Chautala’s gamble
NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that Mr Om Prakash Chautala was giving misleading public signals on the dissolution of the Haryana Assembly roughly 17 months ahead of the scheduled election, it must be said that he has taken a calculated risk by opting for early poll in a state known for its politics of Aya Rams and Gaya Rams.

Farooq’s reshuffle
THE ministerial reshuffle in Jammu and Kashmir was on the cards for quite some time and, contrary to expectations, nothing dramatic has come out to justify the Chief Minister's declared intentions.

Policing the police
SENIOR police officers have often expressed unhappiness over what can be called the negative projection of their image in Indian films.

SOCIALISM AND SECULARISM
Redefining Congress ideology
by Sunanda K. Datta-Ray
MR V.N. Gadgil, the Congress party’s inhouse intellectual, oversimplified a radical shift in public thinking when he argued that “socialism and secularism no more appeal to the majority of the electorate”.

Sleaze in British politics
by V. Gangadhar
LIFE, it is said, is stranger than fiction. In Jeffrey Archer’s novels and more so, in short stories, there are turns and twists which could baffle even God, the creator of Life! Every short story had a different theme and approach and the endings made us gape.

India’s most glorious moment
THE most glorious moment of the millennium for India was on December 16, 1971, at 4.51 p.m. when Lt-Gen A.A.K. Niazi, GOC-in-C, East Pakistan, and his 91,000-strong army surrendered to Lt-Gen Jagjit Singh Aurora, GOC-in-C, India’s Eastern Command. A grateful nation celebrates that defining moment as Vijay Divas every year.

“Just a rupee”
by J.L. Gupta
MONEY is valuable. Its value changes with time. Also with the place. A rupee in a university is worth more than in a jail. I found it to be the most valuable at a railway station. The year 1960. Sham and I were selected to represent Panjab University at an inter-university debate. In Gorakhpur. Eastern UP. The easiest mode of travel was by train. Chandigarh, Delhi and Lucknow were easy. Thereafter, it was meter gauge.

75 Years Ago

December 16, 1924
Duty of Muslim Leaders
AN estimable Muslim leader has propounded the theory that the fact that the Hindus are rich and the Muslims are poor, explains the frequent riots. Assuming the explanation to be correct, how does he explain the irrebuttable fact that the poor Musalmans do not loot their rich fellow religionists?

Chautala’s gamble

NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that Mr Om Prakash Chautala was giving misleading public signals on the dissolution of the Haryana Assembly roughly 17 months ahead of the scheduled election, it must be said that he has taken a calculated risk by opting for early poll in a state known for its politics of Aya Rams and Gaya Rams. Perhaps, he was not sure of his survival option in office. After all, his political outfit — the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) — was being sustained by "defectors" sanctified under the anti-defection law. The support from outside by the 12-member BJP group apart, his government had the backing of 14 Haryana Vikas Party (Democratic) MLAs and seven Independent legislators. Mr Chautala has claimed that his decision to recommend the dissolution of the Assembly was "sudden" and "unpremeditated". But reports of certain moves to dethrone him from the Chief Minister's gaddi had been making rounds for the past two weeks or so. Apparently, he must have got the scent of such plans and hence his anxiety and double-talk on the dissolution issue. Of course, several other factors too were at play. Despite his brave attempt to project a new image for himself, one could see the erosion of his popularity in the state. The trouble with Mr Chautala is that he looks for shortcuts to success which often affect his credibility. Still, Mr Chautala's advantage is that the Congress and Mr Bansi Lal's Haryana Vikas Party are in disarray. The former Chief Minister's political outfit is yet to come out of the depressing shadow of the Lok Sabha poll rout. It remains stuck in its past sins of omission and commission. As for the Congress, the less said, the better. It is a house divided against itself, with its leading lights like Mr Bhajan Lal, Mr Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Mr Shamsher Singh Surjewala and Mr Birender Singh working at cross-purposes. Instead of addressing themselves to the people's problems, they compete negatively to draw the attention and support of 10 Janpath. Poor voters! What can they do if the Congress leaders suffer from suicidal tendencies?

