Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election has upended
the conventional wisdom about political mobilisation and polling
processes in the country. It also threatens to upset the very world
order that the US built, nurtured and currently dominates. The first
question that comes to mind for other nations observing the outcome is:
What are going to be the consequences of a Trump presidency ?
In many ways, they will be internal. In achieving his stunning upset,
Trump first trampled on the Republican establishment’s leadership
–House speaker Paul D. Ryan, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich – and
then took on a formidable Democratic candidate and bested her. Former
President George W. Bush and 2012 presidential contender Mitt Romney
refused to support Trump. Analysts will be working hard to decode his
victory for a while, but the heart of his win lay in winning the key
rust-belt states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa
which used to be the industrial heartland of the US and were won by
outgoing US President Barack Obama in the 2012 elections.
Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan resonated well with the
working-class Americans who felt that ‘foreigners’ (read non-white
people) were taking away their jobs and those who had grown
disillusioned watching as the rich became richer and the middle class
stagnated and America’s infrastructure crumbled, even as the country
spent trillions of dollars in wars abroad. Trump’s resilience became
apparent as he overcame negative ads, put out by Hillary Clinton’s
campaign, depicting Trump as an unhinged, racist misogynist. In some
ways he turned Obama’s strategy inside out by positioning himself as
the candidate of hope and an outsider battling the elite Washington DC
establishment.
Trump disdained the orthodox approach to election organisation by
focusing on holding large rallies instead of concentrating on analytics.
He left the Republican Party organisation to run its own campaign and
turned the conventional political style of contesting US elections
upside down by rejecting the high road and taking the low one of
outrageous remarks against Mexicans, women and Muslims. And in the
process consolidated his appeal among blue-collar white Americans.
In some ways, the US election represents a nationalist wave that is
also rocking Europe and led to Brexit earlier this year. It has been
successfully used by politicians as diverse as Vladimir Putin, Xi
Jinping, Shinzu Abe and Narendra Modi to consolidate power.
Like all nationalists, Trump was propelled to power because he was
seen as the best person to address the electorate’s feelings of
helplessness and insecurity.
America’s peculiar political system
Across the world, people are experiencing disbelief and a touch of
apprehension at Trump being elected the US president. But we need to
understand that now that he is president, America’s peculiar political
system – designed by its founding fathers to prevent Trump-like
populists – will kick into action. The system is based on a separation
of powers which provides for checks and balances against arbitrarily
instituted policies. The US president is only the first among equals
when it comes to the US parliament (aka Congress) – the Senate and House
of Representatives which comprise the Congress are also vested with
significant power. Having stepped on many a toe in the run-up to his
election, Trump may find that the Congress may not readily do his
bidding, even though many of the Republican Senate and House members
have come to power riding on his coattails. The US system has been
deliberately designed to slow down someone like Trump and it will surely
succeed at doing so if Trump seeks to upend established treaties and
agreements and strike out in unexpected directions.
Trade and immigration
There are two key issues that have marked Trump’s rise – trade and
immigration. Clearly the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is now dead in
the water and with it goes the grand American strategy of confronting
China on the trade front. Countries like Mexico are, of course, worried
about the future of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). But
one thing is clear, the US stands to lose as much, if not more, by
scrapping existing treaties than its interlocutors.
As for immigration, it will affect all countries, but some like India
probably don’t have cause to worry because traditionally Indian
migrants are highly educated and the demand for them is high in the US.
It is the migrants from neighbouring countries, such as Mexico, who
Trump has really targeted, people who his followers believe undercut the
earning power of the blue-collar worker.
Unsurprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin has welcomed the
election results considering Trump’s call for better ties with Russia.
But though his election was formally welcomed in a slew of countries
like Germany, Japan, Turkey, Britain, Israel and India, no one seemed to
have a clear idea about which direction the US is now headed in. China,
for its part, mocked the election with its news agency Xinhua poking
fun at the fact that the “most divisive and scandalous election in
American history has eroded voters’ faith in the two party system. “
The big worry for American allies like Western European countries,
Japan and Korea, is that Trump has repeatedly criticised them for not
paying enough for their defence and sponging off the US. Japan and
South Korea have additional reasons to worry because they are big
exporters and the president-elect’s attitude towards free trade is
negative, to say the least.
