To those embarrassed, WikiLeaks exposures are seen as a big nuisance. To others, they provide a rare glimpse to the thoughts and behavior of so-called responsible top officials and operatives on highly sensitive issues and secret information gathering about which the public or even the concerned government or governments may never have any specific knowledge.

There is little untruthful about those private and confidential exchanges through high security-enabled mails and chats, tapped by WikiLeaks by hacking into the otherwise fire-walled communication network and their subsequent public exposure by the website which have embarrassed some of the world’s most powerful governments, institutions and personalities. It has battered the image of the United States. Also, it has shattered the ‘unshakable’ Swiss law protection shield around secret bank account holders. WikiLeaks exposures have covered wide range of areas from defence to diplomacy, finance to drug running, and commercial intelligence to political espionage. They are like modern chemical warfare targeted at the general public to psyche them or to ignite their sense of distrust against institutions and establishments and those at the helm. They give a mental shock to those who still have faith in public institutions.

Whatever such leaks may be worth, it is simply unfair to demand Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s resignation just on the basis of WikiLeaks exposure of ‘cash-for-MPs’ to save his government from the no-confidence motion raised by the Opposition in Parliament way back in July, 2008, following the withdrawal of Left support to the ruling Congress-led alliance (UPA) on the issue of the Indo-US nuclear deal. This is notwithstanding the fact that the exposure has badly and undeniably bruised the image of the Congress party and the prime minister. But, more than that, the exposure establishes the presence of an under-cover US intelligence network deep into the Indian administration and the political system constantly supplying politically and strategically sensitive information to the American administration. This is certainly a matter of great concern for the country’s both internal and external security and economic stability. The matter certainly justifies a debate in Parliament and institution of a high-level probe into the conduct of those politicians and bureaucrats and also of their mentors and patrons in the government or outside involved in such deplorable acts.

One of the most disturbing information which became public knowledge is the latest round of Wikileaks’ expose concerning the high-profile government economist, policy maker and bureaucrat, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, and seasoned Congress party satrap, Pranab Mukherjee. The Wiki cable clearly ‘exposed’ Ahluwalia, the Planning Commission deputy chairman and a close confidant of Prime Minister Singh, as a preferred American candidate for the union finance minister’s post over Pranab Mukherjee. Given Ahluwalia’s official background, such a suggestion is rather disturbing, if not scary. It also exposes the level of US interference in India’s domestic politics, apart from indirectly projecting Ahluwalia as an American agent or one who would serve the US interest better than a more conservative Pranab Mukherjee on matters such as economic policy formulation and execution.

Ahluwalia has been at the helm of the country’s economic affairs management for almost a quarter of a century since he first occupied a cabin in the South Block in the office of the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. His cozy equation with the successive Indian and US governments and his pro-Western views on reform are well known. No economist had ever survived this long in the government and enjoyed so much power and authority as Ahluwalia does despite the fact that other more eminent and internationally acclaimed economists such as V K R V Rao, Sukhamoy Chakraborty, I G Patel, Suresh Tendulkar, Amiya Bagchi, Prabhat Patnaik, D T Lakhdawala, P. Brahmananda, Amaresh Tripathi , K N Raj and Arjun Sengupta, managed only limited association with the administration. This unshakable image of Ahluwalia makes him vulnerable to pressure from those external entities always aiming at effective networking to carry through their political, diplomatic and economic agenda in India.

Ahluwalia’s long tenure and phenomenal rise in the government beats all record for an outsider. He had enjoyed the confidence of the successive Congress prime ministers since Rajiv Gandhi. Ahluwalia’s awesome power and tremendous clout in the government and overseas had created a lot of jealousy among other highly merited government economists, who had come and gone after serving specified terms. What made Ahluwalia click so well in the government remains a mystery to many. His proximity to Dr. Manmohan Singh is, however, well known. Yet, it will be unfortunate if his critics try to brand him as an ‘American mole’ in the government because of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s mischievous comment trapped by the WikiLeaks. Ahluwalia, one would like believe, dons a high level of integrity.

There is no point in blaming the USA, the UK, France, Japan, Germany, China and Pakistan for running efficient intelligence collection networks in India. The intelligence gathering is a key diplomatic function of any country. The means adopted for the purpose are rarely straight forward or even ethical. What is disturbing is the ready willingness of India’s politicians and bureaucrats to be part of such networks and to pass on inside information to foreign agents, not necessarily for a gratis or a spot bribe. Some do it just to show off his inside knowledge of government actions and moves or inaction and retraction. There are also others who do it because they are so deeply networked and also rewarded, in the process. Indians are generally loud mouth, always willing to volunteer information and like to explain their strength and weaknesses irrespective of the profile of the audience. This probably explains the logic behind the WikiLeaks expose recording Union Home Minister P Chidambaram’s admission, probably in good faith, before a top functionary in the US FBI of the legal weaknesses and constitutional limitations that restrict the operation of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), created under an act of Parliament, after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack.
The denial of WikiLeaks exposures by the persons or institutions involved or named does not necessarily establish their uselessness. The US envoy in Mexico, Carlos Pascual, resigned after a WikiLeaks cable divulged his critical remarks against the host country administration’s handling of the drug mafia. Pascual did not deny those remarks. Instead, he showed the guts to admit his private and confidential communication and resigned. Few Indian politicians and bureaucrats have courage to emulate Pascual. To be honest, WikiLeaks exposures are doing more good than harm to our democratic society, which puts too much faith in institutions, bureaucracy and the political system to serve its cause, ethically and uncompromisingly, and ensure good governance in the best interest of the nation. WikiLeaks exposures are not inventive. They are factual. It is for the actors to admit or deny them. (IPA Service)