The Peninsula Foundation

Author: Deepak Sinha

Tectonic shift in US’ Attitude

Category : International Affairs/ USA-Iran

Title : Tectonic Shift in US attitude

Author : Deepak Sinha 18-01-2020

The targeted execution of a serving Iranian General and war hero, Qasem Soleimani, while on an official visit to Iraq raises serious questions of sovereignty, morality, ethical conduct and can never be justified in any civilised society. It is a blatant act of aggression in clear violation of international law and a war crime, made even more heinous because neither America nor Iran is at war with each other. Deepak Sinha comments on American motives and likely impact of this assassination.

Read More

January 18, 2020
India’s Illegal Immigration and Citizenship Issues: Tussle between Politics and Policy

It is indeed difficult to comprehend this Government’s precipitous push for the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA), in the manner that it has, at a time when the economy is on the edge of a precipice and it has yet to satisfactorily resolve serious issues like Kashmir that it has on its plate. True, illegal immigration is of huge concern around the world, and even more so in our case as the issue has been further complicated by the deleterious effects of Partition. However much the young today may wish away the past, we are still bound by it. Regardless of whether one subscribes to the “Two Nation Theory” or not, Pakistan emerged as the homeland for Muslims of the Sub Continent while India came to be regarded as the home for those dispossessed because of their religious affiliations from those areas.

One tends to forget that the Preamble to the Constitution, when first adopted, described India as a “Sovereign Democratic Republic” in which “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship” were guaranteed. Socialism and secularism were only added to our preamble as an afterthought by the Congress Government of Mrs. Gandhi in 1976 through the 42nd Amendment, obviously to gain political advantage and protect her own minority vote bank. In a sense that has now come to haunt us as the BJP proceeds to curry benefit for its Hindutva plank, as the CAA clearly attempts to do, though ostensibly it is aimed at correcting an old wrong.

Religious minorities in both countries were given a semblance of relief with the signing of the Nehru-Liaquat Agreement of 1950 that required both countries to protect minorities. While Indian Muslims, among others, continued to enjoy the fruits of democracy in a secular republic, the same could not be said for Pakistan, and subsequently Bangladesh, after its formation. Minorities there continued to be discriminated and persecuted against on religious grounds, forcing lakhs of Hindus and Sikhs to flee across the border. The Government of India’s subsequent refusal to grant citizenship to the fleeing Hindus and Sikhs, as had been publicly promised by both Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress Government in 1947, left them stateless and in penury and was certainly a dark chapter in our history.

Subsequently, after 1971, the issue was further complicated as Bangladeshi Muslims too crossed over in an attempt to improve their own economic prospects. It is also an undisputable fact that much of this flow of illegal migrants was aided by Governments then in power in Assam and Bengal that were shortsighted enough to believe that this flood of illegal immigrants would increase their vote banks and allow them to subvert elections. It is ironical that the very parties involved in this immoral and criminal act are today at the forefront of the Anti CAA protests. While the Nellie Massacre and the Assam Student Agitation brought a halt to this farce in Assam in the early Eighties, it has allegedly continued unabated in Bengal even to this day.

Politicians, activists and media persons who today question the extent of illegal immigration, especially from Bangladesh, would do well to study the extremely balanced and insightful “Report on Illegal Migration into Assam Submitted to The President” by Lt Gen S K Sinha (Retd), then Governor of Assam, on 8 Nov 1998. As most readers would be aware while the extent of actual illegal immigration into Bengal and other states is not available, anecdotal evidence suggests that it has been extensive and has impacted the social fabric of these States. Indeed, most of those who question attempts to curb or quantify the extent of illegal immigration are being deliberately obtuse and intent on promoting a false narrative motivated more by their bias against the current Government and their need to hide their own involvement in promoting this flood of immigrants.

The Assam Accord signed by the Congress under Mr. Rajiv Gandhi in 1985 required a process to be initiated for the “detection and deletion of foreigners.” In this context under the aegis of the Supreme Court action was initiated in Assam to update the National Register of Citizens (NRC) that had been prepared in 1951 by recording particulars of all the persons enumerated during that Census. This update was to include the names of those persons (or their descendants) who appear in the NRC, 1951, or in any of the Electoral Rolls up to the midnight of 24th March, 1971, or in any one of the other admissible documents issued up to then, which would prove their presence in Assam or in any part of India on or before 24th March, 1971. As per Prateek Hajela, State Coordinator of the NRC Project, “A total of 3.1 Crore persons have been found eligible for inclusion in the final NRC list, leaving out 19.,06 Lakh persons including those who did not submit their claims.” They now have the right to file an appeal before Foreigners Tribunals.

This implies that once the process of appeals is complete, those declared as illegal immigrants, as defined by the Citizenship Act of 1955, will have to be either imprisoned or deported under the Foreigners Act, 1946 or the Passport Act, 1920. However, this has placed the Central Government and the Assam Government on the horns of a dilemma because the vast majority of those who are presently ineligible for inclusion in the NRC are Hindus. Logically speaking, deporting these people would be a gross miscarriage of justice given that they fled their country of origin due to religious persecution. In anticipation of this problem the Government amended the latter two Acts in 2015, thereby exempting Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who had fled to India before 31 Dec 2014 because of religious persecution, from being deported. A natural corollary to this action would have been to amend the Citizenship Act 1955 to grant citizenship to these groups in an earlier timeframe, rather than the eleven years that the Act otherwise requires. This is exactly what the Government has done with the CAA, 2019. That such an action will also help further its own political agenda is undeniable, but that is exactly how all politicians in power work.

All of this goes against the interests of the Assamese who view the issue in purely ethnic terms. Their protests, therefore, are against inclusion of Bengalis as citizens regardless of their religious affiliations as they believe that they are being swamped numerically, culturally and linguistically. One fails to understand why the Central Government, which has the benefit of its own party in power in the State, was unable to anticipate the likely consequences of its actions. Obviously, either both the central and state leadership ignored or misunderstood the signs, but whatever be the case the Party has certainly harmed its own cause and faces an uphill battle in regaining popular support. In the context of the rest of the country however, the adverse reaction that this step has drawn is clearly political in nature, initiated by those who fear they will lose out at the hustings because of this.

