WAKE UP- THE WOKE REVOLUTION IS HERE !

    I have no hesitation in confessing that I'm a very confused man these days. It has nothing to do with Mr. Amit Shah's suggestion of a "middle path" for the BJP and the Opposition to engage in a dialogue, which is perplexing enough. For Mr. Shah's middle path is not the one propounded by the Buddha, it is more akin to the one Confucius warned us about: Man who walk in middle of path get run over. Which is what happened to others who chose to take Mr. Shah's advice- Sukhbir Badal of the SAD, Udhav Thackeray of the Shiv Sena and Mehbooba Mufti of the PDP. Confusing suggestion, you will agree, but not what is the source of my current ataxia.

   My mental disarray stems from this new Woke culture being thrust upon us by a society gone berserk. Its latest manifestation is a handbook of guidelines issued by Oxfam, stipulating for its employees a whole new terminology in order to respect social, racial and gender "sensitivities." Take just one example. For the last 72 years I have held the belief that I was born as a male child (even though the good wife may had a few doubts about that occasionally); the last time I looked, the evidence also pointed in that direction. But Oxfam has now put a huge question mark on that: it says that it would be more correct to say that I am AMAB (Assigned Male at Birth); my sister is AFAB ( Assigned Female at Birth). The reason: no one should presume someone's sex, for he/ she/ they may change their mind at any later stage, and prefer to be a transgender ! I wonder what my mom and dad would have thought of that. Actually, I'm also out of line in referring to them as mother and father- Oxfam says I should refer to them only as "parent/s" since we have no business assigning gender roles to any one- the mother may decide to be the father and vice versa! Is it any wonder that kids go around these days with a vacant look on their faces? My elder son is not getting married just yet because he is still trying to figure out which  gender he belongs to, though he was AMAB.

   I'm afraid the Book of Genesis may have to be re-written very soon if this goes on much longer. In those non-Woke days God created just two sexes or genders, male and female, and asked them to go forth and multiply, which they have since done with remarkable success, considering that we are now topping seven or eight billion soulless souls. (There may be a slight reduction in the figures now that the BJP's emphasis is more on divide than multiply). But the good Lord himself had got it all wrong, we are now told, because there are 15 genders forms, not two ! Other than the old fashioned male and female, the others include cisgender, transgender, calcigender, non-binary, etc. among others. It's little wonder that my son can't decide who to get married to- its a problem of plenty, if you ask me. In my time one married either a boy or a girl; now one needs AI or ChatGPT to figure it out!

   This Woke movement started sometime around 2010 and was meant to create an awareness and response to social inequalities, racism, sexism, slavery, white supremacy, discrimination and other social injustices. This was certainly a laudable objective; two of its manifestations have been the Black Lives Matter and the ME TOO crusades. In recognition of this the Oxford English Dictionary even added  WOKE to its inventory of words in 2017. But one can't help but feel that in trying to change the Queen's English to the Drag Queen's English these reformers may be stepping beyond their remit and intruding into the realm of the ridiculous.

   What, for instance, is the point of splitting hairs and refining concepts till all that remains is a meaningless desiderata of neulogisms ? Take, for example, what used to be called "lack of self-confidence". It's not so simple, folks: the condition is now linked to your "sexual identity" (whatever that means) and has been given all kinds of names- gender dysphoria, transphobia, transmisia, and so on. Conversely, if you happen to feel good some morning, it's not because the BJP lost in Himachal or you have finally found Sunny Leone's phone number, it's because you have gender euphoria ! Is it necessary to link everything to, or explain everything in terms of, sex or gender ?

   It's a language thing, you know. What worries me is not the robust response to the inequities and prejudices that the Woke generation is mounting: that is welcome and perhaps more than overdue. But as a student of literature (entire English literature, in current parlance) I am completely flummoxed by how the English language is being changed to suit the Woke lexicon. Language will always reflect the prevalent values and principles of society, but it should not become hypocritical, biased or evasive of the truth, as the inimitable George Carlin had explained in one of his videos about "politically correct" language. Here are a few examples from the Woke lexicon, make of them what you will:

Heteronormativity (presumed to be straight unless proved to be otherwise- in an adaptation, presumably, of the legal principle of presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise!). Other words are just as confounding: nonsumer (a minimalist consumer), greenwash (cheating on environmental brownie points), white feminism (calling out people who espouse feminism but stay mum on issues that effect less privileged women), slut shame, toxic masculinity, Madonna/ whore complex, Queer baiting, pansexual, gaslighting (emotional abuse- abuser undermining victim's perceptions and abilities by constant peddling of untruths). 

   Conversely, some words are a no-no because they convey prejudiced ideologies or misogynistic mindsets: headquarters (colonialism), prostitute (looking down on a legitimate profession), sanitary products (implying unclean), expectant mother (should be gender neutral, as in -people who become pregnant), ethnic minority (fails to convey the complexity of ethnicity), and so on.

   Are we re-writing the English language in the light of our own, current prejudices ? In this reformist zeal, are we not imposing a new gender ideology in place of the old one (at least the older one was easier to understand!)? Does anything change substantially by merely replacing one word or phrase with another? Can semantics themselves eradicate long held prejudices? While these questions occur to me I am also conscious of the fact that perhaps I'm now too old to appreciate the dynamics of cultural evolution that are at play here, or that my dad forgot to tell me that I was ABDAB (Assumed Brain Dead at Birth). It took the UPSC to confirm this when I was selected for the IAS in 1975. Maybe all this Wokism is just the new political correctness in changing times. In which case I can't help but recollect the words of Harry Truman, the 33rd President of the United States of America: Political correctness holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end ! Is this, then, a case of the ends justifying the mean(ing)s?

