Brahma Chellaney

2009-02-08T17:57:58Z

91.107.17.128:

[[Image:BC.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Brahma Chellaney]]
'''Brahma Chellaney''' is Professor of Strategic Studies at the [[New Delhi]]-based [[Centre for Policy Research]], an independent, privately funded think-tank. Until recently, he was also a Member of the Policy Advisory Group headed by the External Affairs Minister of [[India]].

Professor Chellaney is widely regarded as one of India's leading strategic thinkers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.harpercollins.co.in/AuthorDetail.asp?Author_Code=1323 |title=Brahma Chellaney | | publisher=HarperCollins Publishers |date= |accessdate=2009-01-28}}</ref> He is very well known as a commentator on regional and international issues in the field of strategic affairs.

He is one of the authors of India's nuclear doctrine and its first strategic defense review. Those contributions came when Professor Chellaney was an adviser to India’s National Security Council until January 2000, serving as convenor of the External Security Group of the National Security Advisory Board, as well as member of the Board’s Nuclear Doctrine Group.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cprindia.org/onefac.php?s=69 |title=Centre for Policy Research | |date= |accessdate=2009-01-28}}</ref>

== Education and career ==
Professor Chellaney holds a [[Ph.D.]] in arms control. A specialist on international security and arms control issues, Professor Chellaney has held appointments at the [[Harvard]] University, the [[Brookings Institution]], the [[Johns Hopkins University|Johns Hopkins]] University's School of Advanced International Studies and the Australian National University. His specialization includes energy and climate security, terrorism and nuclear issues.

He is also a newspaper columnist and television commentator. He writes opinion articles for the [[International Herald Tribune]], [[Wall Street Journal]], [[The Japan Times]], [[The Times of India]], [[The Asian Age]] and [[The Hindustan Times]]. In 1985, he won the Overseas Press Club of America's Citation for Excellence.

Professor Chellaney is a potential contender for the post of India's [[National Security Advisor]], in particular if the opposition comes to power in nationwide elections scheduled for April-May 2009.

== Publications ==
Professor Chellaney is the author of five books.

His latest book is the best-selling ''Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China, India and Japan'' (HarperCollins, 2007). This book focuses on a resurgent Asia’s potential emergence as the global pivot. Asia’s significance in international relations is beginning to rival that of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. With the world’s fastest-growing markets, fastest-rising military expenditures and most serious hot spots, Asia holds the key to the future global order. The book examines the ascent of Asia by focusing on its three main powers — China, India and Japan. It argues that how the China-Japan, China-India and Japan-India equations evolve in the coming years will have a crucial bearing on Asian and global security.

Another recent publication is a smaller, 100-page book, ''On the Frontline of Climate Change: International Security Implications'' (KAF, 2007), with Heela Najibullah. This is a study of the larger strategic ramifications of global warming. Given that climate change can only be slowed but not stopped, the book contends that the subject should be elevated to a national-security issue. It argues that Asia is likely to bear the brunt of climate change, making it imperative for Asian states to build greater institutional and organizational capacity.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kas.de/proj/home/pub/38/2/year-2007/dokument_id-12111/index.html |title=Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.V. | |date= |accessdate=2009-01-28}}</ref>

Professor Chellaney has published research papers in ''International Security, Orbis, Survival, Washington Quarterly, Security Studies'' and ''Terrorism.''

==Analysis of U.S.-India Nuclear Deal==

{{main|Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement}}

Professor Chellaney stood out for expressing doubts about the long-term benefits of the U.S.-India nuclear deal, which was unveiled in July 2005 and ratified by the U.S. Congress in October 2008. “The deal’s very rationale is fundamentally flawed because generating electricity from imported reactors makes little economic or strategic sense. Such imports will lead to energy insecurity and exorbitant costs,” he argued in the [[International Herald Tribune]].<ref>{{cite|title=U.S. deal is a bad choice for power generation |author=Brahma Chellaney |publisher=International Herald Tribune |date=December 27, 2005}}</ref> “India should not replicate in the energy sector the major mistake it has pursued on armaments. Now the world's largest arms importer, India spends billions of dollars a year on weapons imports, some of questionable value, while it neglects to build its own armament-production base. India should not think of compounding that blunder by spending billions more to import overly expensive reactors when it can more profitably invest in the development of its own energy sources.”

