by: Jatinder S. Hundal

Relations between the United States and the nations of South Asia are at a turning point. The end of the Cold War and changes in the region have opened the door to new approaches in American policy toward India Pakistan and the rest of the area, With the threat Of Soviet strategic rivalry removed, United States is in a position 10 forge steadier, more positive tics ‘with the South Asian countries. In March 1994, the Asia Society Sponsored a study mission to South Asia to analyze such broad ranging U.S. policies toward Asia as nuclear proliferation and security in the region, human rights, economic stability, environment and population challenges. The mission delegates of Indian, Pakistani and American leaders presented their findings in eight cities of the country, San Francisco was selected as one of the eight cities to host these delegates.

On September 27, 1994, World Affairs Council hosted these delegates who presented their findings titled “South Asia and the United States: After the Cold War.” This 106 pages long report is a distorted, biased, factually incorrect, academically substandard and a fine example of misinformation sponsored by the Indian Government and its supporters in the United States. ‘The Panelists in the discussions included among others: Leo Rose, UC Berkeley; Brahma Chellaney, Center of Policy Research New Delhi; Khurshid Hadi, Privatization Commission of Pakistan; Chet Atkins, Former U.S. Congressman; Sanjoy Banerjee, San Francisco State University.

W.H Mortis Jones University of London; Shireen Safdar, Political Minister, Embassy of Pakistan; C. Kumar Pate], UCLA; Stephen Cohen, University of IL. Khurshid Hadi in his presentation painted a rosy bur factually incorrect picture of India and Pakistan. He out rightly said, “there is no law that requires connecting human sights with economic cooperation.” When l asked him how can he make a statement that human rights can be ignored even though The Asia Society report Clearly suites that “U.S. has humanitarian, ideological and pragmatic in terestsin South Asia’s social development..US has a Stronger Commitment and enhanced opportunity to support and foster human nights,” Mr.Hadi commented that he has been misunderstood and that he recognizes the human rights issue but it must be dealt with independently. Chet Atkins, following his presentations was confronted by Dr. Amarjit Singh as to the fact that the team has only visited two cities in India, Delhi and Bombay, and how could they draw conclusions about Kashmir and Punjab from it. Mr, Atkins submitted to the argument by saying that was the best they could do.

Brahma Chellancy, who as the South Asia bureau chief of United Press International was eye witness and reported execution of Innocent young Sikhs in the Golden Temple in 1984 seems to have taken a locally different line under pressure from the Indian Government. During his presentation he did not mention the human rights violations in India instead insisted that the human rights violations are an independent and isolated issue thus he cannot go into details. He avoided he whole issue by merely stating that he I snot an expert in the issue. He insisted that India does not need to have nuclear weapons as it is not threatened by any of its neighbors, In response to my question that how can India provide assurance that American technical and financial assistance will not be used to develop nuclear weapons and/or delivery systems, Mr, Chellancy responded that India does not need foreign help in developing its systems and that indigenous technology is advanced enough to develop these systems, Kumar Patel when confronted by Dr. Amarjit Singh regarding the mobility of Indi as pending so much of her resources on Defense Forces while the 42% of Indians live under poverty linc. Mr. Patel caught off guard by facts given by Dr. Amarjit Singh, decided to dodge the issue by simply stating that India needs to spend money on Defense Forces to safe guard her Security, Mr. Patel made the suggestion that India should be given a seat at the security counsel of the United Nations. To this comment Dr. Amarjit asserted that India is not stable enough to be given such 4 responsible position. Shireen Safdar made it clear that human rights issue cannot be seen in isolation and that the problem of Kashmir and Punjab must be solved before Pakistan and India Can coexist peacefully, In reaction to these statements the counsel general of India Mr. Dubay present at the meeting could be seen with a witty smile and shnigged shoulders, Presentation given by Stephen Cohen was probably the most balanced if not totally objective of all the Speakers present. When asked by Dr, Amarjit Singh, if India could be described as the Bull of South Asia kicking around smaller and weaker neighbors, Cohen agreed with the facts given by Dr, Singh and commented that India has not always been the best of neighbors. He admitted that India is basically feared by her neighbors and is seen as a threat to their existence but are unable to do anything about it. When I questioned him regarding the ethics and morality of Indian Defense Forces given the facts of oppression and Jawlessness among Indian soldiers, Mr, Cohen admitted that this brutality  in all security forces in India and there are documented cases of it which are being brought to the attention of the authorities. Mr. Cohen also made his disagreement with Mr, Patel clear that India does not deserve a permanent seat in the security council as she may yelo any resolution to solve the Kashmir problem, ‘The report mentioned above is divided into S sections, each section ends with recommendations that are not always agreed upon by all its authors as is clear from there writings, The sections are: South Asia and the United States, Economics, Social Change and Development, Democracy and Human Rights, Security and International Relations. Under the section titled ‘Democracy and Human Rights’ the report concludes; “(In India) political parties are mostly undisciplined and often appeal to narrow ethnic of religious interests. Judicial Independence is inadequately safeguarded…India is trying to quell conflicts in Kashmir, Punjab and the northeast of the country, and law and order are not secure in several large rural areas. The Indian Government spends an estimated $9,000,000 (Nine million) per day to maintain nearly half a million security forces in Kashmir alone…Hindu nationalism could, by undermining Secularism, crode democracy. Indians are uncertain about the future Of Hindu nationalism and there is some evidence that it has exacerbated already delicate communal relations in the country. In India the courts are so overburdened that persons accused of crimes often languish in prisons for six years and more awaiting trial. Most human rights violations are committed by the police and paramilitary forces. In India, human rights abuses have taken plate in Kashmir, Punjab, and the north Cast territories, areas where te government is seeking to suppress Secessionist movements,” In conclusion it can be said that The Asia Society report even though designed to enhance the views of Indian Government could not hide the reality and if read between the lines can give a pic true, however foggy it may be, of an India that exists and not that as Indian government would like it to be seen. It is only a matter of shame that only three Sikhs were present at this meeting. It is of utmost importance that the Sikh community be presented at such symposiums to highlight the issues that effect our community.

Article extracted from this publication >>  October 7, 1994