|
|
|
Transparency
Pays Subrahmanyam report can be the cue for an informed discussion on security
Regardless of the embarrassment sections of the report may cause to the Government, these have to be faced frontally. India must develop a national security culture which can only happen if discussions are informed. There has been far too much mud-slinging and speculation over last summer's conflict and the record must be set straight. The CCS must examine the report promptly, prepare a credible Action Taken Report and submit the entire findings in time for a full debate in the next session of Parliament. Anything less would amount to dishonouring the brave soldiers who laid down their lives in Kargil. When Clinton Arrives Now India and US have to work out the details of give and take
Post-hijack, however, the prospects don't appear too encouraging. India is miffed with the US for not doing enough to end the hijack at Dubai. It is dissatisfied with Washington's casual response to the prime minister's demand that Pakistan be declared a terrorist state. Singh gave vent to some of that unhappiness when he told the CII conference last week that the "US has a very chauvinistic attitude to nationalism". In plain language it means that the US world view is governed by extremely narrow self-interest. It also means that India wants to know what it can expect from Washington if Vajpayee signs the CTBT. Indications are that there is a mismatch somewhere. Clinton wants to appear the grand peacemaker who is able to defuse tensions in a nuclear flashpoint. India is willing to play ball but only if Washington recognises its pre-eminent role in the region. That means taming the wild men of Pakistan and defining India's place in relation to China. Without prior agreement on these, Clinton's visit will be a tourist exercise. |
||||
| Top |
 -->© Living Media India Ltd |
Bureaucracies
being naturally prone to secrecy and non-accountability, there is certain
to be internal pressure on the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) to
release a skeletal and sanitised version of the 2,300-page K. Subrahmanyam
Committee report on the Kargil conflict. The reasons are obvious. Despite
Subrahmanyam's assurance that the committee addressed the issue of
"what went wrong" rather than "who was guilty", the
two issues cannot be separated. Since a system is made up of individuals
who man it, systemic deficiencies inevitably lead to an accusing finger
being pointed at key individuals. This cannot be helped and is an
insufficient reason for the Kargil report to meet the same fate of the
still-unreleased Henderson-Brooks report of 1963 on the Sino-Indian war.
The committee approached the inquiry in a spirit of "openness and
transparency" and both the Government and the military authorities
were extremely cooperative. Now the Government must respond by making the
report public and generating an informed debate. Anything short will
convey the impression of a wilful cover-up -- an unfortunate conclusion in
the light of the promptness and seriousness with which the committee
undertook its job.
The
question that preoccupies pundits in Washington D.C. is whether or not
Bill Clinton's status is that of a lame-duck president. When External
Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh holds his 10th round of security-related
talks with US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott in London, this
will not be a thought that will be foremost in the minds of the Indian
delegation. The reason is simple: the US may have its domestic compulsions
but it is the world's only superpower. And when the political head of that
superpower decides it is time to come calling on Atal Bihari Vajpayee in
March, India has to ready itself. By first ensuring that the long-drawn
Singh-Talbott dialogue is brought to a successful conclusion before
Clinton disembarks in Delhi.