Post Civil Services Retirement Sinecures and Corruption in India

Post Retirement Sinecures and Corruption

 

As I had studied the Indian Constitution a bit , having gone to CAT in 1986, after retirement in 1996 I had written to some batch mates that it may be worthwhile to file a petition in the Supreme Court that posts after retirement, such as in CAT, UPSC, Appellate authorities should be like for CVC ,Election Commission transparent and open to all qualified serving or retired IAS and IPS and other civil service officers as guaranteed in the Constitution and not left to the whims of the ruling governments of India or the states . There was no response .I may be uncharitable but some of them might have thought that they hoped for some assignments themselves and did not want to muddy their chances. Many of them did get some such post retirement jobs 'on merit'

 

As we have seen over the years with the political class getting more and more corrupted and degenerate it has badly affected the working of civil services. If not already at 50, civil servants belonging to IAS, IPS and IRS start looking for patrons i.e. ministers and MPs and even MLAs to arrange for employment after retirement .The political class of ministers and members of Parliament have since decades looked for pliable officers and have made them take many irregular decisions even before retirement. Such pliable and corrupt officers are then recommended and appointed to post retirement jobs .This has been exposed through the miasma of corruption which has cast a dark shadow over the fairness of the governance.

 

Recently the Indian Express investigated into how many civil servants managed to get sinecure jobs after retirement .It is given below and speaks for it. Many of us were beneficiary of the system although some of them might claim that it was based on their merit. The only thing achieved by merit however subjective it might be was UPSC selection into civil services. After that caste community religion all these matters come into play and have played havoc with Administration in this country. In the Ottoman and earlier empires, even when the rulers had lost their qualities of leadership, the bureaucrats, say the grand Viziers in the Ottoman Empire, which lasted for over 500 years ,were able to steer the wheel of the state based on merit and loyalty to the state. Does Indian bureaucracy show loyalty to the state and not to caste, religion, region and language etc?

 

Unfortunately the system provides no protection to honest civil service officers or even whistle blowers. Those especially in IAS and IPS can be transferred on the spur of the moment. How long can you fight. There have been some very commendable cases but most of them as a Supreme Court judge recently advised Gen VK Singh court to blow with the wind did so. The list below is of those who blew with the wind and have done well for themselves but not for the country or the system itself.

Alas very few such opportunities for IFS , so unlike 1950s and 60s ,IFS is no longer the most sought after servic.

Mera Bharat Mahan 

Former, not ex: How retd babus never retire

Shyamlal Yadav : New Delhi, Mon Jul 09 2012,

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/former-not-ex-how-retd-babus-never-retire/971961/0

 

It may have started as a rare measure to utilise the talent or domain expertise of a veteran bureaucrat after his or her official tenure. But what began as an exception to the norm seems to have morphed into almost a new cadre — that of officers as lifetime civil servants.

The range of sinecures available to them include some they may have coveted or worked towards while in service, while others they get as rewards for their service to the establishment. Some among them hop from one post-retirement pasture to another until age runs out on them or there is a change in the party or alliance in power.

Information accessed by The Indian Express, including through the RTI Act, shows a disproportionately large number of retired IAS and IPS officers, and to a smaller extent those retired from services such as revenue, foreign, postal and audits and accounts, appointed to government and quasi-government bodies.

Details of nearly 90 such appointments made in recent years show these civil servants being parked as governors, information commissioners, and as heads or members of a slew of bodies such as the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), Central Information Commission, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Most of these posts enjoy the rank of secretary to the government of India or above. In case of some officers, new positions have been created to accommodate them.

Such as T K A Nair, who had a long stint in the Prime Minister's Office as principal secretary to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The retired, 1963-batch Punjab-cadre IAS officer was named as Adviser in the PMO, a post which did not exist. He has the rank and status of a minister of state and holds office until further orders. On the other side of the high walls that separate the PMO and Rashtrapati Bhavan, Christy Fernandez, secretary to outgoing president Pratibha Patil, is a retired 1973-batch Gujarat-cadre IAS officer.

IAS and IPS officers seem to be in high demand for the job of governors. Of the 27 governors and three lieutenant governors in the country, seven are former IPS officers and four former IAS officers. The IAS-officers-turned-governors include N N Vohra (Jammu and Kashmir), who retired in 1994; Balmiki Prasad Singh (Sikkim), who retired in 2002; and Shekhar Dutta (Chhattisgarh), who retired in 2009. Tejinder Khanna, who retired in 1996, is the lieutenant governor of Delhi.

Their IPS counterparts include M K Narayanan (West Bengal), who retired way back in 1992 and was also national security adviser; B L Joshi (Uttar Pradesh), who quit the IPS to join an NGO in 1991; and Gurbachan Jagat (Manipur), a Punjab-cadre officer who served as chief of the Jammu and Kashmir Police and the Border Security Force before retiring in 2002.

Before being appointed governor, Jagat was also the chairman of the UPSC. Joshi, considered close to the Nehru-Gandhi family, was the lieutenant governor of Delhi and the governor of Uttarakhand before being moved to the more crucial state of Uttar Pradesh.

In fact, seven of the UPSC's nine members are former bureaucrats. They include former UP chief secretary P K Mishra, former defence secretary Vijay Singh, former Department of Personnel and Training secretary Alka Sirohi and former Haryana-cadre IAS officer Rajni Razdan. The other three are a former IFS officer, an ex-IPS officer and an ex-postal service officer.

The move to make the government transparent through the Right To Information Act has also opened up new avenues for these retired bureaucrats, as chief information commissioners and information commissioners at the Centre and states. The RTI Act says, "The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance."

Seven of the nine members of the CIC, including its chief, are former bureaucrats, in what seems an unusual stress on the "administration and governance" criterion of the selection. In fact, of the 29 chief information commissioners in the country, including the one at the Centre, 22 are former IAS officers. And of the 54 information commissioners, 29 are former civil servants, including 16 with an IAS background.

Former bureaucrats have made their way into even bodies such as the NCM, which traditionally had representatives from a cross section of communities. The commission is now headed by Wajahat Habibullah, a former IAS officer who was also the country's first chief information commissioner. Its vice-chairman H T Sangliana is a well-known IPS officer from Karnataka who went on to contest elections after his retirement and represented the BJP in the Lok Sabha. One of the three members of the commission is K N Daruwala, a retired 1958-batch IPS officer.

Similarly, the heads of the SC and ST commissions, P L Punia and Rameshwar Oraon, had served as IAS and IPS officers respectively, before joining politics. The NHRC has as its members former IFS officer Satyabrata Pal and former IPS officer P C Sharma. A former CBI director, Sharma is serving his second term in the NHRC.

CAT has traditionally been populated by former IAS officers and of the six Member (Administrative) posts in Delhi, four are occupied by them. CAT has 17 benches across the country, including its principal bench in Delhi, and of the 34 Members (Administrative), 25 retired from the IAS.

Of the 28 members at the National Manufacturing Competitive Council, which includes serving bureaucrats as well, is Ajay Shankar, who retired from the IAS in 2009 and happens to be the husband of former Indian ambassador to the US Meera Shankar. Similarly, two of the nine members of the National Disaster Management Authority, which is headed by the prime minister, are former IAS officers: former food secretary T Nand Kumar and former home secretary V K Duggal.

The chairman of the Competition Commission of India, Ashok Chawla, and three of the six other members are former IAS officers. While the chairman is paid a consolidated salary of Rs 3.75 lakh a month, the members get Rs 3.12 lakh. Again, five of the eight members of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are retired IAS officers.

Retired IAS officer Sanjeev Mishra has been appointed to the Finance Commission while the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission has Pramod Deo and M Deena Dayalam. Another retired IAS officer, J Hariharan, has been appointed to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. And last month, the National Highways Authority of India got a chairman after remaining without a full-time head for 17 months: Rajinder Pal Singh, a retired, Madhya Pradesh-cadre IAS officer.

 

Below is a list of 24 IAS officers investigated for corruption during a period of 15 months only .This is only a tip of the iceberg. No state / kingdom can survive without good admn .Can babus be honest and survive now a days .Almost impossible. They will have to make a choice using GV 's cute phrase. Still Ramki suffered and left IAS. Bando survived as a few others and remained upright.

