Much has appeared in the press ever since Shri Bhabani Sen-gupta resigned from the PMO following a discussion in the Lok Sabha over his appointment as an OSD there by Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral. A case is now being made out that Shri Sengupta had to quit office because of unreasonable and unfounded criticism by me during the Lok Sabha discussion.
While it is true I did participate in the May 6 discussion, it is entirely incorrect to suggest that I had indulged in "McCarthyism"—as some friends of Shri Sengupta have alleged—or levelled unfounded charges against him or that there is a "nexus" between me and "Foreign Office bureaucrats and intelligence officials", as claimed by Shri Sengupta himself ("The foreign office proved stronger than PM", May 21). Parliamentary records will bear me out.
The substance of what I had said in Parliament is as follows:
That officials are not usually named or discussed inside the House, but given the gravity of the issue, it should be discussed and clarified;
That his views on crucial issues like the country’s nuclear policy (as expressed in a letter to The New York Times in 1974) and Jammu & Kashmir are at variance with the official view;
That there is nothing to indicate that his views have changed since then, and if they remain unchanged, it should be clarified whether these views stem from conviction or are a result of extraneous pressure—if it is the former then he cannot be part of government and if the latter, there is reason for concern; and
That as a writer and an intellectual, he’s entitled to his own views which do not have to conform to the official view, but as an officer of the government, he cannot hold a view that is different from the official policy on sensitive subjects.
I see nothing wrong in making these points and I do not think they impinge on the prime minister’s discretion to appoint his staff, a discretion which I entirely agree with. The prime minister had the option of defending his appointee in the House, countering the points raised by me and other MPs, but he chose not to do so.
Instead, he accepted Shri Sengupta’s resignation. This by itself answers the questions that are now being raised.
A.B. Vajpayee, New Delhi
I believe our governments’ priorities have been misplaced right from the beginning. We all know that the secret to development lies in the education of people. As is evident from your report, education is directly or indirectly responsible for the betterment of a society (What About the 3.2 cr Left Out?, May 14). But our policy-makers have either been shortsighted or always performed with a view to the next election rather than the common weal. There has to be some long-term planning which should be unaffected by changes in the government. Until then, governments will entice people with noon-meal schemes, night-meal schemes and what not, and magazines like Outlook will survive by reeling out more such statistics.
Premkumar B., Chennai
This refers to your cover story Return of the Dynasty (May 21). Every politician, irrespective of the party he belongs to, has brazenly helped at least one close relative to get a toehold in top-level politics. Indian politics, from Motilal Nehru to H.D. Deve Gowda, is replete with examples of sons who never set. As politics became the most lucrative profession, established leaders in every party showed no reluctance in blatantly giving opportunities to members of their family. This being the case, it’s improper to single out the Nehru-Gandhi family, and Sonia specifically, for harbouring political ambitions. In this day and age, a dynasty, any more than a monarchy, cannot be imposed on people. Thus, there is no danger of dynastic rule. It’s a different matter if the people of this country opt for Sonia to lead India into the next millennium.
Roshan Kattassery, Bangalore
Sonia’s formal entry into politics is undoubtedly ‘the return of the dynasty’. It also reveals the nature of some Congressmen as eager beavers ready to lick someone’s boots, particularly of the Gandhi family. They may start shouting "Desh ka sona—Sonia" and abide even when she says the golden words, ‘Rome has spoken, the cause is ended’.
A.S. Raj, Bangalore
I’m a regular reader of Outlook. Your May 21 issue was good. But the cover was not in good taste. The digital alteration of Mona Lisa will never be acceptable to art lovers.
Ashish Haralalka, Mumbai
Isn’t it ironic that the once-mighty party which freed India from foreign rule is itself coming under a foreign hand—and that too in the golden jubilee year of our Independence.
P. Chandra, New Delhi
This is a rejoinder to J.N. Dixit’s review of Lt Gen Jacob’s Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation (1971: An Inside Story, May 14). Former foreign secretaries erupting into print ought not to pretend, much less claim, to know everything about everything that happened in the past. What Jacob has said about the prelude to war, political developments and the Mukti Bahini is a straightforward account of a soldier. I find nothing wrong with that. Dixit has made unnecessary
heavy weather with jargon like "institutional dynamics which affected high-level political decision-making", and "general politico-geographic orientations of the Indian government". He had nothing to do with those decisions or with their making, did not know anything about them at that time, and could have known only so much afterwards as foreign secretary. At the time in question, there was no "institutional dynamics" involved at all: the decisions were taken by Indira Gandhi alone and communicated to only a few.
The question of "politico-geographic orientations" had been settled in the fourth week of August 1965 by Lal Bahadur Shastri when he decided to accept the recommendations of the then Dhaka deputy high commissioner to give all support to a Bangladesh freedom movement. Only foreign secretary C.S. Jha knew about it: no one else in the MEA did. Therefore, Dixit’s pontifical song and dance about a cabinet decision to "support a Bangladesh government-in-exile" taken "within a week of Mujib’s arrest by Pakistani military authorities" is exaggerated. It was at best a decision in principle, for no Bangladesh government-in-exile was in existence by April 1, 1971.
Contrary to what Dixit says, I find no material in Jacob’s book to support the baseless allegation that Jacob considers himself responsible for all major policy decisions regarding the conduct of the ’71 war. Of course, he took a number of tactical decisions on his own. That was his privilege.
A.K. Ray, New Delhi
Outlook has called Bihar’s ferocious breeding bull a holy cow (Insolently Isolated, May 14). Hindus worship the cow and treat it with divine respect. But, this two-legged ferocious bull has grazed the country’s treasure as fodder. Now this horn-less bull seems to be in a dilemma—whether to opt for the slaughter-house (resignation) or to rule from prison!
R.G. Taranath, Bangalore
When Laloo is charge-sheeted it will only be proper for him to step down, prove he’s not guilty and return to power with renewed strength. One can’t help comparing this situation with the recent change in the UK government, when John Major quit saying—"When the curtain falls it is time to get off the stage", and Tony Blair entering with the words—"Enough of talking. It is time now to do." What a difference indeed.
Dr K.S. Naraynan, Tirunelveli
It’s an irony that where 82 per cent of the voters hold Laloo guilty and think he should resign he’s able to hang on to power shamelessly. If poesy not be misplaced, his logic can be rendered thus: Why should I resign I’ve done no crime Scam fodder Is made-to-order A conspiracy Against democracy Always before, even now Of Bihar I am the ‘Tau’ That is why, that is how I became the holy cow!
Nilay V. Anjaria, Ahmedabad
The civil service is the backbone of Indian administration. Its functioning and role, ther e-fore, are crucial to the country’s development. While the nexus between politicians and bureaucrats is coming to light through scams and corrupt deals, the need to reform the civil service itself is being felt strongly. The initiative from cabinet secretary T.S.R. Subramaniam (Scissors, Somebody, May 14) is welcome. But mere reforms won’t do, one needs to overhaul the system, streamline its different layers. More than transfers, the Civil Services Board should be able to protect its officers against the denial of due promotions.
A. Jacob Sahayam, Vellore
