REWIND

New Delhi, 15 May 2025

A WAY OUT OF THE ARMS RACE

By InderJit

(Released on 21 April 1981) 

India continues to strive hard to somehow block American arms for Pakistan. New Delhi has not only communicated its views on the subject to Washington, but also sought to use the British Prime Minister's visit to India to mount pressure on the US Administration. Mr's Gandhi raised the issue with Mrs Thatcher both privately and publicly in her official talks and in Parliament's Central Hall where a departure was made from established practice on the occasion of the British Prime Minister's address to MPs to enable her also to speak. "The spectre of cold war peeping in our doorway causes us grave apprehension", said Mrs Gandhi and added: "We have already spoken to you about the dangers of giving sophisticated arms to Pakistan." But New Delhi has again drawn a blank. What is worse, Mrs Thatcher made out a powerful case for Pakistan in New Delhi at her Press conference which will be remembered for her superb performance. She answered questions candidly and forthrightly without the slightest attempt to either hedge or side step or, like Mr Morarji Desai, reply with counter questions!

We in India have undoubtedly every reason to be gravely concerned over the prospect of fresh supply of American arms to Pakistan. Our country has been attacked thrice by Pakistan in the past three decades and more proving right Krishna Menon's brilliant quip: No one has yet produced a gun which fires only in one direction. Experience has also shown that military regimes are inclined to be less restrained and more trigger happy; both the 1965 and 1971 wars were launched by Pakistan while the country was ruled by Generals Ayub and Yahya Khan. But then Pakistan, too, has a problem on its hands, as Mrs Thatcher argued at her Press conference. The Soviet Union has "invaded" and "occupied an independent and non-Aligned Afghanistan", posing a threat to Pakistan. "I would be concerned if I had Soviet troops on my border. I would be getting all the means to defend myself and my people." India, she added, had increased its defence capability "enormously" and was in a position to defend itself. "You cannot deny the same right to another sovereign nation."

A question which needs to be asked is: Can something be done to avert an arms race in the sub-continent? Two possible answers are available. Ideally, the best would be to get the Soviet Union to pull out of Afghanistan. All the countries, including Pakistan, have now veered round to India's view that this can be achieved only through a political solution and not militarily. Yet, enough has not been done for a political solution. The recent non-aligned meet in New Delhi took welcome initiative in setting up a four-nation committee to help resolve the Iran-Iraq conflict. The committee has since been vigorously following up its mandate and shuttling between world capitals. Yet the meet did not consider it necessary to either send a mission to Moscow on the Afghan issue or to set up a committee to help find a political solution. Even today, many feel that India, which has a vital security stake in getting the Soviets back to the Oxus, could help itself, the sub-continent and peace generally by taking a clear initiative regionally.

Opinion is divided on whether any such initiative would yield results. The Soviet Union seems to have little intention of pulling out of Afghanistan. But this need not cause us despair in rest our search for some way to avert an arms race between India and Pakistan. A second solution lies in taking Gen Zia at his word and accepting a unilateral offer he made to Mr Swaran Singh in April last year an offer which he repeated to me in an interview in reply to the question: "Do you think some kind of a permanent arrangement needs to be made to ensure against the build-up of a dangerous war psychosis between our two countries?" He said: "Well, the whole thing starts from a lack of trust. We must not forget that India and Pakistan have fought three wars. I only hope we have both realised the futility of wars... Wars do not solve political problems. In this year of the Lord 1981, might should not be right... We must create more confidence in the minds of not only the people but also at the Government level."

He then recalled his offer to Mr Swaran Singh: "I said to him. Tell us, whether Pakistan should have a force for its own security or not. Should India have a force for its security or not? And if you come to the conclusion that there is justification for Pakistan to have an armed force for its own security, then ask your (military) experts to tell us what should be the strength of our forces considering the defence requirements of a country like Pakistan and its geographic borders. I would accept their assessment and not debate it. In the process, you may probably ask our reaction. If you were to say all right, Pakistan should have this much and India that much. I said have as much as you like, I am not concerned. But I would be very much concerned when 18 divisions face Pakistan. We have then to think twice as to what all this exercise is about. But I made this offer. Unfortunately, we had no reaction at first. The reaction that came much later was 'No'. India said this is not a fair proposition. Because, Pakistan should have what Pakistan thinks necessary and India should have what India thinks necessary.

