How Vajpayee changed the Highway map of India

Here's my article on this

How DRDO and Vajpayee fooled CIA

Here's my article on it

A good move by Vajpayee to allow FDI in defence in 2001

When NDA was in power in 2001, the Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha and PM Vajpayee realized the great need for tapping domestic private potential to develop defense parts. So far from 1947 till 2000, Defense was purely a Public Sector Unit (PSU) and the problem was improper access to emerging technology and huge imports of weapons and equipments from Russia and other countries. When machinery came from Israel, it helped India win the Kargil war else we would have lost. Even before war had started, Vajpayee had continued discussions with Israel to get more weapons.

Hence in 2001, 100% private participation by domestic companies(like L&T) was allowed to manufacture parts of the defense equipments like radar, parts of helicopters etc. This helped better quality and high efficiency low cost materials to be infused into defense sector. In fact, Dhruv, Tejas have become very famous and countries have signed billions of dollars since then to buy them. At the same time FDI was capped to 26%. This helped foreign companies to strike deals with India.

Vajpayee made drastic changes to Defence System Structure: The first attempt after 50 years

For all along, committees and committees have been set up from 1947-1999 to make changes in defence establishments - structural changes and cohesion amongst various components, but none took any shape. This was primarily because the bureaucracy and the polity was simply unwilling to make bold steps. Rajiv Gandhi, V.P Singh and Narasimha Rao did make an attempt towards the set up of National Security Council, but failed. The first time ever proposal was brought into reality in 1998 under specially Vajpayee's intervention. It must be understood even when proposals were thought of, Kargil happened. And post Kargil, Vajpayee set up another committee under expert K.Subramanyam and after 6 months the report was given. The report was the first of its kind as Subramanyam himself points out. It was a very comprehensive study and proposed far more changes than expected to ensure that different defence establishments can work cohesively.

Although Vajpayee took the report very seriously and made changes to defence structure as per its recommendations, there were shortcomings. But it cannot be denied that it was the first concrete attempt in 50 years that Vajpayee and his team challenged bureaucracy which was against many such changes.

Vajpayee and his coterie of leaders - Advani, Brajesh Mishra and Jaswant Singh did the following:

• Created Defence Intelligence Authority - a new body directly accountable to the Defence Minister. This agency is headed by a member whose ranking is equivalent to an Air Marshal/General and could be from any of the 3 armed forces. The person heads the already existing intelligence agencies in Army, Navy and Air Force. Such an agency is now less dependable on civilian intelligence agencies like Intelligence Bureau(IB) and Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). The dependency on IB and RAW caused major blunders in 1962 war. From those years, the armed forces have been demanding. Now, it is fulfilled.
  
• Created a Nuclear Command Authority whose directives are to be operationilized by Strategic Forces Command under the supervision of Air Marshal (or equivalent). This is solely responsible for management of strategic nuclear weapons
• Agreed to the creation of post of Chief of Defence Staff and Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, but could not make it a reality because of controversies involved between bureaucracy and armed forces w.r.t the impact such a post can create in decision making
• Created National Security Council consisting of 3 tiers:
  

  1) Strategic Policy Group (SPG) – includes Cabinet Secretary, Chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force, (Foreign, Home, Defense, Finance) Secretary, Secretary (Defence Production), Secretary (Revenue), RBI Governor, IB chief, RAW Secretary, Dept of Atomic Energy Secretary, Secretary of Dept of Space, Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister, Chairman of Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) – responsible for short and long term security threats and policy options.

  2) National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) – consists of officials from outside the Govt who have in expertise in external security, strategic analysis, foreign affairs, defence, the armed forces, internal security, science and technology and economics.

  3) NSC Secretariat: JIC is the main one and it encompasses integrating RAW, IB Intelligence agencies along with Army, Navy, Air Force Intelligence agencies

• National Security Advisor (NSA) who acts as a main interface between these 3 tiers and PM.

