You are right, Mr Gill!
TAKING a lesson from the work of his predecessor, Mr T.N. Seshan, the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr M.S. Gill, is pursuing the goal of ensuring free and fair elections. Through an unambiguous directive, he has told the governments of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Mizoram to refrain from taking any major financial initiative and allow a level playing field for all parties, particularly the Opposition, during the forthcoming assembly poll.
Naidu as a role model
PUT two Central ministers on a common platform and the chances are that they would speak in three different voices. Take, for instance, the recent coming together of Union Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, Commerce Minister R.K. Hegde, Civil Aviation Minister Ananth Kumar and the Minister of State for Agriculture for a meeting with financial journalists telecast live by an international economic news service.

Congress in a new avatar
by Hari Jaisingh
WHITHER the Congress? The question is no longer academic. Nor is it seen as a routine post-mortem in the country's political arithmetic. There are some positive signs of revival of the party, with renewed public interest in its electoral prospects.

NAM: balance-sheet shows India’s success by Hari Sharan Chhabra BY all accounts, it was for India a tough summit of the nonaligned movement (NAM) at Durban. But undeniably, India came out of it as a successful entity. Time to save Russia from West By M.S.N. Menon IT Is time to save Russia from the West. In no other way can we end the supremacy of the USA over the world. Without a truly independent Russia, there is no way to bring about multi-polarity. All those who are committed to multi-polarity must work for Russia’s independence. I see it as the world’s number one problem.

75 Years Ago

India and Empire
CAN you conceive of a prosperous and great Great Britain without India attached to her? I cannot conceive that India with her numerous races and creeds can ever get what is called Independence or autonomy without the help of the British Power, not to speak with the British Power arrayed against her.

You are right, Mr Gill!

TAKING a lesson from the work of his predecessor, Mr T.N. Seshan, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Mr M.S. Gill, is pursuing the goal of ensuring free and fair elections. Through an unambiguous directive, he has told the governments of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Mizoram to refrain from taking any major financial initiative and allow a level playing field for all parties, particularly the Opposition, during the forthcoming assembly poll. When political parties discredit themselves and distrust spreads against them, they use the easy short-cut of placating the electorate with sops. Parliamentary government is government by choice and it has to be run through discussion, debate and the strict observance of clean practices. The process begins with elections. Mr Seshan took his uprightness too far through his self-defeating harsh words; Mr Gill has been doing what should be ideally done to make the electoral process and its outcome transparent. The Delhi government has announced "a special drive" to grant ownership right to the residents of 44 resettlement colonies in the Union Capital. A similar move has been made by the Madhya Pradesh administration; it has decided to regularise unauthorised colonies. The purpose is to garner votes. The quality of those in charge of conducting elections should be such that they should not only be fair but also appear to be so. Keeping this in mind, the CEC began by telling the Madhya Pradesh government not to go ahead with selective transfers and postings. The state government ignored the Commission's order. Now comes another blatant defiance. What is happening in BJP-ruled Delhi has no element of surprise about it. Most of the resettlement colonies which have been earmarked for a "special ownership dispensation" are being lured into mass voting for the benefit of the ruling party. Mr Gill is a sad man. He had suggested some time ago that the Chief Ministers of the four states going to the polls should resign to allow neutral administration under the Governors to enable the conduct of fair elections. His well-intended plea triggered protests from the BJP and the Congress. Both these parties are in the thick of electoral battles. The CEC does concede that the Model Code of Conduct will come into operation when the poll schedules are made public. But looking at the imminence of a formal announcement in this respect, he is morally right in saying that the four states are in an "active election mode". The Model Code of Conduct must be followed by all political parties at the reasonable point of time. Our democracy has been demeaned by vote-bank politics. The Central Government has done precious little to make the elections fair. The electors are not sufficiently empowered by education and the socio-economic wherewithal to resist the advantages accruing from sops offered by politicians who will ultimately be their masters. Mr Gill's intention is to remove incongruities and improprieties that come in the way of honourable democratic practices. He has again suggested that a neutral administration should be in place "on the eve of the elections" in the four states. But this time he has made a fervent appeal to the conscience of the citizens and not to the Union Government which has, for obvious reasons, not encouraged him in his determined drive to cleanse the process of elections. Technicalities must be put aside and the motivated malignity involved in sops should be checked, if necessary, by a Presidential ordinance. A beginning has to be made somewhere. Why not begin in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Mizoram and Delhi? We commend the following view of the CEC in the interest of parliamentary democracy, which demands many virtues like ability, dedication to work, administrative discipline and cooperation by the people: "Of course, I wonder if any largesse would gain votes and I look to India's mature electorate to assess all (such) actions of all parties involved very critically."

