My Dream Cabinet - Jokingly Yours

My dream cabinet on the occasion of Navratri and Durga Puja festive season is as follows:


# PM : has to be our honourable MMS (Dr Maun Mohan Singh) – silence is truly golden

# Minister for Jehad Affairs: After his bloodbath remarks, Salman Khurshid will be a natural choice

# Minister for Hit-and-Run in Corrupt practices: No marks for guessing – its Arvind Kejriwal

# Minister for Wrong Publicity: After stiff competition with Jairam Ramesh, Digvijaya Singh would get the honour.

# Minister for Toilet: Natural choice is Jairam Ramesh and on his mother’s special petition he is also given additional charge of Temple Affairs

# Minister-in-waiting: Rahul Gandhi --- Will be given status of ‘prime minister from 10 Janpath

# NAC (National Advisory Council for Family and of Family) chairperson will be of course, Italian madam, Sonia

--- Deputy chairman : Son-in-Law Matters : Robert Priyanka Gandhi Vadra

# Minister for National Sympathy: after the waves of sympathy for 'social enterprise', the portfolio will go to Nitin Gadkari


I am still thinking about portfolios for the likes of Sharad Pawar, Supriya Suley, Arun Jaitley, Mohan Bhagwat

Pls feel free to suggest…. (No caste politics will be encouraged ha ha--- PS: ‘national joke’)

Amitabh: Hero of disillusionment of young angry Indian

He will be best known as someone who defined and redefined stardom.

With a brooding look, fire in eyes and ire practically emerging out of his soul, his masterpiece roles in films like 'Zanzeer', 'Deewar' and 'Trishul' mirrored the disillusionment of young Indian of that time reeling under controlled economy vices – the joblessness, antagonized family life, corruption and price rise.

It was not without reason when one film writer rightly wrote once, one look at him on the screen and you knew: there was nothing much in life to sing and dance about.
Dissatisfaction, they say is very strong element in the life of a
middle class citizen and Amitabh's films will keep giving in
refreshing memories to Indians about the the roles he played – umpteen
times as Vijay – much befittingly portrayed every Indian's desire of
the time that man always feels that he could have achieved more – done
more good to himself and his society.
Born on October 11, 1942 to the family of noted Hindi poet, Harivansh Rai Bachchan and socialite mother Teji, he grew up with best of both the upbringing culture – western lifestyle from mother and the oriental values from his father.
Amitabh in later years once recalled his father saying, "If you don't
enter a gate, just jump over the wall". This is precisely what he did to
achieve the stardom, and of course retained it even at the ripe age of 60 plus with a finesse not mastered by many in the world of entertainment.
When romantic films and chocolate cream images of screen heroes were
going strong, it was swinging against the stream when he signed for a
role as inspector ‘Vijay Khanna’ in Prakash Mehra's 'Zanzeer' in 1973 to
record his first milestone performance. The role came to him only after
Dharmendra had rejected it. Grapevine was that with past failures, prior to Zanzeer, Amitabh was almost planning to quit Mumbai for good!

Zanzeer was his first film as the leading protagonist to achieve box office
success that earned him a Filmfare Nomination for Best Actor. The same year, he married Jaya on June 3 and around this time they appeared in several films together, not only in Zanjeer but in films such as Abhimaan which was released only a month after their ceremony. Later Bachchan played the role of an industrialist’s son Vikram in the film Namak Haraam, a social drama directed by Hrishikesh Mukherjee and scripted by Biresh Chatterjee addressing themes of friendship. His supporting role opposite Rajesh Khanna and Rekha was praised as his angst dialogue delivery and maneerism won him the Filmfare Best Supporting Actor Award – spelling a tough competition for Rajesh Khanna ahead.
Subsequently 'Anand' made Amitabh and probably unmade Rajesh Khanna.
In 1975 he starred in a variety of film genres from the comedy Chupke
Chupke, the crime drama Faraar to the romantic drama Mili. However,
1975 was the year when he appeared in two films which are regarded as
important in Hindi cinematic history. He starred in the Yash Chopra
directed film ‘Deewar’ opposite Shashi Kapoor, Nirupa Roy, and Neetu
Singh which earned him a Filmfare Nomination for Best Actor.