In fact, B.Raman, defence analyst and a member of intelligence agency has stated that 70% of the recommendations of Subramanyam Committee have been implemented.

The major problem that draw flak from everyone was the post of NSA which got mixed with Principal Secretary (PS) to PM. Both were held by Brajesh Mishra and even Advani had difference of opinion on this as he quotes in his autobiography ("My country My life"). The 2 posts in terms of responsibilities are so huge that mixing them only dilutes the whole purpose of creating NSA.

There are several criticisms about all these changes - but it cannot be ignored that the attempt was the first of its kind and no doubt even NDA leaders admitted that further changes are required. So, one should be patient enough and expect that future governments (be it Congress or BJP) take this seriously. Failure to do so will only make these bodies useless.

Infact , J.N. Dixit who was the diplomat during the crucial years of East Asian Crisis and Sri Lankan Crisis and assisted the Congress was chosen to write the Defence Policy of the Congress in 2004 for Lok Sabha elections. The fact J.N. Dixit himself clarifies (as given by Congress manifesto) that all entities created are good, but certain changes are required to make them effective. But it appears that even after 5 years of being in power, Manmohan Singh has not given any attention to his proposed changes.

This and further the appreciation given by Subramanyam quoted as below only confirms the fact that Vajpayee took some bold decisions to change the age old norms of the Indian Defence.

"* The Government broke the taboo of 53 years on review of national security matters. This precedent will enable periodic reviews in the future.

* The reform process of national security requirements was preceded by intense debate at political level. This has helped in "cutting through the Gordian knot of sequential bureaucratic nitpicking and consequent delays."

* Recommendations and supporting arguments of the review are being published. This will add to transparency in discussion of India’s national security matters."

We should remember that the first time when new changes are done, it takes a while that it gets accepted in totality and its effectiveness proved. However, certain aspects of the brought in changes required immediate rectification and this is where Vajpayee's Govt failed.

Vajpayee- one of the 60 greatest Indians (as per survey of India Today)

http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/renaissance-man-3.html

The matter is presented here as is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.B. VAJPAYEE — FORMER PRIME MINISTER, 1924

Even in his autumnal stillness, Atal Bihari Vajpayee defies definition. With a mischievous glint in his eyes, the man—who is now beyond the grasp of predatory headlines—doesn’t fit into the neat categorisations of leadership and greatness.

There has always been a bit of mystery, a teasing element of the unknown, about India’s first right-wing prime minister who has taken permanent residency in popular conscience.

Come to think of it, and be intrigued by the enduring enigma of Vajpayee. His party may not have a pan-Indian presence—or won an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha.

But Vajpayee, defying gravity, soars above his party, larger than its collective leadership, unblemished by its sins and transgressions.

In a party whose defining image of assertion is demolition, his name alone rhymes with moderation and consolidation. There may not be a Vajpayee cult, but Vision Vajpayee is an inspiration for true believers on the right.

In a polity characterised by the culture of personal vendetta and pettiness, he is the last custodian of dignity and decency.

And his instincts have redeemed the ideology of his political parivar.

Oh yes, his patented pause. Does it reflect an innate passivity? No, it brings out the power of silence in a country where the sloganeer’s stentorian showmanship is celebrated as politics of social justice.

His updated version of passive resistance has been a cultivated strategy, and it has worked at a time when his hyperactive colleagues could only divide.

The first genuine non-Congress prime minister to complete his full term in office, he is the original reconciler. I still remember one of my many enlightening encounters with him during his six years in office.

Once I provoked him by saying that many of his colleagues felt he was soft and not pushing his investigative agencies to go after the Gandhi dynasty.

“If I do to them what they did to their political enemies, tell me, how are we going to be different from the Congress?” he asked, looking straight into my eyes. I didn’t have anything more to say. I was sitting across from the trueconviction politician.

He has always strived to connect with even the seemingly incompatible. Connectivity for him has been an article of faith. It has been political, philosophical and, of course,geographical. It has gone beyond the realms of telecommunications and civil aviation.

