Tag Archives: Congress

India Leaks

29 Sun Jan 2017

Posted by in India, Opinion and Response, South Asia

≈ Comments Off on India Leaks

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Earlier this month, the CIA made millions of its declassified documents available online. None of these files are new – the CIA Records Search Tool (CREST) has been available for over a decade now – but researchers and the wider public are now spared the trudge to College Park and can access the documents from the comforts of their own homes. Predictably, some of the information contained within has caused much consternation in foreign countries. For example, many Indians were shocked to realise that many of their political leaders during the Cold War provided information to foreign intelligence services.

Actually, this is nothing new. The CREST documents merely corroborate what several other sources have already told us for years. Academics who have accessed archives in the United States, Germany, Canada, and elsewhere can readily attest to discovering memoranda with sudden and out-of-place insight, references to meetings which produced useful information, and even minutes of meetings with loose-lipped Indian officials. For those unable to make a trip to College Park, Lichterfelde, or Wellington Street, there is enough material already available on the internet – the Foreign Relations of the United States series, for example, or the Documents on Canadian External Relations – that have been available for years.

Although academics have stayed away from dedicated research on intelligence gathering in India, several studies have mentioned rumours and documented instances of Indian officials passing information on to foreign parties. For instance, Christopher Andrew’s The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB And The Battle For The Third World briefly describes how Soviet intelligence received insights into the thinking of the Indian government from politicians belonging to the Indian National Congress and the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The KGB also sowed propaganda in Indian media to emphasise Moscow’s friendship and downplay Western assistance to India which was greater in volume if not always in the critical areas that India sought. Similarly, Maloy Krishna Dhar’s Open Secrets: India’s Intelligence Unveiled reveals that the Intelligence Bureau had identified four Union ministers and over a dozen members of parliament on the KGB’s payroll.

Delhi leaked like a sieve, of that there is no doubt. Indira Gandhi’s “foreign hand” paranoia has been the butt of many an eyeroll but it seems that the former prime minister was actually correct in her fears, even if expressed crassly. Of course, the delicious irony of all this is that foreign governments could not figure out what was going on in India, not because of the scarcity of information but because of its glut! In a discussion between US and Canadian officials in 1973 over rumours that India might conduct a nuclear test, the Americans tell their Canadian counterparts that they, too, had heard such gossip but so many times that it was difficult to attach any importance the reports anymore! The same is likely true in the Soviet Union and East Germany as well, whose knowledge of India was so deep that they were even aware of train timetables and harvests thanks to their friends in the CPI.

Although none of this is new, two things need to be pointed out. One, that it is not necessary that all informants knew that they were working for foreign intelligence agencies. Spies are not so indelicate as to just provide a business card and ask someone to betray their country. Requests could be as benign as addressing a small gathering or writing an article on a particular topic in an unheard of magazine. Agents, even diplomats, may play on an official’s desire to brag to – feign greater access, information, or importance – to impress his interlocutor. For example, Indian intelligence in the early 1970s received reports that Pakistan was worried about an imminent Indian nuclear test. Their source, it turns out, were loud-mouthed Indian diplomats at a United Nations conference on disarmament! Similarly, KR Narayanan’s November 1964 memo, when he was the director of the Ministry of External Affairs’ China division, urging the government to develop nuclear weapons in response to the Chinese nuclear test, was leaked by his own deputy to the United States. Payments can also take many forms – trips abroad, personal gifts, fellowships at universities and think tanks, college admissions, or contributions to the party fund.

Two, the Indian goverment has not acted on any of this information. The earliest and most substantial evidence from external sources probably came from the Mitrokhin Archives. However, these allegations were dismissed in the newspapers as Western propaganda. With more evidence from foreign archives, it seems only appropriate to launch a thorough investigation into the misconduct. Many of the leaks may no longer be alive but it is also very likely that some of them are still around and in senior positions in government or parliament. The lack of seriousness on the part of the Indian government is deeply unnerving.

The reemergence of these allegations upon the CREST database becoming available online and the nonchalance with which it has been received, except, perhaps, in certain circles on social media, is simply another indication that India is simply not serious about security. There may be an internal inquiry, certainly, but there has been no public reaction to the latest documents, nor has there been any public pressure. This lackadaisical attitude, whether it is in foreign policy, defence, or the cyber domain, does not bode well for the country.

This post appeared on FirstPost on January 30, 2017.

Remembering Khasa Subba Rau

01 Mon Sep 2014

Posted by in India, Society, South Asia

≈ Comments Off on Remembering Khasa Subba Rau

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Remembered today only by a few, Khasa Subba Rau was an inspiring figure from his era, a time already known for several such men and women. Although he played a small part in the freedom struggle too, Khasa earned his reputation for his bold journalism, ethical clarity, intellectual honesty, and the rare ability to speak truth to power.

