Support Indy
Media

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Read CC In Your
Own Language

CC Malayalam

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

Peak Oil

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Globalisation

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name: E-mail:

Printer Friendly Version

Indian Security And MK Narayanan:
Barking Up The Wrong Tree

By Mustafa Khan

04 March, 2009
Countercurrents.org

Bandying of crime dossiers across the borders of India and Pakistan followed by demands for more information has become ludicrous. It looks like the movie of the fifties where the Kohinoor diamond was tossed between the hero and the heroin in an attempt to avoid the villain from getting it. The wretched villain loses his wit in the melee! Or, like endlessly passing the hat from Pozo to Lucky and the tramps to see if a foreign body has entered in it in Samuel Beckette’s “Waiting for Godot.”

What is missed in the process is the undeniable fact that security of the country is primarily the top duty of the country itself and the government’s raison d’ etre. Preoccupation with other matters and predilection of the mind itself surely veers us off the course of guarding the country. Courts and even election commissioners have reminded the rulers of the country that fiddling when the Rome was burning does no one good. Even the highest executive officer of the country who reminded another such officer of the state of his rajdharm was napping at the helm, nay he couldn’t help it among other things his age and desire for fried food and even drinks came in the way!

The national security advisor is another kettle of fish. He cannot be negotiator because he is not a diplomat. He cannot be the defence minister because monitoring the defence at the borders is not advising the government on security. Nor should issuing statement which can be construed politically at variance with the government policy or that can spill the beans.

If MK Narayanan could save his head from rolling in the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorists’ attacks his career must attract scrutiny for the hidden caliber he has for emulation by others.

The Indian embassy attack in Kabul on July 7, 2008 was horrendous by all accounts. No doubt it was brutal, inhuman and condemnable in the strongest terms. But in the excitement it was not the lunatic fringes like Narendra Modi, Bal Thackeray or Pravin Togadia who voiced for “retaliation in kind”. Giving interview to NDTV Mr Narayanan chorused that ISI was behind the attack. Too many definite articles in a brief sentence could not make it brevity as the soul of wit when he said: “We are in the favour of the peace process, but the ISI is not…The ISI is playing evil.” Hence he prescribed the remedy: “retaliate in kind.” His memory should have flashed to him what another national security advisor, Zbignieve Brzezinskiof the US, has advised that terror cannot be fought with terror. It is a matter of tactics and calls for better tactics.

Given our high stake in Afghanistan the latter course was advisable. India has invested highest amount of money in Afghanistan of all countries in the world, 750 million dollars. We are building a road that would give the landlocked country an access to a sea port in Iran as well as building power transmission from Uzbekistan into Afghanistan. These developmental works would go a longer way to help the wretched country struggling to survive occupation by foreign powers one after another.

“Resolving old rivalries” and not retaliation should have been the wise counsel anyone should expect from the security advisor. As Raja Mohan said what is equally true of the recent Mumbai attacks: “Whatever problems we had with Pakistan, Pakistan had been a buffer between India and the bandlands. Now the buffer is falling apart.” But instead of stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan so that we maintain leeway we have had so far there is again desire for impulsive action.

When President Barack Obama called for settling Kashmir dispute so that the two neighbours could face the challenge of terrorism in a concerted way, Narayanan gave way to impetuosity rather than considered deliberate response when he remarked that it was like the dog barking up at the wrong tree. This is surprising if not disgusting for the reason that the CIA had made India and Pakistan share intelligence on the Mumbai attacks. The US also allowed FBI in the investigation that fitted well with the long felt need for cooperation in tackling cross border terrorism. Moreover Pakistan for the first time ever accepted that the plot was hatched on its soil by people who lived there. This was a very considerable change in the situation according to our former foreign secretary, Salman Haider.

Why did Narayanan miss the more prying intelligence in put? It would be too much to say as Julio Reibero says that “he slipped up on this one particular occasion (Mumbai attacks) because he had too much on his plate,” but certainly of late he had “bitten off more than he could chew.” May be old age.

But even before the American envoy Richard C Holbrook arrived we started voicing our misgivings that he should limit to only Afghanistan and Pakistan affairs. This is our latent fear that any American move would involve internationalizing the Kashmir issue. But there is a chemistry of change which does not justify that ‘milk burnt us once and so we drink whey blowing cold wind over it.’

Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights

Comment Policy

Fair Use Notice


 

Share This Article



Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just share it on your favourite social networking site. You can also email the article from here.



Disclaimer

 

Feed Burner
URL

Support Indy
Media

 

Search Our Archive

 



Our Site

Web