Naidu as a role model

PUT two Central ministers on a common platform and the chances are that they would speak in three different voices. Take, for instance, the recent coming together of Union Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, Commerce Minister R.K. Hegde, Civil Aviation Minister Ananth Kumar and the Minister of State for Agriculture for a meeting with financial journalists telecast live by an international economic news service. Mr Sinha painted a rosy picture of the Indian economy stating that a bumper kharif crop would help the country overcome the “small difficulties”. But the Agriculture Minister said that the floods have caused extensive damage to the crop. Mr Hegde spoke against the dominance of the dollar and added that sustained progress without ending “economic imperialism” was not possible. Mr Ananth Kumar welcomed direct foreign investment in the civil aviation sector but did not budge from his known stand that “Indian skies should be open to Indians only”. If what the Central ministers did was meant to set an example of “good governance”, then only a miracle can help the foreign investors sustain their interest in the Indian market. However, on a more serious note, the only way to offset the impact of the post-Pokhran global economic sanctions is to follow the example set by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu. He is not a miracle-man but a visionary. No words of praise are enough to describe what he has done for his State. A Gallup MBA research project shows that Andhra Pradesh is now fifth in terms of choice for investment; it was placed at the 22nd position in 1995. Even while the rest of the country was moaning and groaning about the impact of the economic sanctions Mr Naidu was engaged in striking business deals with global players. Andhra Pradesh is the first state to set up an Indian Institute of Information Technology in collaboration with Microsoft, IBM, Oracle and Satyam. His Vision 2020 project seeks to make Andhra Pradesh the foremost State in India in terms of all-round growth.

Currently Mr Naidu is on a 15-day business trip to the USA making well-researched multimedia presentations for attracting investments in key sectors of growth in his state. Six key areas have already been identified and a World Bank loan of Rs 22 billion and Rs 11.5 billion from the government would be pumped in to develop the irrigation facilities, road network, primary education infrastructure, nutrition and primary health programmes and introduce PSU reforms. He has adopted a policy of “no” retrenchments, but no fresh recruitments for filling government vacancies” and has instead promised to put economic power in every hand so that “no one has to beg for free rice”. Every Chief Minister and most Central ministers should be sent to Andhra Pradesh to take lessons in general administration and economic management from the man with a hi-tech vision. The undivided Punjab, and what remains of it, once enjoyed the reputation of being the most forward-looking region of the country. The credit for ushering in the Green Revolution goes to Punjab. Even at the individual level a Punjabi is presumed to be more enterprising than his counter-part anywhere else in the country. The ultimate tribute to this trait was paid by Air India when the first man landed on the moon. It put up hoardings showing the Maharaja in Punjabi dress receiving the US astronaut on the moon by saying “Mr Neil Armstrong I presume”. It would have been a matter of pride for the region had Punjab stolen the technological thunder from Andhra Pradesh. The non-resident Punjabis are among the more affluent sections of Indians settled abroad. They want to invest in viable projects in the state of their forefathers. The reason why they are diffident to make massive investments in Punjab is because of the negative politics of the current crop of leaders. Initiatives which resulted in turbulence among the Punjabi community abroad, and even bloodshed, have caused serious damage to its reputation as a “progressive community”. What the State needs is another Partap Singh Kairon to do what Mr Naidu has done for Andhra Pradesh.