PUBLIC GOODS AND PRIVATE EMPIRES

    

   In my house in a village above Shimla I am treated to an orchestral performance every evening when it rains. The musicians are a myriad of cicadas who have taken up residence in the lush greenery all around. It is a very choreographed show: first the lead cicada starts clicking his tymbals, a rasping sound, which is then taken up by a select few, then a few dozens, and soon there is a continuous buzzing hum like a thousand castanets clicking in unison. It drowns out all other ambient sounds and is quite hypnotic.

   But here's the amazing thing- these days I can hear the same sound right here in Delhi, emanating from our Parliament, where the rampaging Ashokan lions have had to take a back seat to the members of the ruling party doing their own cicada act. They generally burst into angry song whenever Rahul Gandhi says something; the lead tenor or baritone are either Mrs. Smriti Irani or Mr. Piush Goel, depending on who is the sillier soul of the moment. And then the others take up the tune and click-buzz the same refrain- "apologise, apologise, apologise." It drowns out all debate in Parliament. The reference, I learn, is to some talks the Gandhi scion delivered in London last week on the state of democratic values in India.

   If only the BJP orchestra would stop and ponder over what Mr. Gandhi said, they would realise that no wiser words have been spoken by any Indian leader in a long time, with or without a teleprompter. Notwithstanding that I am almost brain dead after 35 years of service in the government, I can recognize insight and perception when I see it. And see it I did, in a phrase used by Rahul Gandhi at a talk in London recently, whose import has largely been missed by most commentators. Speaking about the gradual erosion of democracy in India under Mr. Modi, he emphasised that "Indian democracy is a global public good," and that it must be protected in the interest of the world at large. I have not heard more astute or meaningful words in a long time, for it puts the state of our nation, and its proud democratic history, in a context where it cannot, and should not, be ignored by the mercenary western powers.

   Consider the import of this sentence, break it up into its constituent words. A public good is a commodity or service which is both essential and benefits everyone, it is non-rivalrous and non-excludable, and it is the responsibility of the state to provide it. The concept of "public goods" is an economic one, and by lifting it and placing it in a political space, Rahul Gandhi has broken new ground and given all world leaders ( excluding our own tribe, of course) something to think of. He is forcing them to think outside of their own silos (or ghettos) and to consider the possibility that the whole is indeed the sum of its parts, that there cannot be a whole without its parts.

   Especially a part as big as India- it occupies almost 3% of the planet's land area, but even more important, it comprises 17.50% of the globe's population, is its fifth largest economy, is one of just nine nuclear powers, has the world's second largest army (after China) and is the third largest importer of military hardware. (In pure corporate terms this would give it total control of any company  except, of course, Mr. Adani's !) It should be self-evident, therefore, that the health of such an important stake holder is bound to impinge on the health of the whole world order itself, and that other countries cannot turn a blind eye to it; perhaps they can, but only at their own peril.

   According to the World Forum on Democracies 58% of the world's population lives in liberal/ electoral democracies, and if India were to exit this group (as it is well on its way to doing) this figure would plummet to 41%. That would be terrible news for the free world, where democracy is already on the retreat. The 2022 report of Freedom House states that, with India's downgrading to a Partly Free democracy, only 20% of the world's population now lives in Free democracies. The year 2021 marked the 15th consecutive year of decline in democracy, with 73 countries having regressed on this parameter.

  It does not really require an institute in Sweden or the USA to tell us all this about India: any objective minded person living here would be able to predict that we are well on our way to joining the dishonourable club of 54 NOT FREE countries. Every relevant index is screaming the truth from the rooftops- Press Freedom Index, Human Freedom Index, Democracy Index, Human Development Index, Hunger Index, Inequality Index, Internet shutdown index, etc. The erosion of the rule of law, the undermining of institutions, the daily attacks on the higher judiciary, the misuse of police, the atrocities on minorities, the hounding of liberals and activists, the deliberate suborning of elected state governments, the defenestration of Parliament- all these are the visible signs of the dismantling of the substantive democratic structure of India. If things continue in the current mode, it will take just one more general election to topple our 75 year old democratic edifice, perhaps for ever.

   Rahul Gandhi was spot on in stressing that the responsible and freedom loving elements of the global community should not be silent or opportunistic spectators to the authoritarian take-over of India. For our nation has been an exemplar of freedom throughout its independent history-as a beacon of anti-colonialism, leader of the non-aligned and as an honest broker during the cold war. If India goes under then the whole of Asia is lost to the free world, the vital counter balance to China is removed, smaller Asian democracies will find it harder to survive, the nuclear fuse would be lit at the tri-junction of China, Pakistan and India, a new genocidal epoch would become a distinct possibility. The world would not only become less equitable, it would be a more dangerous place. Democracies in the west/ developed world would find it harder to survive as such. 

   Indian democracy is indeed a priceless global public good, and leaders of the free world (or what remains of it) should ensure that it is not appropriated by any latter day Caesar. For, as Shakespeare said: Arms and Laws do not flourish together.

BOOK REVIEW: THE RAFALE DEAL: FLYING LIES ?

