EDITORIAL
LESSONS FROM NEPAL
The tragic massacre of the
royalty in Nepal has shocked the world. It is premature
to assess the implications of this dreadful act of
savagery. Unrest has already gripped the Himalayan State
and curfew is imposed and re-imposed so that the
conditions do not slip out of hand. The Himalayan kingdom
had come into being after King Prithvinarayan Singh
conquered and annexed about 50 principalities in 1743. In
September 1846, the royal palace in Kathmandu was beset
with court intrigues in which royalty and the powerful
Prime Minister were involved. On 14 September 1846, as
many as 30 persons of substantial status were massacred
in one night as a result of the on-going feud. This is
known as "Kot Massacre". By strange
coincidence, the British did not annex the kingdom after
their fashion though General David Ochterlony did march
up to Kathmandu in 1860, only to conclude an agreement
with Nepal. The British could recruit the Nepali Gorkha
into their regular army.
The history of the
Himalayan kingdom is an open book of lessons in the role
and status of the Himalayan buffer states. Nepal is a
classical example. Huddled within the Himalayan mountain
ranges, Nepal stands between two Asian giants, China and
India.With India, she has special relations as it is the
only Hindu State in the world and has very close
historical and civilisational links with India. At the
same time, her proximity to China has made her vulnerable
to Chinese influence in a big way. In particular, after
the escape of Dalai Lama from Tibet and Chinese
occupation of Tibet, Chinese influence gradually extended
into various walks of life in Nepal. The emergence of
pro-Maoist group made a big change in the otherwise
placid waters of Nepalese politics. While India had
adopted secular democracy as its political arrangement,
China was pushing the Maoist ideology. It was evident
that the full-blooded Maoist ideology through the conduit
of China would mesmerize the Nepalese youth. As
Sino-Indian rivalry grew overtly or covertly in the
Himalayan kingdom, the society gradually got polarised.
However, in the absence of moderating forces, some
staunch political activists and parties tried for a sell
out of the country. For more than two decades in the
past, Kathmandu has been on the horns of dilemma in
deciding its future political arrangement. The society
has been rent as under by the lengthening shadows of
international political game of rivalry. From early
1980s, Nepal caught the eye of Pakistani intelligence
agency ISI. Thereafter there was no looking back.
Standing along the northern border of India, Nepal
remained a 'neutral ' country in theory but in practice,
it became the cockpit of intrigues and sabotages. It was
an ideal situation for the Pakistani agencies to spread
their tentacles. Pakistani mission in Kathmandu developed
extra-diplomatic agenda directed against India. There was
no need for a visa for any Indian citizen. There is more
than one entry point and there are agents for
facilitating clandestine entry. It will be remembered
that Kathmandu has also become an important take off
point for the Kashmiri and Khalistani terrorists working
against India on behest of ISI. Recently an airliner of
Indian Airlines was hijacked from Kathmandu where the
pro-Pakistan Kashmiri militants had managed a hideout.
All this shows that a so-called independent state at a
geopolitical critical location cannot remain independent
in reality. It becomes a hotbed of intrigues and
conspiracies. Of late, the terrorists find a haven in
such a state. Engrossed in international conspiracies,
such a buffer seldom finds opportunity for economic
development and social progress. The example of Nepal
should be an eye opener for those Kashmiri dissidents who
are yearning for an independent Kashmir. Nehru once said
that he would prefer to offer Kashmir on a platter to
Pakistan rather than agree to make it an independent
state. Kashmir is more vulnerable to international
intrigues than Nepal is. Nepal is not torn by
fundamentalist ideology as Kashmir is. Nepal is less
exposed to inroads of a client state like Pakistan than
Kashmir is. An independent Kashmir will be a permanent
festering wound in the sub-continent. The people in
independent Kashmir will become mercenaries of many
interested groups of different colour and hue. In the
process Kashmir's pristine culture will be destroyed.
