THERE have been rough patches in the functioning of parliamentary democracy in India — the roughest was of course the Emergency of the seventies — but seldom has the functioning of the two Houses been held hostage to serve partisan party purpose quite in the manner we are witnessing. Besides, the level of public discourse has reached a new low.There was the infamous boast of Ms Sushma Swaraj, then in the Opposition, before the beginning of a session that she would not let Parliament function for a day until her demands were met. And she proved true to her word. That benchmark has not been breached but the sorry spectacle of the Congress, seeking to emulate Ms Swaraj has presented an unedifying spectacle.  The Indian political world is out of joint. With all its imperfections, democracy has been functioning and a central part of the system has been Parliament. Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his avatar as chief minister of Gujarat succeeded in marginalising the state Assembly in achieving his goals, but this method cannot be replicated at the national level.  Indeed, we have reached the point when blaming one party or the other will not lead us anywhere. Rather, the need of the hour is to evolve a new consensus among all parties that disrupting Assembly or parliamentary proceedings is taboo. And civilised political discourse must have limits. The terminology employed by the Delhi Chief Minister, Mr Arvind Kejriwal, in scoring points against Prime Minister Modi was reprehensible.  What has led to this sudden explosion of invectives and tempestuous parliamentary proceedings that mocks the Westminster model we have borrowed. Nobody expected the Indian system to work quite like the British model. But Jawaharlal Nehru and his colleagues, many of them Western-educated and -influenced, did try to maintain a measure of decorum. The homegrown lot who followed the first generation of rulers did not hold legislatures in similar reverence.  A second reason for the turmoil and high-pitched verbal battles is the change of government in New Delhi. Mr Modi is a combative leader and does not follow the rules of the game. As Prime Minister, he has been the principal campaigner for his Bharatiya Janata Party in state Assembly elections, injecting bitter personal attacks on his political opponents to create a confrontational atmosphere.  The shrillness of the debate is also due to the travails of the Congress, a party whose perennially-in-waiting leader Rahul Gandhi has proved unequal to his task. With Ms Sonia Gandhi still seeking to groom her son for leadership, the party is, in a sense, leaderless.   There is no short-term prospect of a solution to the prevailing crisis because there is no overarching leader in the shape of a Mahatma Gandhi or a Jayaprakash Narayan who can knock heads together. The intelligentsia or the middle class is too feeble to call squabbling parties and leaders to order.   Logically, the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the country, should take the lead in calling for a reversion to more civilised norms of public debate and functioning of Parliament. But he himself is a combatant and his public persona does not lend itself to a meaningful mediator’s role.   Who then will bell the cat? Willy-nilly the intelligentsia must give the lead, despite its weaknesses. Indeed, the only solution is to help create a mass movement that will compel our legislators to earn their keep and perform the tasks they were elected for. There must be financial penalties for disturbing parliamentary and Assembly proceedings and citizens’ committees to police legislative proceedings. We could have the equivalent of lok adalats to assess individual and collective performance. If this portends direct democracy, so be it.   We must treat the prevailing crisis as a national emergency. It is fashionable to make light of the squabbles and name-calling in the functioning of our legislatures but their consequences can be deadly. It is true that many members of the middle class are more comfortable in holding armchair discussions than in leading a movement, but they must now rise to the occasion to lend their resources and skills to reform the political class.   Television has a special role to play in this campaign because of its reach and the nature of the beast. It is inherent in the medium to highlight squabbles and confrontations, which take up a disproportion amount of space. Yet as responsible members of society, TV bosses must annotate their visuals with meaningful discussions and commentaries condemning the misdemeanours of all parties. Writers made themselves heard recently by returning their awards as marks of protest against growing intolerance in the country.  They have an even more important role to perform in highlighting the back-breaking cost of non-functioning legislatures and Parliament to the public exchequer. Legislators are not doing a favour by performing the tasks they were elected for.  All politicians must also recognise that name-calling and use of vulgar language redound to their discredit. They do no credit to him and her and the political party he or she belongs to. In recent times, the level and frequency of invectives are becoming something of an epidemic.   If Mr Kejriwal calls himself an anarchist, he has no place as the leader of a party in the legislature or the chief minister of a state. Anarchy and parliamentary democracy do not go together. If his self-description was more in the nature of a populist slogan, he should be more careful in expressing his feelings and refrain from crossing the red line in abusing the Prime Minister.Have we reached the end of the road? That remains to be seen but the dangers of the path our politicians are employing are growing by leaps and bounds. After all, the distinction between democracy and anarchy is the distinction between political discourse and the lathi (force). This vital distinction has been blurred. It is therefore the duty of the middle class and all thinking men and women to show our politicians the way.

