12
ALL THAT MATTERS
Surgical strikes
are good theatre,
but stop there
I don’t see the Nehru-Gandhi
family returning to power
SWAMINOMICS
SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR
The best form of attack is political
theatre. It satisfies the bloodlust of enraged domestic audiences without
causing serious military damage to the
other side, thus limiting escalation.
India’s supposed “surgical strike” on seven terrorist
bases across the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir has
produced more guffaws than outrage in Pakistan. An
official there sneered, “How is it possible that the target
of a surgical strike has no idea it took place? This was
simply an episode of cross LoC fire…small arms and
mortars were used, similar to what was used before...we
gave a befitting response.” He said India was inventing
surgical strikes to mollify its domestic audience.
“Surgical strike” suggests cutting a limb, crippling
the enemy and deterring terrorism. Pakistan’s response
shows nothing has been cut off or deterred. It will keep
aiding Kashmiri militancy.
That militancy is homegrown. Pakistan assists it, but
the problem arises from India’s human rights abuses in
Kashmir. The Valley is more anti-India than ever. Until
that changes — and it could take decades — Kashmiri
militancy, and Pakistani assistance to it, will continue.
India claims its strikes destroyed “launch pads” for
terrorist infiltration into India. This misuses military
terminology to paint a picture of victory. Launch pads
are used by missiles, not guerillas, who are very mobile
and infiltrate wherever opportunity beckons. They are
not stationary targets (like missile launch pads) that can
be destroyed by bombing.
Yet such political theatre can be a good thing. It is a
relatively low-risk way of satisfying domestic demand
for retaliation against Pak-assisted outrages in Uri and
Pathankot, while minimising the chances and extent of
military escalation.
Had India tried to aerially bomb important military
targets, as some jingoists want, its planes could well be
shot down by well-defended Pakistan. Even a tank-led
attack could lead to humiliating setbacks. No, better by
far is artillery shelling from Indian soil across the border
— our guns can fire several kilometres into Pakistani
territory. Manned missions a kilometre deep will take
just a few minutes before hurrying back.
Even this carries risks. India may get away with this
as an occasional tactic. But if used too often, or causing
too much damage, Pakistan will be obliged to retaliate.
After that, tit-for-tat escalation could lead to a pointless,
bloody war.
The best way of limiting escalation is to fire from
Indian soil and exaggerate the impact. Jingoistic popu-
SUNDAY TIMES OF INDIA, AHMEDABAD
OCTOBER 2, 2016
MEANWHILE IN KASHMIR... Pakistan’s response shows it
has not been deterred. As long as the situation in the
Valley doesn’t change, it will continue to aid militancy
lists in India will lap up such “surgical strikes” even as
Pakistanis sneer. Opposition parties will go along with
such exaggerations for patriotic solidarity. Domestic
honour will feel assuaged.
The UPA government had earlier followed a policy
of “strategic restraint” in the face of Pakistani provocations. It avoided conventional military retaliation, which
would carry major risks. Strategic restraint gained
global sympathy for India, but not isolation of Pakistan
as a terrorist state (it remains a vital supply route for
international assistance to Afghanistan). Some analysts
suggested retaliation through overt support to Baloch
insurgents in Pakistan. But the UPA rejected overt support since India could not simultaneously lambast Pakistani aid to militants in Kashmir and yet aid militants
in Balochistan. Instead, it opted for strategic restraint.
This was politically feasible because India suffered
from so many sorts of domestic violence across states,
that violence in Kashmir seemed mostly routine. Pakistan’s notion of ousting India from Kashmir through “a
thousand cuts” failed because the cuts were no more than
pinpricks in a violent land.
However, the recent attacks on Indian military bases
in Uri and Pathankot are not routine militancy. They
come close to acts of war. The Indian public demands
retaliation, not strategic restraint.
Modi and the BJP are hawks. But even long-time doves
like me sense that Uri and Pathankot have raised the
ante, and require a retaliatory strategy.
Boycotting Saarc summits is not enough. Maximising
water use allowed by the Indus Waters Treaty makes
sense, but is not punishment: it simply gives Pakistan
its due share. Modi has opted for strikes across the LoC,
amidst much cheering from most Indians.
As a dove, I will go along reluctantly, but highlight the
risk of escalation. Minor Pakistani retaliation should be
shrugged off. Escalation is best curbed by India using carefully calibrated force only occasionally, and by using fancy
terminology (like “surgical strikes”) that Indians cheer
even while Pakistanis sneer. If both Indians and Pakistanis feel good, that is the best insurance against escalation.