Congress in a new avatar
Tough task for Sonia Gandhi

by Hari Jaisingh

WHITHER the Congress? The question is no longer academic. Nor is it seen as a routine post-mortem in the country's political arithmetic. There are some positive signs of revival of the party, with renewed public interest in its electoral prospects. The assembly elections in November in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Delhi and Mizoram will provide a major test of its future under the leadership of Mrs Sonia Gandhi.

Congressmen are again restive. The party seems to be addressing itself to certain crucial issues it has avoided. First, the leadership issue looks like having been settled in favour of Mrs Sonia Gandhi. Even the Maratha strongman, Mr Sharad Pawar, has publicly said that he wants her as Prime Minister.

Second, a new sense of direction is now visible within the party. Third, it has of late been conducting itself with a degree of maturity. It has even ignored the call of the forces led by Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav to destabilise the BJP-led coalition. Apparently, the party leadership is well aware of the pitfalls of a makeshift arrangement which is bound to have a negative effect on its political fortune. The fact that the Congress is not opting for short-term gains is in itself significant since the party has been known for its opportunistic politics.

Of course, the deliberations at the Pachmarhi conclave and public pronouncements made thereafter have been a mixed affair. The main challenge before the party now is how to get back to power. Nothing wrong with such pursuits. After all, power is the ultimate objective of every political party and the Congress is no exception to this general rule. However, more relevant is the question whether the party leadership has learnt lessons from its past mistakes and is ready to project a new image for itself in the public. It is difficult to pass an instant judgement on the party's renewed efforts to rejuvenate itself. But it must be conceded that certain sections of the people who had earlier got disillusioned with the party amidst its all-round drift and decay have now begun to look up to it. There are a number of reasons for the Congress's widening, though still in limited areas, popular base. First, the poor show of coalition governments in recent years.

Second, the never-ending bickerings among the coalition partners in the BJP-led government at the Centre.

Third, in the absence of a viable coalition culture, the educated Indian is getting more and more disgusted at the way small-time leaders in coalition governments operate on the chessboard of power.

Fourth, instability is the last thing the people want. Viewed in this light, they don't mind revival of the Congress in the hope that it would ensure stability at the Centre.

Whether the Congress leadership will be able to rise up to the people's expectations or not will depend on how it conducts itself publicly and privately. In this context the latest decision of the Congress Working Committee to adopt a code of ethics for the party is noteworthy. Among other things, the code is supposed to close the doors of the party to criminals. Much will depend on how effectively this code is enforced. A declaration of assets and a personal declaration of not being involved in any criminal case are part of this elaborate code. The idea here is to create a cleaner image of the party and Mrs Sonia Gandhi seems to be signalling that she means business on this score. This will surely put the Congress one up.

Unfortunately, in the Indian situation the enforcement of ethics is not an easy task. That is why criminalised politics has become the order of the day with all political parties. In fact, everything is seen in terms of votes. And when calculations are based on electoral arithmetic, ethics becomes the first casualty.

As in the case of most other parties, the sole objective of the Congress all these decades has been power without spelling out its genuine programme or ideology. If it was necessary to get votes, the Congress was ever ready to do so. It had actually made an art of it and that is how the Congress soon became an organisation of power-brokers. This ultimately led to the erosion of its popular base.

Competitive populism has been yet another curse in Indian politics. Promises are made without concrete efforts to fulfil them. It is a pity that few people have understood the implications of populism on the polity. Let me explain. A party, as a rule, is known by its ideology. It is the ideology which should normally attract voters. But a populist measure attracts people by using public funds. This indirectly amounts to offering bribes. Take, for example, the famous loan melas. The loans were finally written off. Now instead of loan melas the farmers are offered free water and electricity. This is nothing but misuse of power. Perhaps the political leaders do not seem to realise that it amounts to subversion of the nation's interests.

