the deals and the pounds of flesh each constituent will extract. That is what we find repugnant Mr. Suraiya. India wants and needs a stable polity.
Let Mayawati’s BSP win at least 150 seats. I don’t think anyone will have a problem of accepting the lady as PM. And that goes for the others too.
Let us also stop this comparison with Obama. It is odious. The American President asked for votes on the basis of performance and not on the colour of his skin. We need to replicate that model and cease asking for votes based on our religious and caste affiliations. That day is still unfortunately a long way off.
As an aside, a scribe with literary pretensions once asked George Bernard Shaw for advice. Shaw’s response was classic. "Your story is a trifle that may have been written by any amateur. Don't make a confounded nuisance of yourself ... don't bother me with this rubbish." Unfortunately, we don’t have a GBS to advise the likes of JS. And the gentleman won’t certainly read my column.
Behenji and Bane-ji
1 Apr 2009, 0010 hrs IST, Jug Suraiya
Why does urban middle-class India hate Mayawati so much? In a recent poll, over 70 per cent of the respondents said that they would be horrified if she were to become India's next prime minister, which not a few political observers feel could be a distinct possibility in the post-poll scenario of forming what almost certainly will have to be another coalition government
. Why does the urban elite find the thought of Prime Minister Mayawati so repugnant? The fact that she is a Dalit should, if anything, be in her favour instead of against her. Post-Obama, among those who like to consider themselves to be India's liberalgentsia casteism is as out of fashion as racism is in the US: it's not just politically incorrect but also socially uncool openly to discriminate against an individual because of her caste, particularly if the caste in question is that of a Dalit. In any case, many years ago didn't we have a respected Dalit defence minister (who almost became prime minister) in Jagjivan Ram?
No, it's not caste that accounts for the urban liberal's aversion to Mayawati. So if it's not caste, is it class? As her nickname suggests, is Mayawati the archetypal 'Behenji', crass and vulgar in her manner of dress and general social deportment? With her 350-kg birthday cakes and diamond jewellery, Mayawati is obviously not a believer in the efficacy of social and sartorial understatement. But then neither is Jayalalithaa, another would-be PM, who is renowned for her larger-than-life cut-outs and a fanatical following which includes supporters who have had her image tattooed on the insides of their eyelids so that they may be able to gaze upon their revered Puratchi Thalaivi even when their eyes are shut. Yet Amma does not invite the same scorn and loathing that Behenji does.
The most common accusation made against Mayawati is that she is corrupt, the so-called 'Taj corridor' case being cited as the most visible example of her venality. But to say that an Indian politician particularly a politician such as Mayawati who has to sustain a large support base is corrupt is to state the obvious. It is like saying that an egg has shell, or a banana a peel. Like the shell of an egg, or the skin of a banana, for an Indian politician with a mass base which has to be sustained through patronage, corruption is a necessary condition for existence. Barring a few exceptions such as Manmohan Singh who has no grassroots base which supports him and which he in turn is obliged to look after corruption seems to be an occupational moral hazard for Indian politicians. What with the Nagarwal case in Indira Gandhi's time, and Bofors during Rajiv's regime, even what is often called the first political family of the land has not escaped the taint of corruption.
So why single out Mayawati for being corrupt? Why such singular animosity towards her? Perhaps the reason is that, more than any other politician today, she represents a full frontal assault on our ingrained social and political hypocrisy, the odour of sanctity with which we seek to surround ourselves. We like to showcase in our public figures the virtues of conspicuous austerity (see how Gandhiji travelled third-class on trains) and holier-than-thou renunciation (see how Soniaji renounced prime ministership).
With her over-the-top style and her unabashed ambition to become prime minister indeed, her party manifesto has that as its single-point agenda Mayawati offends our sense of sanctimoniousness. Instead of mouthing platitudes about aam aadmi and the downtrodden, she has the honesty to be upfront about what she is: a Dalit, and a doubly disadvantaged woman at that, who is hungry for power to reverse the tide of thousands of years of oppression. Mayawati represents a revenge against our righteousness, our hypocritical belief in our moral superiority. Maybe that's why Behenji is our real Bane-ji.
Jug Suraiya is way off the mark. He perhaps aims to be the new poster boy of the downtrodden, underprivileged classes a la VP Singh by writing such drivel which not only does an injustice to Ms Mayawati and the Indian electorate but is especially offensive to the Indian middle class.
The thought of Mayawati as prime minister is not repugnant because she is a Dalit. Nor has it anything to do with her being a woman, classy or otherwise. I think the Indian voter finds the thought of any of the pretenders in the numerous regional parties we have equally repugnant as prime ministerial material. That goes for the likes of Sharad Pawar, Sharad Yadav, Paswan, Lalu Prasad, Jayalalita, Deve Gowda, Karat and wife Brinda, Naidu and a whole lot of other pretenders and wannabes.
The reason has nothing to do with caste, class, race, colour, creed or any personal animosity with the above persons. It is simply that these leaders have no base outside their own state. A Dalit from Andhra or Assam or Gujarat may not have even heard of Mayawati. Outside of UP, her party has restricted appeal and that is what irks the thinking voter. That we may actually get a Prime Minister from a hotchpotch conglomeration of small parties, each having differing and in many cases opposing ideologies, each aiming to make good while the going lasts is not a pleasant thought. And the Prime Minister's party may have no more than forty to fifty seats in Parliament. Imagine the compromises, the deals and the pounds of flesh each constituent will extract. That is what we find repugnant Mr. Suraiya. India wants and needs a stable polity.
Let Mayawati’s BSP win at least 150 seats. I don’t think anyone will have a problem of accepting the lady as PM. And that goes for the others too.
