An Editor explains ‘Arnab Goswami’ to an NRI

An Editor explains ‘Arnab Goswami’ to an NRI

19 November 2013

***

For most TV news consumers,Arnab Goswami is both a name and a phenomenon. But there are still large parts of the world to be conquered by Times Now‘s bulldog of an inquisitor.

B.V. Rao, editor of Governance Now, explains the name and the phenomenon to a childhood friend who lives in Canada.

***

Dear Sharada

Sometime ago during a Googlegroup discussion you innocently asked: “But who is Arnab?”.

In India not knowing Arnab is against national interest. You are lucky you live in Canada. But if you don’t want to be deported on arrival on your next visit, you better pay attention to this complimentary crash course on the subject.

Arnab, as in Arnab Goswami, is India’s most-watched prime time news anchor and editor-in-chief ofTimes Now*. But designations don’t even begin to describe him or what he is famous for.

You must have heard about hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. Arnab is also a storm, a news-storm that hits India every night via his show, the “Newshour”. Nobody is quite sure how, but somehow Arnab gets to know the questions that the “whole nation” wants answers for, or the sinners the nation wants hanged before midnight that night.

In effect then, Arnab speaks for a “billion-plus people” each time he takes centre-stage.

I can’t say for sure if he took this burden upon himself voluntarily or if his employers made it a contractual obligation. Whatever it is, the fact is that Arnab has come to relish asking the most “simple and direct” questions to the most dubious people demanding instant answers to complex problems because the “nation wants to know” and it wants to know “tonight” as in right now.

That’s how impatient India has become while you’ve been away, Sharada.

***

The Newshour airs on weekdays from 9 pm and continues till Arnab’s pleasure lasts. Often the show stretches up to 10.50 pm. That’s actually “News hour-and-three-quarters-and-then-some” but I guess Arnab has not asked himself a “simple, direct” question: how many minutes make an hour?

That, or his primary school maths teacher is not his viewer. In which case it is safe to say Arnab speaks for a billion-plus minus one Indians.

You will see that at the altar of national interest it is not just the hour that is stretched.

About two decades ago, Dileep Padgaonkar was the editor of theTimes of India owned by the Jains of Bennett & Coleman who also own Times Now. Padgaonkar had pompously proclaimed that he held the second most important job in the country after the prime minister’s.

Arnab hasn’t said it, but I think he disagrees with Padgaonkar on the pecking order:  it’s now the prime minister who holds the second most important job in the country.

Hence Arnab runs the show like he would run the country or like the prime minister should but doesn’t.

You see, Sharada, there’s an awful lot of stuff the nation wants to know by nightfall but our prime minister isn’t much of a talker. Arnab fills the need gap. He opens his show with a passionate agenda-setting preamble that spells out all the problems of the day and how he wishes to solve them. We gratefully receive this wisdom and call it Arnab’s Address to the Nation, a prime ministerial duty that has fallen on his broad shoulders because the real guy has abdicated it.

***

Let me tell you this, however. Arnab is a very reluctant power-grabber. It is not his intent to upstage the prime minister or make him look silly.

He gives the prime minister an entire day to prove his worth and gets to work only at 9 pm when it is clear that the latter can’t handle stuff.

He then solves all outstanding national issues of the day in just one 110 minute-hour of feverish debates where he grills the skin off the back of everybody who dares to stand in the way of India’s national interest.

He is unrelenting in his pursuit of the truth and doesn’t give up unless everybody has agreed with him.

“I am worried”, “I am concerned”, “I won’t let you politicise”, “I don’t agree”, “you can’t get away….” are some of the phrases he uses to suggest he is in complete control and that endears him to a nation starved of decision-makers.

Arnab hates home work. He wants to settle everything here and now, tonight. As a result, in Arnab country, there is no trace of the policy paralysis that has grounded the prime minister in the real country. Here you get resolutions, decisions, orders, diktats, judgements, justice and denouements all in one place, one show, by one man.

***

The only people paralysed are the subjects of his grilling and the bevy of experts he gathers around himself, not because he needs them, he doesn’t, but because it must feel awfully good to invite experts and out-talk them on national prime time.

Like confused baboons trapped in little boxes, the experts, who are neatly arranged around Arnab’s own imposing self in the centre of the screen, keep staring into nothingness most of the time.

Yes, you get the drift, Sharada, Arnab is the main dish here. The rest are just intellectual dips.

For most of their airtime the experts keep putting up their hands or calling out “Arnab….Arnab….” to indicate they want to make a point. Arnab is too engrossed in disagreeing with what he has not allowed them to say to care too much.

Some clever guests try to appeal to his Assamese roots by hailing “Ornob…Ornob”. He ignores them as well.

Nationalism, after all, is above parochialism. The cleverer among them have cracked the code: they just agree with Arnab in exchange for a little extra air time. These are usually the people who have paid close attention to Arnab’s Address to the Nation and picked up the right cues on what to say that will get them his benefaction.

It is tough to figure out why Arnab needs any experts at all because he knows the answers to all his questions. Times Now insiders say that more often than not he finds questions to the answers he already has. On his show, politicians can’t politicise, bureaucrats can’t beat around the bush, sportspersons can’t play games and lawyers can’t use legalese.

In fact anybody who is good at something can’t do what they are known to do, to the extent that even civil society can’t be civil, especially if it wants to get a word in sideways. Everybody has to be direct, honest, blunt and keep things simple because that is what the (one-man) nation wants.

***

Corruption, political expediency, opportunism, forked tongues, doublespeak, dishonesty and hypocrisy, are red rags to Arnab. He takes them head-on with the help of his reporters who keep throwing up “documentary” evidence ever so often to expose scamsters.

Usually this is a thick sheaf of indistinguishable papers that Arnab holds up threateningly. It could be a bunch of used airline e-tickets for all we know, but since we don’t, he waves the sheaf confidently in the face of the enemies of the nation and it is generally assumed he’s got some incendiary stuff in there.

Arnab’s problem-solving repertoire is not restricted to national boundaries. In fact, he is at his best when dealing with nations that have evil designs on India. The patriot in Arnab is best aroused when he is dealing with that evil, failed, rogue nation called Pakistan.

He deals with Pakistan like no prime minister has ever been able to or decimates it like no Army has ever managed to. Each time a blade of grass bends to the breeze on the LoC, Arnab breathes fire at Pakistan for trying to sneak in terrorists into the country. He lines up a battery of serving and retired generals of Pakistan and conducts the verbal equivalent of a summary execution.

Yet, the same generals keep resurfacing on Arnab’s show each time he feels the urge to have a Pakistani or two for dinner. This causes much wonderment amongNewshour hounds on the masochist streak that makes the Pakistani generals offer themselves up as bait repeatedly.

So, it is assumed the money must be good. But since Arnab insists that Pakistan is the way it is only because the generals have sold their country cheap, it is unlikely he is blowing his budget for this routine cross-border target practice. Of course, left to Arnab Pakistan would have existed only as the largest crater on earth since the meteors wiped out all life on the planet. Yes, he would have nuked it many times over by now.

The Times of India, the country’s oldest English newspaper and the mother brand from the Times Nowstable runs Aman Ki Aasha (Hope for Peace), the widely-acclaimed campaign for ending India-Pakistan hostilities.

Just as Arnab doesn’t seem to know of this campaign, the Times of Indiaseems quite oblivious of the fact that the last time there was absolute peace on the LoC was when Arnab took a two-week holiday in early September. It could be the marketing genius of the Times group to milk the issue from both ends or it could also be that their internal boundaries are not as porous as our LoC.

Apart from conducting war exercises against Pakistan, Arnab land is eyeball-to-eyeball with China, exposes the double standards of America in almost anything it does and highlights the hypocrisy of racist Australia which loves the education dollars from India but not the brown students who come along with.

His blood boils so much when an old Sikh is roughed up by a bunch of racist women in the UK that he almost gets the whole of Punjab to rise in revolt against the Indian government’s inaction–even though there is nothing it can do as the gentleman is a citizen of the said country–or builds a tide of emotional revulsion against “inhuman” Norway for snatching an infant from his Indian mother’s custody for alleged physical abuse.

I can go on and on, Sharada, but everything good must come to an end and so must my Arnab eulogy.

***

So, in short and in conclusion, here’s what I have to say: Arnab is not just the editor-in-chief of Times Now. He’s India’s protector-in-chief. He is the guy who is keeping India safe while you are away on selfish pursuits. You are lucky you can get away by not knowing him.

For a billion-plus Indians,minus of course his maths teacher, that is not even a distant option. Because, truth told, Arnab is the best we have got!

B.V. Rao

Why is the FinMin hiding taxpayer data from us?

http://www.firstpost.com/business/why-is-the-finmin-hiding-taxpayer-data-from-us-1229035.html

Why is the FinMin hiding taxpayer data from us?                                    Nov 14, 2013

By R Vaidyanathan

Our Finance Minister told us in his last budget speech that there were only 42,800 people assessed to tax for incomes of more than Rs 1 crore. This is out of 3.1 crore assesses. There was a hue and cry and many observers commented about the need to increase tax coverage. However, what is equally interesting is the fact that the ministry actually ends up hiding this data from the public.

Till 2000, we used to get category-wise details from the All India Income Tax Statistics (AIITS). This publication has been discontinued. In other words, the finance ministry has become shy of providing details of tax assessed, etc. But let's see what the 2000 numbers tell us. (Click to see Table 1)

Apparently, in 2000 there were no salaried persons in the country with incomes of more than Rs 1 crore annually. In all, there were around 250 persons with salaries above Rs 25 lakh. In the case of the self-employed, the number was around 900, with none in the Rs 50-100 lakh category.

] P Chidambaram. PTI

Does this mean there were so few film stars, cricketers, chartered accountants, company directors, or top managers - that is, salaried and non-salaried persons - in 2000 earning in the Rs 25-100 lakh range? These folks must have been in some financial distress, enough to float relief funds for them, given that they ought to have been among the richest Indians outside business owners even then.

