Debt-ridden govts all
WHEN a Finance Minister says that his account books are hopelessly out of sync, there is reason to worry. When he happens to be Mr Yashwant Sinha, an over-optimist to a fault, it is time to hit the panic button.

Prison violence in Chennai
THE incident of violence in the Chennai Central Prison on Wednesday, in which a deputy jailer was burnt alive and at least 10 prisoners were killed in police firing, has once again turned the spotlight on the need for introducing improved techniques of jail management.

THIRD WAY & EMERGING NATIONS
Challenges before ruling elites
by I.K. Gujral
A FEW months ago the Secretary-General of United Nations had deputed “an Eminent Persons Group” to visit Algeria to study the torments and sufferings inflicted by terrorism on the peace-loving people there. The sights that we saw and tales of their woe that we heard still haunt me. I am hopeful that the recently held elections — backed by a popular referendum — are succeeding in getting the better of the fundamentalist terror.

Russia, China must arrest drift in Asia
By M.S.N. Menon
CAN India and Russia go back to their “special” friendship? They cannot. Times have changed. Relations have changed. It is true, Russia is not in the western camp today. Its stay was short. It came out of it recently, when it became aware of the true objectives of the West in moving the NATO battlelines to the borders of Russia.

Husbands’ secrets
by Noel Lobo
IT is reported that in Germany — a highly developed country — they have a lot of marriages where only the husband earns, and each month he doles out a husbandly kitchen allowance to the wife, and thinks he is a hero for doing it.

75 Years Ago

November 19, 1924
Municipalities and the Unity Conference
MR JAMNADAS MEHTA has set an example by giving notice of a motion, urging that the objects of the Unity Conference at Delhi be endorsed by the Bombay Corporation and steps be taken to carry out the spirit of its resolutions, which, if successful, is sure to be followed elsewhere.

Debt-ridden govts all

WHEN a Finance Minister says that his account books are hopelessly out of sync, there is reason to worry. When he happens to be Mr Yashwant Sinha, an over-optimist to a fault, it is time to hit the panic button. On Wednesday he was frank with his views and figures, as he had to be since he was talking to economic editors, the self-appointed watchdogs of his ministry. The structure of government finance is very rigid and that blocks any improvement, he says for starters. This financial year he hopes to raise over Rs 1,82,000 crore as revenue but the whole amount will go to meet a few fixed charges like interest payment, salary and pension and food and fertiliser subsidy. The last item takes away only about Rs 23,000 crore, or about 25 per cent, but it is very popular to talk to the educated, city-based upper middle class on the bane of providing food to the poor at affordable prices. The biggest expenditure, Rs 90,000 crore, is on interest payment on loans and deposits. It was just Rs 16,500 crore a decade earlier. In other words, the outgo has jumped by more than 550 per cent in 10 years. (Incidentally, food and fertiliser subsidy has grown by 300 per cent despite the steep hike in procurement prices and the explosion of the population living below the poverty line.) One more statistic completes the woeful picture. This year the government has plans to borrow Rs 1,00,000 crore to remain afloat. In other words the government has to borrow more money than its interest obligation. There is a term to describe this critical condition — internal debt trap, forcing the government to borrow more to pay less and see the total debt steadily increasing with no chance of relief.

Mr Sinha rightly says this is not an extraordinary feature of this year or his stewardship. The situation has been building up for at least two decades. The gap between ballooning expenditure and stagnant revenue (as a percentage of the GDP) has been widening. The remedy lies in one of the three unlikely developments. One, the government mobilises more revenue; but this very idea flies in the face of the much-touted economic reforms. Two, it slashes expenditure by thinning out jobs and tightening the rules; but the first will ignite labour unrest and there is no political will for the second. Mr Sinha keeps repeating his promise to prune spending even while his Cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister himself announce grand projects involving huge investment. Finally, the government can find resources outside the budget like selling off public sector undertakings. But any fund generated by disinvestment — it is by nature very small — goes to reduce the budget deficit. Mr Sinha is in excellent company. The states, without exception, are in a worse mess. Two dozens of them have demanded that the Centre should fully compensate the additional burden of paying their staff the revised pay scales. That comes to a total of Rs 15,000 crore. There is one major difference though. Mr Sinha can borrow any amount of money he needs without anyone even murmuring a protest. The states are at the mercy of the Centre, don’t bother about the federal setup. He is forging one more instrument of control; he has called it the “Federal Fiscal Fund” and the states will be allowed to partake of it only after they prove themselves to be fiscally prudent and financially disciplined. The Big Brother is indeed watching!

