Aakar Patel - Manohar Parrikar and his big mouth
Parrikar has violated the two oaths he takes on being sworn in as a minister. The wording is that he will act 'in accordance with the Constitution and the law,' which his 'using terrorists' statements are in violation of. The other oath is that of secrecy.
Defence ministers should carry a big stick, but speak softly. In Manohar Parrikar, an intellectual who studied at the elite IIT, India has got the opposite: Someone with a small stick and a very big mouth. In May 21, he spoke of using terrorists as State policy. His words as quoted were: 'There are certain things that I obviously cannot discuss here.' However, he then went on to discuss them, saying: 'If there is any country -why only Pakistan -- planning something against my country, we will definitely take some pro-active steps.' Using a Hindi phrase he said, 'kante se kanta nikalna. We have to neutralise terrorists through terrorists only. Why can't we do it? We should do it. Why does my soldier have to do it?'
Defence ministers should carry a big stick, but speak softly. In Manohar Parrikar, an intellectual who studied at the elite IIT, India has got the opposite: Someone with a small stick and a very big mouth. In May 21, he spoke of using terrorists as State policy. His words as quoted were: 'There are certain things that I obviously cannot discuss here.' However, he then went on to discuss them, saying: 'If there is any country -why only Pakistan -- planning something against my country, we will definitely take some pro-active steps.' Using a Hindi phrase he said, 'kante se kanta nikalna. We have to neutralise terrorists through terrorists only. Why can't we do it? We should do it. Why does my soldier have to do it?'
India has tried the 'use terrorists against terrorists'
approach and it has failed. It has failed in Kashmir, where in the 1990s the
Congress government decided to spare the military and arm opponents of the
Jamaat-e-Islami and other Islamist groups. This experiment ended very soon, and
its leader Kukka Parray was later killed by the militants who remained
dominant.
The experiment has also failed in central India, where the
state has fielded armed militias against Maoists, who have since turned against
the helpless population. It is remarkable that a minister should have, given
this experience, even considered saying what Parrikar did. The Opposition was predictably aghast and P Chidambaram said
this was 'a terrible statement by the defence minister. I hope he recognises
the enormity of the statement he made and quickly finds a way to withdraw it.'
'India,' Chidambaram added, 'has not deployed any terrorists
or criminal elements in any part of Pakistan during the past 10 years of the
UPA government and I believe that the NDA government also did not and will not
do it... His statement is completely out of line and he should withdraw it
immediately.'
In fact, Parrikar doubled down on his bombast. He said on
May 26 that he would 'go to any extent to protect India' and those who attack
will be 'paid back in the same coin.' In Pakistan, this was seen as validation of its claims that
India was meddling in Baluchistan and elsewhere and supporting violence against
the country. It should have been obvious to everyone in the BJP government that
such a statement might bring a few seconds of applause, but was damaging in the
long term. A Coast Guard officer who bragged about shooting a Pakistani boat
made the same mistake and came into trouble a few months ago.
In my view, Parrikar has violated the two oaths he takes on
being sworn in as a minister. The wording is that he will act 'in accordance
with the Constitution and the law,' which his 'using terrorists' statements are
in violation of. The other oath is that of secrecy. All governments play
mischief because international law is vague, but few ministers go on to boast
about it.
Parrikar's oath of secrecy binds him to 'not directly or
indirectly communicate or reveal to any person or persons any matter which
shall be brought under my consideration' except 'as may be required for the due
discharge of my duties.' This bragging of his, if he was indeed revealing State
policy, was not required for due discharge of his duties.
Parrikar accepts that India is a poor nation with few
resources. To retired servicemen demanding equal pensions, Parrikar said:
'People do not know the financial implications of this,' justifying his delay. Under his watch, India's air force will get 36 new Rafale
fighter planes instead of 126. This may be for many reasons, but surely the
Budget is one of them. Parrikar has also cut the plan for a mountain warfare unit to be cut from 80,000
men to 35,000.
'Where is the money?' he says, to support grand schemes. He
is quite right in saying this. He should concentrate his time and energy on
acquiring a bigger stick, rather than forgetting, as he did over this bragging
of using terrorists, to speak softly.