In Table 2, we have provided the number of returns filed by some categories of services as published by the IT department in 1998. The numbers speak volumes about the coverage and also the nature of underlying collections. The whole country, it seems, had only 10,539 utensil shops and 5,477 furniture shops in taxable categories in 1998. These details are now being hidden for reasons unknown. Instead of details, what we get now is aggregated numbers, and that too is based on questions asked by some members of Parliament.

In Table 3, we have provided the information available from the IT department about assessees in different categories. It reveals that there were 3.1 crore assesses in 2010-11 and it does not tell us the amount of tax collected from different categories.

Another important aspect is the tax exemption on dividend incomes. There are owner shareholders who may be getting more than Rs 100 crore as dividends annually by virtue of their holdings. We do not know how much dividend was distributed and how much rich individuals benefited.

For instance, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) says that 3,041 selected public limited companies paid out Rs 50,145 crore in dividends in 2010-11. In another 1,741 private limited companies, Rs 1,423 crore was paid as dividends. This implies that at least Rs 51,500 crore was not taxed by government at the 30 percent rate applicable to individuals in the top brackets - a saving of Rs 17,000 crore in taxes. Of course, financial wizards and accountants will argue that companies are paying dividend distribution tax, but this tax is levied at half the rate paid by the top bracket.

We need to know the details in order to understand who benefits most from having a dividend distribution tax instead of taxing dividends in the hands of individuals. We need to know the number of beneficiaries in various categories - from big shareholders to ordinary shareholders and salary-earners who may just own a few shares.

Such details are not published by the IT department anymore since it reveals the nature and extent of people covered by taxation.  One strategy the government adapts to cover its inadequacies is to stop publishing details. This enables it to stop answering difficult questions. Hence we get a news item which tells us that “the recovery of tax arrears of about Rs 91,000 crore from stud farm owner Hassan Ali Khan is not possible”. The finance ministry informed a parliamentary panel thus: “In Hassan Ali Group, the recovery is not possible though all known immovable and movable assets belonging to the group have been attached.”

Is this any way to write off a sum equivalent to nearly 1 percent of GDP without adequate disclosure to the public at large?

The finance ministry should look at some of the websites of the income tax authorities in developed economies. They offer copious details and significant amount of insights.

Like the RBI, the income-tax department should bring out monthly bulletins as well as annual reports providing insights into the nature of our direct tax segments and the challenges faced. Otherwise it will only be perceived as a corrupt and non-transparent government department.

In the context of the computerisation of the IT department, there is all the more reason to revive the compilation of the All India Income Tax Statistics to make it bigger and larger in terms of information dissemination. An ostrich-like attitude is not of much use beyond confirming to the general public that the emperor has no clothes.

(The author is a professor at IIM Bangalore. These views are personal)

_______________________________________

R.VAIDYANATHAN                                                         

PROFESSOR OF FINANCE                                             

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT  

BANNERGHATTA ROAD

BANGALORE

INDIA_560076

TEL: 91-80-2699-3086

FAX:91-80-2658-4050

E mail:vaidya@iimb.ernet.in

http://www.niticentral.com/2013/11/14/why-is-india-hosting-cia-and-taliban-157566.html

Why is India hosting CIA and Taliban?

Sandhya Jain

14 Nov 2013

By facilitating a meeting between America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Afghan Taliban in Goa, the UPA Government seems to have unilaterally compromised India’s strategic interests in Kabul and its friendly relations with Tehran, besides ‘forgiving’ the Taliban for its dubious role during the hijack of Indian Airlines aircraft IC-814 by Pakistani terrorists in 1999.Although an obliging media has maintained discreet silence on the issue, the episode would be known to all major world capitals, particularly as Sartaj Aziz, advisor to Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, was in New Delhi at the same time, meeting separatist leaders from Jammu & Kashmir.

As Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram (also a former Home Minister) was present at the same Tehelka-sponsored event in Goa, it is inconceivable that all these events were not closely coordinated and connected. The development is bound to have a grim fallout for India, as Pakistan is a close ally of the Taliban, which is detested by Iran, and has traditionally been distrusted by India. Indeed, this is the reason why the Hamid Karzai regime allowed New Delhi to have a presence in Afghanistan and participate in its reconstruction, and undertake humanitarian activities among civilian victims of landmines, and so on.

India has also been assisting the Afghan Government by training its Army and Police for the post-US withdrawal era, and all this is likely to be compromised as the neighbourhood begins to see India as an increasingly unreliable friend. Both Kathmandu and Colombo already view New Delhi with dismay. The Taliban co-founder Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef was ostensibly given a visa after clearance by the intelligence agencies but without the knowledge of either the Union Home Ministry or External Affairs Ministry. He was sitting in the same hall when P Chidambaram addressed a session of Tehelka’s THiNK 2013. Thereafter, Mullah Zaeef had an open dialogue (November 9) with Robert Grenier, former director of the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Centre and one of the key actors in its anti-Taliban policy after September 11, 2001.

It is inconceivable that the two men, and possibly other members of the US embassy in India, did not have wide-ranging discussions on a range of issues. It is baffling why India hosted this gathering, and if the Opposition BJP was in the loop. It bears stating, however, that throughout his public interaction in India, Mullah Zaeef did not apologise or even express regret at Harkat-ul-Mujahideen’s hijacking of an Indian Airlines Airbus from Kathmandu’s Tribhuvan International Airport on Christmas eve, 1999, and bringing it to Kandahar, then under the thumb of the Taliban.