Prison violence in Chennai

THE incident of violence in the Chennai Central Prison on Wednesday, in which a deputy jailer was burnt alive and at least 10 prisoners were killed in police firing, has once again turned the spotlight on the need for introducing improved techniques of jail management. The report of the death of an inmate, "Boxer Vadivelu, who was shifted to a hospital for treatment, was a contributory factor, but not the sole reason, for the unprecedented scale of violence in the prison. The police opened fire for bringing the situation under control. The deputy jailer, who was tied to his chair inside his office and covered with a heavy pile of record books before being set ablaze, paid with his life for the indifference of his superior officers who simply refused to read the writing on the prison walls. The main reason for the violence was, perhaps, the over-crowding of cells and the lack of other basic amenities which an increasing number of prisoners now demand as part of their human rights. The Chennai Central Prison has a capacity for only 1,200 inmates. The jail authorities' request for shifting an equal number of surplus inmates to some other detention centre was ignored by the department responsible for prison administration. It should not be forgotten that what has happened in Chennai can happen in any other prison in the country because neither the Centre nor the state governments seem to be serious about streamlining and modernising the system of prison administration. The Supreme Court has time and again expressed concern over the over-crowding of jails because of the alarming increase in the number of undertrials whose cases appear to get lost in the over-crowded chambers of the lower judiciary.

For hardened criminals well-appointed prison cells become safe havens to operate from. For petty offenders the avoidable long stint in jail, because of judicial delay in deciding their cases, serves as an important step for them to enter the boundless world of organised crime. It is not that the political leadership at the state and Central levels is not aware of the problem. It simply lacks the political will to act. A number of commissions by the Centre and the state governments have been set up in the past for suggesting improvement in the current system of prison administration based on outdated and inhuman colonial principles. However, their recommendations have been allowed to gather dust. To be fair, last year the Bharatiya Janata Party-led alliance at the Centre did introduce a comprehensive Bill for effecting long overdue jail reforms. Thereafter, it got pushed out of the government's list of priorities for reasons which were never explained. The National Human Rights Commission too has taken the initiative of suggesting fundamental reforms in the living conditions and rights and duties of convicts and undertrials. It even launched a project with the help of the British Council in India, the Penal Reforms and Justice Association and the Bureau of Police Research and Development for introducing internationally accepted humane practices and programmes for prisoners. A number of non-government organisations too are engaged in the task of helping convicts in becoming useful and respectable members of society during and after they complete their sentences. However, the Chennai incident has exposed the limits of NGOs in turning jails into reform homes. In any case, they are expected to supplement not replace government initiative which is woefully inadequate as is evident from the prison violence in Tamil Nadu.

THIRD WAY & EMERGING NATIONS
Challenges before ruling elites
by I.K. Gujral

A FEW months ago the Secretary-General of United Nations had deputed “an Eminent Persons Group” to visit Algeria to study the torments and sufferings inflicted by terrorism on the peace-loving people there. The sights that we saw and tales of their woe that we heard still haunt me. I am hopeful that the recently held elections — backed by a popular referendum — are succeeding in getting the better of the fundamentalist terror. In today’s world, terrorism is the biggest threat to civilisations, cultures and democratic institutions.

What options and orientations does the next millennium offer for ushering in an era of a secured peace and sustainable economic development to our societies. In a way, every nation is trying to identify the contours of the future based on the prevailing levels of social growth. We live in a diverse world with pronounced inequalities — both nationally and internationally — and hence the concepts of our future based on our respective historical experiences. This century — to which we are about to say bye — has witnessed mind-wobbling technological achievements and also two social revolutions, in the Soviet Union and China, that radically changed the socio-economic philosophies. This may not be an occasion for me to examine historical reasons for the collapse of the Socialist State nor would I like to discuss the adjustments made by China that has ensured its prosperity.