Born in January 1896 into a Yajnavalkya brahmin household in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, Khasa graduated from Presidency College, Madras, with a degree in Philosophy. To this, he added certificates in law and teaching. It was at this time that Khasa was inspired by Mohandas Gandhi’s example and joined the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1921. One of the great influences in Khasa’s life was Tanguturi Prakasam, the future chief minister of Andhra Pradesh. Khasa joined Prakasam’s English daily, Swarajya, in 1924 and stayed with it until its closure twelve years later.

In 1930, Khasa took part in the salt satyagraha, and soon after, in 1932, he was severely beaten by the British while picketing a foreign clothes shop. Between 1936 and 1946, Khasa worked in several newspapers including the Indian Express but in February 1946, he started his own weekly magazine, Swatantra. The journal lasted for ten years during which it made a name for itself as a loud champion of public causes. When Swatantra had to shut down due to financial difficulties, Khasa started Swarajya in July 1956 with C Rajagopalachari’s blessings. He ran the weekly for three years, when owing to his age, he handed over the management to T Sadasivam and continued on as life editor. Khasa enjoyed writing his column, Sidelights, and continued to do so until his last day: he passed away on June 16, 1961 and his final column appeared on June 17, 1961.

Throughout his career, Khasa had a few clear principles. One was to never severely criticise someone he disliked or excessively praise anyone he liked; he feared that extraneous emotions may cloud his critical faculties. Another was to speak the truth as he saw it then, and politely. During his days at Swatantra, he had a sharp falling out with Rajagopalachari over the latter’s role in the dismissal of T Prakasam as chief minister of Madras State. When Rajaji asked to cancel his free copy of Swatantra, Khasa did so and wrote back in a letter quoting Rajaji himself, “to refrain from honest criticism…is a disservice to the cause. A fearless critic is a friend. A journal that prefers to flatter or be silent for safety’s sake is by no means a friend.”

Khasa was quite firm about editorial independence. Once, when he was working at the Indian Express, Khasa clashed with the press baron Ramnath Goenka over the former’s column. Khasa made it clear in no uncertain terms that editorial independence was of utmost importance in a newspaper. “If you are competent to supervise my work, you are competent to be the editor as well,” he told Goenka. Another incident occurred when Goenka tried to bring out a special edition of the Indian Express to celebrate the maharaja of Travancore’s birthday. Khasa threatened to resign rather than lower his newspaper to print “advertisement puff.”

Not even the prime minister of India was spared Khasa’s scrutiny. Jawaharlal Nehru and his party, the Congress, were regularly and thoroughly lambasted over corruption, nepotism, socialism, foreign policy, and authoritarianism in his column. A simple man charmed by Gandhian ideals, Khasa was aghast at how the Congress had “replaced rules with nepotism” and used its power not for the benefit of all but “for the advancement of its own adherents.” He did not hesitate to accuse the Congress of selfishness and communalism nor its leader authoritarian. When legal action was threatened against him by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Khasa replied in his usual sharp manner, “The threatened action is awaited.” No action was taken.

Despite being an ardent supporter of the Congress during the days of Gandhi, Khasa felt betrayed by the party’s Nehruvian ideology. As a result, he gravitated towards Rajaji’s Swatantra, advocating a balance of free market and welfare. Despite accusations of editorial partiality, Khasa remained firmly committed to the highest ideals of journalism. “The appeal of the Press should be always to the vast body of uncommitted readers,” he said, “and not to sectional coteries already converted to some rigid doctrine. To let down the uncommitted by propagating fixed partisan nostrums is to offend truth itself.” Not only was he not afraid to speak his mind but he was not afraid to change it when convinced of the error of his ways.

Throughout his life, Khasa embraced a Gandhian simplicity and remained a humble man despite his friends in high places. His unimpeachable ethics and keen mind marked an era of Indian journalism that has been seldom seen since.

This post first appeared on Swarajya on July 14, 2015.

Kaun Banega Pradhan Mantri?

21 Fri Dec 2012

Posted by in India, South Asia

≈ Comments Off on Kaun Banega Pradhan Mantri?

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Who Will Become the Prime Minister?

The recently concluded state elections in Gujarat, India, resulted in an unequivocal victory for the Bharatiya Janata Party and its incumbent chief minister, Narendra Modi. Despite the exuberance of his supporters, Modi and his party did not record a rampant victory and actually slid back by two seats compared to their tally of 117 out of 182 five years ago. While the maths of this is fairly inconsequential, anyone who observes Indian politics knows that nothing is inconsequential about Mr. Modi.

The success of the BJP leader in his state has propelled him to the front ranks of contenders for the most powerful job in the country. Yet success breeds many enemies, and Modi has certainly gained a shrill crowd for himself. As the next general elections come around the corner, many have questioned, particularly in the Western press, whether Modi can transform from a regional leader to a national one, or whether he might make a good chief minister but not an effective prime minister. It is certainly a healthy exercise to vet candidates for elected office and no doubt, it is debatable whether there are other candidates more able than Modi to become prime minister, but it is misleading at best to declare that the man from western India is not up to the challenge for the job in New Delhi.

