Nanawti Commission report on the Godhara incident has once again opened the Pandora's Box over logic of setting up Inquiry Commissions in India
Part one of the Nanawti Commission report, probing into the Godhara incident in Gujarat, released last month has once again opened the Pandora's Box over logic of setting up Inquiry Commissions in the country.
The report while giving clean chit to the Narendra Modi Government has supported the theory of conspiracy, leading to a widespread criticism across the country.
Many call it 'eye wash' and other call it 'sponsored report'. Communists have termed it a 'piecemeal' and fabricated report, whereas; National Democratic Alliance (NDA) calls it 'triumph of truth'.
Justice Nanawati report in fact contradicts the UC Banerjee report which also probed the Godhara incident. How a single incident draws two extreme conclusions?
The two reports have raised a very debatable issue. What do judicial commissions, appointed by the various governments to examine issues ranging from riots, scandals and assassinations to inter-state disputes actually achieve?
Critics of commissions say that their recent history has been extremely spotty. Apart from taking inordinately long to deliver reports, they seldom achieve anything.
Keeping apart from such allegations and counter allegations, the issue that has again come to fore is whether an inquiry commission can substitute criminal prosecution?
Do these Commissions serve any purpose? Is it not an eye wash? Are these Commissions able to bring culprits to book? Are not Commissions of inquiry a waste of time and money?
To understand the entire issue, one has to discuss the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 itself. Before this Act came into being, the governments used to order an inquiry by executive notifications under Public Service Inquiry Act, 1850. Sometimes, they used to enact adhoc and temporary legislations too.
To meet the public demand for impartial and judicial inquiries, the Government of India came out with a comprehensive legislation, which resulted into passage of this Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. Since its enactment, the constitution of Inquiry Commissions has become a tool for the various governments to subside the public anger.
Since Independence, more than a hundred Inquiry Commissions have been set up, but a very few have served the purpose. And the reasons are obvious. First, the provisions enshrined in this Act are not of deterrent in nature and secondly, most of the time the Commissions are set up under retired Judges for obvious reasons.
Section 4 the Act provides for powers and it is clear that the Commission has no power to compel a person to adduce before it and give evidence. It cannot pass verdicts or judgments which could be enforceable.
The helplessness is such that even if an offence has been committed in view of or in presence of Commission, the Commission needs to forward the case to the Magistrate for trial as provided in Criminal Procedure code.
The appointment of retired Judges, as head of the Commission is very much suitable for the government. It is not merely a chance that one Judge has headed more than one Commission. The public perception is such that these Inquiry Commissions are becoming post retirement placement schemes for the favourite retired Judges.
We have a long list of such Commissions, which have made inordinate delay in submitting their reports. Many of them have taken decades in so called "conducting inquiries" and even then the report which was submitted were so voluminous that we required another committee to find out ways to implement the recommendations.
For example, as many as ten Commissions or committees have so far been set up with regard to the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi after the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
First of all it was the Marvah Commission headed by Additional Commissioner of Police Ved Marvah, that was set up in November, 1984.
The Commission was about to finish the assigned task when it was abruptly wounded up in May 1985 and a new Commission headed by Justice Rangnath Misra was constituted. The new Commission was asked to carry out further inquiry hitherto done by the Marvah Commission.
The Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission which was appointed under Section 3 of The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, was asked to inquire into "allegations" of violence and not to inquire into the "nature" of violence, a departure from the terms of reference of over a dozen other commissions on communal disturbances since Independence.
But surprisingly the terms of reference was, to find out whether this was an organised riot only? This Commission submitted its recommendations in August, 1986 and recommended for setting up of three committees to do further work. Therefore; Kapur-Mittal Committee in February, 1987, Jain-Banerjee Committee in November, 1987, Potti-Rosa Committee in March, 1990, Jain and Agarwal Committee in December, 1990, and finally Justice G.T. Nanavati Commission in 2000 were set up. Incidentally, the same Judge was made in charge to inquire into Godhara incident.
It is needless to mention that what has happened to reports and how much amount have been spent on these exercises. Has any prominent leader been punished so far? Many persons, against whom leveled charges were being inquired into, have died. Such are the frustrating results of these Commissions and Committees.
As far as time and money aspect of these Commissions are concerned, its enough to look into the expenses of just couple of Commissions to understand the quantum of impact-both in terms of the amount and time spent.
The one that tops the chart is the Liberhan Commission. Set up under retired Justice M S Liberhan on 16 December, 1992 to probe into Babri mosque demolition, the Commission has so far been given more than 41 extensions. Overall the government has already spent Rs 90 million on this single man inquiry Commission, which is yet to come out with its report.
Similarly, Justice B N Kripal Commission of inquiry was set up on 13 July, 1985 to probe into the bombing of the Air India Flight 182 on 23 June, 1985 which led to the crash of this plane into the Atlantic Ocean leaving 329 passengers including crew dead. The Commission submitted its report after extensive tours of countries like Canada and USA but when the prosecution began, nothing could be proved and none could be punished. The entire 'investigation and inquiry' went in vain. It is needless again, to calculate the amount which was spent on such inquiries.
Phukan Commission was set up to probe the Tehelka expose into fictitious defence deals. Everyone saw the tape on television and the then Government just to avoid immediate legal course, set up this Commission. In May 2005 the Newsweek reported that Justice Phukan along with his wife and eight officials used IAF plane and went to Pune, Mumbai and Shirdi. The Ministry later said that the Judge was not entitled to use the military plane and it was made available to him by the then government in order to influence the Judge.
Such allegations and incidents definitely erode public faith in such Commissions. The situation is such that every Government in power uses this provision to oblige the retired judges.
In Bihar for example, Justice Amir Das Commission was set up to probe into the alleged connections of political leaders with a banned outfit called Ranveer Sena in 1997. The Commission was finally wounded up in 2006 as it could hardly do anything except for some tours and recording the statements some leaders in over eight years of its existence.
Similar is the case of Justice Ali Ahmed Commission that was set up to look into excess withdrawal in 1996. In fact, very little is known about the outcome of the Commission, including the recommendations that it submited or the actions taken by it.
Commission under Justice R C P Sinha and Justice Samsul was set up on Bhagalpur communal riot in 1989. Reports were submitted in 1995. But when the new government came to power it set up N N Singh (retired Justice) Commission to investigate the matter again.
In 2008 a Commission under retired judge Sadanand Mukherjee was set up to probe into the Kahalgaon police firing. This commission is still a non starter vis-a-vis investigation of the incidence.
Not to miss the fact that when the recent breach in Kosi embankment that caused a major flood in Bihar led to lot of allegations and counter allegations, the state government was quick to constitute a Commission under Rajesh Walia, again a retired Judge to probe into it.
And while there is no bias against the judiciary or the retired judges, who are a national repository of knowledge as far as judicial matters are concerned, the question needs to be examined is whether a Commission can substitute the country's criminal investigation system.
How can a Judge be better equipped to do forensic test, do scientific investigations than a professionally trained police officer? Has the Commission power to make arrests to the persons likely to tamper evidences?
The answer to these and many such questions has been provided by a two Judge commission itself. Set up by in 1987 to investigate the Fairfax Deal, the Justice Thakkar and Natarajan Commission in its report have said that the Commission of Inquiry Act was "ineffective and toothless". They two, in fact, devoted one full chapter on the inadequacies of this Act.
It is important to note that India has a criminal justice system, which is based on the twin pillars of investigation and dispensation of justice. How can the Judiciary be asked to do the work of investigation, which is the work of the State as enshrined the law of the land?
The Criminal Procedure Code and for that matter entire Criminal Justice System is erected on this principle (Article 50 of Chapter IV on Directive Principles of State Policy) and perhaps it is due to this principle, that the judiciary and executive have been completely separated in 1973, when the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended.
Besides, most of these Commissions, after years of its investigation, usually submit reports that are so voluminous that it again requires some committees to suggest measures to implements the recommendations.
Not to talk about the fact that such reports are not obligatory and mandatory for the government to implement.
It is also worthwhile to mention here that the Judiciary in India is an independent system and that is precisely the reason why Article 220 restricts practise by retired Judges. The idea is that there should not be any scope, whatsoever, of favour or disfavour by the serving Judges.
By appointing the retired Judges in these Commissions or for that matter in any other body tends to clearly violate the spirit of the Constitution itself.
What is more shocking is that instead of modernising and equipping the investigating agencies to probe into such serious issues of national shame, the country has been a mere spectator to the cosmetic make ups.
In India, every one knows about the 'normal' pace of the court proceedings, and so all these commissions, needless to say have virtually become black holes.
( 10/3/2008 ) http://www.igovernment.in/site/Inquiry-Commissions-in-India-are-black-holes/
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Left often on wrong side of history: PM
April 11, 2009
Needling the communists, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in Kochi: "The Left that rules the state has unfortunately often been on the wrong side of history. When Mahatma Gandhi started Quit India movement the Left did not participate in it. When India became Independent, they said this independence is not for real," he said. Singh said in 1960s when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ushered in Green Revolution, the Left opposed it saying it was only for the benefit of foreign seed companies. Similarly, he said, when Rajiv Gandhi started the communication revolution they opposed it saying it will take away jobs. "When our government started nuclear deal with the US to end India’s nuclear isolation and to provide the much-needed energy for development, the Left opposed and walked out of our government. Time will prove the wisdom of our decision," the prime minister said.
Needling the communists, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in Kochi: "The Left that rules the state has unfortunately often been on the wrong side of history. When Mahatma Gandhi started Quit India movement the Left did not participate in it. When India became Independent, they said this independence is not for real," he said. Singh said in 1960s when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ushered in Green Revolution, the Left opposed it saying it was only for the benefit of foreign seed companies. Similarly, he said, when Rajiv Gandhi started the communication revolution they opposed it saying it will take away jobs. "When our government started nuclear deal with the US to end India’s nuclear isolation and to provide the much-needed energy for development, the Left opposed and walked out of our government. Time will prove the wisdom of our decision," the prime minister said.
The Taliban is already amidst us in India
Jyotirmaya Sharma
Mail Today, April 28, 2009
They will not come from Pakistan, they are here in the form of Narendra Modi and his zealots
THE Supreme Court has asked the SIT to probe Narendra Modi’s role in the post- Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002. But that will not still the chorus for Modi as a future national leader of the BJP. As it is, the timing and context of the Modi- for- PM demand is curious.
In part, it is admission that the BJP- led NDA will have to wait a few more years before making a bid for power.
But it also implies that the prime- minister- in- eternalanticipation and perpetual desperation, Lal Krishna Advani, has failed to capture the imagination of even his own flock.
Other than the obvious reasons, there is an obvious tactic at play here: the BJP hopes that Modi’s name as a future leader would actually help win some votes in these elections. It is an appeal to the highly voluble, if not sizeable, number of the Indian middle class, which has not merely discovered the simple joys of voting, but has the temerity to now reclaim the public space they have for so long spurned with mighty disdain.
It has two things in common with Modi. The first is a certain brand of vulgar impatience and haste, a hallmark of the mob as well as the tyrant, born out of a sense of self- proclaimed purity and righteousness. The other is a misplaced sense of aspiring for such indeterminate goals such as ‘ progress’ and ‘ development’, a chimera that leaves everyone out of the equation other than the sort of worthies who stood on a stage and argued for Modi’s elevation as prime minister.