"Then I said, if that be the case, why should India get allergic to Pakistan's stress on its legitimate defence requirements. Here again, I proposed that if you want to know what we have and what we do not have, please come and ask me. I will tell you exactly what we have. And what you have I will not challenge. India is a big country. Pakistan realises this... We very humbly suggest to you and through you to the people of India that it is about time that both countries decided what was good for them. As for Pakistan, I can say there is no doubt in my mind that the good of both the countries lies in peaceful relationship, in mutual understanding, confidence, and respect. Pakistan is a small country. India is a bigger country, Pakistan today does not consider itself in competition with India. We can't. We are 80 million people. India is 650 million people. India is a bigger partner in this. It has a clear role to play and we grant it that much. But I think there is need for a better understanding and more confidence. I am sure sooner or later these will come."

I then said: "These are excellent thoughts, Mr President, I recall having a chat with SardarSwaran Singh on his return. He and many others in the country felt that any discussion in regard to the defence forces of the two countries would have to be preceded by some political understanding. Is that what he said to you?" Gen Zia replied, "No, he did not say so. We were discussing bilateral relations and came to the question of defence forces. This is what I offered unilaterally, as an idea. However, I agree that everything must emerge from a political understanding which willabout better military understanding and more confidence in each other. (Almost a year to the day, I wrote: "Notwithstanding their difference of perception, New Delhi has sought to end Islamabad's misgivings about India and, in the bargain, conceded Pakistan's concern for its security from across the Afghan border. Islamabad has been reassured by Mr Swaran Singh that India presents no security problem to Pakistan and that Pakistan should regard its eastern border with India as "a frontier of peace.")

Gen Zia also made some other remarks in the course of the interview which assume urgency and importance on two other grounds. First, in the context of the continuing talk of Pakistan's determined effort to go in for the nuclear bomb and Mrs Gandhi's forthright declaration in Parliament that India would respond appropriately in case Pakistan decided to go in for nuclear arms. (Some leading commentators are already advocating the view that India should exercise its nuclear option before Pakistan does so.) Second, in the overall context of the continuing cold war between the two countries and the fresh arms race, Gen Zia emphatically denied that Pakistan had any intention of either making a nuclear bomb or of detonating a nuclear device for peaceful purposes. Pakistan, he said, wanted nuclear technology to fill the gap of its energy requirement. Its programme was "peaceful and modest." Gen Zia also said that he regarded the Simla Agreement as a no-war pact and emphasised: "We should stop living in the past... (and) start a new chapter."

From here to where? Gen Zia has spoken and, as I said earlier, we should take him at his word. Full advantage should be taken of Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao's visit to Islamabad next month to begin a meaningful dialogue to avert an arms race and end the cold war, which is already causing both India and Pakistan enormous damage. Some Soviet commentators have reportedly suggested that the American arms for Pakistan are designed to prod Islamabad to fulfil "its old territorial ambitions in regard to Kashmir." But this is essentially an attempt on the part of Moscow to fish in the sub-continent's troubled waters. Pakistan may or may not accept the line of actual control in Jammu and Kashmir as an international frontier under the Simla Agreement. However, its willingness to go by India's assessment of its security requirements reflects a departure from its old policy and an inclination to accept a peaceful final settlement of the Kashmir issue.

Time is here for a bold response to Gen Zia's offer and to test his sincerity. It is not enough that we keep talking of the East-West detente. New Delhi and Islamabad need to turn their thoughts to lowering tensions within the sub-continent itself. India should accept Pakistan's need to strengthen its defences as a frontline state in terms of Gen Zia's offer. Simultaneously, it should also seek an agreement in regard to nuclear development and leave no scope for mutual distrust. Indeed, Mrs Gandhi and Gen Zia should meet to gain understanding of each other's viewpoint and explore the areas of cooperation. Mrs Gandhi conveyed to Gen Zia in February last India's respect for the integrity, sovereignty and independence of Pakistan. Gen Zia has reciprocated by sending a warm message through Mrs Thatcher. India and Pakistan already regard the Simla Agreement as a "no-war pact." They should now consider ending the arms race which will only make them more dependent on the Super Powers. The two countries need to go beyond the Agreement towards a possible treaty of peace and friendship.----INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 8 May 2025