 

In some ways we from 1961 batch were lucky as corruption was not so rampant among political class who can now even transfer any officer on the spot .The situation became difficult from mid 1980s .I felt the pressure of politicians and MPs while CMD IDPL , but it was tolerable .But once my support VC Tripathy passed away , I had to leave .

 

When I joined loss making IDPL ,TOI in frontpage piece had forecast a loss of $ 35 to 40 million .I kept it to 25 as previous year .After I had left it jumped to 50 million .Any appreciation or reward .Have a heart ,The then FS Venketasaran even tried to stop me joining MEA.He now pontificates on IFS google group . I have contempt for many FS's in MEA. But they are part of our corrupt society and system , what if they are in pinstripes .

 

Is there any hope .None for the time being .Even Anna has been tired out . Churchill must be laughing in his grave .

 

Churchill had this to say during the debate in British Parliament on the grant of independence to India in 1947. "Liberty is man's birth right. However to give the reins of government to Congress at the juncture, is to hand over the destiny of hungry millions into the hands of rascals, rogues and freebooters. Not a bottle of water or a loaf of bread shall escape taxation; only the air will be free and the blood of these hungry millions will be on the head of Mr. Atlee. India will be lost in political squabbles...It will take a thousand years for them to enter the periphery of philosophy or politics. Today, we hand over the reins of government to men of straw of whom no trace will be found after a few years."

 

CBI probes a record number of babus

Rahul Tripathi : New Delhi, Mon Aug 27 2012, Ind Express

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cbi-probes-a-record-number-of-babus/993485/0

 

A record number of IAS officers, 24, have been investigated by the CBI in corruption cases between January 2011 and March this year. They came under the agency's scanner for their alleged role in land scams, disproportionate assets cases and for taking policy decisions that favoured private parties, according to information available with the CBI.

The alleged role of many of these bureaucrats came to light through responses to RTI queries. CBI officials said the agency had secured sanction for prosecuting many of these officers under Section 19 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and would soon file chargesheets. It is mandatory for the CBI to get the approval of the Department of Personnel and Training to prosecute officials.

Some of the high-profile bureaucrats under investigation:

JAIRAJ PHATAK: The 1978-batch, Maharashtra-cadre officer is accused in the Adarsh Housing Society scam. Phatak had served as principal secretary in the state urban development department. He is accused of allowing the height of the building in Mumbai to be raised beyond 100m without the approval of the high-rise committee of the civic body. His son got a flat in Adarsh, allegedly as quid pro quo.

PRADEEP VYAS: A co-accused in the Adarsh scam, Vyas was arrested by the CBI recently. A 1989-batch IAS officer of the Maharashtra cadre, Vyas, during his tenure as district collector of Mumbai from August 2002 to May 2005, allegedly connived with the other accused and accepted false documents as proof of of income and granted membership to Adarsh to those not eligible. His wife Seema Vyas, also an IAS officer, owns a flat in Adarsh.

K SURESH KUMAR: A 1982-batch, Madhya Pradesh-cadre IAS officer, Kumar has been booked for allegedly allowing the berthing of a foreign vessel in violation of rules in 2007. The ship allegedly had neither valid papers nor crew on board. By allowing it to dock and not collecting payments, including additional berth hire charges, demurrage and legal expenses, a loss of over Rs 20 crore was allegedly caused to the government. The CBI seized Rs 2.36 crore during raids on Kumar's home.

B V SELVARAJ: A 1981-batch, UT-cadre IAS officer, Selvaraj allegedly took a bribe from a contractor promising him government contracts when he was posted as administrator in Lakshadweep.

ABRAHUM VARICKAMACKAL: A 1998-batch UT-cadre IAS officer, Varickamackal allegedly abused his official position between 2006 and 2009 and entered into a conspiracy with a government contractor named Kassim. The CBI has alleged that Varickamackal without authorisation awarded contracts to Kassim for supply of river sand and granite chips from the mainland to the islands of Lakshadweep, and that he was was later joined in the conspiracy by his senior, Selvaraj.

B P ACHARYA: A 1983-batch IAS officer, Acharya was charged in a case of corruption related to industrial infrastructure in Hyderabad. Acharya was arrested in January this yea, when he was the home secretary of Andhra Pradesh. He was previously the managing director of APIIC.

L V SUBRAMANYAM: Another 1983-batch IAS officer from Andhra Pradesh, Subramanyam was facing charges of corruption in the Emmar-MGF scam. He and his batchmate Acharya have been accused of bungling in a properties scam involving former Andhra Pradesh chief minister Y S R Reddy.

Y SRILAXMI: A 1988-batch IAS officer from Andhra Pradesh, Srilaxmi has been accused of showing preferential treatment to the owner of Obulapuram Mining Company. Srilakshmi was Andhra Pradesh's secretary for industries.

O RAVI: A 1983-batch IAS officer, Ravi was arrested by the CBI for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs 25 lakh from Daman and Diu-based distilleries. The CBI had alleged that favours shown to the distilleries resulted in a loss of Rs 340 crore to the exchequer. Ravi was posted as joint secretary in the Union Home Ministry before his arrest.

SADA KANT: A 1983-batch IAS officer from Uttar Pradesh, Kant was under the scanner for his alleged role in the award of a contract involving a high-altitude road in Leh. He was repatriated to his parent cadre by the Home Ministry where he was posted as joint secretary, border management.

MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL: A 1990-batch West Bengal-cadre IAS officer, Aggarwal was under the scanner of the CBI for allegedly amassing wealth beyond his known source of income.

PARIMAL RAI: The high profile senior bureaucrat is being probed for his alleged role in the CWG scam. A 1985-batch IAS officer, Rai was the chairman of NDMC at the time of the CWG. He was booked by the CBI in connection with alleged irregularities in the construction of a convention centre, which resulted in a loss of Rs 15 crore.

RAKESH MOHAN: A 1978-batch IAS officer, Mohan, during his stint as Delhi government's financial commissioner, allegedly took a bribe of Rs 3 crore from a private company for awarding a contract for the renovation of Delhi Jal Board's pipelines at an over-valued cost of Rs 35.84 crore.

VINOD KUMAR: A 1989-batch IAS officer, Kumar is named in seven cases in the Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation which involve a total of Rs 475 crore.

PRADEEP SHUKLA: A 1981-batch IAS officer, Shukla is accused in Uttar Pradesh's National Rural Health Mission scam. The topper of his batch, Shukla has held several important portfolios in UP. His wife Anuradha Shukla is also an IAS officer and is posted in UP.

K DHANALAKSHMI GOWDA: A 2000-batch IAS officer, Gowda's name was linked to the UPSIDC land scam. The house of the IAS officer from Uttar Pradesh was raided by the CBI on suspicion that she had amassed more wealth than her known sources of income.

SIDDHARTHA BEHURA: Behura was arrested by the CBI in the 2G scam along with former telecom minister A Raja. A 1973-batch, UP cadre IAS officer, Behura is alleged to be one of the key conspirators in the 2G scam. Behura had retired by the time of his arrest. He has been chargesheeted by the CBI along with Raja and others.

Dr PRADEEP KUMAR: A former health secretary of Jharkhand, Kumar was on the run for several months after being named by the CBI in an NRHM scam. A 1991-batch IAS officer, he has been accused of being involved in the scam worth Rs 130 crore, taking a bribe of Rs 4.85 lakh in a logistics scandal and acquiring disproportionate assets.

DEBADITYA CHAKRABORTY: A 1976-batch IAS officer of the West Bengal cadre, Chakraborty was arrested for his alleged involvement in a Rs 125 crore scam in Kolkata. He was accused of misappropriating funds in an iron ore export deal involving a Chinese firm.

R M JAMIR: A 1977-batch IAS officer of the West Bengal cadre, Jamir is allegedly involved in the same case as Chakraborty.

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA: A 1981-batch IAS officer from Bihar, Sharma is being probed in a disproportionate assets case.

A confirmed gravy train ticket called 'Secretary (Personnel)'

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-confirmed-gravy-train-ticket-called-secretary-personnel/972918/0

 

Amitav Ranjan : New Delhi, Wed Jul 11 2012

 

While not all senior bureaucrats can be sure of a post-retirement position, those retiring as secretary in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions are a glaring exception.