Let us also stop this comparison with Obama. It is odious. The American President asked for votes on the basis of performance and not on the colour of his skin. We need to replicate that model and cease asking for votes based on our religious and caste affiliations. That day is still unfortunately a long way off.
As an aside, a scribe with literary pretensions once asked George Bernard Shaw for advice. Shaw’s response was classic. "Your story is a trifle that may have been written by any amateur. Don't make a confounded nuisance of yourself ... don't bother me with this rubbish." Unfortunately, we don’t have a GBS to advise the likes of JS. And the gentleman won’t certainly read my column.
Behenji and Bane-ji
1 Apr 2009, 0010 hrs IST, Jug Suraiya
Why does urban middle-class India hate Mayawati so much? In a recent poll, over 70 per cent of the respondents said that they would be horrified if she were to become India's next prime minister, which not a few political observers feel could be a distinct possibility in the post-poll scenario of forming what almost certainly will have to be another coalition government
. Why does the urban elite find the thought of Prime Minister Mayawati so repugnant? The fact that she is a Dalit should, if anything, be in her favour instead of against her. Post-Obama, among those who like to consider themselves to be India's liberalgentsia casteism is as out of fashion as racism is in the US: it's not just politically incorrect but also socially uncool openly to discriminate against an individual because of her caste, particularly if the caste in question is that of a Dalit. In any case, many years ago didn't we have a respected Dalit defence minister (who almost became prime minister) in Jagjivan Ram?
No, it's not caste that accounts for the urban liberal's aversion to Mayawati. So if it's not caste, is it class? As her nickname suggests, is Mayawati the archetypal 'Behenji', crass and vulgar in her manner of dress and general social deportment? With her 350-kg birthday cakes and diamond jewellery, Mayawati is obviously not a believer in the efficacy of social and sartorial understatement. But then neither is Jayalalithaa, another would-be PM, who is renowned for her larger-than-life cut-outs and a fanatical following which includes supporters who have had her image tattooed on the insides of their eyelids so that they may be able to gaze upon their revered Puratchi Thalaivi even when their eyes are shut. Yet Amma does not invite the same scorn and loathing that Behenji does.
The most common accusation made against Mayawati is that she is corrupt, the so-called 'Taj corridor' case being cited as the most visible example of her venality. But to say that an Indian politician particularly a politician such as Mayawati who has to sustain a large support base is corrupt is to state the obvious. It is like saying that an egg has shell, or a banana a peel. Like the shell of an egg, or the skin of a banana, for an Indian politician with a mass base which has to be sustained through patronage, corruption is a necessary condition for existence. Barring a few exceptions such as Manmohan Singh who has no grassroots base which supports him and which he in turn is obliged to look after corruption seems to be an occupational moral hazard for Indian politicians. What with the Nagarwal case in Indira Gandhi's time, and Bofors during Rajiv's regime, even what is often called the first political family of the land has not escaped the taint of corruption.
So why single out Mayawati for being corrupt? Why such singular animosity towards her? Perhaps the reason is that, more than any other politician today, she represents a full frontal assault on our ingrained social and political hypocrisy, the odour of sanctity with which we seek to surround ourselves. We like to showcase in our public figures the virtues of conspicuous austerity (see how Gandhiji travelled third-class on trains) and holier-than-thou renunciation (see how Soniaji renounced prime ministership).
With her over-the-top style and her unabashed ambition to become prime minister indeed, her party manifesto has that as its single-point agenda Mayawati offends our sense of sanctimoniousness. Instead of mouthing platitudes about aam aadmi and the downtrodden, she has the honesty to be upfront about what she is: a Dalit, and a doubly disadvantaged woman at that, who is hungry for power to reverse the tide of thousands of years of oppression. Mayawati represents a revenge against our righteousness, our hypocritical belief in our moral superiority. Maybe that's why Behenji is our real Bane-ji.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
ENCOUNTER KILLINGS : PHYSICIAN HEAL THYSELF
On July 13, 2007, a three-judge bench of the High Court in Andhra Pradesh ruled, while disposing of a batch of writ petitions that it is not mandatory for the police to register a case of murder when there is an encounter killing. Human rights groups were understandably up in arms as Naxal activities and encounter deaths are rampant in the state. On February 6, 2009, a five-judge bench of the same court ruled it mandatory for the police to register an FIR whenever an encounter death took place. The HC judgment — whose operative part does not use the term ‘police encounter’, fake or genuine —mandated compulsory registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for a murder case wherever a police officer causes death, acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties or in self-defence. It directs that such a case be investigated like any other offence. Even if the investigating officer’s final report under Section 173, CrPC, concludes that no case is made out, the magistrate is to critically examine the evidence and take cognizance if necessary.
This was hailed as a landmark judgment by human rights organisations claiming it would end the practice of the police closing encounter cases on the plea of self-defence. Law enforcement authorities, however, found the judgment disturbing and through an appeal by the Andhra Pradesh Police Officers’ Association, obtained on March 4, 2009, a stay on the High Court Order from the Supreme Court of India.
Mr. Maxwell Pereira, a former joint commissioner of police, Delhi, in his article, ‘In the Line of Fire’ strongly supported the cause of law enforcement agencies and suggested that ‘police cannot combat violence with their hands tied down’. The reasons put forward by the former joint commissioner are reproduced below:
(a) The law of private defence stands abrogated, and all Indian Penal Code provisions concerning right of self-defence become obsolete and nullified.
(b) Registration of FIRs against police officers is mandatory for death caused even during discharge of official duties, including encounters.
(c) Police officers involved in thwarting the 2001 attack on Parliament and all National Security Guard (NSG) commandos who killed terrorists involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks could now face murder trials — as also other police officers and army and navy personnel including the NSG chief, Mumbai police commissioner and army area commander who extended protection or guided them during the operation. Perhaps the entire home ministry, state and central, and all police chiefs can also figure as accessories to a large criminal conspiracy and face the same murder trial as conspirators.