Of all the earth-shaking changes that have distinguished this century, the most important one from our point of view, and from the point of view of the vast majority of humankind, is the decolonisation revolution. For the first time since recorded history, the planet is virtually free of colonies. The few exceptions — small territories like the Falklands and Sao Tome and Principe — do not in any manner diminish the immensity of the human liberation from foreign rule that has taken place since the forties. Only 50 nations signed the Charter of the United Nations when it was founded in 1946. Now the UN has close to 200 members, each one of them sovereign and in theory equal to each other in the world body. I call it an illusion — for example, it would be a folly not to see that while we all may have one vote while deliberating in the UN General Assembly and its committees, but while the chips are down we see the stark reality of inequities that prevail not only inside the impressive mansion of the United Nations elsewhere too, but its gravity asserts far more in the Bretton Woods organisations and the WTO.

I mentioned a while ago about the revolution of decolonisation whose life-span varies from three to five decades. It is time for us to take stock of how far we have succeeded or failed to build the new nations that dot today’s map of the planet? In some of our countries, there were long struggles for independence, violent or non-violent. Some of our peoples fought revolutionary wars to secure their emancipation. To many, power was peacefully transferred by the colonial powers to the nationalist elite. In the geopolitical region of South Asia alone, we have several types of decolonisation. India fought the British non-violently for 40 years under the mass mobilising leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. Freedom came with the partition of the country that created the new sovereign state of Pakistan. The partition involved one of the largest displacement of humans in history and millions died. Still, in 1947, well over 400 million people freed themselves from British colonialism.

I need not recapitulate the manners in which the 50 countries of Africa, the 20 Arab and non-Arab countries of what is known as the Middle-East and the Persian Gulf, and the 20 countries of Latin America got their independence. There were three broad patterns. In the first, power was transferred by the departing colonial power to a post-colonial nationalist elite. In the second, the reluctantly departing colonial power got involved in armed conflicts with mutually antagonistic nationalist forces and the intervention of the United Nations was necessary to work out decolonisation. The Congo or Kinshasha is the major example. The third pattern was armed Marxist revolution. South Africa stands out in its own tale of immense suffering and glory. Here a united African National Congress led by Mandela from the prison made the fullest use of the global abhorrence for blatant colour discriminations. The world pressures ultimately succeeded in dismantling the racially divisive regime that enabled the entire people to usher in a new era of democracy and majority rule through elections.

The gory tales of French de-colonisation experienced in the “Maghrib” countries were pointedly brought to the notice of the world by Albert Camus in his novel, “The Plague”, that gave us the first glimpses of the black side of French imperialism in Algeria. Camus kept his novel strictly apolitical. But to a reader like me, the “plague” was a social or human catastrophe; it was a war of occupation. Though Camus talked specifically about Algeria, to any perceptive mind it was clear that “The Plague” covered the entire “Maghrib”, including Tunisia. We viewed the Indian freedom struggle as an integral part of the liberation movements of the Continent of Africa where agonies were even more painful. The sagas of epochal struggles of the people of this continent and its heroes continue to inspire us even today.

We made golden promises when our people entrusted us to govern our republics or kingdoms. We emerged as the largest ruling class in the United Nations. How well or badly have we performed? Is our record of peoples’ welfare and uplift something to be proud of? Have the post-colonial ruling elites achieved a satisfying record of human rights? Of frontal attacks on poverty? Have we not been trapped in what is known as enclave development? Why is there so much poverty, illiteracy, gender inequity, malnutrition, child morality, homelessness and joblessness in our societies?

Is it because most of us continued with the colonial systems of government left behind by the alien masters? Is it because there has been more continuity than change in our systems and styles of governance? The American colonies fought the British imperialists for many years, and drove them out. Then they assembled to sculpt an entirely new system of government — a presidential federation which left a lot of autonomy, power and resource with the states. They did not continue the Westminster model of government. They kept what they thought was good in the British system and formed a system of governance that suited their genius.

Indeed, we who took over the reins of government after decolonisation belong to one large fraternity. So many of our problems are similar. So similar are our cultures, societies and economies that our diversities conspire to create unities. For, we have the same obligations to our people, and we went through the same process of decolonisation, of course with local variations. We may recall that the Afro-Asian conference convened by Jawaharlal Nehru on the eve of Indian Independence in New Delhi was called to cement our togetherness. We remember the historic Bandung conference where the late Zho en-Lai rubbed shoulders and exchanged ideas with leaders of governments of Asia and Africa. We are justly proud of our collective success. But with the new millennium right on our doorstep, we must be humbly conscious of our slippages, mistakes and shortcomings.

We discuss a great deal these days about the relevance and role of civil society. The creation of civil societies is the greatest challenge before us because without functioning civil societies there is no good governance. Civil societies need extensive decentralisation. People have to govern themselves and then alone do they build civil societies making them aware of what they can themselves do for their own development and betterment. In my stint as Prime Minister of India, I realised how difficult it is to offer good governance and engineer a relevant people-oriented social change without the active participation of civil society.

There are some basic requirements for the creation of civil societies. The first requirement is to build a legal foundation of the State from the top to the bottom and to ensure that the laws of the land are universally and impartially enforced. Secondly, an independent, efficient, honest and uncorrupted judiciary is indispensable for a civic society. thirdly, the government has to be decentralised with the people given opportunities to govern themselves and take charge of their own affairs. Fourthly, there is the concept that the government is the giver of everything. The sole provider is inimical to the building of a civil society.

The citizen must realise that in many ways he or she is his or her own master and that a great deal of initiatives for good governance, a peaceful social order, for cooperative coexistence of different interests in society, and for better health and hygiene, for cleanliness, for the greening of urban sprawls, for ensuring that every child goes to school, that teachers actually teach and doctors attend regularly on patients at rural health centres, for creating a sense of respect and equality for women in our traditional societies and a climate of tolerance in our lives, the individual citizens, separately and together, must play their role. Governments alone cannot control human societies nor can they build nations without a great deal of active and conscious help from the citizens.

At the threshold of the 21st century we witness that several new doctrines are being sponsored. Perhaps it was inevitable since the space occupied by the Sovietism has been vacated and the harshness of the Laissez-faire State — that goes by the name of market — is very pronounced. The “Third Way-ism”, sponsored by a club of the rich and powerful, is the latest entrant. Though it has not yet attracted much notice, it would be a mistake to ignore it cynically. The ideas that leading members of G-7 with massive resources articulate do later affect our economies and diplomacies.

Prime Minister Tony Blair, while spelling out the new dogma, has said,...... ‘‘We can only realise ourselves as individuals in a thriving civil society, comprising strong families and civic institutions buttressed by intelligent government. For most individuals to succeed, society must be strong. When society is weak, power and rewards go to the few, not the many. Values are not absolute, and even the best can conflict.” One point in this enunciation calls for attention. The New Labour Party leader is emphasising on “strong society”, not the strong State.

Of course, the Meccas of social democracies are moving away from their concepts of Fabian and Webian socialisms. They feel that the economic order that assigned a high status to the public sector and State interventions in social sectors has outlived its utility. Mr Blair’s doctrine does not divorce itself from the importance of social justice, though its dispensation is being placed on a different footing. These concepts are still neither fully baked nor fully spelt out even by all social democratic countries of Europe. Prime Minister Jaspin, for instance, is still thumbing his nose while several others in the European Union have not yet heard about it. President Clinton believes that his policy initiatives are born out of this concept.

Our difficulties and tasks — I can say more specifically for India — call for a different point of view. The colonisers had exploited our resources to the hilt and made us miss the bus of the first and second industrial revolutions. Our agricultural tools were medieval and the land ownership patterns impoverished the peasantry. It is a matter of some satisfaction that the policies that we pursued in the sphere of the economy coupled with the democratisation of polity have helped but not fully as yet. One billion Indians are at different levels of growth. We have vastly expanded the base of our affluent middle class, but nearly 37 per cent of our people still languish below the poverty line. The demarcating line of literacy and gender inequality continues to embarrass us. At the same time, I say with some satisfaction that we have entered the era of high-tech engineering, bio-chemistry and informatics. The developing world cannot afford to miss this third post-industrial revolution.

