The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was set up as a military alliance opposed to communist block of countries headed by Soviet Russia. But despite the dismantling of the Soviet block and the end of the War- saw Pact, NATO is not only continuing, it is expanding, bringing in more members. Three former Warsaw Pact members—Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic— are joining NATO this week. Earlier, in 1997 a NATO-Russian council was set up. On superficial analysis, it would appear that NATO has outlived its founding objectives. But it still continues because its West European members have become so dependent on NATO for security that they cannot think of dismantling the NATO which can save them billions worth of investments in arms. Czech Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus defends his country's joining the NATO by saying that it would provide a defence umbrella to the Republic. He adds, "You do not need an enemy waiting at your borders, a small country needs a sense of security. Today everything may be fine but we cannot say what will happen in the future. Looking at what is happening in the former Yugoslavia we naturally tend to worry." Dismantling of NATO may lead to arms race among the present members of the Alliance and could disturb the balance of power in Europe. Today the balance of power in NATO actually is in the hands of USA, the chief architect and financier of NATO—a balance no other member country can afford to disturb. Even Russia would like it to continue. NATO also provides USA military surveillance of and indirectly a global military presence in Europe.

Party first
Party politics is so influencing the actions of leaders of some parties that the common people's interest is being ignored in decision-making. The Bihar issue is a case in point. The Laoo Mafia is ruling the State where there is no rule of law. But the Congress did not support the imposition of President's rule in that State because it wanted to embarrass the BJP-led coalition at the Centre. An additional motivation was a possible alliance with RJD in the elections due later in the year. By its action, however, the Congress has virtually violated the spirit of the Constitution although it had the democratic right to oppose the Bill for approval of use of Article 356 in Parliament. In the bargain, however Congress party's partisan interests took precedent over the interests of the State. There is no other reason for the party ensuring the return of a State Government which in the opinion of the Congress president had lost the moral right to govern.

After the revocation of the President's rule, the Congress tried a damage control exercise by favouring a replacement of Rabri Devi as chief minister. The RJP has ignored the Congress plea. But the issue is not the continuance of Rabri Devi as CM. As long as the RJD government continues, it does not matter as to who is the Chief Minister. The defacto ruler is Laloo, and it is Laloo Mafia which is the scourge of Bihar. The Congress knows it but partisan interests have made it blind to the stark reality.

Rubbish
A committee of members of Parliament will look into the circumstances and reasons that led to the dismissal of former Naval Chief Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. The opposition in Parliament had demanded a discussion on the subject but the Government was against an open discussion on sensitive issues involving the dismissal. After a lot of heated exchanges, however, the Government proposed that a small panel of MPs should first look at the papers concerning the dismissal and then decide if an open discussion should be held. The Government is confident that once the panel goes through the relevant facts, it is most likely to decide against an open debate as any discussion on the dismissal could bring in sensitive military issues.

A discussion on the arms deals, on the other hand, will also lead to a dicussion on the alleged arms lobby which, according to Ms Nilofar Bhagwat and the Admiral himself, led to his sack. But Bhagwat and his wife should know that any discussion on this aspect will sure bring in for public scrutiny Bhagwat's own promotion as naval chief. If as per Bhagwat, the arms lobby was calling the shots, how did he get his promotion without the backing of the arms lobby.

It appears that the real target of opposition is not either the dismissal of Bhagwat or the appointment of Harinder Singh as the Deputy Naval Chief. The real target is Defence Minister George Fernandez. George has welcomed the discussion on the subject and is believed to be raring to turn the tables on the opposition—and of course on Bhagwat whose allegations, in George's words, are rubbish, and that whatever has been done is under the law of the land and within the Constitution.

'Dawn' on rebellious trait in Bhagwat
Meanwhile commenting on the dismissal of Bhagwat, M.H. Askari writes in Karachi's 'Dawn' (Frebruary 3) that the Government should have been alerted against rebellious trait in Bhagwat in 1990.
Askari writes: "There is reason to believe that Adm Bhagwat's forced retirement was something of a critical event in the history of India's armed services not very different from what happened in 1962 when Lt Gen B.M. Kaul, a cousin of Nehru, was appointed Chief of General Staff (the second most important appointment in the GHQ's hierarchy) against the wishes of the then Army chief, Gen K.S. Thimayya who threatened to resign on the issue. However, he was persuaded by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to withdraw his resignation. Likewise in 1996-97 the then vice Chief of the Army Staff, Lt Gen S.K. Sinha actually resigned when he was passed over for appointment as Chief of the Army Staff. There have also been near-mutinies in India's armed forces on a number of occasions over decisions taken by the governments.