The film became a major hit at the box office in 1975. He did not look back since then. Released on August 15, 1975 was Sholay (meaning Fire) which became the highest grossing film of all time in India earning Rs. 2,36,45,00,000 equivalent to US$ 60 million, was another film that made his position practically invincible.

Although with angry young man image, Bachchan cemented his status as Bollywood's pre-eminent action hero, the Big B, as he came to be known later, illustrated that he was flexible in other roles, successfully playing the romantic lead, in films such as Kabhie Kabhie (1976) and comic timing in comedies such as Amar Akbar Anthony (1977) and of course earlier in Chupke Chupke (1975) .

In 1979 for the first time, a multi-facet quality of his came to light when Amitabh was required to use his singing voice for the film Mr Natwarlal which he starred in alongside Rekha. His performance in the film saw him nominated for both the Filmfare Best Actor Award and the Filmfare Best Male Playback Awards.

In 1979 he also received Best Actor nomination for Kaala Patthar (1979) and then went on to be nominated again in 1980 for the Raj Khosla directed film Dostana in which he starred opposite Shatrughan Sinha and Zeenat Aman. In 1981 he starred in Yash Chopra's melodrama Silsila where he starred alongside his wife Jaya and rumoured flame Rekha. Other films of this period include Ram Balram (1980), Shaan (1980), Lawaaris (1981), and Shakti (1982) which pitted him against legendary actor Dilip Kumar.

Bachchan has won numerous awards in his career, including three National Film Awards and 12 Filmfare Awards and also holds the record for most number of Best Actor nominations at the Filmfare Awards.

In addition to acting, he has had a flair of politics as he was elected member of the Lok Sabha from the prestigious Allahabad constituency in 1984. He hold on to the seat till 1987 when controversy regarding Bofors gun deal and his friendship with the then Prime Minister left a sore experience of body politics in him.

Bachchan’s splendid career too has been marked by off-screen controversies like his on and off affairs with fellow actress Rekha, and Amitabh-Rekha pair by far remains one of the leading couple hits till today. He was also dragged into controversy by another actress, the late Parveen Babi, who had charged the megastar with ditching him. However, the allegation never stuck and was dismissed as utterances of a frustrated woman, disillusioned with life.

Again Amitabh’s surprising success came when he ventured into small screen thorugh reality quiz game show, ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati’. This redfined his career and also the history of Indian television. Since then Bachchan has tasted success in many films including the award winning ‘Chini Kum’, ‘Black’ and ‘Khaki’. Importantly, opening a new vista film scripts were began to be written keeping in mind as the main protagonist.

His first English language film Rituparno Ghosh’s ‘The Last Year’ premiered at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival on Septeember 9, 2007.
His fans will remember him passionately no doubt.

(ends)

Now The Arvind Kejriwal Spring : A Tale of two sons-in-law

The wikipedia describes Robert Vadra as an Indian businessman, husband of Priyanka Vadra and a “member” of the Nehru-Gandhi family by marriage.

It also says about Feroze Gandhi that in 1942, ironically the Quit India Movement year, he had married Indira Nehru and thus became part of the Nehru dynasty.

The similarity ends at that.

On this backdrop, one is really tempted, to employ a time tested maxim – nothing is permanent except change. The changes have taken place in the country’s first political family.

And the statement is a serious challenge to another well-worn saying, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The irony is not lost. While Feroze Gandhi had taken up a cudgel against the corruption and probably had embarrassed the Family, this time round, Robert Vadra is at the receiving end of the charge of gross impropriety and has embarrassed his mother-in-law braving her ill-health and a typical bad season for any ruling establishment.