The opposition narrative that has been propagated is along two thrust lines. Firstly, it appeals to the liberal secular mindset, which already sees this government as autocratic and fascist in nature, that the CAA is discriminatory, as it leaves out Muslims from those countries, thereby eroding our secular identity, and is therefore unconstitutional. Secondly, it creates a fear psychosis among the minority Muslim population by linking it to the NRC and suggesting that it will be used by this Government to harm their community. The Police by their highhanded behaviour and excessive use of force in dealing with the protests have only reinforced this narrative.

While it is for the Courts to decide on its constitutionality, prima facie the argument seems to lack substance because the Act is only applicable to non- citizens who are not covered by the provisions of our Constitution and in effect corrects an earlier wrong. Moreover, if legislation is to be treated as unconstitutional purely on the basis that it is discriminatory in nature, then how does one justify existing laws on the subject and is it not time for the uniform civil code to replace all our other such Acts in place? Clearly, for those who ignore these arguments, Bertrand Russell’s belief that “Men are born ignorant not stupid. Education makes them stupid,” appears to have some relevance.

With regard to the fears that have brought many of our Muslim brethren to take to the streets, the issues involved appear to be more complex. There can be no two views that the updating of the NRC is a legitimate exercise that every State undertakes to protect its sovereignty. No State can let its ethnic, religious or linguistic profile be overturned by illegal immigration as that will adversely impact society. However, the NRC can also not be used by any government as a tool for harassment. This is unfortunately where this Government loses out because over a period of time its actions have come to be viewed with suspicion by the public at large and specifically by our minority population. There is a huge trust deficit and people tend to be extremely suspicious of its motives. Moreover, now that the Ram Temple issue has been more or less settled, there is the fleeting suspicion that this Government now intends to use NRC to further its Hindutva agenda. That apart, there have also been numerous occasions on which this community has faced unprovoked attacks, with little being done to assuage their feelings, especially as perpetrators have rarely been brought to justice. It is also a telling comment on their treatment that violence during these ongoing protests has primarily been restricted to states that are run by the BJP.

This has allowed the opposition parties to cynically peddle a blatantly false narrative and spin it in a manner that gives it enough credence to coalesce not just minority groups in their favour, but also others who have been distrustful of the way this government functions, with little regard for transparency, dialogue or rule of law. In the meantime the Modi Government has now decided to change tack, put the NRC on the backburner and proceed forward with the updating of the National Population Register (NPR) that only records the list of people in the country, instead. However, this move is also unlikely to be taken kindly since for all intents and purposes, it is a precursor to the NRC and provides relevant data that it can use.

The way forward in resolving this contentious situation can hardly be the one that results in further confrontation or adds to the distrust quotient. Mr. Modi would be well advised to take a step back and invite political parties and civil society for a fresh dialogue on all touchy issues. In addition they must look at including appropriate provisions to the guidelines for conduct of NPR/NRC that statutorily ensure that minorities and the poor are not harassed during the process. In any case the Assam NRC process and its final results show that despite our best efforts, deportation of illegals is a very distant possibility. It may therefore be a far better alternative to adopt a more practical and less contentious approach. One such option could be that those identified as foreigners continue to be permitted to remain and work here, without probably being given the right to vote or acquire property. However, their children born here should automatically be made citizens as per existing laws.

The author, a military veteran, is Senior Visiting Fellow at The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai and a Consultant at ORF, New Delhi. Views expressed are the author’s own.

December 28, 2019
‘Pawar Play’ in Maharashtra

Henry Luis Mencken (1880-1956), well known American journalist and essayist, once wrote “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” As we sit back and watch as the Impeachment drama plays out in the United States, one cannot help but marvel at Mr. Mencken prescience. The election of Donald Trump does seem to suggest that the American public has indeed found its inner soul, but as to whether it has really perfected democracy in the process remains questionable.

            Especially, more so, if it was to compare itself to what passes for democracy here. In short order they would then realize the vast distance they have yet to cover to reach true perfection. As a matter of fact, they would do well to follow the ongoing “Pawar Play” in Maharashtra, which incidentally is only the latest manifestation of what perfection in a democracy looks like, and has all the ingredients of a true Bollywood potboiler in the making. That is the only way in which realization would dawn on them that Mencken’s deductions were slightly awry. Invariably in perfect democracies it is not the political leaders who are morons, but the people who voted them to power. That is the fundamental reality we have been confronting ever since Independence, regardless of the political ideologies of the people and parties we vote into power.

            Whatever the host of legal eagles fighting the case in our Supreme Court may say to justify their arguments, and regardless of the conclusions the Hon’ble Court may arrive at, the simple truth of the matter is that for all sides concerned, Maharashtra is too important to lose. To start with the inability to form the government in Maharashtra would not just be a simple loss of face, but utter humiliation for the BJP, and more importantly, for its mentors from Nagpur, located in the heart of the State. If they cannot control their own fiefdom, what control will they exercise tomorrow over the rest of the country, more so given that elections are due in states like Bihar and Jharkhand in the coming months?

            Similarly for the Shiv Sena after having openly cast aside the cloak of morality and gambled everything, including the kitchen sink, in its blatant attempt to go one up and grab the Chief Ministership for Balasaheb’s scion, a loss would spell utter disaster and lead to questions of survivability of the dynasty. For the NCP, and especially the Pawars, being on the winning side is the only hope for redemption for past transgressions. As events have played out, it is now obvious that Pawar the younger was carried away by the brashness of youth and the fact that leadership of the Party would remain just a mirage due to circumstances of birth as long as Pawar the elder had any say in the matter. Finally, for the Congress that continues to be on the ventilator this was an unexpected bonus, a fleeting opportunity to start again.

     While each of these stakeholders has its own particular motivations for their actions, however, the most important aspect incentive for all in this battle royal for the stewardship of the State is the simple fact that not only is Maharashtra a large state, governing which is undoubtedly prestigious, but also an extremely rich one. It doesn’t exactly require a leap of faith to suggest that whosoever controls the money controls the votes. After all, is that not the very reason that controversy dogs the issue of electoral bonds that were introduced not too long back?

