#dnaEdit: Futile secrecy

It is understandable that Arun Jaitley, BJP leader before the 2014 elections, was a different man from Arun Jaitley, the current Union defence minister. As BJP leader he had argued in his blog to make public the Henderson Brooks report on the 1962 India-China war. At that time he was keen to prove that the 1962 war was Nehru’s folly. But as defence minister he seems to have realised that what the report contained was not merely “Nehru’s folly” but that of India, and it could seriously affect India-China relations at a time the two Asian giants are keen to move forward. Or, he must have felt that the ongoing and long drawn out border demarcation talks would be seriously affected if the report is made public. Of course, Jaitley would not be able to give the reasons for keeping the report under wraps for at least another 50 years because then he would be giving hints of what he is trying to keep a secret. He has to take shelter behind the “reasons of State”, that classic alibi for keeping State secrets.

The question, however, goes beyond the accepted norms of traditional diplomacy that governs relations between States. It is about truth, not in the romantic or moral sense, but in the historical sense. India-China relations would be placed on a better footing if the Brooks report is revealed because then it will be possible to know where the problem lies. If India had been wrong, then it would be beneficial for India to come to terms with its mistakes. A senior army officer was of the firm view that the mistakes that came to light in the K Subramaniam report on the Kargil conflict in 1999, could have been avoided if the Brooks report was made public. It seems to be the case that at least the top brass of the armed forces and some of the defence ministers are aware of the contents of the Brooks report, and the decision to withhold it from being made public is made on the assessment of the “sensitive” contents.

The fact is India has come to terms with its shortcomings, especially those shortcomings pertaining to national security and international relations. The Brooks report is about the operational aspects of the war, and it could be a withering exposure of the generals, of the intelligence staff, of then defence minister VK Krishna Menon and of Nehru. Many people forget that Nehru was under attack from the Congress Party in 1962 and he even faced the prospect of losing his job. The report can do no more harm to Nehru’s reputation than what had been done in 1962. He will remain a great leader in spite of his many failings. Jaitley’s refusal to make public the report then is not about protecting Nehru’s reputation. It must be concerning the Indian army, and the right-wing BJP is very sensitive about the army’s reputation because it equates national reputation with that of the army. India is a mature democracy and it will accept that the army is not infallible. The political class, including the BJP, must shed this adolescent admiration of the army.