   

                         

THE RAFALE DEAL-FLYING LIES by

RAVI NAIR WITH PARANJOY GUHA THAKURTA

PUBLISHED BY PARANJOY GUHA THAKURTA, 2022

                                              SIGNED, SEALED AND BURIED

    Given our robust eco-system of corruption and the still lingering memories of Bofors, it is inevitable that our increasing purchase of defence equipment/ arms would attract public scrutiny. India is the third largest spender on the military (2021) and the world's third largest importer of arms; I might also add for context that we are ranked 85th out of 180 countries in Transparency International's corruption perception index. This is the background against which we must assess this monumental book by Parnajoy Guha Thakurta and Ravi Nair, two of our finest investigative journalists at a time when most of their colleagues ( and posturing TV anchors) have either crawled into the widening cracks of the "fourth pillar of democracy" or have donned the attire of cheer-leaders of the present dispensation. The writing of this book required not only meticulous research, dogged persistence, careful analysis but also plenty of courage.

  The subject was always going to be a formidable challenge, spanning as it does eight years, two governments, national security, obsessive secrecy, bureaucratic obfuscation, judicial ambivalence and political manoeuvrings. The Rafale deal consists of two parts: Rafale 1 relates to the first RPF floated in 2007 by the UPA (Manmohan Singh) govt., and Rafale 2 (which scrapped the 2007 RPF and substituted it for a "fly-away" order in 2015) belongs to the NDA (Modi) era. There are questions concerning both and the authors raise these questions, not lightly or with any obvious bias, but armed with documentation, authentic references, interviews and plain logic. It makes for engrossing, if disturbing, reading.

  The authors reveal that Rafale 1 (18 jets in fly-away condition and 108 to be manufactured by HAL over 11 years) apparently lacked clarity on certain points, the main ones being the final cost, Dassault's reluctance to stand guarantee for the jets manufactured by HAL, the India specific modifications/additions. But the records show that these were not deal breakers, just grey areas, and there were no questions about its probity and rectitude, or whether it served the national interest. In fact, the deal was even put on hold for a few months by the then Defence Minister, AK Antony, when Mr. Subramaniam Swamy complained about Mrs. Sonia Gandhi trying to "influence" the decision. An investigation was carried out by the CVC ( Central Vigilance Commission) and Rafale was declared the successful bidder only after the CVC found no fault with the entire decision making process. 

  In sharp contrast, the Modi era Rafale 2 is riddled with more holes than Emmentaler  cheese, and is shown to be as transparent as a block of granite. The book follows the trail of this deal from the date of its precipitate announcement in April 2015 by Modi in France, through the "selection" of an Anil Ambani company as the default partner, the various stages of ex post facto approvals (the govt. admitted in the Supreme Court that all approvals were obtained AFTER Modi's announcement), the public uproar, the questions in Parliament, the accusations by Opposition leaders, particularly Rahul Gandhi, the midnight coup in CBI when it appeared that its  Director might start investigating the case, to the farcical "clean chit" delivered by the Supreme Court and the equally risible report of the CAG.

  The authors point out the violations, inconsistencies, contradictions and even illegalities that permeate this contract in a responsible manner, in the best traditions of investigative journalism: every point is analysed with the help of documents, media reports and articles, official statements, Parliamentary record, interviews with important players in the transaction (some off the record/unnamed for obvious reasons but reliable nonetheless). They raise many questions, which are yet to be satisfactorily answered by this govt. even after seven years. The most important of them are:

* What were the reasons for scrapping the 2008 deal for the purchase of 108+18 Rafale fighters seven years later, even though 95% of the issues had been resolved and it was almost ready for signing ?

* Given that the IAF was short of 12 squadrons and needed at least 6 urgently, did the reduction of number of aircraft from 126 to 36 not jeopardize the country's defence capability? How does this gell with the govt's claim that this was an "emergency" purchase, considering that under the new deal all 36 aircraft would be delivered in phases only by the end of the seventh year, whereas under the older RPF the IAF would have received 18 fighters by the fourth year itself ?

* What were the compelling reasons for side- stepping the comprehensive protocol for purchases as laid down in the DPP (Defence Procurement Policy) and for amending it in 2016 to favour a particular party?

* What were the reasons for overruling three official members of the INT (Indian Negotiating Team) in the matter of pricing, and the Law Ministry on issues relating to lack of a sovereign guarantee, escrow account and venue of arbitration ? Why were these three dissenting officers transferred out of the Ministry within months ?

* Was there a connection between the midnight sacking of the CBI Director Aloke Verma on the night intervening 23/24 th October 2018 and the complaint submitted to him by Prashant Bhushan, Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha ?

* Has the govt. been less than honest in steadfastly refusing to reveal the price of the aircraft, quoting a secrecy clause in the 2008 RFP which expired in January 2018 ? Is this clause even attracted in this matter since it relates to technical and operational parameters and not to pure commercial aspects ?

* All available evidence (including some intelligent reading of the CAG report) suggests that the price of 36 aircraft under Modi's new deal was Rs. 61,892 crore, which works out to Rs. 1719 per aircraft; the price tag for 126 fighters under the old UPA era deal was Rs. 127,000 crore or Rs. 1000 crore per fighter. How is this 40% escalation explained when all parameters and configurations were the same ?

* If the 2016 deal was a new transaction  (after scrapping of the old one) why were fresh tenders/ RFP not floated as prescribed by the DPP ? If, on the other hand, it was considered an extension of the old one, then why was the far cheaper offer of EADS ( the European consortium manufacturing the Eurofighter Typhoon) not considered ( it was already shortlisted, along with Dassault)?

* If an agreement for 126 MMRCA had already been hammered out with Dassault in 2014, why were fresh tenders floated for 110 MMRCA again in 2018 , involving as they would higher prices and another waiting period of 8-10 years ? Would this not further compromise the operational effectiveness of the IAF ?

