President Clinton was clearly ill advised in his decision to nominate Stephen J.Solarz as the next U.S, ambassador to India. That Solarz attracted adverse publicity some time ago for writing unauthorized excess checks is not the most important factor against his proposed appointment. What should have weighed with the administration is the need to strike a balanced approach towards India. That country today is viewed internationally as a persistent culprit in respect of human rights. The Solarz appointment will send a message to India that it need not worry about the U.S, administration’s expression of concern about the human rights situation there. True, the administration spokesman John Mallotearly this month had used certain unfortunate terms (“above all, we want to build economic relations with India etc.”) to convey the message that India’s performance on the human rights issue is not a “be all and end all” for the U.S. foreign policy towards that country. It was, nevertheless, hoped that President Clinton meant business and he would not allow his Priority in the rights issue to be toned down the way Mallot did. But if the Solarz appointment is finally pushed through, the world public opinion will be justified in viewing the U.S. administration’s commitment to upholding human rights with suspicion.
Even if the administration has to appease the business lobby and in the process has to tone down its commitment to human rights, it is certainly a wrong approach to invest the USA’s India policy with crudeness. The proposed appointment implies in no uncertain terms such crudeness. President Clinton perhaps is oblivious of another aspect of the appointment, namely its effect on vast sections of Indian public opinion. It should be known that India is a country of “minorities” and, contrary to popular belief; even Hindus are not a majority. This ruling class has a bare 15% strength. The remaining 85% of India’s population comprise oppressed minorities whose human rights are being trampled upon by the Indian state; the oppressed minorities will start nursing an anti U.S. altitude once they are convinced that the administration is following a conscious policy of supporting the Indian state politically irrespective of the human rights record. Solarz’s appointment poses that danger. What the United States needs is an objective observer in Delhi who is wise enough to understand and monitor the foxy Hindu politicians and their ever shifting diplomacy, It is hoped that the U.S, Senate will pay heed to our assessment and say “no” to the Solarz proposal in the best interest of this great country.
Article extracted from this publication >> June 25, 1993