Like the article: SMS MTMVSA
<space> Yes or No to 58888@ 3/sms
His book on his days in the Manmohan Singh PMO, released
ahead of the 2014 election, whipped up a storm for its claim
that files were sent to Sonia Gandhi. In his latest offering,
1991: How P V Narasimha Rao Made History, Sanjaya Baru
revisits that time to examine the politics behind the economic
reforms initiated by Rao. He tells Rajeev Deshpande that
the year was a harbinger of change on several fronts
Why is 1991 so important? Why not 1984,
1996 or 1999, which were important political
landmarks too?
But in 1991 a lot of important
things happened. Most remember the economic crisis and a
shift in policy. But equally important were the end of the Cold War, collapse of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the shift in our foreign policy.
Chandra Shekhar allowing overflight of
US aircraft was a big pro-American military
decision. Narasimha Rao’s visit to Israel,
South Korea and his Look East policy. There
is no other year with such a combination of
economic and foreign policy changes.
Finally I argue that with the death of
Rajiv Gandhi, a phase in Indian politics
ended. I do not see the return of the NehruGandhi family to power in this country.
So when Chandra Shekhar’s government
could not present the Budget in 1991, did Rajiv
Gandhi know the consequences?
Absolutely. If you read the autobiography of then President R
Venkataraman, he kept Rajiv
informed. He sought an assurance that Chandra Shekhar be allowed to be
PM for a year. Venkataraman knew the implications of a default would be catastrophic.
FOR THE
RECORD
You don’t?
I do not. After 1989, the family has not been
back in office. The UPA was a coalition and
the PM was not from the family. Rajiv’s
assassination ended all that.
You argue that Rajiv Gandhi’s policies contributed to the 1991 economic crisis. But he is
seen as a modernizer.
There is no question that he was a modernizer intellectually. He took policy decisions
like computerization. But the crisis of 1991
was a sharp increase in fiscal deficit. And
an unsustainable BoP (balance of payments). I quote Jagdish Bhagwati, I G Patel, Vijay Joshi and IMD Little, four top
economists. They all attribute the problems to a series of policy measures taken
during 1985-89 and 1990 (by the V P Singh
government).
In the first year of his prime ministership,
how much independence did Rao have?
If you read some other accounts — mine
is only on 1991 — Rao asserted the PM’s
autonomy. He did regularly visit Sonia
Gandhi. He visited her as the widow of
his predecessor. He did not
visit to take instructions.
I think that was part of
the problem. The coterie around her wanted
him to behave as if she
was the boss. Courtesy
was not enough, she
wanted authority.
So were economic
issues used to attack Rao?
Jairam Ramesh records
how Arjun Singh, A K
A n t o n y, Vaya l a r
Ravi and left-
of-centre Congressmen attacked Rao who
had to quote Nehru at length. The political
challenge came after Babri Masjid.
It does seem that the Babri Masjid demolition subsumed the reforms part of his legacy.
Rao’s own view was that if things went
right everyone would get the credit,
otherwise he would get the blame. I wrote
in ‘The Accidental Prime Minister’ that
the relationship between Manmohan
Singh and Sonia Gandhi was exactly the
same. All success would go to the party,
failure to the government. Singh accepted that, Rao did not (in the context of
Sonia’s role).
It is hard not to get the feeling that you seem
to believe the Nehru-Gandhi influence on Congress and politics was not positive.
I come from a Congress family; my great
grand uncle worked with Nehru at Anand
Bhawan (in Allahabad). My father was a
Youth Congress leader who worked under
Congress CMs. I have seen Congress as a
national party. After Indira Gandhi returned to office in 1980 it became more and
more a family proprietorship.
How did the Manmohan Singh-Rao relationship function?
Manmohan Singh has always recognized his debt. I have tried to restore balance. The narrative sometimes has had it that the reforms
of 1991 were done by economists.
Very few recall the role of political leadership like Rao and even
Chandra Shekhar. Manmohan
Singh came on the scene because
Rao wanted an economist of international stature…some people
(wrongly) said he was Rajiv’s or Sonia’s choice.
So how do you see the accusation that
Rao was “soft saffron”?
He was the only ex-PM
to write (he wrote his
account of Ayodhya). There is no
reason not to believe his detailed
arguments.
