Where have all the general’s cheerleaders gone? I

Arun Shourie: Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Ulti ho gayin sab tadbirein, kuchch na dawa ne kaam kiya — every stratagem has boomeranged, no potion works. That’s Pervez Musharraf’s predicament today, writes Arun Shourie in a three-part series on Pakistan beginning today

The only persons who could have been surprised by what Musharraf has done are the Americans - who had invested everything in him, and as a consequence just would not see - and Musharraf’s acolytes here in India. Here is one of the most deceitful men we have had to deal with. It is not just that he was the architect of Kargil. Here is a general who insisted that the Pakistani army had nothing to do with Kargil, so much so that he did one of the most dishonourable things that any armyman can do: he refused to accept bodies of soldiers who had died in the operation he had himself planned. And yet the same man claims in his book that Kargil was one of the most successful operations of the Pakistani army! Here is a man who has repeatedly dishonoured his word — pledged to the people of Pakistan, to its courts — about sticking to his office. Here is a man who has repeatedly issued decrees exempting himself from law, from his pledged word. Here, then, has been a personification of deceit. And yet, what a buildup he has had in India — eulogising him has been almost a fashion-statement among many Indian journalists.

And not just among journalists. The very highest in this government allowed themselves to be persuaded by the Americans that we should do something that would strengthen Musharraf, as he was the best, it would seem the only option for us. Of course, they were nudged into accepting American ‘advice’ by that one mental ability they have in abundance — the ability to conjure wishfulfilling thoughts, thoughts that exempt them from standing the ground. This combination — American ‘theses’ and conjured rationalisations — led them to almost make a grand gesture of Siachin to bolster Musharraf, and yet again buy ‘peace in our time’, and that too under the exact camouflage that an American think-tank had stitched up. We have to thank Musharraf: by the morass he has created for himself, he has saved us from our do-gooders.

Yet his cleverness had convinced me long ago about the pass he would reach. For, in the end, few things do a ruler in as surely as cleverness. This is especially so when cleverness is combined with audacity, the ‘commando’s audacity’ that so many among our chatterati came to admire in Musharraf. For this audacity spurs the person to, among other things, lie outright. Soon, though not soon enough, karma catches up. A stage arrives when everything such a ruler does, recoils.

If he moves against the Taliban, he is in trouble. If he does not, he is in trouble. If he does not let American forces chase the Taliban into Pakistani territory, he is in trouble. If he lets them do so, he is in deeper trouble. If he does not storm the Lal Masjid, he is in trouble. If he does, he is in deeper trouble. If he does not remove the chief justice, he is in trouble. If he removes him, his troubles are just beginning. If he gives up his uniform, he can’t rely on the army. If he does not, he can’t rely either on his nemesis, the Supreme Court, or his sole prop, the Americans. If he lets Nawaz Sharif stay, he is in trouble. If he does not, he is in trouble. If he rigs elections again, he has to rely even more on the religious parties and fundamentalists, and he falls deeper in trouble. If he does not rig them, he is finished. Unless he throws the judges out, he is out. Now that he has thrown them out, even his patrons are insisting he bring them back — ulti ho gayin sab tadbirein — every stratagem has boomeranged — kuchch na dawa ne kaam kiya — no potion works!

Once a ruler reaches this pit, anyone and everyone who associates with him, gets tarnished. Americans and Musharraf got conflated: Musharraf came to be seen as the stooge of the Americans; Americans came to be seen as the ventriloquists. Whatever he did was attributed to them: ‘He could do none of this but for the fact that the Americans are behind him.’ And whatever the Americans did came to be pasted on him. As they came to be seen to be waging an out-and-out war against Islam, he came to be seen as the instrument of the enemies of Islam. Convinced, though, they have remained that he is indispensable for them, even the Americans came to realise the heavy cost that association with him was bringing upon them. But the Chinese came to suffer too: they were seen to have been the immediate trigger for the assault on the Lal Masjid, as it followed the kidnapping of Chinese women on the charge that they were running a brothel in Islamabad. (For their part, the Chinese have been increasingly concerned about the Uighurs who have been receiving training in Pakistani madrassas and terrorist camps.) The Saudis too, were shocked by the wave of resentment that hit them upon their being parties to the deportation of Nawaz Sharif. This was one of the main reasons for their subsequent decision to endorse Sharif’s proposal that he return.

And so did everyone within Pakistan who was associated with Musharraf. The ‘Q’ in the name of the faction of the Muslim League that had walked over to him — the PML-Q — came to stand not for ‘Quaid’ after Jinnah, but for an abuse. Look at Benazir till the attack on her procession. She lost heavily when it became known that she had struck a deal with Musharraf. Of course, the ignominy was compounded by two factors: as the deal was seen to have been authored by the Americans, it was contaminated from the very start. Worse, it became known that Benazir had been negotiating terms with Musharraf even as she was signing the Charter of Democracy with Nawaz Sharif — a charter in which both of them pledged that they would never have anything to do with a military dictator. It is only the attack on her procession, and the subsequent snuffing out of the Constitution that has helped restore some of her reputation. But no institution has suffered as much by association with Musharraf as the army: as he came to be seen as the instrument of the enemy, the army, which he controlled, came to be seen as the instrument of the instrument of the enemy...

What a pass for a ruler to reach.