Ten of the 11 officers who have served as secretaries (personnel) since the end of 1998 were accommodated with a position in the establishment just ahead of or immediately after superannuation. The eleventh is believed to have missed out only because of a controversy he apparently could not tackle adequately.

Although not a high-profile posting in terms of its visibility, the secretary (personnel) is extremely powerful as the office literally functions like the human resource arm of the government. It is responsible for appointments of bureaucrats, clearance of their vigilance files, and transfers and sanctions for prosecution among other things. The ministry also has administrative control over the CBI.

The trend goes back to December 1998 when Brij Bihari Tandon took over as secretary from Arvind Varma. After he relinquished charge on June 13, 2001, Tandon, a 1966-batch officer of Himachal Pradesh cadre, was appointed election commissioner and went on to become the chief election commissioner. During his tenure as EC, he was also made a member of the Delimitation Commission in July 2002.

* His successor Ajay Kumar Agarwal, a Madhya Pradesh-cadre, 1966-batch officer, was appointed member of the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) just two months after his superannuation in November 2002, and vice-chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai bench, in November 2003.

* S S Dawra, a 1967-batch, Punjab-cadre officer, succeeded Agarwal and retired in October 2003. Although he was tipped to become a member of the PESB, the change of guard at the Centre in the summer of 2004 apparently ruined his chances. But he went on to become chairman of the Punjab Revenue Commission and a director at Food Corporation of India.

* Dawra's successor Arun Bhatnagar, another 1966-batch officer from Madhya Pradesh cadre, had better luck under UPA I. Bhatnagar, who served a mere eight months as secretary in the ministry, was appointed secretary to the National Advisory Council, after the cabinet adopted the Common Minimum Programme and decided to set up the council.

Headed by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, it became inactive when the office of profit controversy forced Gandhi to resign. When the NAC was wound up in 2008 — it was later reconstituted in 2010 — Bhatnagar was shifted to Prasar Bharati as its chairman in May 2008, replacing M V Kamath. Kamath, who had been appointed by the NDA government, still had a year's term left.

* A N Tiwari, a 1969-batch, Andhra Pradesh-cadre officer, replaced Bhatnagar as secretary (personnel). He opted for voluntary retirement on December 26, 2005, five days before his superannuation, only to join as information commissioner on December 28, 2005.

* The next bureaucrat in the post, Pratyush Sinha, a 1969-batch officer from the Bihar cadre, served a mere seven months and was made the Central Vigilance Commissioner on retirement.

* Lalit Kumar Joshi, a 1970-batch, Madhya Pradesh-cadre officer, took over from Sinha, but only for six months. He retired in January 2007 and within a month was made vice-chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi bench.

* Joshi's successor was another Madhya Pradesh-cadre officer of the 1973 batch, Satyananda Mishra. He did not wait for his superannuation and resigned on September 12, 2008, to join as information commissioner. In the process, he became information commissioner ahead of two others who were being appointed as commissioners — M L Sharma and Annapurna Dixit — retained seniority and went on to become the chief information commissioner.

* A 1974-batch, Jharkhand-cadre officer, Rahul Sarin, succeeded Mishra. He retired in August 2009 and was thought to be in the running for the post of election commissioner. However, he had to make do with the post of member in the Appellate Tribunal of the Competition Commission of India.

* The tradition of the secretary (personnel) getting a comfortable post-retirement government position was broken by Shantanu Consul, a 1974-batch, Karnataka-cadre officer. Consul was appointed as a member of the high-level Shunglu committee to look into the organisation and conduct of Commonwealth Games 2010. When the Shunglu report alleged irregularities in the organisation of the games, Consul reportedly ruined his chances of a sinecure.

* Consul was succeeded by his batchmate from the Madhya Pradesh cadre, Alka Sirohi. About a month before her retirement in January 2012, she was appointed a member of the Union Public Service Commission. Sirohi had a month to go before her retirement in January 2012 but her UPSC appointment order came on January 3, a day before her 60th birthday. She joined the UPSC the next day, ensuring she would get a full tenure there and hopefully make it to the post of chairperson.

(Concluded)

 

Executive-legislature separation fails as retired babus head LS, RS secretariats

Shyamlal Yadav : New Delhi, Thu Jul 12 2012

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/executivelegislature-separation-fails-as-retired-babus-head-ls-rs-secretariats/973165/0

 

The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have separate services of officers who are responsible for the administration and functioning of the two houses of Parliament. This exclusive service, called the Parliament Secretariat Service, was considered necessary by the founding fathers of the constitution to separate the legislature from the other arms of the state and preserve its independence.

However, over the years, the top jobs in these services — called the secretary-general — have been cornered by retired IAS officers, particularly in the Rajya Sabha, causing disaffection among parliament secretariat service officers who would otherwise have risen to head their cadre. While the current and the previous two secretaries-general of the Rajya Sabha are retired IAS officers, the incumbent secretary-general of the Lok Sabha is an Indian Legal Service officer.

Government sources said that there are no clear rules governing these appointments which are made on contracts and the contract of incumbent secretary-general of the Rajya Sabha, VK Agnihotri, a retired Andhra Pradesh cadre IAS officer, is being renewed every year. In fact, the term of the secretary-general of the Rajya Sabha has become co-terminus with that of the presiding officer of the house, who is the Vice-President, in the case of the three retired IAS officers who have held this post.

More than the qualification for the job, sources say that the retired IAS officer's rapport with the presiding officer of the house which leads to the appointment of the secretary-general. The secretary-general enjoys the rank, perks and allowances of the cabinet secretary. While the secretary-general from within the parliament secretariat service has to retire at 62 as in the case of the cabinet secretary, there is no such age limit for retired IAS officers appointed on contract.

Agnihotri, who will be 67 next month, member (administrative) at the principal bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal before being appointed to head the Rajya Sabha service in October 2007.

His predecessor, Yogendra Narain, an IAS officer from the Uttar Pradesh cadre, was defence secretary before he retired and was appointed as Rajya Sabha secretary-general in 2002. Narain's predecessor was also another retired, UP cadre IAS officer, RC Tripathi. He was named to the job in 1997.

The tradition of bureaucrats moving to the Rajya Sabha secretariat service was started in 1993 with the appointment of VS Ramadevi, a retired Indian Legal Service officer. Like Ramadevi, the current Lok Sabha secretary-general, TK Vishwanathan, is also a retired Indian Legal Service officer. He was appointed in August 2010 and turns 64 in October. S. Gopalan is the only retired IAS officer who has been secretary-general of the Lok Sabha. The retired Kerala cadre officer served for three years from 1996.

Last year, a Lok Sabha Secretariat official, NK Sapra, challenged the decision to appoint Vishwanathan on contract but the Supreme Court turned down his appeal.

Retired bureaucrats as Rajya Sabha Secretary-General

VK Agnihotri, IAS Andhra Pradesh: since October 2007

Yogendra Narain, IAS Uttar Pradesh: Sept 2002 to Sept 2007

RC Tripathi, IAS, Uttar Pradesh: October 1997 to August 2002

VS Ramadevi, Indian Legal Service: July 1993 to July 1997

Retired Bureaucrats as Lok sabha Secretary-General

T K Vishwanathan, Indian Legal Service: Since August 2010

S Gopalan, IAS Kerala: July 1996 to July 1999

 

 

Served still serving

Indians Always in Service
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/served-still-serving/971939/0

