The dumping of Mr Bansi Lal
THE Congress has dumped Mr Bansi Lal, the Chief Minister of Haryana, with a confounding thud. Mr Bansi Lal's regime began to crumble around June 11, when the BJP announced that it had decided to withdraw its backing from the HVP (Haryana Vikas Party).

Junior role for Congress
TAMIL NADU is bracing itself to witness a straight electoral battle between two all-in alliances. The one led by the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) has a head start by more or less finalising a seat-sharing arrangement.

LOOKING BEYOND KARGIL
Defence needs vital correctives
by Hari Jaisingh
DURING my extensive discussion with the Chief of the Army Staff, Gen V.P. Malik, one crucial point, among several others, that emerged is the need for the country to look beyond the Kargil conflict (The Tribune, July 14) so that the right response can be found to the hydra-headed militancy unleashed by the Pakistan establishment in Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of India.

It is time for gallantry award
by H. S. Sodhi
A GALLANTRY award — a piece of coloured ribbon on the chest of the recipient and a medal made of non-precious metal in full ceremonial dress — is a disproportionately valuable morale booster at the individual and group levels in the military.

Time for new chapter in Indo-US ties
By M.S.N. Menon
FOR over 50 years, the Anglo-Americans have kept the Indian sub-continent in a state of crisis. Are they now pacified? Is the animus over? Or is Kargil a one-time exception? I have often wondered what it is that has fed this animus against India. Of course, some reasons are obvious. For example, that India led the decolonisation and nonalignment movements: both had hurt Western interests.

Love thy neighbour
by Raj Chatterjee
IT was on a hot and humid day. I sat in my stalled car, sweating like the proverbial pig and cursing the mechanic who, half-an-hour earlier had finished tuning its engine. I didn’t only feel the oppressive heat. I was seething with rage, with murderous thoughts in my mind. And then, from where I sat, I caught sight of a large hoarding on which were painted the words, “Do not shed blood. Shed hatred”. The message bore the name of the late Indira Gandhi.

75 Years Ago

One effect of protection
THE Government of India are just considering what industries in India require protection. As a result of adopting a policy of protecting desirable industries, it was fully expected that certain British and other foreign manufacturers would establish their own factories in India.

The dumping of Mr Bansi Lal

THE Congress has dumped Mr Bansi Lal, the Chief Minister of Haryana, with a confounding thud. Mr Bansi Lal's regime began to crumble around June 11, when the BJP announced that it had decided to withdraw its backing from the HVP (Haryana Vikas Party). The desperate leader sought the support of 12 Congress MLAs. He got a reprieve. AICC General Secretary Pranab Mukherjee has given an unconvincing reason for his party's withdrawal of support. Mr Bansi Lal was not in a position to accept certain suggestions made by Congress President Sonia Gandhi: people did not get the promised, uninterrupted power supply! The Chief Minister was asked to step down after recommending the dissolution of the Assembly and thus pave the way for a fresh poll. Was there any conditional agreement between the Congress and the HVP? Mr Mukherjee would like everyone to believe that there was none. In fact, Mr Bansi Lal had announced in the Assembly some time ago that he was ready "to abide by whatever decision Mrs Gandhi took". The Congress had been opposing Mr Bansi Lal for about three years. It did not want a BJP-Chautala INLD government to be formed and, therefore, it decided to bail Mr Bansi Lal out. Public memory is not too short. The Haryana PCC has consistently demanded an election in the state over an 18-month period. Mrs Sonia Gandhi's advisers are taking too much undeserved credit by proclaiming from an imaginary high moral ground that "the Congress had stepped in then to prevent horse-trading", a business in which its tall leaders have found their hands stained and faces blackened time and again. Mr Bhajan Lal did not agree with much of what the state party unit often declared as its "policies and programmes" but even he spoke approvingly, with Mr Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the state unit chief, when it was decided to show Mr Bansi Lal as a "failed Chief Minister".