And rulers are brought to this pass by their own stratagems. No ruler after Zia ul Haq gave as big a boost to religious parties and to terrorist groups as Musharraf. It is because of the way he rigged the assembly and provincial elections and the alliance he formed with them that the religious parties — which used to get 5 to 7 per cent of the popular vote — got to form governments in NWFP as well as Balochistan, and to become such a significant factor in the National Assembly. The consequence was as predictable as it has been disastrous. With governance in the hands of religious parties, for instance, the Taliban and Al Qaida acquired an open field in NWFP, and from there into FATA.

Similarly, his premise — one that he set out in as many words — that jihad is an instrument of state policy, and the way he patronised and facilitated terrorism in Kashmir, for instance, has had the same consequence. In her recent study, The Counterterror Coalitions, Cooperation with Pakistan and India, Christine Fair puts it well: one consequence of the jihad in Kashmir and that for the acquisition of Afghanistan, she writes, has been that ‘the concept of jihad has attained an unassailable stature,’ and ‘the political capital’ of groups engaged in it has multiplied several fold. And you can see the end result, even for Musharraf: recall the way he and his government remained paralysed for months in the face of what was being done in and around Lal Masjid. Second, she points out, it has meant that organised criminal groups have been able to extend their operations and reach within Pakistan itself under the banner of jihad. Third, over the past few years, new alliances and coalitions have come to be formed among the various groups. The operational consequence of the latter is just as evident, and it is one of the things that eventually led even his patrons in the US to conclude that he was not doing enough to curb terrorists: when the US or NATO allies were told that steps had indeed been taken against the terrorist groups whom they wanted brought to heel, they were soon disillusioned. And for the obvious reason: when one of the groups was targeted, all that its members had to do was to shift to the adjacent group in the coalition.

Two other features broke through during the last few months: that Musharraf was losing control, and that he had lost touch with what was happening. As for the first, recall how, for months and months, fundamentalists from the Northwest could go on piling up arms in the Lal Masjid right in Islamabad — and the military dictator with all his intelligence agencies should not have known. As for losing touch, recall how gravely Musharraf misjudged the way the public would react to the sacking of the chief justice.

Lessons for us

There has been a veritable industry in India urging concessions: when Pakistan or a ruler of Pakistan has appeared strong, when terrorism sponsored by it and him has been at its murderous height, concessions have been urged on the ground, “but how long can we live with a permanently hostile neighbour?” When he has been facing difficulties, the same concessions have been urged on the ground, “he is our best bet.” Such specious reasoning has almost prevailed when we have had, as we have now, a weak and delusional government, a government that does not have the grit to stay the course; when we have a government over which suggestions from abroad have sway of the kind they have today; when we have a government the higher reaches of which are as bereft of experience in national security affairs as in the government today. We must never sacrifice a national interest in the delusion that someone is the ‘best bet’ — he will soon be gone, and our interest would have been sacrificed in perpetuity. Nor should we ever sacrifice an interest in the delusion that doing so will assuage that ruler, country or ‘movement’.

The concession will only whet his appetite. To the ruler/country/movement, it will be proof that he can extract the next capitulation. Second, we should think for ourselves, and not be led by others, howsoever powerful they may be. One of the great strategic blunders of the US in regard to its ‘War on Terrorism’ has been to have believed, indeed to have proclaimed, that Musharraf is indispensable. The consequence has been predictable. Their having come to think of him as indispensable, Musharraf has done what suited him, not that war: look at the selective way in which he went after the terrorists. He first targeted only the Al Qaida in whom the Americans were interested; then, those who targeted him; then those who targeted the Pakistani state. The organisations that he, his army, the ISI had reared for breaking India, he left alone. The Americans had to shut their eyes. “You are putting all your eggs in one basket,” they were told. “But there aren’t that many baskets in Pakistan,” they said. Soon, they got their desserts too, and twice over. First, as was noted above, given the fungibility among such groups, the former set of terrorists had just to don the garb of the latter and continue to recruit, to rearm, to regroup. And then, Musharraf having come to be seen as merely their stooge, he couldn’t keep the system going — for them any more than for himself. In a word, powers, howsoever well endowed, can be dead wrong in their assessment even of their own interest. In any event, it is their own interest they shall be pursuing. Their own interest as perceived by a handful. Their own interest as perceived by a handful at that moment.

Today Saddam is good because he is a counter to Iran; tomorrow he is evil. Today the Taliban are mujahideen, freedom fighters, as they are necessary for throwing the Soviets out; tomorrow they are evil. Today the Kurds are good as a counter to Sunnis in Iraq; tomorrow they are evil as the fellows are dragging Turkey into the arena... This is not to blame the Americans or anyone else: through such twists and turns they are merely pursuing their interest. The lesson is for us: how very wrong, how very shortsighted it would be for us to outsource our thinking to others.

The even more important lesson is illustrated vividly by the relief we have had in Kashmir in the last few months days. As Balochistan, NWFP, and now FATA have flared up, Pakistan has had to withdraw its troops and other resources from its border with India to its western border. The killings and explosions in Kashmir have gone down. Just a coincidence?

Now notice two things. First, as Pakistan has had to move its troops away from the border with Kashmir, an orchestra has started in India demanding that we thin our troops in Kashmir: just another coincidence? Second, recall the ‘remedies’ that our secularists have been urging — ‘autonomy’ and the rest. “The Kashmiris feel alienated,” they have been declaiming. “That is the root-cause of terrorism... give them autonomy...” A formula-factory came into being: ‘Musharraf’s 7-regions’ formula...’

None of those ‘solutions’ has been put in place. Yet, the killings have gone down. Which is the medicine that has worked? The potion — ‘autonomy’ — we did not administer? Or the medicine that Pakistan has administered to itself? That it has got into trouble on its western borders? A lesson there...

