THE MYTHS OF MUSLIM RAGE

Salman Rushdie’s memoir, Joseph Anton, has hit the bookshelves just as the world has become embroiled in a new controversy over Islamic sensibilities. The extraordinary violence unleashed across the Muslim world by Innocence of Muslims, an obscure US-made video, has left many bewildered and perplexed.

Rushdie was, of course, at the centre of the most famous confrontation over the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. The publication in 1988 of his fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, launched a worldwide campaign against the supposed blasphemies in the book, culminating in the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa on 14 February 1989 condemning Rushdie to death, and forcing him into hiding for a decade.

Joseph Anton is Rushdie’s account of the fatwa and the years that followed. So, what does the battle over The Satanic Verses tell us about the current controversy over The Innocence of Muslims?

The Rushdie affair is shrouded in a number of myths that have obscured its real meaning. The first myth is that the confrontation over The Satanic Verses was primarily a religious conflict. It wasn’t. It was first and foremost a political tussle. The novel became a weapon in the struggle by Islamists with each other, with secularists and with the West. The campaign began in India where hardline Islamist groups whipped up anger against Rushdie’s supposed blasphemies to win concessions from politicians nervous about an upcoming general election and fearful of alienating any section of the Muslim community. The book subsequently became an issue in Britain, a weapon in faction fights between various Islamic groups.

Most important was the struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran for supremacy in the Islamic world. From the 1970s onwards Saudi Arabia had used oil money to fund Salafi organisations and mosques worldwide to cement its position as spokesman for the umma. Then came the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that overthrew the Shah, established an Islamic republic, made Tehran the capital of Muslim radicalism, and Ayatollah Khomeini its spiritual leader, and posed a direct challenge to Riyadh. The battle over Rushdie’s novel became a key part of that conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia made the initial running, funding the campaign against the novel. The fatwa was an attempt by Iran to wrestle back the initiative. The campaign against The Satanic Verses was not a noble attempt to defend the dignity of Muslims, nor even a theological campaign to protect religious values. It was part of a sordid political battle to promote particular sectarian interests.

The second myth is that most Muslims were offended by the novel. They weren’t. Until the fatwa, the campaign against The Satanic Verses was largely confined to the subcontinent and Britain. Aside from the involvement of Saudi Arabia, there was little enthusiasm for a campaign against the novel in the Arab world or in Turkey, or among Muslim communities in France or Germany. When Saudi Arabia tried at the end of 1988 to get the novel banned in Muslim countries few responded – not even Iran. It was that fatwa, imposed for political reasons, that transformed the controversy and the confrontation.

The biggest myth of the Rushdie affair is the belief that best way to prevent such confrontations is by restricting what people are able to say to or about each other. In the battle over The Satanic Verses, many intellectuals and politicians sympathized with Muslim anger, blaming Rushdie himself for his plight. ‘There is no law in life or nature’, the novelist John Le Carré insisted, ‘that that says great religions may be insulted with impunity’. ‘We have known in our own religion people doing things which are deeply offensive to some of us’, Margaret Thatcher observed. ‘And this is what has happened to Islam’. After riots in Islamabad, the American embassy there expressed its ‘wish to emphasize that the US government in no way associates itself with any activity that is any sense offensive or insulting to Islam or any other religion’. It became accepted in the post-Rushdie world that it is morally wrong to give offence to other cultures and that in a plural society speech must necessarily be less free.

These myths about the Rushdie affair have shaped responses to every similar conflict since. Every one is being reproduced in the current debate about Innocence of Muslims: the belief that violence is being driven by religious sensibilities, that all Muslims are incensed, and that Muslim anger is reason for new restrictions on free speech.

It is true that Innocence of Muslims is a risibly crude, bigoted diatribe against Islam. But the idea that this obscure film that barely anyone had seen till this month is the source of worldwide violence is equally risible. As in the Rushdie affair, what we are seeing is a political power struggle cloaked in religious garb. In Libya, Egypt and elsewhere, the crisis is being fostered by hardline Islamists in an attempt to gain the political initiative. In recent elections hardline Islamists lost out to more mainstream factions. Just as the Ayatollah Khomeini tried to use the fatwa to turn the tables on his opponents, so the hardliners are today trying to do the same by orchestrating the violence over Innocence of Muslims, tapping into the deep well of anti-Western sentiment that exists in many of these countries. The film is almost incidental to this.