            Leave aside mundane issues of malfeasance, personal greed, overarching ambition and rank opportunism, what is indeed truly astounding to see is the utter lack of constitutional propriety and ethical conduct on the part of those charged with its very protection. For them to let petty loyalties and servility take precedence over self- respect and principled conduct is not just a reflection on how unworthy they are to hold such positions of eminence, but also a shameful blot on our social mores that encourages such people to claw their way up despite lacking an iota of integrity or moral fibre. One cannot but feel embarrassment for the President, a former advocate, who unquestioningly accepts the recommendations of a Prime Minister without the requisite cabinet approval, justified by the use of a most inappropriate rule to cover the lapse. That such a rule can be invoked at the dead of night to swear- in a government at dawn, in the futile hope that it would provide stability, after weeks of confusion, is indeed laughable, if it were not so tragic.

            The Supreme Court’s directions to the newly sworn-in Chief Minister, Devendra Fadnavis, to prove his majority on the floor of the House within two days, set the cat among the pigeons as it left only limited scope for horse trading. It forced him to resign prior to the House being called into session as by that time it was abundantly clear that Mr. Ajit Pawar was in no position to provide the necessary support of the NCP legislators required to gain a majority, as he had promised. It is only now becoming increasingly clear that the ‘Ajit Pawar move’ was in all likelihood, a move conceived by his uncle and leader of the NCP, Mr. Sharad Pawar, to kill two birds with one stone; firstly lure the BJP into withdrawing President’s Rule in the State, which it may otherwise not have done in a hurry, and to force the Congress to reduce its demands in exchange for joining the anti BJP Coalition, Maharashtra Vikas Agadi, under the leadership of Mr. Uddhav Thackeray as Chief Minister.

            Events in Maharashtra only accentuate the utter lack of morality on display on the part of all concerned. If we were to look at the winners and losers that have emerged after this power play, clearly the BJP finds itself stranded by the wayside and has much to introspect, but it is not the only loser, The Shiv Sena may have won itself a reprieve and fulfilled Thackeray’s ambition of being Chief Minister, it has come at a cost, as it appears to have caused grevious damage to its ideological foundations. There is always the possibility that Uddhav may have realized that with the Ayodhya Temple issue having been resolved to a large extent, hard Hindutva is unlikely to be a crowd puller in the coming days and an ideological shift was necessary if the Shiv Sena is to flourish. The Congress continues to be seen as disorganized, lacking leadership, confused and opportunistic, a perception that is unlikely to change until the Gandhi’s are leached out of its organizational structure. Only the NCP appears to have emerged as clear winners, especially Mr. Sharad Pawar, as he will undoubtedly wield the remote control on this coalition government. Off course, all of these shenanigans only reinforce the fact that it has been the people of Maharashtra, who have lost out the most, and were, in Mencken’s words, “moronic” enough to vote these ingrates into power.

The writer is a military veteran and consultant with the Observer Research Foundation and a Senior Visiting Fellow with The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai. The views expressed are the author’s own.

December 8, 2019
The Politics of Balakot

Deepak Sinha March 29, 2019/Op-Ed

There is something about old proverbs. Take, for example, an old adage by Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”. Certainly, this maxim is spot-on with regards to the Pulwama tragedy and its repercussions. Despite Pakistan’s best efforts to steer the narrative to its advantage, the truth that is emerging — though in dribs and drabs — paints a very different picture from what it would have wanted us to believe.

For example, take a look at perceptions in Pakistan about the suicide attack itself. Not only most of us, but also much of the world, especially analysts focussing on this region, had little hesitation in accepting the involvement of Pakistan-based terrorist group, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), in the suicide bombing attack, especially since the JeM itself publicly claimed responsibility. Yet, let alone the Pakistani establishment, not even one respected journalist or analyst over there uttered a word of condemnation against the JeM for this heinous act. Instead, they insisted that the attack was motivated by the brutal treatment meted out to Kashmiri locals by the Indian security forces.

This is contrary to what has widely been reported about Pakistani Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed, a senior politician and former Cabinet minister, who quite categorically stated that “what happened in Pulwama in February, in my view, was Pakistan’s finest hour after the nuclear tests of 1998.” Moreover, while Pakistan’s Foreign Minister acknowledged JeM chief Masood Azhar’s presence in Pakistan, the Director-General of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) blandly contradicted him a day later, unequivocally stating that the JeM does not exist in Pakistan as it is a “proscribed terrorist organisation”.

Similarly, with regard to the Indian response, the ISPR spokesperson was the first one to admit that the Indian Air Force (IAF) had crossed the Line of Control (LoC) and carried out a strike in the vicinity of Balakot. He, however, attempted to mislead and obfuscate the issue by hinting that this attack was in the vicinity of the village, in close proximity to the LoC in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), and not the town by that name in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, deep inside Pakistan, where it actually struck. While the IAF claimed to have hit the terrorist training camp, the spokesman insisted that no damage or casualty was inflicted to the “seminary” located over there. However, the cordoning of the area by the Pakistani Army and its refusal till date to allow any access raises questions and suggests an attempt to cover up.

Finally, there was the confusion about two Indian fighter aircraft having been shot down with both pilots taken prisoners. It, however, turned out that the IAF’s claim at that time of having lost one MIG-21, piloted by Wing Commander Abhinandan after he had downed a Pakistani F-16, was correct. Bizarrely, not only has Pakistan continued to deny the loss of its own aircraft, it even insists that the F-16s in its possession were not involved in operations in this sector. This despite the IAF having produced evidence.

Clearly, obfuscation and deceit are embedded in the DNA of Pakistan, especially in the manner it deals with India and the international community. We have been experiencing this since decades. Remember, Pakistan denied any connection to the so-called “raiders”, who nearly captured Srinagar in 1948 or to the “militants”, who occupied the Kargil heights in 1999, only to recant and accept its involvement subsequently. It isn’t as if it reserved such treatment for India alone as Iran and Afghanistan have also found to their cost. Therefore, in the present instance, to have expected Pakistan to behave any differently was sheer fantasy, especially given that the military uses proxy war to retain its pre-eminent role within the country and the region.

