BY : Salman Khurshid
It might be too much for the patriotic Indian to read this along stories about the Indian army spooking the government.
If your comment on the CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) did not touch national security and our strategic commitments (‘Committee on Insecurity’, Shekhar Gupta’s National Interest, IE, March 1), I would have thanked you silently for the quality of humour in these humourless times. However, if The Indian Express has chosen to emulate the Private Eye, I implore you, change the format and carry a warning for the unsuspecting citizen.
It might be too much for the patriotic Indian to read this along stories about the Indian army spooking the government. Presumably you were wrong, else the BJP that claims an uncompromising record on patriotism would not enthusiastically receive in its ranks a former army chief suspected of such adventurism.
Or is it that all being fair in love and war, a little hypocrisy and being economical with the truth is fine to please friends? The absence of terrorist attacks on India in recent times, you presumably attribute to the “kindness” of our enemy, not our preparedness. The UPA chairperson’s concern in accompanying the then home minister to the site of dastardly attacks, you believe, is all he was good for. As for the external affairs minister, you really think being accessible to your tribe is not part of the job? Perhaps I will remember this next time your correspondents want a story.
Your sources claim they saved my predecessor external affairs minister from the embarrassment of reading another UN delegate’s speech, but did not admit tardiness in not placing the right speech! The fingerprints are clear. It is elementary, Mr Editor! You might think that complaints by maids against our diplomats abroad is not an issue, but the people think differently, as they do about the treatment of our students abroad. I serve the people, not the press. Unsuccessful by your standards I can understand, but inconsequential? Is this journalism of courage or contritenes, perhaps linguistic malfunction?
A common term I used recently, some people, including your ilk, have sought to twist and then questioned its propriety. Surely you did not also use it in your comment to oblige me, but because it best described, according to you, my condition — as, indeed, that of my other CCS colleagues. That word is fine if used by you but offensive if we do.
But in what sense did you use it for the CCS? I have known sticks and stones doing what words cannot, but this word certainly touched a raw nerve. I imagine you have a readership across the world, where we engage in serious dialogue on strategic continued…