Learning to shield our academic excellence

Arun Shourie, Thursday, September 14, 2006

The number of students who come to India to study is going down. Meanwhile, the amount of money spent on Indian students studying abroad is sufficient to set up 30-40 IIMs or 15-20 IITs every year. The threat is that we may lose our best minds at a rate faster than ever before. The opportunity is that we can be educators to the world

About 8,000 foreign students are studying in India. In Australia, on the other hand, there are about 350,000 — and remember, we add to our numbers every year more than the total population of Australia. Nor is it just that foreign students studying in India are less than a fortieth of those studying in Australia. The number of students who come to India has actually been going down: according to government figures, in 1990/91, there were over 12,765; last year there were 7,745! (By contrast, the increase in 2004 in the number of foreign students studying in China was three times the total number of foreign students that came to India: China hosted 141,087 foreign students in 2005.) We could be educators to the world — just as we could be surgeons to the world. But here is another opportunity missed: while Dubai, Singapore, Australia, to say nothing of distant US, etc. are positioning themselves as education hubs, we remain mired in that bog — the HRD Ministry.

It isn’t just that we are missing an opportunity. We are paying a huge cost every year. One estimate puts the amount that is spent on Indian students studying abroad at a figure that would be sufficient to set up 30-40 IIMs or 15-20 IITs every year. And going abroad to study is just the first step. Having studied in that country, having got familiar with the place and people, most decide to take up work there. Soon enough, they settle down there. Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006, reports that of Indian students who received doctorates in Science and Engineering between 2000 and 2003, close to 90 per cent said they planned to stay on in the US; two-thirds had firmed up “definite plans to stay.” The proportions were the same in one critical discipline after another: 91% and 62% in biological and agricultural sciences; 92% and 72% in mathematics and computer sciences; 90% and 70% in engineering...(Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006, Appendix tables, A2-96 to 100.)

The fault is by no means that of the youngsters. And there is no doubt that those who have stayed on in the US, etc. have also done much for India — they have, among other things, helped change the world’s perception of India, and, thereby, India’s perception of itself. But imagine how much our country would have gained in actual productive potential if we had educational institutions of such quality that these youngsters did not have to go abroad. Imagine how much our country would have gained if they worked here, that is if the work environment here had been such that they had felt confident they could develop to their fullest potential, and reap rewards commensurate with their capabilities and with the effort they put in.

And if we persist in the obscurantist policies and practices that mar our educational sector, this drain will only increase in the coming years. Countries are straining to develop themselves as the more attractive destinations — for students, for investors, for firms. Nor is the matter confined to choice, there is a compulsion too, a compulsion of which these leading countries are well aware and to counter which they are taking focused steps. In regard to the US, for instance, National Science Foundation data reveal that in 2003, 85 per cent of those holding Science and Engineering doctorates and working were above 55 years of age; 76 per cent were above 60 years; 20 per cent were 70 and above. The proportions for those holding Master’s degrees were equally significant: they were 85%, 65%, and 16% respectively. (Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006, Appendix tables, A3-43.) And this is just one among many reasons on account of which these countries will continue to aggressively court researchers and skilled workers from India and elsewhere.

Indeed, the threat now is not just that individuals will be wooed away. Countries — from Singapore to South Korea to Taiwan to China to the EU-25 — are making even greater efforts to woo entire firms away, in particular R&D firms. Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan have already become significant research-hubs. But the suction for entire R&D firms can come from farther a-field too. We think of the US as a high-cost economy, as one that is now compelled to outsource R&D efforts to a country like India. But that is just one side of the picture, and that is true only for one end of research. In 2002, US firms spent around $ 21 billion doing research in foreign countries. As against this, foreign firms spent close to $ 26 billion doing research in the US. (Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006, Volume I, 0-4, 0-5, 18.) And that stands to reason: researchers are less costly in countries like India, but today a great deal of research, and almost all of frontier research, involves such high-technology infrastructure that it is best executed in countries like the US.

Things to do

The first thing to do is to stop counter-positioning primary, universal education against higher education. We need both. We can afford both. Second, we must see both — the threat as well as the opportunity: the threat that we may lose our best minds at an even faster rate than the rate at which we have been losing them in the past decades; on the other side, the opportunity that we can be educators to the world.

Third, to ward off the threat and to tap into the opportunity, we require the same sort of measures. To arrest and reverse the alarming deterioration of standards in most of our institutions of higher learning. To ensure that in regard to both - students as well as faculty - merit, performance here and now, alone counts. To ensure that rewards are strictly commensurate with performance.

And resources. A large proportion of these will have to come from the government - for instance, private entrepreneurs just do not have the long horizons that basic research requires. Equally, government alone will just not have enough resources for this sector. Thus, one service that finance ministers can do is to give the most generous incentives and tax-breaks for industry to invest in education and in R&D. For every trifling misuse, a Manipal will come up.

And the resources have to be defrayed not just on equipment - that is what is done ever so often: and by the time the underpaid, under-motivated faculty learn to exploit the equipment to its full potential, the equipment is obsolete. A good proportion of the resources have to be set apart for making salaries and allowances of faculty and researchers and their work-environment attractive enough for them to forego careers in private industry and to choose instead to be in universities and research institutions.