Quick take Q: How many states has he been elected from? A: Four: Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat,Madhya Pradesh and Delhi Q: How many times has he been elected to the Lok Sabha? A: Ten, the latest to the 14th Lok Sabha Q: Which publications did he edit? A: The magazines Rashtradharma and Panchjanya and the dailies Swadesh and Veer Arjun Q: When was he jailed? A: In 1942 and during the Emergency from 1975-77

The first real internationalist after Nehru, he has brought India to the global high table. He has liberated India from the entrapment of Third Worldism—and the Cold War mindset. He has made anti-imperialism, a legacy of the Left liberal Congressism, redundant.

“We see that as India adjusts to globalisation, the globe is adjusting to a quiet Indianisation,” he said at the India Today Conclave in 2004. The eldest statesman of India would become the wisest of the East as well.

Today, four years after his exit from South Block, Vajpayee is not an active presence in politics. But for India, as successive opinion polls show, he is still the ideal prime minister— and the most beloved politician. Why? He doesn’t colonise media space.

He hasn’t written a bestseller. Why does he still concentrate the mind of India? The answer is his political dharma. He has singularly redefined power with a kind of sagely detachment. He withdraws to conquer; he confounds his adversaries with, well, a couplet; and he renounces only to return.

All the while, his moral universe remains intact, beyond the whirl of realpolitik, beyond the exigencies of his own party. There is a terrifying sense of calm about the man, an individual solidity that has only ensured political stability. He has changed the syntax of leadership.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee embodies the renaissance of the right, and as the only compassionate conservative India has produced, he continues to reaffirm the virtues of reconciliation in the age of confrontation.

URL for this article : http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/content_mail.php?option=com_content&name=print&id=6876

A permanent friendship in an unfriendly profession

Politics is a game of shrewdness and smartness. It is a game where everyone's aim is to grab power and each pursues a different agenda to achieve it. There are no permanent friends or enemies in politics and is definitely the dirtiest profession. However, it is ironically the most effective means of bringing in rapid changes that affect lives of a country or state. Many times when we have to clean the sewage we need to get into it. This is not a mandatory requirement in cleansing dirt,but surely an effective and time tested one. So is the profession of politics. In such an unfriendly atmosphere where every relation is made or broken for greedy purposes, one can rarely expect a true friendship to exist.

India, post independence has seen 2 such friendship relations. One, Nehru-Sardar, and the other Vajpayee-Advani. The timing of presence of both these pairs has changed our country in many ways, both for the better and worse. Although this article is not to highlight the Nehru-Sardar relationship, it is definitely to highlight the other example.

Both being RSS members and having served the public life for 50 years, there is no match for Advani and Vajpayee. Both have seen the most turbulent and smooth sailing times. They have faced a lot of events, disasters both in opposition and in power. What however remains an inspiration to all true friends is the understanding these two shared. I am waiting to read the book by Advani -"My country My life" not just to learn politics,but also to understand "a case of friendship in an unfriendly profession".

Leave apart the excerpts from the book, let me tell you that both these tall leaders did have differences in opinion over Modi, Kandhahar Hijacking, Ayodhya, etc. Differences must come in friendships so that they become stronger. But they never made them public (It is only now Advani has written because many people pressurized him to say what he feels about his friend Vajpayee). They conducted themselves in such a disciplined manner that their own partymen must learn from it. They never split their relationship nor the party. Even when Vajpayee was to be chosen as PM in 1996,1998 and 1999, Advani could have raised a rebellion because it was he who brought BJP to power. He never did so. He trusted his friend and he(Vajpayee) was the most acceptable face amongst all parties supporting it. Their own party people were divided between these 2 leaders in 2003 and post 2004 debacle as to who should lead. Despite all this, Advani and Vajpayee never lost temper nor accused each other of anything. They were matured and seasoned enough that they handled such situations in an audacious manner. If power was the only reason, Advani must have broken the relationship with Vajpayee after NDA defeat in 2004. He never chose to do so. Some blamed Vajpayee for Muslim appeasement while some for ignoring Hinutva by Advani. But these blame games were never done personally by both of them. Even during this crisis, their friendship never withered. Be it emergency, loss of power for 2 times (1979 and 1980's), they never cared for power at the cost of their friendship.

