P A G E
Friday, October 15, 1999
spotlighttoday's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Friday, October 15, 1999 |
| weather spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
Embarrassment
for Clinton
LIVING WITH COUP IN PAKISTAN
Six billion: a time for choices |
 |
Arabs
and Jews: India’s false dilemma
“A
grand game”
October 15, 1924 |
||||||||
 |
|
Embarrassment for Clinton WHATEVER may be the political fallout of the US Senate’s refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it exemplified the triumph of the principle of democratic functioning. The fact that the actions of the most powerful political office are subject to strict domestic scrutiny is the source of strength of American democracy. President Bill Clinton knew that when the issue of the ratification of the CTBT would come up for debate, the Republican- dominated Senate may not follow his line argument on the subject. That is why a desperate President pleaded for postponement of the vote on the issue which he has linked with American prestige in the comity of nations. Although Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott promised to discuss the request with colleagues it was evident that hardline Republicans would insist on going ahead with the vote on the ratification of the CTBT. The decision of the Senate to go ahead with the vote is without doubt a source of embarrassment for President Clinton. He has said that in spite of the defeat of the proposal to ratify the treaty, signed by most other countries close to the USA, he would not allow further tests as part of the pledge he has made to the global community. With just 15 months remaining for him to complete his second turn in office US political circles already see him as a lame duck President. A lame duck President’s words carry little weight. Why should the global community accept his commitment to respect the provisions of the CTBT when he has failed to convince even US lawmakers? The Senate Majority Leader’s argument against the treaty had more substance than the case presented on behalf of the President by his Democratic colleagues in the House. Senator Lott in a
stinging attack on President Clinton’s foreign
policy commitments said that “the founding fathers
never envisioned the Senate would be a rubber stamp for a
flawed treaty. This treaty is ineffectual because it
would not stop other nations from testing or developing
nuclear weapons”. Senator Lott’s case against
the signing of the CTBT has striking similarities with
the Indian stand on the issue. India has consistently
maintained that the terms of the treaty favoured the
members of the nuclear club and thereby put at
disadvantage other nations who seek total global
disarmament, and not just a ban on the testing and
production of nuclear weapons. Of course, the reasons for
the Senate’s rejection and India’s opposition
to the signing of the treaty are different. The US Senate
fears that America would lose its pre-eminent position as
the global peace-maker if it imposed a test ban on itself
without making other nations fall in line. India insists
on the removal of certain clauses which are
discriminatory in nature and would expose the country to
unnecessary disadvantage in the context of the tensions
in the sub-continent. The nuclear haves and the have-nots
have to be brought on par for the treaty to be truly
effective in eliminating nuclear weapons, beginning with
the ban on conducting fresh tests. Hopefully the rebuff
from the Senate would make President less strident in his
demand that India and Pakistan should sign the CTBT. His
proposed visit to India early next year may see a
chastened President of the most powerful country in the
world extending the hand of friendship and cooperation
without any pre-conditions. |
Hegde’s anti-exclusion revolt AFTER the 1998 elections Mr Ramakrisha Hegde rushed to Delhi and stayed put in Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee’s residence to emerge as a key player and Union Commerce Minister. This time though he had to stay at home on the day of government formation. Is it any wonder then that he is angry and bitter? His friends and supporters in Karnataka took a cue and went one better or worse: they broke the uneasy coalition with the BJP, accusing it of being greedy and triggering the recent electoral reverse. Former Chief Minister J.H.Patel, known for his quick temper and quicker reaction, led the revolt while a thoughtful section on the Janata Dal (U) leadership mulled over the humiliation of Mr Hegde. His exclusion from the new Cabinet is not as hurting as the fact that he was not even told about this decision. He blames Mr George Fernandes, the newly elected leader of the JD (U) parliamentary party, for this double snub. He just failed to include the former Minister’s name in the list of nominees and, well, forgot to inform him. The assertion of Mr Fernandes that ultimately it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to select his team is both lame and disingenuous. The point is that Mr Hegde was dropped just because the party leadership, dominated by those from Bihar, wanted to accommodate Mr Sharad Yadav and the Karnataka leader had to pay the price. That Mr Fernandes and Co have been clever by half is evident from the more noisy threats from two important Bihar leaders. Mr Prabhunath Singh, a Rajput, and Mr Jai Narain Nishad, a member of an important backward community, have promised to split the party and work against party candidates in the Assembly election due in March next. These two are aghast at the inclusion of the Delhi-based Mr Digvijay Singh, a political lightweight. Mr Prabhunath Singh’s bite may well turn out to be worse than his bark, and the newly forged winning caste combination may collapse, much to the glee of Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav. Because of the huge size