(d) This ruling could apply to other parts of India via other court judgments.
(e) There could be confusion among field formations handling tough situations.
(f) It would be prudent for state police forces to disarm personnel, withdrawing all arms and ammunition considered a must in their operations.
(g) It could lead central forces like the CRPF to request the Centre against deployment for internal security duties in states faced with violence, riots and insurgency, and/or anti- terrorist duties or situations warranting use of firearms.
(h) Because this judgment is to be implemented retrospectively, murder cases could even be registered for past police actions resulting in death. That means the prospect of cases being slapped on some of us retired policemen who supervised officers in encounter cases at some stage or the other. Further, the next time a terrorist fires at a police officer, it would be advisable for the latter to either get killed or run from the scene and face charges of cowardice and dereliction of duty. Else, he would face a murder case for killing the terrorist.
(j) The police now feel stifled to effectively perform their statutory duties and assigned tasks, as forces in armed combat cannot function with the prospect of a murder charge hovering over them thanks to impractical or unrealistic judicial pronouncements. The morale for those facing bullets is hit. Courtroom logic does not cut ice for the underpaid, overworked jawan risking life and livelihood for lofty ideals. He cannot perform if he is not guaranteed security from prosecution for genuine exchanges of fire.
When faced with the task of combating violence, be it from the terrorists, Naxals or criminal gangs, the job of the security forces is an unenviable one. It is but natural that no soldier or policeman would like to take on a hostile target if the subsequent legal process would treat him as a criminal. The five judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court would certainly have considered this aspect. That they still chose to pass an order making it mandatory for the police to register an FIR whenever an encounter death took place thus needs more careful deliberation and introspection.
In the years soon following independence, the Army was called to quell insurgencies that had broken out in Nagaland and in some other parts of the North East. The conduct of army personnel in the initial phases paid scant regard to human rights and in many cases the local junior commanders became a law unto themselves. The situation was however quickly rectified through strict action against defaulters and by instituting proper training for conduct of counter insurgency operations. In one case, when it came to light that a certain group of soldiers escorting a women prisoner had raped her repeatedly through the night, the entire lot was dismissed from service and given sentences of rigorous imprisonment. This happened more than forty years ago but the principle followed then has not been diluted till date. Stray allegations of abuse still surface against the army deployed in low intensity conflict operations in J&K and in the North East, most of which are biased and unfounded. But in all cases, the matter is investigated and if there is truth in the allegations, strict action is taken against the defaulters.
We do not find such things happening in the police forces. There is no in house enquiry that takes place; neither do we hear of any action being taken against guilty police officials. Action is only taken if the case cannot be covered up due to media pressure as in the case of the killing of two Haryana businessman on Barakhamba Road by the then ACP Mr. SS Rathi and his team in a fake encounter case.
The term encounter specialist is one which should be avoided but is unfortunately used with great pride by the police themselves. Statistically, whenever an encounter takes place, the probability of casualties to the security forces is high. When encounters take place by the score and not a single policeman is injured in the shootouts doubts are certainly going to be raised about their genuineness.
We must also ask ourselves why the police is compelled to act both as the prosecutor and the judge? Is it something to do with the lack of investigative skills which results in evidence being thrown out by the courts? Or does it have something to do with the lethargic manner in which courts themselves function? In either case, law enforcement agencies have a lot to answer for.
References given by Maxwell Pereira with respect to the possibility of action being taken against the security forces for taking on the terrorists in the attack on India’s Parliament and in the Mumbai carnage of 26 Nov 2008 is farfetched and seeks to deflect attention from the real issue which is that “All cases need to be properly investigated and brought before a court of law for proper disposal”. The courts too, need to get their act in order for speedy disposal of cases. Both the police and the courts thus have a vital role to play in our legal system and our thrust should be to ensure that our justice system delivers and delivers in time. Fake encounters are NOT the solution.
The Supreme Court of India has imposed a stay on the ruling of the five bench court of Andhra Pradesh. While the matter will be debated upon by our legal luminaries, the time has come for our police forces to act proactively against their own people who break the law and to institute measures to see that the criminal justice system is made effective.
This was hailed as a landmark judgment by human rights organisations claiming it would end the practice of the police closing encounter cases on the plea of self-defence. Law enforcement authorities, however, found the judgment disturbing and through an appeal by the Andhra Pradesh Police Officers’ Association, obtained on March 4, 2009, a stay on the High Court Order from the Supreme Court of India.
Mr. Maxwell Pereira, a former joint commissioner of police, Delhi, in his article, ‘In the Line of Fire’ strongly supported the cause of law enforcement agencies and suggested that ‘police cannot combat violence with their hands tied down’. The reasons put forward by the former joint commissioner are reproduced below:
(a) The law of private defence stands abrogated, and all Indian Penal Code provisions concerning right of self-defence become obsolete and nullified.
(b) Registration of FIRs against police officers is mandatory for death caused even during discharge of official duties, including encounters.
(c) Police officers involved in thwarting the 2001 attack on Parliament and all National Security Guard (NSG) commandos who killed terrorists involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks could now face murder trials — as also other police officers and army and navy personnel including the NSG chief, Mumbai police commissioner and army area commander who extended protection or guided them during the operation. Perhaps the entire home ministry, state and central, and all police chiefs can also figure as accessories to a large criminal conspiracy and face the same murder trial as conspirators.
(d) This ruling could apply to other parts of India via other court judgments.
(e) There could be confusion among field formations handling tough situations.
(f) It would be prudent for state police forces to disarm personnel, withdrawing all arms and ammunition considered a must in their operations.