Ajay Banerjee,Tribune News Service,New Delhi, January 28

The Ministry of Defence has ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against two serving Major Generals of the Indian Army for allegedly having disproportionate assets.Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar today ordered the probe against Maj Gen Ashok Kumar and Maj Gen Surinder Singh Lamba.General Lamba was posted as Additional Director General in the Ordnance Directorate at the Army Headquarters in New Delhi.General Kumar is posted to the Bengal area. He was earlier posted as officiating GOC of the headquarters, Bengal Area at Kolkatta.When files for their routine promotions were taken up some two weeks ago, Parrikar had told the appointments committee of the Cabinet that the CBI has to clear them of the charges.

Washington, January 8

The US has pressed Pakistan to conduct a “thorough, fair and transparent” probe into the deadly terror attack on the IAF base in Pathankot and wants to see the outcome of the investigation.”We certainly look forward to and expect a thorough, complete, fair and transparent investigative process. We are going to have to let it work through,” State Department spokesperson John Kirby said yesterday.”We look forward to seeing the results of their investigation. We would all like them to be done as quickly as possible and transparently discussed when it’s complete. But this is for the government of Pakistan to sort out how long this investigation is going to take,” Kirby said.”They (Pakistan) said they’re going to investigate it. They said they’re not going to discriminate between terrorist groups when they conduct counter-terrorism operations,” the official said.He acknowledged that the US has reached out to Pakistan after the Pathankot terror attack.”It’s more important to us, as it is in our own investigative issues here in the United States, that it be a good, solid, thoughtful and comprehensive investigation, not that it be done by a certain timeline,” he said.Six terrorists, who had sneaked into the country from Indo-Pak border in Pakistan, had attacked Indian Air Force base in Pathankot during the intervening night of January 1 and 2.All the terrorist were killed during a counter-operation by Indian forces that lasted for about three days in which seven security personnel were killed.The US said it encourages an “aggressive” approach to counter-terrorism operations by Pakistan and other regional powers, Kirby said, and expressed willingness to support such operations as required or deemed fit by those nations.Meanwhile, the Pentagon has said communication between India and Pakistan is a “hopeful sign” that the two countries will be able to resolve their concerns bilaterally despite the terror attack in Pathankot.”The communication (between India and Pakistan) is a hopeful sign that they will be able to address these concerns, but I’ll leave it to the governments of Pakistan and India to respond to this particular situation,” Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said while responding to questions about the cross-border terror attack.”This is a situation between India and Pakistan, and we encourage their continued communication and efforts to address these issues,” he said yesterday.Cook also said the US has a very good defence and military-to-military relationship with India. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter had hosted Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar at the Pentagon last month. —PTI

The glacier affords India strategic, diplomatic and psychological advantage

The hostile conditions test a soldier’s mettle.