Part 1

S U Tripathi

Retired from: IFS

Became: Member, UPSC

P K Mishra

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Member, UPSC

Vijay Singh

Retired from: IAS, MP

Became: Member, UPSC

Alka Sirohi

Retired from: IAS, MP

Became: Member, UPSC

Rajni Razdan

Retired from: IAS, Haryana

Became: Member, UPSC

K K Paul

Retired from: IPS, UT

Became: Member, UPSC

I M G Khan

Retired from: IPoS

Became: Member, UPSC

B K Chaturvedi

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Member, Planning Commission

Wajahat Habibullah

Retired from: IAS, J&K

Became: Chairman, National Commission for Minorities

H T Sangliana

Retired from: IPS,

Karnataka

Became: Vice Chairman,

National Commission for

Minorities

K N Daruwala

Retired from: IPS

Became: Member, National Commission for Minorities

M K Narayanan

Retired from: IPS, Tamil Nadu

Became: Governor, West Bengal

E S L Narasimhan

Retired from: IPS, Andhra Pradesh

Became: Governor, Andhra Pradesh

Shekhar Dutta

Retired from: IAS, MP

Became: Governor,

Chhattisgarh

B V Wanchoo

Retired from: IPS, West

Bengal

Became: Governor, Goa

N N Vohra

Retired from: IAS, Punjab

Became: Governor, Jammu and Kashmir

Gurbachan Jagat

Retired from: IPS, Punjab

Became: Governor, Manipur

R S Mooshahary

Retired from: IPS, Kerala

Became: Governor,

Meghalaya

Nikhil Kumar

Retired from: IPS, UT

Became: Governor,

Nagaland

Balmiki Prasad Singh

Retired from: IAS,

Assam-Meghalaya

Became: Governor, Sikkim

B L Joshi

Retired from: IPS, Rajasthan

Became: Governor, Uttar Pradesh

tejendra Khanna

Retired from: IAS, Punjab

Became: Lt Governor, Delhi

Satyanand Mishra

Retired from: IAS, MP

Became: Chief Information Commissioner, CIC

Vijay Sharma

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Information

Commissioner, CIC

Rajiv Mathur

Retired from: IPS, UP

Became: Information

Commissioner, CIC

M L Sharma

Retired from: IPS, Rajasthan

Became: Information

Commissioner, CIC

Deepak Sandhu

Retired from: IIS

Became: Information

Commissioner, CIC

Sushma Singh

Retired from: IAS, Jharkhand

Became: Information

Commissioner, CIC

T Nand Kumar

Retired from: IAS, Jharkhand

Became: Member, NDMA

Jyoti K Sinha

Retired from: IPS, Bihar

Became: Member, NDMA

K M Singh

Retired from: IPS,

Maharashtra

Became: Member, NDMA

Pramod Deo

Retired from: IAS

Became: Chairman, Central Electricity Regulatory

Commission

M Deena Dayalam

Retired from: IAAS

Became: Member, Central Electricity Regulatory

Commission

Lakshmi Chand

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Member, National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Tribes

Dr Anupam Dasgupta

Retired from: IAS,

Maharashtra

Became: Member, National Consumer Disputes

Reddressal Commission

S K Naik

Retired from: IAS, Punjab

Became: Member, National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission

Vineeta Rai

Retired from: IAS, UT

Became: Member, National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission

Vinay Kumar

Retired from: IAS,

Karnataka

Became: Member, National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission

Suresh Chandra

Retired from: IAS,

Maharashtra

Became: Member, National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission

P L Punia

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Chairman, National Commission for SC

Rameshwar Oraon

Retired from: IPS, Jharkhand

Became: Chairman, National Commission for ST

S S N Murthy

Retired from: IRS

Became: Member, Securities Appellate Tribunal

P K Malhotra

Retired from: ILS

Became: Member, Securities Appellate Tribunal

S Krishnan

Retired from: IAS,

Uttarakhand

Became: Chairman, Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board

Yashwant S Bhave

Retired from: IAS,

Maharashtra

Became: Chairman, Airports Economic Regulatory

Authority

Prakash Chand

ChhotAray

Retired from: IRS

Became: Member, SEBI

P K Ghosh

Retired from: IAS, Gujarat

Became: Member, Advisory Committee on SEBI Investors' Protection and Education

Rani Jadhao

Retired from: IAS,

Maharashtra

Became: Chairman, Tariff Authority on Major Ports

Pradeep Kumar

Retired from: IAS, Haryana

Became: Chief Vigilance Commissioner, CVC

R Srikumar

Retired from: IPS, Tamil Nadu

Became: Vigilance

Commissioner, CVC

J Hari Narayan

Retired from: IAS, Tamil Nadu

Became: Chairman, Insurance Regulatory and

Development Authority

Satyabrata Pal

Retired from: IFS

Became: Member, NHRC

P C Sharma

Retired from: IPS

Became: Member, NHRC

P K Rastogi

Retired from: IAS, AP

Became: Member, TDSAT

Nirmal Singh

Retired from: IAS, Tamil Nadu

Became: Chairman, BIFR

Y K Gaiha

Retired from: IRS

Became: Member, BIFR

Saroj Bala

Retired from: IRS

Became: Member, BIFR

Ashok Chawla

Retired from: IAS, Gujarat

Became: Chairman, Competition Commission of India

H C Gupta

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Member, Competition Commission of India

Anurag Goel

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Member, Competition Commission of India

R Prasad

Retired from: IRS

Became: Member, Competition Commission of India

M L Tayal

Retired from: IAS, Haryana

Became: Member, Competition Commission of India

Rahul Khullar

Retired from: IAS, UT

Became: Chairman,

TRAI

Rajinder Pal Singh

Retired from: IAS, AP

Became: Chairman, NHAI

Ajay Shankar

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Member Secretary, National Manufacturing Competitive Council

Shailendra Pandey

Retired from: IAAS

Became: Member (Admin), CAT

Veena Chhotray

Retired from: IAS, Bihar

Became: Member (A), CAT

R C Panda

Retired from: IAS, Tamil Nadu

Became: Member (A), CAT

Sudhir Kumar

Retired from: IAS,

Karnataka

Became: Member (A), CAT

D C Lakha

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Member (A), CAT

Jayati Chandra

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Member (A), CAT

R C Joshi

Retired from: IAS,

Maharashtra

Became: Member (A), CAT

Shankar Prasad

Retired from: IAS, Bihar

Became: Member (A), CAT

Champak Chatterjee

Retired from: IAS, Tamil Nadu

Became: Member (A), CAT

R Bandopadhyaya

Retired from: IAS, W Bengal

Became: Member (A), CAT

Khushiram

Retired from: IAS, MP

Became: Member (A), CAT

Promila Issar

Retired from: IAS, Haryana

Became: Member (A), CAT

R Satapathy

Retired from: IAS, Tamil Nadu

Became: Member (A), CAT

K George Joseph

Retired from: IAS, Gujarat

Became: Member (A), CAT

Ranbir Singh

Retired from: IAS, MP

Became: Member (A), CAT

R Sanatanam

Retired from: IAS, Tamil Nadu

Became: Member (A), CAT

Anil Kumar

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Member (A), CAT

Rita Menon

Retired from: IAS, UP

Became: Chairman, ITPO

Rahul Sarin

Retired from:

IAS, Jharkhand

Became: Member,

Competition Appellate Tribunal

T K A Nair

Retired from: IAS, Punjab

Became: Principal Secretary to PM, then named adviser to PM

Shiv Shankar Menon

Retired from: IFS

Became: National Security Adviser

Christy Leon Fernandez

Retired from: IAS, Gujarat

Became: Secretary, President's Secretariat

(Posts as on June 30)

 

 

 

 

Why the ICC Cannot and Will Not Do What Archbishop Tutu Thinks it Should

Why the ICC Cannot and Will Not Do What Archbishop Tutu Thinks it Should
    Try Tony Blair and George Bush for Illegal invasion of Iraq

                                                                                         

Editor's note ; In an article on 1 September 2012 in UK's Observer ,Archbishop Desmond Tutu ,a Nobel peace prize winner and hero of the anti-apartheid movement  called for Tony Blair and George Bush to be tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague .He accused the former British and US leaders of lying about weapons of mass destruction and added that  the invasion left the world more destabilized and divided "than any other conflict in history". Tutu added that the controversial US and UK-led action to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003 created the backdrop for the civil war in Syria and a possible wider Middle East conflict involving Iran.

 

"The then leaders of the United States and Great Britain," Tutu said, "fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/02/desmond-tutu-tony-blair-iraq

 

PS;  I had spoken on "Flouting of International Law and Failure of International Institutions" along with George Galloway, British MP and Cynthia McKinney, six times US Congresswoman ,at the Kuala Lumpur International Conference to Criminalize War and War Crimes Tribunal –

28 October to 30 October, 2009. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal unanimously convicted G Bush and T Blair for 'crimes against peace' in November, 2011

 

http://tarafits.blogspot.in/2011/11/kl-tribunal-convicts-bush-blair-of-war.html

 

Below is a legal interpretation and explanation why the British and WE leaders cannot be tried at ICC by Aleksandar Jokic and Tiphaine Dickson

 

Ambassador (retd) K.Gajendra Singh 9 September, 2012.Mayur Vihar, Delhi

http://tarafits.blogspot.com/2011/08/amb-rtd-k-gajendra-singh-cv-post.html

A Litany of War Crimes by Western Leaders

Aleksandar Jokic is a professor at Portland State University where he teaches courses in moral philosophy and international justice. Tiphaine Dickson is an instructor in the Political Science Division of the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University, where she is currently also a PhD student. She received her LL.B in 1993, and acted as a criminal defense attorney, later specializing in international criminal law, and representing accused at the ICTR and consulting in ICTY cases. She has authored a number of articles on international criminal tribunals.