One passenger, Rupin Katyal, was fatally stabbed. That, and the positioning of well-armed Taliban fighters near the aircraft to prevent Indian special forces from storming the plane, forced the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government to release three dreaded terrorists – Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar (active in training terrorists in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir), Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh responsible for the kidnapping and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl), and Maulana Masood Azhar (founder of Jaish-e-Mohammed which is allegedly behind the attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001) – to secure the safe passage of the 176 passengers and crew.

Now, New Delhi has permitted this key Taliban leader and close confidant of its chief Mullah Mohammed Omar, to avail of Indian hospitality to strike a deal with the United States, which is desperate for a deal with the Taliban to cover its retreat from that country in 2014, as 12 years of warfare have ended in abject failure. Mullah Zaeef fled to Pakistan after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and returned as a jihadi in 1983. It goes without saying that he was among the mujahideen trained and armed by Pakistani President General Zia ul Haq with American arms and funds.

After the Soviet withdrawal, he helped found the Taliban in 1994. As a Minister, he negotiated with foreign oil companies and with the Afghan resistance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud. In an hour long ‘dialogue’ mediated by journalist Shoma Choudhary (it was actually three parallel speeches to the audience), Zaeef spoke about the post-Soviet exit and America’s demand that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden for bombings in Tanzania and East Africa. 

Osama, he reminded the audience, was ‘inherited’ by the Taliban as he was already in the country when they came to power. So Taliban asked Washington to furnish evidence of his role in the alleged crimes, further to which he would be tried under the Sharia; alternately, they were willing to send him to another Islamic country, or even to The Hague, but Washington was adamant that he be handed over to them. Under Pashtun culture, Zaeef said, it was difficult to abandon Osama completely. Richard Grenier, however, defended American intransigence, pointing out that the choices for America became ‘very limited after 9/11′; that the Taliban were untrustworthy and hence compromise was not possible.

Interestingly, Zaeef revealed that as envoy in Islamabad, he learnt one month before 9/11, from the American ambassador there, that a major event was being planned on American soil, from Afghan soil. He conveyed this to his bosses, but they categorically said that Taliban was not planning anything and would not permit any hostile activity from its soil. But when 9/11 happened, President Bush immediately blamed Osama bin Laden, but denied evidence of his involvement. 

When the Taliban finally asked Osama to leave their country, America insisted that it wanted to search the country for other reasons; Zaeef himself wrote directly to George Bush, but the rest is history… It was America that created Osama in the first place, he said, adding that Osama was a “minor player” in the anti-Soviet jihad, but “took it several steps from there”.

Zaeef told the audience that Bruce Riedel, US security and counter terrorism expert, was also supposed to come to Goa. This suggests that New Delhi under the UPA has, for the first time since the Cold War, taken a blatantly pro-American position vis-à-vis the US attempt to tailor the politics of South Asia to its current thinking (whatever that may be, and whatever measure of success it may ultimately enjoy). If this assessment is correct, this is treacherous ground, and calls for greater national transparency and debate. Foreign policy impinges on national security, even territorial integrity, and cannot be conducted covertly.

Richard Grenier tried to defend American policy, but mostly fudged issues as he had quit the CIA on account of his opposition to drone warfare. He said Taliban made Afghanistan a safe haven for terrorists, and that Washington made counter terror and counter insurgency a tool of war, with ‘signature strikes’ in populated areas, which did not go down well with the people due to the huge cost to non-combatants. Drones had worked well in Pakistan when focussed on individuals about whom there was clear evidence that they presented a danger to society; in Afghanistan it was a different story.

America, Zaeef said, had brought the form of democracy to Afghanistan, but this democracy never reflected the will of the people. Now, the American exit will increase political instability; already people are sending capital out of the country; this will impact employment and make for a dim future. A major American legacy, which also happened after the Soviet Union left, was the creation of militias; these are going to create problems for the successor regime.

Zaeef recalled that when Hamid Karzai took over, he declared an amnesty for Taliban and told the leadership to go unmolested to their homes and be secure. But within a week, America began a policy of buying Taliban for $5000 each, and that is how he and many others ended up in Guantanamo (they were sold by Pakistan). The Taliban were forced to flee Afghanistan and go to Pakistan, which did further damage. The ‘big game’ of politics and economics “continues in our country and people cannot understand the conspiracy….”

Grenier agreed that after 12 years of war, America’s arrogant belief that Afghanistan was too important to be left to the Afghans had failed. Post-2014, it was up to the Afghans to work things out for themselves, and one problem was that the Taliban “don’t want to engage to other political actors in the country”. He feared a collapse to civil war as the Taliban are not in complete command all over country; hence safe havens for terrorists could continue. All in all, a bleak situation.