The sad truth is that its very foundation was built on the British construct — that it was religious antagonism and not its requirement for a pliable state that would help protect its interests in the region — which resulted in the horrors of partition. The formation of Bangladesh put paid to the two-nation theory and secret Cabinet documents in the UK, subsequently declassified, showed up the deceitful lengths the British had gone to in furthering their own interests.

Leaving aside Pakistan’s desperate attempts to change perceptions what should be of immense concern to all right-thinking people, here is the horrendous manner in which this issue is being used by politicians and the media to gain attention for their selfish agenda even if it is at the cost of the nation’s interest. Neither free speech nor the looming elections justify such crass behaviour, especially since it is impacting the credibility and apolitical nature of our armed forces.

While Prime Minister Narendra Modi deserves credit for his bold decision to aggressively respond in the manner that he did, it is no excuse for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to use the strike to tom-tom its nationalistic credentials, going so far as to shamefully depict Wing Commander Abhinandan in posters used for election rallies. Prime Minister Modi may well scream ‘Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan’ from the rooftops but it has not in any way stopped his Government from refusing to grant One Rank One Pension (OROP) to military veterans or opposing the grant of Non Functional Upgrade (NFU) in the Supreme Court using all manner of lies. That the NFU is already authorised to the Civil Services and the Central Armed Police Forces, thereby changing long-standing civil-military parity, has been deliberately ignored. Their efforts to humiliate and lower the prestige and standing of the armed forces continues unhindered.

It isn’t as if other political parties, including the Congress, have behaved any less hypocritically. On the one hand, they have “officially” supported and praised the action of the IAF, while at the same time senior leaders of these very parties have questioned the efficacy of the attack, despite the Air Chief having clearly stated that the targets selected were destroyed as they had planned. It appears that they believe that the only manner in which the steadfastness and strength of character ‘Modi’ displayed on this occasion can be negated is by deliberately destroying the credibility of our military’s achievements. While we may be uncertain of who will succeed at the hustings, there is absolutely no doubt that our armed forces have lost out yet again.

Brigadier Deepak Sinha (retd), an Army veteran, is a Visiting Senior Fellow at the TPF and is also a Consultant at ORF, New Delhi.

This article was published earlier on March 19th, 2019, on The Pioneer.

Image Credit: Google Maps

March 29, 2019
Reaping the Whirlwind: Pulwama and After

Deepak Sinha 01 Mar 2019

It was the military disaster of 1971 that forced the Pakistani establishment, the military which runs the country for all practical purposes, to face up to the fact that it could never win a conventional war against India. If it was to avenge its humiliation and cut India down to size, it had little choice but to fight through proxies, bleed India through a thousand cuts.

            This idea must surely have germinated from its successful employment of Islamic militants, the forerunners of the Taliban, used to oppose the rule of the Marxist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) that had deposed President Mohammed Daud Khan in what came to be known as the Saur or April Revolution of 1978, It was this Pakistani fomented insurgency which finally led to the Soviet intervention and occupation of Afghanistan in Dec 1979. Incidentally, while conventional wisdom would have us believe that it was the CIA that came up with the idea of using militants to fight the Soviets, facts show that they came to the party much later and only added their considerable resources to the techniques perfected by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence in the use of irregulars for its own ends.

            Thus from the early Eighties Pakistan commenced its support for secessionist elements within India that were involved in fighting against the State, firstly the Khalistan Movement and subsequently, with greater success, in Jammu and Kashmir. It clearly had advantages as there was credible deniability, economy of effort with the dirty work being done by proxies keeping Indian Security Forces tied down and finally, the most important of all, creating fear and anxiety within the general population that impacted every aspect of our democratic way of life.

            There is of course one major disadvantage of using proxies, they tend to have a mind of their own and often times respond inappropriately and at cross purposes to what its mentors may be wishing to achieve. The Pulwama suicide attack falls in this category. There have been numerous statements over the past four years that have made clear that Pakistan prefers to deal with Indian Governments run by the more “liberal and secular” parties compared to having to deal with the more conservative, Hindutva driven BJP. With elections around the corner and with the BJP facing the very real likelihood of a serious decline, if the recent state elections were any indication, it would have been in Pakistan’s best interest to maintain a low profile.

            Masood Azhar, the Jaish- e- Mohammed supremo, obviously had a different view. Not only did his organization carry out the suicide attack that led to the death of 45 policemen, but also went on to claim credit for the action. Thus, in one thoughtless act he not only destroyed the Pakistan Government’s attempts at deniability, but he also made Imran Khan’s call for India to provide credible evidence infructuous. Most importantly, the timing of the devastating attack left the Modi Government with little choice but to respond overtly and with speed, if it was to still retain any hope of doing well at the hustings. There was also the possibility that if India responded in an effective manner to the outrage, the Governments stock would go up rapidly and that would enhance Mr. Modi’s reputation and chances of return to power, just as the earlier cross- border strike helped the BJP in the Uttar Pradesh elections. This could hardly have been to Pakistan’s advantage and in the event it was facilitated by the Army, then General Bajwa has certainly made a serious miscalculation.

            Regardless of the number of casualties that the Indian Air Force’s attack on terror camps deep inside Pakistan may have caused, the very fact that the Indian Government displayed the intent to take on terrorists inside Pakistan has clearly changed the narrative prevalent for the past four decades. It has also shown up Pakistan’s repeated threats of a nuclear riposte as sheer hyperbole and bluster. More importantly the initiative has finally shifted in India’s favour along with world opinion which has had enough of Pakistan’s duplicitous behaviour. Moreover, any escalation above a perfunctory retaliation, which was to be expected to assuage domestic opinion, by Pakistan, would destroy the fig leaf of deniability it has used over the years. Most importantly, it would force their military into a direct confrontation, something that the proxy war waged by them over the years allowed them to avoid.