(g) It could lead central forces like the CRPF to request the Centre against deployment for internal security duties in states faced with violence, riots and insurgency, and/or anti- terrorist duties or situations warranting use of firearms.
(h) Because this judgment is to be implemented retrospectively, murder cases could even be registered for past police actions resulting in death. That means the prospect of cases being slapped on some of us retired policemen who supervised officers in encounter cases at some stage or the other. Further, the next time a terrorist fires at a police officer, it would be advisable for the latter to either get killed or run from the scene and face charges of cowardice and dereliction of duty. Else, he would face a murder case for killing the terrorist.
(j) The police now feel stifled to effectively perform their statutory duties and assigned tasks, as forces in armed combat cannot function with the prospect of a murder charge hovering over them thanks to impractical or unrealistic judicial pronouncements. The morale for those facing bullets is hit. Courtroom logic does not cut ice for the underpaid, overworked jawan risking life and livelihood for lofty ideals. He cannot perform if he is not guaranteed security from prosecution for genuine exchanges of fire.
When faced with the task of combating violence, be it from the terrorists, Naxals or criminal gangs, the job of the security forces is an unenviable one. It is but natural that no soldier or policeman would like to take on a hostile target if the subsequent legal process would treat him as a criminal. The five judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court would certainly have considered this aspect. That they still chose to pass an order making it mandatory for the police to register an FIR whenever an encounter death took place thus needs more careful deliberation and introspection.
In the years soon following independence, the Army was called to quell insurgencies that had broken out in Nagaland and in some other parts of the North East. The conduct of army personnel in the initial phases paid scant regard to human rights and in many cases the local junior commanders became a law unto themselves. The situation was however quickly rectified through strict action against defaulters and by instituting proper training for conduct of counter insurgency operations. In one case, when it came to light that a certain group of soldiers escorting a women prisoner had raped her repeatedly through the night, the entire lot was dismissed from service and given sentences of rigorous imprisonment. This happened more than forty years ago but the principle followed then has not been diluted till date. Stray allegations of abuse still surface against the army deployed in low intensity conflict operations in J&K and in the North East, most of which are biased and unfounded. But in all cases, the matter is investigated and if there is truth in the allegations, strict action is taken against the defaulters.
We do not find such things happening in the police forces. There is no in house enquiry that takes place; neither do we hear of any action being taken against guilty police officials. Action is only taken if the case cannot be covered up due to media pressure as in the case of the killing of two Haryana businessman on Barakhamba Road by the then ACP Mr. SS Rathi and his team in a fake encounter case.
The term encounter specialist is one which should be avoided but is unfortunately used with great pride by the police themselves. Statistically, whenever an encounter takes place, the probability of casualties to the security forces is high. When encounters take place by the score and not a single policeman is injured in the shootouts doubts are certainly going to be raised about their genuineness.
We must also ask ourselves why the police is compelled to act both as the prosecutor and the judge? Is it something to do with the lack of investigative skills which results in evidence being thrown out by the courts? Or does it have something to do with the lethargic manner in which courts themselves function? In either case, law enforcement agencies have a lot to answer for.
References given by Maxwell Pereira with respect to the possibility of action being taken against the security forces for taking on the terrorists in the attack on India’s Parliament and in the Mumbai carnage of 26 Nov 2008 is farfetched and seeks to deflect attention from the real issue which is that “All cases need to be properly investigated and brought before a court of law for proper disposal”. The courts too, need to get their act in order for speedy disposal of cases. Both the police and the courts thus have a vital role to play in our legal system and our thrust should be to ensure that our justice system delivers and delivers in time. Fake encounters are NOT the solution.
The Supreme Court of India has imposed a stay on the ruling of the five bench court of Andhra Pradesh. While the matter will be debated upon by our legal luminaries, the time has come for our police forces to act proactively against their own people who break the law and to institute measures to see that the criminal justice system is made effective.
Friday, March 27, 2009
CRISIS IN PAKISTAN: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS
CRISIS IN PAKISTAN
CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS
Pakistan is no stranger to terror attacks on its soil. In the recent past, attacks on the Pakistan security forces, blasts in crowded places, suicide attacks and the like have become commonplace and barely evoke public outrage and condemnation. The attack on the Marriott hotel and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto did evoke from the public and the state administration, very high levels of concern but the former was soon relegated to the background as the target was an elitist location, which belonged to an American franchise and was frequented by the rich and powerful, a large number of whom were foreigners. The assassination of a popular public figure obviously evoked very great outrage and condemnation, but this too was rationalised over time as a political killing and not viewed in the larger context of a specific design targeted at the state of Pakistan.
Then terrorists struck at the Sri Lankan cricket team on 3 March 2009. The Sri Lankan cricketers were on their way to the Gaddafi Stadium when their bus was attacked by 12 armed terrorists near Liberty market. Five cricketers, including Mahela Jayawardene, the captain were injured in the attack which killed six security men and two civilians. There have been terror strikes on the sidelines of cricket, but this was the first time that players were directly targeted. The attack was also the first major strike against an international sporting team since Palestinian terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
In terms of physical casualties, the toll could have been much higher. Some of the cricketers could have been killed and the rest taken hostage, but providentially, they all got away, albeit with injuries to five players. However, the contours of the debate on terror have shifted dramatically since then, the attack being described in various quarters as Pakistan’s very own 9/11.
What was so different this time that it put not only the Pakistani state in turmoil but also made both India and the world stand up and view the situation with alarm. What was it that has made the public perceive the attack as comparable to the attack on the United States on 9 Sep 2001 and the attack on Mumbai on 26 Nov 2008?