The insurrections that have transformed much the Arab world over the past year have certainly created a new terrain. They have undermined old security structures, created a greater sense of social fragmentation, and opened up new spaces for Islamist politics. What has really changed, however, is that over the past decade political rage has become far more inchoate and increasingly shorn of political content. To be ‘anti-Western’ used to mean to take a political stand against Western policy. Now, it simply expresses an unformed sense of fury, leading to a random, frenzied outpouring of anger. The nihilistic character of anti-Western sentiment today means that it can attach itself to the most arbitrary of causes. Even an obscure YouTube video can seemingly launch worldwide protests.

While the hardline Islamists have managed to bring out thousands of people on to the streets in violent protest, there is little to suggest that the majority of Muslims, even in Egypt, Libya or Pakistan support them. Indeed, hardliners are only forced into organizing such demonstrations because of their lack of popular support. Those who do not support the Islamists do not take to the streets, so are generally ignored in the West. The reactionaries come to be seen as the true voice of Muslim communities. At the same time the perception that the violent mobs are representative of Muslim feeling has lent support to calls for offensive works such as The Innocence of Muslims to be made illegal and, in this case, for the film maker to be arrested.

At the height of the battle against The Satanic Verses Shabbir Akhtar, the Muslim philosopher who acted as a spokesman for the anti-Rushdie campaign, mocked the equivocations of Western liberals. ‘Vulnerability’, he wrote, ‘is never the best proof of strength’. The more you cave in to those who would censor, the more they wish to censor. And the more you seek to appease the hardliners, and view them as the ‘real’ Muslims, the more you marginalise progressive movements in the Muslim world. The myths enshrouding the Rushdie affair have ensured that the lessons we have drawn from the battle over The Satanic Verses are the very opposite of the ones we should have learnt.

Courtsey:  

How Praful Patel killed Air India!

In an unprecedented whistleblowing act, former Indian Airlines chief Sunil Arora wrote to the then cabinet secretary B K Chaturvedi in May 2005 complaining that he and the IA board were being pressured by then civil aviation minister Praful Patel and his OSD to take financially damaging and commercially unviable decisions.

In his May 28, 2005, letter, Arora listed the decisions on which the board was overruled: purchasing more jets than required, disallowing IA to fly on viable routes to make way for other operators and, even "changing the seating configuration" to favour a particular aircraft manufacturer.

Two Lok Sabha MPs, Prabodh Panda (CPI) and Nishikant Dubey (BJP) have now approached the CVC for a probe into Arora's allegations, saying the government has failed to act.

"I would like to place before you a series of events and certain directions given to me by my immediate superior officer and the minister of civil aviation which have a vital bearing on certain critical decisions being taken in Indian Airlines and Air India... I have been constrained to write in detail to be able to explain the nuances of the verbal directions, the infirmities in the subsequent decisions taken and my consequent sense of unease in the matter," Arora wrote.

He also expressed apprehension over the consequence of his action. "Sir, kindly pardon my impertinence but I implore you to share the contents of this communication only with the Prime Minister... I would not have taken the liberty of making such a suggestion but for the fact that like every mortal, I fear for my personal and family safety."

Complaining of pressure, Arora said, "During the last one year, almost all board meetings of Air India, and even some board meetings of Airports Authority of India have become a farce. Instructions on key agenda items are communicated before hand on telephone or personally by minister, civil aviation, or by his OSD K N Choubey. No suggestions to the effect, that the issue in question requires a more detailed examination or that there are some implications are countenanced. The key word is 'immediate and unquestioned compliance'." Some of the most glaring instances are cited:

"AI discussed their dry leasing plans in 99th board meeting held in Mumbai on 17.7.04. Prior to this meeting, minister spoke to me... said since he and secretary, civil aviation, were satisfied about the correctness of the plans, it is expected that we should immediately endorse it during the board meeting. When I tried to tell him on telephone that the agenda item raises some issues, I was curtly asked to endorse the proposal and a counter question was posed on the telephone that when the minister and the secretary himself are satisfied, what more is there for us to see?"