My paper, The Statesman, rightly titled the story: ‘Robert Vadra in eye of storm’.
Thanks to Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan, the son-in-law of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi’s husband had been charged with acquiring at least 31 properties worth several hundred crores in and around the national capital, thanks to huge favours from real estate major DLF.

In contrast, Feroz Gandhi in December 1955 had tried to expose how Ram Kishan Dalmia, as chairman of a bank and an insurance company, had allegedly sought to takeover of Bennett and Coleman and started transferring money illegally from publicly held companies for personal benefit.

In 1958, Feroze had again raised the Haridas Mundhra scandal involving the government controlled LIC insurance company. “This was a huge embarrassment to the clean image of Nehru's government”, says Wikipedia.

The take away from the Robert Vadra story is that the Law holds no fear for the new generation son-in-law. Rather he systematically bulldozed his way and influenced the decisions – probably in return forcing his mother-in-law’s ‘chamchas’ to dole out continuous and undue favor to the DLF, a key player in real estate.

The brazen manner Congress ministers and party spokespersons tried to undo each other and defend ‘madam’s son in law’ talks for itself that Mr Vadra is no private individual as otherwise an attempt is being made to build an argument on that line – that the deals if at all were between DLF and Robert, so Congress regimes across the north India’s states – including a ‘very efficient’ Sheila Dikshit regime – had nothing to do.

Even the purported pro-Congress television channels could not sing the other way round on Friday evening – as essential questions raised by Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan beg convincing answers. Even the anchors who get excited to paint pro-Congress slant to any developments under the sky, were surprisingly pleasant and blatant to ask Salman Khurshied and Jayanti Natrajan: "why you are defending an individual called Robert Vadra?"

In my initial reactions to the charges against Vadra, on Facebook posting, I lauded Kejriwal as a gutsy fellow – a ‘fidayen’- who took up the matter concerning country’s most sacred son-in-law about whom people were only talking among fiends and in close doors.

Of course, during the height of Anna Movement in 2011, Youtube
and other social networking sites had lot many postings and video clippings against the First family.

What Kejriwal and his team has tried to say is not something unknown. Believe me or not, just few minutes before Kejriwal spoke against Vadra on October 5 evening; one journalist friend from a 'reputed to be pro-Congress newspaper' had joked (I think!) what will happen, if Arvind names Robert Vadra.

Now, Arvind Kejriwal might not be the ‘dhud ke dhuley hue’; but Kejriwal has set for himself a unique preamble for his yet to be named political party.

He will be also a dangerous element to handle with by any political party and leader as he has been displaying a unique synthesis of good timing, doing a good homework on his own and showing a desi bravado.

It is true, he has been stealing away the thunder from opposition parties including the BJP on the issue of corruption. But it is not without good reason. 'The Economic Times' is apt in summing up the man: “He knows he can't win by fighting along the traditional matrix of caste, money and muscle power.”

And hence, his methods might not be right, he could be ‘wrong’ himself --- but he is different!

Is PM's FDI card akin to Modi’s Developmental model?

Does Narendra Modi and the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh share
something similar? Both pushed to the corner – one for riots and the
other for alleged corruption and both try to find a game-changer in FDI or
development model.

This write up is coming at a time – at the suggestion of my good friend
Jacinta Dsouza - when the country is debating the pros and cons of Foreign Direct Investment vis-à-vis the economic reforms.

Moreover the challenge is to explain in first person the factors those led to pen the book ‘Modi to Moditva: An Uncensored Truth’. Incidentally, this being my third book on broad Hindutva related issues after ‘Godhra: A Journey to Mayhem’
and ‘Ayodhya: Battle for Peace’.

I am often asked, whether there’s any special reason?

Of and on, my contention is when a journalist decides to write a book,
you ought to be sure that either he is excited about the subject. He
likes it or he is annoyed with it, disturbed with it. In my case, the
book on northeast ‘The Talking Guns: North East India’ comes under one
category. I love northeast region, where I was born and brought up.