It is obvious that we cannot do any of this so long as higher education and research is dominated by governmental institutions. China, for instance, has launched an aggressive drive to bring back the very best Chinese faculty who are working in universities in the US, Europe and the like. To attract them back, China is giving them remuneration and allowances and work facilities that are better than what they have in universities where they are working. This is being done irrespective of what existing faculty get in the Chinese establishments in which these returnees will be lodged. Can such a thing be done in a governmental organisation in India - what with its scales and unions; what with the fact that the salary of a professor cannot be higher than that of the vice chancellor, and the salary of a vice chancellor cannot be higher than that of secretary, HRD...? I am, therefore, wholly against the current rush for affiliation, etc. We should encourage institutions to de-affiliate, from existing universities and the like. Colleges and research departments and institutions will come to be known by the work they do, by the standards to which they adhere. Along with this movement to de-affiliate we should develop first-rate, wholly objective and reliable methods to rank institutions.

But the gaps are so vast that mere resources will not do. We need to adopt unconventional methods to scale up this sector. The remarkable success that F C Kohli, one of the fathers of IT in India, has achieved with the “total-immersion” method in making absolutely illiterate persons literate enough to read a newspaper within 8 to 10 weeks; his analysis of “gaps” between the best engineering college in Maharashtra and other colleges in the state, and how these can be bridged by using modern IT and communications technologies - these are the sorts of measures we need to put in place. And, instead of stuffing IITs and IIMs with mediocrities just because they were born to one set of parents than another, we should induce them to multiply faculty, and to upgrade existing faculty in other institutions.

Two prerequisites

But for any of these measures to be executed we need two prerequisites. The first is to outgrow clichés. “Do not make a commodity of education,” our politicians shout every time there is the slightest effort to make educational institutions self-sustaining. “Do not sell ma-Saraswati,” they shout every time there is an effort to induce industry to take up education. All such shouting ensures is that existing scarcities continue, and the existing education-czars rate off the lolly. All it accomplishes is to enable a dental college here, near Delhi itself, to pocket a “donation” of Rs 28 lakh from every entrant...Is the way to deal with the fact that 150,000 students have just applied to the IIM, Ahmedabad, for 250 seats in its two-year course, to force it to take in 27 per cent additional students — that is, sixty two more students — on the basis of birth? Or is it to give incentives to industry to set up 62 institutions of comparable worth?

And then there is the even more urgent task — to reverse the recent trend in regard to the few islands of excellence that remain: the recent trend of interfering in the IITs and IIMs. The recent edicts regarding reservations are just one — though by itself fatal enough — lance of such interference. Appointments of directors; hauling them up before Commissions because some congenitally disgruntled employee keeps writing letters to high-ups; the insistence of a legislative Committee that they switch to Hindi as the medium of instruction...There is an all-round assault to breach their autonomy.

To ward off such senselessness, three things are required. First, do not temporise: do not think that the way to meet the assault is to concede a bit - those concessions will not assuage the grabbers; on the contrary, they will become the reasons for the political and bureaucratic class to grab all: “See, the director himself is saying that they are ready to abide by our order - all he is asking is that he be given a little time to do so...” Second, as those who are working in these institutions are in a sense under the thumb of government — and I have been struck dumb by fear to which faculty themselves testify in open meetings — outsiders, in particular the alumni of these institutions, have an important duty: they must constitute themselves as firewalls around these institutions.

But the assault on such institutions is but an instance of the general assault on excellence in India today: from legislatures to civil service to educational establishments, mediocrity is being asserted as norm, vulgarity as right, intimidation as argument, assault as proof. Two classes today stand in counter-position to this assault on standards - entrepreneurs and the professional middle class. Accordingly, the pan-Indian organisations of professionals should get together to contain, roll-back and eventually eliminate this assault.

(Concluded)(Based on the Foundation Day Lecture, IIT, Kharagpur, Alumni Association, Delhi.)

The Realities of Pakistan

Arun Shourie

As Mr I. K. Gujral proceeded with his "Gujral Doctrine," a friend in RAW said, "He will rue it by September." As we returned from Lahore, he said, "When Pakistan goes so far out to seem friendly, it is planning something big." As Nawaz Sharif kept bringing one institution after another under his heel -- he enacted a version of our anti-defection law which made legislators his bonded men: they stand disqualified the moment they defy the party whip on any matter; he had the President resign; he removed the Chief Justice; he did away with the Council for Defence and National Security thereby curtailing the Army's role; he put a pious cipher into the presidency -- my friend said, "He will go on rushing forward till he bangs his head into a brick wall. It is his nature."

Each of his forebodings came true: the intensification of terrorist explosions -- in Coimbatore, in Delhi, in a score of other places -- as Mr Gujral strove to bring back the days of his youth; Kargil in the wake of Lahore; Nawaz's eventual confrontation with the Army, and its coup now.

An important lesson: my friend was going by the inherent nature of the State and society in Pakistan, not by what should happen; he was going by the nature of Nawaz, others were going by the premise that, in his own interest, Nawaz Sharif will not cross the limit.

Musharraf's new "Proclamation of Emergency" is the eleventh constitutional scheme for running Pakistan. With the removal of Nawaz Sharif's Government, the old record remains: in its 52 year history, only one elected government -- Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's first round in office -- completed its term: in the next round, mounting turmoil forced Bhutto to declare early elections; he won what was widely regarded as a grossly rigged election; his victory was barely in, and he was ousted by Zia in a coup. A constitutional scholar notes, "The Qaid-i-Azam died in September 1948, and the first Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan, was assassinated in 1951. All other executive Presidents and Prime Ministers have been prematurely removed, while General Zia died in suspicious circumstances in a plane crash. This, in short, has been the constitutional and political history of the country." As a result, for twenty five of the fifty two years since independence, Pakistan has been under Army rule in one form or another.