* Why was HAL ( Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) removed as the offset partner of Dassault even though it had already signed a workshare agreement with Dassault in March 2014 ? Even more mystifying, how was the new offset partner ( Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence Limited / Reliance Aerostructure, a two week old company with zero experience in defence manufacturing) deemed to be more suitable than HAL, the largest defence PSU in the country with 20 production divisions and experience of having manufactured 29 different types of aircraft/ helicopters, including the Sukhoi 30 ?

* Did Prime Minister Modi not violate the sanctity of the DPP by making a unilateral announcement of the 36 Rafale purchase in France in April 2015, without consulting either the MOD or the IAF, or obtaining the consent of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) or the Cabinet Committee on Security (CSS), as mandated?

* Why was Dassault exempted from providing either a sovereign guarantee or a bank guarantee, and allowed to get away with a simple "letter of comfort" which, according to the objections of our Law Ministry, offered no legal protection ? The Law Ministry had also objected to the venue of arbitration proceedings being kept at Geneva, instead of the usual practice of locating it in New Delhi: it was over-ruled on this too. Why?

* What were the compelling reasons for deleting from the final Agreement the "Integrity Pact" or anti-corruption clause, a standard provision which had been incorporated into all defence purchase contracts after the experience of Bofors ?

* Did the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) conduct clandestine parallel negotiations with Dassault even while the IMT was holding regular talks within the MOD with the company? This was the charge made by three senior officers of the IMT in a note dated 24.11.2015 submitted to the Minister. Did this weaken the IMT's negotiating position and leverage?

  The book devotes a whole chapter to the controversial selection of Anil Ambani's Reliance Aerostructure as the offset partner. The authors subject this decision to intense interrogation on the basis of facts in the public domain and extensive interviews with people in the know. There is also the public statement of the then French President Hollande who had affirmed that Ambani's firm had been suggested by India, that he had no choice in the matter and that it was a business trade-off! That Ambani was conferred a huge favour and that HAL had been knifed in the back by its own Govt.- of that the authors' findings leave no doubt at all. 

  The case ends up in the Supreme Court, as most govt. decisions do these days. The book analyses the SC judgment of 14.12.2018 which dismissed all petitions against the deal and refused to order any CBI investigation into it. Strangely, the Court limited itself to examining only the procedural aspects of the deal and did not go into the merits. But even in this the Court, according to the authors' analysis, chose not to look at the procedural violations of the DPP or the issue of pricing. The judgment is laced with factual inaccuracies, contradictions, assumptions ; it relies heavily on unsigned notes submitted by the govt. in sealed covers which were never shared with the petitioners, and some of which were subsequently proved to be fallacious. The most shocking error in the order was the finding that the deal had been examined by the CAG, who had found it be in order, and had forwarded it to the Public Accounts Committee( PAC) of Parliament: this had never happened (!) but it was made an important reason for dismissing the petitions. The "clean chit" to the govt. was totally opaque and unconvincing, but it served the purpose of taking the heat off Mr. Modi and his govt.

  The authors go on to examine the CAG report which was laid in Parliament on 13.2.2019, heavily redacted on the pricing portions (a first in the history of India). The authors find that the report is essentially an effort to "justify the govt's arguments and its decision for the withdrawal of the [earlier] RFP and cancellation of the negotiations." It did, however, confirm some of the charges, mainly that no sovereign guarantee or bank guarantee was taken from Dassault. As a cover up exercise it was successful but it does not cover the office of the CAG with glory.

  The unanswered questions persist, notwithstanding the whitewashing by the govt., CAG and the Supreme Court, and the issue appears to have reached a dead end in India. An investigation of sorts has been started in France by PNF, the public prosecution service, on a complaint by Sherpa, an NGO. But govts. across countries are the same everywhere, and it is not likely to result in any revelations: the French law and defence Ministries have already refused to declassify/ release any documents relating to the deal.

  This is a fascinating book, full of details and annexures, and not an easy read. But then, it is tackling an extremely complex and labyrinthine subject, the biggest defence deal in India's history and perhaps also the most opaque; it investigates an establishment that covers up and dissembles at every step. It is the most comprehensive and complete account of the purchase contract so far, and will, in time, become important archival material. It may also provide invaluable inputs if ever an independent and fair enquiry is allowed to be carried out into this display of the arrogance of power. For the moment, all one can do is repeat the words with which the authors hopefully conclude this book: SATYAMEV JAYATE.

SITTING ON THE FENCE CANNOT BE A SUSTAINABLE FOREIGN POLICY

   We did it again last Thursday- for the seventh time India abstained on a UN vote that asked Russia to cease hostilities and vacate its invasion of Ukraine. It was, of course, not unexpected, because under Mr. Jaishankar fence sitting has become an essential ingredient of our foreign policy, thinly disguised as "national interest." We are doing the same thing on China, Myanmar and Afghanistan but it is our position on Ukraine which makes me sick to my stomach.

   Cutting through all that NATO and "sphere of influence"  and "India's strategic interest" jargon, even Mr. Jaishankar will admit that Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine: it was Russia which sent in its troops and tanks into Ukraine on the 24th February 2022, not the other way round. Ukraine responded militarily. So far, so good: two armies fighting each other, a complex historical background, absolutely no reason for India to take sides till this point, let NATO-Russia-Ukraine sort out a problem of their own making.

   But then Russia changed the nature of the war: on the military backfoot, it started targeting towns, civilian infrastructure like hospitals, apartments, power stations, even schools, and continues to do so even today. This is in complete violation of Geneva conventions and international laws and conventions. It is no longer just fighting the Ukrainian army, it is systematically destroying a country, decimating its population and obliterating it from the map. It can do so with impunity because Ukraine does not have the military capability and hardware to strike within Russia, and its civilians are sitting ducks in a firing range.