It is not certain if the forthcoming election will throw up a decisive verdict. The parliamentary poll was a different ball game. The Kargil and Vajpayee factors then helped the INLD-BJP alliance. Now Kargil is part of history. The Vajpayee charisma too may be on the wane this time, especially after the disquieting developments in UP. In any case, the BJP is not much of a force in the state. That is the reason why it has always preferred to tag along with one Jat leader or the other. In May, 1996, it had thrown its lot with Mr Bansi Lal's Haryana Vikas Party. This time it is Mr Chautala's INLD. Interestingly, the Chief Minister has sought to convey the impression that the poll decision was at the behest of the BJP. Be that as it may. Who will gain in the process is anybody's guess. Mr Chautala has tried his best to offer juicy concessions to different sections. But if the Punjab experience is any guide, the people will prefer good governance and credible performance on a regular basis rather than pre-poll promises and rhetoric. In fact, good governance can be a dependable win-win card than cheap gimmicks and caste calculations. In any case, in a short period of four and a half months he has been in power this time, Mr Chautala could not have managed a "certificate" to decisively swing the voters in his favour. It is going to be a tough fight. Much will, however, depend on the Congress high command's choice of leader as well as whether its small and big leaders close their ranks and put up a united show or not. For the present, the INLD-BJP combination has an edge. Whether it will be able to improve its position further will depend on how its leaders conduct themselves in the weeks ahead. As for the Haryana voters, they have earthy commonsense. They, however, cannot be sure how their "representatives" will behave once voted to power. Herein lies the people's dilemma, howsoever decisively they exercise their franchise.

Farooq’s reshuffle

THE ministerial reshuffle in Jammu and Kashmir was on the cards for quite some time and, contrary to expectations, nothing dramatic has come out to justify the Chief Minister's declared intentions. Dr Farooq Abdullah had repeatedly said that he wanted to prune the ministry and make the state's governance financially less burdensome. The battery of 32 Ministers (including the Chief Minister) did not have a jumbo look in this era of massive and placatory political accommodation. The second reshuffle since October, 1996, when Dr Abdullah came to power, leaves the set-up almost irreducible in size for factional reasons and the idea of dealing with the cash crunch by having a smaller ministry was at best plausible and pious. The new dispensation, however, emphasises the supremacy of Dr Abdullah's will. He demanded the resignation of his colleagues and received compliance except from the Urban Development Minister, Maulvi Iftikar Hussain Ansari. Maulvi Ansari was "found involved" in the Rs 60-crore Sidhra housing colony land scam by a primary investigative agency and what is now known as the Raju probe panel. Even senior bureaucrats were among those who were accused of having taken bribes in the land scandal — some for promoting the act and others for trying to hush it up. The Maulvi denied the allegations levelled against him, calling them baseless and malicious. He spoke harshly against the "bureaucrats concerned", and meekly for himself as a victim.

It would be incorrect to say that the Maulvi avoided opportunities to explain his case before the Chief Minister or the public. He said: "You cannot hang a person till the charges against him are proved in the court of law.... The Raju committee report is nothing more than hurried impressions of preliminary investigations in written form.... I am being maligned". He refused to resign. His name has been dropped from the Cabinet list along with the names of six others. The land racket is yet another grave scam in Jammu and Kashmir and the people are more angry because of it. The tentative reallocation of portfolios gives Education to Mr Mohammad Shafi, Finance to Mr A.R. Rather and Industries to Dr Mustafa Kamal. Housing and Urban Development goes to Mr Ghulam Mohammed Shah. Dr Karan Singh's son, Mr Ajatshatru Singh, will now look after Transport. Mr S.S. Slathia will promote Tourism! Not much expertise or experience is evident in the reallocation. Dr Abdullah is facing public criticism for his repeated exhibition of annoying flamboyance and rather weak leadership on the terrorism front. It is also being said that he has taken recourse to “reshuffling showmanship” to avoid a situation similar to the ministerial coup of 1984 when he was replaced by his brother-in-law. To say the least, the changes made in the ministry do not deflect the attention of the people from the consequences of burgeoning post-Kargil terrorism. The first responsibility of the Chief Minister is to appear convincingly responsible. He has to be seen acting competently — without blaming the Centre for every ill — to do in Kashmir (even with pardonably lesser success) what Chief Minister Beant Singh did in Punjab by living and dying for the state.