— most commentators have used the term “jumbo
Cabinet” — every one aspired for a ministerial
chair and that left many disgruntled. Three heavyweights
from Delhi met at the residence of one of them for a
private post mortem. Mr Sahib Singh Verma is reminding
all of the Prime Minister’s written assurance of
last year offering him a Cabinet berth. Mr Ananth Kumar
is unhappy that he has been unloaded from the Civil
Aviation Ministry. Mr Ajit Panja expressed his anguish at
being bracketed with first-time MPs despite his long
years in the Lok Sabha. Not only individuals, even states
are voicing a common complaint: Bihar has 11 members in
the Council of Ministers with five holding Cabinet rank
while neighbouring UP has only six. Smaller parties look
at the BJP with envy; the party has cornered 16 of the 26
Cabinet posts including the Prime Minister. As one
television anchor caustically remarked, the jumbo size
was only partly to oblige all alliance partners; it was
equally to make several BJP veterans happy. The surprise
is that there is loud grumbling despite this. |
LIVING WITH COUP IN PAKISTAN
PAKISTAN has been oscillating between democracy and military dictatorship during its turbulent existence. The country has been subjected to a series of coups, the latest engineered by Gen Pervez Musharraf, who was installed only a year back in this coveted position by the deposed Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif. At that time, Mr Sharif removed Gen Jahangir Karamat and bypassed two other Generals to accommodate General Musharraf. This brings out the uneasy relationship between the military and the civilian authority. Mutual distrust exists between the two. This is very much in-built in a system that banks heavily on the armed forces for achieving political and strategic goals at home and abroad. This includes grabbing Kashmir. The Kargil fiasco was also part of this blind pursuit of goals. Power is a bloody business in Pakistan. And when it comes to the crunch, no one spares the other either in the name of Allah or democracy. Several examples can be cited, the most shocking one was provided by Gen Zia-ul-Haq who overthrew his benefactor, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and took the reins of power in Islamabad. He ruled Pakistan for 11 long year before meeting his nemesis. He died in a mysterious plane crash in 1988, virtually unsung and unwept! History is, indeed, a great leveller. In the present situation, it must be said that after his historic victory in the 1997 election to the National Assembly Mr Sharif emerged as the most powerful elected Prime Minister Pakistan had ever seen. He was riding high on a popular wave. So much so that he could eliminate anyone who was seen as a stumbling block in pursuit of his business of power. He got rid of a number of inconvenient persons, including President Farooq Leghari and a couple of Generals. Looking back, the greatest misfortune for Pakistan has been its demagogic rulers who have overlooked the country's vital interests in their pursuit of power and petty gains. Whether one admits it or not, the fact remains that Pakistan is trapped in a mess of its own creation. It has been seeking an identity as a nation so that it stands out in the traditional sub-continental milieu. For this purpose, the rulers have opted for Islamisation of the country without taking into account the long traditions as well as social, political, cultural and historical ethos of the people. For over four decades, Islamabad had been part of US military alliance. At the operational level, it has been in the forefront of the fight against communism. This entangled it in the Afghan embroil. That was the beginning of the Talibanisation process, the impact of which is being felt by even the Americans these days. The Talibanisation of Pakistan has naturally upset the old equations within the country. Unfortunately, the official embrace of religious terrorism has surfaced at a time when there is a growing resentment against such a tendency in the West. Even the Americans are up in arms against Islamic terrorism sponsored by Osama bin Laden, the dreaded hero of the Taliban. The question which arises now is whether General Musharraf is a pro-Taliban hardliner or not. Going by his misadventure in Kargil in which the General played a key role, it is clear that he subscribes very much to Islamabad's pro-Talibanisation thinking. Whether Mr Nawaz Sharif was also part of it is difficult to say at this juncture. Most probably he was part of the Kargil misadventure. But being a businessman he probably did not understand the implications of certain moves and counter-moves which he himself might have initiated and blessed. In any case, Mr Sharif is paying for his own follies. The country today is full of stories of corruption openly indulged in by him and members of his family. Though once a very powerful Prime Minister, he failed to safeguard the good of the country. No wonder, nobody seems to shed tears over Mr Sharif's exit. Why such a dramatic change in the people's attitude? The answers to this query are simple. In the first place, the Kargil misadventure has added an economic burden on a country which was already in bad shape. Second, the Kargil operation gave a terrible blow to the wisdom of the military and