The discomfiture of the Congress at the moment is greater than that of Mr Bansi Lal. Immature and impolitic advice has led Mrs Sonia Gandhi into a tunnel, the end of which appears closed and dark. She owned Mr Bansi Lal warts and all when she decided to help him in his hour of political extinction. Mr Bansi Lal is not frightfully far from the magic number needed for survival in the House — 46 or just 45 plus the Speaker. The Congress remains static at 12. The Chief Minister has the assured support of 43 MLAs. He is able to override Mr O.P. Chautala's band of 33. The Governor, on his own, need not ask the Chief Minister to face another vote of confidence at least for six months or so. But he can dissolve the House, without invoking Article 356 of the Constitution, if the fact that no alternative government is possible now is brought to his notice. Mr Mahabir Prasad, in that case, can ask Mr Bansi Lal to step down. He can sack the government. He can recommend the imposition of President's rule in view of "political uncertainty". But he can, acting according to the Bommai case judgement, also ask the Chief Minister to prove majority support on the floor of the House. The Congress has acted in haste — and not quite wisely. We need not link the Bansi Lal case with the Jayalalitha episode. The people of Haryana deserve fairplay. However, the image of the Congress has got a big battering again!

Junior role for Congress

TAMIL NADU is bracing itself to witness a straight electoral battle between two all-in alliances. The one led by the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) has a head start by more or less finalising a seat-sharing arrangement. The DMK-led one will have a less smooth sailing since the BJP wants a larger number of seats in view of what it says the favourable fallout of the Kargil fighting. Other small parties too may pitch their demand high, making the job of the leader of the coalition that much difficult. The AIADMK-led alliance is a novel experiment in a variety of ways. The Congress, which fought alone in 1988 is returning to the fold as a junior partner (12 seats), since it drew a blank in two successive elections and is organisationally a pale shadow of its former self. The two Communist parties, with pockets of influence across the state, have come to the AIADMK camp after nearly two decades and that tentativeness explains why they settled for two seats each. One seat goes to a minor Muslim party, leaving the established Indian Union Muslim League in an electoral no-man’s land. All this leaves 23 seats for the AIADMK out of the 40 seats, including the one in Pondicherry.

Surprise springs from the exclusion of parties from the front. The TMC led by Mr G.K.Moopanar has opted out, saying that it would have nothing to do with the Poes Garden landlady. Without the TMC presence, the Congress will have to ride piggyback on the AIADMK and that is a risky proposition. Although Mr Moopanar’s “no” sounds final, he has left a small door open by saying that his party would decide once and for all at its Madurai meeting, when it assembles to celebrate Kamaraj’s birthday. There is mounting pressure on him from the Congress and other parties to change his stand and join the alliance. In that case, the AIADMK is ready to part with some seats out of its share. The second surprise is the absence of Mr Subramaniam Swamy’s Janata Party from the list. He is meeting Ms Jayalalitha to sort out the matter.

Apart from the unimaginative way the front partners handled the sensitive TMC issue, they have also erred in ignoring the clout of the two-year-old Dalit outfit, Pudhiya Tamizhagam. It has acquired clout in several southern districts in what can be loosely called the Meenakshipuram belt. Its support base is not enough for it to win even one Assembly seat but in a tightly fought election, its members who vote as one man, can make a major difference. Its leader, Dr K. Krishnaswamy, was keen on being part of the alliance but wanted it to be led by the Congress and not the AIADMK. That annoyed the mighty lady and she banished him and his party. This is likely to be a blunder. The Dalits are bitterly opposed to the BJP, the father of Hindu Munnani, the local version of the VHP, and hence there can be no genuine or effective secular front without its presence.