Trump’s victory has given the right wing in Europe a boost and in
Israel, the right-wing elements believe that they could well see the end
of the American support for a two-state solution in relation to
Palestine.
What about India?
What does a Trump victory mean for India ? Actually not much. The
support by the Hindu right-wing in the US will definitely register in
his mind, but India-US relations are not on Trump’s list of priorities.
The message he has from those who elected him is to fix things
internally and set right the terms of trade that have impoverished the
US and to get free-loading allies to pay for their security.
There are worries about H1B visas, but these are minor compared to
the scale of possibilities that exist in the realm of Indo-US relations
today. In any case, Indian firms are or ought to, move out of the BPO
sector and go in for higher end software solutions. Mollycoddling them
at a low level is not benefitting anyone.
Those who expect Trump to come down on Pakistan may be disappointed.
Whatever his personal predilections may be, he is unlikely to cut off a
state as dangerous as Pakistan. As they say, hold your friends close,
but hold your enemies closer. Having invested a lot of time, effort and
money in Pakistan, Washington is not about to turn its back on Islamabad
and let it become a hotbed for potential terrorists wanting to take a
pot-shot at the US.
What will definitely benefit India is a possible Russian-American
entente. This could reduce the fatal attraction of Beijing for Moscow.
If that happens, India can breathe a bit easier, because by itself it
lacks the geopolitical clout to prevent the rise of a new Sino-Russian
alliance in Eurasia.
It is true that in the end, it is political interests rather than
personal predilections that drive the foreign policies of mature
countries. In that sense, both the US and India need each other – one to
check China in larger Asia and the other to moderate the Sino-Pak axis
in South Asia. As of now, both have a congruence of interests in Asia
and the Indian Ocean which are not likely to change in a hurry, and many
of those interests have to do with the rise of China.
At the end of the day, Trump’s foreign and security policies will
depend on the team that executes them, and, as of now, no one has a clue
as to what this will be. Will it have any South Asian hands and
Indian-Americans as the Obama Administration had? Who will be Trump’s
sub-cabinet appointees and advisers ?
Trump, a showy, and possibly shady, businessman before his new job,
could well be like Ronald Reagan, content to lay out the broad contours
of his vision and letting a trusted team implement them. That, however,
would require not just The Gipper’s fabled luck, but also a team of
individuals like Jim Baker, George Schultz , Caspar Weinberger, Frank
Carlucci and Donald T. Regan. But, unlike Reagan who had been an active
politician for at least two decades before he became president, Trump is
starting from scratch.
thewire.in November 9, 2016
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
To be 'great' or 'stronger together'?
The American Presidential Election of
2016 is likely to be the most acrimonious in recent history as well as a
peculiar contest where the outcome depended on who was less unpopular.
But what would the outcome mean for India? Nothing dramatic, for the
simple reason that India does not figure too high in the US scheme of
things.
The elections have focused American attention on how bad things are at home — crumbling infrastructure, unworkable health insurance system, racism, sexism, no jobs for many people and so on. But, whoever is elected will very soon have to confront a world where American power and authority are being assailed. In some measure this is because of the continuing travails of its great ally — the European Union. But also because of the rise of China, and Beijing's choices, whether in building an alliance with Russia, or in challenging US power in the South China Sea.
President Obama understood some of this and tried to take the US away from its unrewarding external commitments such as Afghanistan and Iraq. But the missteps of the Europeans, primarily Britain and France, have created new quagmires in Libya and Syria, even though the Americans have, in the main, have tried to stay away from them. With all this happening, a stable India, which is comfortable with American power is a boon for Washington. India remains a regional power and has no problem creating potential like China and Russia.