Never has a buffer state acquired developed personality
and identity. It survives on crumbs thrown to it by the
overbearing neighbours. Those who ask for Kashmir's
independence should take an objective lesson from the
carnage in the royal palace in Kathmandu.
JAMMU TRAFFIC
Jammu has overgrown its
size. The city has expanded on all sides. Private
colonies have come up in a haphazard manner. At the same
time, income per capita in this winter capital of the
State has increased manifold. Purchasing capacity has
increased substantially. The ratio of private and public
vehicles in this town of seven lakh people is far greater
than in most of the towns in the country. Jammu is
flooded with small and big private vehicles and public
carriers. The transport department has been issuing
permits to private and public vehicle owners without
hesitation, But seldom taken into account the
roadworthiness of such a huge traffic. The roads are
narrow and crowded. Footpaths do not exist; there is no
scope for shady trees lining the roads. Barren roads are
monstrous to look at. The minibuses plying in most of the
localities are of low roof with inward curving sides that
makes a commuter miserable as long as he has to sit and
travel. The seats are benches on either side no more than
six inches in width thus creating more space for the
standing commuters jam-packed like sardines in the tin
box. The traffic department is perhaps the happiest
department because nobody raises a finger against it.
Nobody asks why it allows uncomfortable mini buses to
obtain permits? A man standing inside the moving mini bus
has to bend and cramp to spoil his spine and invite neck
aches. It is a violation of human rights to put the
commuters to such physical hardship. There appears to be
a nexus between the traffic authorities and the Matador
mar mini bus manufacturers. Otherwise this worthless and
shameful stuff should have been off the road fifteen
years ago. In Srinagar, the low roofed coffin-like mini
buses have been discarded long ago but in Jammu the nexus
is galore. In some highly congested areas like Talab
Tiloo Borhi route, it is virtually a hell to board a mini
bus at peak hours. One wonders why cannot the authorities
sit down and chalk out a master plan for Jammu's roads so
as to reduce traffic jams, widen the roads, replace the
low-roofed minis by high-roof airy and comfortable buses
with more space and safety;
|
Nepal's
turn to come forward
By
Debdeep Chakraborty
Nepal has
had three kings in a span of four days
but normalcy is yet to return to the
country. The sudden death of King
Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, Queen
Aishwarya and several other members of
the royal family including crown prince
Dipendra, his brother, prince Nirajan and
sister, princess Shruti, in a bloody
shoot out last week inside the royal
palace, has cast a shadow of gloom,
sorrow and uncertainty over this tiny
landlocked Himalayan kingdom of 24
million people.
Following
the death of King Birendra, crown prince
Dipendra, who had suffered bullet
injuries in the head as a result of the
shoot out, and had gone in to coma, was
named the King of Nepal with Prince
Gyanendra, the 54 year old brother of the
late king Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev,
as his Regent. Dipendra died within two
days of being named the King of Nepal.
The
elimination of the entire ruling royal
family resulted in the enthronement of
Prince Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah, the
brother of the late King Birendra and the
next eligible heir, as the king. The
people of Nepal however are yet to come
to terms with this sudden loss and are
demanding an impartial and thorough
investigation in to the causes leading to
the death of the king and his family.
Both Gyanendra and his son, Paras, are
also being suspected for their alleged
role in the massacre. The Government's
effots to mislead people following the
slaying has led to the people suspecting
foul play. The Government initially
accused crown prince Dipendra of
committing sucide after killing his
family because of differences with King
Birendra and Queen Aishwarya over the
choice of his bride, but later backed out
and cited "accidental firing"
from an automatic weaon as the cause.
Bowing to public pressure, king Gyanendra
has now ordered a judicial probe in to
the massacre but few expect the truth to
ever come out. It seems it will never be
known as to who killed king Birendra and
his family and why.