LOOKING BEYOND KARGIL
Defence needs vital correctives

by Hari Jaisingh

DURING my extensive discussion with the Chief of the Army Staff, Gen V.P. Malik, one crucial point, among several others, that emerged is the need for the country to look beyond the Kargil conflict (The Tribune, July 14) so that the right response can be found to the hydra-headed militancy unleashed by the Pakistan establishment in Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of India. It is sad but true that the nation has to face a terrorist-cum-rogue state in the neighbourhood which does not follow niceties in bilateral ties. It hurts me to dub Pakistan as a rogue state. But, then, the harsh realities cannot be overlooked.

How do we tackle the situation? Looking at our ad hocism in policy formulations and the response system, this is not a simple task. It requires fresh thinking and new strategies. First, we must look at the contradictions within the existing defence system itself—even for routine matters of demand and supply for the upgradation of weaponry. The Army proposes and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) disposes. This is the general feeling prevailing among senior officers of the armed forces.

Barring a few outstanding bureaucrats who have served the Ministry admirably well in the past, the track record of most MoD officials has been far from flattering. In fact, the bureaucracy has been a major instrument in delaying or killing some good proposals for the modernisation of the armed forces. Its obstructionist attitude has often generated a feeling of neglect among the top brass of the defence services.

"The overbearing tendency among the officials manning the MoD is simply killing. Many of them do not understand the ABC of the equipment sought to be procured. I do not blame them. I do not expect them to acquire expertise within a year or so of their joining the MoD. But then they have vast powers. Who can dare question them?,” a retired knowledgeable General told me in New Delhi the other day.

Any number of examples can be compiled to underline the flaws in the response system. However, no purpose will be served by such an exercise. What we require is an improvement in the system and the restructuring of the MoD with a view to creating a conducive environment for the soldiers fighting on the front. It is our duty to see that they are not handicapped in their operational tasks.

This brings me to the second crucial point of structural changes within the MoD and its working equations with the defence services. Some exercises have already been done in this regard. Even the Arun Singh Committee had done a thorough job. But its report has been gathering dust. It is indeed regrettable that the political perceptions of a self-conscious status- quoist power always reflect a lack of the urges for change. The increasing cynicism among the educated Indians is the result of the prevailing callousness in official quarters.

A non-responsive system is the anti-thesis of democracy. A vibrant democracy like ours has to be carefully nursed on the mutual trust of major organs of the government. Viewed in a broad framework, there is no reason why the armed forces should not be trusted in the decision-making mechanism, especially relating to the areas which directly affect their work efficiency and performance on and off the battle front.

It is strange but true that there is not a single officer in uniform in the MoD. In contrast, look at the American set-up. The all-powerful Pentagon apart, the services of defence personnel are utilised extensively which must be enriching the quality of decision-making.

Much of the distortions that we see around are part of the colonial hangover. Even after 51 years of independence we continue to cling to the antiquated system and rules.

We must learn to treat our defence officers and jawans with izzat they deserve. They die on the battlefield to uphold the country's sovereignty, integrity and honour so that we all live in peace and freedom. They should not be seen as merely war-time heroes. They must be treated with honour and dignity even in peacetime.

Our Generals never question the supremacy of the civilian authority. This is a tribute to Indian democracy. The Indians as a whole, for that matter, have got so much addicted to democracy that they will not accept any other form of government. Notwithstanding certain limitations and aberrations, democracy has come to stay in India. So, it is futile to entertain any apprehensions of a coup just to keep the armed forces under leash. The point is: who suffers in the process? The nation and the people.

Of course, the restructuring of the system — and this is my third point —has to be based on accountability and transparency. Some defence officers are punished for the dereliction of duty, if any. But an erring bureaucrat — even at the level of Defence Secretary — is let off with a transfer. He gets another plum job for his acts of omission and commission! Isn't this a paradoxical setting in the system? A number of examples can be given to prove this point. It would, however, suffice to refer to the recent case of Mr Ajit Kumar, who was once the presiding deity in the MoD.

My sole concern here is to put the right focus on the issues so that we are able to bring about qualitative improvement in the way we function today.

