Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

October 14, 1987 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1987-10-14

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.


Page 4 Wednesday, October 14, 1987 The Michigan Daily


Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan




Vol. XCVIII, No. 25

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board. All other
cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the Daily.

CIA terror in error

On March 8, 1985, a car bomb
exploded in a densely populated
Moslem suburb of Beirut de-
molishing a five story building and
killing the inhabitants. As the fire
spread, gas drums exploded at a
nearby bakery. This inferno exacted
a shocking death toll: 80 dead -
including 15 women and children
- and 200 wounded.
The group responsible for this
outrage is not typically listed as a
terrorist organization. Its funding
comes from neither Moammar
Khadafy nor the Ayatollah Kho-
meini. As a branch of the U.S.
government, the Central Intelligence
Agency relies solely on t h e
American taxpayers and their
representatives for support.
The Beirut massacre is revealed in
Bob Woodward's Veil. Woodward
adds to a growing body of evidence
which indicates that dirty tricks are
not only countenanced but are part
of official policy at the CIA.
Despite Woodward's revelation
that the late Director of Intelligence
William Casey personally ordered
the Beirut operation, few hackles
have been raised over it in the halls
of congress. Though the media has
been transfixed by Woodward's
supposed death bed visit to Casey,
the specific allegations of CIA
misdoings have been ignored.
There's no doubt that in-
stitutional, anti-Arab racism has
something to do with it. If the
bombing took place in the West,
rather than Lebanon, it may have
provoked more response.
A sense of outrage is long
overdue. Whether it's overthrowing
democratically elected governments
in Guatemala or Chile, murdering
tens of thousands of civilians in the

CIA initiated Phoenix program in
Vietnam, mining the harbors of
Nicaragua and training the Contras
in techniques of assassination -
the CIA has long been a malignant
force in international affairs.
The historical record contradicts
widespread misconceptions that the
CIA is solely an intelligence
gathering organization focusing its
efforts on the Soviet Union, or that
covert operations have always been
a necessary part of U.S. foreign
The CIA was created in 1947 at a
time when the U.S. took on the
responsibility of world policeman.
It has involved itself in the internal
politics of countries throughout
Western Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin
America, and the Middle East,
privileged with secrecy and vast
resources. It keeps covert, illegal,
and violent actions secret from the
U.S. public because these actions
are offensive to public morality and
Reforming the agancy is not a
question of bringing it "under
control," because it has generally
not been working without sanction.
As former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger once testified to a Senate
investigating committee, "Every
operation is personally approved by
the President."
The CIA has too long a tradition
of violating the will of the American
public and congress. It should be
replaced by an agency directly
responsible to the Senate
Intelligence Committee whose sole
function would be to gather

By Michele Viswanathan
Midnight, August 15, 1947, gave birth
to a new generation, born to fulfill the
promise brought by the dawn of a new,
independent era in India. However,
midnight's children* have betrayed their
promise, ruling India through a dynasty,
thinly veiled as a democracy, for 37 of the
40 years since independence. While
technological progress has been made in
many areas, including the Green
Revolution in agriculture, misery,
poverty, and corruption have become
synonymous with the name India.
Imagine this reality: 300,000 people
squat on the streets of Calcutta,
desperately hiding their last possessions, a
few tin utensils, from the policeman who
comes to collect "rent;" in the countryside,
private armies burn down the huts of
outspoken peasants and rape the women
who can't flee in time; and only a silent
rage is left for the sick and dying victims
of the Bhopal tragedy. Through all of this,
the Hindu god of justice totters on his one
remaining leg and begs midnight's
children to give way to a new generation
which promises to restore him to his
rightful position.
This new generation has been born at a
sacred spot on the banks of the Jamuna
River and is led by V.P. Singh, a former
Finance Minister and Defense Minister in
the Ghandi Cabinet, who was ousted on
April 12, 1987, for his bold attempts to
clean up corruption. On October 6, 1987,
Mr. Singh organized a political rally on
the banks of the Jamuna in order to expose
government corruption in the forms of
kickbacks in government contracts.
Mr. Singh revealed that Bofors, a
Swedish weapons manufacturer, paid more
than $50 million in kickbacks to obtain
Michele Viswanathan is a third year
law student