Policing the police

SENIOR police officers have often expressed unhappiness over what can be called the negative projection of their image in Indian films. The more enthusiastic among them have even suggested that a law should be enacted for discouraging film-makers from showing the police force in poor light. However, when it was pointed out that politicians, bureaucrats, judges and even journalists may demand immunity from negative projection of their professions in films the proposal was given a quiet burial. In fact, the report about a young couple in Jaipur ending their lives after killing their one-year-old daughter to escape being tortured by the police would justify a sustained campaign through all forms of communication with the masses for humanising the police force. It is expected to instil a sense of security among ordinary citizens by its very presence. But in the popular mind the presence of even a single policeman means big trouble. The most revolting aspect of the Jaipur story is the shameless attempt by senior officers to deny that some policemen were responsible for the double suicide. It is not that the entire police force is insensitive to the need for giving itself a people-friendly image. Only the other day Delhi Police Commissioner Ajay Raj Sharma suggested that only graduates should be allowed to join the police even at the lowest level. His suggestion is based on the premise that a graduate would be better educated and informed and, therefore, in a better position to understand why the Indian police force has not shed the colonial attitude of instilling fear rather than respect for it among the citizens.

Ironically, the British Bobby is rated as the friendliest cop in the world. Therefore, raising the minimum educational qualification for entry to the police force by itself may not help the lathi-wielding or trigger-happy man in khaki become people-friendly. He would have to be given the same training which has made the Bobby become part of British lore. The fact of the matter is that the police needs structural reforms and not cosmetic changes to answer the growing criticism about its tendency to break just about any rule which gives primacy to the human rights of even hardened criminals. The man in Jaipur, Ram Chandra Mangtani, was an autorickshaw driver and a law-abiding householder who was not ever booked for even a minor offence. On the fateful day he had an altercation with another auto driver, Munish, and the two ended up at a police station. Munish was let off but Ram Chandra was given the third degree treatment. The police has had the audacity to claim that he was mentally unstable even before ordering an investigation into the circumstances which forced him and his wife to end their lives after killing their one-year-old daughter. Was the wife also mentally unstable, because she endorsed the contents of Ram Chandra's 60-page account of police torture in which he said that "it is better to die than live in this goonda raj"?

SOCIALISM AND SECULARISM
Redefining Congress ideology
by Sunanda K. Datta-Ray

MR V.N. Gadgil, the Congress party’s inhouse intellectual, oversimplified a radical shift in public thinking when he argued that “socialism and secularism no more appeal to the majority of the electorate”. True, politics today is not about abstract freedoms but about wealth generation, but when it comes to secularism, any responsible political organisation (like any serious newspaper or television channel) must ask itself whether it should give people what they may appear to want or what is good for them.

Nevertheless, Mr Gadgil has identified trends that are of equal importance to the Bharatiya Janata Party and other political organisations. But while the message of his note to Mrs Sonia Gandhi on “modernising, remodelling and redefining Congress ideology” is that old certitudes have lost their relevance, it would be folly to replace them with another set of facile top-down assumptions. One is that Indians are not materialistic. The other is that Hindus have no time for other faiths.

There has been a criminal lack of information on both socialism and secularism. While even the BJP, known as the party of baniyas and businessmen, dare not openly reject the former, the Congress led by such an enlightened modernist as Rajiv Gandhi thought it rewarding to pander to religious exclusiveness and obscurantism. Neither party seems to attach any importance to public education. Neither can bring itself to admit that at heart every Indian is a capitalist. He turns to religious intolerance only when the dead hand of socialism frustrates his moneymaking instincts.

This realisation should be especially important for the party of independence, which is now fighting for its life. The Congress shaped modern India’s consciousness, but may face extinction unless it can exorcise its past and decide what its name and symbol should stand for in the new millennium. Voters want sound administration, a peaceful environment and, above all, a vigorous economy that enables them to become rich. Such is the Congress culture, however, that even the most profiteering Congressman still dare not admit any urge to make money. The economy has certainly been relaxed in the last eight years but every reform has been pushed through almost surreptitiously.

The BJP, which stood for free enterprise long before Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao and Dr Manmohan Singh historically changed direction in 1991, is no more forthright. True, insurance deregulation is the latest of a series of significant steps. But while Mr Yashwant Sinha introduced the Bill almost on a note of apology, the manner in which the Information and Broadcasting Secretary, Mr Y.N. Chaturvedi, broke the news of second thoughts on allowing foreign direct investment in the print media confirmed the feeling at the top that reform must be clandestine because the country is not ready for it.