Professor Chellaney criticized the Bush administration both for reneging on the accord's central plank as defined by the original agreement-in-principle — that India would “assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology” — and for progressively adding new conditions to make the deal more palatable to the nonproliferation constituency at home. “America's goalpost-shifting approach shows it will accept India at most as a second-class nuclear power,” he contended.<ref>{{cite|title=Vaunted U.S.-India nuclear deal begins to fall apart: Shifting the goalposts |author=Brahma Chellaney |publisher=International Herald Tribune |date=February 13, 2006}}</ref>

His thesis was that the deal had been oversold by politicians both in New Delhi and in Washington. “Supporters in India have argued it will cement U.S.-India ties and facilitate technology transfers in fields beyond commercial nuclear power. Backers in the U.S. have argued the deal will make it easier for Washington to call on India as a counterweight to China's influence, and expand commercial opportunities for Americans. But none of these claims is entirely realistic,” he wrote in the [[Wall Street Journal ]].<ref>{{cite|title=Nuclear Distraction |author=Brahma Chellaney |publisher=Wall Street Journal |date=September 10, 2008}}</ref> “In short, the hype over the nuclear deal needs to be tempered by certain realities. First among these is that a durable U.S.-India partnership cannot be built on strategic opportunism, but rather must grow from shared national interests. In coming years, India will increasingly be aligned with the West economically. But strategically it can avail itself of multiple options, even as it moves from nonalignment to a contemporary, globalized strategic framework. In keeping with its long-standing preference for policy independence, India is likely to become multialigned, while tilting more toward the U.S.”

==Coverage of Operation Bluestar==

{{main|Operation Bluestar}}

Professor Chellaney began his career as a journalist in his early 20s, working as the South Asia correspondent of the leading international wire service, [[Associated Press]]. In that capacity, he covered the June 1984 Indian security operation, known as [[Operation Bluestar]], to flush out Sikh militants holed up in the sprawling complex of the [[Golden Temple]], the holiest Sikh shrine. His exclusive coverage won him a prestigious journalism award — a Citation for Excellence in 1985 by the [[Overseas Press Club]], New York. Mr. Chellaney later finished his Ph.D. and entered academia.

Before the storming of [[Golden Temple]] by Indian Army starting June 3, 1984, reporters were removed from [[Punjab (India)]] by the authorities and a [[Media blackout |media blackout]] was enforced.<ref name=HamlynMediaBlackout>{{cite news | last = Hamlyn |first = Michael | title = Journalists removed from Amritsar: Army prepares to enter Sikh shrine | work =| pages =36| language = English| publisher = The Times | date = 1984-06-06| url =| accessdate = 2008-12-25}}</ref> Journalists working for foreign news organizations were confined to Amritsar’s Hotel Ritz, from where they were bused to the neighboring state of Haryana.<ref>{{cite book
|title=Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi’s Last Battle
|last=Tully
|first=Mark
|publisher=[[Jonathan Cape]]
|year=1985
|pages=
|isbn=
}}</ref> All main towns were put under curfew, transportation was banned, news blackout was imposed and Punjab was "cut off from the outside world."<ref>{{cite news | last = |first = | title = Gun battle rages in Sikh holy shrine| work =| pages =1| language = English| publisher = The Times | date = 1984-06-05| url =| accessdate = 2008-12-26}}</ref> Brahma Chellaney of the [[Associated Press]] was the only foreign reporter who managed to stay on in [[Amritsar]] despite the media blackout.<ref name=FirstReportBrahma>{{cite news | last = Hamlyn |first =Michael | title = Amritsar witness puts death toll at 1000| work =| pages =7| language = English| publisher = The Times| date = 1984-06-12| url =| accessdate = 2008-12-26}}</ref> His dispatches, filed by telex, provided the first non-government news reports on the attack in [[Amritsar]].