INDIA’S TIMELY WARNING TO PAKISTAN

By Inder Jit

(Released on 30 January 1990) 

Pakistan and its rulers urgently need to pause and ponder. They should not allow the developments in Jammu and Kashmir to encourage them to undertake any reckless adventure across the border, overtly or covertly. Prima facie, the temptation may be great to view the grave happenings as an opportunity to avenge the creation of Bangladesh. The circumstances may even appear to be in their favour. However, things are not always what they outwardly seem. India has no doubt its problems as a vigorous democracy. The nation may appear divided and plagued with political intrigue. But it has always stood together as one united people in the face of external threat or attack. Nothing reflects this more than the extraordinary step taken by the all-party Consultative Committee of Parliament attached to the Ministry of External Affairs at its first meeting on Friday last. The Committee unanimously adopted a resolution to declare: “Jammu Kashmir is an integral part of India. Any interference from any quarter whatsoever will not be tolerated.” 

India is prepared to face any threat from across the border, directly or indirectly. New Delhi has been fully alive to the fast developing situation. The Prime Minister, Mr V.P. Singh and his colleagues have been in close touch. The Army, commanded by Gen V.N. Sharma, who hails from Jammu, is keeping its powder dry. Equally alert are the Air and Naval Chiefs, Air Chief Marshal Mehra and Admiral Nadkarni. Simultaneously, action is under way on the political plane. Talks have been held at the highest level with Dr Farooq Abdullah. Undoubtedly, Dr Abdullah must take most of the blame for mindlessly reducing the State to its present dangerous situation. Nevertheless, it is a great pity that he should have run away from the call of duty at a crucial time, placing self, party and politics before the country. Sheikh Abdullah, his father, was eulogised as the Lion of Kashmir. Dr Abdullah is being denounced as a “scared lamb”. Nevertheless, he is still the State’s only leader who could possibly mobilize the silent majority and help end the tyranny of the terrorist minority. 

Ms Benazir Bhutto overplayed her hand last week both in terms of her statement on Kashmir and the brief with which Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Sahibzada Yakub Khan, was sent to New Delhi. True, she is eager to project herself as a tough Prime Minister vis-a-vis India and win popularity in her tussle for supreme power in Islamabad. (Pakistan, according to experts, has today four centres of power in the following order: the US, the Army, the President and the Prime Minister.) The President, Mr Ishaq Khan, enjoys under the country’s Constitution power to appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister. This special power is due to lapse on March 20, leading to a controversy: Can Ms Bhutto continue as the Prime Minister after March 20 as an appointee of Mr Ishaq Khan? What if Mr Ishaq Khan dismisses her on March 19 and asks her to seek a fresh vote of confidence? Nevertheless, Ms Bhutto should have shown greater circumspection. She should not have wiped off in one stroke the great goodwill she had built for herself in India. Indeed, the Sahibzada’s visit could have easily waited since Mr Abdul Sattar had already visited India as her special envoy. 

The Sahibzada, a suave diplomat, took the Foreign Minister, Mr. I.K. Gujral, totally by surprise by the tone and content of his talk. His language was “offensive and hostile” even as he prefaced his remarks with the words:“There was a high-level meeting in Islamabad before I came. I have been treated to say...” But Mr. Gujral, also suave to a fault, gave the Sahibzada a good deal more than he got by late in the evening. He told the Sahibzada that a high-level meeting had been held on the message brought by the Sahibzada and that he too, had been “directed to tell” him clearly: “India will not tolerate any interference from Pakistan in its internal affairs...”Not much later, Mr Gujral briefed the Arab Ambassadors and so also the heads of missions of all the EEC countries of his talks with the Sahibzada. The Foreign Secretary, Mr S.K. Singh was rushed off to Moscow and the other Secretary in the MEA, Mr Muchkund Dubey, to the neighbouring countries and elsewhere. India’s views have already been made known to Washington. 