Mr Narasimha Rao was more candid about his aims in Singapore than in India. Dr Manmohan Singh probably spoke more frankly to audiences in Davos than in Delhi. The purpose of the four Congress amendments to the recent insurance Bill was to demonstrate to the country that Jawaharlal Nehru’s political heirs have not sold out to the capitalists. No wonder that as a veteran Congressman, Mr Gadgil cannot bring himself to overthrow the old gods altogether. He knows that “socialism means nationalisation of everything” (which, of course, means waste and inefficiency) but he wants this outdated concept replaced with a tired and meaningless phrase like “mixed economy” (which economy in the world is not?) instead of being thrown out lock, stock and barrel. Typically, therefore, his note leaves it unclear whether the Congress should turn its back on socialism only because for some mysterious reason voters are no longer enamoured of the philosophy or because it has failed dismally to alleviate poverty, in India and elsewhere.

This inhibition might explain why Mr Gadgil does not mention the late Rajiv Gandhi of whose modern outlook there was no doubt. Instead, he looks for inspiration to Britain’s Mr Tony Blair who “made dramatic changes to the party ideology and strategy to spectacularly ride back to power in 1997 after four consecutive defeats.” Rajiv, unfortunately, was not able to do anything of the kind. Many of his intentions and ambitions died before he did, killed by his own nervous retreat to his mother’s populist rhetoric each time an election approached. Nor could Rajiv cope with the opposition of Congress diehards. Since success has many fathers and failure is always an orphan, Mr Gadgil might think it safer to gloss over Rajiv’s unsuccessful experiment. Another difference is that Mr Blair created New Labour as a strategic move as the most effective means of achieving power. Rajiv’s on the other hand was an instinctive exercise to replace party roughnecks with the “safari-suited brigade”, to quote Mr Madhavsinh Solanki, with which he felt more comfortable. The modernising process flowed from the personalities of the inhabitants of his Camelot.

The question then arises: Is the electorate ready for the kind of revolution that Rajiv had in mind and which Mr Gadgil hints at? The answer would be an emphatic “Yes”, if only political leaders explained to the multitude that dynamic growth guarantees jobs more effectively than the public sector’s languishing white elephants. There is absolutely no reason to believe that people love socialism so much that they will reject any programme that promises to make them rich. It was precisely because socialism promised to do so that the philosophy became so popular as an economic recipe. Since the promise has not been realised, people are more than ready to try out other formulas.

It is only in poverty that “secularism for a very large number of Hindus means anti-Hinduism and solicitude for Muslims”, as Mr Gadgil says. Distress always looks for a scapegoat, and by exploiting secularism for electoral gain, Congressmen have played right into the hands of bigots for whom secularism is “minorityism”. It would be fatal for the Congress and the country if the party were to turn its back formally on secularism just because Hindu voters in Uttar Pradesh might then be won over more easily. This is precisely the fire that Rajiv Gandhi played with, and look where it led him and India. Competitive communalism would destroy more than the Congress party if the latter repeats in the states under its control what the Shiv Sena did in Maharashtra.

The middle class, which Mr Gadgil hails as “the real opinion-maker”, has only a limited role in this context. Indira Gandhi demonstrated that she could ignore the middle class and appeal to the lowest common denominator of Indian society. It was the unlettered multitude that threw her out in 1977. Its power and its capacity to think for itself must not be underestimated if the Congress is to save itself. Whether it has that capacity, whether Mrs Sonia Gandhi has the faintest inkling of what her husband attempted and Mr Gadgil is talking about, remains in doubt. A note such as he has written should surely have prompted profound soul-searching and an intense debate. Instead, it appears to have sunk without a trace, strengthening fears that the party may be in too advanced a state of decay even to try and salvage something of its historic role.

“Just a rupee”
by J.L. Gupta

MONEY is valuable. Its value changes with time. Also with the place. A rupee in a university is worth more than in a jail. I found it to be the most valuable at a railway station.