On November 10, an unscheduled session was organised for Mullah Zaeef to satisfy the audience on the issue of women’s education, rights, and public role. A skilled orator, he stuck doggedly to his talking points, viz, the Taliban priority on coming to power last time was to disarm the militias, unite the nation, and install a national Government to take care of national security. Women’s rights, he seemed to suggest, fell way behind these priorities; he artfully dodged the bombing of schools and other atrocities.

Neither his hosts asked him about the Taliban role in 1999, and he did not seize any of the ample moments available to explain, much less apologise, for the tragedy of IC-814, and the subsequent actions of the men released to save the lives of the passengers. 

But the Indian Government owes the nation an explanation, and all political parties need to make their position clear on the multiple issues thrown up by this unexpected guest.

Maoists Through the Prism of their Victims

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/maoists-through-the-prism-of-their-victims/

Maoists Through the Prism of their Victims

Lt Gen Baljit Singh

13 Nov , 2013

What can be surmised from an understanding of the history of warfare in general is that in any form of armed conflict, collateral damage (loss of limb and life) to the populace at large as also of life-sustaining infrastructure are simply, unavoidable. And in the context of present times, what are termed as “Human Rights violations”, are also inevitable once cordon-and-search tactics have to be enforced during accomplishment of the National Internal Policy imperatives. 

Localized insurgency or Low Intensity Warfare (LIW) which metamorphosed mostly in the developing/ under-developed Nation States in the post WW II era is nothing but an evolution in warfare necessitated by the horrors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

However, there were two notable exceptions when peripheral damage during LIW was assiduously managed to negligible levels, namely during the counter insurgency operations in Malaya, post WW II (conducted by General Sir G Templar) and in Mizoram in the mid 1960s (conducted by the then Lieutenant General S F J Manekshaw, MC); as a matter of fact in Mizoram, this aberration was the lowest ever, any where in the world! In both cases the common, favorable factors in minimizing damage were the willing cooperation of the populace and enthusiastic participation by the local civil service administrators with the Armed Forces.

In the back-drop of the above, commonly understood LIW postulates, it is baffling that both the print and visual media as also the civil “rights” activists should remain focused on collateral damage to the exclusion of the unrelenting intent of the insurgents to pose a challenge to the State. 

Far worse is the trend to under score the fact that Maoists have failed to articulate any convincing ideology as an alternative to the Constitutional dispensation, in place. No one may be faulted for concluding that the basic tenet of the Maoists for ushering a modicum of economic parity between the Lower- Classes with the fringe of the Middle-Classes is simply by robbing Paul to pay Peter. 

Nothing illustrates this modus operandie better than three, true stories from the Red-Corridor where honest, a-political, distinguished and law-abiding citizens of India were subjected to down-right banditry by the Maoists, in the period 1986-2007.

The first notable victim was the Air Chief Marshal D A La Fontaine, PVSM, VM, AVSM, who on superannuation chose to make a home in a country-bungalow, in District Medak (Andhra Pradesh) off the National Highway connecting Nizamabad to Secunderabad. A few months later, the Air Chief needed to renew the arms licence of one pistol. In deference to his past status, the District Magistrate issued instructions and the renewed document was graciously handed to the Air Chief within the hour.  

About a month later, as he sat under the shade of a tree in his garden one mid-morning, eight motor-cycle borne youth, masked and armed with country-made pistols, rode in.

Once surrounded and entry-exit blocked, one of the intruders handed a chit to the Air Chief bearing the particulars of the pistol which had been produced for renewal of the license (!) and demanded that it should be made over to them with-out fuss. Should the “Sahib” delayed or attempted to raise an alarm, they will shoot-to-kill. The Chief weighed all options and acted with wisdom.

The DSP called on the following day with assurances, on behalf of the State administration, of prompt action and security cover, till the culprits were apprehended.  Not withstanding the good intent of the administration, the script was replayed from start to finish, till about two years later the Chief was dispossessed of his three weapons! Need the Maoists shop for weapons of their trade in Bangladesh or farther East when they have ready access to a flawless inventory of weapons and their owners, in each district Headquarter of the country?!  Let us put our house in order as else the foundation may collapse any moment.  The Arms licence issue/renewal documents must be handled with greater circumspection by few “must-know” officers, only.

Now Vikram Pramar and his wife would fit the category of the “unknown” Indian or the “Aam Aadmi”.  He was the scion of a feudal Jagirdar (Raja of Barwadhi), had his schooling at The Doon School, Dehra Dun and post-graduated in architecture from a University in Germany.  He rose to head the Department of Architecture at the Baroda University while his German wife (Hanney) reared their only child.  His father had willed to him, a two bed-room cottage with about seven acres of Saal forest as the compound, nearly 70 km from Ranchi (Jharkhand).

By 1994, their daughter had settled in the USA and the Pramars were fully assimilated with the Chota-Nagpur culture.  Hanney’s speech could mistake her for a local but for her skin-color.  They were Gandhians in out-look but Vikram kept an air-rifle and a .22 bore rifle to guard his poultry-pen against wild cats and Jackals.  And one handy .22 bore pistol for personal safety during their monthly shopping trip to Ranchi.