  The price which Ukraine is paying is humungous; according to the UNHCR at least 8000 Ukrainian civilians have died so far, but it concedes that this is a gross under estimation; (the Ukrainian Prosecutor for War Crimes puts the toll at 100,000 killed and wounded); 18 million people are in dire need of humanitarian assistance , without homes, power, water and food; 14 million have been displaced internally; 5 million have had to flee the country. Russia is not fighting a war, it is waging genocide.

   We don't need to even go into the merits of the dispute to acknowledge that what Russia is doing is a war crime: fight the Ukrainian army by all means but why target civilians ? But Mr. Modi and Mr. Jaishankar are unable to see this dimension, or (more likely) are aware of it but cynically see it as an opportunity to further their political and economic objectives- compassion, morality, humanitarianism be damned. And the deepest cut is that they are dressing up their mercenary position as "neutrality !" 

   This is patent hogwash and dissembling, it is the kind of neutrality which has put us in the company of countries such as China, Iran and North Korea in the UN on this issue, a far cry from being the leader of a non-aligned movement. For, as Theodre Roosevelt once said: "To be neutral between right and wrong is to serve wrong." And we will also do well to remember the wise words of Bishop Desmond Tutu:

" If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." I am sure that Mr. Jaishankar will not have forgotten these words, notwithstanding his recently acquired pulpit skills.

  MEA's (Ministry of External Affairs) pathetic attempts at justifying this self seeking position is not only ridiculous, it is also contradictory. Here are samples of some of our statements at the UN to defend our abstentions:

* We believe in the importance of "respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states." [Really?]

* The international community should focus on "cessation of hostilities and on urgent humanitarian assistance." [ This is exactly what we are not supporting]

* UN should "promote dialogue and diplomacy." [ It's trying to do that, without our support].

* " No solution can ever arrive at the cost of human lives." [ Then why not condemn Russian attacks on civilians?]

Each one of the averments above is unexceptionable and encapsulates many universal principles. But we are not abiding by a single one of them in consistently refusing to condemn Russia's attack on civilians and civilian infrastructure, even if we do not ask it to roll back its invasion. (Which also we should be doing). Our position is not only hypocritical, it is also indefensible in any civilised world order. It may also be unscrupulously avaricious.

  For the fact is that we are profiting (if not profiteering) immensely from this war, and the longer it goes on the more we reduce our current account deficit. Our support (there is no other word for it, no matter how we guild it) for Russia has enabled us to buy cheap Russian oil at less than half the pre-war prices. and considerably below the $60 cap set by the West. Consequently our oil imports from Russia have shot up to about 1.50 million barrels a day as against the earlier 68000 barrels. The Indian govt. is estimated to have reduced its oil import bill by about $ 3.50 billion so far. This, in simple terms, is the "national interest" Mr. Jaishankar goes about preaching to an increasingly disapproving global community. As if national interest is merely the sum of the money saved.

   But we are not even being given a fair share of this opportune largesse. At these rates of purchase the domestic prices of petrol, diesel and gas should have come down  by at least 40% but we continue to pay for petrol and diesel at roughly Rs.100 per liter, and the gas cylinder still costs us Rs.1150 or thereabouts. All the windfall profits are being pocketed by the govt. and private refiners, who are even exporting the finished product to other countries! ( About 60% of the country's refining capacity is with the private players like the Ambanis). It is difficult to see any "national interest" in this institutionalised hypocrisy when the common citizen does not benefit from this policy in any way. The profits are simply blood money, as a Ukrainian Minister had said some time back. By shoring up Russian revenues, India is also helping to prolong the war and the sufferings of the Ukrainian people.

   The diplomatic dimension of this chicanery on India's image is equally damaging, as Shashi Tharoor pointed out in an interview with Karan Thapar on 27th February. Firstly, we are demonstrating to 

the world at large that we lack the courage of our convictions in refusing to call out Russia, (if not for the military engagement, at least for the attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure). Secondly, we fail to see the inherent contradiction in siding with a Russia which has now become "a junior partner of China, our main adversary." And finally, according to Tharoor, we "have locked ourselves into a corner which is less and less favourable for our strategic posture."

   This is bound to adversely impact our international stature in the long run, even if the picture looks rosy- saffron?- in the short term. We shall lose credibility, reliability and influence. The Lowly Institute Power Index 2023- the capacity of a country to shape its external environment- gives us a score of only 36.3 out of 100 (China, by comparison, is more than double this at 75.3). Our fence sitting and equivocation on the Russia-Ukraine issue shall, in all likelihood, further lower this rating in the days to come. And, as Shashi Tharoor pointed out in the interview, the first signs of this may already be evident in the recently concluded meetings of G20 Finance Ministers and Foreign Ministers. Our stewardship of the G20 has been dented right at the start of our Presidency by the failure to adopt a joint communique in either of these meetings. The reason? The majority of members wanted to condemn Russia's aggression, to go by the wording of the Bali resolution of last year, but we failed to persuade Russia and China. We did not even want to use the word "war" to describe what is happening on Ukrainian territory, and instead insisted on the term "crisis" ! At one point the French Minister even threatened to walk out ! This is unprecedented and has to be seen as India's failure, especially in the context of our Vishwaguru aspirations to play mediator in the conflict. It may also be the first portent of the fact that other countries may be running out of patience with our dissembling and double dealing. They are giving us a long rope presently because of other geo-political/economic considerations, but those can change any time. The strength of that rope can be tested any time, say by a belligerent China on our northern borders, and we may then find ourselves isolated.