It needs to be graciously acknowledged that the valour of our young officers and jawans has more than made up for some serious gaps in the supply of the equipment. Perhaps, the casualties on the Indian side would have been fewer had our soldiers been properly equipped with mountain warfare equipment, both of high calibre and lightweight.

There have been gaps even in the surveillance system. And without proper surveillance, any intelligence system will falter. Indeed, the Kargil flare-up has exposed India's antiquated surveillance system.

True, the Defence Electronics Applications Laboratory (DEAL) at Dehra Dun has developed certain expertise in imaging, photo-interpretation and electronic eavesdropping. Still, we shall have to go in for satellite imagery, photo-reconnaissance by aircraft like MIG-25 and even the lowly tethered balloon which can be useful in the Himalayan terrain.

In fact, the defence forces need both static and mobile surveillance equipment on the ground. Though night vision devices and the battlefield surveillance radar were developed more than a decade ago by a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratory, these hardly meet the vital needs in today's hi-tech warfare. While strengthening our self-reliance base in defence, we have to meet the urgent needs of our defence forces.

The surveillance factor apart, in mountain warfare like the one imposed by Pakistan in Kargil and Siachen, "the weight penalty" can be decisive in battle. Carrying too heavy a gun can impose restrictions on the speed of movement. Though India has developed some small arms, the overall needs right now demand massive investment in this area. This cannot be done in view of the reduced budgetary provisions.

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has already hinted at a higher defence budget. What is regrettable is that except during war-like situations, defence matters hardly evoke interest even among MPs.

As it is, over the years, the defence budget has been cut down from 3.5 per cent to 2. 25 per cent of the GDP. How can rational perspective planning be evolved with a shoestring budget?

The country will have to give a fresh hard look to all the facets of the country's defence needs. The challenge here does not come from the Kargils alone. We have to decisively face the problem of militancy in the valley and beyond.

The country is faced with a barbaric face of militancy sponsored by Pakistan. Do we fully realise the implications of this multi-dimensional threat? The country will have to find new answers to the problem of Pakistan-backed militant fundamentalism.

Mere exhortations, however, do not constitute a policy. Our existing system has to be jolted out of its business-as-usual syndrome.

Viewed in a larger framework, we must look at our security needs against the backdrop of the regional and global environment. It is also necessary to constantly keep in mind the tactics and strategies being adopted by the Islamic fundamentalist groups as part of Pakistan's gameplan. After their retreat from Kargil, they are surely not going to take the defeat lying down. We will have to evolve counter-strategies to frustrate Islamabad's evil designs. This requires coordinated thinking and united action. This fact should be obvious even to the most opaque intelligence.

In the final analysis, the soundness of our economy, the capacity of our administrative structure and political processes to command the loyalty of our people, the constant care with which the will of our people needs to be canalised to assert itself in the defence of our borders as well as our hearths and homes, the credibility of our political leadership, the quality of defence equipment, the effectiveness of our diplomacy to respond to the changing circumstances—all these are vital elements which must enter into the making of our policies designed to ensure our security.

It is time we began to look beyond Kargil in totality and not in an isolated manner. As for our strategic doctrine vis-a-vis Pakistan, it needs drastic revision. To imagine that any future conflict would be a mere extrapolation of our past experience would be wrong. A long-term perspective will demand patient but resilient diplomacy. Are we ready for the challenges ahead?

It is time for gallantry award
by H. S. Sodhi

A GALLANTRY award — a piece of coloured ribbon on the chest of the recipient and a medal made of non-precious metal in full ceremonial dress — is a disproportionately valuable morale booster at the individual and group levels in the military. Traditionally, this has been more than enough for this purpose, but now more emotional and monetary considerations have come to the fore. There are now grants of land / money for such individuals from the government.

But the real value of this award is the sense of achievement it gives, the example it sets for others for all time to come, and the boost it gives to the unit to which the individual belongs. These awards become a source of pride and inspiration for the future.