Such a history conditions the mind. It explains not just why people have accepted the latest coup with such evident "calm". It explains why they have in a sense been looking forward to it, several sections have been paving the way for it -- unmindful of what it will do to them, forgetful of what they had undergone the last time the Army was in control: for months now, politicians -- who must have known, after all, that they would be the first to be out of business once military rule is imposed -- have been urging the Army to step in and "save the nation." As has been the case with every other spell of Army rule, a few months from now people will start swearing at this bout of it also. But when they are under civilian dispensation, they can think of no other solution except to place the country once again in the hands of the Army.

And with what felicity the Supreme Court of Pakistan has legitimized such takeovers: endorsing the fiction put forth by Zia -- the Constitution has not been scrapped, it has merely been held in abeyance -- and proclaimed verbatim now by Musharraf! Martial Law was first imposed in Pakistan in 1958 -- by the then Governor General Iskander Mirza, who in turn was soon turfed out by General Ayub Khan. In what is known as the infamous Dosso case, the Pakistan Supreme Court legitimized the usurpation on "the doctrine of necessity": the doctrine, namely, that when saving the country requires that the Constitution be scrapped, the one who seizes power can scrap it. And the legality of an extra-constitutional seizure is established by the fact that it has succeeded! The weakened Ayub "handed over" -- after much manifest persuasion -- to Yahya Khan in March 1966, and the latter imposed his own Martial Law. During his time the country broke in two. The courts kept deliberating; the Supreme Court eventually struck down Martial Law and thereby the "doctrine of necessity" in the Asma Jilani case -- by that time it was hardly necessary, but perfectly safe to do so!

Zia staged his coup in July 1977. Nusrat Bhutto challenged Martial Law. The Supreme Court endorsed it -- going back in effect to the "doctrine of necessity." Indeed, it provided an Islamic basis for it - repeatedly invoking the Shariat maxim, "necessity makes prohibited things permissible"! The Chief Martial Law Administrator -- Zia -- has said that he is not scrapping the Constitution, that he is merely holding it "in abeyance," the Court noted. He has said that he has been forced to do so "for the welfare of the people," it noted. The supervisory jurisdiction of courts such as ours remains unimpaired, it consoled itself. He has solemnly declared that he will hold elections in three months, it noted. The Court has every hope that he will live up to his word, it declared.

This in a judgment delivered months after that three month limit for holding elections had passed! Lest it be seen to be letting out just half a cheer, the Court proceeded and declared, " ...the Chief Martial Law Administrator, having validly assumed power by means of an extra-constitutional step in the interest of the State and for the welfare of the people, is entitled to perform all such acts and promulgate all legislative measures which have been consistently recognised by judicial authorities as falling within the law of necessity, namely: (a) all acts or legislative measures which are in accordance with, or could have been made under the 1973 Constitution, including the power to amend it..."

Zia put that touching faith to work: soon he mutilated the powers of the judiciary itself, he set up an alternative structure of Shariat courts -- and used it both to frighten the populace, as well as to dump inconvenient judges! In little time he in effect overturned the Constitution -- by mere grafts and "amendments"! And all that too in a strictly "constitutional" manner: Article 16 of his "Constitutional Order" of 1981 provided, "The President as well as the Chief Martial Law Administrator [by the grace of Allah, Zia combined both offices in himself] shall have, and shall be deemed to have always had, the power to amend the Constitution"! And the courts cheered him along -- for ushering in an Islamic order!

That is how Pervez Musharraf can so breezily proclaim as law what is by the text of the Constitution treason to be punished by death. "In pursuance of deliberations and decisions of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces and Corps Commanders of Pakistan Army," -- an agglomeration unknown to the Constitution -- "I, General Pervez Musharraf, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Army Staff," -- another entity unknown to the Constitution -- "Proclaim Emergency throughout Pakistan and assume the office of the Chief Executive of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan." How convenient!

That is how he can so easily suspend all legislatures; dismiss all cabinets; place the entire country in the control of the Armed Forces; declare that the country shall continue to be governed "in accordance with the Constitution", "as nearly as may be", and "subject to this Order and any other orders made by the Chief Executive"; that the courts shall continue to function "subject to the aforesaid"; that fundamental rights shall continue in force, to the extent that they are "not in conflict with the Proclamation of Emergency or any other order made thereunder from time to time"; that the President shall continue, except that "he shall act on, and in accordance with the advice of the Chief Executive"; the courts will continue to discharge their duties, "provided that the Supreme Court or High Courts or any other court shall not have the powers to make any order against the Chief Executive or any person exercising powers or jurisdiction under his authority," they shall continue to discharge their functions except that "No judgment, decree, writ, order or process whatsoever shall be made or issued by any court or tribunal against the Chief Executive or any other authority designated by the Chief Executive"; that all laws shall continue in force "until altered, amended or repealed by the Chief Executive or any other authority designated by him" But this is not Martial Law, he declares in his television address!

That is why he can impose a structure which is wholly outside the Constitution, he can acknowledge plainly that he is setting the Constitution aside -- I had to choose between saving a limb, the constitution, he says, and saving the body, the entire country -- and yet declare that the Constitution is just being "held in abeyance".

And there is not a murmur. In fact, on all counts people are gratified that the Army has rid them of their current obsession -- Nawaz Sharif!