control of the political establishment in Islamabad. Third, Mr Sharif's autocratic style of functioning did not endear him to the parallel centres of power in Pakistan. Fourth, because of his overall poor performance as Prime Minister, the people had of late begun to feel alienated. The Kargil failure only added to their woes. The ousted ruler obviously overlooked one basic fact of governance that no nation can hope to live, much less to prosper, unless it can think in geographical, social and economic terms while playing adventurist games, military or otherwise. Fifth, though Washington once thought him to be the best bet for Pakistan, it had developed some reservations about his ability to deliver the goods. The fact remains that despite the massive mandate from the people, Mr Sharif could not set the pace for his country except in areas where his political interests were directly involved. Sixth, it is also a fact that in his desire to consolidate his hold on the armed forces Mr Sharif was interfering in military affairs more directly than the Generals would relish. General Musharraf, in his broadcast to the nation, made this point in a very emphatic manner. In Pakistan, an elected government has to constantly maintain a delicate balance vis-a-vis the military establishment. If it overstretches itself, trouble will be inevitable. This is how Mr Sharif got himself on the wrong side of the Pakistani divide. It is surprising that he could not properly gauge the mood of the Army Commanders. But for their support General Musharraf would have become a persona non grata the moment he landed at Karachi after his visit to Colombo where he had gone to attend the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Sri Lankan army. Be that as it may, the fallout of the coup will be far-reaching not only for Pakistan but also for its neighbours, especially India. Of course, New Delhi will have to deal with the person who is at the helm. If General Musharraf decides to stay on and consolidate his hold, it will be a different ball game. This will not be an easy task because of the ground realities in Pakistan. The Punjabi-dominated military establishment is unlikely to accept a Mohajir beyond a certain point. Perhaps General Musharraf realises this. Therefore, it will be in his best interest to look for a civilian alternative and allow normal functioning of the state apparatus. So far he has avoided the usual draconian measures associated with military rule such as imposition of martial law, etc. A lot will depend on how the people and all sections of the armed forces look at the developments. But it must be said that the General is unlikely to get international support, especially from Washington. The American leaders probably realise that the policy of buttressing Pakistan as a military power, and therefore in confrontation with India, had been disastrous for peace and stability in South Asia and to the interests of the USA itself. As it is, whatever has been done in that country is disturbing enough. Any further fillip to the forces of religious terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism will be more counter-productive in the long run. The major problem before Islamabad is one of putting the economy back on the rails. Equally vital is the fight against illiteracy and under-development. The Islamic bomb can create a balance of terror but it cannot give the people basic amenities — food, water, shelter and clothing. The Pakistani rulers have taken the people for a ride in the name of Islam and religious terrorism to retain power and eliminate visible and invisible opponents. In the next few weeks, we will know the fate of General Musharraf. But Pakistan's thinking persons need to realise that the military dictatorship will not take them anywhere. It also needs to be appreciated that the Talibanisation of Pakistan will not get them Kashmir. What is needed now is a two-way communication for peace, development and stability in the subcontinent. For this the Pakistani rulers must change their mindset. Otherwise, they will constantly be at war with themselves, with one ruler deposing the other on one pretext or the other. Fanaticism is a deadly
game. When unleashed for grabbing power, it acquires
sinister overtones. A more pragmatic understanding of
geopolitical realities can help Islamabad to rationalise
things. Pakistan today is in a no-win situation and it
will continue to be so unless it changes its course of
hostility and confrontation with India. |
Six billion: a time for
choices THIS quaint title has been given to the recently released United Nations report on the state of the world population, perhaps to signify that the world’s population on October 12 turned six billion, and to proclaim that the choice should be best left to the individuals. One billion of these six billion world citizens are Indians who, the report says, will lurch into the new millennium with unacceptably high rates of female illiteracy, infant mortality and depleting resources. It further adds that shrinking water resources could compel India to curtail foodgrain production by 25 per cent. The increasing pressure on the limited resources of food, farm land and provisions of health and nutrition will make it more and more difficult to provide a liveable life to everyone. The report reveals that over 300 million women in the world do not have access to contraceptives whereas 600,000 die of pregnancy-related diseases and another 70,000 lives get lost every year due to unsafe abortions. Two-thirds of the world’s illiterates are women who also