Recently Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel peace prize recipient and a well-known anti-apartheid activist, has called for Tony Blair and George Bush to be tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, in Netherlands. He considers that Blair and Bush have "fabricated the grounds" for attacking Iraq in 2003 in order to remove Sadam Hussein from power. Tutu wonders: "If it is acceptable for leaders to take drastic action on the basis of a lie, without an acknowledgement or an apology when they are found out, what should we teach our children?"

Archbishop Tutu's call appears conceptually confused in many ways. He frames his objection to Blair and Bush in moral terms—they lied, and hence they are not good models for "our children"—yet he wants them to answer for their lies in front of a legal institution, the ICC. However, courts are not set up to hear cases of moral failings, but to establish responsibility for previously defined crimes. Referring to the "drastic action" Blair and Bush undertook in Iraq, Tutu may euphemistically be suggesting that Blair and Bush ought to be tried for the crime against the peace or aggression. The problem here is that ICC does not yet have the jurisdiction over this international crime, and could not conduct a trial against defendants standing accused of having committed crimes of aggression. And, secondly, when it comes to "drastic action" in question Blair and Bush are not alone:

In 1999 Bill Clinton undertook a "drastic action" of bombing Yugoslavia for 78 days under equally fabricated pretext of allegedly preventing genocide in Kosovo, and in 2011 Barak Obama ignored the letter of the UN resolution 1973 and bombed Libya for over six months leading to the gruesome death of Colonel Gaddafi in a criminal lynching. Should we be then calling for Clinton and Obama to be also tried at ICC? And, in particular, should intellectuals hailing from the African continent be making such calls, thus lending credibility to an institution such as ICC? The answer to both questions is: definitely not! Let us explain.

Desmond Tutu and others making similar calls, unfortunately, do not have an adequate understanding of how the ICC functions, as a subsidiary instrument of the UN Security Council. While UK is a signatory of the Rome treaty (unlike the US, that had seen Clinton sign and Bush in a dramatic gesture "un-sign") that established the ICC and has ratified its membership, which means that in principle a UK citizen (such as Blair) could be tried in The Hague, but only under the "complementarity principle" (i.e., under the Rome Statute, which established the Court, the ICC can only exercise its jurisdiction where the State Party, like in this case UK, of which the accused is a national, is unable or unwilling to prosecute; hence the term 'complementarity', which makes the ICC a Court of last resort). But for Blair to end up in The Hague, either a referral from the UNSC to investigate (whether grounds for indictment exist) to the ICC Prosecutor must exist, or the ICC Prosecutor could decide to investigate. But, the former is unlikely to happen, as the US, if not the UK, would veto such proposal. And the latter could always be postponed for a year by a decision of the UNSC, and renewed annually forever.

Hence, it is highly implausible, as far as practical matters are concerned, for Blair to be even investigated, let alone indicted or tried by ICC. The calls by Tutu, or any other non-Westerners, in particular an African, for ICC to put on trial Western war criminals is both unhelpful--as it reveals ignorance about the nature of the institution in question--and worse, it lends credibility to an institution that has purely instrumental character in the larger Security Council geopolitical designs. Throughout its existence the ICC has been a court for Africans (no non-African has ever been indicted by ICC), so it must be only argued--particularly by Africans like Tutu--that this is an illegitimate instrument of American, Western or European imperialism, rather than doing a disservice to his fellow Africans by stating uniformed or naive things, which would tend to legitimize this instrument of Western neo-imperialism against all people who live on his continent. Rather than being praised, Tutu's initiative must be revealed for what it is: a very damaging one for all African peoples. We have written in more detailed way an account of how the US abuses ICC in our article "A Year of Living Lawlessly," but let us alert the readers to the fact that in President Obama's 2010 official National Security Strategy the so called "international justice," i.e., international criminal law and ICC, have explicitly been given purely instrumental value. Here's the amazing passage: International Justice: From Nuremberg to Yugoslavia to Liberia, the United States has seen that the end of impunity and the promotion of justice are not just moral imperatives; they are stabilizing forces in international affairs. The United States is thus working to strengthen national justice systems and is maintaining our support for ad hoc international tribunals and hybrid courts. Those who intentionally target innocent civilians must be held accountable, and we will continue to support institutions and prosecutions that advance this important interest. Although the United States is not at present a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and will always protect U.S. personnel, we are engaging with State Parties to the Rome Statute on issues of concern and are supporting the ICC's prosecution of those cases that advance U.S. interests and values, consistent with the requirements of U.S. law. (National Security Strategy, May 2010, p. 48).

                                             Perspectives: A Review of 2011

 

                      A Year Of Living Lawlessly

 

by Aleksandar Jokic and Tiphaine Dickson

  (Swans - December 19, 2011)  

http://www.swans.com/library/art17/ajokic09.html

 

Those who believed President Obama's pledge made two days after his inauguration to close Guantánamo within one year were disappointed. Those who were distracted by Obama's musings about "just war," the U.S. being "a standard bearer in the conduct of war," and "America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions" in a most unlikely Nobel Lecture were soon provided sobering moments courtesy of, among other things, the extrajudicial killings of Osama bin Laden; Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen; and the lynching of Muammar Muhammad Gaddafi to the point that a demand to revoke Obama's evidently premature Peace Prize seemed unsurprising. When it comes to expectations of meaningful change or successes in foreign policy under President Obama's leadership, the realization is that he's come up mostly empty.

But none of this seemed, in the main, that terribly upsetting until the Senate's recent attempt to introduce provisions allowing the US military to detain American citizens without charge, perhaps finally bringing home, so to speak, James Madison's great caution against foreign military entanglements: "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home." The administration threatens to veto the appropriations bill containing the military detention sections, but the veto language seems as concerned about the president losing "flexibility" and discretion in the prosecution of the endless, protean War on Terrorism as it is with the actual substance of a law that would allow the military to (one is tempted to employ capital letters) detain citizens without charge.

 

However, on another front -- International Justice -- things appear to be going exactly as advertised, and this became very clear in the course of the year under review. The understanding that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is to be used simply as a tool to "advance U.S. interests and values" is explicitly spelled out in Obama's 2010 National Security Strategy:

International Justice: From Nuremberg to Yugoslavia to Liberia, the United States has seen that the end of impunity and the promotion of justice are not just moral imperatives; they are stabilizing forces in international affairs. The United States is thus working to strengthen national justice systems and is maintaining our support for ad hoc international tribunals and hybrid courts. Those who intentionally target innocent civilians must be held accountable, and we will continue to support institutions and prosecutions that advance this important interest. Although the United States is not at present a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and will always protect U.S. personnel, we are engaging with State Parties to the Rome Statute on issues of concern and are supporting the ICC's prosecution of those cases that advance U.S. interests and values, consistent with the requirements of U.S. law. (National Security Strategy, May 2010, p. 48).

While many may have suspected that the US policy towards ICC was one of asymmetrical engagement by a non-member state yet capable of steering and controlling what the court does to further its interests, it is still surprising to read it so clearly spelled out in a manner that in no way attempts to conceal, perhaps using diplomatic language or euphemisms, that the US official policy is one of instrumentalizing international justice. It is even more unexpected to watch this play out fully in less than a year since its most explicit announcement, and observe the nearly total subordination of the Office of the ICC Prosecutor to the interests of the U.S.

 

Last year's full-throated US endorsement of Security Council Resolution 1970, referring an investigation to the ICC Prosecutor "considering," as the UN-speak goes, "that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity" might lead those with a memory of recent history to conclude that US hostility to the ICC had somewhat decreased, replaced by a spirit of cooperation. Yet, as the National Security Strategy makes clear, support for ICC prosecutions is determined by whether such cases advance US "interests and values," and in accordance with US law.