Besides, India needs America more than the other way round and all this will be true regardless of who becomes the US President. Indian diplomacy is making little headway with Pakistan and China — its two problem-making neighbours. India needs the US to push back against both. India will be happy with whoever is the President because it understands that there is likely to be little change in the Washington-New Delhi dynamics. As it is the trend line in Indo-US relations is positive. Their strategic coordination is slowly solidifying into a strategic alliance and the more China and Pakistan misbehave, the more Washington will come to rely on New Delhi providing some leverage in the region.
But of course, the situation is not that simple. The emerging Russia-China axis poses challenges in different dimensions to both India and the US. From India's point of view, it distracts the Americans from their Asian pivot where New Delhi plays a larger role. In addition, it undermines the India-Russia relationship which has been one of the constants of the last fifty years. India's feeble domestic defence production capabilities compel it to seek Russian options because the US still remains niggardly in offering up cutting-edge weapons systems.
Then, viewed from another angle, the Sino-US relationship remains substantial and even close, the $659 billion in trade in goods and services between them says so. There is substantive economic interdependence and many suspect that what the Chinese seek is not to supplant the US as the global hegemon, but to be accepted as a partner of sorts. The Chinese relationship is simply too important for either the US or EU to disdain and they have a major stake in its stability and success.
A great of deal of the nature of the Indo-US relationship, under a new American president, will depend on how New Delhi pitches itself to the US. We will be wasting precious capital if we made our membership to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) as a major touchstone. New Delhi's obsession with the NSG membership is a bit of a mystery, considering we already have the waiver we need on nuclear trade, and the NSG itself has passed a key rule that would limit that trade.
Even more, it would be folly to do as the Modi government is doing — making terrorism the be all and end all of our foreign policy. In the last six months, almost every event, the most recent being the BRICS Summit hosted by us in Goa, has seen New Delhi focus on terrorism. This despite the fact that there has been no major mass-casualty attack targeting civilians (the common definition of terrorism) in the country since the Mumbai attack of 2008.
A new US President, even if it is Trump, is not likely to humour New Delhi on this issue. Pakistan remains important in the US calculus because of Afghanistan, sure, but Islamabad is intrinsically important to the US because it has nuclear weapons and it is close to China. The US is not about to turn its back on Islamabad because India says so.
At the end of the day, the quality of the relationship between India and the US under a new President will depend on the real substance of that relationship — trade, diplomatic give and take, military-to-military ties.
Mid Day November 8, 2016
The elections have focused American attention on how bad things are at home — crumbling infrastructure, unworkable health insurance system, racism, sexism, no jobs for many people and so on. But, whoever is elected will very soon have to confront a world where American power and authority are being assailed. In some measure this is because of the continuing travails of its great ally — the European Union. But also because of the rise of China, and Beijing's choices, whether in building an alliance with Russia, or in challenging US power in the South China Sea.
President Obama understood some of this and tried to take the US away from its unrewarding external commitments such as Afghanistan and Iraq. But the missteps of the Europeans, primarily Britain and France, have created new quagmires in Libya and Syria, even though the Americans have, in the main, have tried to stay away from them. With all this happening, a stable India, which is comfortable with American power is a boon for Washington. India remains a regional power and has no problem creating potential like China and Russia.
Besides, India needs America more than the other way round and all this will be true regardless of who becomes the US President. Indian diplomacy is making little headway with Pakistan and China — its two problem-making neighbours. India needs the US to push back against both. India will be happy with whoever is the President because it understands that there is likely to be little change in the Washington-New Delhi dynamics. As it is the trend line in Indo-US relations is positive. Their strategic coordination is slowly solidifying into a strategic alliance and the more China and Pakistan misbehave, the more Washington will come to rely on New Delhi providing some leverage in the region.
But of course, the situation is not that simple. The emerging Russia-China axis poses challenges in different dimensions to both India and the US. From India's point of view, it distracts the Americans from their Asian pivot where New Delhi plays a larger role. In addition, it undermines the India-Russia relationship which has been one of the constants of the last fifty years. India's feeble domestic defence production capabilities compel it to seek Russian options because the US still remains niggardly in offering up cutting-edge weapons systems.