The recently awarded titles to full units like Rajputana Rifles are in the same genre, but at the group level these can be considered equal to the title “Royal” that was bestowed by the British on units that performed exceptionally well. There is now need to get some such honorific to go with the units concerned forever.

There are basically two categories of awards that are given at the individual level. One is the peace-time ones like the Vishist Seva Medal series, Ashoka Chakra, etc. Within these there is a further division of the awards for purely peace-time good work and also for acts of bravery during peace-time.

The second category is those of war-time ones like the Vir Chakra series. There are a host of others too in both categories. The peace-time awards are normally given on Republic Day and Independence Day. War-time awards are announced during the war-time itself as soon as a decision has been taken.

Considering the fighting in Kashmir as non-war operations, the awards are issued from the peace-time list for bravery, and some of them have already been announced. A rare exception to this was the fighting in Siachen in 1989 when some MVCs and VCs were given.

But at Kargil there has been war-like situation for some time. There must have been citations sent up the channel of command for the award of gallantry medals to the deserving cases. These will be vetted at the level of Army HQ and then the announcements made. It is, of course, not axiomatic that every recommendation for an award is accepted. Some of them are downgraded and some not accepted at all. A lot depends upon the wording of the citation and also other factors like the ambient condition of fighting and its overall importance. It is correctly said in the Army that there a number of incidents of valour that go unrecorded and hence unrewarded.

The current silence, however, in announcing any award is rather intriguing. One factor may be that the personalities concerned with the decision on such awards are busy with the ongoing operations. But this cannot be the real reason.

It is very likely that a decision is yet to be taken regarding what category of awards are to be given: gallantry awards in peace-time as has been the case with the Kashmir insurgency-connected operations, or war-time awards? There seems to be little doubt that the operations in the Kargil sector have been like those in a war. The level of fighting, the use of weapons and the Air Force, the scale of casualties and, above all, the level of courage and dedication displayed against a very heavily armed, committed enemy, leave no room for doubt that it has been a full-scale war even though Pakistan may continue to deny the involvement of its regular army.

Therefore, war-time gallantry awards must be announced at the earliest. This will be the most fitting recognition of the sacrifices made in the Kargil sector by our valiant soldiers and army officers.

(The author is a retired Brigadier.)

Love thy neighbour
by Raj Chatterjee

IT was on a hot and humid day. I sat in my stalled car, sweating like the proverbial pig and cursing the mechanic who, half-an-hour earlier had finished tuning its engine. I didn’t only feel the oppressive heat. I was seething with rage, with murderous thoughts in my mind.

And then, from where I sat, I caught sight of a large hoarding on which were painted the words, “Do not shed blood. Shed hatred”. The message bore the name of the late Indira Gandhi.

In a trice, my anger died down. I stopped using foul language describing the car and the mechanic. I got out of the car, locked it and hailed a passing three-wheeler to take me back to the mechanic’s shop.

That evening, feeling cooler in mind and body after a cold shower, I got down to a bit of soul-searching, which led me to the conclusion that while I disliked many of my fellow-men there was none that I hated enough to want to kill. A kick in the seat of the pants was the farthest I was likely to go by way of showing my displeasure with him. Having decided this, a virtuous feeling came over me as I poured myself a second drink with slightly less soda than in the first.

All of us, I thought, have our pet aversions, or we would be canonised as saints which, I believe is a lengthy process. I have my own list of bete noires and at this time of the year the one who heads the list is the GM of the Delhi Vidyut Board.

Every now and again he makes a statement to the press which the latter prints with the headline reading “GM of DVB says city’s electricity supply normal”. To the intelligent reader, however, the word “normal” has come to mean “usual” because on the same page there is a report that in several areas of the city (excluding the VIP enclave) people had to do without electricity and water for periods ranging from one to six hours.

Then there is the fellow at the grocery store who never has any small change, instead of which he offers me a lollipop or a postage stamp.