The communalism on the other hand, really disturbs me. I am not saying Hindu communalism only. It’s about all.

The Godhra carnage, then post-Godhra riots all of it left me angry. So, came my first book on Gujarat and I was surprised that my
first book was not on northeast India.

About this book, I think the simple provocation was to try to break
some of the knots of the cobweb embroiled about Narendra Modi himself.

Undoubtedly, the story of Gujarat in last 10 years has been the story
of Modi.
Thus, the making of Brand Modi definitely deserves a closer look with
all its merits and albeit, also the demerits.

Today, to talk about the dynamics and complexities of Gujarat state
and the Hindutva politics of Modi has perhaps become more important
now than ever before especially in the context of forthcoming assembly
elections where in Gujarat’s most talked about chief minister will
seek his re-election.

The polls could also decide whether Modi will be the BJP's Prime Ministerial candidate in 2014 parliamentary polls.

But as the currency these days in on FDI and reforms, I will try for a
while focus on these issues.

Gujarat in more ways than one reflects that story of multi-pronged
development and the liberal economic policy. Many are already
comparing Gujarat’s phenomenal success with the select manufacturing
hub of China; but the irony is not lost on many.

Although, the Indian development pace is much slower than China’s;
even in late nineties Gujarat had equaled the growth rate of China.

The developmental phases of Modiland notwithstanding the negative
publicity of the state administration since 2002 have many people
baffled. There are a few questions too --- as I examine in the book
‘Modi to Moditva…..’; can Modi really redefine the state’s and more
importantly his own reputation?

I also pose a rather mystifying question, “Can it keep the balance
with the traditional culture of Gujarat, its religious bias and the
unprecedented benefits of economic liberalization?”

In course of my work for the book, I did come across the obvious that
India’s reforms in 1991 under Dr Manmohan Singh as the finance minster
have come in compartmentalized forms.

In the absence of reforms in the administration, police and judiciary,
the new rules were enforced by an old system, and the mismatch has led
to weak enforcement.

The competition in presence of multiple players say in telecom could overcome
weak enforcement. This appears to be a
factor responsible for the success of equity markets and telecom but
the same story was not reaped in the oil and power sectors.

Many would argue that in a complex society like ours and in multilayered polity
of democracy in India, the consensual process of reform is important
for success. There is no doubt in the last two decades the policy
makers, the ministers and the law makers either in state assemblies or
in parliament, have spent time listening to groups, business chambers
etc before embarking on major policy changes.

So did even a supposed autocrat Modi. But his success story also underlines that ‘out of the box’ thinking is highly advisable. Here was a chief minister,
who despite the bad press, to the industry has always remained a
‘vanguard’ of not only change but someone who stood for what he said.

When Modi invited Ratan Tata after the latter’s Bengal misadventure,
at least the corporate honcho knew that Gujarat would embrace his
project. …this calls for some credit for the state chief minister.

A senior socialist based in Faizabad in UP, I interacted with in
course of my work on the book, actually said something sensational
putting me into a track to ponder about his point of argument. He said
Modi should be considered as an “injured tiger” - caged and pushed to
the wall by constant vilification.

The blot of 2002 had created a sort of a crisis for him. Fortunately for Modi, said my friend, he had no choice but to prove his mantle in administration and
that too for development.

Were it not for Modi having to confront a full-scale war against him
by the rival politicians and the secular brigade, it is unlikely that
Modi would have pushed his developmental card so hard and decisively.
May be, may be not!

(Enough of praising the own ‘kid’, the book in this case. Look for the
page turner ‘Modi to Moditva: An Uncensored Truth’ by Nirendra
Dev (faithfully yours) and published by Manas Publications, New Delhi.