Cricket has the status of religion in Pakistan. It was inconceivable for the establishment to believe that terrorists would actually target a sport with a cult following, so very popular amongst the public and risk alienation. Imran Khan, former Pakistan cricket captain-turned-politician had gone on record to state, when the Indian Cricket team cancelled its tour citing security concerns post the Mumbai terror strike of 26 Nov that “No one would ever dare attack a visiting cricketer because cricket is so loved in Pakistan. The entire nation would turn against the perpetrators.” Khan later had to eat his word, though he subtly shifted the blame on lax security – ‘I think this was one of the worst security failures in Pakistan," he told the BBC. "The Pakistan government guaranteed the Sri Lankan cricket team that they would provide them security, and to see the type of security provided to the Sri Lankan cricket team was completely shameful." He added: "It certainly is a disaster for Pakistan sport. But I think much more, I think this was targeted at Pakistan's economy and destabilising the country."
No group has as yet come forward to claim responsibility for the attack. To that extent, there would have been a lurking fear amongst the concerned terror outfits that to do so would risk public alienation. Yet the perpetrators took the risk of brazenly attacking a high profile publicly adored target which was under the highest security cover, a security cover guaranteed by the Government of Pakistan. Obviously, the attack was perpetrated to convey a more ominous message: The ability to strike at any time, at any place and against any target. The fact the attackers got away in a brazen manner, without being challenged indicates serious lapses in security, but more importantly, also hints at collusion between the terrorists and certain members of the security establishment and perhaps government agencies. The latter is a cause for more serious concern. It would be naïve to think that terror attacks being perpetrated in Pakistan are random in nature. There is a specific design and purpose to the commission of these acts and an understanding of such design is essential if we are to formulate an appropriate response.
To put things in the correct perspective, what is taking place in Pakistan is an ideological war. On one side are ranged the forces of the state to include various shades of democratic opinion, the liberal society, the rule of law, Government institutions to include the Armed Forces of Pakistan and even various religious bodies. On the other side is a fundamentalist brand of radical Islam. In between lie the masses of Pakistan for whose heart and soul the war is ostensibly being waged.
The weapon of radical Islam is terror. Which side wins the war will ultimately determine the fate of Pakistan and to some extent the rest of the region.
Viewed in this context, it is easier to comprehend what is happening in Pakistan.
As a developing country in which large social inequalities exist, Pakistan is considered ripe for a takeover by Islamic forces who aim to impose a theocratic form of Government based on a narrow fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. The foremost of these forces is the Taliban.
Large spells of military rule coupled with poor governance, inequitable land holdings and abysmal poverty have created fertile ground which finds takers for the radical brand of theocracy being propagated. The conflict in Afghanistan has also been a major contributing factor to the violence which currently envelops Pakistan. The decade long Soviet occupation which ended with the ignominious withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989 was followed by a vicious civil war over the next decade till the Taliban seized power in 1999 and declared their motherland as the “Islamic Caliphate of Afghanistan”. During these two decades, the Taliban operated from bases in Pakistan and to a large extent radicalised and influenced the population of the border areas of Pakistan. They grew up in refugees camps and seminaries organised by the Pakistan Government from funds received covertly from the US and openly from Saudi Arabia, learning the ideology of hate and revenge. Because of their origin in madrassas, (religious schools), the fighters came to be known as the ‘Taliban’ or students. When they seized power in Afghanistan, they set up a brutal theocratic regime, silencing all opposition. The women and children were once again the worst sufferers and this led to another wave of migration to Pakistan’s western border. Viewed in hindsight, the Communist regime under Soviet influence was heaven as compared to what the Taliban did to their country. The overthrow of the Taliban following 9/11 has however not led to peace and the war being waged by the US and its allies against terror is still ongoing and shows no signs of an early termination. The refugees continue to trickle into Pakistan causing further strains in an already fractured polity.
Large swathes of Pakistani territory on its lawless border areas with Afghanistan are outside the control of the Government. Radical Islam has already claimed its first success when the Government of Pakistan succumbed to the religious fundamentalists in the Swat Valley by signing a peace treaty on 16 Feb. 2009 with Sufi Muhammad, the chief of the pro-Taliban Tehrik Nifaz-e-Shariat Mohammedi, or Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Law, and the father-in-law of the main militant leader in the valley. The North West Frontier Province and FATA are seriously affected and it is but a matter of time when the movement will spread to Punjab and Sind provinces, paving the way for imposition of a theocratic state in Pakistan akin to what the Taliban did in Afghanistan.
Indian armchair strategists keep pointing out that a stable and politically strong Pakistan is in India’s interest. Some openly talk of Pakistan as a failed state and suggest a balkanisation scenario where Punjab and Sind, the heartland of Pakistan with more than 80% of the population may form a core and Baluchistan, North West Frontier Province and FATA may break away in various ways. Both appear to be off the mark. A stable and politically strong Pakistan will never allow India to rest in peace and will continue to bleed India with its policy of a thousand cuts. The Balkanisation scenario is implausible. While large tracts of territory may be outside the control of the Pakistan government, disintegration is not an option for the militants. They want Pakistan and they want it whole. So within Pakistan, the battle is for the soul of Pakistan and the winner will take all. The larger danger for India is the state of Pakistan falling into Taliban hands. That will give them a safe haven to operate against India. It will also lead to a situation when millions of Pakistani Muslims will seek refuge in India creating disorder in the Indian polity of unimaginable proportion.
The question that naturally arises is how should India respond to the present crisis in Pakistan?
An ideal situation for India would be one where democratic institutions in Pakistan are vibrant and functional, civil society is secular, there is great interdependency in trade, people to people contact between the two countries is extensive and the military in Pakistan does not have an overriding voice in the affairs of state. Rather an Utopian order but one which is not totally implausible. While Pakistani society has by and large been conservative, their religious tradition was more in the Sufi mould which had a very large measure of tolerance. The present move towards pushing Pakistan to a theocratic state is alien to the Asian ethos and can be countered.