constitute three-fifths of the world’s poor. No less frightening is the prospect that women would become more prone to HIV than men. So what freedom of choice can they exercise unless necessary attention is paid to their bare minimum needs, reproductive health care, education and gender equality? More than 50 per cent of women are subjected to gender-based violence, in one form or the other. Is there a way out? Even the self-appointed Good Samaritan — the World Bank — has, amazingly, admitted that many of its past policies were misguided and pleaded for help to succeed in future! Its annual World Development Report released last month made a candid confession that it had failed in its mission to alleviate poverty and disease and provide education to the teeming millions in the developing world. Poverty continues to rise. The rich-poor gap has widened so much that between 1970 and 1985 the average per capita income for the world’s poorest countries dropped from 3.1 per cent of the income in rich countries to just 1.9 per cent. Today 1.5 billion people live on an income of less than one dollar a day, as against 1.2 billion in 1987. Their number is likely to balloon to 1.9 billion by 2015. The battle against poverty seems unwinnable, the Bank bemoans. Contrast this with the collapsing birth rate in the developed world. So much so that the countries of Western and Central Europe as also Japan are finding it difficult to retain the present level of population. These countries are heading towards what a management expert curtly called “collective national suicide” by the end of the 21st century. If the USA is not facing the problem of declining numbers for the present, it is because the immigrants continue to maintain the high birth rates of their country of origin. But more worrisome than the absolute numbers is the demographic shift, that is the aged population outnumbering the young ones. At least one-third of the population of Italy and Japan will be above 60 years of age towards the latter half of the 21st century. The developed countries will have no option but to permit massive immigration in order to maintain the labour force shipshape. The grim scenario of a shrinking population, especially the demographic shift from working to non-working proportions, has sent alarm bells ringing across the developed world. It is believed that the present population growth rate in the developing countries is comparable to that in the developed world about a hundred years ago. And this will level off before the crisis point is reached, opine some experts. The world population report has also noted with satisfaction that the overall annual rates of population growth have slowed down from 2.4 to 1.8 per cent since 1969, and hoped that these rates should fall gradually in the next 20 years and more rapidly thereafter. Be that as it may, let the new Indian government lead this billion-strong nation into the new millennium with a commitment to empower the poor and deprived sections of society so that they are looked upon as potential productive assets rather than as an albatross round the neck. India, having missed that bus of industrial revolution, ought to catch up with the ongoing revolution in information and communication technologies. The future societies will be knowledge-based, and a knowledge worker rather than a manual labourer will be more in demand. But this calls for
earnest efforts to provide basic education and health
services to one and all. A simple cost-benefit analysis
would show that the benefits far outweigh the cost of
infrastructure required to enable the have-nots to have
access to basic education and health care. Here more
important than the allocation of funds is their gainful
utilisation. Our government managers need to be trained
in the latest management methods and practices, like the
managers of business and industry, so that they may use
men and resources efficiently and productively. Correct
diagnosis of a malady must precede a rethinking on the
remedy. The fate of our developmental schemes and
programmes is too well known to bear reiteration. |
“A
grand game” A WORD of caution. If you are young, please do not read any further. If you are grown up and a puritan or a hypocrite, you must stop immediately. The subject is a four-letter word. Golf. It is not merely a game. It is more than that. Each letter is symbolic. G as in girl? No! As in green. O indicates ogling? No! It implies, out in the open. L normally reminds you of love? Herein it means lively. F? I do not know. Friendly? Yes. The origin of the game is a matter of history. However, it is a grand game. It is popular. It is played all over. By people of all ages. The young and the old. Even I have tried my hand at this game. And if confessions are permitted, I just loved it. Not because it is elitist. Nor because it is played in the open and green surroundings. Nor is the easy exercise the main reason for my preference. But because it is a complete diversion. From the day’s drudgery. It is friendly. It is fun and frolic. It allows a breath of fresh air. You can be just yourself. Talk, Laugh, Enjoy. Be happy. And come back home. Totally relaxed. It is a tonic that no money can buy. And I really regret my decision to suspend playing the game. However, these days, I do the next best thing. I just talk about what I am not able to do. And for the present, I recall some of the stories that were told during a round of golf. Of course, a few years back. You may have already read these. A toothless old man, who should be in his late seventies, greeted a doctor on the