   It does not pay to be too clever by half. And you can't sit on the fence for ever.

OF PUPPETS , SURROGATES AND THE REAL McCOY : A "CRASH" COURSE ON THE INDIAN STOCK MARKET

    A disclaimer is in order before I venture into the rest of this piece. These days, any hack of standing has to begin with a disclaimer to show that he is someone to be reckoned with, that his background is of interest to his readers, that he is pure as the driven snow, and that therefore whatever bilge he dishes out is of some import. I reckon that, as someone who has been pulling the flush every week for the last eight years, I qualify for a disclaimer.

   It is a simple one: neither I, nor anyone of my family members (including my short-seller pooch, Brutus) own a single share in any Adani company (at least the known ones, for God only knows how many more he has tucked away among the mangroves in Tonga, the Pantanal and Pitcairn's Island). Actually, it's a bit of an unnecessary disclosure because nobody except Adani owns any Adani shares, and though SBI (State Bank of India) and LIC (Life Insurance Corporation of India) may hold some shares as pledges, they will eventually have to render unto Adani what is Adani's (and also what is Tom, Dick and Harry's, for doesn't the hand of God rest lightly on the gentleman from Gujarat?)

  One of the upsides of growing old is that you continue to learn something new every day. I turned 72 last December, and in just 45 days thereafter I have assimilated more knowledge about the stock market than in the preceding seven decades, thanks to the anti-Hindu-n-berg report, the 408 page smokescreen of Adani Enterprises, and Mahua Moitra, who is pretty good with a taser herself.

   I have now learnt, for example, that "round tripping" is not what Mr. Modi does- a trip to Gandhinagar to remind the people who built Gujarat, and back in time to launch another Vande Bharat. It means sending moneys from place A to Place B, washing it in a local laundromat, and then sending it back to A in some other form. With this knowledge, however, came the realisation that the wife has been doing this for the last forty years, without my suspecting it ! She takes my monthly pay check in Shimla, deducts a small amount for keeping a few loaves of bread on the table, and sends the rest to her sister in Delhi. From there the shekels are routed to Varanasi to purchase Banarsi silk sarees, which then find their way back to Shimla through trusted emissaries. Voila! The round tripping is now complete, with Shukla being short- sold, not a short-seller. Which corresponds to the motto of SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) - "Ignorance is bliss". Or, as the Finance Minister hinted the other day: What you don't know won't hurt you, or me. It is also government policy, what with the RTI (Right to Information) Act being asphyxiated and Parliament doing more expunging than debating.

   Take that other thing, called an IPO ( Initial Public Offering) or, as in Mr. Adani's case, an FPO (F----d Up Public Offering). This is essentially a method of crowd funding where the family is the said crowd. I myself have not floated an IPO, primarily because I consider myself a gentleman and gentlemen, as we all know, prefer bonds. Furthermore, I don't have a large family, or any shell companies in Mauritius, or any contacts in the RBI (Reserve Bank Of India) or SEBI. I also don't know any FII's (Foreign Institutional Investors). Actually, I do: two- ex-colleagues parked in the USA and Switzerland, respectively, but they won't lend me a penny since I still owe them a drink from their last visit to India. According to them, therefore, there are problems with my liquidity as my credit rating is down by quite a few pegs.

   Mr. Adani, however, did float his FPO and came a cropper. My limited knowledge of the Indian stock market tells me that he forgot two things: one, thanks to the impending Cow Hug Day, the proverbial bull on the bourse had been replaced by the cow, which had already bitten off more of his shady shares than it could chew. And secondly, as the Hindenberg report has shown, a stock market can put up with upticks and downticks but not with antics. Perhaps the investors felt that the conglomerate had more ticks than your average mongrel on Dalal street, or tricks than P.C. Sorcar Junior, and decided to watch Pathan instead on the telly. Mark it up as another victory of the bikini over the Houdini.

   Another dreadful realisation dawned on me the other day as I was fondly leafing through my bank passbook- I practically belong to Mr. Adani, or at least all my assets do, which is the same thing. Just consider the facts, all ye bhaktiveers: my bank deposits have been given to Mr. Adani's many companies, and with a debt to equity ratio of 2021% (Adani Green) there is a good chance I may not get them back. The moneys I have invested in mutual funds  have also been given to- you got it right first time!- Mr. Adani. The premium I have been paying faithfully every year to LIC is invested in Mr. Adani's shares, which are estimated to be over valued by at least five times. Hell, I belong to the Company Store, just like those wildcatters in the Max Brand and Zane Grey novels I grew up on. In fact, I might as well delete the name of Neerja (the long suffering but round tripping wife, folks) as my nominee in all my accounts and substitute it with Mr. Adani's name- he's going to get it all some day in any case!

  Moving swiftly from the economics to the politics, one has begun wondering why we need 543 MPs and a Parliament at all ? Most MPs are nowadays zip-locked into silence, Ministers have become nodding mannequins in front of the Adani Mall, and Parliament itself has become a necropolis where democracy is buried a little deeper with each session. Why spend tens of thousands of crores and millions of manhours in electing MPs and Prime Ministers when the shots are being called by someone else? If Mr. A is to make industrial and environmental policies, if Mr. A is to make all our airports, ports, power plants, roads, coal mines, if Mr. A has the first right over all financial resources of the public and the state- then why have a government at all? Why install puppets to give the pretense of a government when the puppeteer himself holds all the strings? Why settle for a surrogate when you have the real McCoy, as it were ? Why not just do an Ayatollah Khomeini and appoint him the Supreme Leader ?