Then, viewed from another angle, the Sino-US relationship remains substantial and even close, the $659 billion in trade in goods and services between them says so. There is substantive economic interdependence and many suspect that what the Chinese seek is not to supplant the US as the global hegemon, but to be accepted as a partner of sorts. The Chinese relationship is simply too important for either the US or EU to disdain and they have a major stake in its stability and success.
A great of deal of the nature of the Indo-US relationship, under a new American president, will depend on how New Delhi pitches itself to the US. We will be wasting precious capital if we made our membership to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) as a major touchstone. New Delhi's obsession with the NSG membership is a bit of a mystery, considering we already have the waiver we need on nuclear trade, and the NSG itself has passed a key rule that would limit that trade.
Even more, it would be folly to do as the Modi government is doing — making terrorism the be all and end all of our foreign policy. In the last six months, almost every event, the most recent being the BRICS Summit hosted by us in Goa, has seen New Delhi focus on terrorism. This despite the fact that there has been no major mass-casualty attack targeting civilians (the common definition of terrorism) in the country since the Mumbai attack of 2008.
A new US President, even if it is Trump, is not likely to humour New Delhi on this issue. Pakistan remains important in the US calculus because of Afghanistan, sure, but Islamabad is intrinsically important to the US because it has nuclear weapons and it is close to China. The US is not about to turn its back on Islamabad because India says so.
At the end of the day, the quality of the relationship between India and the US under a new President will depend on the real substance of that relationship — trade, diplomatic give and take, military-to-military ties.
Mid Day November 8, 2016
Modi stirs the hornet’s nest with NDTV media gag
The Modi government has stirred a hornet’s nest in imposing a one-day ban on NDTV India on clearly specious grounds.There
is nothing in the report in question that justifies the application of
Rule (6)(p) of the Programme Code of Cable TV Network Rules, 1994 which
bans the “live coverage of any anti-terrorist operation by security
forces”.
Indeed,
an Indian Express report says that the specific information that the
NDTV report allegedly revealed was itself flawed and even more sensitive
information had been given out by other channels.
Merging dreams with acquisitions
Chinese economic developments are of
great interest to everyone. Whether it is growing fast, or undergoing a
slowdown, it impacts the world economy like no other. China has declared
its intention of moving its economy from one based on investment and
exports, to one relying on consumption. They have made it clear that in
the coming years, China will occupy a higher and higher position in
global value chains and become, like the US, Europe or Japan, a producer
of high-end components. The process is now underway and is being
watched with great interest because it has implications for the entire
global economy.
Beyond the macro picture, there are smaller signs of structural shifts and new trends in the Chinese economy. In the past, China was often an element in the supply chain, where higher value and high-tech items came from other suppliers, say, Germany, Taiwan or Japan. The famous case was that of the iPhone 6 which retailed for $600 in the US in 2012, of which Apple made $250, the Japanese makers of the touch systems and screens made $70 and smaller amounts were made by the Korean and Taiwanese suppliers of the batteries, flash memory, cameras etc. The Chinese made just about $8, mainly in terms of labour cost, to assemble it. But the Chinese are determined to move up in the value chain. The government is working systematically to build high-end capabilities and intends to raise the domestic content of core components and key materials to 40 per cent by 2020 and 70 per cent by 2025. This goes along with higher R&D expenditures of some $213 billion in 2015, equivalent to 2.1 per cent of the GDP.
One indicator of this are the Chinese acquisitions in high-tech industries in Europe and the US, which have accelerated in the past year. This July, Zhongwang, a state supported enterprise, bought Aleris, a US company specialising in making rolled aluminium products for aerospace and automotive industries. Earlier this year, Kuka, a German company specialising in making robots for automobile plants, was bought by Midea Group — China’s largest home appliance maker.
More recently, Aixtron, a German company with a long history of making advanced tools required for making sophisticated semiconductors, was bought by the Chinese. The Aixtron case could well point to the problem. Last year, the German company’s share prices tumbled when a Chinese buyer San’an Optronics cancelled a large order at the last minute. As a result, the company went up for sale and a Chinese investment group, Fujian Grand Chip offered to buy it in May, this year. Mercator Institute of Chinese Studies, which tracked the issue, found that San’an and Fujian had a common principal investor in Liu Zhendong. Further, there was a great deal of funding through local and national investment funds for both companies from the Chinese government that has set aside funds to encourage a Chinese semiconductor industry.