Prince
Gyanendra's enthronement as the new king,
besides raising quite a few eyebrows has
caused concern both within and outside
Nepal. As opposed to the late King
Birendra, Gyanendra is believed to be in
favour of a stronger role for monarchy,
Pre 1990, he is supposed to have
prevented the king from giving more
powers to the village panchayats. What
worries people most is the possibility of
paras, Gyanendra's son, being named as
the Crown Prince in the near future.
Known for his love for fast cars, pretty
women and public brawls, the future crown
prince was in the limelight a few months
back for mowing down a popular Nepalese
singer to death, with his car. The
privilege of being the nephew of the king
helped him escape the law. The immediate
impact of the enthronement of Prince
Gyanendra is expected to be felt by the
ruling Nepalese Congress Government, led
by Girija Prasad Koirala. There are
indications that Gyanendra may like to
wrest control of the country's defence
from the hands of the Prime Minister,
thereby placing the army under the sole
and supreme command of the monarchy (As
per the constitution of Nepal, the King
is still the Supreme Commander-in-Chief
of the Royal Nepal army but he can
mobilise the army only on the
recommendations of the National Defence
Council consisting of the Prime Minister,
Defence Minister and the Commander in
Chief of the Army. Besides, the
Commander-in-Chief of the army is
appointed by the King in consultation
with the Prime Minister). Such a move
will not only weaken an elected
Government thereby posing a threat to
democracy but will also leave room for
military coups at the behest of the
monarchy in the future. Events following
the slaying of the royal family indicate
that the Prime Minister, Girija Prasad
Koirala and the present
Commander-in-Chief of the Nepalese armed
forces, General Prajjwalla Shamsher Jung
Bahadur Rana, are not in the best of
terms, Koirala excluded Rana from the Raj
Parishad meeting that named Dipendra the
King and Gyanendra the Regent. The
Commander-in-Chief is the ex-officio
member of the Raj Parishad. Koirala may
find it hard to survive in the present
political scenario, given the fact that
he is also facing demands for resignation
from both the opposition and from within
his party for his role in alleged role in
a financial scam involving an aircraft
leasing deal. The people of Nepal too are
unhapy with the present democratic set up
in the country. None of the political
parties have made any efforts to address
even the basic needs of the common man.
Eleven years after restoration of multi
party democracy, Nepal's per capita
income refuses to cross the $200 marks
annually with more than 40 per cent
people living below the poverty line. The
handling of the present crisis has
further aggravated resentment among the
people.
What worry
analysts most, following the death of
king Birendra, is the role of the Maoists
in the immediate future. The Maoists who
began their campaign in 1996 against
Nepal's constitutional monarchy and its
feudal structures, are today active in 29
of the 75 districts. So far more than
1,600 people have been killed in the
conflict between the Maoists and the
Government. The death of King Birendra,
who had at one time wanted to use the
Army against the Maoists but was
prevented from doing so by Gyanendra, may
lead to the Maoists becoming more active
in the country. The rising unemployment
and poverty in the Himalayan kingdom is
gradually leading to an increase in the
support base of the Maoists.
The
immediate fall out of the royal massacre
has been the indefinite postponement of
the Secretary level SAARC meeting that
was scheduled to begin on the 8th of
June. However, it is the Indo-Nepal
relations that is bound to feel the heat
in the coming days due to this sudden
change of guard. Foreign policy experts
in India are concerned about the future
of the Indo-Nepal relations, given King
Gyanendra's pro-Beijing and anti-India
image. The Government of India has so far
reacted with caution. After maintaining
silence for two days following the
incident, the Government issued its first
statement expressing support for Nepal in
its hour of grief. Later India made it
clear that it didn't believe that there
was a conspiracy behind the killing of
the Royals. India's caution is
understandable given the sensitive nature
of Indo-Nepal relations. Nepal's
strategic location leaves India with no
option but to establish friendly
relations with the Government in
Kathmandu. Any wrong move on India's part
can push Nepal towards China leading to
the latter's undue influence over the
region. There are several disputes that
still stand unresolved between India and
Nepal. Be it the duming of low cost
Chinese consumer goods through Indo-Nepal
border or the alleged ISI bases in
Kathmandu, New Delhi realises that nit is
only through sensitive handling that
these issues can be resolved.