Ethical
There is, then, little difference between the two Aruns, Shourie and Jaitley, and Ambani, Mittal and Tata: they feel emboldened enough to suggest who the next prime minister ought to be without a care in the world for the democratic process to decide on such weighty issues. The message from them is: we know what is good for you. We represent the country because we produce wealth or facilitate in its production.
Apart from the cheerleaders for Modi, it would be instructive to look at the man himself in terms of three statements made recently. In the absurd debate regarding whether Manmohan Singh is a weak prime minister, Modi came up with a priceless statement. He dared the prime minister to hang Afzal Guru in order to prove his strength and establish his machismo.
There was a time when Gandhi shook a mighty empire through nonviolence and yet never abandoned fundamental moral principles in order to take on the British. He broke laws that were unjust, but understood the importance of laws as a guiding framework for any civilised society. Killing someone just to prove an imaginary idea of strength had no place in his moral universe.
Modi represents an alternative ‘ morality’, which seeks to justify, albeit covertly, encounter killings in the name of swiftness and expediency.
This haste, too, is born out of a disdain for constitutional and legal procedures as well as from the selfappointed role of judging who the ‘ enemy’ is and finding effective ways of dealing with such real and mythical enemies. It is a mechanical world of action and, in this instance, unequal and opposite reaction, untouched by norms of ethics and morality.
Modi’s disdain for the old and for children also springs from a corpus of ideas that are far removed from any acceptable version of the Indian ethos. The polarities represented by the ‘ budhiya’ and the ‘ gudiya’ remark comes from a 19th century European set of ideas that celebrated the useful, able- bodied, young, masculine, virile individual who could work in factories, contribute to development and progress. This view found the old and the very young to be a burden on society, a universe far removed from a world that venerated a Vyasa, a Vashistha and a Bhisma, and found merit in the lives of a Dhruva and Prahalad. In this sense, Modi is a worthy inheritor of Golwalkar’s mantle and the only hope for the RSS. It was after all Golwalkar who categorically suggested that once an RSS worker grew old and infirm and ceased to be useful to the organisation, the best course left for him was to sit by the wayside, beg to keep body alive, and die. It is another matter that an old and infirm Golwalkar was looked after by the same organisation and his health became a priority for the RSS in the last years of his life. This accent on youth and machismo also was the very stuff that Hitler’s version of a fascist movement found its sustenance from and thrived on, peddling this skewed idea.
Barbarism
Lastly, Modi’s recent statement that he is ready to be hanged in public if charges against him regarding his complicity in the post- Godhra riots were to be proved is enormously important and is to be taken seriously.
Mussolini, the Italian fascist, was summarily executed by communist partisans and hung upside down.
The bodies of Mussolini and his mistress were then hung on meathooks from the roof of a petrol station and stoned by civilians. In this country, till such time that civilised values are still in place, people are not hung in public.
There is a rule of law, however flawed, that takes care of crimes and doles out punishment that affords a degree of dignity to even criminals.
Medieval forms of justice are no more in vogue in this country and will not be so till such time that the Indian people actually commit the grave error of allowing an authoritarian individual like Modi to assume the office of the prime minister.
Parallel
Let us recap the three statements Modi has made in the past few months. These were about hanging a man pronounced guilty as a sign of strength, about old women and little girls playing with dolls, and about himself being hanged in public.
There is an uncanny resemblance in all the three to what we have known all along as the Taliban’s preferred way of meting out justice. We frown on these kinds of barbaric acts and the Sangh Parivar often implies that there is a relation between these forms of barbarism and the religious affiliation of those who indulge in these acts.
In rightly expressing our moral indignation against the Taliban, we forget that the Taliban will not enter this country through our northern borders but is already present in an indigenous version in the form of Modi and his supporters.
The Taliban of today is only a mirror image of the irrational and mindless rage of Ashwatthama, the son of Drona in the epic Mahabharata . Modi is the inheritor of Ashwatthama’s rage. In the epic, Ashwatthama had to ultimately pay for his deeds. But before that he wrecked destruction and brought sorrow to countless people. Is Modi’s future and fate the same as that of Drona’s misguided son?
(The author teaches politics at University of Hyderabad)
Mail Today, April 28, 2009
They will not come from Pakistan, they are here in the form of Narendra Modi and his zealots
THE Supreme Court has asked the SIT to probe Narendra Modi’s role in the post- Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002. But that will not still the chorus for Modi as a future national leader of the BJP. As it is, the timing and context of the Modi- for- PM demand is curious.
In part, it is admission that the BJP- led NDA will have to wait a few more years before making a bid for power.
But it also implies that the prime- minister- in- eternalanticipation and perpetual desperation, Lal Krishna Advani, has failed to capture the imagination of even his own flock.
Other than the obvious reasons, there is an obvious tactic at play here: the BJP hopes that Modi’s name as a future leader would actually help win some votes in these elections. It is an appeal to the highly voluble, if not sizeable, number of the Indian middle class, which has not merely discovered the simple joys of voting, but has the temerity to now reclaim the public space they have for so long spurned with mighty disdain.
It has two things in common with Modi. The first is a certain brand of vulgar impatience and haste, a hallmark of the mob as well as the tyrant, born out of a sense of self- proclaimed purity and righteousness. The other is a misplaced sense of aspiring for such indeterminate goals such as ‘ progress’ and ‘ development’, a chimera that leaves everyone out of the equation other than the sort of worthies who stood on a stage and argued for Modi’s elevation as prime minister.
Ethical
There is, then, little difference between the two Aruns, Shourie and Jaitley, and Ambani, Mittal and Tata: they feel emboldened enough to suggest who the next prime minister ought to be without a care in the world for the democratic process to decide on such weighty issues. The message from them is: we know what is good for you. We represent the country because we produce wealth or facilitate in its production.
Apart from the cheerleaders for Modi, it would be instructive to look at the man himself in terms of three statements made recently. In the absurd debate regarding whether Manmohan Singh is a weak prime minister, Modi came up with a priceless statement. He dared the prime minister to hang Afzal Guru in order to prove his strength and establish his machismo.
There was a time when Gandhi shook a mighty empire through nonviolence and yet never abandoned fundamental moral principles in order to take on the British. He broke laws that were unjust, but understood the importance of laws as a guiding framework for any civilised society. Killing someone just to prove an imaginary idea of strength had no place in his moral universe.
Modi represents an alternative ‘ morality’, which seeks to justify, albeit covertly, encounter killings in the name of swiftness and expediency.
This haste, too, is born out of a disdain for constitutional and legal procedures as well as from the selfappointed role of judging who the ‘ enemy’ is and finding effective ways of dealing with such real and mythical enemies. It is a mechanical world of action and, in this instance, unequal and opposite reaction, untouched by norms of ethics and morality.
Modi’s disdain for the old and for children also springs from a corpus of ideas that are far removed from any acceptable version of the Indian ethos. The polarities represented by the ‘ budhiya’ and the ‘ gudiya’ remark comes from a 19th century European set of ideas that celebrated the useful, able- bodied, young, masculine, virile individual who could work in factories, contribute to development and progress. This view found the old and the very young to be a burden on society, a universe far removed from a world that venerated a Vyasa, a Vashistha and a Bhisma, and found merit in the lives of a Dhruva and Prahalad. In this sense, Modi is a worthy inheritor of Golwalkar’s mantle and the only hope for the RSS. It was after all Golwalkar who categorically suggested that once an RSS worker grew old and infirm and ceased to be useful to the organisation, the best course left for him was to sit by the wayside, beg to keep body alive, and die. It is another matter that an old and infirm Golwalkar was looked after by the same organisation and his health became a priority for the RSS in the last years of his life. This accent on youth and machismo also was the very stuff that Hitler’s version of a fascist movement found its sustenance from and thrived on, peddling this skewed idea.
Barbarism
Lastly, Modi’s recent statement that he is ready to be hanged in public if charges against him regarding his complicity in the post- Godhra riots were to be proved is enormously important and is to be taken seriously.
Mussolini, the Italian fascist, was summarily executed by communist partisans and hung upside down.
The bodies of Mussolini and his mistress were then hung on meathooks from the roof of a petrol station and stoned by civilians. In this country, till such time that civilised values are still in place, people are not hung in public.
There is a rule of law, however flawed, that takes care of crimes and doles out punishment that affords a degree of dignity to even criminals.
Medieval forms of justice are no more in vogue in this country and will not be so till such time that the Indian people actually commit the grave error of allowing an authoritarian individual like Modi to assume the office of the prime minister.
Parallel
Let us recap the three statements Modi has made in the past few months. These were about hanging a man pronounced guilty as a sign of strength, about old women and little girls playing with dolls, and about himself being hanged in public.
There is an uncanny resemblance in all the three to what we have known all along as the Taliban’s preferred way of meting out justice. We frown on these kinds of barbaric acts and the Sangh Parivar often implies that there is a relation between these forms of barbarism and the religious affiliation of those who indulge in these acts.
In rightly expressing our moral indignation against the Taliban, we forget that the Taliban will not enter this country through our northern borders but is already present in an indigenous version in the form of Modi and his supporters.
The Taliban of today is only a mirror image of the irrational and mindless rage of Ashwatthama, the son of Drona in the epic Mahabharata . Modi is the inheritor of Ashwatthama’s rage. In the epic, Ashwatthama had to ultimately pay for his deeds. But before that he wrecked destruction and brought sorrow to countless people. Is Modi’s future and fate the same as that of Drona’s misguided son?
(The author teaches politics at University of Hyderabad)
Incredible CBI
J. S. Verma
Indian Express
Apr 11, 2009
A few days back I wrote in these columns cautioning against failure of the twin duties to preserve our democratic polity: duty of political parties to eschew selection of tainted candidates; and that of the people to reject them, even if they are fielded. A later unsavoury incident has highlighted the generally perceived failure in its statutory duties by the premier investigating agency - the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); a failure which abetted these twin failures enabling growth of corruption and increase in criminalisation of politics, which are the bane of the polity. The incident indicates the waning credibility of the premier investigating agency, with people’s growing frustration driving them to resort to extra-legal means to ventilate their grievances against perceived injustice. The dangerous consequence is the erosion of the rule of law, which is the bedrock of democracy. These failures and the aftermath negate good governance.
I refer to the shocking behaviour of a journalist at a recent press conference of the genteel and suave Union Home Minister, P. Chidambaram. It was his dignified reaction that saved the situation and its awkward repercussions. The culprit made no attempt to justify his misconduct, conceding immediately that his mode of ventilating the grievance against the injustice was wrong and indefensible. However, he justified his grievance against the CBI for partiality towards a politician set up as a candidate for election by a ruling party. The media has reported prompt reaction of the concerned ruling political party to withdraw not only that candidate, but also another candidate allegedly with similar taint. Are we to assume that only extra-legal means can be effective to deal with corruption and criminalisation of politics? It is tragic, if such an impression were to gain ground.