Arora further wrote that the minister forced him to seek flight slots for IA to the UK and the US during the winter schedule instead of the profitable summer schedule even as private airlines were allowed to fly to these destinations in the summer.

"There is a clear mismatch between the reply given before the members of Parliament and the real facts. On 18.01.05, I got a message to immediately speak to the minister on telephone at his Mumbai landline... There was a conversation which went on for 15 to 20 minutes and minister civil aviation clearly told us not to file for flights to London, for the summer schedule 2005. He started by saying that since Indian Airlines does not have wide-bodied aircraft, it would not be advisable for Indian Airlines to apply for the slots at this stage.

I politely remonstrated that none of the other airlines, which have been permitted to go abroad viz Jet and Sahara, had wide-bodied aircraft till that time and if they can be considered for flights to London, Indian Airlines being the national carrier, should at least be given equal footing, if not precedence. The response on the other side was that, Indian Airlines should apply for flights to London or for other UK and US destinations only from the winter schedule."

Source: ET

Sanjiv Bhatt's open letter to Narendra Modi

Dear Narendra Modi,

You must have been apprised about the punishment meted out to your loyal lieutenants Dr. Maya Kodnani and Babu Bajrangi, as well as the misguided foot-soldiers of misconceived Hindutva, who have now been condemned to spend a life in prison. Was it perchance that you smartly distanced yourself from all these unfortunate people at an opportune moment? Have you spared a thought for the innocent family members of the accused who have been sentenced to a lifetime behind bars? It is believed that you were once a married man. At some point in your life, like all normal humans, you might have been touched by the magic of love, even thought of having children starting a family, perhaps! Have you even once thought about the plight of the wives and children of your onetime adulators who have been condemned for life?

Mr. Modi, have you ever looked at your actual image, stripped of the designer dresses that you are so enamored with? Have you ever looked at the reflection of the real face behind the mask? Have you ever introspected about your true-self concealed behind the meticulous imagery created by your media managers? Have you even once thought whether it is really worth it to sustain power, even if it requires sacrificing fellow human beings at the altar of expediency? Have you ever considered, even once, whether it is alright to facilitate or connive in the killing of another human being just because he does not conform to your beliefs? Is it really worthwhile to deceive your own self…. or, is it only a small price to pay for your political ambitions?

I hope and pray to God that you get the time, wisdom and opportunity to find honest and truthful answers to some of these questions during this lifetime.

God bless!

Sanjiv Bhatt

Is China better at capitalism than America?

Conventional wisdom holds that Uncle Sam's free-market model is the best in the world. But China's growing clout is causing economists to think twice

The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union seemingly put to rest any doubts about the supremacy of America's capitalist system. Guided by the magic hand of the market, the U.S. had created more prosperity than any other country in history, while the Soviet system crumbled under the weight of its creaky, bureaucratic machine. But the subsequent rise of China, whose economy combines aspects of capitalism and central planning, has thrust the U.S. model under new scrutiny. While Uncle Sam continues to limp his way out of the Great Recession, China has hardly broken its stride. Is China's brand of capitalism simply better than America's?

Yes. China is winning the future: China is smoking us, says Zachary Karabell at The Daily Beast. Both the U.S. and China engage in a lot of government spending, but China puts its money into infrastructure, transportation, alternate energy, and housing, all of which "will yield long-term benefits for the Chinese economy." The U.S., on the other hand, spends on "consumption, safety nets, and the military," which comprise a shakier foundation for economic growth. The "sclerotic inability" of the U.S. government to "productively invest for the common future" is the reason why its "form of capitalism has ceased to fulfill hopes, dreams, and needs of far too many people."
"China's not the big trade cheat harming America's domestic economy"