 

The last point is where things become fuzzy. The law in question is the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), a 2002 bill that put meat on the bones of the Bush administration's "unsigning" of the Rome Statute, signed in extremis by President Clinton, but never submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. The ASPA, famously nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act," to reflect the extraordinary powers granted by Congress to the president to use "all means necessary" to secure the release of American citizens in the unlikely event that they would have the misfortune of being detained by the ICC, also prohibits the contribution of any appropriated funds to the ICC. It is also the source of the relatively brief self-foot shooting period when the U.S. denied development assistance as well as military training and cooperation to states having ratified the Rome Statute, leading to the eventual repeal of that particular provision.

 

It is in the Dodd amendment of the ASPA, however, that the mother of all loopholes appears, as it states that"nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, other members of al Qaeda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity." Still, according to the ASPA, intelligence and law-enforcement information may not be shared with the ICC Prosecutor presumably no matter how much any given case may advance US interests and values. And yet, this last year was witness to a curious twist, requiring a bit of legislative forensics to unravel.

 

First, note Article 8 of UN Security Council Resolution 1970: "none of the expenses incurred in connection with the referral, including expenses related to investigations or prosecutions in connection with that referral, shall be borne by the United Nations and that such costs shall be borne by the parties to the Rome Statute and those States that wish to contribute voluntarily." So veto-holding non-parties to the Rome Statute can vote in favor of the resolution, and cause the ICC prosecutor to take up an investigation against the leaders of a non-party state, and make member states pay for it! The technique has at least the virtue of being -- let us again cite the National Security Strategy -- "consistent with the requirements of US law." This free-rider provision first appeared when the U.S. abstained from voting on a similar resolution to refer investigations to the ICC prosecutor with respect to events in Sudan. The US representative expressed pleasure that the Security Council had recognized the "principle" that non-party members would be exempted from contributing to the proceedings whose creation they enabled against non-party members. To translate: impunity, cost-free, reflecting the extraordinary responsibility of the United States of America in peacekeeping operations around the world.

 

On October 14, 2011, President Obama notified Congress, pursuant to the War Powers Act, that 132 combat-equipped Special Forces had been deployed to Central Africa as advisors. Where in Central Africa and why? In "LRA-affected areas" -- that would be Northern Uganda, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo -- and pursuant to Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 (the LRA Act), signed by President Obama in 2010. Section 4 of the LRA Act directs the president to develop a strategy to implement the law, which was transmitted to the House and to the Senate on November 24, 2010. (1) The strategy refers to the ICC warrants against Joseph Kony and the leadership of the Lord's Resistance Army, (2) and states that the U.S. "will continue to be supportive of ICC cases against the LRA leaders." (3)

 

Implementation hearings were held before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and it was confirmed that this was a "kill or capture" operation targeting Joseph Kony, in particular, though it wasn't clear to all members of the powerful house committee who precisely that was, or what, specifically, the Lord's Resistance Army actually stood for. A cringe-inducing moment in the hearings featured Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) asking the Pentagon witness to confirm his shaky grasp of what the troops were actually doing, and to whom: "The Lord's Resistance Army is an Islamic group, correct?" This is the level of scrutiny given to this underreported deployment, at an estimated cost of "tens of millions" (4) and for an unknown period of time (5) in a "kill or capture" operation for which there will be no international accountability. In March 2011, Stephen Rapp, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, stated that: "The United States is prepared to listen and to work with the ICC and go through requests that the prosecutor has," adding that "there may be obstacles under our law. Butwe're prepared to do what we can to bring justice to the victims in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in Uganda, and Sudan and in the Central African Republic." (6) Adam Branch, professor of political science at San Diego State University, argued -- well before this latest deployment that justice and rule of law considerations militate against entrusting the enforcement powers of the ICC to a single state -- one that has a military and political agenda in Africa, where all ICC cases have focused -- that is itself above the law. (7)

 

American lawmakers didn't seem inordinately upset with the turn the little-known LRA implementation had taken, or whether it violated the ASPA, or whether it might unravel what was left of the frayed commitment that the U.S., as a beacon of justice and liberty in the world, doesn't set forth to execute people. That is at least how one could be forgiven for understanding Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen's (R-FL) comment, in concluding the hearing on the implementation of the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, that perhaps "soon, Joseph Kony will meet his maker."

 

Former president of the Ivory Coast Laurent Gbagbo went to meet his ICC judges in the waning days of November, transported in an official plane of the Republic of Ivory Coast, after having been detained without court appearance or charge in a residence in the town of Korhogo since last April. President Gbagbo's expedited transfer to The Hague (nearly simultaneous with his indictment by the ICC only on November 28, 2011) waswelcomed by the U.S., though surely the U.S. would not wish such a transfer of its own political leadership or servicemembers. As the ICC prosecutor vows to continue investigations and gather evidence against Gbagbo, one can be forgiven for developing sympathy for US skepticism towards a judicial body apparently still building a case. His lawyers argue that his initial arrest and continued detention were illegal, and that the ICC, hence, cannot condone or confirm such illegality; they also note that upcoming elections in the Ivory Coast make the timing of the transfer to The Hague suspect. The ICC move has been described by another of Gbagbo's counsels as contrary to the interests of national reconciliation, and potentially further exposing members of Gbagbo's still legal party to further threats of harassment and physical harm. Gbagbo has sued the French military for having attempted to assassinate him, an account he described in an interview given shortly before his arrest and transfer to The Hague.

 

Clean distinctions between politics, law, and war were perhaps never entirely possible to make as clearly as we would have hoped, but some distinctions, like the one between a battlefield and not a battlefield are urgently meaningful if the only thing left between American citizens and the possibility of unlimited military detention without charge is whether or not they are captured in the battlefield on a hopeful interpretation of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. But even that intuitive frontier risks erosion, as Jeh Johnson, counsel for the CIA, speaking at an American Bar Association National Security panel on December 3, proclaimed that he found that the distinction between battlefield and non-battlefield was "growing stale." When the administration's memo-writers opine that time-honored concepts with serious implications have best-before dates, and when the US Congress can do no better for American citizens than pass an amendment based wholly on the hope that courts will interpret the law on the side of habeas corpus and maybe civilian proceedings, while they nonetheless continue, in the grand tradition of legicide, to grant wide swaths of unprecedented power to the executive branch, it is time perhaps to think a bit more carefully about the assumption that national security, when secured by actions abroad, has consequences: for those directly affected by bombs, instability, and economic collapse, but also for those in whose name "the means of defense against foreign danger," to paraphrase Madison, have indeed "become the instruments of tyranny at home." 

Tiphaine Dickson

Aleksandar Jokic

 

Re: US-Israel War fever as seen from Iran

US-Israel War fever as seen from Iran

 

A war of words has been going on between US and Israel about when and who will bomb Iran, while Tehran remains alert but quietly confident .Iran has been under constant pressure since 1979 Khomeini led revolution which ousted the Shah of Iran, US gendarme in the region. The pressure to bomb Iran under the pretext that its legitimate right to enrich Uranium for power generation is nearing the goal for making nukes , in spite of US's own intelligence reports to the contrary , has been ratcheted up regularly since 2003 if not earlier .

 

In my very first online article (out of 50 so far) in August 2002 on US led illegal invasion of Iraq, when as of now war drums were being beaten against Baghdad with the usual western spins and lies about WMDs, nukes and chemical weapons, I had quoted from the British military chief who during the 1965 Suez crisis, when asked to plan to reach Cairo, had queried 'Then what! ".

 

Have Washington and Tel Aviv considered about the day after .In 2003 , US spent over $500 billion while Iraq spent 5 billion or so and after years of sanctions, when half a million children died due to lack of medicines etc , forcing two US envoys for the programme to resign ,Iraqi defenses had been degraded over the years since the 1991 war .US was helped by the coalition of the willing led by the British poodle Tony Blair .Still in the words of late Col J Murtha , US army was broken in the killing fields of Iraq by 2005 .As a result of the illegal invasion , so admitted by UN Sec Gen Kofi Anan and brutal invasion ,according to estimates (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq) over 1. 45 million Iraqi have needlessly died .Many a days even now more Iraqis lose lives than in Syria, where NATO, Turkey and GCC and other Sunni states are intervening almost directly.