That is one reality we must bear in mind the next time we have to deal with a civilian ruler of Pakistan. The second is the sea-change in the nature of the Army itself: over the decades it has become progressively Islamic. The change in its motto has indeed been symbolic: Jinnah had given the Pakistan Army, "Unity, Faith, Discipline" as its motto; Zia replaced it with, "Faith, Piety, Jihad". By now two other factors have pushed it further in that direction: first, it has spawned, and is now intricately entwined with extremist jihadi groups; second, like them, and with them, it is enmeshed in the one flourishing enterprise of Pakistan -- the trade in drugs.

More important, this jihadisation of the Army itself is but a reflection of the jihadisation of Pakistani society as a whole. Indian liberals interact with the liberals there, and assert that Pakistan has a liberal core: but the latter are an inconsequential, minuscule minority. Moreover, many of them have the closest possible social and family ties with high-ups in the Army. Pakistani liberals often counter by saying, "But the fundamentalists have never received more than 3 per cent of the vote, and look at India -- you people have handed over the entire government to fundamentalists." In fact, no party in India works for establishing the sort of theocratic State to which every party in Pakistan is pledged. And these parties -- to say nothing of the liberals -- do not set the agenda: that is set by the heirs of Maulana Maudoodi.

This progressive Islamisation / jihadisation of Pakistani society and State has had the predictable consequence. It is the jihadi version of Islam which is the touchstone for every move. When a ruler grabs unjustifiable power, he announces Islamic steps to legitimize his dictatorship, Zia being the textbook case. When a ruler runs into difficulties, he announces further "Islamization": from Bhutto in 1977 to Nawaz in 1999.

And as far as Pakistan is concerned, the essence of jihadi Islam is to humiliate and defeat and break India. "Allah ke bagiyon ko mazkaraat se nahin, jihad se he khatm kiya ja sakta hai," the Ausaf of 5 October quotes the Amir of Markaz Daawa wal Irshad, Hafiz Muhammad Sayed as declaring: "those rebelling against Allah can be finished not through dialogues but jihad". The entire earth has to be liberated from the rebels of Allah and their evil, he tells the gathering in Islamabad, polytheists can be eliminated through jihad alone -- and the proof of this is that polytheists were annihilated in Kashmir in spite of the nexus among all the infidels of the world on this front. Talks inflict a setback on jihad, it quotes the Amir of Al Badr, Saifullah Amin as declaring, and keep mujahidin from their destination. The Hindu bania understands the language of the gun alone...

That pitchforks Pakistan into a dilemma, of course. It is in dire economic straits: as Musharraf said, it has "hit rock-bottom." It is literally living from day to day -- not even on loans now, but on the rescheduling of its repayment obligations for what it has borrowed in the past. Its foreign exchange reserves are down to five weeks' imports, foreign direct investment as well as remittances from abroad continue their precipitous decline, portfolio investment has been registering a net outflow, Even though the donors had agreed to a generous rescheduling package enabling Pakistan to postpone repayments until the end of 2001, month after month, the IMF has been compelled to postpone releasing tranches that Pakistan needs immediately. July, then September, then "probably November."

This condition circumscribes options, as is evident from Musharraf's address: he chose to speak in English, not Arabicised Urdu; he has styled himself "Chief Executive" not, as Zia had done, "Chief Martial Law Administrator"; he has asked the ulema to counter the extremist version of Islam. But the more he does to allay apprehensions of the West, the more he abides by conditionalities that IMF etc. will demand, the more he opens himself to the charges that were pasted on Nawaz Sharif: that like him, he is being "pro-India, pro-West, anti-Taliban, anti-jihad." On the other hand, like every single Pakistani ruler before him, to survive, he will have to don more and more Islam. But the more Islamic he becomes, the more he will risk alarming the West further. A bind that should ensure some latitude for us.

There is also the "positive side," so to say. By their demonology they are already pushing closer to us those with whom we should be collaborating. "Allah ne hamari zimmedari lagayee hai," the Ausaf of 7 October quotes the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba declaring, "ki duniya se Isayiyon, Yahudiyon, Hinduyon aur dighar taghooton ki saltanaton ko Allah Akbar ke zarab se pash kar den" -- "Allah has placed a special responsibility on us to eliminate Christians, Jews, Hindus and other evil forces from the world with the blow of Allah Akbar. The USA and other devilish [taghooti] forces are striving to root out jihad from this region" -- they will be crushed, it reports him as proclaiming. "Clinton ko kisi Musalman ka ghulam aur Hillary Clinton ko kisi Musalman ki laundi hona chahiye tha," the paper reports him saying: "Clinton should have been the slave of some Musalman (Muslim), and Hillary Clinton should have been the keep of some Musalman." The Jasarat of 11 October has Maulana Fazal-ur-Rahman, the Chief of the Jamiat Ulema-Islam, declaring Americans to be hypocrites: when militants fought against Russia, Americans honoured them as mujahidin, he declares; when they fight against Hindus to save Muslims from Indian tyranny, Americans dub them terrorists; America is responsible for sectarian killings in Pakistan; under pressure from the Americans the Government [of Nawaz Sharif] is indulging in baseless propaganda against the Taliban, and paving the way for America to invade Afghanistan...

We must not be misled by Musharraf's empty gesture of "troop withdrawal from the international border" -- as the Security Advisor to the Prime Minister has pointed out, this withdrawal had been agreed upon at the meeting of army officers in July itself. Nor by his offer of "unconditional talks" -- in the same address he has declared that Pakistan's "moral, political and diplomatic support" to insurgents in Kashmir will continue -- as Pakistan has never acknowledged that it has been giving any other manner of support, this means that all that it has been doing in regard to Kashmir will continue; he has also repeated in the address that India must ensure "self-determination for the people of Kashmir".