Nonsense. China's system is a pale imitation of ours: It's fashionable to proclaim that China "is eating our lunch," says Ian Bremmer at Reuters, but it's all "baloney." Just look at the way Chinese manufacturers "copycat everything foreign, from cars to watches to iPhones to social networks." The Chinese system will never "foster the entrepreneurial spirit" that makes these innovations possible, because the drearily unimaginative state is the "majority owner" of the economy. China has been able to "shoehorn a crude version of a beautiful financial system into its state-controlled economy and get some good results." But it will never be able to replicate the breakthroughs that are the hallmarks of a true free-market system.
"Chinese capitalism is just another knockoff"

Either way, the U.S. can learn from China: At every turn, America sees "ideological hang-ups standing in the way of what everyone realizes must get done" in investment and education, says Michael Schuman at TIME. In that sense, we could learn a lot from China, which dispassionately puts "pragmatism and problem solving over ideology." That's the Chinese model America should adopt: "Dropping the political bickering and ideological grandstanding and doing whatever is necessary to create prosperity."

Who is spying on Pakistan's spies?

Rob Crilly is Pakistan correspondent of The Daily Telegraph. He blogs excerpts from recently released Wikileaks files. The story of Kamran Bokhari's visit inside the ISI HQ in Islamabad and his brief meeting with agency’s chief Lt. Gen. Shuja Pasha.
--
It is not often we are allowed a glimpse inside the shadowy world of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. So amid all the humdrum dross, poorly sourced rumours and conspiracy theories in the Stratfor emails obtained by Wikileaks, it was a delight to discover an account of a meeting in April last year with Lieutenant-General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, who retired as its director general at the weekend. Analyst Kamran Bokhari describes the tight security at the ISI's lair in Islamabad and its smart premises:

Once after the main barrier, which is an iron gate you enter the courtyard of the new main building adjacent to the old ones. A really fine structure recently completed when the current army chief was heading the ISI and Musharraf was in charge – from the inside it resembles a 5-star hotel in terms of the quality of the interior finishing.

There's an interesting discussion about Afghan policy, Libya (apparently Gaddafi asked for help – no surprise given the two countries' close relationship) and the Raymond Davis debacle. Then it's time to leave…

At this point I asked him if there was any change to his email address and Pasha says I am sorry I have not been in regular touch over email because these people were reading my messages and I had to have my pc cleaned but I am still using the old email address. I asked who was reading his emails and he replied there is only one entity in Pakistan who can do that. (I take it he meant people from within the directorate were doing so).

So even the head of Pakistan's all-powerful ISI is apparently being spied upon. Perhaps by people within his own directorate. Or maybe he's simply trying to implant the idea that there are rogue elements at work, allowing him, his agency and Pakistan to play a double game with their allies in the West.

That's the thing about spies. Nothing is ever quite as it seems.

What ex-newspaper editors would have done differently

Veteran Tribune Co. and Chicago News Cooperative editor James O’Shea tells Nieman Reports:

Journalists of my era often responded to the challenges posed by the industry’s shifting business model with the retort: “That’s a business side problem.” More often than not, though, the business side’s answer was budget cuts that diminished journalism. Tomorrow’s newsroom leaders must take responsibility for the success of the enterprise by convincing themselves, readers and owners alike of something that has always been true: Good journalism is good business.

American Journalism Review asked editors the same question in 2002. Here’s what they said then.

India’s Crumbling Cities

Just give it a try…! Type “India’s dying city” on Google, and perhaps, I was not surprised to see the search engine leading me to pages on Kolkata, once the city of joy. Mahatma Gandhi described Calcutta as a dying city and the Indian-Caribbean writer V.S. Naipaul describes Calcutta as a city without future with the words: "All of its suffering are sufferings of death. I know not of any other city whose plight is more hopeless". But, Shreyasi Singh feels, Kolkata is just a symptomatic of a larger malaise affecting our cities.

One of the best things about Kahaani – the Hindi thriller that’s doing spectacularly well at the box office these days – is the way the bustling metropolis of Kolkata (once Calcutta) has been captured.