Waging war against Pakistan to counter that country’s support to terrorist activities within India is not likely to work. It will polarise Pakistani society and push them deeper into the hands of fundamentalist forces. In any event, the battle to be waged is ideological and ideas cannot be killed with a bullet. Targeting specific bases of the terrorists is an option but would require foolproof real time intelligence which may not be forthcoming. Acting on outdated or incorrect information would be counterproductive as the terrorists frequently change the locations of their hides and camps. As these are generally in close proximity to civilian habitation, the risk of collateral damage increases manifold without any surety of effective engagement of the terrorists. The more sensible course would be to target the source of terrorist funding. While this is easier said than done, it will be most effective in the long run. India, along with other countries must take this up in real earnest.
India must provide moral and material support to those sections within Pakistani society to whom a theocratic form of government is anathema. If the Pakistani middle class succumbs to the tactics of terror as propagated by the Taliban, then perforce the state will fall to the Taliban. India must, hence support those initiatives within Pakistan which will lead to strengthening the hands of the liberal society and making them capable of resisting the influence of theocratic forces.
Within Pakistan, initiatives need to be taken to restructure the educational curriculum, making it more broad based and inclusive. Curriculum being taught in the madrassas must include secular teaching especially in the field of math and the sciences. Hate campaigns against non Islamic countries must be removed and history taught in schools should be based on fact rather than a mythical exposition of the greatness of the erstwhile Islamic empires.
On the economic front, greater trade with India, to foster interdependency and promotion of mutual interest will strengthen the hands of the common man and force the political and military leadership on a path of cooperation rather than confrontation.
The rule of law must not only be maintained but should be seen to be effective. Land reforms and other measures to promote social and economic equity must be taken to reduce disparity and discord within society.
The Pakistan media has so far displayed great resilience in maintaining its freedom. This must be supported and encouraged.
In essence, the path to change lies in promoting more secular values within Pakistani society. India and the world must encourage and promote such change through diplomacy and conditional aid packages.
CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS
Pakistan is no stranger to terror attacks on its soil. In the recent past, attacks on the Pakistan security forces, blasts in crowded places, suicide attacks and the like have become commonplace and barely evoke public outrage and condemnation. The attack on the Marriott hotel and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto did evoke from the public and the state administration, very high levels of concern but the former was soon relegated to the background as the target was an elitist location, which belonged to an American franchise and was frequented by the rich and powerful, a large number of whom were foreigners. The assassination of a popular public figure obviously evoked very great outrage and condemnation, but this too was rationalised over time as a political killing and not viewed in the larger context of a specific design targeted at the state of Pakistan.
Then terrorists struck at the Sri Lankan cricket team on 3 March 2009. The Sri Lankan cricketers were on their way to the Gaddafi Stadium when their bus was attacked by 12 armed terrorists near Liberty market. Five cricketers, including Mahela Jayawardene, the captain were injured in the attack which killed six security men and two civilians. There have been terror strikes on the sidelines of cricket, but this was the first time that players were directly targeted. The attack was also the first major strike against an international sporting team since Palestinian terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
In terms of physical casualties, the toll could have been much higher. Some of the cricketers could have been killed and the rest taken hostage, but providentially, they all got away, albeit with injuries to five players. However, the contours of the debate on terror have shifted dramatically since then, the attack being described in various quarters as Pakistan’s very own 9/11.
What was so different this time that it put not only the Pakistani state in turmoil but also made both India and the world stand up and view the situation with alarm. What was it that has made the public perceive the attack as comparable to the attack on the United States on 9 Sep 2001 and the attack on Mumbai on 26 Nov 2008?
Cricket has the status of religion in Pakistan. It was inconceivable for the establishment to believe that terrorists would actually target a sport with a cult following, so very popular amongst the public and risk alienation. Imran Khan, former Pakistan cricket captain-turned-politician had gone on record to state, when the Indian Cricket team cancelled its tour citing security concerns post the Mumbai terror strike of 26 Nov that “No one would ever dare attack a visiting cricketer because cricket is so loved in Pakistan. The entire nation would turn against the perpetrators.” Khan later had to eat his word, though he subtly shifted the blame on lax security – ‘I think this was one of the worst security failures in Pakistan," he told the BBC. "The Pakistan government guaranteed the Sri Lankan cricket team that they would provide them security, and to see the type of security provided to the Sri Lankan cricket team was completely shameful." He added: "It certainly is a disaster for Pakistan sport. But I think much more, I think this was targeted at Pakistan's economy and destabilising the country."
No group has as yet come forward to claim responsibility for the attack. To that extent, there would have been a lurking fear amongst the concerned terror outfits that to do so would risk public alienation. Yet the perpetrators took the risk of brazenly attacking a high profile publicly adored target which was under the highest security cover, a security cover guaranteed by the Government of Pakistan. Obviously, the attack was perpetrated to convey a more ominous message: The ability to strike at any time, at any place and against any target. The fact the attackers got away in a brazen manner, without being challenged indicates serious lapses in security, but more importantly, also hints at collusion between the terrorists and certain members of the security establishment and perhaps government agencies. The latter is a cause for more serious concern. It would be naïve to think that terror attacks being perpetrated in Pakistan are random in nature. There is a specific design and purpose to the commission of these acts and an understanding of such design is essential if we are to formulate an appropriate response.
To put things in the correct perspective, what is taking place in Pakistan is an ideological war. On one side are ranged the forces of the state to include various shades of democratic opinion, the liberal society, the rule of law, Government institutions to include the Armed Forces of Pakistan and even various religious bodies. On the other side is a fundamentalist brand of radical Islam. In between lie the masses of Pakistan for whose heart and soul the war is ostensibly being waged.