The above incident reveals our penchant for reaction instead of proactive response to cure evils. We tend to treat only the symptoms when they become eyesores, forgetting even then the need to eradicate the root cause of the malady. It is time we took steps to eradicate the malady that produces the symptoms. In this context the statutory role of the CBI needs to be revisited, and the public perception of its lacklustre performance needs scrutiny. For obvious reasons, I refrain from referring to any specific matter that is sub judice, and confine myself only to the emerging issues pertaining to its governance, to focus on the malaise corroding the polity.
The genesis of the CBI was the post-World War II need to combat corruption. Increasing, unpunished corruption eroding the polity is eloquent testimony to its failure to efficiently serve this purpose of its existence. The occasion for the Supreme Court’s intervention resulting in the judgment in the Hawala case (1997) was the reluctance and failure of the CBI to investigate allegations of corruption against the powerful. It gave autonomy to the CBI and insulated it from political influence by judicial creativity, despite a few doubting it as judicial overreach. It was held that the government’s statutory power of "superintendence" over the CBI does not empower it to interfere with or regulate the investigation into any offence conducted by the CBI. The CBI’s power to investigate being statutory, it is insulated from any extraneous influence, including that of the concerned minister.
The legal impact of insulating the CBI from political influence in discharge of its statutory duty of impartial and effective investigation into charges of corruption and criminal offences levelled against the powerful has not been doubted, at least since then. It is sad that even now the CBI continues to disappoint the people whenever it deals with cases against the powerful. The blame can no longer be laid elsewhere. It is too much of a coincidence that in sensitive matters, the outcome of the CBI’s investigation invariably depends on the political equation of the accused with the ruling power, and it changes without compunction with the change in that equation. The nadir is reached with the somersault in the CBI’s stand witnessed recently even in the apex court on the culpability of such accused with the changing political equations, which invited caustic comments from the court, but no effect. A former CBI director who enjoyed insulation from political interference given by the Supreme Court has publicly claimed that an attempt was made by the then prime minister to influence investigation in a sensitive matter, adding that there was nothing new about "political interference" in the agency’s working! It is happening too often, inviting public outrage.
As the author of the judgment in the Hawala case, I am often asked whether it has any practical utility if the behaviour of the CBI personnel remains unchanged in spite of being given immunity from political influence. The final outcome of the Hawala case with the discharge of all accused is cited as the first example of the many such instances that followed. Half-baked charge sheets were filed against the accused without investigation into the substantive offence of possessing disproportionate assets - based only on diary entries of corroborative value, which without basic substantive evidence were bound to fail. There was a miserable failure in its statutory duty to investigate impartially into the charges and to faithfully prosecute the accused, in spite of the full autonomy it had been given for the purpose. The CBI is not to be insulted by imputing to it the ignorance of even elementary law. Subsequent public reminders, including that in my D.P. Kohli Memorial Lecture, to the CBI top brass that discharge is not acquittal to debar a subsequent trial on further investigation are blatantly ignored to avoid political displeasure of all shades.
More so, no attempt has been made to discover and plug the common source of funding of terrorism and corruption at high places in governance, even though the Hawala case originated with the arrest of two terrorists funded by that source, thus disclosing the link between them. The issue relates to national security and can be ignored only at great peril. Credibility of the premier investigating agency, in spite of the insulation from extraneous influences in the performance of its duty, including that of the government, is at a low ebb.
Politicisation of crime is a corollary of the above evils because of the CBI’s failure. Corruption and crime are visualised as high profit and low risk business of the powerful. This trend must be reversed. The lure of post-retirement benefits and honours at the discretion of the government accruing to the top brass in the CBI and other national institutions perceived as a reward for their pusillanimity during the tenure in high office has to be insulated by systemic changes. There should be no scope for any temptation to the head of any national institution to deviate from the course of total objectivity and integrity at the highest level. Once the sanctity of the top is secured, the rest will fall in place. Reaching the top of the profession should be considered sufficient reward and lifetime achievement. Then only the nation will thrive!
(The writer, as Chief Justice of India, authored a judgment guaranteeing CBI autonomy)
Indian Express
Apr 11, 2009
A few days back I wrote in these columns cautioning against failure of the twin duties to preserve our democratic polity: duty of political parties to eschew selection of tainted candidates; and that of the people to reject them, even if they are fielded. A later unsavoury incident has highlighted the generally perceived failure in its statutory duties by the premier investigating agency - the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); a failure which abetted these twin failures enabling growth of corruption and increase in criminalisation of politics, which are the bane of the polity. The incident indicates the waning credibility of the premier investigating agency, with people’s growing frustration driving them to resort to extra-legal means to ventilate their grievances against perceived injustice. The dangerous consequence is the erosion of the rule of law, which is the bedrock of democracy. These failures and the aftermath negate good governance.
I refer to the shocking behaviour of a journalist at a recent press conference of the genteel and suave Union Home Minister, P. Chidambaram. It was his dignified reaction that saved the situation and its awkward repercussions. The culprit made no attempt to justify his misconduct, conceding immediately that his mode of ventilating the grievance against the injustice was wrong and indefensible. However, he justified his grievance against the CBI for partiality towards a politician set up as a candidate for election by a ruling party. The media has reported prompt reaction of the concerned ruling political party to withdraw not only that candidate, but also another candidate allegedly with similar taint. Are we to assume that only extra-legal means can be effective to deal with corruption and criminalisation of politics? It is tragic, if such an impression were to gain ground.
The above incident reveals our penchant for reaction instead of proactive response to cure evils. We tend to treat only the symptoms when they become eyesores, forgetting even then the need to eradicate the root cause of the malady. It is time we took steps to eradicate the malady that produces the symptoms. In this context the statutory role of the CBI needs to be revisited, and the public perception of its lacklustre performance needs scrutiny. For obvious reasons, I refrain from referring to any specific matter that is sub judice, and confine myself only to the emerging issues pertaining to its governance, to focus on the malaise corroding the polity.
The genesis of the CBI was the post-World War II need to combat corruption. Increasing, unpunished corruption eroding the polity is eloquent testimony to its failure to efficiently serve this purpose of its existence. The occasion for the Supreme Court’s intervention resulting in the judgment in the Hawala case (1997) was the reluctance and failure of the CBI to investigate allegations of corruption against the powerful. It gave autonomy to the CBI and insulated it from political influence by judicial creativity, despite a few doubting it as judicial overreach. It was held that the government’s statutory power of "superintendence" over the CBI does not empower it to interfere with or regulate the investigation into any offence conducted by the CBI. The CBI’s power to investigate being statutory, it is insulated from any extraneous influence, including that of the concerned minister.
The legal impact of insulating the CBI from political influence in discharge of its statutory duty of impartial and effective investigation into charges of corruption and criminal offences levelled against the powerful has not been doubted, at least since then. It is sad that even now the CBI continues to disappoint the people whenever it deals with cases against the powerful. The blame can no longer be laid elsewhere. It is too much of a coincidence that in sensitive matters, the outcome of the CBI’s investigation invariably depends on the political equation of the accused with the ruling power, and it changes without compunction with the change in that equation. The nadir is reached with the somersault in the CBI’s stand witnessed recently even in the apex court on the culpability of such accused with the changing political equations, which invited caustic comments from the court, but no effect. A former CBI director who enjoyed insulation from political interference given by the Supreme Court has publicly claimed that an attempt was made by the then prime minister to influence investigation in a sensitive matter, adding that there was nothing new about "political interference" in the agency’s working! It is happening too often, inviting public outrage.
As the author of the judgment in the Hawala case, I am often asked whether it has any practical utility if the behaviour of the CBI personnel remains unchanged in spite of being given immunity from political influence. The final outcome of the Hawala case with the discharge of all accused is cited as the first example of the many such instances that followed. Half-baked charge sheets were filed against the accused without investigation into the substantive offence of possessing disproportionate assets - based only on diary entries of corroborative value, which without basic substantive evidence were bound to fail. There was a miserable failure in its statutory duty to investigate impartially into the charges and to faithfully prosecute the accused, in spite of the full autonomy it had been given for the purpose. The CBI is not to be insulted by imputing to it the ignorance of even elementary law. Subsequent public reminders, including that in my D.P. Kohli Memorial Lecture, to the CBI top brass that discharge is not acquittal to debar a subsequent trial on further investigation are blatantly ignored to avoid political displeasure of all shades.
More so, no attempt has been made to discover and plug the common source of funding of terrorism and corruption at high places in governance, even though the Hawala case originated with the arrest of two terrorists funded by that source, thus disclosing the link between them. The issue relates to national security and can be ignored only at great peril. Credibility of the premier investigating agency, in spite of the insulation from extraneous influences in the performance of its duty, including that of the government, is at a low ebb.
Politicisation of crime is a corollary of the above evils because of the CBI’s failure. Corruption and crime are visualised as high profit and low risk business of the powerful. This trend must be reversed. The lure of post-retirement benefits and honours at the discretion of the government accruing to the top brass in the CBI and other national institutions perceived as a reward for their pusillanimity during the tenure in high office has to be insulated by systemic changes. There should be no scope for any temptation to the head of any national institution to deviate from the course of total objectivity and integrity at the highest level. Once the sanctity of the top is secured, the rest will fall in place. Reaching the top of the profession should be considered sufficient reward and lifetime achievement. Then only the nation will thrive!
(The writer, as Chief Justice of India, authored a judgment guaranteeing CBI autonomy)
Bureau of nods and winks
Fali S. Nariman
Indian Express, April 13, 2009
The Central Bureau of Investigation is again in the news. With the filing in court of its (second) "closure report" in the case of Jagdish Tytler, it has become the cynosure of suspicion. Could it have been a mere coincidence (people say) that the "closure report" came hard on the heels of Tytler getting a ticket from the ruling Congress party to contest the ensuing general elections?
This raises a fundamental question - how independent is the CBI? Experience shows that it is as independent as the incumbent director of the CBI wants it to be - the director now has a fixed two-year tenure.
Structurally the CBI is under the control and direction of the administrative ministry in charge, which is the Department of Personnel and Training in the Government of India: the act under which the CBI is set up (The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946) provides (Section 4) that it must function under the "superintendence" of the Central government. When exercising investigatory powers into offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, the word "superintendence" does not have its ordinary meaning viz "superintend, direct and control". The word has a special meaning - especially since the decision in Vineet Narain (1998) which held that Section 4 cannot be construed so as to permit supervision of the actual investigation of a criminal offence by the CBI and the Central government is precluded (by judicial diktat) from issuing any direction to the CBI to curtail or inhibit its jurisdiction to investigate into offences.
But whatever the judges may say, the public remains sceptical. It knows that governments do not function only by issuing directions to those who occupy high positions. Central governments - whether during the NDA’s term of office or during the UPA’s - have effectively functioned not solely by notes on files, but also on the nod-and-wink of the minister in charge or of the senior bureaucrat in the ministry in charge. Whether such dignitaries do or do not so nod-and-wink in a given case is of no moment: the working of governments has been so messy in recent years that contrary to the express provisions of the Indian Evidence Act (that official acts are presumed to be regularly performed) the reality has been that as a rule official acts are not regularly or properly performed.
This is acknowledged even by the highest court. In November 2006 in the Taj Corridor Scam case (investigated by the CBI) the Supreme Court said: "In matters after matters, we find that the efficacy and ethics of the governmental authorities are progressively coming under challenge before this court by way of PIL for failure to perform their statutory duties. If this continues, a day might come when the rule of law will stand reduced to ‘a rope of sand’."