"It is to be said to the credit of the Indian system that in practically all such cases the will of the political government has ultimately prevailed. As some Indian commentators have pointed out in Adm Bhagwat's case, the Indian Constitution has clearly established the principle of civilian supremacy but in operational terms the armed forces have enjoyed a degree of autonomy, 'in conformity with the established code and with the Lakshman Rekha (critical dividing line a la Hindu mythology) that neither side has wilfully violated or transgressed.

It has been suggested that Adm Bhagwat tried to cross this critical Lakhshman Rekha but was checked by the political authority in the nick of time. The events leading up to the Admiral's retirement are becoming somewhat clearer as the dust kicked up in the aftermath of the event settles down. For instance, it has now been revealed that in 1990 when he was overlooked for an operational command, he had filed a 400-page writ petition in the Bombay High Court, presumed to have been drafted by his lawyer wife, Niloufer, levelling accusations at the then Chief of the Naval Staff Adm J.G. Nadkarni and some other senior officers.

"Although the matter was eventually resolved out of court and Bhagwat was given the command of the Western Fleet which was what he wanted, it should have alerted the government (but did not) against a somewhat rebellious trait in Bhagwat's character. It appears that the admiral's confrontation with the Vajpayee government began in June last year when he recommended a panel of names for appointment of three principal staff officers in the Naval Headquarters. However, he recommended only one name for the appointment of an officer as his Deputy Chief of the Naval Staff, something that was seen by the Ministry of Defence as disregarding the claims of some very eligible officers.

"Defence Secretary Ajit Kumar (a senior civil servant) asked Adm Bhagwat to reconsider the matter as it was 'not in accordance with the established practice of giving due consideration to seniority.' However, Adm Bhagwat took the position that 'suitability and fitness took priority over seniority'. Ajit Kumar regarded this as contrary to the considerations of morale and fighting efficiency of the serving officers.

"The Minsitry's response also referred to what it called an 'undersirable trend' in some individuals to use 'devious means to attain their ends.' The officer overlooked by Adm Bhagwat happened to be a Sikh, Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh and his name was not included in the panel submitted to the Ministry of Defence by Bhagwat even after Ajit Kumar had advised him to do so. Defence Minister George Fernandes looked upon this as altogether unacceptable.

"Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee also tried to persuade Adm Bhagwat not to be too obdurate, but the latter continued to resist and on December 26, Fernandes asked for his dismissal. The Cabinet committee on Security decided to accept the recommendation on December 28 and appointed Admiral Sushil Kumar to replace Adm Bhagwat. At the same time the services of Defence Secretary Ajit Kumar were also terminated (sic), perhaps to give the impression that both the Defence Ministry and the military establishment were being treated alike."

Tohra's fate sealed
There appears to be no end to the Tohra-Badal stand off and firm indications are available that Sardar Gurcharan Singh Tohra, SGPC President for the last 25 years, will be voted out at the requisitioned meeting of the general house of the SGPC on March 16 as at least 136 members having voting rights (180 members out of 185 have voting rights) are believed to have attended a meeting in Chandigarh on March 12 presided over by Shri Parkash Singh Badal who was authorised to name a successor to Tohra. The Badal camp has convened the meeting on 16 to upstage a meeting of the general house of SGPC convened by Tohra on March 22. The Badal camp has maintained that the meeting convened on March 22 should have been under section 63 of SGPC act of 1925 and not under section 57. It was pointed that a no-confidence motion could not be moved at a meeting held under section 57. Such a motion can be moved only under section 63 of the Act. Tohra was accused of deliberately opting for a meeting under section 57 to stall his removal.

Meanwhile Tohra has again offered to step down provided the Badal camp recognised suspended Jathedar Bhai Ranjeet Singh as rightful Jathedar of Akal Takht and the ten members of SGPC executive apologised for suspending the Jathedar. Tohra also announced separate celebration of the tercentenary of the Khalsa under the guidance and leadership of Bhai Ranjeet Singh—a development pregnant with far reaching consequences in Sikh affairs.