COLUMN

And now, information warfare

Kargil shows that the Right is incapable of defending the nation; it has compromised India's security. To cover this up, the government is moving dangerously towards media manipulation and censorship.

PRAFUL BIDWAI

WE have long known that truth is the first casualty of war. Although the Kargil confrontation is nowhere near a full-scale war, it is proving this - and with a vengeance. The government first chose to share information with the media selectively, partial ly and in an inconsistent, largely opaque, fashion. It is now moving towards censorship. On June 4 it banned journalists from visiting the Kargil region. When pressed for permits by a large number of reporters, it two days later announced that it would " escort" them on a selective basis as and when possible.

SHANKER CHAKRAVARTY
Indian Army reinforcements moving towards Kargil in a convoy, passing by the Dal lake on June 7.

The decision to limit access lacks a logistical rationale. Consider the government's record on the issue of transparency. First, it refused to disclose pertinent details about the Pakistan-supported "infiltrators". The number of vantage-points under thei r occupation was reported variously at five, eight, 12 and 21. Mysteriously, 10 days after the air strikes, the number had increased! Initially, the government would not even disclose facts about the aircraft used in the strikes or the number of sorties flown. Second, it proscribed Pakistan TV broadcasts. Third, it rejected the perfectly reasonable demand for a special Rajya Sabha session on Kargil. Fourth, it has given out mutually conflicting figures of the number of "infiltrators" killed in "Operatio n Vijay": first 100, then 589, later 500. It claimed to have killed 227 Pakistani Army regulars by June 8, but produced only three bodies.

George Fernandes' record of contradictory statements is so embarrassing that some of his own supporters would like to ban him from opening his mouth. He first exonerated Nawaz Sharif and even the Inter-Services Intelligence (May 28) and then denied he ev er did so (June 3). He claimed (May 17) that the infiltrators would be flushed out "in 48 hours", but soon made a 180-degree turn. Vajpayee too joined him in denial mode in the first week of June, further undermining the government's credibility.

On May 5, Vajpayee said he would soon offer "convincing evidence" of the involvement of Pakistan Army regulars in the intrusion (The Tribune, May 6). This in effect acknowledged the absence of "convincing evidence" to date. And yet, he wanted the media to accept the government's version and wave the flag. He exhorted a delegation of the National Union of Journalists to consider "the impact" of what the media write and what politicians say on the "morale and motivation" of the armed forces... " before publishing" it. What is this if not a demand for self-censorship in the "larger national interest"?

REGRETTABLY, official functionaries are not the sole advocates of censorship. Eleven former armed forces officials, diplomats and bureaucrats have demanded the suspension of all independent and critical analysis of the Kargil situation. They include, uns urprisingly, the well-known hawkish analyst K. Subrahmanyam, but more disturbingly, two former Foreign Secretaries (J.N. Dixit and M.K. Rasgotra). They hold that the present situation "is a test of (the) national will and capacity to respond to aggressio n". Hence any "post-mortem by analysts should be suspended till the armed forces have restored normalcy."

Political parties and analysts must stop talking about "any inadequacies and failures that have led to the crisis." What is at stake is "our credibility as a nation", no less.

The signatories would like to present this as a case for "self-restraint" and "moderation" in the interest of the armed forces' morale. It is nothing of the sort. In fact, it is a poorly disguised plea to suppress the truth, suspend rational faculties, a nd behave like obedient, mindless, sheep. Unless we have independent analyses and assessments of the situation, which we can test against facts, how are us citizens going to be assured that the right policies are being pursued? Or do the signatories beli eve that military matters must be left to military persons alone, and that we must assume, against our own knoledge, that those in power always conduct themselves responsibly and competently?

There are alternatives to the kind of self-serving analysis dished out by "paid priesthoods" like the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (funded largely by the Ministry of Defence, and singularly undistinguished for quality of research). T hese alternatives must be encouraged and widely disseminated. Rather than suffer the logorrhoea of sarkari "experts" - not one of whom has written a decent book on foreign policy or security options from 1947 to now - we must have independent anal ysis.

WHOM is the government trying to fool? It speaks of "national unity", but it is led by a party that has done more to divide the country than any other. In the past year, Fernandes has done more damage to the armed forces' morale than all of India's worst regional enemies put together. Vindictively sending senior officials to Siachen, shielding arms smugglers in the Andamans, sacking Admiral Bhagwat, offering "safe passage" to infiltrators, have all been spectacularly irresponsible actions. The Defence M inistry's ineptitude and incompetence are only exceeded by the government's poor diplomacy, its failure to look for political solutions, and by Vajpayee's poor leadership.

The stark truth is, the Right in India has failed to defend the nation. It is incapable of doing so. In 15 months it has seriously degraded and compromised India's security. It cannot be trusted. To cover up its failures, it is now blatantly manipulating and censoring the media.

This will not wash. The citizens have every right to raise questions and demand answers about Kargil. Those who occupy high office in New Delhi must not that forget they lack a democratic mandate. They are where they are only because the Election Commiss ion cannot hold elections till September. They must not be allowed to duck debate and bully us into flag-waving.

There are two larger issues here. One, the Indian media, which we otherwise have reason to be proud of, have regrettably often contributed to ignorance and prejudice on issues of security by blindly towing the official line. For instance, in 1962, they d utifully reported that the Indian Army was adequately prepared to meet the Chinese forces, when it was grossly unprepared, even too poorly armed and clad. The press echoed the official line on the border dispute, distorting facts and presenting the colon ial legacy of the MacMahon Line as the immutable, sole, principled, basis for a solution.