It is shameful the way the country's interests have got jeopardised in the pursuit of individual and party interests.

From the 70s onwards, Congress politicians have made all sorts of promises without caring to fulfil them. The only slogan which has been frequently used by the party is: "Only the Congress can give a stable government". This was also repeated at Pachmarhi. But what is the basis for this claim? With 141 seats in the Lok Sabha out of 542, it will be difficult for the Congress to get a massive majority it had secured in the 70s and the 80s. So, how will the party go about the business of providing a stable government at the Centre? It cannot revive itself so easily in UP and Bihar. So powerful are caste and communal combinations in the two states. In Tamil Nadu, the Congress cannot win on its own. In several other states too the party's hold remains weak.

Mrs Sonia Gandhi has talked about a new wave. The new wave, however, cannot be generated in a state of vacuum. Looking at the complexity of Indian politics today, the days of popular swing seems to be over. Only the floating vote can swing fortunes in favour of one party or the other. In this disquieting scenario, caste loyalties and communal forces have come to the fore. This has only increased the nuisance value of third-rate leaders.

At Pachmarhi the Congress appeared in a new avatar—as a crusader against communal and divisive forces. Fine. Better late than never. But has not the party been responsible for unleashing these negative forces in the past? By pandering to the obscurantism of the Muslims (Shah Bano case) the party stirred up communalism in a section of the Hindus. By turning Muslims into vote banks and making unreasonable concessions for their votes, the Congress played a major role in arousing Hindu communalism. Ironically, the party was beaten at its own game by small-time operators belonging to other parties. At times, some Congress leaders tried to fall back on Hindu votes. In the process, they created the Ayodhya problem.

It is casteism and communal divisions that threaten the fragmentation of the polity. What is the Congress attitude to caste divisions? It says it will keep away from caste politics. Very reassuring indeed! But will it be able to do so? Perhaps the Congress today is in a hopeless situation and is unable to exploit the caste vote since those who exercise their right to franchise on caste considerations have already switched their loyalty to other parties.

Mrs Sonia Gandhi has also promised to give greater representation to dalits, women and youths in the party. This is fine provided such an exercise does not further divide the polity in different groups and segments.

Despite the goodwill that the Congress has been able to generate for itself in recent months, it is still not sure of its policies and programmes which should help the party's revival. It cannot create a niche for itself on the basis of its old slogans. Nor can it make a breakthrough in the political arena by seeking patchwork solutions. The Congress has to think on new lines and gear up for the 21st century challenges while keeping its roots intact.

The main challenge to the Congress comes from the forces of regionalism and casteism which dislodged it from a large number of states in the country. It failed miserably at the state and regional levels because it has not given due importance to its internal democracy. Most of distortions in the party have taken place in the name of the high command. Its authoritarian tendencies have often played havoc with the party's natural growth at the regional level.

The party has to find answers to accommodate regional hopes and aspirations while formulating its national policies and programmes. For this it is necessary that it allows free discussions so that state and regional-level leaders are able to grow.

Imposing leaders from above will prove to be counter-productive in the long run. Factionalism and personal likes and dislikes at the central level have in the past eliminated a large number of state and regional leaders from the mainstream of Congress politics. This process must be reversed if the Congress is serious about reviving itself at the national level. Apart from plugging several loose-ends, the Congress leadership will have to discourage the politics of sycophancy. It needs to be appreciated that sycophancy enervates the system and promotes mediocrity over quality and merit. Most of the problems of the Indian polity have originated from distorted ideas propagated under the cover of a free play of sycophancy.

The pervasiveness of sycophancy is in direct proportion to a decline in the value system. For the past three decades or so, this decline of values has led to growing criminalisation of politics. Indeed, the new political culture derives its strength not from the grassroots and value-based segments of society but from local musclemen and gangs representing "liquor kings, smugglers and fast-buck politicians."