Advani said in a speech,"3 things that made the world look around India are 1) continuation of democracy 2) Ending of license permit raj and hence opening up of indian economy by Narasimha Rao 3)Pokhran II by Vajpayee". This statement reflects the openness of a leader who accepted the rival parties achievement and also that of his own colleague. Advani never told to anyone or any public forum that it was he who brought BJP to power and hence has the right to become PM. On the other hand it was Vajpayee who once stated that the next PM candidate is Advani. The media made a hue and cry about it and created a rift that never existed. Both leaders even at that time were strong and their bonding was never shaken. They always discussed, came to a consensus and then swung into action. This sort of seeking clarity amidst confusion and differences is unparalleled in Indian politics. Even sardar and nehru did not discuss many times because they did not share a close rappo as much as Advani-Vajpayee share.

Some of the friendships in politics which have vanished into a vacuum for the sake of power include Tony Blair-Gordon Brown, MGR-Karunanidhi, Deve Gowda and Siddaramiah and many others. What is unique to these two is that they have always found to clear their differences through discussions . In one of the excerpts I read, Advani says that he could make out anger and happiness from Vajpayee's face and vice versa and then the first thing they did was to sit down and analyze why.

Advani openly admitting that Vajpayee is truly his mentor, his leader and his inspiration cannot be simply done just for any gains for this statement by advani was made both in power and in opposition. Similarly Vajpayee admitting that he is a much misunderstood man and he is an all time comrade and colleague is a further confirmation from the other friend.

What else is more required for a friendship to sustain? Not how they stand in happiness, but in sadness and darkness. Both Vajpayee and Advani are living legends and testimonies to Indian politics post 1947. Their political life is as big as an ocean where they saw deadly sharks and friendly dolphins swim together. Their personal friendship is also as deep as an ocean, not the one that has abyss at the bottom, but one that has endless trust and understanding.

Today, I feel that this unfriendly profession has given me a role model of true friendship. All True friends in the world must at least appreciate that we have a living example of a strong friendship from a profession that breeds enmity, jealousy and hypocrisy. Perhaps as Lord Krishna said- "Learn to be like a lotus that stands unmoved and untouched by the dirt in which it grows", Vajpayee and Advani's friendship is the lotus that will continue to stand amidst the filthy politics forever, untouched and unmoved. Their party symbol is perhaps the symbolic representation of this friendship.

The clash of two invincible titans - Indira and Vajpayee

The times of Indira Gandhi and Vajpayee i.e speeches, arguments between them is perhaps the best times of Parliament sessions. On one hand you had Indira Gandhi who became monarch of India while Vajpayee became the first and the last person to criticize every such move by Indira to mar India. At the same time, Vajpayee never hesitated to praise Indira. On the other hand, we have no record of Indira praising Vajpayee. This section will contain a series of such debates between these 2 titans who could be defeated only by themselves. Both were excellent orators and diplomats and I can wholeheartedly say it was a clash of two giants. These 2 leaders transformed India. Even Nehru can be put behind. But Indira and Vajpayee reshaped, redefined and transformed India in their own way. Both were innovators, pioneers and experts in their own way. No Indian should forget both their contributions

Speech 1:
Feb 26, 1970, Lok Sabha

Vajpayee: PM (Indira) says she could deal with Bharatiya Jan Sangh in minutes. Can any democratic PM speak like this? We are engaged in ideological battle. Fight us at that level.If the people are against you, you will be defeated. She says, "I can take care of Jan Singh in 5 minutes". I said in five minutes you cannot take care even of your hair, how can you deal with us When Nehruji was angry atleast he would make a good speech. We used to tease him. But we cannot do that with Indira. She gets angry on her own.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speech 2:

Feb 26, 1970, Lok sabha. Indira was absent in Lok sabha, but she had attacked Vajpayee and BJS for raising Indianization slogan. She claimed Indianization defined by Vajpayee as one that spreads communalism. One must read this speech and then analyze and conclude that Indira was wrong. The following is what Vajpayee told.