The weapon of radical Islam is terror. Which side wins the war will ultimately determine the fate of Pakistan and to some extent the rest of the region.
Viewed in this context, it is easier to comprehend what is happening in Pakistan.
As a developing country in which large social inequalities exist, Pakistan is considered ripe for a takeover by Islamic forces who aim to impose a theocratic form of Government based on a narrow fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. The foremost of these forces is the Taliban.
Large spells of military rule coupled with poor governance, inequitable land holdings and abysmal poverty have created fertile ground which finds takers for the radical brand of theocracy being propagated. The conflict in Afghanistan has also been a major contributing factor to the violence which currently envelops Pakistan. The decade long Soviet occupation which ended with the ignominious withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989 was followed by a vicious civil war over the next decade till the Taliban seized power in 1999 and declared their motherland as the “Islamic Caliphate of Afghanistan”. During these two decades, the Taliban operated from bases in Pakistan and to a large extent radicalised and influenced the population of the border areas of Pakistan. They grew up in refugees camps and seminaries organised by the Pakistan Government from funds received covertly from the US and openly from Saudi Arabia, learning the ideology of hate and revenge. Because of their origin in madrassas, (religious schools), the fighters came to be known as the ‘Taliban’ or students. When they seized power in Afghanistan, they set up a brutal theocratic regime, silencing all opposition. The women and children were once again the worst sufferers and this led to another wave of migration to Pakistan’s western border. Viewed in hindsight, the Communist regime under Soviet influence was heaven as compared to what the Taliban did to their country. The overthrow of the Taliban following 9/11 has however not led to peace and the war being waged by the US and its allies against terror is still ongoing and shows no signs of an early termination. The refugees continue to trickle into Pakistan causing further strains in an already fractured polity.
Large swathes of Pakistani territory on its lawless border areas with Afghanistan are outside the control of the Government. Radical Islam has already claimed its first success when the Government of Pakistan succumbed to the religious fundamentalists in the Swat Valley by signing a peace treaty on 16 Feb. 2009 with Sufi Muhammad, the chief of the pro-Taliban Tehrik Nifaz-e-Shariat Mohammedi, or Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Law, and the father-in-law of the main militant leader in the valley. The North West Frontier Province and FATA are seriously affected and it is but a matter of time when the movement will spread to Punjab and Sind provinces, paving the way for imposition of a theocratic state in Pakistan akin to what the Taliban did in Afghanistan.
Indian armchair strategists keep pointing out that a stable and politically strong Pakistan is in India’s interest. Some openly talk of Pakistan as a failed state and suggest a balkanisation scenario where Punjab and Sind, the heartland of Pakistan with more than 80% of the population may form a core and Baluchistan, North West Frontier Province and FATA may break away in various ways. Both appear to be off the mark. A stable and politically strong Pakistan will never allow India to rest in peace and will continue to bleed India with its policy of a thousand cuts. The Balkanisation scenario is implausible. While large tracts of territory may be outside the control of the Pakistan government, disintegration is not an option for the militants. They want Pakistan and they want it whole. So within Pakistan, the battle is for the soul of Pakistan and the winner will take all. The larger danger for India is the state of Pakistan falling into Taliban hands. That will give them a safe haven to operate against India. It will also lead to a situation when millions of Pakistani Muslims will seek refuge in India creating disorder in the Indian polity of unimaginable proportion.
The question that naturally arises is how should India respond to the present crisis in Pakistan?
An ideal situation for India would be one where democratic institutions in Pakistan are vibrant and functional, civil society is secular, there is great interdependency in trade, people to people contact between the two countries is extensive and the military in Pakistan does not have an overriding voice in the affairs of state. Rather an Utopian order but one which is not totally implausible. While Pakistani society has by and large been conservative, their religious tradition was more in the Sufi mould which had a very large measure of tolerance. The present move towards pushing Pakistan to a theocratic state is alien to the Asian ethos and can be countered.
Waging war against Pakistan to counter that country’s support to terrorist activities within India is not likely to work. It will polarise Pakistani society and push them deeper into the hands of fundamentalist forces. In any event, the battle to be waged is ideological and ideas cannot be killed with a bullet. Targeting specific bases of the terrorists is an option but would require foolproof real time intelligence which may not be forthcoming. Acting on outdated or incorrect information would be counterproductive as the terrorists frequently change the locations of their hides and camps. As these are generally in close proximity to civilian habitation, the risk of collateral damage increases manifold without any surety of effective engagement of the terrorists. The more sensible course would be to target the source of terrorist funding. While this is easier said than done, it will be most effective in the long run. India, along with other countries must take this up in real earnest.
India must provide moral and material support to those sections within Pakistani society to whom a theocratic form of government is anathema. If the Pakistani middle class succumbs to the tactics of terror as propagated by the Taliban, then perforce the state will fall to the Taliban. India must, hence support those initiatives within Pakistan which will lead to strengthening the hands of the liberal society and making them capable of resisting the influence of theocratic forces.
Within Pakistan, initiatives need to be taken to restructure the educational curriculum, making it more broad based and inclusive. Curriculum being taught in the madrassas must include secular teaching especially in the field of math and the sciences. Hate campaigns against non Islamic countries must be removed and history taught in schools should be based on fact rather than a mythical exposition of the greatness of the erstwhile Islamic empires.
On the economic front, greater trade with India, to foster interdependency and promotion of mutual interest will strengthen the hands of the common man and force the political and military leadership on a path of cooperation rather than confrontation.
The rule of law must not only be maintained but should be seen to be effective. Land reforms and other measures to promote social and economic equity must be taken to reduce disparity and discord within society.
