08-18-2008, 11:27 PM
C O M M E N T A R Y
Motormouth
Prevent M.K.Narayanan from ruining relations with Pakistan's elected government, implores N.V.Subramanian.
13 August 2008: As a former director of Intelligence Bureau, the National Security Advisor (NSA), M.K.Narayanan, should be wedded to silence and circumspection. But once again, he has spoken rashly and unadvisedly to the media, this time to Singapore's Straits Times, about Pakistan after Musharraf, and this will bring (avoidable) irritation in relations with India's troubled neighbour. With Jammu and Kashmir burning, Narayanan & Co would be well-advised to focus on internal national security threats than to comment so publicly â and patronizingly â about Pakistan. In the past, Pakistan has taken offense to Narayanan's ill-timed and ill-judged comments, and this occasion may be no different.
The NSA implied to Straits Times that if Musharraf was impeached, "it leaves a big vacuum and we are deeply concerned about this vacuum because it leaves the radical extremist outfits with freedom to do what they like, not merely on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, but clearly (on) our side of the border too." Two objections. Why should the NSA publicly articulate about a "big vacuum" in the event of Musharraf's impeachment? To be accurate, Narayanan did not make this direct connection. He said to the effect it was immaterial to India if Musharraf was or was not impeached. But then he spoke of the "political vacuum". This means he was joining in his mind, and implying for all of us to understand, that Musharraf's exit would trigger a "political vacuum". So it probably will. But what's Narayanan's business to megaphone this?
What Asif Zardari & Co in Pakistan will construe is that India is unhappy at Musharraf's going, and this will sow suspicions against India. The opposite seems actually to be India's case. India would no longer be unhappy at Musharraf's exit. That is the proper conclusion to draw from the Indian prime minister's interaction with his Pakistani counterpart at the SAARC summit. The PM was complaining against Pakistan military and intelligence-sponsored terrorism in India to Pakistan's elected prime minister. If Musharraf was the man India would rather deal with, India would have publicly communicated its terrorism concerns to him, which it did not. So why is the NSA tripping up his own government on two sensitive issues of relations with Pakistan and on terrorism? That's objection one.
The second objection is to Narayanan's implied conclusion, contained in that "political vacuum" sentence, that Musharraf has outstandingly contained terrorism within Pakistan and Pakistani terrorism in Afghanistan and in India, and that his impeachment will spurt all this. Is the NSA all there? Under whose overall charge is the ISI that bombed the Indian Kabul embassy and is behind the recent blasts in Jaipur, Bangalore and Ahmedabad, not to speak of earlier terrorist attacks? Is it Narayanan's case that, as former army chief, and as the presidential commander in chief, with intimate relations with the armed forces, Musharraf was entirely unaware of the ISI hand in the Kabul blast? So hard and long was the bombing planned that the US gathered incriminating technical intelligence on it, but could not or did not ultimately prevent its execution. Rather than give hell to the Americans (our supposed nuclear allies) for not saving the Indian embassy, Narayanan is giving certificates of good conduct to Musharraf, who defended ISI's role after the Kabul blast. Seriously, is the NSA all there?
But Narayanan is not done about "political vacuum" speaking to the Singapore daily. He carries on in equally damaging vein, saying, "Like nature abhors a vacuum, we abhor the political vacuum that exists in Pakistan. It greatly worries us." To take Narayanan's analogy further, nature (or air) fills vacuum. Are we, therefore, to assume India will also "fill" Pakistan's "political vacuum", that it will someway intervene in Pakistan's internal affairs? This is how any intelligent Pakistani will interpret Narayanan's dangerous garrulity, and this will embarrass the weak Pakistani coalition government which wants friendly relations with India, and it will provide ammunition to those who need everything to either save Musharraf or their own political careers if he goes. On J and K, the war of words has already commenced with Pakistan, and motormouth Narayanan will incite further competition among Pakistani politicians of the Right, jihadis, and politicized ex-generals to bait India.
On two earlier occasions, the NSA has embarrassed the government, either by publicizing sensitive early intimations before they become intelligence, or by revealing the inner thinking of the executive branch. In February 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, Narayanan said that "Isolated instances of terrorist outfits manipulating the stock markets to raise funds for their operations have been reported. Stock exchanges in Mumbai and Chennai have, on occasion, reported that fictitious or notional companies were engaging in stock-market operations. Some of these companies were later traced to terrorist outfits." The excellent stockmarkets' journalist, Sucheta Dalal, dented Narayanan's reputation by pointing out the non-existence of the so-called Chennai stock exchange and the historical presence of notional/ shell companies. What Narayanan probably pointed at, she said, was the controversial matter of promissory notes. But what advantage did Narayanan seek to gain by making whatever revelation he made at Munich, which frantically pushed the government into denial mode?