the sale of field artillery for the Indian
Army. While serving as Defense Minister,
Mr. Singh began to investigate the
possible awarding of kickbacks in overseas
defense contracts. However, his hiring of
the Fairfax Group of Annandale, Va., an
American investigative agency, to look
into the possibility of kickbacks,
provoked a furor among Congress Party
members and led to Mr. Singh's
As Finance Minister, Mr. Singh earned
a reputaion as an honest administrator who
solved one of India's most pressing
problems-widespread tax evasion. Mr.
Singh succeeded in rationalizing the tax
system and, thereby, reducing the
incentive to break the law. That is, he
created a situation in which it was more
profitable to pay taxes than to evade them.
Mr. Singh began his fight against tax
evaion by introducing changes such as a
long term fiscal policy and an open
budgeting system. He also introduced a
uniform accounting year for all
companies, set up a national court of
direct taxes and imposed liberal incentives
for savings and investment in housing.
Furthermore, he enlarged the scope of
self-assessment for taxes thereby
minimizing the control of civil servants
and their ability to accept bribes.
Moreover, Mr. Singh selected 200
companies belonging to twelve large
industrial houses for special auditing. The
Finance Ministry also brought criminal
proceedings against 300 businesses.
Several leading industrialists were arrested
who furiously protested their innocence
and then returned to apologize and pay the
taxes they owed. Mr. Singh also rejected
the prior Finance Minister's position that
the government could not inquire into the
source of non-resident Indian's funds
As a result of this rationalization of the
revenue system, income that had once
been diverted to black market activities

returned to the open economy. Revenues
from personal income taxes rose by 45
percent and revenues from direct taxes were
20 percent higher than in the previous
year. In a country where tax evasion was
the rule rather than the exception, such
results earned Mr. Singh and international
reputation for his understanding of
The Finance Minister achieved such
success despite continued obstruction from
the Prime Minister's office. However, the
only explanation offered by Mr. Ghandi
for his actions was the rather vague.
statement: "The wrong people are being
raided in the wrong fashion." On January
22, 1987, Mr. Ghandi abruptly shifted Mr.
Singh to the Defense Ministry provoking
a public outcry that Mr. Ghandi was
trying to cover up various scandals.
Mr. Singh differs greatly from previous
opposition leaders in that he has a
reputation for honesty and integrity and
has taken courageous steps to fight
corruption both in governmental
bureaucracies and in big business.
Moreover, Mr. Singh has the stature of a
politician on the national level, and is not
merely a leader with a following in only
one state. In the forty years following
independence, only members of the Nehru
dynasty have had a following on the
national level. Sharp ethnic, linguistic,
and religious differences between the states
have prevented any opposition party,
except the Janata Party from 1977-79,
from gaining power at the national level.
The new opposition movement led by
Mr. Singh has stirred hopes in the hearts
of Indians, both in India and abroad.
Hopefully, this movement will bring a
new generation of Indians into power who
do not place personal ambition over the
welfare of the country and whose promise
for midnight's grandchildren will be other
than hunger, poverty, and misery.
*"Midnight's children" is the title of a
book by Salman Rushdie.


FrH)5 R EPo&

SAYS THE P)-o Y }LSO 5iq&iT
/'T I i/ F If c ic flc,1C rr n ,.I n I kitAAO. tf1




/-1-- 1 / V I IC / ,

/,D Du,,)rt: (- -/ t t/

,rrgmmm""" THIS y




.4, kIAAIAI~'


/INC )J;E.JN T."

,T14 5


4 FFEc T






Only individuals tried in rape case


To the Daily:
After reading the past week's
letters to the editor regarding
the trial of Griffith Neal, I find
it hard to contain my disgust
and disappointment in the
reaction of many University
students both during and after
the trial. Not only have many
people failed to remember that
a person is innocent until
proven guilty, but also
countless others have blatantly
used this crisis to further their
own purposes and causes
without the least regard for
either the plaintiff or the
defendant, let alone anyone else
ir lrrlor +%..L . A--1 Tt

circumstances of the alleged
rape, and the ramifications of
this entire event. Because I was
subpoenaed during the past
summer, I have had plenty of
time to both play "judge and
jury" and to at last come to
grips with this situation.
Ultimately, I realized that 1) I
had no right to judge the guilt
or innocence of the defendant-
that was up to the jury alone,
and 2) I had an obligation to
the law and the establishment
of the truth above and beyond
and obligation to my sorority,
the defendant, the alleged
victim, rape victims anywhere,

have repeatedly seen students at
selectively choose what to
believe and rationalize away
those facts they choose not to
Which brings me to my
point: this trial evolved into a
circus-not only for those who
couldn't find a better way to
spend their time-but even
worse, an excuse for womens'
crisis groups on campus to
make what they can use this
case to prove a point about the
victimization of women or the
unfairness of the criminal
justice system have made a
poor judgement call, for this

seeking revenge at the expense
of those for whom this trial
has been a living hell. Why
can't people accept the verdict
In my view, this trial was
the worst example of what can
happen when two private
citizens, who both happen to
be students, deal with the
problem of rape. May I
commend President Shapiro for
reminding us that the
University is not to blame for
what happened last March.
And may I remind everyone
that the sorority ,and fraternity

ll , -,tiu XV~IMua A e "t

Back to Top

© 2022 Regents of the University of Michigan