            In this context one can only hope better sense will prevail and we will be able to avoid a serious escalation of the conflict which can hardly help either side given the huge challenges that we face in lifting vast swathes of our population out of the twin evils of poverty and illiteracy. However, it must be emphasized that true progress will only occur as and when Pakistan starts to wind up the Jihad factory it has built over these years. In any case the Indian cross- border raid cannot be a one- off affair and we must be willing to do all that it takes to neutralize the Jihadi network and its vast army of financiers, mangers and facilitators.

            Finally, while all our attention may be taken in dealing with the issue at hand, the fact as to what led to the Pulwama attack must not be lost sight off. For this serious lapse on the part of our intelligence services, it is imperative that heads must roll. There have also been clear indications that despite increasing numbers of militants being neutralized in the Valley the Army and other Security Forces were being increasingly marginalized, especially in South Kashmir, because of popular discontent. They had consequently lost their ability to dominate the countryside, thereby losing out on intelligence. These aspects continued to be ignored by the Central Government and the military hierarchy. Little thought was given to the necessity for reviewing either counter insurgency strategies or tactical procedures and the leadership continued to be swayed by tactical successes with little attempt to resolve the growing disillusionment and radicalization within the population, especially the youth. This must certainly change.

The writer, a military veteran is a Consultant with the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi and Senior Visiting Fellow with The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai.

This article was also published in the Pioneer https://www.dailypioneer.com/2019/columnists/stifle-the-jihadi-network.html. Opinions expressed in the article are those of the author alone.

March 1, 2019
Looking Beyond the Rafale Imbroglio

The tenor of the debate, especially in the election year, can hardly be expected to be moderate or mature. While wild assertions made by the politicians in hope of swaying the electorate is to be expected and accepted, there is also a vital need for politicians to ensure that matters pertaining to National Security are kept out of the ambit of politics. Just as Georges Clemenceau, French Prime Minister during the Great War, commented that “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men”, so too is the case with entrusting national security to just politicians. But politicians being politicians care little for such niceties, which explains why allegations of wrongdoing are flying so thick and fast in the ongoing Rafale procurement imbroglio, who, unfortunately, have been joined by respected academics and researchers, who should know better.

Attempts to garner the limelight and the few minutes of fame that goes with it is understandable in the case of politicians, but for academics to do so by drawing conclusions based on speculation that passes for facts and little else, seems to be rather hasty, if not downright fallacious and unprofessional. A respected academic, for example, has concluded that the decision to procure just 36 jets instead of the original 126 with the attendant increase in unit cost shows “extraordinary ineptitude can only be explained by the circumvention of laid down procedures.” He further goes on to equate the manner in which this decision was made to that of demonetization, berates the Government for being “parsimonious and incompetent” and suggests that their action was “worse than a crime—it was a blunder.”

He may well be proved right in his conclusions subsequently, but the truth is that it is one thing to question the Governments’ motivation or influence in the selection of the aircraft or the offset partners, but quite another to question the decisions it takes, however much we may disagree with them. For one, Mr. Modi was elected by a substantial majority to do just that, since that is what is expected of a leader. Moreover, we are wholly unaware as to circumstances that led to the Government to take the decision that it did, and therefore to question his decisions clearly smacks of arrogance, if not an ulterior motive. It is all very well to rant about the ineptitude and incompetence of this Government and its adverse impact on defence modernization, but what then are we to conclude at the previous Governments’ inability to push through the earlier deal in the seven years that it had to do so? Surely ineptitude or Incompetence may be too mild a term in their case.

There is no gainsaying the fact that defence procurement and corruption have had a symbiotic relationship ever since Independence and our first procurement scandal, the infamous “Jeep Scandal” of 1948. Politicians have always seen defence procurement as a lucrative source of funds and as long as our political funding regulations remain opaque, nothing is going to change. Therefore, if this Government has actually resorted to underhand means as alleged, despite it being a government to government deal, then they have only trod on the well-beaten path of their illustrious predecessors. Thus, if precedent is to be our guide, then all the brouhaha on the issue will only result in a setback for the Air Force while politicians and their minions involved getting away, as we saw in the Bofors case.

If it is accountability that we are interested in, then we need to look beyond this specific issue of procurement and ask ourselves as to why the Air Force finds itself in such desperate straits today, with regard to its combat strength. The fact that its combat strength has fallen from its authorized forty-two squadrons to the present thirty plus, over the past two decades, was neither unanticipated nor unexpected. Like all machines, aircraft have a quantifiable life span, which while possible to extend with mid-life upgrades, will at a point in time require replacement by the next generation, if the Air Force is to be able to match and overcome the adversary’s capabilities. This does not call for either vision or foresight, just common sense and a practical understanding of the facts, which somehow the Government of India with its vast resources was unable to do. Surely someone must be held accountable for this negligence because not only does it put our national security at risk but endangers pilots who are expected to make do with shoddy outdated aircraft.

While the Air Force hierarchy must carry some of the blame, not least for lack of moral fibre for its inability to stand up for its rights, governments over the years, especially the Ministry of Defence and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) that it controls, have much to answer for. For the most part, much of our current problems can be traced to the utter failure of HAL to produce the hugely over-budget, inordinately delayed and ostensibly indigenous Light Combat Aircraft, the Tejas. In this context, the existing perceptions within the Air Force that quality control in HAL is all but non- existent have been borne out by the recent crash of the Mirage 2000 aircraft undergoing upgradation. Initial reports doing the rounds suggest that the nose wheel broke while it was taking off resulting in the tragic death of two test pilots, the best of the best. It also brings to mind a similar case when three paratroopers slithering down from a HAL manufactured Advanced Light Helicopter at the Army Day Parade in January 2018 fell and were grievously injured because the “strong point” to which their rope was tied broke and separated from the aircraft’s body. The question that needs answering is not just how many such cases have happened in the past, but also how many in HAL have been held accountable for such shoddy work?