The Pakistan media has so far displayed great resilience in maintaining its freedom. This must be supported and encouraged.
In essence, the path to change lies in promoting more secular values within Pakistani society. India and the world must encourage and promote such change through diplomacy and conditional aid packages.
Friday, March 13, 2009
ARMY BUREAUCRACY
Red tape is something which we have all experienced, resented, fought against and finally learnt to accept. The Armed Forces too arenot free of this malaise. Here's a light hearted take on an actual incident which occured on an issue as mundane as making out a bus pass.
ARMY BUREAUCRACY
The red tape in the army
They say is mighty fine
We’ll beat the civil service
Each and every time.
1. It was a bright summer day. Having moved to a new station, the better half was busy in getting admission for our son in the Army Public School. It took a few trips but finally the job was done. Why should transfer from one APS to another be such a hassle, asked the wife? Ah well, I countered, things are much worse in civvy street. We need to prepare for retirement and this is excellent training.
2. A few days later when school reopened, I was given the relatively easy task of getting a bus pass made for the young lad. “No problems”, I told the better half; “I’ll get it in a jiffy”. A born optimist, I was to learn yet again that optimism can be misplaced. An application form was procured, filled and countersigned by the staff officer of the National Defence College (NDC), indemnity bond filled up, documents stapled together and dispatched via my trusty sahayak to the school bus cell run by the Transport Company ASC Type ‘B’. Off went the modern version of Jeeves to accomplish the designated task. In the evening, a rather dejected Jeeves reported back, task unaccomplished. “Rs 230 is required Saab, as security deposit to get the bus pass”, he informed me. “No problems”, said I, forking out two crisp notes and three tenners, “get the job done tomorrow”.
3. Next evening Jeeves was back, a bit more dejected than the previous day. “What’s happened now”? I queried. Jeeves was a bit annoyed but admirably kept his cool. “A certificate is required Saab, that you are still in service” said Jeeves. It was my turn to curb my annoyance. “Why didn’t you show him the application form, countersigned by the College?” “I did Saab, but he insisted on the certificate. He said they have rules to follow”, said Jeeves rather pointedly.
4. Next morning the certificate was duly prepared attesting my still being in service. Off went Jeeves once again, but there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm in his step. In the evening, Jeeves reported back, a dark frown on his otherwise very jovial face. “What now”? I queried, trying to hide my annoyance from the better half, who was having a quiet smirk at my expense. Jeeves had resigned himself to his fate. “They want a certificate Saab, from the school principal, certifying that your son is studying in their school”. “But dammit”, I said, trying to control my rage, “Why should I get a bus pass made for my son if he is not studying in that school”. Jeeves kept a respectful silence, but I couldn’t help hearing a little suppressed giggle emanating from the corner where the better half was reclining.
5. It took two days to get the certificate from the principal. Phew, I thought, life certainly is tough. Jeeves was dispatched next morning for what I thought would be the last time. His look told it all when he reported back in the evening. By now, I had crossed the limits of rage and was resigned to my fate. “The clerk told me to come on Saturday”, said Jeeves. “That’s when they issue bus passes”!!
The red tape in the army
They say is …..
The red tape in the army
They say is mighty fine
We’ll beat the civil service
Each and every time.
1. It was a bright summer day. Having moved to a new station, the better half was busy in getting admission for our son in the Army Public School. It took a few trips but finally the job was done. Why should transfer from one APS to another be such a hassle, asked the wife? Ah well, I countered, things are much worse in civvy street. We need to prepare for retirement and this is excellent training.
2. A few days later when school reopened, I was given the relatively easy task of getting a bus pass made for the young lad. “No problems”, I told the better half; “I’ll get it in a jiffy”. A born optimist, I was to learn yet again that optimism can be misplaced. An application form was procured, filled and countersigned by the staff officer of the National Defence College (NDC), indemnity bond filled up, documents stapled together and dispatched via my trusty sahayak to the school bus cell run by the Transport Company ASC Type ‘B’. Off went the modern version of Jeeves to accomplish the designated task. In the evening, a rather dejected Jeeves reported back, task unaccomplished. “Rs 230 is required Saab, as security deposit to get the bus pass”, he informed me. “No problems”, said I, forking out two crisp notes and three tenners, “get the job done tomorrow”.
3. Next evening Jeeves was back, a bit more dejected than the previous day. “What’s happened now”? I queried. Jeeves was a bit annoyed but admirably kept his cool. “A certificate is required Saab, that you are still in service” said Jeeves. It was my turn to curb my annoyance. “Why didn’t you show him the application form, countersigned by the College?” “I did Saab, but he insisted on the certificate. He said they have rules to follow”, said Jeeves rather pointedly.
4. Next morning the certificate was duly prepared attesting my still being in service. Off went Jeeves once again, but there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm in his step. In the evening, Jeeves reported back, a dark frown on his otherwise very jovial face. “What now”? I queried, trying to hide my annoyance from the better half, who was having a quiet smirk at my expense. Jeeves had resigned himself to his fate. “They want a certificate Saab, from the school principal, certifying that your son is studying in their school”. “But dammit”, I said, trying to control my rage, “Why should I get a bus pass made for my son if he is not studying in that school”. Jeeves kept a respectful silence, but I couldn’t help hearing a little suppressed giggle emanating from the corner where the better half was reclining.
5. It took two days to get the certificate from the principal. Phew, I thought, life certainly is tough. Jeeves was dispatched next morning for what I thought would be the last time. His look told it all when he reported back in the evening. By now, I had crossed the limits of rage and was resigned to my fate. “The clerk told me to come on Saturday”, said Jeeves. “That’s when they issue bus passes”!!
The red tape in the army
They say is …..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)