When Rajiv Gandhi emerged on the national scene, he aroused new hopes and expectations. He held out the promise of regeneration of fairplay and meritocracy in the system. The general public expected him to break the unholy nexus among mafia gangs, dirty politicians and corrupt bureaucrats. This expectation legitimately soared when he decried the "power brokers" and "middlemen" during the centenary celebrations of the Congress in December, 1985, in Mumbai. But very soon he messed up his perspective and perception of men, matters and issues.

I hope Mrs Sonia Gandhi has learnt from the mistakes of her husband. The Indian people are shrewd observers. They judge their leaders not on the basis of what they claim to be but on how they conduct themselves. Herein lies the real test for the Congress President.

NAM: balance-sheet shows India’s success
by Hari Sharan Chhabra

BY all accounts, it was for India a tough summit of the nonaligned movement (NAM) at Durban. But undeniably, India came out of it as a successful entity. All senior officials who accompanied Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee were, however, in a cautious frame of mind and their refrain was: “We are satisfied.” India’s commitment to the principles and objectives of NAM, implying the freedom of choice and independence of action, remained as strong as ever.

It is, however, difficult to accept the remarks of some commentators that the observation made by President Nelson Mandela at the NAM plenary session on Jammu and Kashmir was an innocuous one or he made only a passing reference. That India over-reacted is also not a correct assessment. Let us see what Mandela, the NAM Chairman, said:

“All of us remain concerned that the issue of Jammu and Kashmir should be solved through peaceful negotiations and should be willing to lend all the strength we have to the resolution of the matter.”

It was a shocking statement and it disturbed every Indian present in Durban at the Twelfth NAM summit. The gravity of the situation was that such a reference was most unexpected, made for the first time by any Chairman of the movement and was in violation of the tradition that bilateral issues are not raised at NAM meetings. And the most discomforting part of this was that President Mandela clubbed the Jammu and Kashmir issue with those of Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Sudan, Libya, Western Sahara, the Middle East, Cuba, Korea and Cyprus, in that order.

This gives credence to the suspicions and conspiracy that countries like Pakistan and Morocco would like to place the issue of Western Sahara on a par with J&K Moroccan diplomats are often heard saying not only in New Delhi but in all world capitals also that when India is asking for referendum in Western Sahara, why does it not hold one in J & K? This is a very unfair comparison, which must be rejected with all the contempt it deserves. Is Western Sahara an integral part of Morocco, the way J & K is a part of India? The answer to this question has positively to be in the negative. It is hard to say how President Mandela, so mature a leader, fell in such a trap. It was perhaps a failure on the part of Indian diplomacy.

India’s relations with South Africa, once extremely friendly and cordial, have been on the downward trend lately. South Africa watchers have noted that there are three factors involved. First, Mr Mandela is most unhappy with the Indian nuclear tests. Secondly, South Africa expected a great deal of help from India in organising the Durban NAM summit, that is, if the officials of that country are to be believed. (Indian officials, on the other hand, say they cooperated with Pretoria in every way.) Lastly, South African diplomats and politicians feel unhappy with the quick changes in the appointment of Indian High Commissioners in Pretoria. South Africans say India takes their country rather casually.

This South African displeasure was aptly reflected in two ways at Durban. The first was the reference to J & K. Secondly, the NAM draft declaration prepared by South Africa had paragraph after paragraph criticising the Indian nuclear policy, its non-proliferation proposals and even disarmament. Indian and South African officials had been at loggerheads for four days before the NAM summit. At the end South Africa, even as it had the support of countries like Egypt and Malaysia, had to eat humble pie. The final declaration threw out the anti-India and anti-Pakistan references to nuclear tests and weapons. Most pertinently, India and Pakistan were on the same wavelength and they generally worked in concert on the issue of a nuclear South Asia.

And as demanded by India, NAM called for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The NAM declaration observed that the present situation in which the nuclear weapon states monopolised the right to own weapons of mass destruction was “highly discriminatory, unstable and cannot be sustained”.