China has an eye on US firms too, though the latter keeps a more wary eye on them through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CIFUS) which has shot down big-ticket investments like the one for Fairchild Semiconductors. Likewise, Beijing’s Unisplendour Corp withdrew from a deal to buy a stake in Western Digital due to regulatory pressure.
One major area to watch is the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). A White House assessment of AI research indicates that today China with 350 publications leads the field with the US at number two, with a little over 250. All other players — UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, Germany, Singapore, South Korea or France — produce a little above 50 or a little less than that. This is not just an absolute lead — looked at through their citations by other scholars (a measure of their influence) indicates China remains number one. Baidu, China’s equivalent of Google, runs a huge centre for AI research in San Jose, where its chief scientist, Andrew Ng is also an associate professor at the Stanford University’s computer science department. This centre employs some of the topmost American AI researchers.
All developing countries want technology for national development. But China has made it into a fine art. Reverse-engineered Soviet technology kept China going till 1990s. Thereafter, as it opened up, China made strategic acquisitions in areas like railways, power, aerospace and automotives with a view to establish its own industries. In this drive, China has not hesitated to undertake industrial espionage and cyber-theft. Then, using opaque rules and regulations, the Chinese have systematically encouraged their champions and fobbed off the western companies and in many instances now, they have emerged as their competitors — railways and nuclear power reactors are two prominent examples.
But this is only the beginning, China has now taken aim in a range of high-end fields like AI, robotics, aerospace, renewable energy, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology and intends to be the world leader in all of them by the time of their twin centenary — 2049, the anniversary of the revolution.
Mid Day October 25, 2016
Beyond the macro picture, there are smaller signs of structural shifts and new trends in the Chinese economy. In the past, China was often an element in the supply chain, where higher value and high-tech items came from other suppliers, say, Germany, Taiwan or Japan. The famous case was that of the iPhone 6 which retailed for $600 in the US in 2012, of which Apple made $250, the Japanese makers of the touch systems and screens made $70 and smaller amounts were made by the Korean and Taiwanese suppliers of the batteries, flash memory, cameras etc. The Chinese made just about $8, mainly in terms of labour cost, to assemble it. But the Chinese are determined to move up in the value chain. The government is working systematically to build high-end capabilities and intends to raise the domestic content of core components and key materials to 40 per cent by 2020 and 70 per cent by 2025. This goes along with higher R&D expenditures of some $213 billion in 2015, equivalent to 2.1 per cent of the GDP.
One indicator of this are the Chinese acquisitions in high-tech industries in Europe and the US, which have accelerated in the past year. This July, Zhongwang, a state supported enterprise, bought Aleris, a US company specialising in making rolled aluminium products for aerospace and automotive industries. Earlier this year, Kuka, a German company specialising in making robots for automobile plants, was bought by Midea Group — China’s largest home appliance maker.
More recently, Aixtron, a German company with a long history of making advanced tools required for making sophisticated semiconductors, was bought by the Chinese. The Aixtron case could well point to the problem. Last year, the German company’s share prices tumbled when a Chinese buyer San’an Optronics cancelled a large order at the last minute. As a result, the company went up for sale and a Chinese investment group, Fujian Grand Chip offered to buy it in May, this year. Mercator Institute of Chinese Studies, which tracked the issue, found that San’an and Fujian had a common principal investor in Liu Zhendong. Further, there was a great deal of funding through local and national investment funds for both companies from the Chinese government that has set aside funds to encourage a Chinese semiconductor industry.
China has an eye on US firms too, though the latter keeps a more wary eye on them through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CIFUS) which has shot down big-ticket investments like the one for Fairchild Semiconductors. Likewise, Beijing’s Unisplendour Corp withdrew from a deal to buy a stake in Western Digital due to regulatory pressure.
