Hey Rohit:

Two great posts but I guess you missed the essence of my argument in the noise over Mr Shashi Tharoor. Whatever may or may not be the merits of the case against Mr. Tharoor --- and it is all about conjecture and opinion for there is little proof that can stand in even the weakest legal sense --- the trap of letting the debate being fixed on an individual could perhaps have been avoided and the spotlight brought to the larger issue of due process to deal with such cases. That, as my comment quoted by you shows, is the argument which is somehow left unaddressed in your post.

Taking away the personalities involved, the process reads as:
#1 - Allegations & insinuations [which are legally untenable] by a crook, who has been convicted of serious crime earlier against a public servant with spotless reputation.
#2 - Manufactured media outrage by sections of the media for their own personal agendas.
#3 - Middle class feel good moralistic retribution against a soft target; see we must start against someone, because we can't do a fig to the more brazen ones.
# 4 - A government buckling under this manufactured media outrage & middle-class angst, like it did with Kandahar in 1999, to take a populist decision.

Now, the ruling party is fully entitled to take a call on this, and so is the government. But the way of arriving at this decision is what worries me. My question is that will this process define how government should act on serious issues? Allegations backed by media pressure leading to government decisions is dangerous for India and Indians, if this principle remains at play.

Mr Tharoor can be hanged from the nearest tree for all I care, but the bigger danger lies in the cheerleaders brigade sanctifying and supporting this process of decision-making. The due legislative and legal process cannot be made subservient to such behaviour, unless we wish to have another Kandahar.

Finally, I would love to see BJP hold the same process up for Mr Narendra Modi. Unsubstantiated allegations, media outrage and his hanging. Where is the difference? Although I hope they don't make the same mistake and instead focus on going through a strong legal process which is the right way ahead.

To conclude, by focusing only on Mr Tharoor here in this tirade, the real issue has been left unadressed. I hope you will take the issue of the "process of decision-making" up in subsequent posts and move beyond this focus on an individual. The nation does not start or stop with Mr Tharoor, and is way more important than him.

Thanks for taking out the time to write a post on my criticism of your earlier post.

Rohit:

Even you'll agree that theoretically, it could have been handled better in democratic, federal structure. What has happened now is the easiest course of action, because asking everyone to do it is extremely difficult. So there are arguments on either side. But is the NIA the absolute outer limit of central government's outreach in state matters. We do need to draw the line somewhere.

The bigger point (and perhaps unrelated to your post) is about the Silver Bullet nature of these actions. The Congress says NIA, the BJP says POTA but no one talks about police reforms. That is the most critical aspect in improving internal security. More laws and more agencies sound good and help in rhetoric but does it really make a difference? Who will reform the existing institutions?

Finally, the US had a bipartisan 9/11 commission after the terror attacks to force the way ahead. Why can't India have one, say under Arun Singh?

Rohit:

Good one. But I was wondering if you'd care to answer this for me. Would the results have been any different had the Mumbai terror attacks not taken place?

Like the Lok Sabha elections being an aggregate of state results, why can't the assembly results be a similar aggregation of panchayat or district results? There are no waves and landslides here, Mizoram apart.

Lastly, in public perception it has come out as a bad result (if not defeat) for the BJP and a good result (if not victory) for the Congress. Does public perception matter when the constituencies are increasing getting urbanised after delimitation? How do you read that for the LS elections or is all this irrelevant to the LS polls?

@Adarsh/ Yash/ Mihir:

1. There is no official procedure for calling in the MarCos. The procedure exists for requisitioning the army for "aid to civil authority" by a civil magistrate, whcih was followed in Mumbai. This got the army units, which laid the outer cordon while NSG undertook the main operations.

2. The faxed request for MarCos from the Police Commissioner was denied by the FOC-in-C, who wanted the request to come from no less than the Chief Secretary. This was unwarranted and led to wastage of precious time during a national emergency. The same Admiral gave interview to NDTV, flashing out captured items -- without authorisation. Most likely, he was the one who authorised the MarCos press conference, which was unwarranted and in extremely poor taste.

3. The intelligence advisory was not a generic one given to the Navy but a specific one with latitude and longitude and the name of the vessel passed on to the Navy. The Naval Chief's reaction in the press conference was also not befitting a service chief.

4. While the politicians, bureaucrats, policemen, intelligence agencies and the media have been put under the scanner, the defence services should also be put under the same scrutiny in a democracy. Kudos to Rohit for raising this issue, knowing fully well that it is a hard and lonely argument to make.

Rohit:

VP Singh was related to change and Rajiv Gandhi to hope. When they failed to deliver (due to unrealistic expectations, limitations of the system, individual traits or whatever), they left a complete generation disillusioned with politics. Did that contribute to the rise of politicians like Maywati, Mulayam, Lalu and Modi, as the educated, liberal middle class stayed away from participative politics?

I think that is the real fear in the US if Obama fails. You don't need pop stars, you need serious politicians. When Obama says change, his followers take it as transformation. That disconnect might be his undoing.

Rohit:

Great call. Mayawati has not transcended the caste barrier. She has been instead trapped into the caste game. It has not been a handicap for her but she has manoeuvred to translate it into an electoral advantage.

Obama didn't play the race card and he is not a President because the US felt the need to right the wrongs of the past. He won because he was the best candidate. Can we say the same about Mayawati? Nah.

The comparison is odious and makes no sense at all.

...throwing the baby with the bathwater. If there are some issues with exit and opinion polls, the prudent course is to have an industry regulator. As you rightly say, what next -- op-eds by newspapers endorsing the policies of one party or another.

@R:

No, the argument is not that far off. Why can't the doctors, as a community, refuse to treat a suspect? The same logic as applied by the lawyers. We will not touch or help these bastards.

It is not only illegal, but unethical, for the lawyer community to say that no lawyer will defend them. An individual lawyer does have a choice, I agree, to decline a case. But you can not have a diktat for the group. That violates the fundamental principles of our constitution.

Rohit:

Great post. Two points. A suspect is not a convict. You can't hang someone before being proved guilty.

For a lawyer, it amounts to a dereliction of duty. Can a doctor refuse to treat a suspect by the same logic?

Rohit:

Great post. As you rightly said, it is the question of police reforms. To look at merely equipping them or increasing their numbers will do no better. A systemic overhaul is the need of the hour. The prescriptions lie within the reports of the various police reform commissions. There is a lack of political will to undertake these reforms. In fact, it is a very powerful instrument in the hands of the political leadership and they'll do nothing to lose it. From Modi in Gujarat to Mayawati in UP, everyone has benefited from this control.

Then, who will push these reforms? What will be the catalyst for these reforms? Has the Islamic terrorism reached those proportions where there is no option but to undertake police reform? Is establishing a Blue Ribbon Commission the only solution? Do we also need an institutionalised mechanism to push the soft power of the government to complement the hard police action? These questions need answers.