It would be criminal, therefore, to be misled again. Instead we should base our responses on four realities: first, the jihadisation of Pakistani State and society as a whole; second, among sections of society, the Army is more fervently committed to jihad against India than almost any other section -- as Musharraf and his colleague, General Aziz, told each other in the Kargil tapes, the Army has the tuft of the extremist organizations in its hand; third, power now is entirely in the hands of this jihadi institution, the Army; fourth, within the Army, power has fallen to the architect of the Kargil operation.

Israel, with its accustomed clarity, sees the nature of Pakistan. Even the USA is being nudged from its make-believe. But several factors keep it from opening its eyes fully. Its notions of political correctness. The intertwining webs with Pakistan forces and agencies which have been spun over fifty years. The rich man's presumption that everyone can be de-fanged by some doles. The new rationalization: Pakistan is a nuclear weapon State -- if we let it sink, those weapons will fall into the hands of raving lunatics...

So, while in a sense Pakistan itself is preparing the ground for cooperation between India and other countries -- Israel, USA, Russia, Iran and others -- there is a lot of work to be done. Musharraf's coup supplies both -- an opportunity as well as an urgency to the task.

October 18, 1999

Annexation Through Technicalities

Arun Shourie

The day I entered Indiraji's household I became an Indian, the rest is just technical -- that is Sonia Gandhi's latest explanation for not having acquired Indian citizenship till fourteen years after her marriage to Rajiv Gandhi.

First the facts. Surya Prakash, the Consulting Editor of The Pioneer, has documented these in detail. Sonia married Rajiv on 25 February, 1968. Under section 5(c) of the Indian Citizenship Act she became eligible to register herself as a citizen of India on 25 February, 1973. She chose to continue as a citizen of Italy. She applied for Indian citizenship only ten years later, on 7 April, 1983.

A foreigner seeking Indian citizenship has to state on oath that he or she has relinquished his or her citizenship of the original country. This requirement was all the more necessary in the case of an Italian citizen: under Italian law, an Italian taking citizenship of another country continues to retain his or her Italian citizenship. Sonia Gandhi's application did not have the requisite statement, nor did it have any official document from the appropriate authorities in Italy. The omission was made up in a curious way: the Ambassador of Italy stepped in, and wrote to the Government saying that Sonia Gandhi had indeed given up her citizenship of Italy. He did so on 27 April, 1983. Sonia got her citizenship forthwith -- on 30 April, 1983.

Another nugget Surya Prakash has unearthed is that while Sonia became a citizen on 30 April, 1983, her name made its way to the electoral rolls as of 1 January, 1980! In response to an objection, it had to be deleted in late 1982. But sure enough, it was put back on the electoral roll as of 1 January, 1983. She hadn't even applied for citizenship till then.

All technicalities! If any ordinary person were to proceed in the same way, he would be up for stern prosecution.

Maruti was one of the most odious scandals connected with Mrs Indira Gandhi and her family. The Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice A C Gupta recorded that, though she was at the time a foreigner, Sonia Gandhi secured shares in two of their family concerns: Maruti Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. (in 1970 and again in 1974), and Maruti Heavy Vehicles (in 1974). The acquisition of these shares was in contravention of the very Act that Mrs Gandhi used to such diabolic effect in persecuting her political opponents, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Just another technicality!

But the Mother of Technicalities, so to say, is to be found in the way Sonia Gandhi, without having any known sources of income, has become the controller of one of the largest empires of property and patronage in Delhi. The Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Library and Museum is one of the principal institutions for research on contemporary Indian history. It is situated in and controls real estate which, because of its historical importance, cannot even be valued. The institution runs entirely on grants from the Government of India. Sonia Gandhi has absolutely no qualification that could by any stretch of imagination entitle her to head the institution: has she secured even an elementary university degree, to say nothing of having done anything that would even suggest some specialization in subjects which the institution has been set up to study. But by mysterious technicalities she is today the head of this institution. So much so that she even decides which scholar may have access to papers -- even official papers -- of Pandit Nehru and others of that family, including, if I may stretch the term, Lady Mountbatten.

Real estate, only slightly less valuable, has been acquired on Raisina Road. The land was meant to house offices of the Congress. A large, ultra-modern building was built -- the finance being provided by another bunch of technical devices which remain a mystery. The building had but to get completed, and Sonia appropriated it for the other Foundation she completely controls -- the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. The Congress(I) did not just oblige by keeping silent about the takeover of its building, in the very first budget its Government presented upon returning to power, it provided Rs 100 crores to this Foundation. The furore that give-away caused was so great that the largesse had to be canceled. No problem. Business house after business house, even public sector enterprises incurring huge losses, coughed up crores.

The Foundation has performed two principal functions. The projection of Sonia Gandhi. And enticing an array of leaders, intellectuals, journalists etc. into nets of patronage and pelf.

But the audacity with which the land and building were usurped and funds raised for this Foundation falls into the second order of smalls when they are set alongside what has been done in regard to the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts.

This Centre was set up as a trust in 1987 by a resolution of the Cabinet. The Government of India gave Rs. 50 crores out of the Consolidated Fund of India as a corpus fund to this Centre. It transferred 23 acres of land along what is surely one of the costliest sites in the world -- Central Vista, the stretch that runs between Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate -- to this Trust. Furthermore, it granted another Rs. 84 crores for the Trust to construct its building.

The land was government land. The funds were government funds. Accordingly, care was taken to ensure that the Trust would remain under the overall control of the Government of India. Therefore, the Deed of the Trust provided, inter alia,

* Every ten years two-thirds of the trustees would retire. One half of the vacancies caused would be filled by the Government. One half would be filled by nominations made by the retiring trustees.