The year 1960. Sham and I were selected to represent Panjab University at an inter-university debate. In Gorakhpur. Eastern UP. The easiest mode of travel was by train. Chandigarh, Delhi and Lucknow were easy. Thereafter, it was meter gauge. The train to Gorakhpur was packed like a tin of sardines. As students, we used to get third class fare. We had no chance to even enter the bogey. We decided to travel Inter-class. A luxury. We paid for it by being our own coolies. Also by virtually missing a meal. The train was slow despite its “express” label. Finally, we reached.

We competed. By a stroke of good luck,we won the trophy. Sterling silver. Apparently expensive. It had certainly warmed the otherwise cold evening of December 15. We were happy. We decided to celebrate. To pamper ourselves.

The Pakistan cricket team was touring India. Under Fazal Mahmood. Just the next day, the second Test was to commence at Kanpur. Sham and I decided to watch the match. Also to see the Taj. Thus, we changed our route for the return journey. It was Gorakhpur, Kanpur, Agra, Delhi and Chandigarh. Reached Kanpur in the morning. The train to Agra was to start at 13.00 hrs. We made our reservations. Put the baggage in the cloakroom and left for the Green Park Stadium. We got the tickets. Watched the game. Almost till lunch. A very slow and dull affair. Jaisimha had opened for India. He was still playing when we had left for the station. Without much on the board.

We hired a rickshaw. The man was young. Strong despite his chain smoking. He was fast. In his hurry to rush us to the station he avoided a roundabout. Just cut across. The traffic cop was vigilant. He blew his whistle and marched towards us. A threatening look on his face. The rickshaw puller was not concerned. He very coolly plucked the half-smoked beeri from his lips and handed it over to the policeman. In uniform. He just walked back. Without a word.

We reached the station. Even the cloakroom. Were happy to see that the trophy was still there. Got the baggage. Saved on the cooliage. Carried everything to the platform. The train arrived. It had a ten-minute stop at Kanpur. We put our baggage inside. Decided to quickly pick up something to eat. Before we could even realise, the train had steamed off. Fast. Despite running, we could not catch it. It was gone. In our presence. Along with it, seemed to have gone all the pleasure of winning the trophy and watching the cricket match.

A kind soul suggested that we approach the stationmaster. Sheepishly we went in. We were nervous. Yet, one of us had the nerve to confidently point out that he had cleared the train two minutes before the appointed time. The big clock in his rather impressive room was our witness. And a good one. It was clear that we were right. However, he was not willing to acknowledge his mistake. And the precious time was passing. Every second seemed like an hour. The sterling silver trophy was our worry.

The help came from the most unexpected quarters. One of his henchmen said, “Gari rukwana hai to chai pera mangwaye (If you want the train to be stopped, get some tea and sweet)”.

“No problem. How much?” was our anxious enquiry.

“Kewal 4 anna — Only four annas”, was the reply.

Sham was the master. He quickly gave him a rupee. Told him to get Chaar Chai — Pera. And as he saw the rupee, the man moved some lever. The train was stopped at the “outer”. Not just that. He ordered his man to put us on a trolley and to take us to the train. In 10 minutes we were back to our seats. The sight of silver brought out a sigh. Of relief. Finding the trophy felt better than winning it.

How much can a rupee buy? A sterling silver trophy? All the baggage? And peace of mind? So much with so little?

This is t iracle of money. Of just a rupee.

Sleaze in British politics
by V. Gangadhar

LIFE, it is said, is stranger than fiction. In Jeffrey Archer’s novels and more so, in short stories, there are turns and twists which could baffle even God, the creator of Life! Every short story had a different theme and approach and the endings made us gape. Archer’s political and personal life over the past few decades had followed a pattern which was more often found in fiction than fact.

Today, as a leading novelist and Tory politician, Jeffrey Archer is featured on each and every tabloid in Britain. There is a feeling he had shot his bolt and his entire political future had been ruined. Archer can no longer become the Mayor of London. He could even be expelled from his party. As if this was not enough, he could end up paying heavy damages to the newspapers which he had once sued and claimed damages for libel.

The twists and turns of life can be cruel. While a politician can overcome reverses in public life and bounce back to power, Archer, unfortunately, had been bit hard from other sides. He had lost his credibility. He had lied in public, manufactured alibis and involved his friends deeply, all to save his skin. Now he has been caught in the act. Archer will need a miracle to stage a comeback. Such miracles take place in fiction but seldom in real life.