SIACHEN GLACIER is known variously as the ‘highest battlefield in the world’, ‘third pole’, ‘largest non-polar glacier’ and a supremely ambiguous cartographical description as ‘thence north to the glaciers’ (on official maps that thought it too desolate and unforgiving a region for physical inhabitation, to worry about proper demarcation beyond the coordinate NJ9842) — a historical curse of the incomplete task of defining boundary lines along the Indo-Pak borders. Today, it has evolved into a perennial flashpoint of potential military muscle-flexing and diplomatic saber-rattling. The recent horrific avalanche tragedy that swallowed 10 soldiers (one was subsequently and miraculously rescued), reiterated its infamy as the most inhospitable environment to be deployed under, with the unpredictable supremacy of nature’s fury, that accounts for higher fatalities than actual enemy-combat. Such tragedies inevitably resurrect the talk about demilitarising the glacier and the draining ‘cost’ of retaining it. To start with, it’s important to appreciate the evolution of the dispute, the historical conduct of the stakeholders in Siachen, prevailing ground situation and the potential stakes involved, and only then, juxtaposing the element of ‘cost’ to retain the current status of militarisation.The fractious Indo-Pak border relations of cloak-and-dagger moves got a surreptitious entry into the glacier in the 50s and 60s, which was hitherto unoccupied and barren, by Pakistan issuing ‘permits’ for international mountaineering expeditions, thereby sneakily establishing its ‘claim’ on the region — giving birth to a new form of strategic doctrine called ‘Oropolitics’, the abuse of mountaineering towards political purposes. In the 70s, India resorted to calling the bluff and counter the territorial allusions with its own mountaineering expeditions to establish its rightful territorial credentials and claims,  but this was still shadow boxing at best, with no permanent deployment to ‘hold’ the territory from a military angle. Traditionally, Pakistan has always dabbled in ‘low-investment-high-impact’ tactics of covert military activism. Immediately after Independence, the tribal influx of Afridi raiders into the Kashmir valley, with the tacit support from the Pakistani military, laid the pattern for all subsequent adventurism. Pakistan’s creative bent of similar tactics manifested again in 1965 via Operation Gibraltar, extreme policing brutality in 1971 to hold on to Bangladesh, recent Kargil misadventures and the multitude of support history to various internal insurgencies in India are reflective of the infamous Zia-ul-Haq’s ‘bleed through a thousand cuts’ philosophy. In almost all cases, Pakistan has initially feigned ignorance about the genesis of the contentious issues, or when exposed, attributed the same to ‘non-state’ actors — either way, consistently displaying malintent or duplicitous behaviour that does not augur well for any bilateral discussions that are to be based on mutual trust and respect of the terms of agreement. In an unparalleled and unprecedented act of strategic generosity, it officially handed over 5,180 km of territory in Aksai Chin to China in 1963 — thus drawing China permanently into the hyphenated Indo-Pak dispute and ensuring a strategic pivot to buttress its own counter claims. Thus now, the northern part of J&K theatre has a trilateral dimension.Even though Pakistan has a relatively easier access leading up to the glacier, the Indian Army holds the strategically vantage high-points to dominate it. This was achieved through a textbook military operation (Operation Meghdoot) by the Indian defence forces in 1984 to preempt the Pakistani move of capturing the glacier militarily, and then rebuffing the Pakistani counter-assaults in 1987 and 1989 (Brig Pervez Musharraf was personally involved in the ill-fated first assault that would have scared his mind to the geo-political reality, only to reopen the wounds in Kargil in 1999, as the chief of Pakistan army). This ground reality in Siachen explains the Pakistani amiability and willingness to discuss demilitarisation of the glacier to neutralise its obvious disadvantage on ground. Kargil is also a grim reminder in terms of the subsequent ‘costs’ of regaining a position once-held, though taken over by the enemy, clandestinely. Such a scenario is plausible given the pattern of military moves in the region.Importantly, the biggest ‘cost’ element is human life and the loss of limbs owing to the surreal environmental conditions of -50 degrees that test the spirit, instinct and existence of a soldier. No one understands the vagaries of nature better than a field soldier, but he does not act on individual volition, he is trained to execute the state’s order. It is imperative that no efforts should be spared to ensure the best quality equipment, infrastructural support to sustain operational efficacy and familial/monetary compensation to soldiers to endure such hardship. The glaring inequities on this front affronts the soldier’s sensibilities. It is more probable that the ‘cost’ being alluded to pertains to the bandied figure of Rs 5 crore spent on sustaining Siachen deployment, every day. While this is a serious amount, but, when contextualised to the ‘cost’ of retaining territorial integrity, it becomes immaterial. The oft-quoted status of land irrelevance by way of ‘not a blade of grass grows’, is the sort of alluvial appreciation not indulged by the defence forces in deciding if the said tract of national land is worth defending, irrespective of the ultimate price paid by the soldiers in doing so, the quality or fertility of soil be damned. Given the trilateral border disputes across J&K, and with China on Arunachal, creative pragmatism of demilitarising Indian lands is loaded with dangerous import as the same logic can be extended to other contentious areas as well. Besides, the critical issue of national integrity, the civil, administrative and political decision-making should also incorporate the notional future ‘cost’ from the repercussions of intentional or unintentional military withdrawals. The cost of rectifying or reclaiming lost ground is almost always prohibitively ‘expensive’. The soldiers need to be adequately enabled, empowered and meaningfully respected beyond platitudes. Soldiers who are physically present have never raised an excuse to surrender the hard-fought and well-earned positions on the glacier. The Pakistanis also suffered a similar avalanche-related incident in Gyari region in 2012, killing 140 persons. This is the sad truth of a soldier’s life. Militarily, despite the immense challenges, Siachen affords us the strategic, diplomatic and psychological advantage that could well reverse with the creative suggestions to demilitarise it, given the history, geo-politics and the stated intent of all the stakeholders in the region. — The writer is a former Lt Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands & Puducherry

11 OFFICERS, 10 JCOS AND 185 SOLDIERS DIED WHILE 19 OFFICERS, 11 JCOS AND 334 SOLDIERS WERE WOUNDED DURING THE BATTLE OF BERIWALA

FAZILKA: The Amogh Division of the Army held a ceremony here on Wednesday to remember the heroism and valour of the brave soldiers, who laid down their lives fighting for the motherland during the 1971 IndoPakistan war.