* The Member Secretary of the Trust would be nominated by the Government on such terms and conditions as the Government may decide.

* The President of India would appoint a committee from time to time to review the working of the Trust, and the recommendations of the committee would be binding on the Trust.

* No changes would be made in the deed of the Trust except by prior written sanction of the Government, and even then the changes may be adopted only by three-quarters of the Trustees agreeing to them at a meeting specially convened for the purpose.

Now, just see what technical wonders were performed one fine afternoon.

A meeting like any other meeting of the trustees was convened on 18 May, 1995. The minutes of this meeting which I have before me list all the subjects which were discussed -- the minutes were circulated officially by Dr Kapila Vatsyayan in her capacity as the Director of the Centre with the observation, "The Minutes of this meeting have been approved by Smt Sonia Gandhi, President of the IGNCA Trust."

What did the assembled personages discuss and approve? Even if the topics seem mundane, do read them carefully -- for they contain a vital clue, the Sherlock Holmes clue so to say, about what did not happen.

The minutes report that the following subjects were discussed:

1: Indira Gandhi Memorial Fellowship Scheme and the Research Grant Scheme.
2: Commemoration volume in the memory of Stella Kramrisch.
3: Sale of publications of the IGNCA.
4: Manuscripts on music and dance belonging to the former ruling house of Raigarh in M P
5: Report on the 10th and 11th meetings of the Executive Committee.
6: Approval and adoption of the Annual Report and Annual Accounts, 1993-94.
7: Bilateral and multilateral programmes of IGNCA, and aid from U N agencies, Ford Foundation, Japan Foundation, etc.
8: Brief report on implementation of programmes from April 1994 to March 1995.
9: Brief of initiatives taken by IGNCA to strengthen dialogue between Indian and Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, China.
10: Documentation of cultural heritage of Indo-Christian, Indo-Islamic and Indo-Zoroastrian communities.
11: Gita Govinda project.
12: IGNCA newsletter.
13: Annual Action Plan, 1995-96.
14: Calendar of events. 15: Publications of IGNCA.
15: Matters relating to building project.
16: Allocations/release of funds for the IGNCA building project.

There is not one word in the minutes that the deed of the Trust was even mentioned.

This meeting took place on 18 May, 1995. On 30 May, 1995 Sonia Gandhi performed one of technical miracles. She wrote a letter to the Minister of Human Resources informing him of what she said were alterations in the Trust Deed which the trustees had unanimously approved. Pronto, the Minister wrote back, on 2 June, 1995: "I have great pleasure in communicating to you the Government of India's approval to the alterations."

The Minister? The ever-helpful, Madhav Rao Scindia. And wonder of wonders, in his other capacity he had attended the meeting on 18 May as a trustee of the IGNCA, the meeting which had not, according to the minutes approved by Sonia Gandhi, even discussed, far less "unanimously approved" changes in the Trust Deed.

And what were the changes that Sonia Gandhi managed to get through by this collusive exchange of two letters?

*
She became President for life.
*
The other trustees -- two-thirds of whom were to retire every ten years -- became trustees for life. The power of the Government to fill half the vacancies was snuffed out.
*
The power of the Government to appoint the Member Secretary of the Trust was snuffed out; henceforth the Trust would appoint its own Member Secretary.
*
The power of the President of India to appoint a committee to periodically review the functioning of the Trust was snuffed out; neither he nor Government would have any power to inquire into the working of the Trust.

A Government Trust, a Trust which had received over Rs. 134 crores of the tax-payers' money, a Trust which had received twenty three acres of invaluable land was, by a simple collusive exchange of a letter each between Sonia Gandhi and one of her gilded attendants became property within her total control.

The usurpation was an absolute fraud. The Trust Deed itself provided that no amendment to it could come into force -- on any reasonable reading could not even be initiated and adopted -- without prior written permission of the Government. Far from any permission being taken, even information to the effect that changes were being contemplated was not sent to Government. An ex post "approval" was obtained from an obliging trustee.

That "approval" was in itself wholly without warrant. Such sanctions are governed by Rule 4 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. This Rule prescribes that when a subject concerns more than one department, "no order be issued until all such departments have concurred, or failing such concurrence, a decision thereon has been taken by or under the authority of the Cabinet." Other departments were manifestly concerned, concurrence from them was not even sought. The Cabinet was never apprised.

The rule proceeds to provide, "Unless the case is fully covered by powers to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds, conferred by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance, no department shall, without the previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, issue any orders which may... (b) involve any grant of land or assignment of revenue or concession, grant... (d) otherwise have a financial bearing whether involving expenditure or not..."

And yet, just as concurrence of other departments had been dispensed with, no approval was taken from the Finance Ministry.

The Indian Express and other papers published details about the fraud by which what was a Government Trust had been converted into a private fief. Two members of Parliament -- Justice Ghuman Mal Lodha and Mr. E. Balanandan -- began seeking details, and raising objections.

For a full two and a half years, governments -- of the Congress(I), and the two that were kept alive by the Congress(I), those of Mr. Deve Gowda and of Mr. I. K. Gujral -- made sure that full facts would not be disclosed to the MPs, and that the concerned file would keep shuttling between the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Ministry of Law.

As a result, Sonia Gandhi continues to have complete control over governmental assets of incalculable value -- through technicalities collusively arranged.

A latter-day Dalhousie -- annexation of Indian principalities through technicalities!

India Connect
September 13, 1999