The future of Indo-U.S. relations under the new Presidential dispensation in the U.S. is being conjectured even as the new leader has not thrown much light on his likely approach to (1) violation of human rights by India on an unprecedented scale; (2) Indias refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its ruthless campaign towards militarization and (3) Indias refusal to respect the U.S. property rights. The President-elect has reportedly promised to certain Sikh groups that he would give a closer look to the question of human rights violations in India This assurance comes in the wake of lack of concern for human rights by the Bush administration Political circles in India are speculating about the new Presidents approach towards that country. The Indian government authorities appear to be quite worried about the prospects. The Prime Minister has even hinted at the need to fashion a new foreign policy for India and a section of that country’s media has speculated about Delhi agreeing 10 sign the non-proliferation treaty. Since Indias ruling class is past-master at double-think and double-speak the Rao statement should be taken with a pinch of salt. Even if India buckles under the growing international pressure on the treaty issue the latest to join the movement for bring round India are France and Germany it will seek a “compromise.” Delhi will drag its feet on the human rights issue. In fact for India to stop violation of human rights of its minorities is almost inviting the country’s break-up. In other words the very existence of India is based on colonial domination of the states like Jammu and Kashmir Punjab Tamilnadu and the seven states of the north-cast. The people of these states are fighting for their freedom India must use army and other security forces to keep these states in bondage Thus India is faced with the cold logic of either permitting these states to become separate free countries or suppressing the freedom movements with force and in the process attract complaints of human rights violations. The rationale of India as one country is thus clearly based on the perpetual violation of human rights. If the world has to stop these violations it will have to go to the root of the problem. Empty rhetoric will not do. The world has to appreciate the nature of the freedom movement in India and make matching gestures. The only solution is to call for expression of democratic right by the people of Punjab Kashmir and the north-east under the U.N aegis. The people should be given the options of either Slaying with India or getting out. This will take care of the bulk of the problem of human rights in India. Of course the problem will still persist with mainland Dalit and backward caste groups as also Muslims and other minorities being made the target of suppression by the upper caste colonial groups sustained by Brahmanism. But it will take some time for freedom movement to emerge within the mainland India after the peripheral states gain independence. Sentiment for freedom prevails even among the Hindu majority states like Orissa and Bihar. Chief Ministers Laloo Prasad Yadav of Bihar and Biju Patnaik of Orissa some time ago talked in terms of alienation from Delhi and separation from India. The President elect will thus be called upon to investigate the real source of human rights violations in India and to think of long-term solution. Otherwise Indias foxy ruling politicians will continue to make fools of the world as they recently did The Indian home minister publicly stated that a team of the Amnesty International would be invited to India. The prime minister assured the world that suitable human rights machinery was being established in India to redress complaints of human rights violations But the Indian politicians had a narrow limited aim in making the statements. They were persuading the British government to sign a treaty for extraditing leaders of freedom movements. As soon as the treaty was signed the prime minister said he was in no hurry to provide for any effective human rights machinery. The home minister said the Amnesty was free to come to Delhi for “discussions” with the Indian government and not for making enquiries into human rights violations in Punjab Kashmir and any other state. This double-talk is not the specialty of the present regime only. The then Indian foreign minister Inder Kumar Gujaral had also once talked of inviting the A.I to India but the promise was never redeemed and the world has to depend on garbled versions of whatever is happening inside the so-called largest democracy in the world. In signing the treaty with the U.K. India wanted to set a precedent for other western counties to follow. The French President however checkmated India by refusing to fall in line either on the human rights issue or on the non-proliferation treaty The French appear to know Indian leaders better. Will the U.S. President-elect study minutely the ways of the Indian authorities on all relevant issues of international concern? How far will the internal economic compulsions restrict the new Presidents initiatives vis-a-vis India? Another relevant factor to be gone into by observers is the extent of influence to be exerted by the rich Hindu lobbyists settled in the U.S. on its new administration. The inter-play of all these factors will eventually help produce a new U.S policy towards India.
Many India lovers among losers in US
NEW YORK: With United States Congressional election results all in it turns out Stephen Solarz may not have been the only friend India lost on Capitol Hill from New York.
Of 22 incumbent Congressmen who kept their seats 16 had voted in favor of India and four had voted against India on most if not all four occasions. Two had been favorable as often as not.
The dozen Congressmen who did not make it included 10 with a vote record favorable to India. Seven of them including Solarz were eliminated in early selection.
One Ted Weiss died. Two lost recently to political opponents Democrat Thomas Downey was defeated by Republican Rick Lazio and Republican Bill Green by Democrat Carolyn Maloney.
Here is the list of incumbent winners along with their voting record on four occasions.
Members who had voted in favor of India Democrats George Hochbrueckner Gary Ackerman Thomas Manton Edolphus Towns Major Owens Charles Rangel Eliot Engel Nita Lowey M.Menulty Floyd Flake and Louise Slaughter and Republicans Hamilton Fish Benjamin Gilman S.Bochlert James Wilsh and A.Houghton Members whose votes went against India Democrats C.Scumer and John Lafalce and Republicans Bill Raxon and Gerald Solomon.
Republican Susan Molinari and Democrat Jose Serrano had voted as often for India as against.
Among those who lost: Members who had been sympathetic to India: Democrats Downey Weiss Solarz Robert Mazek James Scheur and Mathew Mchugh and Republicans Green Raymond Megrath Frank Horton and Normal Lent.
Members who had voted against India: Democrat Henry Nowak and Republican David Martin.
Besides Lazio and Maloney the newcomers include :Democrats Maurice Hinchey Jerrold Nadler and Nydia Velazquez and Republicans David Levy Peter King John Mchugh and Jack Qunn.
The four key votes: A move to reduce development aid by $24 million albeit without naming any country.
A move to ban aid to India unless the US President certifies that it acquired no “additional nuclear explosive devices” and that proposed aid would reduce the risk of it doing so.
A move to havle aid to India. A counter-move to expose Pakistan based terrorism behind human rights violations in Kashmir and Punjab resulting virally in the shelving of an aid cut proposal against India.
Article extracted from this publication >> November 20, 1992