Then in December 2007, Narayanan made headlines by saying India distrusted Pakistan's then presumptive prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. To a news television channel, the NSA said, "Her track record is not necessarily something that would make us believe that she will follow to the letter and spirit of what she has said." Benazir said she would track down terrorists attacking India. Then Narayanan went on to praise Musharraf, in a fashion quite over the top. "I must say," he said, "there is a certain amount of grudging respect for the manner in which president Musharraf has managed to overcome his previous struggles." Musharraf remained for him a "credible interlocutor", with who India could do business. All this of course pained and provoked Benazir into anger just before she was assassinated, and the Manmohan Singh government had to scurry once again for embarrassed cover.
The point is not that Narayanan is necessarily wrong in his assessment, because while he was right on Benazir's terrible record against India and Afghanistan in the Nineties (going shrill on Kashmir, and creating the Taliban for the Americans), he was dead wrong on Musharraf, who was part of Pakistan's terrorist military-intelligence establishment, and indeed was the terrorist establishment till he was army chief. The point is, right or wrong, the NSA had no business speaking to the media on such sensitive issues. But given his proximity to 10, Janpath, nobody is willing or able to rein him in. As for his record as NSA, the growing terrorist attacks within the country and the explosive situation in J and K speak for themselves. But let it be stated for the record, and the Indian government's position presumably won't be any different. A democratic transformation is happening in Pakistan, and if a temporary "political vacuum" leads eventually to the dismantling of Pakistan's terrorist military-intelligence establishment, that burden of "political vacuum" should be borne, after all due security measures are taken on this side. For once, India was not an issue in Pakistan's February general elections that brought a (though weak) coalition government to power. Unless gravely provoked, let us try to keep it that way.
N.V.Subramanian is Editor, NewsInsight.net. Har-Anand has published his new second novel, Courtesan of Storms.
Motormouth
Prevent M.K.Narayanan from ruining relations with Pakistan's elected government, implores N.V.Subramanian.
13 August 2008: As a former director of Intelligence Bureau, the National Security Advisor (NSA), M.K.Narayanan, should be wedded to silence and circumspection. But once again, he has spoken rashly and unadvisedly to the media, this time to Singapore's Straits Times, about Pakistan after Musharraf, and this will bring (avoidable) irritation in relations with India's troubled neighbour. With Jammu and Kashmir burning, Narayanan & Co would be well-advised to focus on internal national security threats than to comment so publicly â and patronizingly â about Pakistan. In the past, Pakistan has taken offense to Narayanan's ill-timed and ill-judged comments, and this occasion may be no different.
The NSA implied to Straits Times that if Musharraf was impeached, "it leaves a big vacuum and we are deeply concerned about this vacuum because it leaves the radical extremist outfits with freedom to do what they like, not merely on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, but clearly (on) our side of the border too." Two objections. Why should the NSA publicly articulate about a "big vacuum" in the event of Musharraf's impeachment? To be accurate, Narayanan did not make this direct connection. He said to the effect it was immaterial to India if Musharraf was or was not impeached. But then he spoke of the "political vacuum". This means he was joining in his mind, and implying for all of us to understand, that Musharraf's exit would trigger a "political vacuum". So it probably will. But what's Narayanan's business to megaphone this?
What Asif Zardari & Co in Pakistan will construe is that India is unhappy at Musharraf's going, and this will sow suspicions against India. The opposite seems actually to be India's case. India would no longer be unhappy at Musharraf's exit. That is the proper conclusion to draw from the Indian prime minister's interaction with his Pakistani counterpart at the SAARC summit. The PM was complaining against Pakistan military and intelligence-sponsored terrorism in India to Pakistan's elected prime minister. If Musharraf was the man India would rather deal with, India would have publicly communicated its terrorism concerns to him, which it did not. So why is the NSA tripping up his own government on two sensitive issues of relations with Pakistan and on terrorism? That's objection one.