 

Iran will be a different hardball , with support from, Moscow, Beijing and its allies in Baghdad, Damascus and Hezbollah in Lebanon and restive minorities in Bahrain ( 70% Shia under Sunni Khalifa) in oil rich Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other GCC states and 15% Alevis in Turkey whose 20% Kurds are very restive .

 

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, law of jungle prevails in international relations egged on by the testosterone of military hardware injected by bankers and financiers, who control the US president and his policies, which have made US bankrupt .Its debt is more than its GDP of 15 million including dubious contribution of its financial industry of derivatives and such arcane products .Its foreign debt has reached over $ 5 trillion. It spends almost as much as the rest of the world does on defense to threaten everyone around the world .Clear sign of hubris. But many Indian leaders love US and its leaders , so do many retired Indian diplomats, who want to be on the right side of history ( in this case injustice ) which will not turn out to so .One told me the other day that US will rule for another 40 years ( some stupidity)

 

In a week's time Tehran will host non-aligned summit and take over its presidency from Egypt's president Morsi , who will attend the Tehran summit .Relations between Tehran broken in 1979 were normalized only after the departure of US puppet Hosni Mubarak, following a revolution still going on .

 

Indian PM MM Singh will attend the summit in Tehran ."Between 10% and 12% of India's oil needs are furnished by Iran. There has been an attempt to switch to the Saudi supply, but this is much easier to talk about than to do. The problem for India and Iran has been over payments, since India cannot pay Iran for the oil. Iran has therefore agreed to accept 45% of its oil receipts in rupees, within India, and to use this money to buy Indian goods to import into Iran. Delegations from the business sector have gone back and forth to find things to sell the Iranians. But problems persist: The sanctions regime has made it nearly impossible for Indian tankers to get insurance for their journey to Iran. Nonetheless, the Indian business lobby estimates that bilateral trade between the two countries will rise from US$13.5 billion to $30 billion by 2015. 

"The tete-a-tete between Manmohan Singh and Ahmadinejad will also touch on the Indian investments at the Chabahar port in southeastern Iran, which has been used to bring Indian goods into Iran and to bring 100,000 tonnes of wheat to Afghanistan. India and Iran have invested heavily in Afghanistan, and both have a common interest in making sure that the Taliban do not return to power in Kabul." 

 

US led western corporate media and spinning and lying BBC are spewing falsehoods every day , since last year joined by Qatar based Al Jazeera , once a decent news service .

 

Below is an excellent and detailed piece on the situation in the region by Pepe Escobar .

 

Cheers Gajendra Singh 22 August 2012.

 

 

THE ROVING EYE
War fever as seen from Iran
By Pepe Escobar ATimes 22812
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NH22Ak06.html

Absent the possibility of joining the Curiosity rover on Mars, there's nowhere to hide from the "Bomb Iran" hysteria relentlessly emanating from Tel Aviv and its Washington outposts. Now that even includes third-rate hacks suggesting US President Barack Obama should go in person to Israel to appease the warmongering duo Bibi-Barak [1]. 

So it's time for something completely different - and totally absent from Western corporate media; sound Iranian minds rationally analyzing what's really going on behind the drums of war - regarding Iran, Turkey, the Arab world and across Eurasia. 

Let's start with ambassador Hossein Mousavian, a researchscholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, a former spokesperson for the Iranian nuclear negotiating team from 2003 to 2005, and the author of The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir . 

Writing at the Arms Control Association website [2] , Mousavian goes straight to the point; "The history of Iran's nuclear program suggests that the West is inadvertently pushing Iran toward nuclear weapons." 

In seven key steps, he outlines how this happened - starting with Iran's "entrance into the nuclear field", owed largely, by the way, to Washington; "In the 1970s, the Shah [of Iran] had ambitious plans for expanding the nuclear program, envisioning 23 nuclear power plants by 1994, with support from the United States." 

Mousavian stresses how, from 2003 to 2005, during the first Bush administration,

Iran submitted different [nuclear] proposals, which included a declaration to cap enrichment at the 5% level; export all low-enriched uranium (LEU) or fabricate it into fuel rods; commit to an additional protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement and to Code 3.1 of the subsidiary arrangements to the agreement, which would provide the maximum level of transparency; and allow the IAEA to make snap inspections of undeclared facilities. This offer was intended to address the West's concerns regarding the nature of Iran's nuclear program by ensuring that no enriched uranium would be diverted to a nuclear weapons program. It also would have facilitated the recognition of Iran's right to enrichment under the NPT. In exchange for these Iranian commitments, the Iranian nuclear file at the IAEA would be normalized, and Iran would have broader political, economic, and security cooperation with the European Union. Furthermore, Iran was interested in securing fuel for the research reactor in Tehran and was ready to ship its enriched uranium to another country for fabrication into fuel rods.

The Bush administration refused everything. Mousavian recalls "a meeting I had at the time with French Ambassador to Iran Francois Nicoullaud, he told me, "For the US, the enrichment in Iran is a red line which the European Union cannot cross." 

So "the West was not interested in solving the nuclear issue. Rather, the West wanted to compel Iran to forgo its enrichment program completely." This could only lead Tehran to "change its nuclear diplomacy and accelerate its enrichment program, as it sought self-sufficiency in nuclear fuel." 

'Zero stockpile', anyone?
Fast forward to February 2010. Tehran proposed, "keeping its enrichment activities below 5% in return for the West providing fuel rods for the Tehran reactor. The West refused this offer." 

Then, in May 2010, "Iran reached a deal with Brazil and Turkey to swap its stockpile of LEU for research reactor fuel. The deal was based on a proposal first drafted by the Obama administration with Brazilian and Turkish officials under the impression that they had the blessing of Washington to negotiate with Iran. Regrettably, the United States trampled on their success by rejecting the plan; the UN Security Council subsequently passed additional sanctions against Iran." 

Every unbiased observer following the Iranian nuclear dossier knows these facts. Another flash forward, to September 2011, "when Iran had completely mastered 20% enrichment and had a growing stockpile, it proposed stopping its 20%-enrichment activities and accepting Western-provided fuel rods for the Tehran reactor. Once again, the West declined and made it necessary for the Iranians to move toward producing their own fuel rods." 

Moving on to this year's talks in Istanbul and Baghdad, Mousavian stresses, "with each blockage and punitive Western action, Iran further advances its nuclear program." 

And it gets worse; "A comparison of the June 19 statement in Moscow by Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief and lead negotiator for the P5+1, with her April 14 Istanbul statement reveals a major difference. The P5+1 is now giving more emphasis to Iran's compliance with its international obligations, namely, UN Security Council resolutions, rather than focusing on the country's obligations under the NPT. This is a clear setback from the Istanbul position. It indicates a focus on suspension of Iran's enrichment activities, a demand that has been a deal breaker since 2003." 

The bottom line is "not only has the West pushed Iran to seek self-sufficiency, but at every juncture, it has tried to deprive Iran of its inalienable right to enrichment. This has simply propelled Iran to proceed full throttle toward mastering nuclear technology." 

The conclusion is inevitable; "The progress of Iran's nuclear program is the product of Western efforts to pressure and isolate Iran while refusing to recognize Iran's rights." 

Washington and its European followers simply can't understand that "sanctions, isolation, and threats would not bring Iran to its knees. On the contrary, these policies have led only to the advancement of Iran's nuclear program." With even more devastating sanctions and the "Bomb Iran" fever turning into an attack, one consequence, says Mousavian, is assured; "Iran would be likely to withdraw from the NPT and pursue nuclear weapons." 

What makes it even more absurd is that there is a solution to all this madness:

To satisfy the concerns of the West regarding Iran's 20% stockpile, a mutually acceptable solution for the long term would entail a "zero stockpile". Under this approach, a joint committee of the P5+1 and Iran would quantify the domestic needs of Iran for use of 20% enriched uranium, and any quantity beyond that amount would be sold in the international market or immediately converted back to an enrichment level of 3.5%. This would ensure that Iran does not possess excess 20% enriched uranium forever, satisfying the international concerns that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. It would be a face-saving solution for all parties as it would recognize Iran's right to enrichment and would help to negate concerns that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Will Washington - and Tel Aviv - ever accept it? Of course not. The dogs of war will keep on barking. 

A new security game
It's also quite refreshing to examine Iranian analysts' take on Syria.