Modi’s detractors have many salvos to fire against him, the first and most serious being his alleged role in the communal riots of 2002. It would be difficult, their argument runs, for the Government of India to be weighed down by suspicions about the role of its prime minister in a campaign of mass murder; India would find it difficult to function in the comity of nations when a dark cloud hangs over its leader. This logic is riddled with flaws – firstly, the judicial process so far does not bear out any grounds for such concern. Following the premeditated massacre of 58 Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya (including 25 women and 15 children) by Muslims, Gujarat was engulfed in riots which saw 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus killed. Modi’s detractors hold him responsible for the massacre, not only as the Chief Minister, but as an architect of the murder and mayhem. The details of this tragedy are beyond the scope of this article but suffice it to say that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court of India gave a clean chit to the Gujarat government, stating that they had done everything possible to prevent the riots and exonerated Modi personally of all charges.

Secondly, in the state elections concluded just a few days ago, Modi won eight of the twelve Muslim-dominated constituencies, puncturing the anti-Muslim image of Modi that his opponents had tried to spread. There can be no statute of limitations on mass murder, no matter how forgiving people are. Modi’s success, however, illustrates not only the willingness of Muslims to move on, but also that the chief minister is their choice for the future – not the sort of bet one makes on a threat.

Thirdly, if one is to disqualify Modi for the blood on his hands, the naive must be reminded that there is nary an Indian politician for whom this is not true. India has seen several bloodbaths over its nearly seven decades of independence, and the Gujarat riot is perhaps the most thoroughly prosecuted one, with more arrests and convictions being handed down than most other cases. One might also want to reflect on the as yet classified reports on the Saturn-Devouring-his-Son come to life Emergency of Indira Gandhi. To the outsider, these may seem old stories, but Indians have long memories to go with their even longer history. If one does not like to dwell in the past, might it then be fruitful to wonder about the Congress role in 2002? What a lay observer learns from all this is that while Modi is guilty by association, those same rules do not apply to any other candidate.

Modi is also painted as a Hindu chauvinist. Yet the image of a secular India that has been skillfully projected to the world is bogus – the reality is that the state does indeed interfere (unequally) in religious matters, funding pilgrimages and subsidising clergy. Hindu religious institutions have to contend with Hindu Religious Institutions acts of various states that do not apply to institutions of other faiths. The notorious Shah Bano constitutional amendment needs no mention, and for all the focus on saffronistas, no one has called to account Mulayam Singh Yadav’s scheme for reservations for Muslims and Mayawati’s Dalit promotions plan. In contradistinction, Modi’s rhetoric has repeatedly stressed development over caste and religion.

Moving on to economic objections, the critique of Modi is not to disqualify him as a prime ministerial candidate but to question his much publicised achievements. Leaving the economists to battle out the statistical details, some things are obvious to the layperson: rate of growth is also dependent on the base, and comparing Bihar to Gujarat is nonsensical; Gujarat has earned the confidence of business houses in India as well as internationally; Gujarat is one of the few states in India that has adequate power and is in fact exporting it to its neighbours; infrastructure in the state has improved significantly, and corruption has dropped too. There is still much work to be done, but Modi has brought a vibrancy and optimism to Gujarat that was not seen before. In just ten years, he has cut through the overgrowth of decades of state planning. Such a governance record is an extremely rare commodity among Indian politicians, and even rarer for it to be actually rewarded by the electorate.

Most importantly, Modi’s detractors argue, the prime minister is India’s first representative to the world. A figure whose reputation has been stained by accusations of mass murder can hardly maintain India’s stature in the international community; India will be hard-pressed to defend its secular credentials and have little soft power to speak of. Furthermore, it is not clear how the US visa row might resolve itself. Closer to home, relations with Muslim states stand to suffer as well, they argue.

These objections are laughable – the only people for whom the sun rises and sets with Modi are his supporters and opponents in India. For everyone else, a state’s stature in the world will be governed more by its economy, its military, and the law and order it can maintain than by the image of one man. International relations are based on interests, not false piety, and the US rapprochement with Mao Zedong’s China, its repeated proclamation that Pakistan is its closest non-NATO ally, and its canoodling with several unsavoury dictators over the years should eliminate any doubt as to where the US or most other countries would stand. Finally, the Muslim states bogey: though they will act as all other states – in their national interest – one must ask what the non-recognition of Israel has gained for India all these years…Saudi underwriting of Pakistan’s nuclear programme? What has decades of non-Modi/BJP rule achieved for India from across the border other than terrorism?

Modi may or may not turn out to be a good prime minister eventually, but there is no reason to doubt his credentials so far. If anybody expects him to be a Napoleon, Rockefeller, and Mother Theresa in one, well, let me disappoint you right now. The criteria for prime ministership is simple – the unrelenting pursuit of the national interest. Modi has shown his business acumen, administrative talent, political skill, and personal integrity in Gujarat, and has produced infinitely superior results than any candidate other parties might field. That one does not wish him to become India’s next prime minister does not mean that Modi is unsuitable for the job.