Well, some other highlights of the book include:

What’s common between Congress chief minister of Manipur Ibobi Singh
and the controversial Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi

What did Narendra Modi say after Vajpayee-Musharraf Agra Summit failed?

Demystifying 'big ticket reforms' drama of Dr Singh

Obviously, demystifying Manmohan Singh’s ‘big ticket reforms and FDI in retail’ could lead one to take a closer look at Indian political scene.

It will not be wrong to describe it as a desperate act of a student who has not studied the entire semester and wants to top the class by burning mid-night oil.

It's as if the government has come out of Rip Van Winkle slumber. The Washington Post article headlined "India's 'silent' Prime Minister becomes a tragic figure" has sort of given a jerk to Dr Manmohan Singh.

He has got back his spirit - a replica of 2008 when he dedicated himself full time to seal the Indo-US nuclear deal.
The pact was ensured but contrary to his promise, Indian energy sector still is waitng for that revolution.

On a different plane, now, post exit of Mamata Banerjee, on the face value, the government has managed to survive ostensibly with the support of highly unpredictable Mulayam Singh Yadav’s support and of course Mayawati’s BSP.

Moreover, these two cowbelt leaders - essentially caste (and of course often pro-Muslim) players are not known for strong left-oriented anti-reform stance of Mamata.

So far so good!

The government survives; and if it survives the country can expect more reforms --- on pension and insurance sectors to start with.

This has given Dr Manmohan Singh the fresh lease of life. One expected this confidence would be reflected in his rare address to the nation. But his speech
that day had sparked off rather angry reactions.

The comment - money does not grow on trees from an economist who has served with World Bank, who as Prime Minister is more known to have sided with Americans, American interests than the inflation-hit concern of his poor countrymen, actuall comes as an insult.
People have reasons to feel hurt.

Not many Congressmen have been able to defend him so far on this. The next day in high security Vigyan Bhavan, a shirtless lawyer, allegedly owing allegiance to Lalu Prasad Yadav’s party RJD, shouted slogans at him.

Perhaps the message is getting clearer that people are anguished with corruption as well as on the typical know-all ivory tower expert views of the Prime Minister.
“Yes, Prime Minister, "money does not grow on trees". That is why governments must spend wisely, not on programmes which are designed for specifically for looting in the name of the public,” commented our good friend and senior journalist Mahesh Vijapurkar from Mumbai on Facebook.

Real polity is tougher and more complex. Ultimately, Dr Singh is not just the ‘ceo’ of UPA; his party has to win election.
In Kerala, the Congress chief minister is set to oppose FDI.

The party, which stormed back to power in 2004 unseating a well-performing Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime on Aam Admi slogan, today stands isolated from the man on the streets.

Rahul Gandhi does not inspire Congressmen any longer. A family loyalist like Salman Khurshied says the crown prince role has been 'cameo'. These would make Congress depend more on Mulayam Singh, someone harbouring strong Prime Ministerial ambitions.

BSP is eyeing to play its own game and has asked Congress to show detachment from Mulayam to bank on her support.

The Congress MPs are themselves not sure whether FDI retail will ensure their victory. A section of Congressmen in Bengal and also outside are exploring the idea of hobnobbing with mass leader like Mamata Banerjee - even in states like Himachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh.

There is a possibility of split in Congress rank and file and thus, the general election could come by 2013.

In the meantime, FDI will remain on a table --- to be utilized as economic reform tool only in about 2 years from now!

A political counsellor attached to an embassy in Delhi, recently said,
"the announcement of FDI in retail by Prime Minister Dr Singh is only aimed towards foreign countries and MNCs. What happens to FDI retail hype if all or most states oppose it -- that too on the eve of elections".

This is the anti-climax of the second generation reforms inuntiated by our scholarly Prime Minister, who can be easily described as an 'over estimated economist and under estimated politician'.

