Come clean

Whoever thought up the codename could never have imagined that Operation Leech would end up feeding off the credibility of so many branches of the Indian government causing it lasting embarrassment at home and abroad. As detailed reports in this newspaper reveal, the operation has wide and serious ramifications. Another such clandestine operation and the inter-agency disputes surrounding it might have been consigned to oblivion in the archives. This one has come into the public realm thanks to the allegations and counter-allegations by De-fence Minister George Fernandes and Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. As such it is legitimate to demand answers to the host of questions Operation Leech raises. Furthermore, the human rights aspect of the case has taken the matter to some extent out of the hands of the government already. Violations of human rights have only been partly redressed by the release last week of 37 innocent Thai and Myanmarese fishermen after they were held in the Andamans for as long as 15 months withoutbeing charged. The National Human Rights Commission has apparently been asked to examine the circumstances of the deaths of six members of the Arakan Army and Karen National Army in February last year on Landfall Islands as well as the continuing detention of 36 other foreign militants in the Andamans. This dimension of Operation Leech 8212; and the CBI8217;s usual delays 8212; will and must be kept alive, even if the government chooses for other reasons to draw a veil over the operation.

A second set of serious questions which it is impossible to get away from is the conflict between the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces over the interdiction of arms carried on the high seas. The protest by the three defence chiefs against the July 27, 1998 order signed by former defence secretary Ajit Kumar is disturbing evidence of a critical communications gap as a result of which the two sides of the MoD appeared to work at cross-purposes. As Bhagwat saw it, had the arms gone through they would have pinned down Indian troops in the north-east for months. Fernandes8217; eventual counter-claim that the July 27 orders were issued after receiving advice from the Indian mission in Yangon only serves to spread embarrassment wider without answering key questions. Why were the rules of existing armed forces operations against gunrunners being changed? Why were the defence chiefs not adequately informed?

The government can no longer maintain a deafening silence in response to the revelations on Operation Leech. Doubts persist about the conflict of interest between George Fernandes8217; ideological commitments and his ministerial responsibilities. Indeed those doubts are exacerbated by the chronology and latest details of the operation. In sensitive matters such as these which are now public knowledge it is far better to deal as honestly as possible with all the questions, awkward as they are, than to pretend that all is well. The affair will not die down. It will haunt this government and the next. The best advice that can be offered is that the government come clean.