Indian delegates left Durban rather happy when the NAM summit overwhelmingly endorsed India’s proposal for an international summit to formulate a joint global response to terrorism of all forms and manifestation, but opposed selective and unilateral action that violated the UN Charter. The final declaration adopted by the 113 NAM states, strangely enough, left out direct criticism of the USA for its missile strike on Sudan as demanded by the Khartoum government.

The declaration emphasised that international cooperation to combat terrorism should be conducted in conformity with the principles of the UN Charter. Voicing opposition to selective and unilateral action, the Durban Declaration asked competent UN organs to promote ways and means to strengthen cooperation, including the international legal regime, for combating international terrorism.

In conclusion, one can say that the Indian delegation has returned home thoroughly satisfied with the NAM Declaration on issues such as disarmament, nuclear tests and non-proliferation.

Time to save Russia from West
By M.S.N. Menon

IT Is time to save Russia from the West. In no other way can we end the supremacy of the USA over the world. Without a truly independent Russia, there is no way to bring about multi-polarity. All those who are committed to multi-polarity must work for Russia’s independence. I see it as the world’s number one problem.

It was in August, 1991, that Yeltsin came to power. In seven years, Russia has come to the very brink of disaster. He pledged freedom, democracy and prosperity. He has achieved nothing. Russia is in a worse plight.

Today the Russian economy is controlled by the mafia. The bureaucracy is in league with it. Yeltsin could not act against the mafia, for it was responsible for his re-election in 1996. But without freeing the economy from the mafia, it cannot be turned around. Only the Communists can confront the mafia. No other party.

If the West came to Russia’s aid, it was for foreign policy reasons — to prevent a Communist or nationalist takeover of the Kremlin. The funds went mostly into consumption — that is to imports, an IMF prescription — and not into production, thus ruining the local industries. And what went into production has largely fled the country after the Asian economic crisis.

The Moscow stock market lost almost 90 per cent of the value of stocks. This time the IMF simply refused to bail out Yeltsin. The rouble fell by 30 per cent. The Russian people must have known by now what suits them best — a free market economy or democratic socialism.

In the meantime, the coterie of tycoons, which appropriated the most profitable industries with the help of Yeltsin, has grown powerful. It continues to support Yeltsin. Chernomyrdin is their man, which explain why the Duma, dominated by Communists, decided to dissolve itself this time rather than vote for Chernomyrdin. “We cannot accept Chernomyrdin; he is an accomplice with Yeltsin in the destruction of Russian economy over the past few years”, says Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist leader.

The overwhelming choice of Yevgeny Primakov as Prime Minister by the Duma was, therefore, natural. It is a step towards Moscow’s liberation from the West, from the mafia, from the apparatchiks. Although he is no economic expert (he is a specialist in foreign affairs), he is a man of vast experience and understanding. What is more, he still believes in the ideals of socialism. He has a strong sense of Russia’s role in the world. He considers Russia, India and China as “strategic allies”. One of his first acts as Foreign Minister was to visit India, an old friend. He has continued to emphasise the importance of Moscow’s ties with India.

Yeltsin is at the end of his games, for he can no more deliver what Clinton wants. Before his recent visit to Moscow, Clinton wanted the Russian Duma to ratify the arms reduction treaty. But the Communists see the treaty as a sellout on the part of Yeltsin to the Americans. They refused to ratify it. As one Russian analyst puts it: “The Yeltsin era is over!” He may remain in the Kremlin, but as a shadow — as a “lame duck” — and he has announced that he is no candidate for the next presidential election.

India must welcome the advent of Primakov. He is a friend of India. He has had a hand in promoting Indo-Soviet friendship. He had seen the growth of it all — from halting cooperation to “special friendship”. The time has come to ask: what can we do for Russia to save it from its Western embrace? Not what Russia can do for us. I cannot see how else Russia can again play a meaningful role in the world unless it gains a measure of independence. We should know. It was Soviet support to nonalignment which made it respectable. And it was Soviet economic assistance which allowed India to follow an independent foreign policy.