The second objection is to Narayanan's implied conclusion, contained in that "political vacuum" sentence, that Musharraf has outstandingly contained terrorism within Pakistan and Pakistani terrorism in Afghanistan and in India, and that his impeachment will spurt all this. Is the NSA all there? Under whose overall charge is the ISI that bombed the Indian Kabul embassy and is behind the recent blasts in Jaipur, Bangalore and Ahmedabad, not to speak of earlier terrorist attacks? Is it Narayanan's case that, as former army chief, and as the presidential commander in chief, with intimate relations with the armed forces, Musharraf was entirely unaware of the ISI hand in the Kabul blast? So hard and long was the bombing planned that the US gathered incriminating technical intelligence on it, but could not or did not ultimately prevent its execution. Rather than give hell to the Americans (our supposed nuclear allies) for not saving the Indian embassy, Narayanan is giving certificates of good conduct to Musharraf, who defended ISI's role after the Kabul blast. Seriously, is the NSA all there?
But Narayanan is not done about "political vacuum" speaking to the Singapore daily. He carries on in equally damaging vein, saying, "Like nature abhors a vacuum, we abhor the political vacuum that exists in Pakistan. It greatly worries us." To take Narayanan's analogy further, nature (or air) fills vacuum. Are we, therefore, to assume India will also "fill" Pakistan's "political vacuum", that it will someway intervene in Pakistan's internal affairs? This is how any intelligent Pakistani will interpret Narayanan's dangerous garrulity, and this will embarrass the weak Pakistani coalition government which wants friendly relations with India, and it will provide ammunition to those who need everything to either save Musharraf or their own political careers if he goes. On J and K, the war of words has already commenced with Pakistan, and motormouth Narayanan will incite further competition among Pakistani politicians of the Right, jihadis, and politicized ex-generals to bait India.
On two earlier occasions, the NSA has embarrassed the government, either by publicizing sensitive early intimations before they become intelligence, or by revealing the inner thinking of the executive branch. In February 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, Narayanan said that "Isolated instances of terrorist outfits manipulating the stock markets to raise funds for their operations have been reported. Stock exchanges in Mumbai and Chennai have, on occasion, reported that fictitious or notional companies were engaging in stock-market operations. Some of these companies were later traced to terrorist outfits." The excellent stockmarkets' journalist, Sucheta Dalal, dented Narayanan's reputation by pointing out the non-existence of the so-called Chennai stock exchange and the historical presence of notional/ shell companies. What Narayanan probably pointed at, she said, was the controversial matter of promissory notes. But what advantage did Narayanan seek to gain by making whatever revelation he made at Munich, which frantically pushed the government into denial mode?
Then in December 2007, Narayanan made headlines by saying India distrusted Pakistan's then presumptive prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. To a news television channel, the NSA said, "Her track record is not necessarily something that would make us believe that she will follow to the letter and spirit of what she has said." Benazir said she would track down terrorists attacking India. Then Narayanan went on to praise Musharraf, in a fashion quite over the top. "I must say," he said, "there is a certain amount of grudging respect for the manner in which president Musharraf has managed to overcome his previous struggles." Musharraf remained for him a "credible interlocutor", with who India could do business. All this of course pained and provoked Benazir into anger just before she was assassinated, and the Manmohan Singh government had to scurry once again for embarrassed cover.
The point is not that Narayanan is necessarily wrong in his assessment, because while he was right on Benazir's terrible record against India and Afghanistan in the Nineties (going shrill on Kashmir, and creating the Taliban for the Americans), he was dead wrong on Musharraf, who was part of Pakistan's terrorist military-intelligence establishment, and indeed was the terrorist establishment till he was army chief. The point is, right or wrong, the NSA had no business speaking to the media on such sensitive issues. But given his proximity to 10, Janpath, nobody is willing or able to rein him in. As for his record as NSA, the growing terrorist attacks within the country and the explosive situation in J and K speak for themselves. But let it be stated for the record, and the Indian government's position presumably won't be any different. A democratic transformation is happening in Pakistan, and if a temporary "political vacuum" leads eventually to the dismantling of Pakistan's terrorist military-intelligence establishment, that burden of "political vacuum" should be borne, after all due security measures are taken on this side. For once, India was not an issue in Pakistan's February general elections that brought a (though weak) coalition government to power. Unless gravely provoked, let us try to keep it that way.
N.V.Subramanian is Editor, NewsInsight.net. Har-Anand has published his new second novel, Courtesan of Storms.