One major area to watch is the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). A White House assessment of AI research indicates that today China with 350 publications leads the field with the US at number two, with a little over 250. All other players — UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, Germany, Singapore, South Korea or France — produce a little above 50 or a little less than that. This is not just an absolute lead — looked at through their citations by other scholars (a measure of their influence) indicates China remains number one. Baidu, China’s equivalent of Google, runs a huge centre for AI research in San Jose, where its chief scientist, Andrew Ng is also an associate professor at the Stanford University’s computer science department. This centre employs some of the topmost American AI researchers.
All developing countries want technology for national development. But China has made it into a fine art. Reverse-engineered Soviet technology kept China going till 1990s. Thereafter, as it opened up, China made strategic acquisitions in areas like railways, power, aerospace and automotives with a view to establish its own industries. In this drive, China has not hesitated to undertake industrial espionage and cyber-theft. Then, using opaque rules and regulations, the Chinese have systematically encouraged their champions and fobbed off the western companies and in many instances now, they have emerged as their competitors — railways and nuclear power reactors are two prominent examples.
But this is only the beginning, China has now taken aim in a range of high-end fields like AI, robotics, aerospace, renewable energy, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology and intends to be the world leader in all of them by the time of their twin centenary — 2049, the anniversary of the revolution.
Mid Day October 25, 2016
Modi's limited Pakistan policy at BRICS
The Modi
government’s recent policy towards Pakistan - which has included a
combination of surgical strikes, naming and shaming Islamabad, and using
international events to isolate and sanction it - has been described as
a "game changer".
Certainly
the government has expended a vast deal of diplomatic capital in trying
to get Pakistan to modify its behavior and principally end the
sanctuary and support it offers to a slew of anti-India and
anti-Afghanistan jihadis.
What is so secret about the information even India's enemies know?
What is a secret? Sometimes, it is a conundrum presented this way:
The Indian “surgical strikes” across the line of control are a secret at
varying levels not only in India, but also in Pakistan. In Islamabad,
information on them is kept under wraps because to acknowledge is to
lose face. On the other hand, New Delhi is cagey about giving any more
details, because they were (a) more limited than has been made out by
those who want to use them for political effect and/or (b) so as to keep
the impact of the operation within manageable limits and (c) not reveal
the modus operandi of the forces.
To further develop this point: In the 1993-2016 period, too, cross-border strikes were carried out, but kept secret. Considering that the enemy who had been hit, knew about them, why did the government of the day keep them a secret?
Likewise, when the government buys equipment abroad, it provides specifications to several foreign companies, yet, keeps them, as well as the acquisitions procedure and processes, secret from the public.
But there are no absolute secrets. Decisions are implemented, directives acted upon, systems selected and acquired and therefore the information about them is known at some point in time, military equipment gets obsolete or so much more sophisticated that old plans change. So secrets are limited in time and value, though there is one category of secrets that are held very, very carefully – that of high level penetrations of the political, military, diplomatic and administrative personnel of a target country.
These are often, literally, kept forever. The reason is, of course, that such a high level of betrayal is punishable by death in many countries. But, more important, keeping their names secret is a means through which the recruiting country assures potential future agents that their betrayal will never be revealed, in other words it is an incentive for recruitment. After all if it is known that a particular country is casual with its agents, it is unlikely to remain in the business of what is known as Humint (human intelligence – covert intelligence-gathering by agents) for very long.
When the British left India, the one thing they took with them in entirety were intelligence files, and you can be sure there would be some very well known names amongst our revered national leaders who were their informants. Likewise, the Intelligence Bureau holds tight the list of its informants in various political parties. Were these lists to be leaked, the IB would be out of the business of political intelligence, which is its real bread and butter.
All parts of the government, especially those involved in security like the armed forces, intelligence agencies, and so on, have a system of ascending scale of classification – confidential, restricted, secret and top secret – which is determined by section officers, under secretaries and deputy secretaries or their equivalent officers.
It seeks punishment for any person who obtained “any secret code password, sketch, plan model, article or note or any other document” that could adversely affect the sovereignty and integrity of the country, its security, or friendly relations with another country. Such a person was liable to be punished with three years imprisonment. On the other hand, if this activity related to a military facility, or the affairs of the military, the imprisonment could be up to 14 years.
The OSA’s infirmities have been manifest in many a court decision where the prosecution has fumbled on the issue of defining what is secret. Why do you think that this country has never punished a spy with death or life imprisonment? It is not that we are so patriotic that we have never had a spy or traitor who deserves such a punishment, but that our law is as infirm as our counter-intelligence capabilities.
But while the OSA is clear, and does provide a legal definition, howsoever obsolete as to what is secret, we have no clarity about the sanctity of the documents of the other departments of government, including the Cabinet and the Prime Minister’s Office or, for that matter, the Finance Ministry.
That is why, you rarely get a prosecution of a person for stealing secrets and that is also the reason that when the police catch low level ISI field agents, they are always alleged to have a diary or maps and sketches with them. I say alleged, because in the era of satellites and cameras, you don’t need sketches and maps to be drawn by some low level operative. What an agent may need is the ability to determine whether a particular bridge or culvert can hold a 50 tonne tank, and none of the agents that are caught have either the equipment or the education to determine that though they can probably purchase the information from the government office where the designs are kept.
However, neither of the acts are working too well. The RTI is being used by people to settle scores, while the Public Records Act is ignored. Because of faulty procedures, many documents, particularly of field formations, exist as functional files and kept only till they are current or useful, and they are destroyed thereafter. The decisions are often made by junior officers with little understanding of the historical value of a particular document or file.
They need to understand the importance of the need to preserve past records for scrutiny after an interval and through the due process of declassification. This enables succeeding generation of government officials an invaluable past perspective on a decision. It also enriches the field of historical research, they offer us a means of accessing our past. Detailed information on past conflicts or decisions is important for the succeeding generation of security officials to learn lessons from.
Separating the routine and the confidential is an important aspect of government policy. Routine information should be easily available to the public, but equally, in the interests of the people, the government needs to work out a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding and declassifying national security related information. It must set up classification standards, levels of classification, categorise classification authority, duration of classification and the process of declassification or downgrading the classification of a document. None of this exists at present.
The government needs to evolve a modern system of classifying, safeguarding and declassifying national security information, if needs be by amending or replacing the Official Secrets Act.
The ministries of external affairs, defence and home affairs have taken up work on one aspect of the Public Records Act – that of creating special record rooms where classified documents can be properly stored. However, they have largely ignored the second, and more important, aspect – declassifying old records and passing them on to the National Archives where they can be accessible to the citizen.
The big problem they face is the issue of declassification. They simply lack the manpower to deal with the issue.
Scroll.in October 23, 2016
To further develop this point: In the 1993-2016 period, too, cross-border strikes were carried out, but kept secret. Considering that the enemy who had been hit, knew about them, why did the government of the day keep them a secret?
Likewise, when the government buys equipment abroad, it provides specifications to several foreign companies, yet, keeps them, as well as the acquisitions procedure and processes, secret from the public.
Secrets and secrets
The government generates an enormous amount of information in its daily activity. Some of this information is about future plans, the rest is part of the process of governance – actions taken or to be taken, after action reports, directives, letters, notations, orders and so on. Some of it must be kept confidential or secret for a period of time, otherwise governance would become difficult. Some of it needs to be kept confidential so as not to damage relations with other countries. And then, there is information about military plans and procedures, the capabilities and capacities of military equipment and their deployment, which could aid enemies of the country.But there are no absolute secrets. Decisions are implemented, directives acted upon, systems selected and acquired and therefore the information about them is known at some point in time, military equipment gets obsolete or so much more sophisticated that old plans change. So secrets are limited in time and value, though there is one category of secrets that are held very, very carefully – that of high level penetrations of the political, military, diplomatic and administrative personnel of a target country.
These are often, literally, kept forever. The reason is, of course, that such a high level of betrayal is punishable by death in many countries. But, more important, keeping their names secret is a means through which the recruiting country assures potential future agents that their betrayal will never be revealed, in other words it is an incentive for recruitment. After all if it is known that a particular country is casual with its agents, it is unlikely to remain in the business of what is known as Humint (human intelligence – covert intelligence-gathering by agents) for very long.