Until recently, Jeffrey Archer was riding high. He was the favourite to become the Mayor of London, a post second only to that of the Prime Minister. The Labour party, which had an overwhelming majority in Parliament, was at sixes and sevens while putting up its candidate and it was smooth sailing for Archer. He had made no secret of the fact that he nurtured Prime Ministerial ambitions, but was cruelly pulled down to earth.

The blow came from unexpected quarters. A close friend. Ted Francis, told a London tabloid that Archer had asked to lie about a dinner engagement which would have formed vital evidence during a defamation trial Archer had won against a British newspaper in 1987. This was a startling revelation which laid open Archer to criminal investigation. The secret, kept hidden for 13 years, was now in the open. It may have ruined whatever chances Archer had for returning to public life.

Archer’s life is an interesting study in the rough and tumble of British politics. In 1974, he first entered Parliament and made it clear that he was aiming for the top position. But following some disastrous investments, which rendered him bankrupt, Archer who forced to give up the Parliament seat. It was a temporary blow. Archer, who had learnt his politics quickly and studied men in power, sat down and wrote the first of his many popular novels, “Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less”, which became a bestseller. Soon, as more books followed, Archer became a millionaire. He was back in favour in British politics. The then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, made him a peer and appointed him the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative party.

His glory was short-lived. In 1986, a British tabloid, the Daily Star reported Archer’s friendship with a London prostitute. Archer sued the paper for libel, won the case and collected £500,000 in damages (another £700,000 for legal costs). The jury decided that he was innocent. Despite this overwhelming legal victory, his future in politics was uncertain, particularly after the revelation that he paid the prostitute in question, Monica Coughton £ 2,000.

But Archer was possessed with the never-say-die spirit. He began building bridges with his politician friends to rebuild his political future. This time he aimed high, to capture the post of the London Mayor. The Blair government, in its effort to strengthen local bodies and institutions with additional power, had made the Mayor’s post a temptingly powerful one. The election was due in May, 2000. Archer campaigned with his usual flair and was considered a favourite for the post.

And then the bubble burst. The jury which had found him “not guilty in the 1986 trial did not know that Archer had asked his friend, Ted Francis, a television producer, to write a letter claiming that he had dinner with him on one of the nights he was supposed to have been in the company of Monica Coughton. This evidence was not required during the trial. The name of Francis did not come up at that time.

Why, then, did Francis go public this time and stab his friend in the back? He confessed to the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid, News of the World , that Archer had asked him to lie for him and he had agreed. The paper reportedly paid him £ 14,000 for the story. Francis claimed he was not motivated by the money but had come out with the “truth” because he could not bear the idea of someone like Archer becoming the Mayor of London!

The Conservative party top brass was furious. Its leader, William Hague, insisted that Archer should withdraw from the Mayoral race and also removed him from the Conservative Parliamentary Party in the House of Lords. The rank and file of the party was furious with Archer. The feeling was that “It was ready to strangle him!” Archer issued a statement regretting his conduct and then retreated to his country home to plan the future course of action. Archer-watchers claimed they were not surprised and said they knew that there were many more skeletons in the Archer cupboard, waiting to tumble out. For over 17 years, the Tories had been plagued with sex and sleaze scandals, and just at the time when they were trying to come out of it, Archer had put them back at the starting block.

The Tories, already beaten black and blue in the electoral politics, had become highly sensitive to scandals involving moral issues. One of the main reasons for the trouncing of the party during the last elections was that many among its top leadership were involved in sex scandals. The trend started during Mrs Thatcher’s term and continued unabated. Many junior ministers had mistresses. And all this was meat and drink to the tabloid press.

Britain was more sensitive to these issues than, say, the more liberal Europe, where it was no big deal for the President or Cabinet ministers to be associated with mistresses. When former French President Francois Mitterand was officially buried, those present included his wife, his former mistress and her daughter. The Press took this in its stride. Such an issue would have made headlines in the British media. America handled the Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair with more maturity. While agreeing that the President had not acted with enough discretion, the media and the people seemed to agree that his links with Monica had never influenced his decision-making on important issues. And the national economy was on a high never witnessed before.

Under such circumstances, it is rather doubtful if Lord Archer can make yet another political comeback.