The FDI drama is a good diversionary strategy of a shrewd politician, who loves to give indirect message that he is a reluctant Prime Minister. The target is to take people off the 'Coalgate'. But this is too late and too little.

ends

Jaswant Singh and Indo-US calculus

Having spoken about the possibility of having Jaswant Singh make a come back as the external affairs of India in the previous blog, perhaps I have provoked enough reactions among the readers, my patrons.

A few of them mailed me in private putting across their points of view. Well, my contention is I was only trying to debate Jaswant Singh’s role as country’s foreign minister in the crucial period of Indian diplomatic history when post-Pokhran 2 it faced near isolation globally and especially from the United States.

This was the time, mind you, US President Bill Clinton’s first reaction to his close team in the White House was: “we are going to come down on those guys like a ton of bricks”.

Thus, it is given to the credit of Vajpayee-Jaswant team that things were put on correct track at later stage. My humble suggestion is we should not mix up this episode of Indo-US history and the ‘dialogue’ Jaswant Singh had with Strobe Talbott with other issues particularly the Jaswant’s supposed mishandling of negotiations after the Indian Airlines plane was hijacked to Kandahar.

Now, when we come to Jaswant-Talbott ‘engagement’ as suggested by the latter in later stage – by his apt title of the book ‘Engaging India – Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb’ (a Penguin publication) – there is need to focus on some plain speaking that Jaswant did often at the cost of displeasing the American leadership.

Here’s an instance. Stressing on the point of ‘futility’ of any purpose in US pampering Pakistan, Jaswant Singh had at one point of time remarked:

“We realize that you’ve (US) invested so much in that relationship (with Pakistan) that you don’t know how to disinvest”. Jaswant Singh had also pointed up to Talbott that “we (India) held out the hand of friendship (to Nawaz Sharif), and we got a fist in the face”.

A reference to Lahore bus trip and then Kargil.
In fact, there have been occasions when Jaswant in mid-1999 had also suggested to his American negotiator that Pakistan was heading for a coup.

In fact, Indian government had strong inkling of Gen Musharraf taking over soon – but New Delhi was always more cautious about a regime under Musharraf because he has been the “moving force behind the Pakistani incursion and who would be even more intractable on Kashmir and everything else if he emerged as Pakistan’s new leader”.

Talbott also admits in his book that ‘Jaswant was fatalistic about a coup” in Pakistan but added :”there was nothing either India – or, for that matter, the United States could do to stop it, all we could do was not provoke it”.

Moreover, around that time the government of India under Vajpayee in the run up to the parliamentary polls – immediately after Kargil - did not drum up the war-cry. This can be debated because NDA’s victory became easier in 1999 due to Kargil.
Jaswant himself had told Talbott “we could have exploited the crisis”.

Well, moving over these, one must take note of Jaswant’s another point blank statement made to the US negotiator.

“You are playing yesterday’s chess match….The game now is for energy from a region that is falling increasingly into the hands of the forces of radical Islam….No one has had a much experience with Islam as India. You must work with us (India) more in waging our common struggle against these forces”.

Finally, things really changed in Indo-US context since these dialogues.

Today, India is held high as a partner in the comity of nations. It is not without good reason in 2010, all five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the United States, China, Britain, Russia and France — came calling on India extending all round friendship and cordial relations.

In 2011, Indian foreign policy engine room drew satisfaction during the year when they saw in what is seen as the “stepping up the rhetorical pressure” on Pakistan.

The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did some plain speaking urging Pakistan to act immediately against the military groups and powerful Haqqani network. “You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours,” Hillary Clinton had said almost endorsing India’s years-old stand point.

In fact, Dr Manmohan Singh’s regime benefited in initial years of these bonhomie and robust Indian economy. Dr Singh exploited the improved relation Indo-US to the hilt in 2008 during parleys on Indo-US Civil Nuclear deal and in 2009 polls. Congress leaders can claim brownie points when they taunt Jaswant Singh for Kandahar.

But as the former external affairs minister and importantly Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s ‘man for all seasons’ said, the calculus of human lives was involved. Well, perhaps Jaswant deserves some kudos.