Pakistan’s Army Chief, Gen Aslam Beg, is suspected to be playing a major role in Islamabad’s latest hawkish, nay belligerent outlook. Informed sources tell me that he is no longer the same Gen Beg who once said that the Army should stay out of politics. Of late, he has not hesitated to make political statements. He has even appeared to be playing for higher stakes. On December 12, he stated in Islamabad that the words of friendship from Delhi had not been matched by deeds and blamed India for “backing out” of the Siachen accord. Not only that. At a Press briefing at the Army Control headquarters at Sargodha, he reportedly described the country’s biggest-ever war exercise, “Zarb-e-Momin”, as a demonstration of the people’s military will and said this was designed to match and support the political will! Significantly, he also announced a major shift in Pakistan’s strategic doctrine from defence to “offensive-defence” and asserted: “War must be fought on the enemy soil!” He also clarified: “The main purpose of the exercise was to test the Army’s capacity to launch a large-scale offensive.” 

Ms Bhutto needs to be wary of Gen Beg, no less than Gen Zia was cautious of his own Generals. Zia was advised more than once to take advantage of India’s internal difficulties and divisions. But as a political General he drew wise lessons from the bitter experiences of Gen Ayub Khan and Gen Yahya Khan. The two were encouraged by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in their time to launch wars against India. Both the Generals came to grief and Bhutto calculatedly leap-frogged to power, first partially and thereafter fully. Gen Zia, therefore, was clear all along that any attack on India would amount to committing harakiri. It would be the surest and quickest way to bring his regime to an end. In fact, it is no secret that most Pakistanis desiring salvation from Zia’s rule repeatedly hoped (and prayed) that he would be stupid enough to attack India. Ms Bhutto should remember this. Any attack on India, encouraged by the misplaced euphoria over “Zarb-e-Momin” and the recent happenings within India, could put an end not only to Benazir’s Government but even to the country’s welcome return to democracy. 

There is no denying the fact that the Kashmir issue continues to be on the UN agenda. It also figures prominently in the Simla Agreement. But there is no question of India ever agreeing to a plebiscite in Kashmir, as demanded afresh by Ms Bhutto, Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan and some others. Time was some 40 years ago when India was willing. Nehru then agreed to let the people decide their future again through a plebiscite under the UN auspices. However, the UN resolution which provided for self-determination and had the support of both countries could not be implemented. Why? Because of Pakistan, not India. How? Pakistan, took the astonishing and absurd stand that Part B of the resolution should be implemented before Part A, ignoring the basic scheme of things and the background. Part A provided for the withdrawal of Pakistani troops to clear the decks for the plebiscite. Part B provided for the withdrawal by India of the bulk of its forces from the State in stages. India could not, in fairness, be expected to take a chance again with the future of Kashmir and leave it to Pakistan’s mercy.

Clearly, the clock cannot be put back. India could not be expected to wait indefinitely. Sheikh Abdullah, who stood for the state’s accession to India, received overwhelming popular mandate through elections time and again. In sharp contrast, the Plebiscite Front in the State came to be wound up voluntarily by its founders. More importantly, India is in no position to risk a plebiscite today --not even if the chance of the plebiscite going against it is less than one per cent. As I candidly told a Pakistani friend at a dinner in honour of Sahibzada Yakub Khan last week: “Do you realise what would happen if the plebiscite was to go against us? India could then become Hindu on the rebound on the basis of your two-nation theory. What would then happen to India’s 100 million Muslims and their future?” The Pakistani interrupted: “I did not know your secularism is so fragile.” I continued: “That is not the question. You friends asked for partition, not we. You cannot escape responsibility for what happened then and what may happen tomorrow. Let us not demand something without going into its grave implications. Neither you nor we can afford another upheaval. It would destroy us both.” 

Islamabad would do well not to be carried away by emotions and to desist from suicidal recklessness. Facts must be faced squarely and pragmatically. India happens to be bigger and stronger. As a senior Pakistani Ambassador once confided: “India is an elephant. We can at best harass and wound it. Ultimately, the elephant must triumph.” It would therefore be grave folly on the part of Islamabad to ignore New Delhi’s timely (and friendly) warning. New Delhi is not unaware of the emotions over Kashmir in Pakistan, especially amongst its rulers. But we must not allow our feelings to run amuck. We must seek a realistic solution, of which there is only one. We must build bridges between our two countries step by step as provided for in the Simla Agreement. This must one day bring us closer, as in the case of Canada and the United States. Once that happens, the international border between our two countries must necessarily become soft. It will then matter little whether Kashmir is on this side of the border or that. We must learn to look beyond narrow nationalism, even as we retain our separate national identities. The future lies in friendship, not conflict.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 1 May 2025

BEYOND A NO-WAR PACT

By Inder Jit

(Released on 19 January 1982) 