Many in
Nepal view India as a big bully in the
region and fear that like Sikkim, Nepal
too might one day become a part of India.
Left parties have often accused India of
encroaching on Nepalese land and of
building dams on the Indo-Nepal border
without permission. Nepal also disputes
India's claim over a piece of land near
the Indo-Tibetan border. The Kala Pani
border dispute arose during a
Nepal-Chinese border meeting in 1979 when
the Chinse claimed that demarcation of
these areas was indeterminate. This
resulted in Nepal questioning the
positioning of the source of river kali
and disputing the Indian territory to its
west.
Whereas
India needs to maintain friendly
relations with Nepal more out of security
concerns, Nepal's interest in India is
due to economic reasons. People of Indian
origin constitute 45% of Nepal's
population and control 60 per cent of its
economy. Bilateral trade between the two
countries has grown considerably since
1996. Being landlocked, the Himalayan
kingdom is totally dependent on the
Indo-Nepal border for trade. Tourism,
which is the main source of revenue in
Nepal, is also largely dependent on
Indian tourists. Besides, more than 4
million Nepalese live and work in India.
Both India and Nepal therefore have no
option but to continue nurturing the
friendship developed ages ago. Any move
to deviate from the present track will
have far reaching consequences, more on
Nepal than on India. On the other hand,
peace, economic prosperity and political
stability in Nepal will ensure stability
across India's border areas.
India's
policy of non-interference folowing the
death of King Birendra indicate that it
is keen to maintain good relations with
Nepal irrespective of who sits on the
throne. The ball now now lies in King
Gyanendra's court. It is now Kathmandu's
turn to respond positively to India's
gesture.
|
 |
Remembering
Rajesh Pilot
By Akram
Chaudhary
Rajesh
Pilot's early unannounced departure on
Sunday June, 11, 2000 in a tragic
accident is symbolic of the way he lived
dangerously. In the murky world of Indian
Politics, Pilot was perhaps one
practitioner who shone in contrast,
building assiduously for himself a
relatively clean image. His life was a
saga of struggle. Born as Rajeshwar
Prasad into a poor Gujjar family 56 years
ago, he once sold milk in Lutyens's
Delhi, where he later came to reside as a
Union Minister, Member of Parliament and,
above all , a leader with immense
potential and promise.
Forever a fighter, Pilot
acquired for himself the image of a
perennial rebel within years of his
maiden 1980 ''Flight to Parliament'' from
Bharatpur; a journey that later became
the theme of a biography he penned upon
joining politics. His affable, carefree
demeanour fighter-pilot background and
willingness to fight political cabals and
cronyism endeared him to even his
critics. Always eager to be in a minority
of one, he often raised issues that shook
the established order and the firmly
entrenched vested interests against whom
few among his peers dared to raise voice.
If, he had
the courage to initiate a CBI probe
against influential Godman Chandra Swamy
as Mr P V Narsimha Rao's Minister of
State for Internal Security, he showed
equal tenacity of purpose in opposing Mrs
Sonia Gandhi's projection as the Congress
Prime Ministerial choice during the 1999
Lok Sabha Polls.
As a
Minister and a front ranking
Parliamentarian, his I.A.F background
naturally drew him to regions plagued by
secessionist strife; be it Kashmir or the
North East. In fact, it was over the
charge of Kashmir in the Home Ministry
that he came into conflict with his then
Senior Ministerial Colleague, Mr S B
Chavan. Things came to such a pass that
Prime Minister Mr Rao had to personally
intervene to put an end to the obvious
generational clash in the sensitive
Ministry.