Cinematographer Setu has filmed the city in all its manic glory – people-filled streets, the grime of a city that has seen better days, and the sudden and unexpected beauty of a well-lit Howrah Bridge, an iconic Kolkata landmark, in the evening. That the movie is set over the span of a week or so during the Durga Puja festivals, the biggest festival of the Bengalis, just amplifies the sights and sounds in the movie.

Yet, while watching the movie – transfixed as I was by the smart storytelling and tight plot – I couldn’t help but think that the while the cinematographer deserves praise for his excellent work, India has generally failed when it comes to the look of our cities today.

Beyond romanticizing the “soulfulness” of a crumbling, but spirited city, the failure in administration of our urban areas is almost criminal. Kolkata isn’t alone. Barring Delhi and Hyderabad, where there have been tangible infrastructure enhancements, our other big cities – especially Bengaluru and Mumbai – are falling apart before our eyes.

In December 2005, India launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), the largest national urban initiative to encourage reforms, and it fast tracked plans for the development of 63 identified cities. As the JNNURM report stated, according to the 2001 census, India had a population of 1.03 billion, with approximately 28 percent of those people living in urban areas. By 2011, an estimated 65 percent of India’s gross domestic product was coming from urban areas, and by 2021, more than 40 percent of the total population of the country is expected to reside in urban centers.

As that happens, our cities need to be braced and prepared to handle this influx. If Kahaani’s realistic portrayal of Kolkata is a snapshot of what one of our biggest cities looks like, our preparedness seems less than satisfactory.

Dilli Dur Ast

Why Third Front is an idea with very little practicality, and most often no production viability

It’s a chair everyone wants to sit and fit in. So, it was not surprising when India Today magazine got the issue on its cover page. The story titled, “Will UPA survive this summer?” ponders upon various permutations & combinations around the new government formation. The issue has come to the forefront after drabbing performance by the incumbent UPA (read Congress) government in the recently held state polls. Despite prime minister brushing aside possibility of mid-term election, the political circle is abuzz with possibility of snap polls. Congress at this juncture definitely doesn’t wants to jump into poll fray, same for the BJP. With two of the biggest national parties unwilling to test their mandate at this juncture, regional forces have started indulging in the fantasy of a third alternative in the prevailing mood of the nation.

Indulging in fantasy of Third Front is not new in country’s politics. We saw it just before the 2009 general elections, when political pundits almost made UPA sit in the opposition. Several compromising candidates for the Prime Ministerial job were popped-up, ranging from Dalit leaders Ram Vilas Paswan and Mayawati to OBC stalwart Sharad Yadav. Later UPA without support from left and with help from other regional allies including DMK and TMC came to power. The dream died in its bud.

Almost all the regional satraps foresaw the results of assembly elections. No surprising, much in advance, they declined to toe Congress’ line on various issues including Lokpal Bill, the provisions of NCTC, the FDI and others. Regional cards were played with full acumen; issues of federalism vs. centre’s control were popped up. Naveen Patnaik was seen drafting letter on Mamata’s behalf over NCTC issue and Nitish Kumar and Jayalalitha joining the axis under West Bengal CM’s leadership. Taking Mamata on-board gave some definite edge to the possibility of what was in the store. And the possible die was cast on 6^th of March, when results stated pouring in from various states. Congress, except Uttarakhand and Manipur, was the clear loser. Party’s expectations were dashed, the party was on back foot. Decimated Congress boosted this desperate group of would be PMs, sticking together just to be in the power. Return of Mulayam Singh Yadav in UP, who earlier served as Defence Minister, in HD Deve Gowda led similar front, boosted their confidence. And after the return of the Akali Dal-BJP combine in Punjab, talk of a new federal front has only intensified.

Third Front is not an alien concept to Indian politics. The Janta Party was the first non-Congress party which came to power in Delhi and since then India has seen five experiments on the line. None of these experiments were based on majority by the coalition partners. If we look at the numbers garnered by these parties in the current Lok Sabha, their combined strength adds up to 222, minus the BJP, which falls short of the 50% mark. It is also obvious that many of these parties, such as DMK and the AIADMK or the SP and BSP can’t see eye to eye. So the rational figure goes further down to less than 100 seats, impossible to offer a viable alternative.