Silent prayers of most people in India and Pakistan anxious to see the two countries bury the proverbial hatchet and strengthen friendly ties appear to have been heard at long last. An absurd and incredible war of words on Pakistan's proposal for a no-war pact between the two countries has ended! On December 27, New Delhi eventually showed good sense and conveyed to Islamabad its willingness to sign a no-war pact on the basis of certain principles. Islamabad has since reacted positively to New Delhi's delayed response to its proposal. The stage is now set for talks between the two Foreign Ministers Mr Agha Shahi and Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao on January 30 and 31. Mr Agha Shahi is arriving a day earlier at the suggestion of Pakistan's Ambassador, Mr Sattar. This will enable him to witness Beating Retreat, a grand finale to the Republic Day celebrations. Queen Elizabeth, who witnessed this ceremonial function many years ago, is known to have stated that she had not seen the like of such a magnificent spectacle anywhere any time.

Pakistan has so far played its cards adroitly. It has not only got Washington to give it F-16s but projected itself as a country anxious to build bridges with India. In distressing contrast, India has lost once again in terms of its image abroad. It should have promptly welcomed the offer of a no-war pact and rejoiced over the fact that Islamabad had, after all, seen light and accepted something which New Delhi had first proposed in 1949. At the same time, it should have expressed the hope that Islamabad was sincere and genuinely desired a no-war pact. In doing so, it would have neatly put the ball back in Pakistan's court in the first instance. True, New Delhi's stance helped internally. It made people conscious of the new dangers and diverted their minds from problems at home. But this line did not cut much ice abroad. Remember, the joint statement issued at the end of Mr Rao's last visit to Islamabad included the following: "Both sides agreed that each country had the sovereign right to acquire arms for self defence."

Considerable ground has been covered already in diplomatic exchange India has proposed acceptance of seven principles for signing the no-war agreement. These are said to be essential elements of the Simla Agreement and include what may be described as the principles of peaceful co-existence, respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, bilateralism and non-alignment. Pakistan for its part, has called the proposals "constructive" and assured India that it stands by the Simla Agreement. But it wants certain clarifications in regard to the precise meaning and scope of some of these principles in the context of their manifestly authoritative elaboration in the Indian Press. India has, for instance, proposed that both countries should revert to bilateralism for resolving all their differences and disputes -- as provided for in the Simla Agreement. New Delhi, according to one interpretation, believes that this bars Islamabad from raising Kashmir or any other bilateral dispute at the UN or other world forums. 

Islamabad, I learn, does not accept India's interpretation. It concedes that the two countries have resolved under the Simla Agreement "to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations". But it argues that this does not bar it from using a standard form to mention Kashmir at the UN or any international forum on two counts. First, the Simla Agreement provides for "a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir". Second, it stipulates that in Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides "without prejudice to the recognised position of either side". This recognised position is said to be in regard to its stand on Kashmir at the UN, an item which is still inscribed on the agenda of the world body. How can Pakistan, it is asked, be prevented from stating at the UN that it desires "durable peace" in the sub-continent and looks forward to "a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir" in accordance with the Simla Agreement?

A question which is, therefore, certain to come up at the forthcoming talks is: what exactly is bilateralism? Interestingly, the word does not occur in the Simla Accord though, I am told, Krishna Menon in India and Bhutto in Pakistan had their own thesis on the subject. In addition, one or two books are even said to have been written on the subject. Clearly, this is one point which will need to be clarified in the forthcoming talks so as to leave no scope for hard feelings or bitterness in the future on either side. Pakistan may have its point in regard to mentioning Kashmir in the course of saying its annual piece in the UN General Assembly. But India, too, has its point. How far is Pakistan justified in raising the Kashmir issue at other international forums as, for instance, at the Islamic Summit? At one stage, General Zia not only mentioned Kashmir in the course of his speech at the Islamic Summit but virtually asked for support of the "Umma" -- the Islamic community -- in resolving the issue to Islamabad's satisfaction.