And if not; there are merits in appreciating what Talbott said: “Jaswant advanced his nation’s interests and sought to harmonise US-Indian relations”. Now, ask Dr Manmohan Singh and the Congress regime: if Washington Post and Time magazine today find fault with them and their regime, should they blame Jaswant Singh’s mishandling of plane hijack drama?

(ends)

Can Jaswant Singh make a comeback as Foreign Minister of India?

This piece is going on web at a time when grapevine in Lutyen’s city is about possible cabinet reshuffle. The buzz is that S M Krishna might be replaced by Shivraj Patil.

Don’t believe? Well, I also don’t. I would hate this to happen!!

But if Prathiba Patil can be made President of India and after a shocking defeat Shivraj can be handed over home, mortals like us can only stare up and blink helplessly as Sonia Gandhi mocks at 130 crores.

One is perhaps writing this piece little too late or even little too early. BJP’s onetime stalwart and once expelled Jaswant Singh has crossed his prime long back and ostensibly in more ways than one.

With Atal Bihari Vajpayee out of scene, the ‘man for all seasons’ too has fallen out of the radar.

Having lost vice presidential polls in 2012, and at the ripe age of XX he is now all set for retirement. Jaswant himself had announced that he would not contest Lok Sabha election again.

But as he lost the vice presidential election, only a die hard optimist would be happy that perhaps he still has a chance to return as country’s foreign minister.

But can he make it to the post?

Possibly yes, if BJP makes it in 2014. There are conjectures too, what happens if BJP is compelled to concede to give up prime ministership to Nitish Kumar, would Jaswant Singh make it as External Affairs Minister again.

Well, he might not be counted among the best of India’s foreign ministers, at least by country’s secular brigade but in framing India’s relations with the United States in the new millennium, his role cannot be forgotten.

Congress has lampooned enough at him for Indian Airlines plane hijack fiasco and sought to rubbish Jaswant’s contribution in re-establishing a workable relation with the US aftermath Pokhran-2.

Obviously, one is guided by his stellar performance as Vajpayee’s chief negotiator with Strobe Talbott, the trusted Bill Clinton point-man for Indian region.

At least Jaswant should be given some credit, of course besides Vajpayee himself, for taking a “journey” with the American leadership “guided by a sense of power and pride that India is not subservient to anyone and we (US and India) speak as equals”.

In the words of Talbott himself, “Jaswant was as hardheaded and tenacious an advocate for his government’s position as I had ever encountered”.

In his revealing page-turner ‘Engaging India’ where Talbott takes readers to the ‘backstage’ of a most suspenseful diplomatic drama, he has very high opinion of Jaswant Singh and describes him as “pragmatic and recalculating”.

He even distinguished Jaswant and L K Advani saying, “to me differences between him and BJP hardliners like Advani were real, not tactital. Jaswant represented a more sophisticated, less militant, but no less firmly held view of Hindutva”.

In fact, Talbott is to be believed, Jaswant and his team during the negotiations had given the US diplomats much tough time. “The danger with the Indians was that they would wear us down. They had their game plan ready and would stick with it”…. unlike Pakistanis, who Talbott says had no game plan.

Talbott also pays tribute to Jaswant’s diplomatic mantle saying, the Vajpayee’s Man Friday like probably the former Prime Minister had the “ability to keep the substance” of talks confidential while creating the impression that the both sides were getting along well.

Well, diplomacy is definitely about certain amount of ambiguity – at least till the final call is taken. And in terms of Indo-US relations, these were all relevant. It’s perhaps the irony of this country that Jaswant Singh might not make it as the external affairs minister again while S M Krishnas would make it and survive.

Thelikes of Shashi Tharoors and Jaswant Singhs would come and go and perhaps lament in some corridors that the basic intra-party democracy itself is lacking in India, at least in his Congress party.

(ends)