The ‘Saviours of Fazilka’ fought the battle of Beriwala, which raged on uninterrupted for 14 days from December 3, 1971 onwards. It was undoubtedly one of the fiercest actions of the 1971 Indo-Pak war.

In this epic battle, 11 officers, 10 junior commissioned officers (JCOs) and 185 soldiers embraced martyrdom while 19 officers, 11 JCOs and 334 soldiers were wounded on the battlefield. For displaying conspicuous gallantry, one Mahavir Chakra, six vir chakras and four mention-indispatches were awarded.

The ceremony witnessed active participation by the general public. The civil administration came forward to assist the Army in organising and actively participating in the event.

Rich tributes were paid to the martyrs by laying wreaths at the Fazilka war memorial. A ‘marathon’ was organised wherein people participated with a lot of enthusiasm despite the chilly weather.

Prizes were given in various categories to the participants of the marathon.

The children of Fazilka presented a mesmerising cultural programme which filled everyone’s heart with patriotism.

Events such as painting, debate and various other activities were organised in schools across Fazilka on the eve of Vijay Diwas and the winners were felicitated.

General officer commanding (GOC) of the division Major General Bipin Bakshi exhorted all ranks of the division to rededicate themselves to the service of the nation and emulate the devotion of war veterans and martyrs.

The event was also graced by Santosh Rana, wife of late major KS Rana of 15 Rajput, who attained martyrdom during the operations in Fazilka and many war heroes and veer naris (war widows).

Aditi Tandon,Tribune News Service,New Delhi, December 16

Ruling out war as the only option available to deal with Pakistan-sponsored terror in India, the government today said it was hopeful of resolving all outstanding issues with the neighbouring country through dialogue.Exuding hope of positive outcomes from the just resumed comprehensive bilateral dialogue with Pakistan, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj today told the Lok Sabha that talks were always resumed on the basis of renewed hope in its ability to deliver the desired results.“War is not the only option when we (India and Pakistan) have started afresh and decided that we will resolve our issues through dialogue. We have made a new beginning, a new start and hope to eliminate the shadow of terrorism through dialogue,” Swaraj said in the Lok Sabha during the Question Hour when BJP member from Satna Ganesh Singh asked her pointedly if India would consider eliminating terrorists in Pakistan the way US eliminated Osama bin Laden sheltered in the neighbouring country.The minister, however, reiterated India’s stated position on a dialogue with Pakistan saying talks and terror could not go together.“We have said repeatedly that talks and terror cannot go together. The PM has best articulated this position by saying that the sound of talks will get drowned in the noise of bombs. Talks and terror cannot go together but then let us talk on terror. That is why the NSAs of the two countries met in Bangkok to discuss these issues. But one meeting is not enough. We have to continue to talk,” Swaraj said.

There’s no good or bad terrorism: Pak diplomat

• Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit has said there is no difference between “good and bad terrorism”. His comments signal perhaps a change in the long-held Pakistan policy of differentiating between a “good terrorist” and “bad terrorist” or, as in the case of Afghanistan, between “good Taliban” and “bad Taliban”. India has always maintained that this is a flawed approach and can never be successful in fighting the global menace of terrorism. — Simran Sodhi

Washington, December 8
As the US prepares to sell F-16s to Pakistan, the country’s former top diplomat has warned the Congress that such fighter jets would end up being used against India and not against terrorists.
Describing sale of such military hardware and even reported talk of a civil nuclear deal as an appeasement policy towards Pakistani military, the former top Pakistani diplomat has urged the US to tell the leaders in Pakistan that their ambition of rivalling India is akin to Belgium trying to rival France or Germany.
“The Obama administration’s consideration of a nuclear deal with Pakistan, just like its decision a few months ago to sell almost USD 1 billion in US-made attack helicopters, missiles and other equipment to Pakistan will fuel conflict in South Asia without fulfilling the objective of helping the country fight Islamist extremists or limit its nuclear arsenal,” said Husain Haqqani, the former Pakistani Ambassador to the US.
In a prepared remark submitted ahead of a Congressional hearing on ‘Civil Nuclear Cooperation with Pakistan: Prospects and Consequences to the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Affairs’, Haqqani said Pakistan’s failure to tackle its jihadist challenge is not the result of a lack of arms but reflects an absence of will.
“Unless Pakistan changes its worldview and its compulsive competition with its much larger neighbour even in violation of international commitments, American weapons will end up being used to fight or menace India and perceived domestic enemies instead of being deployed against jihadists,” he said.
Currently, director of South & Central Asia at the Hudson Institute, a top American think-tank, Haqqani said competition with India remains the overriding consideration in Pakistan’s foreign and domestic policies. —PTI