Opinion - News Analysis   

Speaking out of turn

By Inder Malhotra

It may seem odd to mention in the same breath the aftermath of the savage terrorist attack on the Swaminarayan temple in Gujarat and a seminar in New Delhi on the Kargil War, organised jointly by the United Service Institute of India and America's Center for Contemporary Conflicts. But sadly they had a clear connection. For they brought to the fore yet again the seemingly irremediable propensity of the Indian political class — especially of the worthies holding a position of any kind in the Government of the day — to make off-the-cuff statements on the most sensitive subjects in a shockingly casual manner.

For instance, the precise identity of the two marauders who attacked the place of worship at Akshardham has not yet been established definitely, though they are suspected to be Pakistanis. But rather than wait until credible and convincing evidence could be presented to the international community and to Pakistan, emphatic official assertions, sometimes contradictory, began even while the shootout was on. While quite a few in Delhi said that the desperados were Pakistanis, some in Ahmedabad urged caution, suggesting that they could be ``local people''.

The first to speak, entirely out of turn, was the Union Minister of State for Home, I.D. Swami, (incidentally, a retired IPS officer who should, therefore, have known better). He pronounced magisterially that the terrorists were members of either the Lakhkar-e-Taiba or the Jaish-e-Mohammad. Obviously, he was not sure of his facts but he, like so many of his peers, could not resist the temptation to blab and brag.

In fact, he took upon himself the responsibility to tell the wide world that ``war remained an option'' to defeat Pakistan's cross-border terrorism. Three India-Pakistan wars in the past have not solved the subcontinent's problems and a fourth is most unlikely to do so. But even if some contingency planning has been or is in the works, shouldn't there be silence on this delicate subject? If any statement on it is indeed, shouldn't it come from the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, or from his Deputy, Lal Krishan Advani, who these days speaks oftener and in more strident tones than does Atalji, not from greenhorn junior Ministers?

Loose and irresponsible talk by the likes of Mr. Swami (the BJP's voluble ex-MP, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, is also drawing attention to himself because of his rhetorical excesses) does no great harm within the country because few take it seriously. Indeed, it must be reported with all due respect that not many are impressed even by the Prime Minister's latest declaration that since America's pressure on Pakistan to end cross-border terrorism hadn't worked, India would fight this scourge ``on its own''. Yeh ladai hum apne bootay pay ladain gaye were his exacts words in Hindi. The general reaction to this has been that Mr. Vajpayee has used these brave words all too often, indeed after every horrendous terrorist attack, only to forget them until the next outrage takes place.

It was at the Indo-U.S. seminar that the damaging impact of thoughtless statements became painfully obvious. Its proceedings were covered by the Chatham House rules that enjoin that while the contents of the discussion can be revealed, it cannot be disclosed who said what, except with the permission of the speakers concerned.

All that can be reported, therefore, is that one of the respected American scholars, holding an important position in the ruling establishment, cited close to a hundred statements by ``responsible Indians'' (and a larger number by their Pakistani counterparts) to support his untenable contention that during the Kargil War both sides had made preparations for the ``use of nuclear weapons''. The solitary American source he cited was Bruce Riedel, an aide to the then U.S. President, Bill Clinton, to the effect that the Pakistani Army, ``without the knowledge of the then Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif'', had moved the nuclear weapons.

On behalf of this country, the leading strategist and chairman of the committee that reviewed the Kargil War, K. Subrahmanyam, (he had waived his right to anonymity) patiently explained the difference between the politico-bureaucratic cultures of India and the U.S. In America, on matters of national security, only the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department spoke. No one else did. In this part of the world, all and sundry, particularly those who were never in the loop and had no authority to speak on the subject, happily held forth.

In Pakistan, the only Minister who rattles the nuclear sabre was the Minister for Religious Affairs. Statements of such individuals could not, therefore, be a sound basis for any hypothesis. But the Americans remained impervious to this reasoning.

At one state, well before Gen. Musharraf overthrew him, Nawaz Sharif had got greatly irked by the plethora of irresponsible statements, especially on the nuclear issue. So he enforced a directive on all Ministers and senior officials not to say anything on the subject without his clearance in writing. Some such restraint is called for in this country, too, and in relation to more subjects than merely the nuclear one.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Entertainment | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• A problematic phase
• One-off phenomenon
• The Cauvery dispute
• Leadership in times of terror
• Make farming sustainable, equitable
• Speaking out of turn
• A case of two legitimacies
• Talk with Kashmiris
• Saving the innocent
• Tough laws nedded
• Rectify the imbalance
• Education & Industry

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu