Translate

Friday, April 19, 2019

Deadly Kashmir attack stems from flawed policies

The suicide bomb that killed 44 soldiers south of Srinagar in the northern state of Jammu & Kashmir is the most deadly single attack that Indian security forces have suffered since the beginning of the insurgency in 1990.
Comparisons are being made with the J&K Legislative Assembly attack in 2001 that led to the killing of 38 people. Both dramas saw a suicide bomber ram a car loaded with explosives on to a target. And both were orchestrated by the Jaish-e-Mohammad.
The terrorist group was created by Maulana Masood Azhar, a terrorist released by India in exchange for hostages on board an Indian Airlines flight that was hijacked to Kandahar in 1999 by four Pakistan-based terrorists. Azhar has been based in Pakistan carrying out attacks on Indian targets through Jaish-e-Mohammed.
The main difference was in the Legislative Assembly attack the suicide bomber was a Pakistani, Wajahat Hussain, while Thursday’s bombing between Lethpora and Pulwama allegedly involved a local JeM recruit, Adil Ahmad Dar, who joined the outfit last year.
Despite the deep currents of Sunni radicalism in Kashmir’s militancy, suicide bombings have been rare. But there has been no dearth of Pakistani “fidayeen” or suicide attackers carrying out such missions in the Valley.
The only other local known to be suicide bomber is Afaq Ahmad Shah, a Class 12 student who blew himself in a car while attacking the 15 Corps headquarters in Badami Bagh in Srinagar in May 2001.

Jump in youths joining militants

This incident follows the steady rise of local recruits drawn to militants. From the mid-1990s to 2015, militancy was a Pakistani affair in terms of those fighting in the Valley. But this has changed over the last three years, especially in south Kashmir. At the same time the infiltration of Pakistani militants, mainly from the Jaish-e-Mohammad group allegedly involved in the attack yesterday, continues.
Suicide bombers are usually psychologically vulnerable or young people groomed to undertake such missions by older people highly skilled at their task. Given the three-decade history of violence in the valley and recent flare-ups, there is no shortage of potential recruits for suicide bombing. What is worrying security officials is that people in the state may be grooming terrorist bombers.
The attack near Lethpora, 30km southeast of Srinagar, will compel Indian security forces to ramp up security. Analysts have said it was lucky the attack did not involve more gunmen, as casualties could have been greater because as many as 2,500 army and paramilitary personnel were moving at the time in different buses in a huge convoy.
Jaish-e-Mohammed was also responsible for an attack in Uri, west of Srinagar, that killed 19 Indian Army soldiers in September 2016. But that involved attackers who came from across the border 10km away.
The latest attack could be classed as a militant exercise as it targeted the paramilitary. The distinction is important because the Indian policy in Kashmir describes such acts as terrorism. Elsewhere, however, a terror attack is only one that targets civilians.
A damaged bus is towed away after the deadly attack on the paramilitary convoy in Kashmir on Thursday. Photo: AFP

Has government strategy inflamed insurgency?

Questions are now being asked about the Modi government’s counter-terrorism strategy in Kashmir. The government began ‘Operation All Out’ aimed at finishing the insurgency, but this appears to have reinvigorated the insurgency.
Former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti said the number of local youths joining the militancy dipped to 16 in 2013 from 54 in 2010. But it went up to 66 in 2015 before reaching 88 in 2016, 126 in 2017 and 170 in 2018. Last year saw the deadliest militancy in a decade with 238 militants, 86 security force personnel and 37 civilians killed in the state, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
However, government spokesmen insist that the militancy is on its last legs.
The Modi government has a complex problem in dealing with Kashmir. The BJP’s forbear — the Bharatiya Jana Sangh — has strong roots in Jammu and its raison d’etre, as it were, was opposition to any kind of special status for Jammu & Kashmir. That hinders its capacity to enter into negotiations with separatists in the valley.
The second is that in invoking muscular nationalism, the Modi government feels compelled to take a hard line in dealing with militants in the north. The “surgical strikes” in September 2016, in response to the attack in Uri, were shallow events that took out a number of militant launch pads.
But they failed in their primary mission — to deter Pakistan from carrying out similar attacks in the future. Within two months, JeM militants struck again in Nagrota, the HQ of the 16 Corps, killing two officers, five soldiers and three civilians. And the government has done little as Pakistani attacks continued, through to 2018 when the Sunjuwan camp at the outskirts of Jammu was attacked, killing 11 soldiers and one civilian.
The concept of deterrence rests on two legs: first, that an adversary knows that any attack will be met by immediate retaliation and, second, that the deterring party has the capacity to hit back.
The Modi government went out of its way to publicize retaliation through the so-called surgical strikes in 2016, but failed miserably to follow up the action because it seems to lack the capability to follow through. “Surgical strikes” often do not work out like the Bollywood version that Modi has been reveling in of late. There are high risks involved in any operation across the Line Of Control, and with an election looming, this may prove more daunting than expected.
AsiaTimes February 15, 2019

What Are India’s Options, With China Still Vague on Masood Azhar?

The suicide bomb attack that killed around 40 CRPF jawans in Pulwama is easily one of the most serious attacks the security forces have faced in Jammu & Kashmir since the beginning of insurgency in 1990.
Comparisons are being made with the J&K Legislative Assembly attack in 2001 that led to the killing of 38 people. Both attacks seem to have used the same modus operandi – having a suicide bomber ram an SUV loaded with explosives on to the target.
Both attacks have been claimed by the Jaish-e-Muhammad – in the 2001 case the bomber was a Pakistani, while this time it is an Indian, Adil Ahmad Dar.
The Modi government has two choices in dealing with the situation. It can, like 2016 launch another strike into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, reminiscent of its so-called surgical strike of 29 September 2016. Or, it can take the somewhat sterile road of diplomacy.

Going the Diplomatic Way

Given the state of India-Pakistan relations, India doesn’t have much diplomatic leverage with Islamabad at this juncture.
Too busy to read? Listen to this instead.
It could, make it an issue with the United States whose President Trump had condemned Pakistan for providing “safe havens” to terror groups and supporting Afghan militants in August 2017. Subsequently, the US cut military aid to Islamabad. But right now, Pakistan is back in Washington’s good graces because the latter is keen to leave Afghanistan and wants Pakistan to play a “responsible” role in the process.

Can India Exert Influence on China?

So we are left with China. For years China has imposed a hold on New Delhi’s efforts to have Jaish-e-Muhammad chief Masood Azhar listed in the UN’s 1267 Committee as a terrorist. Even after the Sino-Indian thaw following the Modi-Xi summit in Wuhan in April 2018, Beijing has continued to maintain its hold on Azhar’s nomination. The JeM has already been listed as an entity as of 17 October 2001, but New Delhi has been keen to list Azhar as a person.
As a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, China has a veto which it has threatened to use in the event of the name coming up.
In August 2018, China extended by three months its technical hold on the proposal which has been backed by the US, France and UK to name Azhar as a global terrorist.
In September 2018, China’s foreign minister Wang Yi defended Beijing’s repeated blocking of India’s efforts to list Azhar as a global terrorist. He said that Beijing would support it if all parties “come to a consensus.” In actual fact, all countries in the UNSC except China are ready to list Azhar.
So by all parties he meant India and Pakistan and the likelihood of that happening as of now is remote, considering the use Islamabad has been making of the Jaish to carry out its covert war in Jammu & Kashmir.
And the repeated high-profile attacks that have been carried out by that outfit in Pathankot, Uri, Nagrota, Sunjuwan camp and now, most recently in Pulwama.
The Chinese minister spoke of the need for “solid facts and proof” and declared that Islamabad would not “turn its back” on “irrefutable evidence.” He went on to declare that China was against all forms of terrorism, and had been encouraging Pakistan in its battle against the terrorists and said that Pakistan had paid a heavy price in fighting the Al Qaida in Afghanistan.
The reset in Sino-Indian ties launched by the Wuhan meeting has not had much effect on the Azhar issue. Modi and Xi met four times in 2018 and ministers from both sides traveled to each other’s countries and held talks.
The two nations also held the 21st round of border talks between their Special Representatives in the year. India toned down its criticism of the Belt and Road Initiative and CPEC and also committed not to use the Tibet card. Yet, somehow the Azhar issue has remained intractable. It clearly signals the limits of India’s ability to influence China.

Another ‘Surgical Strike’?

So, the Modi government may be compelled to return to its muscular strategy “surgical strike” mode. This is easier said than done.
The real world of cross-border strikes is infinitely more difficult that the Bollywood recreations.
The “surgical strikes” were carefully thought through and, though they were successful in killing several terrorists, they barely dented the terrorist infrastructure along the Line of Control. In fact, Pakistan was able to convince itself that the attacks didn’t take place at all. The fact that there was no let up in cross-border attacks after the so-called surgical strikes indicated that they had not achieved what India had set out to do – to deter Pakistan from repeating their attack.
This time around, can the government come up with a formula that will work ?
Quint February 22, 2019

MoD Note on Rafale May Not be a Smoking Gun, But Govt Must Clarify



This may not quite be the smoking gun, but it is a definite clue to suggest that such a gun could exist somewhere. In other words, there is a problem with the Rafale deal for which the country deserves a clear-cut explanation.
It is entirely possible that if the government were to come upfront and reveal the details it has so far – somewhat ham-handedly concealing – there would be a satisfactory explanation.
Unfortunately, the information is coming in bits and pieces, some from France, some from The Hindu, some from the government’s own clarifications in response to the charges being levelled against them. This results in a somewhat disconnected picture, which only heightens suspicions.Take The Hindu’s scoop. It reveals a note by the Ministry of Defence saying that “parallel discussions by the PMO (on the Rafale) have weakened the negotiating position of the MOD and the Indian Negotiating Team (INT).”
The then-Defence Secretary Mohan Kumar had added, “RM (Raksha Mantri) may pl see. It is desirable that such discussions be avoided by the PMO as it undermines our negotiating position seriously.” This was on 1 December 2015.
These are strong words. The government’s defence has been that The Hindu has omitted the RM’s note clarifying that the PMO and the French President’s Office are monitoring the issue.
He said the MOD note appeared to be an “overreaction” and that “Def Sec may resolve issue/matter in consultation with Pr Sec to PM.” This response came on 11 January 2016, more than a month after the Defence Secretary’s notation. Clearly, Manohar Parrikar (the then-defence minister) had not been in any a hurry to set his secretary’s mind at rest.
The other defence of the government, as put out by ‘friendly’ media, is that the note was about a discussion on sovereign guarantees, and not pricing. There are issues here too.
First, there has been no claim that this was about pricing. Then, as for sovereign guarantees, the government has itself admitted to the Supreme Court that it did not get any from Dassault, the manufacturer of Rafale.
All they have is what the Attorney General told the Supreme Court – a ‘Letter of Comfort’ through which the French government has assured India that Dassault will fulfil the deal.
More important, however, is the question as to why the MOD was bypassed in this negotiation. There is no reason why the PMO could not have included a Negotiating Team representative in the process.
Equally important is the question as to why the Negotiating Team could not negotiate the sovereign guarantee as well. All said and done, the sovereign guarantee, which, eventually, did not come, is very much part of the give-and-take of the price negotiations.
The issue of pricing also comes up now. An earlier report had already noted that three of the seven members of the Indian Negotiating Team had objected to the benchmark price and the so-called design and development costs for the India-specific enhancements.
There are now reasons to believe that the government may have misled the Supreme Court because while it claimed in its note to the court that the Indian Negotiating Team was involved in the process, it had said nothing about any significant PMO role.
But now, as it turns out, the PMO had been playing a covert, if unspecified, role in the process.
Sudhansu Mohanty, who worked as Financial Adviser Defence Services before retiring in March 2016, has pointed in a recent article for The Wire that under the current procurement procedures, there is no role for National Security Adviser Ajit Doval in finalising the terms and conditions of the Rafale contract.
This is true of the PMO as a whole since they were not designated members of the Contract Negotiating Committee (the same INT) under the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) 2013. Neither was he (Doval), nor any of them formally co-opted into the INT.
Under DPP 2013, the criteria has been laid out for constituting an INT. Any change in the procedure would have had to have the approval of the Director General (Acquisition). It has, for example, laid out the guidelines for inducting a specialist service officer, but this must be with the approval of the RM.
Appendix B has laid out the typical INT for a particular acquisition. The document does not mention NSA or PMO at any place. The reason is the presumption that once the government has approved a deal, the specific negotiation over price and terms and conditions needs to be done by domain experts.
As we noted at the outset, this may not be a ‘smoking gun’, but it’s pretty close to one. The government has taken the high road claiming that security concerns prevent it from providing key information on the deal. This is nonsense.
Pricing information is not a secret, but the right of the taxpayer who funds the government. What is secret in high performance jets is not their price, their general shape, the engines they have, but the guts of the aircraft, especially the electronics and the materials they may be made of.
But no one has been asking for that information.
What the public wants to know, in clear-cut terms, is the rationale for the government to have scrapped the old deal and bought the aircraft at a higher cost than had been earlier negotiated.
They want to know whether proper procedures were followed in this process. And now, there is evidence to suggest that they were not. If not, the government needs to give us a clear explanation as to why not.
Quint February 9, 2019

Defence on a Budget

The allocation for defence in the 2019-20 Budget is over Rs 4.31 lakh crore as against last year’s revised figure of around Rs 4.05 lakh crore, a 6.4 per cent increase over the revised estimates. Since the total government expenditure for the coming year is Rs 27.84 lakh crore,  it represents a figure of 15.5 per cent of the Central government expenditure, as compared to that of 16.5 per cent last year.  
With a Rs 210 lakh crore GDP estimate, the proportion spent on defence amounts to 2.05 per cent, which is considered quite respectable. But if, as per the Ministry of Defence (MoD) convention, we count only the revenue and capital expenditures, and minus the Rs 17,000 crore spent on the MoD, we come up with another more alarming figure of 1.4 per cent. It has come down from 2.08 per cent, when the Modi government assumed office in 2014-2015.
Another figure teases out the full picture better — that of capital expenditure. The Rs 1.03 lakh crore spent on the capital outlay of the defence services represents 30.7 per cent of all capital expenditures of the Central government. So, the country is spending one-third of its annual outlay of capital expenditure on defence, which is why it is obviously short-changing education, health, social welfare and infrastructure.
Last year, all three services complained that they were not even provided enough money to pay for ongoing acquisitions, leave alone new ones. The Navy wanted Rs 36,000 crore as capital outlay but was only given Rs 20,900 crore. The Army projected Rs 45,000 crore, but was given Rs 26,813 crore, which would have not even taken care of its ongoing commitments totalling Rs 29,033 crore. The fact that the government has increased the capital outlay by nearly 10 per cent to Rs 1.03 lakh crore means little.
Indeed, before the Budget, there were a slew of announcements declaring that the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) had approved of a submarine project worth Rs 40,000 crore and okayed Rs 1,200 crore for the Milan anti-tank missile. In December, there was approval for four Talwar class frigates and Brahmos missiles for Rs 3,000 crore; in September, Rs 9,100 crore for Akash missiles and some other schemes; in August, the procurement of 111 utility helicopters for the Navy worth Rs 21,000 crore, and another set of equipment costing Rs 24,879 crore; in June, there was an approval of defence equipment worth Rs 5,500 crore.
Clearly, there is something unreal about these decisions, given the available resources. According to one observer, the DAC cleared  ‘Project 75I’ submarines in January for the third time in the last decade, which has also, uncharacteristically, seen the overall cost of the project coming down in each instance. And, of course, we have the controversial Rafale deal for which we will presumably have to begin payment in 2019-2020.
That all this appears shambolic is not surprising. India’s defence system is in deep trouble and little or nothing is being done about it. Simply put, the system cannot be run effectively unless it undergoes deep reform, which, in the circumstances, can only be carried out by the political class. PM Modi seems to be uninterested in this process; he’s happy to live in a make-believe world of Bollywood achievements. Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman lacks the clout to push through anything.
A country like India has many serious security challenges. It is no one’s case that it should cut defence expenditure. But there is something no Indian should forget — our principal national goal is to end mass poverty and deprivation in the country. Experts will tell you that the poverty rate has halved over the past decade. But that only means people who earn roughly $3 or Rs 230 a day and Rs 6,800 a month. This means that a family must feed, clothe and shelter itself within that amount.
The elephant in the room, too, is well known. The figure of Rs 1.22 lakh crore paid out as defence pensions is nearly one-third of the defence expenditure. No one grudges the ex-servicemen their pensions and their right to OROP. But the government cannot make that as an excuse to underfund the military. Another like amount, roughly Rs 1.25 lakh crore are the pay and allowances of the defence personnel, including the civilians working there.
While there can be huge savings through integration of the three services, reducing headquarter formations, joint logistics, training and housing, manpower cost is the real challenge.
 Compared with other militaries, given the threats we confront, the overall numbers are OK. However, there is considerable room to re-distribute personnel — reducing the Army, enhancing the Air Force, Navy and specialised personnel who can service the new military, which needs to be better networked and supported.
While pay and allowances cannot be grudged, there is need to keep the pension bill low. There is a way to manage this, if there is a ‘whole of the government’ approach. This means insisting on a compulsory stretch in the military for all those wanting government jobs. A five to seven-year service in the armed forces would have an 18-year-old available for recruitment in the civil services, paramilitary and the police at the ages of 23-25.
The Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence did recommend a compulsory five-year service as a pre-condition for jobs in the Union and state governments. Not surprisingly, the proposal is still doing the rounds of the government.
The Tribune February 5, 2019

No Mr Modi, 'Terrorism' and 'Militancy' Are Not the Same Thing

It is election season, so it is not surprising that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has suddenly rediscovered the virtues of fighting what he calls “terrorism”. The point of departure, he says, was the new neeti (policy) and reeti (tradition) of tackling terrorism first outlined in what the government terms as the “surgical strikes” of September 2016.
First questions, first. What did the government do when militants struck just two months later in November at Nagrota killing two officers and five jawans? Nothing.
This was a far more important target than Uri, whose attack had triggered the so-called surgical strikes. It is the headquarters of the Indian Army’s 16 Corps. In 2017 and 2018, there were several high-profile cross-border attacks, including the February 2018 strike on the Sunjuwan camp outside Jammu city, leading to the killing of 11 jawans. Yet we have not seen any “traditional” surgical strike.
Policies that don’t work
So just what is this “neeti” and “reeti” that Modi is boasting  about?
Essentially, it is a hodge-podge of failed policies, bombast and false claims. The Modi government has, after all, had nearly five years in authority, not just in New Delhi, but in Srinagar as well. So, if “terrorism” continues to plague the state, surely some of the blame must be acknowledged by him and his party. But that is not the Modi “reeti”.
The so-called “new” policy began in the wake of the Pathankot attack. This in turn was an outcome of Modi’s naïveté in believing that by embracing then Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, he could push Islamabad to abandon its support for the Kashmir militancy.
Obviously, his high-powered security team led by National Security Advisor Ajit Doval was not able to convince him that  Sharif counted for little when it came to Pakistan’s support for terrorism and militancy in India; these operations are run by the Pakistan Army’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate. By his possibly premature move aimed at boosting Sharif’s stature to checkmate the Pakistan Army, Modi actually triggered a blow-back that led to the eventual eclipse of Sharif and any possibility of an India-Pakistan détente.
But instead of sitting back to reflect on what he had wrought, the prime minister began to move on a new tack, the one in which he sought to have Pakistan identified as a state sponsor of terrorism (never mind that he would not commit India to do so), and call for the passage of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT).
A definitional problem
The problem begins from the very definition of terrorism. The most commonly acknowledged description would categorise it as an attack on civilians for political effect. There are other categories of violence targeting states and their instruments which fall in the broad category of “militancy”. Included among these are militants in Jammu and Kashmir and the Maoists.
The key difference is, of course, one of perception. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist or militant, but by and large, states do get into negotiated settlements with “militants”, but rarely with “terrorists”.
The difference is important because the Modi government has, in its wisdom, declared that virtually everyone who opposes its policies in Jammu and Kashmir is a terrorist. Which makes it somewhat difficult to find a way out of the Kashmir miasma.
If there is no one to negotiate with, the only option is the use of military force – and that is what has been happening in the state, leading to a steady rise of violence in the last five years. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the number of civilians killed has tripled since 2014, and the number of security forces and militants killed has more or less doubled.
Indeed, what the Modi government’s handling of the situation has done is to give a second life to the homegrown Kashmiri militancy. For nearly two decades after the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front and the Hizbul Mujahideen were put out of business after the security forces cracked down on them, we are witnessing a resurgence of local recruitment.
These young men are nowhere as capable as the Pakistanis who have kept the militancy afloat, neither do they possess the kind of weapons they have. They do not last too long in their militant avatar, but their very emergence is a rebuke to New Delhi’s policies.
As for terrorism, in its basic definition as an attack on civilians for political purposes, India has actually witnessed a steadfast decline. Indeed, there have been no significant incidents since the three bomb explosions in various parts of Mumbai in July 2011, that took the lives of 21 persons and injured 141 others. That was the year that New Delhi also saw blasts at the Delhi high court complex, killing 11 people and injuring 75. There have been isolated blasts and attacks across the country, some of them clearly with a criminal rather than terrorist intent.
No resolution in sight
By conflating terrorism and militancy, the Modi government has only complicated its own ability to deal with both issues. The problem is not ignorance, but a desire to use the issue of terrorism for political purposes. The result is that strategies that minimised violence in Kashmir between 2004 and 2014 have been given short shrift.
As for real terrorism, there is nothing to indicate that the state has developed any special capacity to counter it. Fortunately, after they were caught out in the Mumbai attack of 2008, the Pakistanis, who were responsible for most acts of terrorism in the country, have changed their tactics. Their jihadis largely confine their attacks to army and police targets, and that too in J&K so that they can claim that they are struggling for Kashmir’s freedom.
The periodic arrests the authorities make of alleged Islamic State militants seem more designed to win headlines than to tackle any putative problem. The raising of the Islamic State bogey in recent months is similar to the use of the Al Qaeda in past years and the Students Islamic Movement of India.
The Al Qaeda didn’t quite show up, and the IS seems to be a bunch of confused and misled radicals who have not quite lived up to the ferocious reputation of their namesakes. Many get convicted for relatively minor crimes by lower courts, and let off when the evidence is examined with some rigour in the higher ones.
The Wire February 4,2019

Friday, March 08, 2019

Road to perdition: Don’t sacrifice institutions like the National Statistical Commission at the altar of political vanity

India has failed to meet its own potential as a modern, prosperous democratic society. Its undoubted successes have been overwhelmed by the scale of its failures. Perhaps the most disturbing among them has been the wanton sacrifice of its governance institutions at the altar of political vanity.
Indira Gandhi’s “committed bureaucracy” and “committed judiciary” were part of a wider attack on the very structure of the Indian system. It took a long time for the country to recover, and the Emergency remains a huge stain on the reputation of the person whose spectacular political achievements and military triumph over Pakistan stand out in history.
So, what can explain the Modi government’s assault on institutions – the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Reserve Bank of India, the Central Information Commission, the National Statistical Commission, Jawaharlal Nehru University, the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library and so on. Of course, there is the disdain for the “Nehruvian” past, but there is also a touch of political wantonness here.
The government has clearly outdone its predecessors in messing up CBI, the country’s premier investigating agency. After a year in which its director Alok Verma and his deputy Rakesh Asthana slugged it out, the government took recourse to a midnight surgical strike to remove Verma, allegedly when he was readying to probe the Rafale issue.
To compound this, there is a more recent fulmination of a Union minister from his sickbed in New York, rebuking CBI, now headed by his own government’s chosen interim director, for “investigative adventurism”. The minister’s call for professionalism rests uneasily with the reality where investigating agencies like CBI and the Enforcement Directorate coincide with the ruling party’s political needs. CBI is no longer a parrot, it could well be a dead canary in the cage.
The untimely exit of two successive RBI governors tells its own story. A renowned economist of Raghuram Rajan’s calibre did not fit with the agenda of jumlanomics, and neither, eventually, did his successor Urjit Patel who fell afoul of government nominees to the RBI board that included the ideologue S Gurumurthy. In essence, the government nominees wanted a policy that would enable the ruling party to cruise into re-election on a low interest rate regime, while Patel, like Rajan, maintained a relentless focus on checking inflation.
The attack on official data is more insidious, but perhaps more damaging and more widespread. Earlier this week, the two independent members, including one who was the acting chairman of NSC resigned. They charged that the government had failed to publish the new National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) employment survey data for 2017-18, that had been readied in December.
The reason why this has not happened is well known: India has seen a sharp rise in unemployment in the last couple of years and a slowdown of economic growth. Then Modi government has made it a policy to not only withhold data that tells this story, but script its own one generated by having the data massaged by agencies other than NSSO, which is the country’s apex statistical body.
The government’s jumla is that the NSSO report is being processed and needs Cabinet approval, both blatantly untrue assertions. This is the second, equally serious instance of prevarication after revising GDP data to show NDA years looking better than those of UPA. The work of institutions like CBI, the data integrity provided by institutions like NSSO, or the autonomy of central bank, are not exercises in vanity, but a crucial element in the economic and political growth of the country.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has an intense desire to put his stamp on the country. In the process he wants to reject the past and create a new paradigm. Destroying the old to create something new – creative destruction – is in itself not bad. But taking apart working institutions without any serious efforts to replace them with something better is the road to perdition.
Times of India February 2, 2019