It does appear to many - though it may not be true in a particular case (because though appearances are deceptive we have only appearances to go by) - that public servants who fill important positions in government are generally (with some notable exceptions) neither able nor willing to resist pressures from "higher-ups" (that beautifully ambivalent phrase which defies definition). Normally, the filing of a closure report by the CBI would be the end of the matter: but having regard to human frailties (and failings) there are certain safeguards provided by judicial decisions, viz that even after filing a closure report by the CBI (or by the police) the court before which it is filed has the choice to disagree with it and either direct further investigation or, after pursuing the papers already submitted to it, to take direct cognisance of and register the case and proceed to trial.
However if the court decides to accept the closure report the court should give notice and hear the informant (complainant) and (though this is not yet settled) a representative from the group that persists in saying that there is sufficient evidence on record for a charge sheet to be filed. Where the court ultimately after such hearing accepts the closure report, the persons aggrieved can invoke the "justice provisions" of the Constitution: Article 226 or Article 136.
Though the request for this article was occasioned because of the Tytler drama (and the trauma accompanying it) the more important question is a general one, viz whether it isn’t time that the CBI be made institutionally independent of pressures and pulls from within the government or without. I believe we must have in place an Independent Bureau of Investigation (an IBI). But this can only be by law expressly enacted by Parliament. There are models in the US which are available which could and should be adapted.
In the end it is the personality of the man or woman at the top that counts. If newspaper reports are to be believed (The Indian Express, April 9) the Department of Personnel in charge of the CBI, notwithstanding the dictum in Vineet Narain, inquired why the ministry had not been kept informed of the CBI’s closure report - which is only illustrative of the fact that officials who read the statute just cannot accept that the word "superintendence" cannot mean "control". But kudos to the present director of the CBI who reportedly informed his controlling ministry that his duty as CBI director was to report his investigation to the court, and not to the government.
In the present state of affairs, courts appear to be the only place where justice can be expected. But a citizen does expect justice from the officials in the administration though this has become rare over the years. I recall the wise words of Swaran Singh - India’s elder statesman who during the Internal Emergency of June 1975 presided over a committee to consider whether to recommend deletion of Article 226 of the Constitution. He said that when he was a minister in the government of Punjab he found it difficult to render justice in individual cases, and it was best that courts were left to deal with them. That is why he opposed deletion of Article 226 - it is regrettable that it was the lawyer members of the committee who disagreed with him. But it was Swaran Singh who prevailed upon Indira Gandhi not to amend the Constitution and take away the right of citizens to approach the courts by way of writs. The moral of this is that though lawyers are good, sometimes they are also exceptionally good at rationalising tyranny!
One hopes that the ministry in charge of the CBI, or the IBI if established, would inculcate in all its officials the understanding that it is better for the public administration and for the image of the government that directions, commands or hints - to "fix-him" or "drop the case" - are consciously eschewed. This would help remove current public cynicism of departments of government and restore confidence in the expectation of getting justice from the administration. Approaching the courts to intervene is always a slow, tortuous process: and should be an exception. This is how good government will be ultimately achieved.
Indian Express, April 13, 2009
The Central Bureau of Investigation is again in the news. With the filing in court of its (second) "closure report" in the case of Jagdish Tytler, it has become the cynosure of suspicion. Could it have been a mere coincidence (people say) that the "closure report" came hard on the heels of Tytler getting a ticket from the ruling Congress party to contest the ensuing general elections?
This raises a fundamental question - how independent is the CBI? Experience shows that it is as independent as the incumbent director of the CBI wants it to be - the director now has a fixed two-year tenure.
Structurally the CBI is under the control and direction of the administrative ministry in charge, which is the Department of Personnel and Training in the Government of India: the act under which the CBI is set up (The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946) provides (Section 4) that it must function under the "superintendence" of the Central government. When exercising investigatory powers into offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, the word "superintendence" does not have its ordinary meaning viz "superintend, direct and control". The word has a special meaning - especially since the decision in Vineet Narain (1998) which held that Section 4 cannot be construed so as to permit supervision of the actual investigation of a criminal offence by the CBI and the Central government is precluded (by judicial diktat) from issuing any direction to the CBI to curtail or inhibit its jurisdiction to investigate into offences.
But whatever the judges may say, the public remains sceptical. It knows that governments do not function only by issuing directions to those who occupy high positions. Central governments - whether during the NDA’s term of office or during the UPA’s - have effectively functioned not solely by notes on files, but also on the nod-and-wink of the minister in charge or of the senior bureaucrat in the ministry in charge. Whether such dignitaries do or do not so nod-and-wink in a given case is of no moment: the working of governments has been so messy in recent years that contrary to the express provisions of the Indian Evidence Act (that official acts are presumed to be regularly performed) the reality has been that as a rule official acts are not regularly or properly performed.
This is acknowledged even by the highest court. In November 2006 in the Taj Corridor Scam case (investigated by the CBI) the Supreme Court said: "In matters after matters, we find that the efficacy and ethics of the governmental authorities are progressively coming under challenge before this court by way of PIL for failure to perform their statutory duties. If this continues, a day might come when the rule of law will stand reduced to ‘a rope of sand’."
It does appear to many - though it may not be true in a particular case (because though appearances are deceptive we have only appearances to go by) - that public servants who fill important positions in government are generally (with some notable exceptions) neither able nor willing to resist pressures from "higher-ups" (that beautifully ambivalent phrase which defies definition). Normally, the filing of a closure report by the CBI would be the end of the matter: but having regard to human frailties (and failings) there are certain safeguards provided by judicial decisions, viz that even after filing a closure report by the CBI (or by the police) the court before which it is filed has the choice to disagree with it and either direct further investigation or, after pursuing the papers already submitted to it, to take direct cognisance of and register the case and proceed to trial.
However if the court decides to accept the closure report the court should give notice and hear the informant (complainant) and (though this is not yet settled) a representative from the group that persists in saying that there is sufficient evidence on record for a charge sheet to be filed. Where the court ultimately after such hearing accepts the closure report, the persons aggrieved can invoke the "justice provisions" of the Constitution: Article 226 or Article 136.
Though the request for this article was occasioned because of the Tytler drama (and the trauma accompanying it) the more important question is a general one, viz whether it isn’t time that the CBI be made institutionally independent of pressures and pulls from within the government or without. I believe we must have in place an Independent Bureau of Investigation (an IBI). But this can only be by law expressly enacted by Parliament. There are models in the US which are available which could and should be adapted.
In the end it is the personality of the man or woman at the top that counts. If newspaper reports are to be believed (The Indian Express, April 9) the Department of Personnel in charge of the CBI, notwithstanding the dictum in Vineet Narain, inquired why the ministry had not been kept informed of the CBI’s closure report - which is only illustrative of the fact that officials who read the statute just cannot accept that the word "superintendence" cannot mean "control". But kudos to the present director of the CBI who reportedly informed his controlling ministry that his duty as CBI director was to report his investigation to the court, and not to the government.
In the present state of affairs, courts appear to be the only place where justice can be expected. But a citizen does expect justice from the officials in the administration though this has become rare over the years. I recall the wise words of Swaran Singh - India’s elder statesman who during the Internal Emergency of June 1975 presided over a committee to consider whether to recommend deletion of Article 226 of the Constitution. He said that when he was a minister in the government of Punjab he found it difficult to render justice in individual cases, and it was best that courts were left to deal with them. That is why he opposed deletion of Article 226 - it is regrettable that it was the lawyer members of the committee who disagreed with him. But it was Swaran Singh who prevailed upon Indira Gandhi not to amend the Constitution and take away the right of citizens to approach the courts by way of writs. The moral of this is that though lawyers are good, sometimes they are also exceptionally good at rationalising tyranny!
One hopes that the ministry in charge of the CBI, or the IBI if established, would inculcate in all its officials the understanding that it is better for the public administration and for the image of the government that directions, commands or hints - to "fix-him" or "drop the case" - are consciously eschewed. This would help remove current public cynicism of departments of government and restore confidence in the expectation of getting justice from the administration. Approaching the courts to intervene is always a slow, tortuous process: and should be an exception. This is how good government will be ultimately achieved.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Give the stock-market experts a miss
12 Sept , 2008, DNA
"In a few months, I expect to see the stock market much higher than today."
You might have heard the above line on one of the business news channels just this morning. That's how common it has become, although the speaker may be forgiven for not understanding its historical importance enough.
The sentence was famously uttered by Irving Fisher, a famous American economist and a professor at the Yale University, just 14 days before the Wall Street crashed on October 29, 1929, the infamous "Black Tuesday."
Fisher was not the only one who got it wrong around then. The Harvard Economic Society, too, had ruled out the chances of a depression. But, as is well known, the US saw what is now known as the Great Depression following the stock market crash.
"Stock market crashes are often unforeseen for most people, especially economists," writes Didier Sornette in his book Why Stock Markets Crash - Critical Events in Complex Financial Systems.
Just before the stock market crashed in January this year, a stock brokerage firm had even predicted the Sensex hitting 25,000 by the year-end. While there is no ruling it out completely, such an event does appear highly improbable under the present circumstances.
And why do economists and other experts get their forecasts wrong? "A financial collapse has never happened when things looked bad," writes Sornette. "On the contrary, macroeconomic flows look good before crashes."
Try recalling what the macroeconomic numbers were at the time of the January market crash. The rate of inflation was at 4.36% compared with 12.34% now. The Index of Industrial Production was growing at 6.2% compared with 5.4% in the quarter ended June. No wonder the scaremongers were outnumbered by experts who remained positive until the markets crashed.
As Sornette writes, "Before every collapse, economists say the economy is in the best of all the worlds. Everything looks rosy, stock markets go up and up, macroeconomic flows (output, employment, etc) appear to be improving further and further."
So when a crash happens, it "catches most people, especially economists, totally by surprise. The good times are invariably extrapolated linearly into the future."
Sadly, the bullishness of these so-called experts before the crash rubs on to the "uninformed investors," who start investing in their "favourite stocks" towards the fag end of the bull market.
"The result of this behaviour would be a tendency for the favourite stocks' prices to move together more than would be predicted by their shared fundamental economic values," writes Sornette.
And most of this buying happens by looking at what others are buying. In this situation, investors behave like ants do, when they get separated from their colony. Ants, when they get separated from their colony, obey a simple rule: follow the ant in front of you. Much like the circular mills of the ants, investor decisions are made in a sequence. People, who invest in the stock market during a bull run assume that investing in the stock market is a good bet simply because some of the people they know have already done the same and made profits. Consequently, during a bull run, the stock market has more buyers than sellers. Expectedly, stock prices zoom up and more and more investors enter the market expecting the bull run to continue, fuelling an even greater price rise. Riding the bull wave, stock prices of fundamentally weak stocks also start to go up.
But this cannot keep happening forever and one fine day, things come to a stop. "If the tendency of traders to "imitate" their "friends" increases up to a certain point, called the "critical" point, many traders may place the same order (sell) at the same time, thus causing the crash," writes Sornette.
But why does this happen?