Having closed their Kangaroo court, the Maoists one day sent for Vikram.  He was laid up with malaria, so Hanney with misplaced trust in the locals, tramped off with their tribal maid to face the “Friday Meeting”.  Hanney was promptly taken hostage and instructed to send a note to Vikram to deliver the three weapons in ransom. Hanney returned home some eighty hours later; physically unharmed, well cared in captivity but emotionally unhinged by the ordeal.  The Maoists now found it convenient to stop-over almost once a week at the Pramars cottage for “refreshments”. Unnerved, the couple sold their property to the first offer (a timber contractor, of necessity a benefactor of the Maoists), and moved to a rented house in Ranchi where the concrete-jungle simply killed Vikram’s spirit to live. Hanney, left all by herself, shifted to and lives on in an old-age Home at Bangalore. 

So much for those who romanticize the Maoists.

It is the avowed policy of the Maoists that they would augment their armories by riding the citizens of their weapons from all mofussil districts in the Red Corridor. Ever since the infamous emergency of the 1970s, it has become a practice to have all personal weapons of citizens deposited in the Police Thanas, a week preceding every election (Panchayat, State, Lok Sabha et al). All SHOs of Thanas who value their lives are obliged to present a copy of the weapons inventory to the Maoists and in some cases even facilitate a raid by them at the opportune time, on the Thana armory itself !

The last episode is the ten year period in the life of a retired, three-star General who wishes to retain anonymity.  He and his wife frequented National Parks and Tiger Reserves, anytime they could snatch a few days leave.  On one such occasion, a few years before retirement, they chanced to meet an ageing, Anglo-Indian widow who sold her cottage located in a tract of thick Saal jungle, full of wildlife and elephant herds on yearly migration. A few years hence, that tract of forest unfortunately fell in the heartland of the Maoist “Liberated zone”.

Even though the couple were respected and “worshiped” by the Adivasis but the Maoists were not prepared to have them on their turf. Unluckily for the General, he once stepped into a trap during his morning walk.  He was frisked, blind-folded and led to their Zonal Commander who demanded weapons as ransom. Putting a brave front and ignoring threats, the General maintained that they have no weapons.  In due course, heads of six surrounding villages were summoned but they unanimously and bravely asserted that their “sahib has no weapons and in fact is fighting a court-case against the shooting of two  Peacocks (National Bird) by a poacher to which we have testified in the court.”One among the Maoists when interrogating the General tended to instinctively stiffen his posture as a soldier would talking to an officer and may be the Maoists have persuaded the released army Jawans, to join their ranks.

The General won a temporary reprieve but what was once a haven of peace and tranquility suddenly became an area of darkness and despair. For a start, the near-by telephone transmission tower was blown and the BSNL prevented from re-commissioning it. Though located in the shadow of a thermal power plant, yet electric supply to the locality was totally prevented. The single, daily bus to the District Headquarters Township was discontinued and all road connections to urban centers fell in disrepair.  

After a decade long struggle through alternative technologies, to sustain their basic living comforts, the couple accepted defeat, left almost all their life’s possessions to a care-taker and returned to their ancestral inheritance in Punjab, to make a fresh start in life.  Showing the stack of photographs of the cottage, the compound and the countryside brought a lump to the couple’s throats.

Those well meaning citizens/NGOs who lobby for the Maoists are welcome to personally ascertain the veracity of the above narrative. 

But make no mistake, the Maoists were and are marauding bandits who have created easy and regular access to adequate cash, basic weapons and explosives from within the country to sustain their anarchy.  

Let us not look for alibis but acknowledge the ground reality and only then, can we defeat them.

Sardar Patel had vision to address needs of border States

Claude Arpi

05 Nov 2013

It was raining and cold outside. I was sitting with my local hosts around a smokeless chula installed in the centre of the main room of their house.

I was in Menchuka, the remotest large village before the McMahon Line dividing India and China, in West Siang district of Arunachal Pradesh.

After watching some cricket match between India and Australia (I don’t understand anything of cricket), my hosts from the Adi community (one of the 25 main tribes of Arunachal Pradesh) switched their satellite TV to a news channel.

The Indian Prime Minister was seen with the Chief Minister of Gujarat inaugurating a large statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. When I asked if they were following Indian politics, my friends replied, “Of course! We Arunachalis are the most patriotic people of the country, though the leadership in Delhi seems ignorant about this simple truth.” 

It is true that a few minutes earlier, they had been frantically supporting the Blue Team against the Aussies.

They were now amazed by the size of the statue and kept repeating, “We need a strong leader to rule India”. Though not particularly enamoured of the BJP, they believed Narendra Modi could be the ‘next Iron Man’ to protect them.

When I asked why they thought so, they said only an ‘Iron Man’ could bring roads and development to the border areas.

Menchuka, located some 50 km from the LAC (McMahon Line) witnessed the ‘visit’ of the Chinese 51 years ago. Some old people still remember their stay for nearly one month in November 1962. I was told, “The Chinese soldiers were not aggressive; they just told us: ‘You are Chinese like us, we will never harm you; you don’t have long noses like the Indians, your eyes and skins are similar to ours’.”Today Beijing still calls the area ‘Southern Tibet’.

It is a fact that while in Menchuka, the PLA did not take food or disturb the local tribal Adis or Membas. Despite this, the local population has remained loyal to India. Unfortunately, Delhi does not often acknowledge this.