golf course. Rather enthusiastically. And he announced that he was getting married. “Why? At this age? You should be well past your prime. If you must, keep some help at home”, was the medico’s mandate. Almost a year later, the old man was waving frantically from a distance. Dying to catch the doctor’s eye. On reaching closer he said, “Doc! She is expecting”. The doctor was curious. “Did you heed my advice and keep some help at home?” Of course. And she too is expecting”. The second story appeared truer. Two ladies were playing ahead of these two gentlemen. Of course, golf. They were rather slow. The men were impatient. So, one of the two decided to go and request for a pass. He proceeded. However, he came back. Without saying a word. Why? “One of them is my wife and the other my girlfriend”, was the answer. So, the other man quickened his pace. To make an attempt. He also returned without uttering a word. Why? He said, “It is a great coincidence”. Regardless, they continued playing. The third seemed authentic. The foursome was on the fourth tee. About to tee off. A funeral procession was passing by. Suddenly, one of the four took off his cap and bowed. Why? Never before have you shown such courtesy. “Yes! Never before had I faced a similar situation. I had been married to this lady for 40 years. It would have been unfair of me to have looked the other way”. The fourth was a lawyer. He narrated the story of an old man who had not met his friends for almost a year. One fine morning he suddenly emerged out of nowhere. The friends were curious. Where were you for so long? “In jail for six months”, was the quick reply. Why? What had you done to earn this free board and lodging facility for six months? “I was charged with rape”. At this age? “I understand the question. But the charge was so flattering that I pleaded guilty”. So, talking, laughing and walking, we had completed our round of golf. The sun was at its peak. Bright. Hot. In fact, scorching. We had completed 18 holes. Walked 6.5 km. Hit a total of more than 80 strokes each. One of us had lost two balls also. When he was going around the bush. Yet we were not tired. We were fixing the game for the next day. In fact, looking forward to it. Is not golf a grand
game? |
Arabs and Jews: India’s
false dilemma IN choosing between Arabs and Jews, India has distorted its foreign policy. It was a false dilemma, a thing of our own making. Arabs and Jews are of equal importance to us. The Jews have suffered more than any other community in human history. We are naturally sympathetic to them. And India admires their enterprise and intelligence. They have made a major contribution to Western and human civilisation. With all that, India could not have supported the partition of Palestine. Being itself a victim of partition, India could not have welcomed a Jewish state, more so a theocratic state. This is how Nehru articulated India’s predicament: “Our general policy in the past has been favourable to the Arabs and at the same time (it is) not hostile to the Jews.” Though India opposed Israel’s membership of the UN, it gave it de jure recognition in 1950, and allowed a consulate to function in Mumbai. On hindsight, our timidity was all wrong. Even Arabs now recognise the right of the Jews to have a homeland of their own. Be that as it may, India carried on a surreptitious relationship with Israel till it came to light during the regime of Morarji Desai. However, that tradition has continued to this day. Recently, our National Security Adviser, Mr Brajesh Mishra, visited Israel. We came to know of it from the Israeli Press. Why do we maintain such secrecy when Turkey, a Muslim country, has defence arrangements with Israel, and Egypt and Jordan conduct their talks with Israel openly? Are we afraid of Arab displeasure? Or are we afraid of a hostile reaction from our own Muslim population? In either case, we are stupid. This secrecy must cease forthwith. What inspires foreign policy of a Country is its national interests, not the desire to please other countries or sections of its own people. How can Indian Muslims object to our relations with Israel when Israel is building up our defence capacity? As for Arabs, if they can accept the close relations of European nations with Israel, why can’t they accept our relations with the Jewish state? Our policy towards Israel was shaped by Maulana Azad. It is a pity it has remained in that mould all these years! Indo-Israeli relations are based today not on sentiments, but on very practical considerations. It is major supplier of sophisticated defence equipment and high technology, even in the face of American opposition. It gives us its special knowhow in agriculture and industry. Israel was the first country to develop methods to counter terrorism. As a victim of state-sponsored terrorism for well over a decade, is there any wonder if we are working with Israel today to combat this menace? On the economic front, the trade turnover between the two countries has steadily risen from 200 million dollars (1992) to a billion dollars (1998). Diamonds (rough) form the main item of Israeli export. Other items are chemicals, machinery, optics, etc. Agriculture is a major area of cooperation. Israel have vast experience in desert farming, particularly in horticulture, floriculture, drip irrigation, etc. Maharashtra, Haryana and Karnataka have benefited from Israeli assistance in floriculture, Rajasthan from desert farming. Israel has set up a model farm at Pusa (Delhi) to educate Indian farmers in irrigation systems and modern agricultural techniques. Israel