Economic theory tells us that, all things remaining the same, higher prices dampen demand and lower prices increase demand. But when the stock market witnesses a bull run, investors do not behave like normal consumers. As stock prices go up, the more stocks appeal to investors. This leads to investor psychology during a bull run that is detrimental to the investor as well as for the market. The normal law of demand fails to work.
As Maggie Mahar writes in Bull! A History of the Boom and Bust, 1982-2004, "In the normal course of things, higher prices dampen desire. When the lamb becomes too dear, consumers eat chicken; when the price of gasoline soars, people take fewer vacations. Conversely, lower prices usually whet our interest: colour TVs, VCRs, and cell phones become more popular as they became more affordable. But when the stock market soars, investors do not behave like consumers. Rather, they are consumed by stocks. Equities seem to appeal to the perversity of human desire. The more costly the prize, the greater the allure. So, at the height of the bull market, investors lust after the market's leaders. (Conversely, when the prize is too ready at hand, investors lose interest. At the bottom of the bear market, when equities are bargains, they go begging, like overly earnest, suitable suitors.)"
This ensures that investors buy high and sell low, the very reverse of the most basic investment principle. Given all this, a simple investment philosophy may be to go against the experts. If they are extremely bullish, you know its time to sell and vice versa.
"In a few months, I expect to see the stock market much higher than today."
You might have heard the above line on one of the business news channels just this morning. That's how common it has become, although the speaker may be forgiven for not understanding its historical importance enough.
The sentence was famously uttered by Irving Fisher, a famous American economist and a professor at the Yale University, just 14 days before the Wall Street crashed on October 29, 1929, the infamous "Black Tuesday."
Fisher was not the only one who got it wrong around then. The Harvard Economic Society, too, had ruled out the chances of a depression. But, as is well known, the US saw what is now known as the Great Depression following the stock market crash.
"Stock market crashes are often unforeseen for most people, especially economists," writes Didier Sornette in his book Why Stock Markets Crash - Critical Events in Complex Financial Systems.
Just before the stock market crashed in January this year, a stock brokerage firm had even predicted the Sensex hitting 25,000 by the year-end. While there is no ruling it out completely, such an event does appear highly improbable under the present circumstances.
And why do economists and other experts get their forecasts wrong? "A financial collapse has never happened when things looked bad," writes Sornette. "On the contrary, macroeconomic flows look good before crashes."
Try recalling what the macroeconomic numbers were at the time of the January market crash. The rate of inflation was at 4.36% compared with 12.34% now. The Index of Industrial Production was growing at 6.2% compared with 5.4% in the quarter ended June. No wonder the scaremongers were outnumbered by experts who remained positive until the markets crashed.
As Sornette writes, "Before every collapse, economists say the economy is in the best of all the worlds. Everything looks rosy, stock markets go up and up, macroeconomic flows (output, employment, etc) appear to be improving further and further."
So when a crash happens, it "catches most people, especially economists, totally by surprise. The good times are invariably extrapolated linearly into the future."
Sadly, the bullishness of these so-called experts before the crash rubs on to the "uninformed investors," who start investing in their "favourite stocks" towards the fag end of the bull market.
"The result of this behaviour would be a tendency for the favourite stocks' prices to move together more than would be predicted by their shared fundamental economic values," writes Sornette.
And most of this buying happens by looking at what others are buying. In this situation, investors behave like ants do, when they get separated from their colony. Ants, when they get separated from their colony, obey a simple rule: follow the ant in front of you. Much like the circular mills of the ants, investor decisions are made in a sequence. People, who invest in the stock market during a bull run assume that investing in the stock market is a good bet simply because some of the people they know have already done the same and made profits. Consequently, during a bull run, the stock market has more buyers than sellers. Expectedly, stock prices zoom up and more and more investors enter the market expecting the bull run to continue, fuelling an even greater price rise. Riding the bull wave, stock prices of fundamentally weak stocks also start to go up.
But this cannot keep happening forever and one fine day, things come to a stop. "If the tendency of traders to "imitate" their "friends" increases up to a certain point, called the "critical" point, many traders may place the same order (sell) at the same time, thus causing the crash," writes Sornette.
But why does this happen?
Economic theory tells us that, all things remaining the same, higher prices dampen demand and lower prices increase demand. But when the stock market witnesses a bull run, investors do not behave like normal consumers. As stock prices go up, the more stocks appeal to investors. This leads to investor psychology during a bull run that is detrimental to the investor as well as for the market. The normal law of demand fails to work.
As Maggie Mahar writes in Bull! A History of the Boom and Bust, 1982-2004, "In the normal course of things, higher prices dampen desire. When the lamb becomes too dear, consumers eat chicken; when the price of gasoline soars, people take fewer vacations. Conversely, lower prices usually whet our interest: colour TVs, VCRs, and cell phones become more popular as they became more affordable. But when the stock market soars, investors do not behave like consumers. Rather, they are consumed by stocks. Equities seem to appeal to the perversity of human desire. The more costly the prize, the greater the allure. So, at the height of the bull market, investors lust after the market's leaders. (Conversely, when the prize is too ready at hand, investors lose interest. At the bottom of the bear market, when equities are bargains, they go begging, like overly earnest, suitable suitors.)"
This ensures that investors buy high and sell low, the very reverse of the most basic investment principle. Given all this, a simple investment philosophy may be to go against the experts. If they are extremely bullish, you know its time to sell and vice versa.
Was Bill Gates just plain lucky?
Oct 24, 2008, DNA
Mumbai: 80% of success is showing up - Woody Allen
William Henry “Bill” Gates III, the third-richest man in the world, built one of the most famous software brands “Microsoft” from scratch. Was it his intelligence and hardwork that was responsible for the stupendous success that followed or was he just plain lucky?
“I think if we look back on our lives, most of us would find that in all our major changes of direction, there was one or more unrelated event which, if it had not happened, would have led us to a very different place in life. That ranges from meeting a future spouse by chance at a train station to Bill Gates, who would probably have been far less wealthy had it not been for several chance incidents that led to his licensing of DOS (disk operating system) to IBM, and with that, the rise of Microsoft,” says Leonard Mlodinow, a faculty at the California Institute of Technology and most recently the author of The Drunkard’s Walk - How Randomness Rules Our Lives.
Mlodinow has previously co-authored A Briefer History of Time with Stephen Hawking and is currently working on another book with Hawking titled The Grand Design.
“Since luck plays a large role in results, it is wrong to think that more successful people are more skilled than less successful ones. Talent and hard work do matter - they increase your chances of succeeding - but plenty of very talented people end up with worse results than less talented ones. The role of chance shuffles the results, ruining any deterministic forces,” says Mlodinow.
Luck had a large part to play in the success of Bill Gates and Microsoft.
As the story goes and Mlodinow recounts it in his book, in August 1990, IBM was looking for a programme called “operating system” for their “home computer.” A group of executives from IBM went to meet Gates, who was then running a very small company.
Gates told them that he couldn’t provide the operating system they wanted and directed them to a programmer called Gary Kildall at Digital Research Inc. The talks between Kildall and IBM did not work out primarily because Kildall’s wife and the company’s business manager refused to sign IBM’s non-disclosure agreement.
Around the same time, Jack Sams, an IBM employee met Gates again. As Mlodinow writes, “They both knew of another operating system that was available, a system that was available, a system that was, depending on whom you ask, based or inspired by Kildall’s. According to Sams, Gates said, “Do you want to get…[that operating system], or do you want me to?” Sams, apparently not appreciating the implications, said, “By all means, you get it.””
Sams of course did not understand the implications of his statement. Gates got the operating system for around $50,000 (or by some accounts, a little more), “made a few changes, and renamed it DOS (disk operating system). IBM, apparently with little faith in the potential of its new idea, licensed DOS from Gates for a low per-copy royalty fee, letting Gates retain the rights.” And the rest as we have seen is history. There was a lot of luck involved in the success of Gates. If Kildall had co-operated, Gates wouldn’t have come into the picture at all.
Also, if IBM had just bought the operating system itself, the situation would have been very different.
“Unfortunately, even if the achievement is purely random, as in coin flipping, people will usually look back and credit the successful individual with great skill for having accomplished it. We make many mistakes of this type, attributing skill to a person who had only luck,” says Mlodinow.
Investment professionals go through a similar lucky phase. Take the case of star fund manager Bill Miller whose Legg Mason Value Trust mutual fund beat the returns of S&P 500 Index for 15 consecutive years from 1991 to 2005. Tomes got written on his legendary investing style and various reasons got attributed to his success. But Mlodinow feels Miller was plain lucky.
“Bill Miller is an example of a person who was credited for skill but had only luck. His mutual fund beat the S&P 500 index for 15 years straight, so it looks skillful, but many theories of stock pricing show that the market is too unpredictable for such a streak to be meaningful,” says Mlodinow.
“On the other hand, a simple calculation shows that if a the few thousand mutual fund managers who were managing funds comparable to his were simply flipping coins once a year, rather than investing in the market, and if we equated getting “heads” with beating the S&P, then, after a few decades, the chances of a streak of “beating the S&P” for 15 or more years in a row would be 75%. This illustrates that a streak like his was to be expected, by chance alone, and hence does not indicate skill,” says Mlodinow.
So if it’s ultimately all about luck, shouldn’t we try to make things happen?
“People who accomplish great things have usually failed many times prior to their success, or at least had only moderate success before their really great breakthrough. As Thomas Watson of IBM said, “If you want to succeed, double your failure rate,” says Mlodinow.
Mumbai: 80% of success is showing up - Woody Allen
William Henry “Bill” Gates III, the third-richest man in the world, built one of the most famous software brands “Microsoft” from scratch. Was it his intelligence and hardwork that was responsible for the stupendous success that followed or was he just plain lucky?
“I think if we look back on our lives, most of us would find that in all our major changes of direction, there was one or more unrelated event which, if it had not happened, would have led us to a very different place in life. That ranges from meeting a future spouse by chance at a train station to Bill Gates, who would probably have been far less wealthy had it not been for several chance incidents that led to his licensing of DOS (disk operating system) to IBM, and with that, the rise of Microsoft,” says Leonard Mlodinow, a faculty at the California Institute of Technology and most recently the author of The Drunkard’s Walk - How Randomness Rules Our Lives.
Mlodinow has previously co-authored A Briefer History of Time with Stephen Hawking and is currently working on another book with Hawking titled The Grand Design.
“Since luck plays a large role in results, it is wrong to think that more successful people are more skilled than less successful ones. Talent and hard work do matter - they increase your chances of succeeding - but plenty of very talented people end up with worse results than less talented ones. The role of chance shuffles the results, ruining any deterministic forces,” says Mlodinow.
Luck had a large part to play in the success of Bill Gates and Microsoft.
As the story goes and Mlodinow recounts it in his book, in August 1990, IBM was looking for a programme called “operating system” for their “home computer.” A group of executives from IBM went to meet Gates, who was then running a very small company.
Gates told them that he couldn’t provide the operating system they wanted and directed them to a programmer called Gary Kildall at Digital Research Inc. The talks between Kildall and IBM did not work out primarily because Kildall’s wife and the company’s business manager refused to sign IBM’s non-disclosure agreement.