The 1999 Human Development Report, more than anything else, “champions the agenda of the world’s weak, those marginalised by globalisation, and calls for a much bolder agenda of global and national reforms to achieve globalisation with a human face. It cautions that globalisation is too important to be left as unmanaged as it is at present, because it has the capacity to do extraordinary harm as well as good”.

Informatics has acquired supreme importance. A look on the cover page of the latest Human Development Report tells us how we in Africa and Asia are still at the margin regarding the access to the Internet highlighting the fact that “the global gap between the haves and the have-nots, between the know and know-not, is widening”. India is speedily catching up but we have still a long way to go. The report rightly says, “The recent great strides in technology present tremendous opportunities for human development — but achieving that potential depends on how technology is used. What is technology’s impact on globalisation — and globalisation’s impact on technology?”

In the context of globalisation, the approach of the Third Way seems to be striking a balance between totally liberal competition and selective policy intervention aimed at safeguarding the interests of the nationals. It advocates greater play of market forces tempered by policy action to safeguard the national interests. It emphasises the need for good domestic policies which would enable the countries to take the maximum advantage of the opportunities of globalisation. It recognises the need for managing the volatile capital markets which have caused catastrophic development and bust-boom cycles.

To me the Third Way seems closer to the middle path, advocated by the Nonaligned Movement, both in terms of the political and economic philosophies. The concept of nonalignment emphasises the importance of autonomy of decision-making for maintaining national interests. The Nonaligned Movement also emphasised the great merit of democracy, people-centric approach to development, increasing social responsibility for the government and new partnership in development. The difference between the Third Way and nonalignment is that the former gives relatively more scope for the market and the process of global integration. Further, the Third Way is fostered by the powerful rich nations as a new paradigm of development and global management, while nonalignment is cynically denounced as the voice of the poor, the struggling voiceless people of the developing world.

Of course, I am somewhat apprehensive the way the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is proceeding. Their Third Way may ultimately increase the powers of the powerful nations, and though there is talk of justice and fairness, I do not know any explicit recognition to reduce the growing disparities between the rich and poor nations on one hand and the increase in the poverty of the people in the developing countries.

The Third Way approach, I must say, to an extent mellows the extreme radical prescription of the IMF and the World Bank, but I think more work is called for regarding the thinking on issues of structural adjustment and globalisation. The question as to how the voice and concerns of the developing world would be given due consideration in the Third Way paradigm of development deserves special attention.

Inequalities in consumption are horrifying. Twenty per cent of the world’s population in the highest income countries account for 86 per cent of the total private consumption expenditure. The poorest 20 per cent consume 1.3 per cent of that expenditure. The richest fifth consume 58 per cent of total energy; the poor only 4 per cent. The richest 20 per cent consume 84 per cent of all paper, the poorest 20 per cent only 1.1 per cent. The richest 20 per cent own 80 per cent of the world’s vehicle fleet, the poorest less than 1 per cent.

We should put our heads together to orient the Third World’s doctrine to cope with our problems in the midst of aggressive marketism that feverishly advances the culture of consumerism that is neither leaving a trail of happiness nor does it provide spiritual nourishment. In India, the Gandhian philosophy on the one hand and the Human Development Reports on the other are favouring the “Gross Happiness Index” rather than the GDP.

All this calls upon us in the Third World to change the old and build the new. This is the task that challenges all the ruling elites of the developing world if they are to meet and effectively deal with the deepening frustrations of our respective people.

The author is a former Prime Minister of India. The article is based on his address at the 11th international symposium held from November 5 to 14 by the Constitutional Democratic Rally, Republic of Tunisia.

Husbands’ secrets
by Noel Lobo

IT is reported that in Germany — a highly developed country — they have a lot of marriages where only the husband earns, and each month he doles out a husbandly kitchen allowance to the wife, and thinks he is a hero for doing it.