This also explains to a large extent the previous governments’ inability to successfully close the deal for the 126 aircraft. It was reportedly blocked by the unwillingness of the Air Force hierarchy to accept aircraft manufactured by HAL without certification by Dassault Aviation, the manufacturers of the Rafale, something they refused to do. That they would prefer to work with an untried and untested offset partner, allegedly thrust on them, rather than with HAL speaks volumes about what they think of the capabilities of this Defence PSU!

Therefore, politicians and academics critical of this governments’ decision to keep HAL out of the loop in this case, especially their accusation that by doing so we have lost out on technology transfer, are either being deliberately obtuse or completely out of touch with reality. In this context, Mr. Rahul Gandhi has been particularly vocal, even to the extent of meeting workers of HAL. It would be wonderful if he took the initiative to volunteer to fly in one of these aircraft or take time off to interact with the pilots who do. Maybe, just maybe, he would have a change of heart and leave national security issues out of the realm of politics. Finally, our leaders would do well to remember that even after these aircraft are inducted into service, they will continue to be confronted by that gargantuan problem, where will the other hundred-odd aircraft desperately need come from? After all what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander!

Brigadier Deepak Sinha (retd), an Army veteran, is a Visiting Senior Fellow at the TPF and is also a Consultant at ORF, New Delhi.

This article was published earlier in the Times of India. The views expressed are the author’s own.

February 2, 2019
When Democracy is not Enough?

This Op-Ed was published earlier in ‘The Tribune’.

If we do not stand up and reclaim the space we have conceded to criminals and other low-life who now sit in judgment over us, it will be our children who will pay the price in the coming years.

The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly states that India is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. But as the ongoing public discourse of our political masters clearly shows, we are more a democracy and less a republic. We may not truly be aware of the subtle difference between the two or even be bothered to give this aspect much thought. But make no mistake, if we are to progress and develop as a nation, we cannot do without either. History tells us that the term ‘democracy’ originated from the Greek words ‘demos’, the common people, and ‘kratos’ or strength. The first democracy was the city of Athens in 508-507 BC where Cleisthenes, known as the father of Athenian democracy, introduced the concept of rule by the common people. However, representational democracy, as we know it today, is very different from what was practised then and is today defined by its one major characteristic “rule of the majority”, which can easily devolve into mob rule or tyranny of the majority, or even worse, anarchy.

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” The only thing that keeps the lamb off the lunch menu is the fact that we are a republic — not a perfect one but still one nonetheless. What that basically implies is that the country is not a private concern of the rulers but is considered a “public matter” and belongs to each one of us regardless of caste, creed, gender or ethnicity. While this obviously demands that our rulers are elected and not inherited, as quite a few tends to be, more importantly, it requires them to rule for the common good, an aspect of governance on which philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, wrote volumes. This is, of course, only possible when there are a set of laws and those elected as leaders follow them both in letter and spirit.

Unfortunately over the past few decades, common good seems to be ignored in the face of parochial and self-serving interests of our leaders, as the rule of law is often ignored or rendered irrelevant. It is no wonder then that our legislatives at the Centre and States have a surfeit of members facing criminal charges — 1,765 MPs and MLAs at last count, or 36 per cent facing over 3,500 cases as per the Government; though some contend the numbers are vastly understated.

While the Supreme Court may well view the entry of criminals into legislative bodies as akin to “termite to the citadel of democracy,” it cannot make laws to keep them out. That, the court said, is the domain of Parliament, an institution that is yet to show a firmness of resolve to stem the rot. Ironically, it is the actions of the apex court itself which gave a fillip to criminals joining politics with its farcical ruling in the infamous JMM bribery case, involving the bribing of MPs to defeat a no-confidence motion brought against the then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao’s Government way back in 1993. These allegedly corrupt MPs were unashamed and blatant enough to openly deposit the bribe money in a public sector bank. They were subsequently prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act but were absolved by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 105 of the Constitution. This Article states that (1) MPs shall enjoy freedom of speech in Parliament and (2) shall not be held liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament.

The court held that the alleged bribe-takers, who had voted in the House, were “entitled to the immunity conferred by Article 105(2)”. It also went on to direct that the bribe-givers must be prosecuted, as also the bribe-takers who did not vote. Certainly, a unique legal justification for the concept of honour among thieves.

The apex court has now attempted to correct the existing state of affairs by directing the Government to set up 12 fast-track special courts to try cases against the legislators.

In addition, it has also directed all political parties, which give tickets to persons with criminal cases pending against them, to publicise the information on the party websites, apart from issuing a declaration in “widely circulated” newspapers and on electronic media after the nomination is filed.

However, there is little doubt left that the “centre of gravity” seems to have shifted in favour of the criminal legislators and they seem to have become indispensable to parties for grabbing power. The sad truth is that actions taken by the Supreme Court now are of little consequence, nothing more than closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

While regular and reasonably fair elections have ensured that we continue to enjoy the fruits of a vibrant democracy, the same cannot be said for the state of our Republic. The gradual decline of values and the rule of law have ensured that the common good is of little concern to our political class who are quite happy with the status quo. Neither the judiciary nor the bureaucrats can bring about change for the better that is required. It is, therefore, left to the common citizen to act. If we do not stand up and reclaim the space, we have conceded to criminals and other low-life who now sit in judgment over us. It will be our children who will pay the price in the coming years.

The writer is a military veteran, a Consultant with the Observer Research Foundation and Visiting Senior Fellow with The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai. The views expressed are the author’s own.

January 6, 2019
Disempowering the soldier

Deepak Sinha December 02, 2018 : Commentary

With election fever having gripped major parts of the country, television coverage of Prime Minister Narendra Modi hitting the poll trail is common, as also his constant reference to the so-called “surgical strikes” in his speeches. It is obvious that through his words of sympathy and support for the sacrifice and efforts of the military, he is intent on furthering his reputation as a firm and pro-active leader. But despite semantics and bombast, his Government continues with unabated ferocity in its agenda to disempower and dismember the military. Among a host of other issues, take the case of the Armed Forces Tribunals (AFT), another important institution that has been in the line of fire by this Government over the past year.