Vajpayee: "These days PM is displeased with Bharatiya Jan Sangh over Indianization programme. Wherever she goes, she comes heavily upon us and does free publicity for us. We thank her for this. But she has either not understood Inidianization properly or she is deliberately trying to mislead people. Indianization is not related to Muslims alone. It includes 52 crore people of the country. Indianization is not a slogan, but a mantra of national reawakening. Nationalization means only one thing - all citizens of India, whatever their language, relations or state, have undivided and unflinching loyalty to India. India must come first, everything else afterwards. Is there anything objectionable in this? Secularism cannot be strengthened in this country by promoting Muslim communalism. Secularism is not just in Congress slogan, it is a mantra that has emerged from the country's culture. Could India have not been declared a Hindu state after independence like Pakistan declared Muslim state as theirs? Why? Because our culture does not permit it. We never said - believe in one book, have faith in one individual, otherwise you will go to hell. But today secularism means anti-Hindu. Like non-alignment this government secularism also has come into suspicion. I take pride in my Hindutva, but this does not mean I am anti-Muslim or I have a quarrel with Islam. Indianization means giving strength to unity - a unity that lies at the root of variety that lies in India which is also an index of richness of our life"

Truly this speech clearly indicates wherever Congress felt it introduced "anti-secular" word to denote all other parties while it(Congress) continued minority (Muslims) appeasement all the time. In another column I will also post all communal policies followed by the Congress. This does not mean BJP never followed any communal policies. They did. But claiming Congress is secular is a gross blunder on any citizen's part.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speech 3:
March 31, 1971
On Bangladesh Liberation
Vajpayee: "We congratulate Sheikh Mujibur Rehman. Nationalism cannot be based on religion. This is East Bengal's very first lesson"
Indira: "You should learn it"
Vajpayee: "We never believed in 2 nation theory. It is completely wrong. When the country was partitioned our party did not even exist. Partition took place even before our birth, and I do not want to point my finger at those responsible for it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speech 4:
Feb 27, 1974
Event: Junior doctors strike in Delhi demanding Rs.500 salary, a city allowance and a non-practising allowance. The government was hell bent on breaking the strike.

Indira: "The very poorest were not complaining or non-coperating or having strikes, but the people who were comparatively better off. I cannot understand this and am surprised"

Vajpayee: "Is there a special effort needed to understand this? The very poor are mute, disorganized, suppressed for centuries, they cannot fight. They freeze to death on the footpath, they cannot loot cloth shops. They may die of starvation, but they won't raid godowns. On the other hand, those who are better off are aware and organized. They would adopt new ways of change. Those who are poor are resigned to their fate,but those who are somewhat enlightened are struggling to change their fate. This is why students, teachers, doctors, engineers are struggling today. Instead of resorting to oppression the government should try and understand their mind. People can be killed with bullets but their hearts cannot be won with bullets."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speech 5:
May 14, 1970:
Biwandi, a place in Maharashtra had witnessed worst communal riots
Vajpayee said that National Integration Council was set up to solve communal problems, but not all national parties including Jan Sangh was a part of it. So Vajpayee was angry and blasted at the very concept of NIC and Indira Gandhi.