India's proposals made in an aide memoire do not specifically mention Kashmir or, for that matter, the question of foreign bases, arms race or nuclear weapons. However, Islamabad has also reacted to the interpretation given to the principle of non-alignment and steps suggested by New Delhi to put "a brake on the arms race," Strict adherence to non-alignment, it was stated in the Indian Press, would commit the two countries against granting their territories for establishing military bases by foreign powers. These reports further stated that this implication of non-alignment was particularly important in the context of reports that Pakistan was constructing a major port at Gwadur, 250 km west of Karachi, with the assistance of an Asian power. The Asian power was said to have made its help available on the basis of some "secret" understanding. India, therefore, wanted to be assured that a no-war pact between the two countries would bar Pakistan from converting Gwadur from a commercial port into a foreign naval base.

Pakistan, it appears, would also like to pose the question: What precisely is non-alignment? Does membership of the movement clash with a member's sovereign rights? Islamabad is reportedly keen to ensure that the principles advocated by India do not detract from the sovereignty of either country. Pakistan, it is argued, has chosen of its own accord to give up its membership of CENTO and join the non-aligned club. It has no desire or intention to forget the lessons of the past and offer its territory for foreign military bases. But it wants to go by the precise definition of non-alignment as given by the founders of the movement and by the movement itself over the years in resolutions of the Non-Aligned Conference -- and not by any arbitrary interpretation of any one country. Simultaneously, as the smaller of the two countries vis-a-vis India, it wants to be clear that nothing abridges its sovereign rights in regard to the UN Charter, especially in the maintenanceof peace and security.

Now the arms race. Pakistan appears to be coming ready to revive its earlier proposal for an accord on force ratios. The proposal was initially mooted by Islamabad in 1980 -- first to India's Foreign Secretary, Mr Ram Sathe, next to Mr Swaran Singh when he called on Gen Zia and, thereafter in July, by Mr Shahi in his controversial banquet speech in New Delhi. The proposal was renewed by Mr Shahi during his meeting with Mr Rao in Islamabad in mid-1981. Mr Rao then reminded Mr Shahi of the understanding reached during his visit to New Delhi, India had then urged that the issue should be taken up only "at the appropriate time" after a broad political understanding had been reached. Significantly. Gen Zia also broached the subject during his talk with Mr Rao. But the latter pointed out that he and Mr Shahi had already agreed not to talk about it yet. Candidly, New Delhi needs to respond boldly to such an offer and to thereby test Islamabad's sincerity. Time was when Pakistan demanded parity. Today, it talks of force ratios leading one to quip: If Washington and Moscow can have SALT, why cannot New Delhi and Islamabad have MALT?

Talks on mutual arms limitation or a no-war pact does not necessarily mean that durable peace will be assured. India, as the Prime Minister has emphasised, will need to keep its guard up and not take any chances. Experience shows that mere condemnation of war or its renunciation is not enough. Prior to the Simla Agreement, provisions of renouncing war were incorporated in one form or another in three previous agreements: the Nehru-Noon Agreement of September 12, 1958 on border disputes, the Indo-Pakistan Agreement of October 23, 1959, on border incidents, and the Tashkent Declaration made jointly by Lal Bahadur Shastri and Gen Ayub Khan on January 10, 1966. The Declaration stated in its first paragraph: "The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan agree that both sides will exert all efforts to create good neighbourly relations between India and Pakistan in accordance with the United Nations Charter. They reaffirm their obligation under the Charter not to have recourse to force and to settle their disputes through peaceful means..."

In sum, the Indo-Pakistan parleys pose a test in creativeness and innovativeness -- and in forging understanding in regard to the words used. (Nehru said once that much of the trouble in the world today arose because the same words meant different things to different people.) Both sides need to shed mutual suspicions and take the next step towards a no-war pact which, significantly, is not regarded for the first time in Pakistan as a sell-out on Kashmir! Full agreement need not necessarily be reached in one go. The Simla Accord, it may be recalled, was drafted following an extensive exchange of views between the two Governments. The special emissaries of the two sides met first at April-end 1972 in Muree and this exchange was continued at Simla. The important thing is to have a meaningful dialogue for establishing enduring peace and not only build mutual confidence but direct thoughts beyond a no-war pact. Our two peoples are basically tired of confrontation and conflict. They yearn to live like brothers and share in the greater glory of peace for the two countries.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 24 April 2025

PRESIDENT, JUDICIARY AND EXECUTIVE

By Inder Jit

(Released on 10 December 1985) 

