Commentary/T V R Shenoy

The only time Delhi recalls that India extends beyond Bengal is when a crisis erupts

'Our hearts,' Jawaharlal Nehru solemnly bleated, 'go out to the people of Assam...' It was 1962, and the Brahamaputra valley was at Mao's mercy.

In cold print those words don't read badly. But the tone said it all. The great Pandit Nehru was bidding farewell to the North-East.

The Red Army withdrew as it happened, but the goodbyes had already been made. And I am sorry to say the Nehruvian mindset has continued. The only time Delhi recalls that India extends beyond Bengal is when a crisis erupts.

The result is there for everyone to see. One governor formally accused his chief minister of colluding with terrorists. Government servants resignedly shell out 10 per cent of their salaries in militant imposed 'income tax'. And years ago, one tea company formally acknowledged paying ransom in its annual report!

Delhi's response has always been a deafening silence. Even now, the controversy over the so-called Tata tapes had degenerated into a quieting game of whodunit. Assam and ULFA are, predictably, receding into the background.

Perhaps that is little unfair. One set of bureaucrats has retained its interest in the North-East. I refer to the Intelligence Bureau. And it turns out the agency had a finger in the Tata Tea-ULFA saga too.

Last week, I wrote in this column that the IB may have known of the Tatas's contacts with ULFA. This has now been confirmed. In fact, it turns out the agency gave written instructions to the Tatas.

The Bureau knew perfectly well the Tatas were meeting militant representatives in Bangkok. (I'll come to the choice of venue later.) Finally, the Tatas got some of those men to come to Delhi.

The IB simply maintains the Tatas didn't tell 'everything'. Frankly, that is a charge that can be applied equally well to the Bureau itself and to the Union home ministry (the agency's nominal master).

'Everything' is such a comprehensive word, isn't it? For instance, the Tatas are accused of arranging medical care for an ULFA activist. If they didn't inform the IB of her room number in the hospital, then, technically, they didn't tell 'everything'.

Speaking of hospitals, I am far more interested in one in Geneva than the one in Bombay. One ULFA leader underwent plastic surgery in the Swiss hospital, winning a totally new appearance. Who paid that bill? (And it must have been a hefty sum -- Geneva is one of the most expensive cities on the face of the planet).

Coming back to the Tatas, just how long have they been in touch with the IB? And, specifically, which officers in the agency itself?

It is, I think relevant to note that the last two men in the Bureau who held charge of the North-East have had, shall we say, interesting backgrounds. So let us take a look at the two former additional directors in question.

The first of the two gentlemen has been raised to the dizzy heights of a governor. I think someone should find out if he had any links with the Tatas before assuming his current office.

The second was forced to quit the Bureau before he reached the age of retirement. The charges against him were never formally framed, but selective leaks to the media accused him of hobnobbing with the CIA.

This brings up the point referred to earlier -- the choice of Bangkok as a negotiating ground for the Tatas and Assam-based militants. Ever since the fall of South Vietnam, the Thai capital has been the CIA's favourite hunting ground.

And the CIA is better informed about India than most people realise. I know politicians often accuse the Americans of interfering in Punjab and Kashmir, but those areas aren't really the chinks in the Indian armour. No, the real weak spot is the North-East -- with all its wealth of oil, hydro-power potential and forest resources.

But that is a story for another day. Is it possible that the written instructions given by the IB to the Tatas pointed to Bangkok as a venue? And if so, whose interests were being served? Finally, how much did the Union home ministry know?

The tapping of Nusli Wadia's phones undoubtedly raises fundamental questions on a citizen's right to privacy. But there are other questions that must be asked -- relating to the tangled web woven by ULFA and the IB. Is comrade Indrajit Gupta willing to wake up even at this late hour?

Tell us what you think of this column