My wife doesn’t get why India gave up strategic restraint
AAKARVANI
AAKAR PATEL
I was celebrating our victory
against Pakistan when my wife
asked me what I was excited
about. I asked her to pass the
tricolour that I always keep near
the television set and told her we had showed them
who was boss. We had finally broken through on
the issue of terrorism and things had shifted strategically in our favour. She was interested in knowing more and I was obviously keen to educate her
on the subject. Here’s how our conversation went.
Me: We’ve abandoned strategic restraint.
She: What is that?
Me: Not retaliating when we are attacked.
She nodded: That sounds like restraint. Why is it
‘strategic’?
Me: Look, these things are military terms. Strate-
gic restraint was a failed strategy. It assumed we
would lose more by acting than by doing nothing.
It had to be abandoned because it was useless.
She: Okay. If it’s a strategy, can we go back to it now?
Me: No, how can we? Strategic restraint is in the
dustbin for sure. And good riddance too!
She: Okay, so each time there is an attack on us we
will give up restraint? Or are we in a permanent
state of strategic unrestraint?
Me: I suppose we give up restraint only when the
next attack on us is serious.
She: Okay. What level violation from the enemy
will trigger our retaliation doctrine?
Me: Don’t be difficult. All of us know when enough
is enough!
She: I’m sure that’s true. I’m just asking because
I am not clear. If we have given up the old strategy
of restraint, what’s the new one?
Me: I call it ‘enough is enough’. I think the experts
have a term for it. But I can tell you the result, and
it is a surgical strike.
She: What’s that?
Me: It’s a punitive action against the terrorists and
their backers.
She: So next time our response will again be a
surgical strike? Or something bigger? If it will be
a surgical strike will it not have to be a bigger surgical strike than this one if it is to be punitive?
Me: Maybe. Look, I am sure some of this we will
figure out later.
She: Okay. Will talking to them continue? Or are
we at war?
Me: Of course we will talk to them. But on our
terms.
She: Doesn’t this strike mean we believe we can
force them to comply? Then why do we need to talk
to them?
Me: This strike means mainly that we will punish
them when they misbehave.
She: Okay. We punish them in order to get them to
behave?
Me: Correct. Now you’re getting it strategically.
War talk is a bad idea for a
nation prepping to take off
and bolts of governance. Over the past two years, the
sheer scale of initiatives undertaken by the government
is quite mind-boggling. From Swachh Bharat and Make
SWAPAN DASGUPTA
in India to Mudra and the popularising of LED bulbs,
The war cries emanating from the the government has certainly left no stone unturned to
border with Pakistan are, quite ensure that India lives up to its potential. Taken pieceunderstandably, occupying the meal they may appear modest, but read in conjunction
country’s attention. Yet, in many they signify a government permanently on its toes.
It may be argued that frenetic government goes
ways, ‘surgical strikes’ directed at
terror camps and the diplomatic offensive against against the grain of the PM’s election commitment of
Pakistan are unnecessary distractions forced on a “minimum government, maximum governance”. The
government whose single-minded focus has been on criticism is warranted. However, the hyper activity of
the government comes in the backdrop of sluggish
kickstarting the Indian economy.
Narendra Modi’s emphatic victory in the 2014 gen- capital expenditure by the private sector, a feature that
eral election was accompanied by a dizzying rise in was entirely unanticipated in 2014. Rather than stick to
popular expectations. Thanks in no small measure to dogma, the government responded with Keynesian
the catchy ‘achhe din’ slogan coined by clever copywrit- vigour, pouring in investment by way of public expenditure. The difference with earlier regimes is that public
ers, there was a simplistic and somewhat naïve belief
expenditure has been sharply tarthat all of India’s woes would disapgeted to upgrade infrastructure and
pear now that there was a majority
vigorously monitored. Modi, to his
government with a strong leader at
credit, has improved the efficiency
the helm. Anecdotal evidence in the
of a lethargic state exponentially.
first two years of the Modi governSecondly, much to the bewilderment indicated that the impatience
ment of India itself, the government
was particularly pronounced
has sharply reduced corruption. It
among the better-off sections of
would be entirely fair to suggest that
society, not least those that are oththe power brokers that once dotted
erwise inclined towards a market
Delhi in search of clients who needeconomy. The gripe that “nothing
ed to get work done are either underhas changed on the ground” was
employed or looking for alternative
frequently heard.
professions. Nor is it the case that
It is interesting that the sceptione set of political fixers has been
cism has become far more muted in
replaced by another. The signal of
the past few months, not least since
zero tolerance from the top, coupled
the government deftly negotiated
with the stringent action against
the GST legislation through both
black money has meant that India is
Houses of Parliament. Indeed, comlooking ahead to a new culture of
mitted Modi sceptics are talking in MOVING UP: India’s improved
doing business, even if it has interms of the BJP holding on to competitiveness rankings indicate
power for a prolonged period for profound change in the last two years volved the creation of short-term
credit bottlenecks in some sectors.
which they mistakenly blame a rudModi’s main challenge, however, is employment
derless Congress.