New Delhi and, more especially, Parliament's Central Hall continue to buzz over the Indian Express vs Jagmohan affair against the backdrop of the grim and timely warning sounded by the Chief Justice of India, Mr P.N. Bhagwati, in regard to the country's judicial system and two other developments. First, the debate in Parliament on the Supreme Court judgment in the Indian Express case which is increasingly viewed by impartial observers as a deplorable assault on the country's highest Court. Second, the sharp frontal attack by Mr Ram Nath Goenka on the Minister of State for Law, Mr H.R. Bhardwaj, in the Indian Express of November 30 and the subsequent motions of breach of privilege moved by Prof Madhu Dandavate and Mr K.P. Unnikrishnan in the Lok Sabha on December 2. Also adding significant grist to the capital's usually well-informed gossip mills is Giani Zail Singh's reported distress over the unfortunate happenings in Parliament vis a vis the Supreme Court and the "courtesy call" by Mr Justice Bhagwati, on the President not long after the latter returned from his visit to Sikkim and Bihar.

The Minister of State for Law and the Congress-I benches in Parliament were manifestly elated on November 28 and 29 when the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha concluded their debates on the Supreme Court judgment in the Indian Express case on Opposition motions seeking the ouster of Mr Jagmohan from the office of Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court, the Opposition leaders had argued, had passed severe strictures against Mr Jagmohan. It was, therefore, only right and proper that he now resigned his high office. But Mr Bhardwaj and prominent Congress-I members successfully used their massive majority to defeat the motions after successfully side-tracking the main issue. They spotlighted the judgment and sought to push both Mr Goenka and the then Minister of Works and Housing, Mr Sikander Bakht, into the dock instead of dealing with the issue before the two Houses: the Supreme Court's judgment on Mr Jagmohan's review petition. But by Monday, December 2, Prof Dandavate had more than settled his score with the Minister of State and the ruling party, thanks to Mr Goenka's attack on Mr Bhardwaj and others.

Prof Dandavate, Janata, and Mr. Unnikrishnan, Congress-S, urged the Speaker to refer their respective motions to the Privileges Committee on the ground that Mr Goenka, Chairman of the Indian Express Group and himself a member of the House once, was guilty of breach of privilege. Said Prof Dandavate: "I am raising a very important issue connected with the House on which the entire House would agree. When the debate on Mr Jagmohan took place here, the Minister made certain observations explaining the Government's position. On 30^th, Mr Ram Nath Goenka has written an article..." The Speaker interrupted: "I am looking into it." But Prof Dandavate went on: "Sir, in that article he has called our Minister as delinquent as far as that House is concerned and juvenile here..." The Speaker again intervened: "I will look into it." But Prof Dandavate pushed ahead as is his won't and said: "If our Minister is called juvenile here and delinquent there, that House will take care of the delinquency but you have to take care of his juvenileness. Therefore, the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee... so that Mr Goenka's allegations may be cleared,"

Ironically but eloquently, the Treasury benches stayed silent. Prof.Dandavate then shrewdly moved ahead for his kill like an adept Parliamentarian and said: "I am surprised that no member of the ruling party is disturbed by this article". The speaker averred: "You ask them, sir, not me". Mr Unnikrishnan was now on his feet seeking to raise another related issue: arrival of 55 MLAs from Kerala in New Delhi in support of the demands of coconut farmers. The Speaker ruled: "If there is anything, we can again discuss it." Prof.Dandavate again asked: “What is the response of the Parliamentary Affairs Minister to my privilege motion”. The speaker replied: "I do not know”. Mr KrupasindhuBhoi, Congress-I, intervened: "Sir, Prof Dandavate and Mr Unnikrishnan are bringing in again and again malignant hallucination to this House." Prof Dandavate was once again on his feet and repeated his earlier question: “we would like to know from the Parliamentary Affairs Minister as to what is his response to this privilege motion?" But the Minister, Mr H.Κ.L. Bhagat, refused to be moved -- and sat in stony silence.

Clearly, the silence told its own story. Mr Bhagat and his colleagues chose to face humiliating embarrassment and even be shown up as "spineless" rather than walk into Prof Dandavate's trap. Nothing would have suited the Opposition more than to get the issue referred to the Privileges Committee and have the matter thrashed out again first in the Lok Sabha and then in the Committee, wherein the ruling party would have found it difficult to side-track the main issue and, what is more, to defend Mr Bhardwaj and his conduct in Parliament. Interestingly, Mr George Ferandez sought in 1975 to get the Pondicherry Licence scandal discussed by the House through an identical stratagem. He wrote a brazenly defamatory article against the Lok Sabha in Pratipaksha, a socialist Party paper, and even likened it to "a brothel House". Prof Dandavate then brought forward a motion of breach of privilege. The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Mr K. Raghurammiah, was provoked and seemed inclined to support reference of the issue to the Privileges Committee. But he soon saw the trap and pulled back.