has also developed advanced technologies in wasteland reclamation. Of the 330 million hectares of land in India, 129 million hectares are in a degraded state. India has been exploring ways to reclaim this land for plantations, afforestation, fodder development, etc. India is also interested in cost-effective land and water management knowhow of Israel. Israel is also known for its irrigation technologies. It pioneered drip irrigation to save water. It has already transferred some of these technologies to India. During his visit to India, Israeli President Weizmann exhorted the two countries to cooperate in high technologies. He hoped that more Indian software specialists would settle in Israel. There are 50,000 Jews of Indian origin in Israel at present. They are an asset to us, too. India’s contact with Arabs began millennia ago. Of late, it has assumed considerable significance. India has gone out of its way to support Arabs. But they have not reciprocated it. India played a crucial role in opposing the Anglo-French attack on Egypt. It supported the nationalisation of the Suez Canal. But when China invaded India in 1962, no Arab country chose to express even sympathy. India supported the Arab position in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. India was invited to the Rabat meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), but was not allowed to enter the hall on the objection raised by Pakistan. India suffered a great humiliation. Arab indifference continued during the East Pakistan crisis. They were least concerned about the atrocities committed by Pak soldiers on the Bengalis or the 10 million refugees who fled East Pakistan. During the 1973 oil crisis, India took the side of the Arab oil producers, though it hurt India’s interests. India supported a UN resolution for punitive measures against Israel, took the side of PLO in its struggle against Israel, voted for PLO’s observer status in the UN in 1974, and called Zionism a form of racism. India was the first non-Arab country to extend accreditation to the PLO. The Arabs, however, took the side of Pakistan in almost all Indo-Pak disputes. Even the decade-long proxy war waged by Pakistan against India did not make any difference to the Arab stance. But does this call for a review of our policy towards Arabs? Certainly not. Nor can we allow a bias in favour of Israel. There are 130 million Arabs against the three million Jews. There are several Arab countries against the lone Jewish state. The economic compulsion must be obvious. But more important to us is our security. India’s security depends heavily on oil supplies from the Middle East. India could easily lose a war if oil supplies are cut. To ensure our security in the long-run, we must diversify the sources of our oil supply. With growing Islamic fundamentalism, we cannot afford to be so critically dependent on the Arabs. But this is not the only reason why we must maintain cordial relations with the Arabs. There are others. The Gulf and the Middle East constitute a major market for India. The Arabs are our neighbours. Already our trade with the Gulf region is substantial. It recorded a 16 per cent growth during 1990-99 in dollar terms. It is now over $ 3 billion yearly. The Arabs want India to invest in their region. UAE is a household name among Indian investors and vice versa. Bahrain is a free trade area. With Oman, India has extensive cooperation. There are over 1.5 million Indians working in the Gulf region. Of them 1.2 million hail from Kerala. They are spread over the entire Gulf region. They sent us as much as Rs 35.30 billion in 1998. These remittances have constituted a major factor in India’s foreign exchange receipts. This apart, the bank deposits of Keralaites came to Rs 127.35 billion in 1998. About 51 per cent of these expatriates are Muslims and their remittances top the list. (Remittances of others: Hindus Rs 7.14 billion, Christians Rs 6.9 billion, others Rs 5.8 billion). One district of Kerala alone — Malappuram — has 2,70,000 in the Gulf region and they send Rs 6.3 billion yearly. The UAE is fast emerging as the Mecca for Indian investment. Out of 1300 foreign companies in the Jebel Ali Free Zone area, 300 are Indian. There are about 600 Indian companies in the UAE with a total investment of one billion dollars. Of the four billion dollars collected worldwide for the Resurgent India Bonds, the Gulf Indians provided $ 1.1 billion. Most of it came from the UAE. It is clear from this
brief survey how important the Arab world is to India.
That is why we must be very practical in the pursuit of
our relations with the Arabs and Jews. Both are highly
significant for us. |
October
15, 1924 THE Anglo-Indian and domiciled community in India do not appear to count consistency among their many virtues. At their recent general meeting they passed two resolutions as antagonistic to each other as any two resolutions could possibly be. By one, they declared that India was their motherland and affirmed their sincere desire to live on terms of complete amity and friendliness with all loyal fellow Indian subjects. By the other, they expressed their grave apprehensions and concern at the crushing and destructive economic effects upon themselves. For a community which
regards India as its Motherland to deprecate the
Indianisation of the services is, to say the least of it,
the height of illogical absurdity. |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pradesh | Jammu & Kashmir | | Chandigarh | Business | Sport | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | E-mail | |