Around the same time, Jack Sams, an IBM employee met Gates again. As Mlodinow writes, “They both knew of another operating system that was available, a system that was available, a system that was, depending on whom you ask, based or inspired by Kildall’s. According to Sams, Gates said, “Do you want to get…[that operating system], or do you want me to?” Sams, apparently not appreciating the implications, said, “By all means, you get it.””
Sams of course did not understand the implications of his statement. Gates got the operating system for around $50,000 (or by some accounts, a little more), “made a few changes, and renamed it DOS (disk operating system). IBM, apparently with little faith in the potential of its new idea, licensed DOS from Gates for a low per-copy royalty fee, letting Gates retain the rights.” And the rest as we have seen is history. There was a lot of luck involved in the success of Gates. If Kildall had co-operated, Gates wouldn’t have come into the picture at all.
Also, if IBM had just bought the operating system itself, the situation would have been very different.
“Unfortunately, even if the achievement is purely random, as in coin flipping, people will usually look back and credit the successful individual with great skill for having accomplished it. We make many mistakes of this type, attributing skill to a person who had only luck,” says Mlodinow.
Investment professionals go through a similar lucky phase. Take the case of star fund manager Bill Miller whose Legg Mason Value Trust mutual fund beat the returns of S&P 500 Index for 15 consecutive years from 1991 to 2005. Tomes got written on his legendary investing style and various reasons got attributed to his success. But Mlodinow feels Miller was plain lucky.
“Bill Miller is an example of a person who was credited for skill but had only luck. His mutual fund beat the S&P 500 index for 15 years straight, so it looks skillful, but many theories of stock pricing show that the market is too unpredictable for such a streak to be meaningful,” says Mlodinow.
“On the other hand, a simple calculation shows that if a the few thousand mutual fund managers who were managing funds comparable to his were simply flipping coins once a year, rather than investing in the market, and if we equated getting “heads” with beating the S&P, then, after a few decades, the chances of a streak of “beating the S&P” for 15 or more years in a row would be 75%. This illustrates that a streak like his was to be expected, by chance alone, and hence does not indicate skill,” says Mlodinow.
So if it’s ultimately all about luck, shouldn’t we try to make things happen?
“People who accomplish great things have usually failed many times prior to their success, or at least had only moderate success before their really great breakthrough. As Thomas Watson of IBM said, “If you want to succeed, double your failure rate,” says Mlodinow.
Thackerays are ‘migrants’, says scholar
Mumbai, June 24, Indian Express
The Thackerays came to Mumbai two generations ago for jobs and as such have no right to assault those coming to the financial capital in search of livelihood.
This claim has been made in an article published in this month's issue of Nationalist Congress Party's mouthpiece Rashtravadi, whose Chief Sharad Pawar is an old friend of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray.
Hari Narke, professor at Mahatma Phule chair in Pune University and a renowned scholar on Ambedkar, has written the strong-worded article.
Narke has flayed Maharashtra Navnirman Sena Chief Raj Thackeray, who is Bal Thackeray's nephew, over attacks on migrants in Mumbai.
"Raj should read the autobiography of his grandfather Prabodhankar Thackeray (Bal Thackeray's father). Prabodhankar, who studied in Madhya Pradesh, has written how he travelled in other states for livelihood", Narke says.
"This proves that the Thackerays, who are not original inhabitants of Mumbai, came to this city in search of livelihood", the scholar says.
Incidentally, Maharashtra Government published Prabodhankar’s literature in 1995 at the behest of Narke, the article says.
"Who gave those, who came to Mumbai two generations ago to earn their livelihood, the right to beat up others who also come here in search of jobs?" Narke has questioned.
"It does not behove people who live 24 hours a day seeped in history to forget the history of just over two generations", Narke said.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Thackerays-are-migrants-says-scholar/326949/
The Thackerays came to Mumbai two generations ago for jobs and as such have no right to assault those coming to the financial capital in search of livelihood.
This claim has been made in an article published in this month's issue of Nationalist Congress Party's mouthpiece Rashtravadi, whose Chief Sharad Pawar is an old friend of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray.
Hari Narke, professor at Mahatma Phule chair in Pune University and a renowned scholar on Ambedkar, has written the strong-worded article.
Narke has flayed Maharashtra Navnirman Sena Chief Raj Thackeray, who is Bal Thackeray's nephew, over attacks on migrants in Mumbai.
"Raj should read the autobiography of his grandfather Prabodhankar Thackeray (Bal Thackeray's father). Prabodhankar, who studied in Madhya Pradesh, has written how he travelled in other states for livelihood", Narke says.
"This proves that the Thackerays, who are not original inhabitants of Mumbai, came to this city in search of livelihood", the scholar says.
Incidentally, Maharashtra Government published Prabodhankar’s literature in 1995 at the behest of Narke, the article says.
"Who gave those, who came to Mumbai two generations ago to earn their livelihood, the right to beat up others who also come here in search of jobs?" Narke has questioned.
"It does not behove people who live 24 hours a day seeped in history to forget the history of just over two generations", Narke said.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Thackerays-are-migrants-says-scholar/326949/
Friday, April 24, 2009
Hiranyagarbha Sukta
The Hiranyagarbha Sukta of the Rig Veda declares that God manifested Himself in the beginning as the Creator of the Universe, encompassing all things, including everything within Himself, the collective totality, as it were, of the whole of creation, animating it as the Supreme Intelligence.
हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे भूतस्य जातः पतिरेकासीत ।
स दाधार पृथ्वीं ध्यामुतेमां कस्मै देवायहविषा विधेम ॥
य आत्मदा बलदा यस्य विश्व उपासते प्रशिषं यस्यदेवाः ।
यस्य छायामृतं यस्य मर्त्युः कस्मै देवायहविषा विधेम ॥
यः प्राणतो निमिषतो महित्वैक इद्राजा जगतो बभूव ।
य ईशे अस्य द्विपदश्चतुष्पदः कस्मै देवाय हविषाविधेम ॥
यस्येमे हिमवन्तो महित्वा यस्य समुद्रं रसया सहाहुः ।
यस्येमाः परदिशो यस्य बाहू कस्मै देवाय हविषाविधेम ॥
येन दयौरुग्रा पर्थिवी च दर्ळ्हा येन सव सतभितं येननाकः ।
यो अन्तरिक्षे रजसो विमानः कस्मै देवायहविषा विधेम ॥
यं करन्दसी अवसा तस्तभाने अभ्यैक्षेतां मनसारेजमाने ।
यत्राधि सूर उदितो विभाति कस्मै देवायहविषा विधेम ॥
आपो ह यद बर्हतीर्विश्वमायन गर्भं दधानाजनयन्तीरग्निम ।
ततो देवानां समवर्ततासुरेकःकस्मै देवाय हविषा विधेम ॥
यश्चिदापो महिना पर्यपश्यद दक्षं दधानाजनयन्तीर्यज्ञम ।
यो देवेष्वधि देव एक आसीत कस्मैदेवाय हविषा विधेम ॥
मा नो हिंसीज्जनिता यः पर्थिव्या यो वा दिवंसत्यधर्मा जजान ।
यश्चापश्चन्द्रा बर्हतीर्जजानकस्मै देवाय हविषा विधेम ॥
परजापते न तवदेतान्यन्यो विश्वा जातानि परि ताबभूव ।
यत्कामास्ते जुहुमस्तन नो अस्तु वयं सयाम पतयोरयीणाम ॥
Translation
In the beginning was the Divinity in his splendour, manifested as the sole Lord of land, skies, water, space and that beneath and He upheld the earth and the heavens.
Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?
It is He who bestows soul-force and vigor, whose guidance all men invoke, the Devas invoke whose shadow is immortal life and death.
Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?
It is He who by His greatness became the One King of the breathing and the seeing, who is the Lord of man and bird and beast.
Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?
It is He through whose glory the snow-clad mountains rose, and the ocean spread with the river, they say. His arms are the quarters of the sky.
Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings ?
It is He through whom the heaven is strong and the earth firm, who has steadied the light and the sky's vault, and measured out the sphere of clouds in the mid-region.
Who is the deity we shall worship with our offering?
It is He to whom heaven and earth, placed in the light by his grace, look up, radiant with the mind while over them the sun, rising, brightly shines.
Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?
When the mighty waters came, carrying the universal germ, producing the flame of life, then dwelt there in harmony the One Spirit of the Devas.
Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?
It is He who in his might surveyed the waters, conferring skill and creating worship - He, the God of gods, the One and only One.
Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?
Father of the world - may He not destroy us who with Truth as his Law made the heavens and produced waters, vast and beautiful.
Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?
Lord of creation! No one other than thee pervades all these that have come into being.
May that be ours, for which our prayers rise, may we be masters of many treasures! -- (RV 10:121)
The reasons behind the plague of Somali pirates
A S soon as the [Somalian] government was gone, mysterious Euro- pean ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.
Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: “Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury — you name it.” Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to “dispose” of cheaply. When I asked Mr Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: “Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention.” At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia’s seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by overexploitation—and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers.The local fishermen are now starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: “If nothing is done, there soon won’t be much fish left in our coastal waters.” This is the context in which the “pirates” have emerged. Somalian fishermen took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least levy a “tax” on them. They call them selves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia — and ordi nary Somalis agree. The independent Somalian news site WardheerNews found 70 per cent “strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence”.
No, this doesn’t make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters — especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies. But in a telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali: “We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas.” From a comment by Johann Hari in ‘The Independent’ of London
Indian Express, April15, 2009
Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: “Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury — you name it.” Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to “dispose” of cheaply. When I asked Mr Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: “Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention.” At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia’s seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by overexploitation—and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers.The local fishermen are now starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: “If nothing is done, there soon won’t be much fish left in our coastal waters.” This is the context in which the “pirates” have emerged. Somalian fishermen took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least levy a “tax” on them. They call them selves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia — and ordi nary Somalis agree. The independent Somalian news site WardheerNews found 70 per cent “strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence”.
No, this doesn’t make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters — especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies. But in a telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali: “We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas.” From a comment by Johann Hari in ‘The Independent’ of London
Indian Express, April15, 2009
Kandahar episode
My Country My Life
(memoirs of L K Advani)
Phase Five (1997-2007) CROSS-BORDER TERRORISM : A Pak-Jihadi Challenge and Our Response
(excerpts)
It was 24 December 1999. I was in my North Block offi ce on that rather cold Friday afternoon. As it always happens at this time, the country was eagerly awaiting the arrival of the new year. But there was a keener edge to this expectancy now. In a week it would be not just the new year, but also a new century and a new millennium. The following day was Christmas and also Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s seventy-fi fth birthday. The turbulent year was at its fag end. Atalji’s bus yatra to Lahore, our government’s fall by a solitary vote, a war in Kargil due to Pakistan’s betrayal, mid-term elections and a renewed mandate-this was more than enough to make the year eventful, and all of us in the government looked forward to a period of quietude.