It was just about a decade ago when the Parliament, in its wisdom, transformed the military justice system by enacting the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, in order to address the serious lacunae in the existing system where justice was dispensed within the military. As per its website, it provided for the “adjudication or trial of disputes and complaints with respect to commission, appointments, enrolments and conditions of service in respect of persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, The Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950.”

More importantly, it also provided for “appeals arising out of orders, findings or sentences of courts — martial held under the said Acts and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” In addition, it also adjudicates cases pertaining to military veterans and their heirs in issues relating to service matters. The AFT also has a distinct advantage since appeals against its findings can be made directly to the Supreme Court, thereby speeding up the judicial process for the affected individuals and the Government.

The critical role played by the AFT can best be understood in context of the fact that the Armed Forces being hierarchical organisations steeped in tradition, demand unquestionable loyalty and implicit obedience to orders from its rank and file. In this paternalistic and excessively conservative environment if, for any reason, an individual finds himself on the wrong side of the track, be it with regard to personnel or disciplinary issues, his superior officer becomes the prosecutor, jury and judge — all rolled in one.

While this provides for a quick dispensation of justice, undoubtedly extremely important in certain circumstances, it may not necessarily be unbiased or provide for an impartial or just resolution of the issue. The establishment of the AFT, thus, provided for an extremely important element in the military justice system. It gave all ranks an opportunity to approach an independent authority if they felt that they had not received justice at the hands of their superior officers for whatever reason.

Besides the principal Bench in New Delhi, the AFT has regional benches in 10 other cities across the country. While Delhi, Lucknow and Chandigarh have three Benches each, all other centres have a Bench each, a total of 17 Benches. Each Bench comprises of a judicial member and an administrative member. The judicial members are retired High Court judges and administrative members are retired members of the Armed Forces who have held the rank of Major General/ equivalent or above for a period of three years or more.

It demands no great intelligence to conclude that the judicial member is appointed based on his experience and knowledge of law and functioning of the criminal justice system. The administrative member is selected based on his long and distinguished service in the military and knowledge in associated matters.

However, over the past year while members have retired at regular intervals on completion of the laid down tenures, new appointments have not been forthcoming with a result that presently, of the authorised 35 members for 17 Benches, there are a total of only seven judicial members and eight administrative members presently nominated to the AFT. This implies that the Armed Forces Tribunals is presently functioning at less than 40 per cent of its strength.

Another five members, including three administrative members, will retire by May 2019, which would make the Armed Forces Tribunals virtually non-functional, if new members are not appointed. For all intents and purposes, circumstances leading to the prevailing state of affairs cannot be attributed to the lack of suitably-qualified judges or service officers. But it clearly points towards a deliberate attempt by the appointing authority and the Ministry of Defence to nullify their effectiveness at the cost of servicemen and veterans alike.

It is a matter of public record that there have been numerous occasions on which the various Benches of the AFT have ruled against the stand of the Ministry, thereby causing much embarrassment and humiliation to the Ministry. As per reports in the media as on date, the Ministry of Defence has a total of over 7,000 appeals against judgements of the AFT pending in the Supreme Court.

Obviously, the Defence Secretary finds himself in an unenviable position and can hardly be happy with this state of affairs, especially given the fact that he is a member of the selection committee that appoints members to the Armed Forces Tribunals. This attempt to curtail the effectiveness of the AFT could, therefore, well be because of this, which makes it a clear case of conflict of interest. Incidentally, a petition is under consideration of the Punjab and Haryana High Court since 2012 on this very issue and the need to place the AFT under the Ministry of Law instead.

However, a more disturbing reason could be that the Government’s attempt to introduce new rules through the Finance Bill 2017 were stalled when it was stayed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of February 9, 2018, in the matter of Kudrat Sandhu versus the Union of India.

As per the new rules, the appointment of administrative members was to be no longer restricted to the military, but was also open to others with at least 20 years of public service in such fields as economics and finance. Clearly, expecting non-military members to be conversant with military traditions and customs, procedures and conditions of service was not only impracticable, to say the least, but also made no sense. Obviously, this was nothing but a brazen and unashamed attempt to add to the sinecures available for retiring bureaucrats, which given their bent of mind, would result in the Ministry of Defence getting things their way from their own erstwhile colleagues.

Whether the Armed Forces Tribunals has been brought to its knees by the deliberate actions of unconscionable bureaucrats or utter lack of empathy of politicians is of little concern. The truth is, by curtailing the effectiveness of the Armed Forces Tribunals, the Government is destroying the military justice system which is a disservice to serving and retired personnel. Moreover, it is denying them justice that is their due, given that they have no other legal recourse available.

The writer is a military veteran, a Consultant with the Observer Research Foundation and Visiting Senior Fellow with The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai. This article was published earlier in ‘The Pioneer’ on November 30, 2018.

December 2, 2018
Avoiding the Ideology trap: Learning from History

Deepak Sinha November 23, 2018: Commentary

Alexandre Dumas once wrote that “all generalizations are dangerous, even this one.” While there is much wisdom in his words, there are also circumstances when sweeping generalizations are not only unavoidable, but also simply reflect the truth. The widespread prevalence of social media and 24 x 7 news channels have empowered individuals by ensuring that not only is information, analysis and opinion available at the click of a button but also that his or her voice is heard, sometimes with telling effect, as the ongoing ‘#MeToo’ movement has shown, both in India and abroad. While empowerment of the individual is a positive development for our democracy, it has also upended governance structures, as it allows unelected individuals and groups to stall progress or any attempt to change the status quo.

Moreover, unprincipled and unaccountable elements have used such channels to spread vicious lies and propaganda that allows them to organize and indulge in bullying, intimidation and even violence to achieve their own nefarious ends. Political parties too have seen this as a useful tool to dominate the public narrative and occupy mind space. A perfect example is what we were witness to in Gujarat recently where large number of innocent labourers from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were threatened with violence and hounded out, ostensibly by a local politician, because of an alleged heinous criminal act on the part of one unidentified individual.