   And now you must excuse me; I have to rush to Dal me Kala street because my broker informs me the shares of toilet paper have touched, quite appropriately, a new bottom- it's an opportunity to wipe the slate clean and rise again from the ashes, or whatever has hit the fan.

BOOK REVIEW - MAPPING A COUNTRY'S HISTORY

                                 

BOOK REVIEW:  WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES OF BHARAT

                               [ Sanjeev Chopra. Harper Collins. 2022. ]

( This review was originally published in the TRIBUNE)

AMALGAMATING HISTORY WITH GEOGRAPHY.

 The book is essentially a work of history, but from a different perspective. Historical accounts are usually narrated from either the victor's angle, or the loser's; based on either events or individuals; seen through either spatial or temporal lenses. But this book approaches the history of post-Independence India from an entirely different and novel angle- the cartographic lines that shaped the units which comprise the states of modern India. It examines the cartographic footprints of political decisions, linguistic, ethnic, religious and social aspirations that determined where the internal boundaries of states should be drawn, and in the process ends up as a fascinating account of how the Indian republic evolved from 1947 to the latest carving up of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019.

   The author traces the course of India's internal geography from the first Hindi map of India in 1952 to the reorganisation of J+K in 2019. He explains the rationale for the disappearance and reappearance of Tibet on our maps, the role of the States Reorganisation Commission, the integration of Portuguese and French territories into the republic, the dismemberment of Assam into seven states and the creation of Nagaland, the merger of Sikkim, the formation of Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttarakhand, the inevitable birth of Telengana, the disputes over state capitals such as Madras, Chandigarh and Hyderabad, the new outlines of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, among many accounts. It is a fascinating narration of political movements, regional aspirations, linguistic demands, and an example of what can be achieved by dialogue, accommodation, wise counsel and statesmanship.

   Of particular interest are the chapters relating to the merger of the 562 princely states( 9 opted for Pakistan) and 9 provinces, and the manner of drawing their boundaries. Chopra lays bare, through first rate secondary research, the moves and compulsions of the Congress, the Muslim League, Sheikh Abdullah and Maharajah Hari Singh in Kashmir: though they finally led to the signing of the Instrument of Accession on 26th of October 1947, that still left a legacy which bedevils us today: of Kashmir's total area of 222236 sq.kms Pakistan and China continue to occupy 78114 sq.kms and 42735 sq.kms, respectively.

   It's not possible to recount the cartographic background of each state in a short review, but a flavour of the book can be gleaned from the chapter pertaining to the erstwhile princely state of Hyderabad, the jewel in the Chamber of Princes. The then Nizam, Osman Ali Khan, tried to position himself as a rival of Jinnah for leadership of the Indian Muslims during and post 1947. In an ironic paradox, Kashmir and Hyderabad had reverse similarities- both were ruled by sovereigns belonging to a religion different from the majority of their subjects, with the religions reversed! Chopra explains how the activism of the Congress, Hindu Mahasabha and the Arya Samaj gradually made the Nizam's position of sovereign independence untenable. He received no support from either Mountbatten or Jinnah; the latter, in fact, saw in him a rival and did not want him in Pakistan. The matter was finally decided by Operation Polo when the Indian army marched in on 15th September 1948 and Hyderabad was integrated into the dominion of India.

   The merger of the fractious princely states was a monumental task without parallel in global history; the sheer magnitude of the achievement can perhaps be appreciated by just one example- the Kathiawar region of Gujarat alone had 222 separate princely states! This book's primary feat is that it takes us back in time to reveal how the states of today took shape after balancing competing demands, as in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab, Himachal, Andhra Pradesh, Madras, Madhya Pradesh to name just a few. New states were formed, old ones like Hyderabad and Baroda disappeared, and ( an interesting but little known titbit) the seeds of Telengana were sown in 1957 when a Gentleman's Agreement was signed between the leaders of the two regions for sharing power. 

   We also learn of little known nuggets of history: how the merger of Bengal and Bihar into a super-state was narrowly avoided because the proposal was never formally submitted to the States Reorganization Commission even though both the Chief Ministers had agreed upon it. The reader is also told about the international ramifications of the merger of the French and Portuguese enclaves, the graphic history of the strategic Andaman, Nicobar and Lakshadweep islands, the convoluted passions and concerns of the peoples of the NE states, an issue not yet fully resolved, the soft spot of the British for the Nagas ; the difference between the Parts A,B and C states; the subtle distinctions between Instrument of Accession, Merger Agreement and a Standstill Agreement.

   We The People  is a treasure trove of little known facts and a subtle blend of history and geography. Rome was not built in a day,  nor was the Indian republic. In fact, it is still a work in progress 75 years later, which just shows how stupendous was the task which confronted the founders of our nation. This book should be a tribute to those statesmen, visionaries and administrators who navigated their way through those tempestuous seas to reach the safe harbour that is the thriving and united Republic of India today. This book should be made compulsory reading for today's Parliamentarians and politicians who are doing their best to undo the phenomenal achievements of their predecessors in creating a nation out of chaos.

   

A WEEK OF CONSPIRACIES, NATIONALISM AND DELUSIONS.

   

                                                   THE  NEW  INDIA  WHINING

This last fortnight has not been a good one for the BJP or its bhaktiveers, even if we discount the irony of an autocratic despot being invited as the Chief guest at our Republic Day function. One would have expected that the wiseacres of MEA (Ministry of External Affairs) would, in between rejecting assorted documentaries and financial exposures as conspiracies, have advised the Prime Minister that a person who tears up his own country's Constitution is not the best choice to preside over another nation's commemoration of its still intact (though fraying at the edges) Constitution. But then one should expect this from our new were-wolf warrior diplomacy, I guess. As they say, a man is known by the company he keeps.