Meanwhile, the controversy has been sharpened by the bizarre happenings in the Supreme Court Bar Association beginning with its meeting on November 28 called specifically to discuss the issue arising out of the Supreme Court judgment. At this meeting, Mr S.N. Kacker, who is the President of the Association, strongly criticised Mr Bhardwaj for his attack on the Supreme Court judges and said: "We cannot ignore what he has said... The Bar is capable of expelling Mr Bhardwaj... We must be up against anyone who insults the judiciary." However, he did not push ahead and agreed to adjourn it until Tuesday so that the members could have the benefit of the transcript of Mr Bhardwaj's speeches in Parliament. On Tuesday, supporters of Mr Bhardwaj from all over Delhi packed the meeting and reportedly adopted a resolution even after Mr Kacker had adjourned the meeting and left. They put the Attorney-General, Mr K. Parasaran, in the chair and got him to put the resolution to vote. The resolution not only condemned Mr Kacker but asked him to render "an unconditional and unqualified apology" for his remarks against Mr Bhardwaj.

Developments took a new turn when 120 members of the Supreme Court Bar Association met a day later -- on Wednesday, under the presidentship of Mr Shanti Bhusan, former Law Minister and adopted a resolution condemning Mr K. Parasaran, Attorney-General of India, for having presided over Tuesday's meeting. The resolution read as follows: "We the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association strongly condemn the so-called meeting of the Bar held on the 3 December 1985 which the Attorney-General is supposed to have chaired". The meeting expressed complete faith in and solidarity with Mr Kacker, the duly-elected President of the Association. In fact, the meeting further held that the conduct of Mr Parasaran in presiding over the meeting was unbecoming and worthy of the office of the Attorney General of India when Kackerhad adjourned the meeting and left. According to one press report, over 100 advocates who participated in the Wednesday meeting were seen daily practising in the Supreme Court, whereas ninety per cent of the advocates present at Tuesday's meeting were not seen in the Supreme Court daily.

Controversy continues on two questions. First, whether the judgment would have been different if the concessions stated to have been made by Mr .LN. Sinha, former Attorney General and counsel for the Union of India, and Mr. M.C. Bhandare, counsel for Delhi Municipal Corporation, had not been made. Second, whether Mr Sinha and Bhandare should have been given a hearing before the Judges passed adverse remarks against them. First, informed circles maintain that the final conclusions reached in the judgment do not rest on the concessions. Said one legal luminary: "Even if these concessions are discarded, the process of reasoning leads to the same conclusion”. Second, the Supreme Court Bar Association has taken the stand that Mr Sinha and Mr Bhandare should have been given a hearing. However, some veterans feel that this was not necessary. At any rate, there appears to be little question of the two counsels getting a hearing now unless they make amends. Perhaps, the matter should best rest with the dismissal of the review. If there is to be a hearing, it can only be had on the filing of affidavits. This could lead to further complications.

More of the debate on Parliament's assault on the Supreme Court is bound to be heard in the days and weeks to come -- unless enlightened and immediateefforts are made to sort out matters in the best national interest. Thought will also need to be given to the question of reforming the system and eliminating delays in the delivery of judgments. But a few things need to be done without delay. One hopes Mr Justice Bhagwati, who met the President last week, has already taken up the issue with the Prime Minister. Further, that he will, if necessary, take an early opportunity to speak on the subject. (Not a few in New Delhi were disappointed at the absence of any reference to the issue -- even between lines -- in his address to the Lawyers' Forum in Calcutta on November 30.) Fortunately, the President has evinced interest in the matter as he is duty-bound by the oath of his office -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. At a function to honour Mr Justice Bhagwati, the President said: "The people expect much from the Supreme Court." I might add the people also expect much from the President and the Prime Minister. Perhaps, Mr Rajiv Gandhi might consider the advisability of making a statement in Parliament to put an end to the controversy.--- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)