Rajesh
Pilot had very early realised that there
could be no military solution to the
Kashmir problem. As far back as 1991-92,
he stated openly that repression was at
best a short term option, and that for
the insurgency to die down, Kashmiris had
to want to stay in India. This required
constant attempts by New Delhi to keep
lines of communication open with the
militant leaders and to enforce a high
degree of accountability on the security
forces. Today, when a decade of stupid
oppression and unchecked corruption and
misgovernance have put Kashmir almost
beyond salvage, one can only regret that
Government of the day did not have the
courage to comprehend his views.
In his
death so many people feel such a powerful
sense of loss. Pilot shall be remembered
not in the way he died, but the way he
lived. His entire like epitomised the
potential for good lies buried beneath
the overburden of corruption,
criminalisation and the sycophancy that
has all but snuffed out the legitimacy of
the Indian Political system in people's
eyes. His death was a blow to hope; the
hope of redemption and rebirth for the
system. It will be robbed of meaning if
we remember only the way he died and not
the way he lived.
His
contribution to the lively discussion of
National importance in the Parliament
shall be remembered for all times to
come. He was a leader of great potential.
His commitment to the disadvantaged
people of the country was complete and
unhesitant. Indeed, he belonged to a rare
breed of leaders Jovial, Courageous and
totally dedicated to the welfare of
people, particularly farmers, backward
classes, minorities and the dalits. He
was a thinker statesman having firm faith
in pluralist heritage, not a
pseudo-secular like today's politicians
but a committed patriot wedded to the
principles of communal harmony. Pilot was
popular because he was palpably honest,
was not a sycophant, spoke his mind, and
genuinely believed in the future of the
Nation. Prime Minister A B Vajpayee while
paying tributes had described Rajesh
Pilot as a leader to whom the Nation was
looking forward to lead.
After
Sardar Patel, this was second major loss
of Gujjars who have lost a leader capable
of relating to masses. The loss is also
of India's. The Govt of India on his Ist
death anniversary should honour Pilot
with Bharat Ratna in addition to issuing
a commemorative stamp in his memory.
A dynamic leader
Shamsheer Hakla Poonchi
Rajesh
Pilot was born on 10 Feb. 1945 at village
Vaidpur of Uttar Pradesh state.
His father
Hawaldar Jai Dayal Singh, passed away
when he was reading in 5th standard. His
family consisted of his mother and two
sisters. Owing to poverty, he could not
continue his studies, so Mr Pilot was
sent to Delhi where his cousin Mr Nuthi
Singh, who was running a milk dairy lived
Mr Nuthi Singh too was not economically
sound notwithstanding poverty Mr Nuthi
Singh sent Mr Pilot to a school for
Education Soonafter this, Mr Nuthi
Singh's servant left the work in milk
dairy. So Mr Pilot himself had to work in
the milk dairy.
At
112-Rakab Ganj Road, Delhi where the milk
dairy was existing Mr Pilot's routine
work started at the dawn. He would milch
the buffaloes, fill the buckets and take
the milk to sell it. Sometimes, he had to
travel long distance to carry milk for
daily sale. For this, he had to go upto
Akbar road area. Being over busy, he
would reach school late for which he was
taunted and punished.
Owing to
poor economic condition, he would put on
torn clothes, for which his school mates
would jeer at him. One day his school
boys chalked out a programme of picnic.
Mr Pilot also decided to go with his
fellow lads. But his principal told him
that he did not look well in tattered
dress. This badly hurt his feeling. He
told his Principal that he had taken to
schooling to become an earning hand to
stand on his feet. He told his principal
that he was sorry and ashamed of his poor
dress.
One day as
Mr Rajesh was busy in milching buffaloes,
he heard a voice behind. He turned back
and found that the principal was standing
behind him. The Principal told Mr Rajesh
that while on way to his morning walk, he
thought to see it for himself if he (Mr
Rajesh) gets up early in the morning, so
he had come to him. Having said so, the
Principal went his way leaving behind him
an envelope for him. Mr Pilot afterwards
opened the envelope which contained a
letter and NCC uniform. In the letter, it
was written Rajesh dear, you are a member
of NCC you deserve this uniform of which
you should be proud. Hence forth do start
coming to school. At the principles
advice, he joined the school and started
reading.