Mehdi Mohammadi, writing at the IranNuc.IR website [3] notes "the fear that the Sunni majority has of a Salafi minority is a very important, and often censored, reality about the situation on the ground in Syria. It is the same reality which has prevented the opposition to accept any form of negotiations or even free elections". This fact is absolutely anathema in Western corporate media's coverage of Syria. 

Mohammadi correctly evaluates the discrepancies among different Muslim Brotherhood (MB) factions inside Syria; one hardline faction wants Sharia law; another is convinced the future of the whole region is essentially at the hands of the MB anyway, so they are on a mission from God; but the majority wants to extract as much money as they can from Saudi Arabia while allied with France, the US, Sunnis in Lebanon and Jordan; "this part forms the spine of the armed opposition in Syria". 

The bottom line is that even in the best-case scenario, the MB "is making a dire strategic mistake ... Even if Assad's government falls, the Americans will not allow the Syrian government to fall into the hands of that part of the Muslim Brotherhood which seeks to continue and even give more depth to the existing conflict with Israel." 

Mohammadi also observes, right on the money, how the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey "reached the conclusion that the best way for preventing Arab Spring developments to serve Iran's increasing power in the region was to turn the whole situation into a conflict between Shi'ites and Sunnis." 

Essentially, how does Tehran see it? According to Mohammadi, "there is a high degree of confidence that the Syrian government will not fall in medium term." On top of it, "it is very unlikely that Russia and China will reach an agreement with the West over Syria", and "even on Iran's nuclear dossier".  

So Tehran is betting on the strategic achievement of a "reliable anti-West front consisting of Russia and China". His conclusion; "The strategic equation of the region as a result of the ongoing developments in Syria has by no means changed to the detriment of Iran." 

In an interview to the Iranian Diplomacy (IRD) website [4] former ambassador and strategic analyst Mohammad Farhad Koleini comments on how "some Arab countries, which have very bleak records in the field of human rights, have joined hands with the United States in the current equation in Syria in order to define a new security game. This security game, however, has been somismanaged that it will certainly taint the international image of the United States." 

Koleini notes that as the West goes for a new security arrangement in the Mediterranean, Moscow is trying "not to allow the West to impose its geopolitical monopoly." So the Russian approach to Syria "is not necessarily focused on what is actually going on inside the country, but it stems from a regional package and how Moscow aims to regulate that package in relation to its interactions with the West." 

That explains why Russia "will never allow Western states to impose a no-fly zone region over Syria". Is this confrontation? Not really; "Russia is doing its best to avoid outright confrontation by any means. China has also shown all along the way that it is following the same policy." 

Mehdi Sanaei, the director of the Russia Studies Group at the University of Tehran and the director of the Iran and Eurasia Research Center (IRAS), writing at the Tabnak News website[5] goes way deeper; Moscow is now working under "unprecedented suspicion of the United States' goals and intentions in the Middle East and Eurasia." 

So forget about the famous "reset" between Washington and Moscow. 

Sanaei refers to the famous foreign policy article [6] published by Putin on the eve of the Russian presidential election: "Putin took a direct shot at the United States by accusing Washington of deception and abuse of the UN structure and resolutions, applying double standards to various global issues in different countries, as well as seeking its own interests under the cover of advocating democracy." 

Sanaei also correctly describes how Russian analysts see the Obama administration's foreign policy as "based on two theories: 'ultimate realism', and 'new liberalism.' As a result, the Americans actually believe that world countries are simply divided into the United States' friends and enemies. Hostile countries, therefore, should be weakened and their presence in global and regional strategic arenas should be limited and even suppressed in political, economic and cultural terms." 

So, for Moscow, "a new wave of the world order has been initiated by the United States in order to create a new version of the past unipolar world system. The main targets of this wave, Moscow maintains, include North Africa, the Middle East, Iran, Eurasia, and finally China and Russia." 

Koleini, this time writing for the Tehran Emrooz daily [7], introduces the Pipelineistan theme in the Iran-Russia relationship; "Despite its cooperation with Iran's nuclear energy program, Russia has been always willing to cut Iran's hand in the European natural gas market. Therefore, Russia has been interacting with Turkey and certain Eastern European countries on the Blue Stream project. This proves beyond any doubt that Russia is trying to take the lead in engineering security structure in Europe through its energy policy and reduce Europe's reliance on other energy sources." 

All this while "trying to play a balancing role in Iran's nuclear case." 

Koleini also outlines the main challenge to the "Eurasian policy" laid out by Putin before his election; "The point is that the West is designing new political games, especially in Central Asia to give new problems to Russia and divert Moscow's attention from Eurasia to traditional spheres of the former Soviet Union." 

Egypt and Iran kiss and make up
Iranian intellectuals are carefully monitoring neighboring Turkey. Turkey and Caucasus expert Elyas Vahedi observes how "the Turkish government came up with such concepts as 'neither state religion, nor religious state,' 'secular government, not secular man,' 'civilizing the constitution,' 'democratic openness / Kurdish openness / Alawite openness,' and 'civil control and supervision over the army' and has been using them to strengthen and maintain the political clout of the Justice and Development Party." 
And of course, before the Arab Spring, all talk was about "zero problems with our neighbors" and Turkey's "strategic depth" doctrine. 

But now that Turkey is stuck in Syria, the AKP government is "trying to justify its failure by claiming that the policy of minimizing problems with neighboring countries has just entered is second phase ... Turkey believes that the main feature of the second version of this policy is interaction with people in neighboring countries rather than interaction with their governments." 

It simply doesn't hold, says Vahedi: "This viewpoint, despite some shortcomings, was somehow justifiable in some countries like Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, but this is not the case in Syria." Besides, Ankara "remained silent toward the predicament of people in Bahrain, under the pretext that political protests in Bahrain are not popular." 

Moreover, Turkey's foreign policy "has also nurtured speculations that Ankara has joined the Shi'ite-Sunni conflict which has been fostered by the West. The damage that this notion will do to Turkey's regional and international standing and prestige will be too costly for Ankara." 

Vahedi sees Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as just following the West, which is leading from behind, Obama-style. Turkey "has apparently read the West's mind and is trying to accept that role on behalf of the West in return for certain concessions." But it won't work - as, for instance, facilitating Turkey's accession to the EU over immense French and German objections. 

Not to mention that Ankara "is facing scathing criticism from nationalist figures. They allege that while the rights of Turks are being ignored in Karabakh as well as in the Balkans through the oversight of the Western powers, the government of Turkey has made defending the rights of the Syrian people its first and foremost priority." 

Ali Akbar Asadi, from the International Relations Dept at the University of Allameh Tabatabaei, expands on the key event of the next few weeks: the renewed diplomatic relationship between Iran and Egypt - which is drawing Washington's unmitigated wrath; the State Department, in a childish move, is even saying that Iran "does not deserve" to host the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran, which will be attended by Egypt's President Mohamed Morsi. [8] 

Asadi goes to the jugular - the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) petro-monarchies are terrified that "Egypt may renew relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran or even enter into strategic relations with Turkey, thus working to undermine the influence and clout of the GCC in the new balance of regional power." 

So the GCC is doing what it usually does; showering a bit of cash. "They want to keep Egypt, as a big and important Arab political player, on their own side." 

Besides, they are demanding from Morsi and the MB that "they do not take any step to export their revolution and activate affiliates" of the MB in the GCC. And they "expect Cairo to avoid adopting a new approach to strengthening Hamas against Fatah, helping Gaza and the Palestinian population there, and taking an adamant stance against the Israeli regime." 

The GCC policy, supported by the West and Israel, is "to keep Egypt entangled in its domestic challenges" and thus unable to exercise its" historical claim to leadership of the Arab world." 

This is just a sample of the level of intellectual discussion going on in Iran. Compared to the bombing hysteria in Tel Aviv and Washington, it does look like it's coming from Mars. 

Notes:
1. An Obama Visit to Israel Could Stall Iran Attack, Bloomberg, August 21. 
2. See armscontrol.org/
3. See www.irannuc.ir/
4. See www.irdiplomacy.ir/
5. See www.tabnak.ir/
6. See Russia and the changing world, RIANOVOSTI
7. See www.tehrooz.com
8. US says Iran doesn't deserve to host summit of Non Aligned Movement, Washington Post, August 21. 

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).