It so happens that I have just read a biography of Alfred Wainwright (1907-1991) by Hunter Davies. He is known for his deservedly famous pictorial guides to Britain’s Lakeland Fells, hand-drawn and handwritten; a man who hated publicity — and also, it so happens, his wife Ruth whom he married when she was 22 and worked in the cotton mills. He was two years older and was a clerk in the Black-burn Treasurer’s office. They had a child, Peter.

It was a loveless marriage: she skimped and saved and ran a thrifty household; he spent all his spare time on walking and on the guides, completely ignoring her. He gave her an allowance, a paltry one considering that he became a very rich man. She walked out for ever after 35 years when she discovered his adultery. He offered her ten pounds a week as she left, which she protested was too much.

In 1987 in one of his last books he wrote (speaking of his marriage): It was a mistake, almost from the beginning because I was climbing a ladder to a professional career, but my wife, a mill girl, had no wish to leave the bottom rung. We had little in common and later nothing. If there are any young fellows reading these lines, my advice is to shop around for someone with similar interests and aspirations. Women may all seem alike with a blanket over their heads, but they are not.

No one can dispute the sagacity of that bit of advice, but to return to allowances for housekeeping given by husbands to their wives (perhaps I should say partners), this was certainly the norm in the Britain that I knew as a young man through the fifties and sixties. What’s more it was common to all classes, not just the working class, as they were then known. There was hardly a wife who knew her husband’s pay packet and investments. I do not know what it is like now.

It was probably still true 10 years ago. When I asked a woman, whose husband drove a Porsche and who was a forex dealer in a city firm, why she worked, she was brutally frank. “Because I do not like to have to ask him for money when I need it. The irony of it struck me later. She ran a nanny-finding agency while her own baby was looked after by a nanny!”

In my case, it was not only my wife but also my sons who from the age of 14 knew my salary and my earnings from investments. In fact my younger son took over our share portfolios while still in school. And the elder one drew up a partha (a budget) for us every month, and saw to it that we went by it. There were no secrets.

Now I have no idea what they earn. I did while they were in India; no longer so after they went to the new world.

Russia, China must arrest drift in Asia
By M.S.N. Menon

CAN India and Russia go back to their “special” friendship? They cannot. Times have changed. Relations have changed.

It is true, Russia is not in the western camp today. Its stay was short. It came out of it recently, when it became aware of the true objectives of the West in moving the NATO battlelines to the borders of Russia. What happened in Yugoslavia was perhaps the last straw for Moscow. The US-Russia honeymoon is thus over. Much of the world sighed in relief. But Russia is still tied to NATO, and to the treaties sponsored by the West.

There are other linkages, too. For example, the West has a powerful constituency today in Russia — that of the bureaucracy and the business class. And this ruling class itself has a huge stake in the West. Apart from the billions it has invested or stashed away in the West, its economic prosperity depends on good relations with the West. Naturally, it is not going to jeopardise its well-being.

During the cold war years, Russia was an adversary of the West; today it has normal relations with the West, especially with the USA. But the gap between the USA and Russia has widened. Globalisation and push button warfare have put the USA way ahead of Russia. But Russia and China, which were “enemies” from the sixties, are “strategic partners” today. This has restored the balance somewhat. There is thus a total change in Russia’s circumstances.

All these changes have affected India’s equations with Moscow. The Indo-Soviet Treaty, which was directed against China and Pakistan, has lost much of its relevance. It was naturally superseded. Today, China is close to both the USA and Russia, while Pakistan continues to be close to the USA and China. But Pakistan is a nuclear power today, which makes a big difference in how the world deals with it.

Russia wants India to be strong and powerful. It has always wanted so. (Who wants a weak ally?) This is reflected in recent Russian media reactions. Muskaya Gazeta, a paper close to the Kremlin, says: “(If) some countries can defend their security with nuclear weapons, why can’t India do so?” The Moscow daily Segodnya writes: “If American democracy has the right to possess nuclear weapons, why not India, the world’s largest democracy?”