Prophesying the future isn’t particularly rewarding, generation, an explosive problem if left to fester. The
at least not on the strength of instinct and anecdote. first two years have been principally devoted to creating
However, a major opinion poll published in August and the right environment for entrepreneurs and giving a
the Pew survey of India suggest that disappointment boost to the under-appreciated family sector. The governwith Modi’s stewardship of the country isn’t as marked ment has resisted populist pressures for quick-fix soluas the editorial classes make it out to be. More to the tions, and looked for approaches that will begin to yield
point, the recently released World Economic Forum’s sustainable dividends by 2019. Modi appears to have
Global Competitiveness Index 2016-17 suggests that In- calculated that India will judge him for what he achieves
dia has experienced profound change in the past two in five years, rather than on a day-to-day basis. This may
years. India ranked 71 in the Competitiveness Index at be a gamble, but it is a noble gamble and a darn sight
the time Modi assumed charge; today it ranks 39. Unless better approach than divisive identity politics.
The trends look so encouraging that India will be
the pace of change is derailed by unforeseen turbulence,
loath to be forced into a war.
the ranking may further improve.
There are two positive features of the Modi government that even its ideological critics don’t deny. The
Like the article: SMS MTMVSDG
first is the sheer political energy expended on the nuts
<space> Yes or No to 58888@ 3/sms
RIGHT & WRONG
RHYME &
REASON
AMIT VARMA
THE CHOICE
Hillary Clinton drew
lots of hate,
But believed in the electorate.
With a delighted shriek,
She said, ‘I may be weak,
But look at the other candidate!’
THE WALL
Donald Trump wanted
to build a wall.
Humpty Dumpty told him,
‘Hey, bad call.
A bridge is much better,
Brings people together.
You might just be heading
for a fall.’
INBOX
Caste no bar
Apropos Aakar Patel’s article
(ATM, Sept 25), it’s simplistic to
say that Pakistan’s army
promotes violence against India
only because most of its Punjabi
population comes from martial
castes. American special forces
have often conducted raids inside
Pakistani territory, killing its
troops. Why don’t Pakistani
Punjabis do something about it?
Does their blood boil only against
India? If yes, then they have a
strange sense of martial honour.
The whole martial race theory
was reinvented by the British who
gave special privileges to castes
which supported them in 1857. For
example, Brahmins of UP and
Bihar made up a large part of the
Indian army till 1857. Mangal
Pandey was a Brahmin, wasn’t he?
Today, many Jats have done
very well in business, and several
Patidars are senior doctors. No
caste has a monopoly on violence.
Najmul Bakshi
Email the editor at
sunday.times@timesgroup.com
with ‘Sunday Mailbox’ in the subject line.
Please mention your name and city
She: We broke their country into two but they
haven’t learned to behave. Will they behave if we
break them into two again? Or four? How can we
know what level of punishment is effective?
(I looked at my watch. Arnab’s show was still
hours away. This softie tosh was getting to me and
I needed relief. But I kept my cool and told her what
I really felt.)
Me: You liberals will insist on pushing restraint
no matter how much we are humiliated.
She: I want what’s best for India too. I just want to
understand this change.
Me: If you claim to want what’s best for India, why
aren’t you celebrating with me when we have won!
She: What have we won?
Me: Look at the scoreboard. It clearly shows
‘Tooth 1 Jaw 1’ in our favour! You people don’t
want us to win?
She: There is a difference between those who want
retaliation and those who do not want repetition.
Will retaliation ensure no repetition of terrorism?
Me: What a stupid thing to say! Will not retaliating
ensure no repetition? You’re a hater!
She: This is not about the Prime Minister at all.
We’re discussing India and all of us have a stake
in it.
At this I began to raise my voice like the big
mustache-wallah corporal (I could be getting his
rank wrong, but you know the one I mean) on TV.
But she did not understand her station and continued rudely to speak over me speaking over her.
Our discussion did not conclude satisfactorily
and she did not learn the lesson I was eager and
willing to teach.
She just seems unable to understand what a great
shift this is. I’m sure you also know such people,
constantly bleating. Their lack of clarity is irritating and their constant questioning is a nuisance.