While what we saw in Gujarat was at the extreme end of the spectrum, and was clearly criminal in nature, a more insidious and harmful impact of social media is the constant attempt to question and vilify decision makers and leaders, without necessarily being fully aware of all the facts. Such criticism, apart from creating fissures and uncertainty within an organization, also tends to severely constrain leaders from taking initiatives that fall within their ambit and are necessary if progress is to be made.

Interestingly, one group who appear to be the torch bearers at the forefront of this “criticism tsunami”, if one can call it that, are military veterans. There are those among them who are extremely critical of the manner in which this government has treated the Armed Forces, with some justification one may add, and are appalled by the seeming subservience of the top brass. There are also those, in fairly substantial numbers, who tend to be extremely conservative in their outlook and view all issues through the prism of nationalism and, for all intents and purposes, are allied to the present governments’ ultra- nationalistic plank. Indeed, there are many among them who have taken the plunge into politics and are members of the BJP, with one former Chief reportedly having even joined the RSS. When you add to this the fact that our adversaries spare no effort at feeding misinformation aimed at polarizing the military community and civil society, there is little doubt that the military finds itself a veritable minefield of clashing ideologies and attitudes through which it has to tread exceedingly cautiously.

To be fair, much of the criticism against the Forces has been brought on by patently silly attempts of those at the helm to grab headlines and credit to inveigle themselves into the good books of the governing dispension, probably in the hope of post- retirement sinecures. This is not something new, though what differentiates it from earlier times is this governments’ ill-concealed and voracious appetite to take advantage of these officers to politicize much of what the military does in the hope of deriving advantage against its political opponents. Sadly, it has also got into the habit of appropriating military infrastructure for use by the public to win votes, without bothering about the impact of such a step on the military. For example, while military veterans are barred from using military hospitals except in some circumstances, and are therefore covered by the Ex Servicemen Health Scheme, the Government has recently permitted all those covered by CGHS to utilize facilities at Service Hospitals. With an additional 50 Crores personnel to be catered for where will all serving personnel and their dependents go?

The recent celebration of “Parakram Parv”, a three day commemoration of the cross-border punitive strikes in retaliation to the terror attack against the Uri military camp in which 17 soldiers were killed and scores injured, is another recent example. Without downplaying the significance of the cross-border strikes, probably a far more appropriate manner of honouring the forces, if the Prime Minister indeed genuinely appreciates their contribution, would have been for him to have taken the initiative to get back home the fifty four soldiers still held as Prisoners of War by Pakistan since the 1971 Indo-Pak War. Their continued incarceration, with no attempts by successive governments or civil society for their release, is a matter of national shame that reflects poorly on each and every one of us.

This brings us to the elephant in the room that must be seen for what it is. It is well known fact that our military’s exemplary record of remaining apolitical is what differentiates it from all other militaries in the region. Individual ideologies and beliefs just have no place in the military’s firmament and politicians of all persuasions have been kept at arms- length, though one must also admit that most political parties have reciprocated similarly and kept their distance from the military as well. Unfortunately, the unsubtle attempt by the current dispensation to foist its ideology amongst the military rank and file, attempting to use “deep selection” among the higher ranks and indirectly through the veteran community that is enamoured of its ultra – nationalistic agenda, and all that it implies, appears to be showing nascent signs of putting down roots. This is an extremely dangerous trend that needs to be dealt with ruthlessly if we are to maintain our military’s neutrality and inclusive character. It seems the time has now come for including a provision within the Service Rules for an appropriate “cooling off” period before any soldier can join either a political party or involve himself in politics. This is particularly so for those leaving in the higher ranks.

The unedifying manner in which this government has dealt with the Armed Forces over the past four years, whether it be in its dealings with veterans or its refusal to adhere to long standing norms, customs and traditions, has led to increasing antipathy among the rank and file that is clearly reflected in some of their actions that have embarrassed the senior hierarchy and the MOD and shown them in poor light. Seven hundred personnel individually petitioning the Supreme Court on their apprehensions of being victimized while deployed in operations, serving officers publicly criticizing policy directions issued by Army Headquarters on social media and the non-implementation of policy directions issued by the MOD, as has happened in nearly all military cantonments with regard to providing open access to the public, are examples that should be cause for worry. All of this has adversely affected morale, which can also be gauged from the most telling example of an officer having reportedly applied for premature retirement on grounds that his conditions of service have been violated by the down- gradation of the military. That his application was rejected is no cause for optimism.

The situation is hardly likely to improve given the reported fact that the government is once again attempting, surreptitiously and without appropriate consultation with the military leadership, to look for a method by which it can prevent the Cantonment Boards from taking back bungalows from their present owners on expiry of the 99 year lease period, as required vide the Cantonment Act 2006. One reported solution being considered is to replace the ex officio appointment of the Local Military Authority as President of the Cantonment Board by an elected representative to supposedly further its “democratization” A move that would be violative of the Cantonment Board Act, not that such statutory provisions have stopped it before, especially keeping in mind that some extremely influential people have obtained ownership of these leased bungalows.

Finally, it should be a matter of great concern that amongst a host of other issues, the Service Chiefs have also quietly acquiesced to the appointment of Mr. Doval, the National Security Advisor, as the de-facto Commander-in-Chief, despite lacking both the constitutional authority and the credentials to hold such an appointment. The irony cannot be missed given that the Services themselves seem reluctant to accept the appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff fearing loss of power.

By conceding their authority the Chiefs have placed the Services in a very tenuous position which can impact their professional standing and functioning in the future. They would do well to study the case of the German Armed Forces, the Reichswehr, formed post the First World War, as an apolitical and professional force. However it rapidly deteriorated after it was ideologically suborned and converted into the Wehrmacht, the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany. This happened largely in part due to the acquiescence of the High Command to orders that were wholly unconstitutional and undemocratic and partly due to the fierce loyalty of some to Nazi ideology. Our hierarchy must not let themselves be lulled into a state of complacency but hold firm on retaining customs and traditions that have allowed our military to occupy the preeminent position that it does in the hearts and minds of our citizens.

This article was published earlier in Times of India.

Brigadier Deepak Sinha is a Visiting Senior Fellow at TPF. The views expressed are his own.

November 23, 2018