India has been a reliable partner of Russia. Russian strategic thinkers see in India a “formidable strategic ally”. There are no conflicts of interests between the two. On the contrary, we have mutuality of interests in many fields. For example, Russia is the only country which supports India’s stand on Kashmir out of conviction, for with secessionist forces at work in Russia (for instance, in Chechnya), Moscow knows the dangers of ethnic nationalism. That is why during the visit of P.V. Narasimha Rao, the two signed a declaration on the need to protect and preserve the multi-ethnic and secular character of their states.

A secret Russian military report, quoted by PTI, says that India is the only country in the world whose national interests do not conflict with the strategic interests of Russia. And the report anticipated a nuclear India with its own strategic missiles.

Already, Moscow has established a “strategic partnership” with China. India should welcome it, not worry over it. China and Russia have declared their faith in a multi-polar world. India, too, is a “strategic partner” of Russia. And India, too, is committed to a multi-polar world. For the first time, the three great countries — Russia, China and India — have come together on a major common objective, which is far more important than their bilateral differences.

India and China can help Russia to improve its economy. Both are major buyers of Russian military hardware. And both are in a position to pay in dollars today.

The USSR was one of the most integrated alliances of the world. Any disruption of this would harm every constituent. More so, economically. This is now being realised increasingly by all. And I am sure economic compulsions will turn the region into a powerful economic bloc.

Of late, Indo-Russian economic and trade relations have suffered for want of initiative from both sides. India can offer “anything you look for outside Russia” — this is what Russian Ambassador to India Albert Chernyshev told a Moscow audience recently. But Russia needs concessions. India was slow to respond. It is a matter of gratification that India has decided to export to Russia Indian items with high import content. This was prohibited before in view of the forex drain. But more must be done to help Russia.

Moscow has always wanted India to be a great power — militarily and economically. The point is: a weak India was of no use to Moscow. The same is true today. Moscow is deeply disillusioned with the West, particularly in its economic inter-action. It is, therefore, trying to work out new equations — a new global framework. In this, India and China have an important place. This explains why Moscow promptly rejected Clinton’s appeal to Yeltsin to stop military cooperation with India. Clinton’s real target was the proposed military agreement between Russia and India, which is to last till 2010.

“Any question of snapping defence accords with India has to be discussed in the context of the US military-technology cooperation with Israel, Saudi Arabia and its NATO allies...” said a Moscow spokesman. Compare this with the way Yeltsin buckled under when the Clinton administration called upon him to cancel the supply of cryogenic engine technology to India.

The way is thus open for a new resurgence in Indo-Russian relations. Let us seize the mood of the times to build anew.

75 YEARS AGO
India and Empire

CAN you conceive of a prosperous and great Great Britain without India attached to her? I cannot conceive that India with her numerous races and creeds can ever get what is called Independence or autonomy without the help of the British Power, not to speak with the British Power arrayed against her.

Therefore, it is in the self-interest of both the countries that they should unite together and work for the common good, not only for their own but for England. The greatest modern civilised country in the world joined with India, the oldest civilised country, can really do some service to the whole world.

I say Great Britain, but by naming England alone I do not mean any dishonour either to the Welshmen, or to the Scotsmen or even to the Irishmen that may be here, I bring them all under one name.

Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen, if there are any here, are proud of being their colleagues and they have like ourselves identified themselves with the English.

Of course the Scotsmen have lost their liberty, and so have the Welshmen (a voice: “Question”). I say they have no national language, no national literature and no national creed, and they have merged themselves into what is called the British nation and they are proud of being in the British nation. We are also proud of being British citizens. “Civic Romans”, two valuable words used to be carried wherever a Roman citizen went. In my young days when I was a radical politician (A voice: “What are you now?”)

Mr N.M. Samarth: Firebrand, — “a firebrand I was in my young days. I was told by one of my English friends occupying a high position.— N.M. Samarth