India’s most glorious moment

THE most glorious moment of the millennium for India was on December 16, 1971, at 4.51 p.m. when Lt-Gen A.A.K. Niazi, GOC-in-C, East Pakistan, and his 91,000-strong army surrendered to Lt-Gen Jagjit Singh Aurora, GOC-in-C, India’s Eastern Command. A grateful nation celebrates that defining moment as Vijay Divas every year.

General Aurora, who brought that spectacular victory over Pakistan, vividly recalled every moment in an exclusive interview to Asia Defence News International.

“I was tasked to complete the operation ( liberation of Bangladesh) as early as possible before international intervention. Keeping in view the terrain and enemy disposition, we adopted a totally unconventional approach. We bypassed the enemy’s well-fortified positions and dashed towards Dhaka”, the General said.

“Our strategy worked. We avoided frontal attacks on the enemy guarding the river lines and crossed up or down stream in unheld areas and appeared at the rear of the enemy, thereby turning to its flank and taking it by complete surprise”, explained the General.

Recounting the major contributory factors in this unprecedented victory, the General attributed his force’s success to superior combat power, initiative and time being on his side, “There was enough time to plan, prepare and deploy our forces”, he felt.

“We had sufficient time to get people on our side”, he said adding “ the local people gave us accurate and real-time information and guided us accurately on to our objectives. The Mukti Bahini proved to be a big force multiplier”.

Being a good soldier that he is, the General gave due credit to his opponents and said: “They prepared well, particularly alternative positions within the main defences. Some of them were hard nuts to crack. We outmanoeuvered them and advanced on to Dhaka at the fastest possible speed.”

Fully satisfied with the conduct of operations, the General emphasised: “The lightning speed of our Army caught them by surprise. The war was fought exactly as planned by us.”

Commenting on his adversary, he stated General Niazi “did not even think of defending Dhaka. He had no imagination and felt let down.” Pointing at the major handicap of the Pakistan army, General Aurora pointed out: “Their army was isolated from the local people. The people were deeply hurt and alienated because the Pakistan army looted, raped and forcibly married the local women and wanted to take them to West Pakistan. As such they felt insecure in their own country. No army can fight under these conditions.”

The victorious Army commander was full of praise for his men and officers, particularly commended the initiative and improvisation displayed while launching the first amphibious operation across the Meghna river. “There was hardly any bridging of resources and we had only one helicopter squadron . Yet the boys did it”, he recalled.

General Aurora remembered with nostalgia his younger days when he was commissioned on January 1, 1939, into 5 Battalion of 2 Punjab Regiment and subsequently commanded I Para. Initially at the IMA and later at the Staff College, Quetta, he had Gen Yahya Khan, Pakistan’s President in 1971, as his colleague. He remembered Gen Yahya Khan as a “fun-loving soldier” who took the “stupid decision” of attacking India.

When asked to define the most glorious moment of the war, the humble but proud General looked at the legendary photograph of the surrender in which he watched General Niazi sign the document of surrender and said: “Of course, that was the most glorious moment, but let us not make much out of it, after all it was only a part of Pakistan, that too not a viable part,” he added with humility, the most becoming conduct of a victorious soldier.

Admiring the post-war conduct of the Army, the General said: “Nowhere in history has an army gone in and come out without taking any advantage.” On the contrary, the General said: “We helped them in the reconstruction of their roads and bridges.”

General Aurora, now 84, stated that the “politics of the sub-continent notwithstanding, the people of Bangladesh are eternally grateful to the Army for its role and contribution in their struggle for freedom”. He felt the warmth of their feeling when he recently visited Dhaka, where he was given a warm and affectionate welcome. — ADNI

75 YEARS AGO

December 16, 1924
Duty of Muslim Leaders

AN estimable Muslim leader has propounded the theory that the fact that the Hindus are rich and the Muslims are poor, explains the frequent riots. Assuming the explanation to be correct, how does he explain the irrebuttable fact that the poor Musalmans do not loot their rich fellow religionists?

The real explanation is that the latter are Muslims and Hindus are “kaffirs.” This notion has been rubbed into the minds of the Muslim masses and the Muslim middle class, by clever propagandists and influential leaders.

It is the duty of the Muslim nationalist leaders to inaugurate and carry on an extensive propaganda to destroy this notion and to impress on the minds of their coreligionists the truth that Hindus are not “kaffirs” and that even on the occasion of fights and quarrels, their temples, their women and their property are inviolable and unassailable.