It was a kind of world public opinion poll. Out of 182 General Assembly member States who voted to elect nonpermanent members of the U.N. Security Council, only 40 voted for India whereas 142 favored Japan. Former external affairs minister Atal Behari Vajpayee described the result as “devastating”. If that was the situation, India should not have contested in the first instance, he observed. But Indian external affairs ministry tried to explain away the humiliating defeat by attributing corrupt means employed by Japan. No Indian government officially made the allegation but news to that effect was planted in the pliable media. It is a different matter that such explanations will carry no conviction with the world public opinion. The public at large knows too well the extent of corruption prevailing among India’s politicians, officers and businessmen. The fact, that Indian embassy in Washington took an active hand in illegally financing U.S. elections last year, has already been proved on record. In these circumstances, making allegations against Japan and claiming innocence for India will fool no one. If anything, wining and dining has become an accepted norm in international diplomacy.
What is worth noting is the fact that India had been claiming for decade’s leadership of the developing and nonaligned countries, of Asia, Africa and Latin America. India’s external affairs minister, Inder Kumar Gujral, had spent several days at the U.N. headquarters to lobby for his country’s candidacy. The minister expected, based on his talks with ambassadors, at least 80 votes for India. Evidently, promises by 40 countries were a part of diplomatic courtesy. Indonesia’s National Defence Institute commented: “Japan only won by default. The U.N. members were punishing India for not signing the C.T.B.T.” The observation appears to be closer to reality, although India has tried to counter it by asserting that the C.T.B.T. issue is not enough to explain the matters because Australia, too, has lost although it is a supporter of the C.T.B.T. India’s argument is clearly faulty. Portugal which opposed Australia and won was no opponent of the C.T.B.T. either. In the tussle between Australia and Portugal, C.T.B.T. was not an issue. Perhaps, the European solidity tilted the scales against Australia and in favor of Portugal.
It is quite clear that the international public opinion is not much enamored of India’s stand on the C.T.B.T; there have been widespread complaints of human rights violations in India. Most countries are, also, afraid of India’s growing military machine. India’s stand on Kashmir and the complaints of human rights abuses there may have influenced most Islamic countries to vote against India. Instead of explaining away its complete isolation, India should take positive action to recover the lost ground. It should sign and support the C.T.B.T. as nuclear arsenal building is a negation of India’s own past commitment to world peace. India should also release all political prisoners and punish its security forces for human rights abuses in Punjab and Kashmir. It should hold dialogue with the people of Punjab and Kashmir to grant autonomy to these states so that the political problems are tackled at source, these steps will create a cordial atmosphere for India to approach the world from a position of strength.
Article extracted from this publication >> October 23, 1996