Russia is still close to India. A document on the new Russian military doctrine says: India is the only country in the world whose national interests do not contradict the strategic interests of Russia. And more than half of the Russian population (the Communists and nationalists) hold India-Russia relations as of vital importance. This is our reliable constituency there. Mr Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the ultra-nationalist, says: “It (India) is the only country in the world where everything is all right with us.” There is complete trust both ways. Russia continues to support India’s position on Kashmir.

However, today, Moscow will not want to incur the enmity of either Islamabad or Kabul for fear of inviting Islamic militancy. Already the Taliban is active in Tajikistan and Kyrghystan, and Pakistan-trained mujahideen are reported to be fighting in Chechnya and Daghestan. Moscow does not want to provoke a wider conflict with the Islamic world. It is highly sensitive to Central Asian reactions. And we should not expect Moscow to take sides if there is a resurgence of the disputes between India and China. These are today’s realities.

But this is not to say that Moscow has become an unreliable friend. Far from it. But there is a limit beyond which it will be unwilling to go. We should, therefore, be careful in setting our expectations. The old “special” relation is dead. It is a new situation.

So, if Moscow cannot be relied upon to deal with our two “enemies” — Pakistan and China — is there any significance in India-Russia relations? Plenty. Three major factors:

Russia is still our most reliable friend. It is still our main source of supply for defence equipment and technology. And it supplies them all at much less price. What is more, Russia is ready to go into joint research and production of sophisticated defence equipment. These are of utmost importance to us, as the West continues to deny us frontier technologies.

And no less important is our cooperation in the civilian sector. Ultimately, security does not come from military strength, as President Eisenhower said. According to him: “Security is the total product of our economic, intellectual, moral and military strength.” He should know. Exclusive military pursuits can only bankrupt nations. This is what happened to the Soviet Union. It neglected the economic and social aspects of Soviet society.

There are other factors. India and Russia stand for a different global outlook — for a different world order. They are for a multi-polar world, for a world of equality and equity and cultural diversity. These are values and goals dear to both our nations. We have pursued these goals during the cold war years. It is natural, we will concert with each other and with other nations to achieve these objectives. They are by no means dead with the end of the cold war. History is not at an end, as is being claimed.

In fact, with the emergence of the USA as a supreme power, determined to establish its hegemony, there is greater need for India and Russia to work together. And the stronger they become, the more effective they will be. This is why Moscow is less critical of India’s nuclear and missile programmes. Our success, however, is assured, for today we have China on our side. That is, if the mandarins are true to their word.

But the situation is not fully satisfactory. If the triangular group — Russia, China and India — is to be effective, there is need to go beyond the historical conflicts of the region, with Russia on India’s side and China on Pakistan’s side. It is here that Russia and China can play an effective role to bring about a radical transformation in the climate of trust in South Asia. This is absolutely necessary for its economic development. And only through economic development can we bring about the general transformation. The prospect of a new dispensation for Asia must bring all the nations of the continent together.

It is unthinkable that the Islamic world will dissipate the golden opportunities which have come its way of late — I mean the prospect of exploiting the hydrocarbon potential of the West Asia and Central Asia. Yet one is not sure. Both Iraq and Iran have wasted billions in wars and armament. Now some are engaged in futile pursuits of fundamentalism and Islamic militancy. This will only unite the rest of the world under American leadership to fight Islamic terrorism. This has already been predicted in the “conflict of civilisations” by Prof Huntington. The saner Islamic world must prevent such a holocaust.

I believe Russia and China have to take initiative in shaping this part of the world. This is not something that India and Pakistan alone can set about to achieve.

The world of South Asia has been drifting for a long time. It has reached a whirlpool. It is time to arrest the drift. Russia and China can do it. They have the full support of India.

75 YEARS AGO

November 19, 1924
Municipalities and the Unity Conference

MR JAMNADAS MEHTA has set an example by giving notice of a motion, urging that the objects of the Unity Conference at Delhi be endorsed by the Bombay Corporation and steps be taken to carry out the spirit of its resolutions, which, if successful, is sure to be followed elsewhere.

In many of the municipalities the people’s representatives now have some real voice, and it is in the fitness of things that this voice should be properly utilised to promote the all-important objects of national unity and national self-fulfilment.