His first dispatch, front-paged by the [[New York Times]], [[The Times]] of London and [[The Guardian]], reported a death toll about twice of what authorities had admitted. According to the dispatch, about 780 militants and civilians and 400 troops had perished in fierce gunbattles. The high casualty rates among security forces were attributed to the sheer determination and valour of the Sikh militants who were poorly armed and hugely outnumbered against the indian army with their tanks,helicopters and sophisticated armaments.General KS Brar put the number of Sikh militants at around 50,that this number or even twice that were able to kill 700 of indias most elite troops is extraordinary”<ref>{{cite|title=Golden Temple Sikhs Surrender|author=Eric Silver| publisher=The Guardian|date=June 7, 1984}}</ref> Mr. Chellaney also reported that “several” suspected Sikh militants had been shot with their hands tied with their turbans.<ref name=tiedandshot>{{cite news | last = Chellaney |first = Brahma | title = Sikhs in Amritsar 'tied up and shot'| work = Brahma Chellaney, for the Associated Press, was the only foreign correspondent in Amritsar during the storming of the temple | pages =1| language = English| publisher = The Times| date = 1984-06-14| url =| accessdate =2008-12-26}}</ref>. The dispatch, after its first paragraph reference to “several” such deaths title = Sikh men and children were shot 'at point-blank range'| work = Brahma Chellaney, for the Associated Press, was the only foreign correspondent in Amritsar during the storming of the temple | pages =3| language = English| publisher = The Times| date = 1984-06-14| url =| accessdate =2008-12-2}}</ref> In that dispatch, Mr. Chellaney interviewed a doctor who said he was picked up by the army and forced to conduct postmortems despite the fact he had never done any postmortem examination before,he was told to write what the soldiers told him to write.<ref name=tiedandshot/> The number of causalities reported by Mr. Chellaney were far more than government reports,<ref name=underestimated>{{cite news | last = |first =| title = Toll in assault on Sikh Temple termed vastly underestimated | work =| pages =| language = English| publisher = Miami Herald| date = 1984-06-11| url =| accessdate = 2008-12-26}}</ref> and embarrassed the Indian government,who had tried so desperately to hide what it was doing in the Punjab from the world,they lazily disputed his casualty figures,which in reality were also conservative <ref name=govtreaction1>{{cite news | last =|first =| title = Indian Police Question Reporter on Amritsar | work = The Associated Press| pages =| language = English| publisher = The New York Times| date = 1984-11-24| url =http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E6DA1638F937A15752C1A962948260| accessdate =2009-01-14}}</ref> and accused him of inflammatory reporting.<ref name=govtreaction2>{{cite news | last =|first =| title = India is set to drop prosecution of AP reporter in Punjab Case | work = The Associated Press| pages =5| language = English| publisher = The New York Times, Late City Final Edition| date = 1985-09-14| url =http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0F11FC3D5D0C778DDDA00894DD484D81| accessdate =2009-01-14}}</ref> The Associated Press stood by the reports and figures, the accuracy of which was also "supported by [[Indian]] and other press accounts" according to [[Associated Press]]; and reports in [[The Times]] and [[The New York Times]] <ref name=reportsverified>{{cite news | last = Stevens |first = | title = India is said to drop prosecution of A. P. reporter in Punjab case =| pages =5| language = English| publisher = New York Times| date = 1984-10-30| url =| accessdate = 2008-12-26 | quote= ''Mr. Chellaney reported a death toll of 1,200 at a time when the Indian Government said the figure was 576. He also reported that 8 to 10 Sikhs had been tied up and shot by soldiers. The Government called his dispatches false and inflammatory. The A. P. defended the accuracy of his reports, which were supported by Indian and other press accounts.''}}</ref>.

==Reaction of authorities to Chellaney's Operation Bluestar reports==

The government cited Mr. Chellaney’s dispatches published in the [[New York Times]], [[The Times]] of London and [[The Guardian]] to accuse him and the [[Associated Press]] of breaking the press-censorship order that had been promulgated in the state of Punjab. It ordered Punjab police to investigate, and the police did question Mr. Chellaney. When the police found out that Mr. Chellaney had technically not violated the censorship order because he had filed his dispatches by telex from the neighboring state of [[Himachal Pradesh]], the government then threatened to charge him under the draconian Terrorist Affected Areas Act (TAAA). However, despite the government threat to prosecute Mr. Chellaney, as the [[New York Times]] noted editorially, “he was never arrested or formally charged, though he was subjected to intense interrogation.”<ref>{{cite|title=On Shaky Ground, Case Closed in India (editorial)|author=New York Times| publisher=New York Times|date=September 19, 1985}}</ref>