After
passing his higher secondary examination,
he went to Merut city as he was unable to
seek admission in any colleges of Delhi
owing to low marks. While studying at
Merut, Mr Pilot met with a student Hukam
Singh by name who became a good companion
of him and would get a good help from
him. Later on, he joined Indian Air Force
as a pilot. Here also, he as usual
remained on the top.
Mr Rajesh
was the first man from Gujjar community
who got an opportunity to fly an
aircraft. From the very beginning he had
a feeling to serve the poor masses, but
it was impossible to do so by remaining
as a pilot in the Govt service. Therefore
he relinquished his service and plunged
into active politics. He was in true
sense a leader of the masses.
Mr Pilot
was made state Minister for Surface
Transport in Central Ministry during the
Prime ministership of Mr Rajiv Gandhi
during Mr Narasimha Rao government, he
was a State Minister for a
telecommunication and state Minister for
Home Affairs. He also remained a member
of All India Congress Working Committee
for a long time. Mr Pilot always strived
for allround progress of the country.
|
|
Emerging
Indo-US strategic interests
By Dr Bhabani Dikshit
With President
Bush's entry into the White House, the US
decision makers were bound to reframe the Super
Power's foreign policy agenda, keeping in mind
the dangers that loom large anew in the 21st
century. Though there is no other super power
rivalling the US at present, dangers of
confrontation have not yet diminished completely.
The US Secretary
of Defence, Mr Donald H Rumsfeld, sees potential
challenges to US from Iran, Iraq, North Korea,
China, Russia and an increasing numbers of
international terrorist groups. He has declared
that ''We live in a dangerous and untidy world,
of smaller but in some respects more deadly
threats''. With Rumsfeld as the Defence
Secretary, Bush was sure to move aggressively to
shift his foreign policy back to a more
traditional focus on US national security
interests.
The cornerstone of
Bush's foreign policy thrust will be the US
military strength. The President wants to head
for a high-budget defence-related research,
replace ageing ships and planes with next
generation technology and the grandiose scheme of
a national missile defence (NMD) system aimed at
protecting his country against nuclear attacks by
what he calls ''rogue states''.
Bush also wants to
strengthen alliances in Europe and Asia to boost
US leverage in dealing with a seemingly weakened
Russia and a surging China, both being two key
potential powers. It is significant that he wants
to focus on relations with key countries like
Russia and China rather than getting engaged in
obscure hot spots like Haiti. Interestingly, on
the issue of national missile defence both Russia
and China oppose the US Though Bush is keen to
bolster relations with NATO and allies in the
Pacific, such as Japan and South Korea, some NATO
allies disagree with Bush on peacekeeping and
missile defence, Tokyo may keep away from a
greater security role and Seoul may oppose Bush's
tougher line with Pyongyang. Nevertheless, the
Bush Administration will try to coax Japan and
South Korea into expanded security roles in the
region.
As regards policy
towards Russia, Moscow always looms large in
Bush's calculations as his National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice happens to be a Russian
specialist and her focus mostly on strategic
matters such as Russia's nuclear stockpile is
bound to attract Bush's serious attention.
Russians will like to have consultations on
missile stockpiles rather than go on bearing with
US interference in their domestic affairs.
Russians are worried over conflicting issues of
NATO expansion into Baltics and the missile
defence system. They are panicky that the Bush
Administration, is abandoning the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) which has
been the pivot of arms control so far.
As China grows
stronger day by day, a worried US wants to
develop stronger ties with Japan, South Korea and
has recently found India as well to persuade it
to play a bigger security role. China is bound to
continue to remain a potential flashpoint in the
Bush Administration's foreign policy framework.
In the changing
equations among nation-states, the communist
giants Russia and China coming closer is a major
development that invites everybody's attention.