The declaration of Narendra Modi — “Every Indian regrets Sardar Patel did not become the first Prime Minister. Had he been the first Prime Minister, the country’s fate and face would have been completely different” – rang true in this remote administrative Circle of Arunachal Pradesh (it takes nine hours by car to reach Menchuka from Along, the district headquarters).

Warming up around the chula, the famous letter sent Sardar to Jawaharlal Nehru, five weeks before the Deputy Prime Minister prematurely passed away, was constantly present in my mind.

[http://www.friendsoftibet.org/main/sardar.html]

For the people of the border areas, it would have indeed been different if Gandhi had not interfered in the democratic process (Patel had been elected to lead the interim Government in 1946, but Gandhi preferred ‘the Haddows Boy’) and if Patel had become Prime Minister.

On November 7, 1950, a month after Tibet was invaded, Patel told Nehru: “I have tried to peruse this correspondence [between KM Panikkar and the Communist Government in Beijing] as favourably to our Ambassador and the Chinese Government as possible, but I regret to say that neither of them comes out well as a result of this study.”

The ‘Iron Man’ added: “The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intention. My own feeling is that at a crucial period they manage to instil into our Ambassador a false sense of confidence in their so called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful means. …the action of the Chinese, in my judgment, is little short of perfidy.”

Patel’s conclusion was: “From the latest position, it appears that we shall be not be able to rescue the Dalai Lama.” It was already too late.

Panikkar was not only “at great pain to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions,” but Nehru did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge Patel’s letter which suggested to review:

» A Military and Intelligence appreciation of the Chinese threat to India both on the frontier and internal security.

» An examination of military position and such redisposition of our forces as might be necessary…

» An appraisement of strength of our forces … A long-term consideration of our defense needs.

» The question of Chinese entry into UNO.

» The political and administrative steps which we should take to strengthen our Northern and North-Eastern frontier.

» Improvement of our communication, road, rail, air and wireless in these areas and with the frontier outposts.

It is tragic that 63 years later, there is still no road for the last 37 km between the McMahon Line and Menchuka (though I was told the construction may start soon). The situation is much worse in the adjoining sub-division of Menigong. From Tato, another sub-divisional headquarters to Menigong, it takes some 7 to 8 hours to cover 67 km, and then, there is no road going onward to the border.

Ironically, during my visit to Menchuka, the Chinese announced the opening of a highway linking Metok, “The last roadless county in China” with neighboring Bomi town, located just north of the McMahon Line.

The Communist Party said that the 117-km highway, costing $155 million, will make the border town accessible for 8 to 9 months a year.

My local friends kept repeating with some envy in their voices, “The Chinese are very much in advance on us”.

To come back to Patel’s ‘clairvoyant testament’, it is not well-known that it was based on a note prepared by Girja Shankar Bajpai, the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs.

Does this note still exist? I was recently told that some of the Bajpai Papers may have followed the fate of the Coalgate files.

Why did Nehru, the then Foreign Minister, not act on his Foreign Secretary’s Report while it was Patel who was concerned by the issue of having an “unscrupulous, unreliable and determined power at the doors”?

It is not difficult to answer this question. Nehru saw China as India’s best friend, if not brother.

Another reason why Patel would have made a difference is that he would have surrounded himself with efficient down-to-earth officers like Bajpai and not glamourous, worthless collaborators like KM Panikkar.

A few years later, Bajpai compared the protests of Panikkar with Neville Chamberlain’s disapproval of Nazi Germany entering Czechoslovakia in 1938, he said, “Our Ambassador has allowed himself to be influenced more by the Chinese point of view, the Chinese claims, the Chinese maps and by regards for Chinese susceptibilities than by his instructions or by India’s interests.”

Nehru did it again in 1962 when he listened to an arrogant Corps Commander, ignoring the Army hierarchy’s sounder counsels.

It is not enough to be a strong man; a leader of worth should be able to surround himself with wise advisors. Patel showed, at the time of the integration of the Indian States (with VP Menon) or later in the case of Tibet (with GS Bajpai), that he was more than an Iron Man, he was also able to find and listen to knowledgeable collaborators.

A small post-scriptum: Patel would have also made a difference in the Kashmir issue. On December 23, 1947, as Deputy Prime Minister, Patel wrote a draft letter to Nehru, “Your letter of today has been received just now at 7 pm and I am writing immediately to tell you this. It has caused me considerable pain.” Patel did want India to appeal to the UN, “Your letter makes it clear to me that I must not, or at least cannot continue as a Member of Government and hence I am hereby tendering my resignation.”

Gandhi asked Patel to withdraw his resignation. The rest is painful history.

It is unfortunate for India that history cannot be rewritten. But one can at least learn from history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED PLEASE :

http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/bhupesh-bhandari-patel-nehru-and-big-business-113110701056_1.html

Patel, Nehru and Big Business

Bhupesh Bhandari 

November 8, 2013

New Delhi

[Imagine the possibilities if India had unleashed entrepreneurship way back in 1947 and not in 1991. A whole generation of entrepreneurs was lost to the licence raj]

Narendra Modi's recent observation that India's fate would have been different had Sardar Patel been the country's first prime minister, instead of Jawaharlal Nehru, has caused a stampede of public opinion.