And there is the young lady (my guess) with a soft, musical voice, who for the past 10 days has been ringing my number between the hours of 2 and 4 p.m, when I am enjoying my siesta. She invariably opens the conversation by asking, ‘Is that 68...?’ I say, “no” muttering under my breath a prayer that all young ladies with soft, musical voices should be communing with the angels. I return to my bed, to spend a restless afternoon.

But there is a limit to a man’s patience. The last time she disturbed me I said, “Look, lady. I adore your voice, but why not let me hear it some other time, say, in the cool of the evening? By the way, how do you always get my number? I’m not even on the “68” exchange.’

“I really don’t know,” she said with a giggle. “Then find out,” I said, from MTNL”.

“I’ve complained several times”, she said, “but nobody pays any attention. What am I to do?”

“Ring up the General Manager,” I said, “at his residence, every night between 11 and 12 p.m. He’ll pretty soon do something about it, if only to avoid getting into trouble with his wife”.

Peals of silvery laughter greeted this advice. I haven’t been bothered in the afternoon (or evening) since then. I have a feeling that the girl did what I had suggested. If so, I pity the poor GM.

Time for new chapter in Indo-US ties
By M.S.N. Menon

FOR over 50 years, the Anglo-Americans have kept the Indian sub-continent in a state of crisis. Are they now pacified? Is the animus over? Or is Kargil a one-time exception?

I have often wondered what it is that has fed this animus against India. Of course, some reasons are obvious. For example, that India led the decolonisation and nonalignment movements: both had hurt Western interests.

But is there not something deeper? Is it the conflict of civilisations? Yes, partly. But this works only at the level of religion. Perhaps at the intellectual level too. But not at the level of economics. Economics unite people. Culture, too, unites men but it can divide them as well.

The Indian people are among the most intelligent and imaginative. Given the proper circumstances, they can be leaders of the world. More so, in science and technology. It is this fear which worries the Anglo-Americans, for they have seen the prowess of Indians in America. And this also explains the animus against India, which has been a critic of the West. The Anglo-Americans see the Indians as the greatest impediment to their hegemony.

There was a time when the Americans thought of Indians as an unregenerate people. Katherine Mayo reigned supreme. This stirred the Christian proselytisers. They saw the natives as potential converts to Christianity. But facts had to come out. Emerson, Whitman, Thoreau — they were all fascinated by Indian civilisation. But America, like imperial Britain, chose to ignore India’s great past.

There was John Foster Dulles, the bigot, who knew nothing of India. And that was true of Dr Kissinger, who was even worse. He admits “there are few Americans who follow events in India.” He deprecated the “love affair” of western intellectuals with Indian thought. He saw this as a complete misreading of Indian philosophy. Indian philosophy of life, he asserted, was never meant to be practical. Shows the man’s utter ignorance, for there is nothing more practical than Yoga as a philosophy of life. And the thought that Gandhi’s non-violence was not inspired by ethical principles! With such ignorant men, the anti-India slant during the Nixon years was no wonder. In short, US policy towards India is based on ignorance and prejudices. This explains the many false starts. For example, Clinton’s first term, when he set up a woman to berate India.

Kissinger was a “practical” man. He sought power and, no doubt, pelf. No lofty ideals ever moved him. In this sense, he did not belong to the American tradition.

But it is also a fact that there had always been a few who thought of India differently. Stephen Cohen, for example. He says that India is a cultural and civilisational power because of its music, art, philosophy and thoughts. In other words, Indian civilisation is different. It has a different message for the world.

Richard Gephardt believes that the most important country the USA should forge a lasting friendship with is India. “Not with China, not with Pakistan, nor any other country,” he asserts.

Benjamin Cilman’s preoccupation is with moral issues. He says: “India’s great moral and religious foundation must not be compromised by the very demanding situation it faces in Kashmir.”

President Clinton is not hostile to India. He too had flashes of a brighter vision of India, and the tremendous benefits that could come from a close relationship with India.

Even Wall Street is impressed by this country’s huge middle class and being the world’s third largest pool of technical manpower.