There were three reasons why no formal charges were ever filed. First, the government actions against Mr. Chellaney caused outrage in the journalism world<ref name=ProtestsInPunjab>{{cite news | last = Stevens |first =Wiliam K. | title = Charges Against a Reporter in Punjab Stir Protest| pages =A4| language = English| publisher = New York Times| date = 1984-10-30|quote=''An effort to prosecute an Associated Press reporter here has set off protests by representatives of western news organizations, some of whom see the case as a gross violation of the principle of freedom of press, a principle officially subscribed by the Indian Government.'' }}</ref> and civil liberties organizations.<ref name=govtchallenged>{{cite news | last = Hamlyn |first =Michael | title = Terror Act journalist gets hearing | work =| pages =5| language = English| publisher = The Times| date = 1984-10-31| url =| accessdate = 2008-12-26}}</ref> The [[New York Times]] took the lead, carrying several editorials severely criticizing Indian authorities. In one editorial, titled “Truth on Trial—in India,” it said Mr. Chellaney “provoked displeasure by doing his job too well.”<ref>{{cite|title=Truth on Trial—in India (editorial) |author=New York Times| publisher=New York Times|date=October 23, 1984}}</ref> The [[Associated Press]] Managing Editors Association, comprising editors of major U.S. newspapers, adopted a resolution calling on the Indian government to ”cease all proceedings, under way and contemplated,” pointing out that '”responsible Indian officials have corroborated Mr. Chellaney’s news dispatches from Amritsar.”<ref>{{cite|title=Editors Group Bids India Drop Reporter Case |author=| publisher=New York Times|date=December 1, 1984}}</ref>

The [[International Federation of Journalists]] (Brussels) protested the "continued harassment" of Mr. Chellaney by the Indian government<ref name=IFJprotest>{{cite news | last = |first =| title = Jounalists Group Protests Treatment of Indian Reporter | pages =| language = English| publisher = New York Times| date = 1985-05-04| url =| accessdate = 2008-12-26 | quote= BRUSSELS, May 3 (A P) - The International Federation of Journalists cabled Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of India today to protest what it called the continued harassment of a reporter for The Associated Press, Brahma Chellaney, and to ask for the free exercise of journalism in India. The Brussels-based organization, which has a membership of 105,000 journalists, also protested 'the refusal by Indian authorities to return his passport and renew his press card'.}}</ref>. That organization asked for the free exercise of journalism in India.<ref>{{cite|title=Journalists' Group Protests Treatment of Indian Reporter |publisher=New York Times|date=May 4, 1985}}</ref> Other media organizations also protested. The Editors' Guild of India protested the curbing of press freedom and the illegal charges sought to be framed against Mr. Chellaney by the government<ref name=EGIprotest>{{cite news | last = |first = | title = Indian Editors Say Governments Threatens Free Expression =| pages =4| language = English| publisher = New York Times| date = 1985-02-17| url =| accessdate = 2008-12-26}}</ref>

Second, the [[Associated Press]] and Mr. Chellaney took the case to the [[Supreme Court of India]], which set up a full constitutional bench to hear the matter. The government act was also challenged as "unconstitutional" by Maharaja of Patiala, Amrinder Singh, in a separate application filed in the Supreme Court.<ref name=govtchallenged/>

Third, Mr. Chellaney’s reporting had been corroborated by several other Indian publications and by the army general who commanded [[Operation Bluestar]], [[Krishnaswamy Sundarji]]. Sundarji, in an interview to the now-defunct Illustrated Weekly of India, had confirmed Mr. Chellaney’s death toll of nearly 1,200 in that operation. As a top editor of the [[Indian Express]] later wrote, investigations by the newspaper “found that what Chellaney had written was absolutely correct.”<ref>{{cite|title=Bad Star|author=Rahul Singh| publisher=Indian Express|date=July 26, 1993}}</ref>

The pending preliminary charges against Mr. Chellaney were formally dropped in September 1985<ref name=chargeDropped>{{cite news | last = |first =| title = Case dropped | work =| pages =| language = English| publisher = The Times | date = 1985-09-09| url =| accessdate = 2008-12-26 }}</ref> and his press credentials restored.<ref>{{cite|title=India is said to drop prosecution of A.P. reporter in Punjab case|author=William K. Stevens| publisher=New York Times|date=October 30, 1985}}</ref> “Mr. Chellaney's only offenses were enterprise and accuracy,” the [[New York Times]] editorialized, hailing the decision. “Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi has written the right ending to a case he inherited with the Sikh crisis,” it added.<ref>{{cite|title=On Shaky Ground, Case Closed in India (editorial) |author=New York Times| publisher=New York Times|date=September 19, 1985}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

[[category:Indian academics]]

Wikipedia - Benutzerbeiträge [de]

Brahma Chellaney