Differences between the two leaders were insignificant, some have said, and these actually proved healthy for the nascent democracy. Others have said that Mr Modi has been able to lay claim to Patel only because theCongress is a party of sycophants and no leader outside the first family can lay claim to greatness. Still others have said that Mr Modi cannot be Patel's political heir because of his hardline attitude towards the minorities. 

But Mr Modi's poser remains unanswered.

"What if" questions are always tricky to answer. But one thing is for sure: unlike Nehru, Patel did not view businessmen with suspicion. Maybe if he were prime minister, India wouldn't have gone down the socialist path that put shackles on business. Maybe because of that, we would have done better than the Hindu rate of growth. Imagine the possibilities if India had unleashed entrepreneurship way back in 1947 and not in 1991. South Korea and India were at similar levels of development in 1947 when they gained independence; look at the difference between the two now. A whole generation of entrepreneurs was lost to the licence raj.

Nehru's dalliances with socialism started in the early 1930s. The West was in the grip of the Great Depression, while Soviet Russia was rapidly industrialising under successive five-year plans. This left a great impression on his mind. In his presidential address to the Lucknow session of the Congress in April 1936, Nehru advocated socialism: the end of private property and the profit system. This prompted 21 "mercantile leaders" of Bombay to publish a manifesto against Nehru in The Times of India and The Tribune on May 20. According to business historian Gita Piramal, seven of these were Tata men - though J R D Tata was not among them - which suggested that the business group had played a big role in the manifesto. One of the other signatories was shipping magnate Walchand Hirachand, who felt Nehru would use his position as Congress president to propagate his ideas and sideline "sensible" men like Patel.

Patel was never hostile towards business and recognised its vital role in the economy. He was particularly close to Ghanshyamdas Birla. The two would go for walks together whenever they were in the same city and would also frequently lunch together.Nehru, on the other hand, thought Birla supported the Hindu lobby within the Congress. Agnostic to the core, Nehru found no place for religion in public life. Birla, on the other hand, found Nehru's sympathies for the Soviet Union and his socialist bent of mind a bit too much to handle. In 1936, Birla wrote to Mahatma Gandhi: "In London, Nehru was making speeches that Russia was India's best friend and Japan a weakening power. I don't know about Russia, but I definitely know that Japan is not a weakening power."

Did Patel's closeness to Birla bother Nehru? "Pundit-ji [Nehru] felt we were Patel-ji's men, with the result that Pundit-ji didn't look upon us with great warmth," Ms Piramal quotes Basant Kumar, Birla's son, in her book, Business Legends. She suggests that Birla may have met Nehru after Patel's death, in 1950, to explain that though Birla and Patel were close, there was never any intention to cause Nehru hurt. Those who dismiss the differences between the two leaders as "academic" or "creative" would do well to read the book. 

In September 1947, Patel insisted Gandhi should stay in Birla House in New Delhi in view of the growing threat to his life. After Gandhi was assassinated on January 30, 1948, by a Hindu fanatic in the lawns of Birla House, Nehru wanted the house to become a national monument. Birla wasn't keen because of his close association with Gandhi.
Patel joined the fight on Birla's side. He wrote to Nehru from Mussoorie, where he happened to be staying with the industrialist, saying that the "public clamour [for a museum] would not have attained these dimensions if we had been bold enough [do you sense a dig here at Nehru?] to give a correct lead by making known our own opinion publicly to the people". Gandhi, Patel said, wouldn't have liked the idea of having a museum named after him. The museum, he added, "involves violence of the worst kind to the feelings of both Ghanshyamdas and Bapu". If he still insisted on taking over Birla House, Patel suggested, Nehru should make available to Birla an alternative site in Delhi to build a house for which he would adequately compensate the government. Nehru rushed to Mussoorie to placate Birla and Patel. In 1971, Birla House finally became government property.

The relationship between leaders and businessmen is unidimensional - it's driven by the principle of mutual benefit. And businessmen are practical (and also often unscrupulous) people. That's why they never get into open confrontation with leaders. That Lala Shri Ram of Delhi Cloth Mills dared to take on Patel (before Independence) shows that businessmen did not see him as vindictive. In 1931, Patel, who was raising funds for the Congress, had sent Bhulabhai Desai to Lala Shri Ram for his contribution. Lala Shri Ram readily agreed to the request and paid Rs 10,000. Patel was not happy with the amount. He conveyed through Desai that a higher payment would be less expensive than a strike in the DCM mills. Lala Shri Ram was infuriated and told Desai that he wouldn't budge under any threat. Patel realised that Lala Shri Ram could not be bullied. The two reconciled. Patel became a regular visitor to Lala Shri Ram's house in New Delhi.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do Please Read :

" HOW BRITAIN SOUGHT TO THWART J&K’S ACCESSION TO INDIA "

http://blog.lkadvani.in/blog-in-english/how-britain-sought-to-thwart-jk%E2%80%99s-accession-to-india