Then, how is it that these perceptions fail to get translated into practice? Because, I believe, America is not a monolith. It is made up of tens of thousands of interest groups. America speaks with different tongues. This confuses people. And the tongues that are poisonous get more attention from the media.

Today America can carry out an electronic war on its own. This should not go to its head, for tomorrow someone else will take the lead.

Both Indians and Americans see the advantages of Indo-US cooperation. But they should be sincere.

America should accept that India needs a limited independent defence, including nuclear weapons and missiles. This is to prevent blackmail and undue pressure. After Kargil, there will be no compromise on this. There is no point in opposing it. Even Strobe Talbott says: “We realise that for India, the issue of deterrence is complicated by the China factor ... we respect India’s right to make that determination.”

The USA must recognise the fact that we belong to an ancient civilisation of which we are very proud. We have a distinct message for the world. So, do not hold our civilisation in contempt or try to impose the American way of life on us. And please give up the idea that Hinduism has less insight into the imponderables of life as well as the world. It has gone far deeper into these matters. And do not attempt mass proselytisation; for we oppose it.

Remember, having thrown away the colonial yoke, India cannot accept any manifestation of domination and diktat and claim to hegemony and supremacy. Do not expect India to accept any of these.

Naturally, India will try to emerge as a centre of power on its own. (It may be a pacifist state one day.) But the USA is antipathetic to new centres of power. Pentagon says that America must contain regional ambitions. This is the way to Armageddon. America has no monopoly of wisdom. Nor is the Western civilisation and its thoughts The ideal. Read Western history.

But we are ready to cooperate, even in defence, provided it carries the UN mandate. India wants stability in South Asia and Asia. It cannot be averse to any American scheme if these objectives can be achieved.

America must realise that its role in the world is suspect. This is what Edward Heath, a former Prime Minister of Britain, said of US policies: “... the aspirations of the American establishment in this day and age are subversive of any concept we might have of a peaceful world.” If we are cautious about US policies, it should not be construed as wanton. Remember, US policies towards Pakistan and Afghanistan have brought anarchical conditions there.

Do not follow contradictory policies and yet expect India to agree. For example, in Chechnya, America was promoting ethnic secessionism; in Kosovo, it was opposed to ethnic cleansing; in Kashmir, it was for ethnic cleansing! Such bizarre policies do not enhance US prestige.

During the cold war, America focused on relations among nations. The objective was balance of power. Today US policies also focus on relations within nations — on a nation’s form of government, on its economic structure, on its ethnic tolerance. This is an alibi to promote interference in internal affairs of nations to promote globalisation. We do not accept such interference. Why? Because we do not believe that America is competent to do so.

It was said that Pakistan was needed to fight Communism. Later, it was needed to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Today it is said that Pakistan is needed to exploit Central Asian oil and gas. We in India have no evidence of Pakistan performing any of these jobs. On the contrary, we have complete evidence that America is building up Pakistan to checkmate India. This has caused India immense harm. If the USA continue to play this game, the consequences could be very serious.

Pakistan is a failed state. Its army is brutalised. If Washington still finds Pakistan a necessary part of its strategy, we will know what inference to draw.

But I have wisdom will prevail ultimately and Washington may want to open up a new chapter of relations with India. That time, I believe, has come.

75 YEARS AGO

One effect of protection

THE Government of India are just considering what industries in India require protection. As a result of adopting a policy of protecting desirable industries, it was fully expected that certain British and other foreign manufacturers would establish their own factories in India.

We understand that an English firm of manufacturing paints, enamels and varnishes has already made arrangements to establish a factory at Sibpur. It is not known whether it will utilise raw materials available locally and employ Indians to some extent, but for the present the establishment of factories by English and other firms cannot be avoided.

It may become necessary in the near future to amend the Indian Companies Act so as to provide for a certain proportion of the capital being subscribed in India and the number of Indians being included in the staff and the work force.