Thank god we are in the majority.
Like the article: SMS MTMVCOL
<space> Yes or No to 58888@ 3/sms
For lessons on digital swaraj,
Gandhi is an open source
pragmatic.” RMS was among the first to call for a free
online encyclopaedia. Wikipedia, no surprise, is governed by Creative Commons licensing.
SOPAN JOSHI
Many software giants do not give their customers
When faced with the exploitative any control over their source codes, asserting proeconomics and technology of Brit- prietary ownership. Stallman compares this to car
ish rule, Mohandas Gandhi found owners not being able to open up their engines. Yet,
innovative answers. Responding such companies have used Gandhi in their ads. Reto the dumping of overpriced mill member Apple’s ‘Think Different’ ad?
Gandhi and Stallman is a ready comparison.
cloth from England, he resorted to khadi. The
charkha was a lot more than image-making gim- Two public-spirited individuals, original and subversive. Freaks in their own ways, as pioneers tend
mickery: Gandhi had renegotiated the terms of
to be. Both used radical rethinking to find practical
technology and economics.
His approach to intellectual property was no dif- responses to what they opposed. The open-source
software movement, says Stallman, has much in
ferent. His 1909 masterpiece Hind Swaraj was free of
copyright. “I have never yet copyrighted any of my common with Gandhi.
So is this movement a fringe concern in the digiwritings. Tempting offers have come to me...even so,
I dare not be exclusive... Writings in the journals tal world? Far from it. In May 2015, the government
Getty Images
of India released its e-governance
which I have the privilege of editing
policy; it had a heavy slant tomust be common property. Copyright
wards open source software, even
is not a natural thing. It is a modern
if the government machinery is
institution, perhaps desirable to a
very slow to actually adopt this
certain extent,” he wrote in March
policy. In today’s world, software
1926. “I have not the heart to copyright
isn’t just a matter of choosing an
my articles,” he iterated in June 1940.
OS platform for your phone. It
Four years later, he changed tack,
spreads from day-to-day governbequeathing all rights over his writment work and data management
ings to the Navjivan Trust. “It was after
to matters of national security.
much thought that I declared a trust
While the government has
in connection with my writings. I had
taken a step forward, social orobserved misuse of Tolstoy’s writings
ganizations fare poorly. India’s
for want of a trust. By curing the desmall but enthusiastic FOSS comfect, I preserved fully the idea lying
munity lacks a sense of its culbehind dislike for copyright, i.e., for
tural heritage, including the valpersonal gain for one’s writings. The
ues of our freedom movement.
idea also was to prevent profiteering
Gandhian institutions, too, reby publishers or distortion or misrep- THINK RADICAL: Parallels have
main inert to possibilities of
resentation, wilful or unintentional.” been drawn between Gandhi’s
wider social cooperation. So, even
Gandhi engaged with the copyright stand on copyright and the
as calls for engaging young people
law to subvert the economics he disa- open source software movement
with Gandhian values has become
greed with, and to infuse it with values
close to his heart, wrote a US law professor in a 2013 a trope, there is no collaboration on the new frontiers
paper titled ‘Gandhi and Copyright Pragmatism’. “To- of technology and economics. No renegotiation of
ward the later part of his life, he also came to deploy terms, no pragmatism. Call it a cultural version of
copyright law to curtail market-based exploitation the digital divide. This is one reason for the dismal
when he could. In many ways then, Gandhi’s approach state of Indian language computing.
There will be renewed interest in Gandhi in the
did with copyright law what open source licensing and
the Creative Commons Project would begin doing with build-up to 2019, his 150th anniversary year. One part
copyright in the 21st century,” wrote Shyamkrishna of this will be the tiresome discussions on “how relBalganesh of University of Pennsylvania Law School. evant is Gandhi to our times?”, a Gandhi Jayanti
Now, consider the life and work of Richard M Stall- ritual now. To find answers, we needn’t look further
than our digital devices, actually. If we stop for a
man (callsign RMS in the geek-verse). A champion of
the movement for Free and Open Source Software moment and take a hard look at the economics and
(FOSS), he is more commonly known as the pioneer politics of technology, the relevance is all around.
of ‘Copyleft’. “If you want to accomplish something How serious an enquirer are you?
in the world,” says his Wikiquote page, “idealism is
not enough — you need to choose a method that works
Like the article: SMS MTMVCOL
to achieve the goal. In other words, you need to be
<space> Yes or No to 58888@ 3/sms
BY INVITATION