THE HIJACKING OF INDIAN AIRLINES FLIGHT IC 814
The news that actually terrified the nation, and added further turbulence to the outgoing year, was the one I received as I was leafi ng through some offi cial papers on Christmas Eve. Slightly before 5 pm, Shyamal Dutta, Director, IB, phoned me to say, ‘Sir, an Indian Airlines plane coming from Nepal has been hijacked.’ I was stunned by what I heard. ‘How many passengers are there on the fl ight?’ I asked. ‘More than 160,’ he said. The Delhi-bound IC 814, which had taken off from Kathmandu, was hijacked by fi ve armed men who ordered the pilot to fl y to Lahore. When the airport authorities in Lahore refused landing permission, the aircraft landed in Amritsar where the hijackers demanded that it be refuelled.
In the wake of the sudden developments, the Prime Minister called an emergency meeting at his residence. It was decided that our first priority would be to immobilise the plane at Amritsar and make it impossible for it to take off to any other destination outside the country. The Crisis Management Group (CMG), chaired by Cabinet Secretary Prabhat Kumar, was immediately activated to dispatch the message to the police authorities in Punjab. The CMG decided to send a fuel bowser to the aircraft, carrying commandos who would defl ate its tyres. Unfortunately, minutes before it could reach the plane, the hijackers ordered the captain to take off. Its next stop, with just enough fuel for the trip, was Lahore, where Pakistani authorities not only refuelled the aircraft but also refused our request to prevent it from taking off. The hijackers then commandeered IC 814 to a military airbase near Dubai. There, they dumped the body of one of the passengers they had killed, Rupin Katyal, and released twenty-eight others. They asked the pilot to fl y the aircraft, with 161 hostages on board, to Kandahar* in southern Afghanistan, which was then under Taliban rule.
* Kandahar was the capital of an ancient Hindu kingdom. Its princess Gandhari was married to Dhritarashtra, uncle of the Pandava brothers in the epic Mahabharata. Under Kanishka, the legendary Kushana emperor, Buddhism fl ourished in Afghanistan. Bamiyan Buddha, the tallest single-rock carving of Lord Buddha in the world, were created in the Kushana period. They were destroyed in 2001 by the Taliban government, which also allowed the ranscacking of the famous Kabul museum, which housed priceless exhibits showing Afghanistan’s deep civilisational links with India. Until some decades ago, Kandahar had a signifi cant Hindu and Sikh population.
I spent the entire night at the CMG’s office at Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, where Brajesh Mishra, the National Security Advisor, and other officials were also present, closely monitoring the developments and revising the strategy to secure the release of the hostages in the fast-changing scenario…. We soon learnt that the hijackers had been demanding the release of thirty-six terrorists from Indian jails, besides a ransom of US $200 million. But their main demand was for the release of Mohammad Masood Azhar, leader of one of the most dreaded terrorist organisations in Jammu & Kashmir, who had been arrested in 1994. The CCS decided to send a team of three offi cials-Ajit Doval, a senior offi cer in the IB known for handling tough operations, Vivek Katju, a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, and C.D. Sahay from the RAW-to Kandahar to negotiate with the hijackers as well as the Taliban authorities.
I was initially not in favour of exchanging the terrorists with the hostages. However, the situation that our government was faced with was truly extraordinary. The fact that the hijackers had taken the plane to Kandahar had rendered the situation much more complex and difficult. Usually, in such a situation, the captors are at least as much under pressure as the government of the country whose plane has been held captive, to conclude the negotiations quickly and strike a bargain. In this case, however, the hijackers were under no pressure at all and were prepared to prolong the period of captivity since they had three advantages. Firstly, they were in a hospitable territory-Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, with which India had no diplomatic relations, and they showed no signs of putting any pressure on them to end the hijack or leave the country. Secondly, we had credible information that every move of the hostagetakers was being masterminded by the ISI in Pakistan. Since the Taliban was a creation of the ISI, Pakistan had control over not only the plane, but also the airport. The Indian government had the option of sending its airborne commandos and troops to Kandahar in an attempt to rescue the hostages, but we received information that the Taliban authorities, under instruction from Islamabad, had ringed the airport area with tanks. Our commanders could have disarmed the hijackers inside the plane. However, outside the plane, an armed conflict with Taliban forces would have endangered the very lives that needed rescue.
There was another risk. Even the rescue planes would have had to fl y over Pakistan’s airspace, the permission for which would have certainly been denied. We also had credible information, which was corroborated by the subsequent fi ndings on the hijacked aircraft, that the hijackers were carrying grenades and explosives and were ready to blow up the plane. One of them had been heard saying that this ammunition was going to be used as a ‘millennium present for the government of India’, a spectacular terrorist act on New Year’s Day.
Thirdly, and the most unfortunate part of the entire episode, pressure was being mounted on the Indian government to ‘somehow’ save the lives of the hostages. As the crisis entered its third day, hysterical demonstrations by the relatives of some of the hostages were staged in front of the Prime Minister’s residence, and I regret to say that these were at least partly instigated by the BJP’s political adversaries. Some television channels chose to hype up these protests with round-the-clock publicity, creating an impression that the government was doing ‘nothing’ when the lives of so many Indians were at stake. All this made me wonder: ‘It used to be said that the Indian State is a soft state, but has Indian society also become a soft society?’ However, it was somewhat reassuring to see that these televised protests led the relatives of Kargil martyrs to urge the families of the hostages to be patient.
With mounting pressure from relatives on one hand, and the possibility of hijackers taking recourse to some desperate action on the other, the government most reluctantly took the option of minimising the losses. Three jailed terrorists, including Masood Azhar, were released on 31 December and handed over to the Taliban authorities in Kandahar. Our negotiating team in Kandahar bargained hard and was able to bring down the demand of release of thirty-six persons in jail to just three. All the passengers and crew members of IC 814 were released and returned to Delhi the same night. Thus ended a crisis, which presented to the world, a new face of warfare; a small group of ready-to-die terrorists challenging a country with a large standing army.
Throughout the hijack episode, my colleague Jaswant Singh, and his colleagues in the MEA, worked tirelessly to bring the crisis to a satisfactory end. As for the hijackers, escorted by their ISI mentors, they headed back to the country that had sponsored their heinous act. Indeed, a few days after his release, this is what Masood Azhar had to say to a cheering crowd in a mosque in Karachi: ‘I have come here because it is my duty to tell you that Muslims should not rest in peace until we have destroyed America and India.’
The security forces pursuing the trail of Pakistan’s Operation Hijack have made a significant breakthrough. Working in tandem with central intelligence agencies, the Mumbai Police have nabbed four ISI operatives, who comprised the support cell for the fi ve hijackers of the Indian Airlines plane. All these four are activists of the Harkat-ul-Ansar (HuA), a fundamentalist tanzeem based in Rawalpindi (Pakistan), which in 1997 was declared by USA as a terrorist organisation. After this declaration, the tanzeem has rechristened itself as Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM). Interrogation of these four operatives has confi rmed that the hijack was an ISI operation executed with the assistance of Harkat-ul-Ansar, and further, that all the five hijackers are Pakistanis.
As if to endorse the information I had given in Parliament, Pakistani media reported on the same day that the released terrorists had surfaced in Karachi. Thus, it was obvious that the hijack crisis was part of Pakistan’s continuing proxy war against India. Credible evidence has subsequently surfaced to suggest that the terrorists and their patrons linked to the hijack of IC 814 were also associated with the conspiracy that resulted in 9/11.
http://www.mycountrymylife.com/excerpts/phase-5.html#cross
‘Advani didn’t want terrorists freed...
April 24, 2009, Indian Express
Darjeeling: Darjeeling: JASWANT ON IC-814: ‘Shourie objected...intense debate in Cabinet...Farooq opposed too’
L K Advani and Arun Shourie were the two NDA Ministers who opposed the decision to free terrorists in exchange for the passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines flight in 1999.
Saying he was “sharing this for the first time,” Jaswant Singh, the then External Affairs Minister who accompanied three terrorists to Kandahar, told The Indian Express in a recorded interview here today that on Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s saying, he went to Advani to explain “why it (freeing the terrorists) should be done.”
“I will tell you who were opposed. I have not spoken it ever. I am sharing this for the first time,” said Singh, who is contesting the Darjeeling Lok Sabha seat backed by the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha.
“Two members in the Vajpayee Cabinet were opposed to the idea of release of any terrorist in exchange for hijacked Indian Airlines passengers and pay any price. Shri Lal Krishna Advaniji and Mr Arun Shourie voiced their views against...that this should not be done. And I am sharing this for the first time.
“Hearing of Lalji Advani’s reservations, the then Prime Minister Vajpayeeji told me that I should go personally and explain everything to Lalji. I remember I went and told Lalji why it should be done. I do not exactly remember what effort was taken to explain things to Mr Arun Shourie.
“L K Advani, like a loyal and devoted party member, responded and referred to the collective wishes of the Cabinet. Lalji also suggested that the consent of the Chief Minister of the state concerned, J & K, should be sought and his views be heard. Farooq Abdullah was consulted. He did object to the release of terrorists. Fine, he had a reservation. Reservations about release of certain terrorists like Masood Azhar and two others. His reservations were taken into account. Later, L K Advani also reasoned with him.
“It was not as if the Cabinet (did not) discuss (the issue). Decisions were taken in a hurry but only after prolonged and intense discussion. Atal Behari Vajpayee’s Cabinet was the most democratic Cabinet in which decisions were taken after full discussions.”
The three terrorists who were released were Maulana Masood Azhar, who later founded the Jaish-e-Mohammad; Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Omar Saeed Sheikh, convicted for the killing of US journalist Daniel Pearl.
Singh’s remarks come when the Kandahar exchange has been raised by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul to counter Advani’s charge that Singh is the “weakest Prime Minister.”
His remarks also assume significance given that in an interview to Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief, The Indian Express, on NDTV’s Walk the Talk in March last year, Advani had said that he “did not know” about Jaswant Singh going to Kandahar until “he was going.”
In that interview, Advani did admit that he “was not happy with the decision (to free the terrorists).”
Asked why did Jaswant Singh have to go, Advani had said: “He was not escorting them, he was trying to bring back the passengers being held hostage. But I don’t think I’m answerable for that. If the Cabinet Committee on Security had taken the decision, I would have been answerable, but it did not.”
Singh also slammed the Congress for raising the issue in the manner in which it has done. “After the hijack of the Indian Airlines flight with 166 passengers on board, members of the Congress party were encouraged to organize rallies and protests and to roll in the streets outside the Prime Minister’s residence demanding the release of the hijacked passengers.”
Singh said that in a meeting, the Opposition was of the “categorical” view “that the government must find a solution to the problem and while looking for a solution, safety of the 166 hijacked passengers should be the government’s prime concern...Beyond a certain point, Opposition parties to the NDA are trying to make a political issue out of potential national wrongs of great dimensions.”
To underline this point, Singh said: “Again, I will repeat, I for example, do not keep harping on the abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed, of Charar-e-Sharif or Hazratbal or numerous such instances, it is because I know the government will continue to face such challenges. Any government might face these situations in future. Decisions would have to be taken by the government of the day, then and there. One of the most difficult things is to decide between two great wrongs. Wrongs to release three wanted terrorists; wrongs to let a total of 166 hijacked passengers die.