There is a bigger inherent weakness which is glossed over when the going is good (i.e., when the romance is at an early stage) and which rears up in an ugly fashion when the honeymoon is over. Each of these regional chieftains is ambitious, i.e., they would all like to be prime minister. Their logic is—if someone like Deve Gowda, a complete outsider to national politics can make it as a compromise candidate (ditto for I.K. Gujral) why not me, who runs a state government and can deliver a handful of Lok Sabha seats? In this too many chiefs, not enough Indians situation, the ambitions of these regional bosses will cancel each other out.

Also the contention that regional parties are losing is not supported by outcome of recent polls. Both in UP and Punjab, the Congress’ vote share went up.

This will not stop the Third Front idea from gaining traction, because that is propelled by an antipathy towards the Congress and suspicion of the BJP. And given the peculiarities of our system, a minority government could, with some informal help from outside, come to power, even if its durability would remain suspect. But the cheerleaders of yet another front would do well not to get overexcited; Delhi is still far away.

Statspeaks - Is Virat the new Sachin?

Note: The figures are till the end of the innings in which 3000-run mark was achieved.

20 Seconds read: Star- struck

Once in my childhood Maa (mother) slapped me for playing evil. I was sad and started looking towards stars. "I was one of those stars," so I believed. One of my cousin had died few days back and whenever I asked Mom, where she has gone. She uses to raise her finger towards a star. Loadstar…!

Today is exactly 25-years since she's a star, a rockstar and me the mortal.

Omita knows it better

How a 73 batch IIS officer has emerged as India's most powerful bureaucrat

Twice been to the Finance Ministry. First in 2004 when I was still trained as a journalist and again in 2010 while assisting my boss for pre-budget interview with the Finance Minister. The secrecy was in the air as Babus were too busy with their files. “Dada” as Pranab Babu is lovingly called reached our interview set exactly on time, even before our anchor reached the spot. During the interview, I discovered a lady in her mid-fifties sitting among us, almost guiding finance minister on “what not to say.” We left the finance ministry in a huff after that as I have to rush with the tape to the studio. The lady slipped out of my mind.

After a week I spotted the same lady on TV screen standing authoritatively beside Pranab Da. It’s then when I asked my boss- Who’s she? With a grin on his face he replied –“aap nahi jante?”. She is Omita Paul. Paul, a Bengali surname, made me believe for a moment that she is better-half of our FM..! And that’s true, pardon my ignorance but that’s exactly the first thing which came to my mind.

Fast forward 2011, Economic Times published a story titled, “Why North Block can't do without Omita Paul.” The newspaper quoted Pranab Mukherjee saying to his officers, "Omita knows the way I want to express it." Pranab was informing his officers on how Paul was indispensable when it comes to writing his budget speech. Pranab’s comfort with Paul speaks volume about the kind of working chemistry Omita has with her boss. Her relation with Pranab Babu goes back to late 70s when this 1973 batch Indian Information Services officer was under secretary in the Commerce ministry and Pranab Babu was Finance Minister with additional charge of Ministry of Commerce and Supply. Omita was OSD in the Planning commission from June 91 to May 96. Not surprising it was the same time Pranab Babu was deputy chairman of the plan panel. Moving forward Pranab was Commerce minister from June 93 to Feb 95. Omita was OSD to the Commerce minister during the period. In 1995-96, Pranab Da was holding the External Affair portfolio, Omita was OSD to the Foreign Minister. Between 1996 and 2004 Congress was out of power and Omita was relegated to the Information services job. From the post of DPR in PIB to ADG in DD, Omita was left out of policy making process until a fine day in 2004, when NDA lost to UPA in the General election held that summer. Smiling Pranab Babu enters Defence Ministry on 23^rd May 2004, and in November the same year Omita was assigned the duty to advise honorable Raksha Mantri. Omita was back with a bang. From OSD to Advisor of the Union minister, it was a huge promotion of sort. Pranab Da took her along to MEA and finally she landed in the Finance Ministry in May 2009.