Vajpayee: "Who should be included in this council depends upon her (PM Indira). But is she prepared to say anything on Muslim communalists? It is known to all that in Bhawandi the Tamir-i-Millat had vitiated the atmosphere. But did anyone name it? The Shiv Sena is being criticized and it should be..We too are being dragged in. We are not here at the PM's pleasure, we are here in spite of her. We too represent the people of the country. But when there is a question of Muslim communalism, their lips are sealed. What is Jaimat-ul-Ulema doing? What is Jaimat -i-Islami doing? What did Tamir-e-Millat do in Bhawandi?The Maharashtra government demanded a magisterial inquiry and not judicial inquiry. Since partition, the nexus between communalists and communists are on the rise and they have PM's blessings. This is the reason why communalism is growing. if Jan Sangh is wrong, show it to us and we are ready to correct it."

Indira: Sir, I am not speaking just to score points. I have never interrupted any Hon.Member while he was speeaking, I have done now because I felt it deeply, and I also have courage of conviction. Shri Vajpayee has used this occasion mainly to attack Muslims and all minorities in general. He as proclaimed with his hand raised in the old Hitler style.

Another member Shri Kanwar Lal Gupta said to Indira that Indira had taken such a training
Indira: What training I took is the business of Indian people, not yours. I do not know the words Vajpayee used, but he has challenged me for something. I would like to tell him I have never shirked a challenge, and never will. We should face the indian people.

Vajpayee: PM should not lose her control
Indira: I am not losing my control, I am only saying with emphasis. I am not given to losing control over myself
Vajpayee: I am also ready to face any type of challenge
Indira: Please do not talk like that. I am used to Vajpayee ji and his party attacking me and even in public statements they demean me by levelling baseless charges. Mr Vajpayee asked me why these riots start. I do not know but speeches like what Vajpayee has made is enough to start one.
Some members said that his speech must be expunged. I do not want so. I want it remain on record so that future generations could see the real thinking of Jan Sangh- not the forceful Hindi that Shri Vajpayee uses from time to time, but the truth behind the words. We saw naked Fascism today. There would be no one in the country, let alone in the House, who would not have respect for Shivaji. Communalism is bad, whether of hindus or Muslims or Sikhs. It is not true that whenever such a thing has flared up, we have not condemned it. Whenever Muslim organization or individual used inflammatory words we have condemned it. At the same time I have already told that majority community have a special repsonsibility, whoever it be- Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs. Shri Vajpayee said in Ahmedabad that people should not take law in their own hands. But for me the rest of his speech looked as if he is emphasizing one point - we shall not do all this. What does this mean? It means 'we shall take law in our hands, we shall take action, we must take steps'

Vajpayee: I had not said so
Indira: This is what I understood the speec to mean. If this is not the meaning I hope he would clarify what it means and tell people not to do so. His own people are not doing so.

Vajpayee: But Congress can do it. Members of Congress party can do it.
Indira: Vajpayee just declared Muslims started the riots. He asked, why? And he himself gave the answer - because they feel that they cannot live in India. So they are launching this deadly battle.
Vajpayee: This is one reason
Indira: All right, it is one of the reasons
Vajpayee: I had said so...There is nothing wrong in it. It is being objected to..
Indira: No objection is being raised. I would like to read some of the speeches made by members of his party who have said that Muslims cannot live in India unless they are Indianized
Vajpayee: Now, it is my turn to challenge the PM. Let her produce a single speech, and I am prepared to take action against that Jan Sangh leader
Indira: Shri Gowalkar
Vajpayee: Show a single one
Indira: Why one, we will show the whole thing. They are presented in NIC.
Vajpayee: Talk about Jan Sangg, the Jan Sangh
Indira: Talk about whom?
Vajpayee: I am talking about you, not the Jamat Ulema. Othwerwise you will get into difficulties. You have seen what speeches Jamat Ulema made
Indira: We oppose all such speeches, whatever the community or organization the people they may belong to.
Shri R.S. Yadav: The house wants to know what you are going to do
Indira: We will take action required. Already an inquiry has begun. I welcome Vajpayee's speech because for the first time we feel he has come over ground. This is not something which can be solved with a speech..

Wow, what a wonderful conversation. Both leaders were correct and I can say none won or lost. Such debates do no longer take place and it is very sad. This was the height at which an issue was being discussed so openly and effectively.