Under domestic compulsions and divergent national
interests, both these countries felt it pragmatic
to mend their differences and have in recent past
warmed up their bilateral relations. Both these
countries have sorted out their border problems
and expanded bilateral trade. China has purchased
sophisticated arms from Russia and for mutual
cooperation on security issues, they are partners
in groups like the Shanghai Five.
Both China and
Russia have one thing in common that both of them
have been badly disappointed in their dealings
with the US. It is but natural on the part of
Russia to be wary of the ABM treaty losing
relevance with the emergence of Bush's new
defence doctrine. Bush's plan for NMD will
severely jeopardise the international nuclear
balance and the new system will definitely push
Russia further backwards.
On the other hand,
the re-arming of Taiwan by the US is a matter of
grave concern for China. The recent spy plane
issue has alarmed China to a large extent. In
this kind of political imbroglio, the proposed
friendship treaty between Russia and China to be
concluded in July this year, when President Jiang
Zemin visits Moscow, will herald a new diplomatic
dimension in the midst of the ongoing US national
missile defence strategy.
While the Russian
Foreign Minister, Mr Igor Ivanov, visited India
recently, he downplayed the issue of NMD, when he
said that Russia would not just 'listen' as it
also had a position. ''We have something to
say... Mr (Vladimir) Putin, (the Russian
President) has a position regarding strategic
offensive weapons and missile defence,'' he said.
Ivanov clarified that Russia was ready to cut
nuclear arsenals to 1,500 warheads on both sides
and as such there was little point in destroying
what was working well. While he said this,
probably he referred to the controversial aspects
of NMD. At the same time Ivanov ruled out
creation of any kind of bloc comprising Russia,
China and India.
Be that as it may,
India has slowly but gradually established a
long-term relationship with the US over the
years, besides making significant progress in
strengthening its ties with China. The US may not
like that our country should have growing bonds
with Chinese and on this count there is every
possibility on our part to be dragged into the US
net on some pretext. It would be better if we do
not play as US proxy in South Asia against China
but at the same time maintain a strategic
partnership with the US on the basis of mutual
cooperation and national interests.
Our friendship
with the US is definitely a grand opportunity
that cannot be sacrificed at any cost, keeping in
view our national security concerns. As it seems
the Bush administration is not going to insist on
New Delhi signing the CTBT, India may go for
resumption of military cooperation in a big way
in near future.
The Chairman of
the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Henry H Shelton
is visiting our country later this month to work
on ''closer relationship'' between the two
nations' military forces. Military cooperation
was cut off after sanctions were imposed
following India's nuclear tests in May 1998.
There are indications that the Bush
Administration may lift the remaining sanctions.
The Indian
Ambassador to the US, Mr Lalit Mansingh, has
reportedly said that the lifting of sanctions was
needed to clear the way for weapons purchases and
cooperation on nuclear energy and space. He said
that if sanctions end against military and
scientific cooperation. India could hope to
collaborate with US companies for nuclear power
generation in an effort to provide energy to its
rapidly growing economy.
On the military
side, India may be interested in developing
service-to-service relations, cooperation on a
new military strategy and training, and
co-production and sale of weapons. Previously
India had tried for and been denied the right to
purchase Harpoon antiship missiles and
gun-locating radars.
The wide-ranging
misgivings generated by the NMD system were
removed to a certain degree by Bush's envoy
Richard Armitage, who on his recent visit to New
Delhi said that the proposed missile defence
programme was aimed at countering possible
missiles threats from a handful of states branded
as ''rogue'', namely, North Korea, Iran, Iraq,
Libya and some neighbours of India. Armitage's
explanations of the Bush thinking goes in these
terms; non-proliferation, counter-proliferation,
limited missile defence and US willingness to
reduce its strategic nuclear arsenal
'unilaterally', if necessary, beyond the levels
envisaged in START II that is going to seriously
engage players of international politics in a
strategic way. --CNF
|
|
| |
|
|