“There is one more lesson to be in this. The criminal law justice system. All the three terrorists released were in custody for three years to eight years. I am not going to ask what the previous governments were doing about this because I know the reality of the sluggishness of the system. That’s why I appeal to all to reflect on the challenges we face on a continuing basis. All judgment is retrospective, where the vision is 20-20. And a government in power has to act on the instant. We did not have the leisure of 20-20 vision then.”
Jaswant Singh's version of the Kandahar hijack
July 21, 2006 Rediff
Former external affairs minister Jaswant Singh's book A Call to Honour has taken Delhi by storm. Though the formal release of the controversial book is slated for July 27 in New Delhi, copies that hit the market on Friday flew off the shelves as readers wanted to know what he had written about the hijacking of the Indian Airlines flight to Kandahar in December 1999.
Television channels and the print media have been focussing on Jaswant Singh's comments in his book. The Congress party has alleged that Jaswant Singh carried $120 million (about Rs 540 crores) along with three dreaded terrorists -- Maulana Masood Azhar, Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Omar Ahmed Saeed Sheikh, on the plane to Kandahar to secure the release of 161 passengers and crew on IC-814.
Jaswant Singh claims he had to ponder a great deal while writing about this most difficult time in the six-year National Democratic Alliance government's life.
'Before writing about this event, I reflected long on how I was to do it; how would I convey the enormity of the challenge that was we faced, as a nation and not simply as a government,' he writes in the chapter titled 'Troubled Neighbour, Turbulent Times: 1999'.
He refers to the notes that he made during the journey from Delhi to Lahore and what went through his mind. 'It is impossible not to jot down impressions on board this special flight. I do not really know what to term my mission -- a rescue mission; an appeasement exercise; a flight to compromise or a flight to the future,' he writes.
Jaswant Singh reveals what went through his mind during the week-long hijack drama. His thoughts swung from one end to the other and he wanted to weigh the options before his government. 'For three terrorists, 161 men, women and children. Is it right? Wrong? A compromise? What? At first I stood against any compromise, then, slowly, as the days passed I began to change,' he wrote.
He said he had gone to Kandahar to terminate the hijacking and bring back the passengers. While he was holding talks with then Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmed Muttavakil, he ensured that all the passengers were safely transferred to the relief aircraft.
'The whole system at Kandahar was chaotic, on top of which there was the hijacked plane, the hostages, the relief aircraft and now the one on which I was. I wanted the hostages to leave. And I wanted to meet all of them again -- after they had boarded the relief aircraft,' Jaswant Singh recalled.
Sharing information about the terrorists' demands, Jaswant Singh confirms that the terrorists wanted $200 million (about Rs 900 crore) along with the release of 36 of their men.
'The day the demands of the hijackers -- $200 million as ransom money, release of some 36 proven terrorists and the interred remains of a terrorist -- came to me, I shared them with the Cabinet and sought advice. The Cabinet was unanimous -- 'Reject the demands and tell the press in appropriate words'. It was a tense day, the press waited outside and I had to brief them. I repeated the demands and simply added, "I now urge all in my country and abroad to reflect on these demands." There was really nothing else or more to say,' writes the former external affairs minister.
Advani under attack
Strong in speech but weak in action: PM on Advani
April 13, 2009
Mumbai: Sharpening his attack on L K Advani, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh accused him of being strong in words and weak in action, and said that the BJP's prime ministerial hopeful was "weeping in a corner" while the Babri Masjid was demolished by hoodlums. The usually soft-spoken Singh has traded verbal punches with Advani in recent days but Monday's attack at a press conference in Mumbai was the sharpest.
"He has the unique ability to combine strength in speech with weakness in action," Singh said about Advani, who has been calling the prime minister the weakest India has had and of having "abdicated authority" in favour of Sonia Gandhi.
"Mr Advani likes to call me a weak Prime Minister. I cannot help pointing out that when held to the fire during the Kandahar hijacking, the BJP's 'Iron Man' was quick to melt.
"He agreed to release the terrorists and subjected his Cabinet colleague Shri Jaswant Singh to the humiliation of having to personally escort the terrorists to their safe haven," Singh said in a prepared statement circulated at the press conference.
He said throughout his life he had believed that substance triumphs over style, performance over public relations and hard work over short cuts.
"I am not a sloganeer. I will readily concede that most of my opponents make more rousing speeches. They have more catchy phrases and may run better marketing campaigns.
"But unlike the NDA's prime ministerial candidate, I will not not be found weeping in a corner while hoodlums tear down a centuries-old mosque. Nor will I be found wringing my hands in frustration while one of my Chief Ministers condones a pogrom targeted at minorities," he said in the hard-hitting statement.
Indian Express
I may be weak, but what about you: PM questions Advani
March 24, 2009
New Delhi: In a stinging attack on senior BJP leader L K Advani, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said he had played a "prominent role" in the Babri Masjid demolition, presided over Gujarat riots and failed to prevent terror attacks on Parliament and Red Fort as Home Minister. Upset by Advani's allegations that he is a "weak" Prime Minister, Singh hit back by questioning the BJP leader's contribution to the welfare of the country as Home Minister and said the electorate should decide whether Advani should lead the nation.
He also accused Advani of being "opportunist" while praising Pakistan founder M A Jinnah during his visit to Pakistan four years back.
"Whether I am a weak or a strong Prime Minister, actions of our government speak volumes about it," Singh told reporters while releasing the Congress manifesto for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.
Noting that Advani keeps on making this charge, Singh referred to Babri Masjid demolition, terror attacks that took place during previous NDA government and hijacking of Indian Airlines plane while reminding BJP's Prime Ministerial candidate about his performance.
While recounting Advani's record as the Home Minister, Singh said "the country must decide whether this person (Advani) is fit to be the Prime Minister."
The Prime Minister said Advani had played a "prominent role in destruction of Babri Mosque."
"What else has he (Advani) contributed to the national welfare? When he was the Home Minister, attack on Parliament took place, troops were mobilised for 12 months (on the border) and withdrawn without any reason resulting in losses to the tune of crores of rupees, Red Fort was attacked, plane was hijacked and terrorists were rewarded," the Prime Minister recalled.
Singh also said that Advani, as Home Minister, had "presided over massacres in Gujarat (in 2002)."
The Prime Minister said while Advani "led the communal forces, he was opportunist enough when he visited Pakistan and suddenly discovered new virtues of Jinnah that he was a secular man."
Singh took a dig at Advani for what he faced from his party on his return from Pakistan. "The party disowned him at the behest of masters in RSS when he came back. So whether Advani is strong man or weak man, let the records speak for themselves," he added.
Indian Express
Rahul mocks Advani on Kandahar issue
April 13, 2009
Kochi Attacking BJP's Prime Ministerial candidate L K Advani, Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi on Monday questioned his credentials as a 'strong leader' saying he was the Home Minister of the country when terrorists were released at Kandahar. Quoting Advani that he did not know about the release of the terrorists, Gandhi, addressing a press conference said, "there are two possibilities. (Either) he is not telling the truth or his senior leader...the PM...Vajpayee did not trust him."
"You should have resigned if the PM did not have faith in you," he said, Gandhi said.
Mocking at Advani, Gandhi asked, "Did he buckle under pressure when Kandahar happened or Vajpayee not believe in him. I want to know which is correct?"
Indian Express
April 13, 2009
Mumbai: Sharpening his attack on L K Advani, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh accused him of being strong in words and weak in action, and said that the BJP's prime ministerial hopeful was "weeping in a corner" while the Babri Masjid was demolished by hoodlums. The usually soft-spoken Singh has traded verbal punches with Advani in recent days but Monday's attack at a press conference in Mumbai was the sharpest.
"He has the unique ability to combine strength in speech with weakness in action," Singh said about Advani, who has been calling the prime minister the weakest India has had and of having "abdicated authority" in favour of Sonia Gandhi.
"Mr Advani likes to call me a weak Prime Minister. I cannot help pointing out that when held to the fire during the Kandahar hijacking, the BJP's 'Iron Man' was quick to melt.
"He agreed to release the terrorists and subjected his Cabinet colleague Shri Jaswant Singh to the humiliation of having to personally escort the terrorists to their safe haven," Singh said in a prepared statement circulated at the press conference.
He said throughout his life he had believed that substance triumphs over style, performance over public relations and hard work over short cuts.
"I am not a sloganeer. I will readily concede that most of my opponents make more rousing speeches. They have more catchy phrases and may run better marketing campaigns.
"But unlike the NDA's prime ministerial candidate, I will not not be found weeping in a corner while hoodlums tear down a centuries-old mosque. Nor will I be found wringing my hands in frustration while one of my Chief Ministers condones a pogrom targeted at minorities," he said in the hard-hitting statement.
Indian Express
I may be weak, but what about you: PM questions Advani
March 24, 2009
New Delhi: In a stinging attack on senior BJP leader L K Advani, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said he had played a "prominent role" in the Babri Masjid demolition, presided over Gujarat riots and failed to prevent terror attacks on Parliament and Red Fort as Home Minister. Upset by Advani's allegations that he is a "weak" Prime Minister, Singh hit back by questioning the BJP leader's contribution to the welfare of the country as Home Minister and said the electorate should decide whether Advani should lead the nation.
He also accused Advani of being "opportunist" while praising Pakistan founder M A Jinnah during his visit to Pakistan four years back.
"Whether I am a weak or a strong Prime Minister, actions of our government speak volumes about it," Singh told reporters while releasing the Congress manifesto for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.
Noting that Advani keeps on making this charge, Singh referred to Babri Masjid demolition, terror attacks that took place during previous NDA government and hijacking of Indian Airlines plane while reminding BJP's Prime Ministerial candidate about his performance.
While recounting Advani's record as the Home Minister, Singh said "the country must decide whether this person (Advani) is fit to be the Prime Minister."
The Prime Minister said Advani had played a "prominent role in destruction of Babri Mosque."
"What else has he (Advani) contributed to the national welfare? When he was the Home Minister, attack on Parliament took place, troops were mobilised for 12 months (on the border) and withdrawn without any reason resulting in losses to the tune of crores of rupees, Red Fort was attacked, plane was hijacked and terrorists were rewarded," the Prime Minister recalled.
Singh also said that Advani, as Home Minister, had "presided over massacres in Gujarat (in 2002)."
The Prime Minister said while Advani "led the communal forces, he was opportunist enough when he visited Pakistan and suddenly discovered new virtues of Jinnah that he was a secular man."
Singh took a dig at Advani for what he faced from his party on his return from Pakistan. "The party disowned him at the behest of masters in RSS when he came back. So whether Advani is strong man or weak man, let the records speak for themselves," he added.
Indian Express
Rahul mocks Advani on Kandahar issue
April 13, 2009
Kochi Attacking BJP's Prime Ministerial candidate L K Advani, Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi on Monday questioned his credentials as a 'strong leader' saying he was the Home Minister of the country when terrorists were released at Kandahar. Quoting Advani that he did not know about the release of the terrorists, Gandhi, addressing a press conference said, "there are two possibilities. (Either) he is not telling the truth or his senior leader...the PM...Vajpayee did not trust him."
"You should have resigned if the PM did not have faith in you," he said, Gandhi said.
Mocking at Advani, Gandhi asked, "Did he buckle under pressure when Kandahar happened or Vajpayee not believe in him. I want to know which is correct?"
Indian Express
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)