When the British left India, the one thing they took with them in entirety were intelligence files, and you can be sure there would be some very well known names amongst our revered national leaders who were their informants. Likewise, the Intelligence Bureau holds tight the list of its informants in various political parties. Were these lists to be leaked, the IB would be out of the business of political intelligence, which is its real bread and butter.
All parts of the government, especially those involved in security like the armed forces, intelligence agencies, and so on, have a system of ascending scale of classification – confidential, restricted, secret and top secret – which is determined by section officers, under secretaries and deputy secretaries or their equivalent officers.
Official Secrets Act, 1923
The problem often is in defining what exactly is a secret. The vagueness over what is secret begins from the archaic Official Secrets Act of 1923 which was essentially aimed at military threats against India and remains the main legislation dealing with the issue of preserving secrets.It seeks punishment for any person who obtained “any secret code password, sketch, plan model, article or note or any other document” that could adversely affect the sovereignty and integrity of the country, its security, or friendly relations with another country. Such a person was liable to be punished with three years imprisonment. On the other hand, if this activity related to a military facility, or the affairs of the military, the imprisonment could be up to 14 years.
The OSA’s infirmities have been manifest in many a court decision where the prosecution has fumbled on the issue of defining what is secret. Why do you think that this country has never punished a spy with death or life imprisonment? It is not that we are so patriotic that we have never had a spy or traitor who deserves such a punishment, but that our law is as infirm as our counter-intelligence capabilities.
But while the OSA is clear, and does provide a legal definition, howsoever obsolete as to what is secret, we have no clarity about the sanctity of the documents of the other departments of government, including the Cabinet and the Prime Minister’s Office or, for that matter, the Finance Ministry.
That is why, you rarely get a prosecution of a person for stealing secrets and that is also the reason that when the police catch low level ISI field agents, they are always alleged to have a diary or maps and sketches with them. I say alleged, because in the era of satellites and cameras, you don’t need sketches and maps to be drawn by some low level operative. What an agent may need is the ability to determine whether a particular bridge or culvert can hold a 50 tonne tank, and none of the agents that are caught have either the equipment or the education to determine that though they can probably purchase the information from the government office where the designs are kept.
Declassification of records
The government of India has taken the progressive view that the public has right to all information on governmental functioning and has passed two legislations – the Right to Information Act in 2005 and the Public Records Act of 1993 to create a practical regime for the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities. This has been done with a view of encouraging transparency and accountability, but making information public needs to be an end in itself.However, neither of the acts are working too well. The RTI is being used by people to settle scores, while the Public Records Act is ignored. Because of faulty procedures, many documents, particularly of field formations, exist as functional files and kept only till they are current or useful, and they are destroyed thereafter. The decisions are often made by junior officers with little understanding of the historical value of a particular document or file.
They need to understand the importance of the need to preserve past records for scrutiny after an interval and through the due process of declassification. This enables succeeding generation of government officials an invaluable past perspective on a decision. It also enriches the field of historical research, they offer us a means of accessing our past. Detailed information on past conflicts or decisions is important for the succeeding generation of security officials to learn lessons from.
Separating the routine and the confidential is an important aspect of government policy. Routine information should be easily available to the public, but equally, in the interests of the people, the government needs to work out a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding and declassifying national security related information. It must set up classification standards, levels of classification, categorise classification authority, duration of classification and the process of declassification or downgrading the classification of a document. None of this exists at present.
The government needs to evolve a modern system of classifying, safeguarding and declassifying national security information, if needs be by amending or replacing the Official Secrets Act.
The ministries of external affairs, defence and home affairs have taken up work on one aspect of the Public Records Act – that of creating special record rooms where classified documents can be properly stored. However, they have largely ignored the second, and more important, aspect – declassifying old records and passing them on to the National Archives where they can be accessible to the citizen.
The big problem they face is the issue of declassification. They simply lack the manpower to deal with the issue.
Scroll.in October 23, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