  Of greater import, however, was the official overkill on the BBC's two part documentary on The Modi Question. Hastily putting on his saffron tie and without even bothering to see the documentary, the MEA spokesperson informed the media that it was a conspiracy against India and indicative of a colonial mind set. This is what I term a typical lazy "Augmentin" response. For my more healthy readers, Augmentin is a broad spectrum antibiotic: when a doctor is too lazy or incompetent to identify the exact cause of your infection he will prescribe a broad spectrum antibiotic, hoping that it will work against your virus too. It's like a cluster bomb, and of late it has become the weapon of choice of the MEA, led as it is by another ( to continue with the ordnance phraseology) loose canon.

  Even the twitterati will concede that the BBC's credibility is slightly higher than that of our govt. spokespersons, Kangana Runout or Amit Malviya. It is funded by the British taxpayer  (the British govt. is just a conduit, though most rashtraveers here will miss this fine distinction) and its loyalty is to the former, not the latter. A couple of years back it had released a similar factual documentary on the Bengal famine of 1940, squarely holding Churchill and the then colonial govt. to account. It never let up on Boris Johnson as Prime Minister and carried full reports on his Partygate shenanigans during Covid. It is therefore a bit rich when our own TV anchors- TRPveers- who long ago sold their grandmothers to the highest bidder, tell us that the BBC is compromised and has no credibility.

  I believe that Mr. Swapan Dasgupta (who used to be a journalist in pre-Vedic times), and who has been given more than his fair share of screen space as an apologist for the BJP in the documentary, is the Media Advisor to the Prime Minister. If so, he should be shown the door immediately for the govt's decision to ban the film on digital platforms, and, as a logical follow up, to use force to prevent its viewing in public or in university campuses. For now this documentary has become the second most sought after video after Pathan and Deepika Padukone's panties.

  If Mr. Dasgupta had not spent all his time defending the indefensible he would perhaps have learnt about the Streisand effect. It all began when in 2003 the California Coastal Project Report uploaded a picture of the coastline in which Barbara Streisand's Malibu mansion was also visible. The intention was to develop proper policies for combating coastal erosion. But the  actress filed a suit claiming US$50 million for invasion of privacy. The attendant publicity, however, had the opposite effect from what she had intended: where earlier the photograph had only 6 downloads, her action resulted in 420000 downloads in the following months! Attempts to suppress or to hide information only ensure wider dissemination and draw even more attention to it. Which is what is happening to the BBC documentary much to the embarrassment of the bhaktiveers.

  The double whammy, based on a similar principle playing out, was delivered by the film Pathan. It has been obvious for some time that, for reasons I cannot fathom, Shah Rukh Khan is the right wing's bete noire; maybe there's something here none of us is aware of. For he has always comported himself in public as a gentleman, has stayed away from politics and has been reticent to a fault. I suspect that that is what angers some people. He does not conform to the image of the "enemy" that these lumpens target, and he refuses to endorse the politics of the day (as most of his peers have spinelessly done). But he is India's biggest superstar and therefore must be brought down, if only to convey that people of his community cannot be allowed to succeed in this new rashtra.                                                                                                                        Internationally, Bollywood is the preeminent face of India's soft power, from the time of Raj Kapoor to AR Rehman. And the face it presents is one of joyful cultural diversity, multi-faith, multi-community, whether it be in its content, songs, dances, lyricists, directors, singers or actors. This is not acceptable to the present dispensation and its adherents, which want desperately that India should be viewed only through a single religious and cultural prism. And since Shah Rukh Khan is the recognizable face of the other Bollywood he has to be brought down and "in the dust be equal made" with the Vivek Agnihotris and Akshay Kumars of the world.                                                                                                                                                                    The unconscionable targeting of his son in a patently false drug case boomeranged on the government last year. So Pathan, his first film in five years, could not be allowed to succeed. Controversies were manufactured, TV debates engineered to build up public opinion against it, social media was swamped with "boycott Pathan" calls, threats were held out liberally by petty minions of power. But the Streisand effect came into play again, as it had done earlier for Brahmashastra too, and Shah Rukh's movie is well on its way to becoming our own Titanic or Avatar. The push-back from Bollywood appears to have finally started.                    Is the toxic nationalism virus becoming weaker, like the Covid one, or are we developing greater immunity to it ? Time will tell, but these two developments last fortnight are a harbinger of better times (which should not be confused with "acche din"). As I write this, a triple whammy has just been delivered by the Hindenberg report on the Adani conglomerate whose valuation has plummeted faster even than the moral values of our TV anchors. The story is still a work in progress but, as usual, the "conspiracy" and "anti-India" cards have been pulled out of the deck again to counter the report. It didn't help much that the CFO of Adani Enterprises, in a televised address on Tuesday, wrapped himself in the national flag and compared the carnage of his shares to the Jalianwala Bagh massacre ! At least he spoke, even though it was burlesque at its worst, for there has been a resounding silence otherwise- not even a well-oiled squeak out of the Finance Ministry, the RBI, SEBI, the Stock Exchanges or SBI so far. It's not a question of who will blink first (Adani has already blinked by cancelling his FPO last night), the real question is: who will speak first ? For all I know the facts presented in this report or in the BBC documentary may be wrong  (though I suspect they are not), but surely this great nation cannot be equated to two individuals, notwithstanding their delusions of immortality ?

  Not a very auspicious beginning to the Amritkal or our much vaunted G-20 presidency, is it ?