There was deep shock and disbelief at the outcome of the 1962 conflict because the media presented India as invincible. Ironically, the huge knowledge gap that they manufactured was related in part to the high credibility that Jawaharlal Nehru enjoyed in those heady days of Bandung and Panch Sheel. For many, Nehru was infallible, how could he possibly lie? But he was himself misinformed. His "forward policy" - of unilaterally altering the boundary in what India claimed was its territory against China's often weightier evidence - was a disaster. The media then could at least be understood, if not pardoned, for being credulous and dazzled by Nehru. Today there is no such excuse. Vajpayee is no Nehru, Fernandes no V.K. Krishna Menon. Nehru might have been naive, but he belived in high principles. These are petty, cynical, men without a global vision or principles.

FOLLOWING 1962, the media made another "super-patriotic" error. They exaggerated the extent of India's defeat and the villainy of the "Yellow Peril". In reality, as serious scholars like Neville Maxwell have shown (most recently, in the Economic and P olitical Weekly), the 1962 war had its origins in India's impatience with China's attempt to settle its borders in the post-colonial era according to some consistent criteria. This attempt was not India-specific or arbitrary. New Delhi followed an ar rogantly unilateral approach, citing imperial claims, rejecting historical evidence and refusing negotiation.

The 1962 war was far less bitter than many of us have been led to believe. Indian casualties were far less than during the Indian Peace-Keeping Force (IPKF) operation in Sri Lanka a quarter-century later. The Chinese voluntarily vacated posts which they could have continued to occupy. In some instances, they even oiled and polished firearms before returning them. They did not take prisoners. However, the picture that emerges from our media, text-books and semi-official accounts - the government has stil l not published the Henderson-Brooks Report analysing the failure - has contributed to the strident chauvinism so evident on China.

Take the 1965 war with Pakistan. This was started by Gen. Ayub Khan's "Operation Gibraltar" misadventure. Contrary to what many believe, it ended, unlike in 1971, not in a decisive defeat for Pakistan, as the media largely claimed, but in a stalemate. In 1986-89 too the media were far from objective in reporting on the Sri Lanka intervention: the "humanitarian" food-parcel drop, the skewed Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement, and most important, the ineffectual and poor performance of the IPKF. By allowing itself to be manipulated in the cause of "national honour", and not asking critical questions, the media contributed to the poverty of public debate over that misadventure.

The litmus test for the media is not loyalty to the official line, to "patriotism" as defined by charlatans, but truth and critical analysis. The media must dedicate themselves to questioning, interrogating and verifying the claims of those in power, and be prepared to cross swords with them. This is doubly important in a military crisis. It is profoundly wrong to suppress, suspend or abridge the media's role as critic, as mirror of the truth. And yet we are being told that we must shed our "inte rnal differences" (read, suspend judgment). Indeed, some leader-writers have evoked the story of Pearl Harbour in the U.S. where an intelligence warning was ignored just prior to the Second World War Japanese attack. This was suppressed by U.S. military and political leaders in the "national interest" for years. We are asked to emulate this terrible chicanery.

The second larger issue pertains to the link between the present crisis and Kashmir. It just will not do to pretend that there is no outstanding issue or dispute in Kashmir. Numerous United Nations resolutions, some sought by India, and even the Shimla A greement, recognise the fact that there is an issue, although this does not mean that Pakistan should forcibly alter the Line of Control (LoC), or train, aid and abet secessionist militants. The present crisis highlights how non-combatant civilians have become the victims of India-Pakistan rivalry.

Kargil's people, mostly Shias within a predominantly Buddhist region (Ladakh) of Jammu and Kashmir, have not been part of the Valley's ''azadi'' agitation. But they have turned refugees en masse.

THIS is not inevitable. The Kashmir problem is amenable to a peaceful solution. This can only come about through two processes: first, a change in Indian and Pakistani mindset and a beginning of talks on Kashmir; and second, the involvement of the people of Kashmir in the determination of their fate. Kashmir is not just about the peculiarities of Partition and the shenanigans of the maharajah who refused to accede to India until October 1947. Nor is it about how many Kashmiris are Muslim. It is about gi ving the people a voice in a just solution to the problem, which enhances the collective security of all concerned. The question of Kashmir's identity and relationship to India and Pakistan must be settled on a modern, secular, pluralist basis.

Kashmir is not just a territory. Kashmiris have emerged as important agents of their identity and interests. They must be respected as such.

The Kashmiri people's involvement in the process of dispute resolution will transform its nature. All concerned will then have to confront the issues of democracy, decentralisation, and plurality in culture, society and politics. This will take the issue out of its present straitjacket. This is precisely what is needed. Fortunately, there are at least the beginnings of an intra-Kashmiri dialogue across borders and ethnic and political divides.

Around The Hague Conference on Peace in May, a large number of Kashmiris, from Panun Kashmir to the JKLF to pro-Mujahideen groups, met - perhaps for the first time in such numbers. They called for an end to all violence, for free dialogue and interaction between Kashmiris, and for a return to Kashmir's tradition of peaceful co-existence. This is a major step forward.

It must be heartily welcomed. Real progress will come through such moves, not military confrontation with its horrific potential for escalation to the nuclear level.