“Madam,” as Omita is addressed by officers in NB - with love or with contempt- has carved out for herself an unprecedented space in the ministry. Though largely unknown to the aam taxpayers of this country some developments have brought into sharp focus the nature of Paul’s “overwhelming role” in the Finance Ministry. And slowly revolt is brewing against Omita Paul. Some officers are up in arms though still not openly but they are speaking up their minds in private conversations. They are questioning Paul’s expertise in managing micro financial niceties. Her qualification is under severe scrutiny. More than bureaucrats it’s the technocrats who are feeling “insulted” as FM puts aside their recommendations over Paul’s on many vital issues.

It is also interesting to note that how Omita Paul describes her role in the ministry. Talking to journalist in June this year she said, “It's a description of herself that Paul says she fails to recognise. " My job is to advise the FM and whenever I'm asked to work on something, I do it. My job is not different from any other bureaucrat ." Perhaps while describing her role Paul conveniently forgot to add that it was she who pressed Pranab Babu in taking back his resignation on the issue of Fin Min’s 2G note issue. And Pranab Babu obliged..! Can Ms Paul explain which other bureaucrat in the country has the guts to press the finance minister to take back his resignation?

Why was Bhave not given extension?The exit of CB Bhave from SEBI also put the role of Omita Paul under scrutiny. Bhave is widely credited for improving the quality of operations and investigations at the market regulator. After completion of his three-year term Bhave was given extension for next two-year. But this decision was quickly rolled back and UK Sinha was made the new SEBI chief. Paul out rightly denied any role in Bhave’s affair. She said, "The suggestion that I or any bureaucrat can influence that is absurd. You are making me out to be more powerful than I really am. It would certainly not happen under this finance minister. He does not interfere in appointments or functioning of these institutions."

A PIL filed in November this year by a group of retired high-ranked government functionaries — including former CBI Joint Director BR Lall, former Chief of Air Staff S Krishnaswamy questioned the appointment of Sebi chief UK Sinha, and especially the creation of a selection panel that gave too much power to the finance ministry, and possibly done under the influence of corporate interests.

“There are clear indications that there is a nexus between the ministry of finance and major corporate players and that free and fair functioning of Sebi is no longer possible”, said former Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam, who represented the petitioners. The PIL said the denial of an extension to former SEBI chief CB Bhave was indicative of the ministry’s attempts to influence the market regulator. Among other things, Abraham said that Mukherjee’s office, and especially his advisor Omita Paul, were trying to influence many cases before Sebi, including those relating to Sahara Group, Reliance, Bank of Rajasthan and MCX.

Why income –tax exemption for members of UPSC?Former Delhi Police commissioner and husband of Omita Paul, KK Paul is a member of UPSC. In the 2011 budget proposals Mukherjee granted income-tax exemption on certain allowance to members of UPSC. As a result, UPSC members came to enjoy an exemption hitherto reserved for posts such as the chief election commissioner and judges of the Supreme Court. As usual Paul said she has nothing to do with this. "There was no file on that which I would have seen. I have nothing to do with it." "I'm amused even by the suggestion that I need to be involved in something like this. UPSC is a constitutional authority.

I had a cursory glance at her Biodata and on record she doesn’t have any experience or formal education to be the advisor to the Finance Minister. Paul is M.Sc in Chemistry from Punjab University. She did her Bachelors in journalism (and possibly this degree would have helped her in getting her IIS job). She has also attained Advanced professional programme in public administration at IIPM, New Delhi (This is also a must for every bureaucrat in the country). Interestingly her qualifications also include ILO symposium on information technologies in the Media and Entertainment Industries. ..! Her CV credits her with editing books including Work Culture in India and Executive Motivation and Human Resource Planning in Airlines –an Asian Experience. Do these qualifications qualify anyone to hold sensitive and important post like advisor to the Finance Minister of largest democracy?

No one would have questioned the credibility of advisor to the FM if finances of this country would have been managed well. But looking at the mess country’s finance are in, some questions naturally arises as to who is advising our Finance Minister?