Daily Excelsior... Editorial

Misconceptions about Islam today
By: Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

In actual fact, it is the self-styled Islamists who believe in militancy. And due to their misrep resentation of their own religion, .......more

Masks vs Face: BJP should save face
By: M.J. Akbar

It is completely inexplicable how a negative vote has fallen into such bad odour. Ruling parties have managed to convert it.....more

US double-standard should not impede ongoing dialogue
By : Abhijit Patwardhan

The US deputy secretary of state, Strobe Talbott, in a signed article which appeared in The ......more

Saving our economy
from foreign assault
By S. V. Vaidyanathan
A country has many defining moments in its history...more

EDITORIAL

PLAIN SPEAKING

Prime Minister A B Vajpayee has indeed outdone all his predecessors as far as Jammu & Kashmir State is concerned. It is well recorded in history that Kashmir problem is the creation of the wrong perceptions and defective policies pursued right from the time when India took the issue to United Nations. She was well within limits to liberate to what we now term as POK if only another 48 hours had been allowed to the Indian Army to throw the tribal invaders on the other side of the border. Thereafter, the mistake of volunteering plebiscite incidentally also originated from Indian delegates. The complaint referred to UN was vacation of aggression by Pak-led tribals and the entire discussion should have revolved around it. But foolish policies, outdated notions and apologetic approach based on typical theories bailed out Pakistan as an aggressor and instead all types of intrigues, twists and hypothetic theories projected the victim (India) as the accused. Thereafter it has been one faux pas after another and every successive Prime Minister resorted to 'No policy' syndrome with most apologetic approach synonymous with the 'guilty' only. Efforts were also made to promote 'yesmanship' culture in the border State rather than addressing to the basic problems to earn gratitude of the people which led to uncontrollable alienation fully exploited by Pakistan. In doing so big powers notably Britain and USA fished in the troubled waters for subserving their own global interests to the detriment of Indian case which continued to weaken and State was as good as lost to Pakistan in the beginning of 1990 which had no semblance of administrative control in any field and when pro-Pak and pro-Azadi slogans rented the air in valley.

It thus augurs well for the people of this State who have borne the major brunt of 9 year long insurgency that present Prime Minister dares call a spade a spade during his short visit to the State. He is quite undeterred by the reaction on the other side of the border or the impact such plain-speaking would have during the next round of talks slated for first half of February. This stands duly manifested with his frank and fearless announcements that not only J&K State this side of the border is India but the so-called POK as much forms part of this country. He goes a step further to lay full claim on the J&K northern areas territory totalling 5180 Sq-Kms which has been illegally ceded by Pakistan to China. He questions Pakistan's bonafides on this illegal transfer of J&K territory. This should be co-related with open declaration that Indian army means business in Siachin Glacier as well although that area was never demarcated. Vajpayee is as well quite forthright that once it comes to J&K State there is simply no compromise with anyone whatever be the cost. He is equally firm that national integrity and unity of the country will not be allowed to be jeopardised by Pak ulterior designs.

Another plain speaking relates the current status vis-a-vis military. The armed forces are busy taking on the leftovers who in any case are foreign mercenaries. One can give some latitude to Indian youths gone astray but surely as far as foreign agents and mercenaries are concerned there is simply no mercy and orders are very clear to finish them ruthlessly as they have no business to be anywhere in this country. Not only flushing out in J&K but clean-up operation in rest of the country is also on and many ISI modules have been destroyed recently.

There is good news on the international front as well since most of the world powers have rejected Pak attempts to seek third party mediation. Rebuff received from USA during Nawaz Sharif's latest talks with American President Bill Clinton strengthens Indian case. Not that Vajpayee is adamant or non-cooperative. He yet believes in continued dialogue on Kashmir with Pakistan but the issues to be discussed related to stoppage of sponsorship of terrorism by Pakistan in J&K, closing of training camps on POK/Pak soil, vacation of aggression from POK, talks on recovery of 5180 sq km territory illegally ceded by Pakistan to China, stoppage of border firing that hurts hapless citizens etc. etc.

The tough posture now adopted as the policy as regards J&K State should be an eye-opener for Hurriyat, for others who yet dance to the tunes set forth by Pak bandmaster and some odd elements who continue to nurse the false hope of annexation of Kashmir by Pakistan one day. That day will never come and the best course for all such misled elements on the pay roll of Pakistan is to swim with the tide and the tide is in favour of rejecting Pak terrorism and ushering in of total normalcy which shall lead to progress and prosperity. If Pakistan could not annex Kashmir in 1989-90 when it failed to fulfil its promise of coming to the active aid of those spearheading insurgency then, surely it is in no position now when our forces are in total command of the situation and civil administration having established its authority at almost all levels. When Prime Minister says something, it is the policy. And the policy now is very clear that India means business as regards J&K State besides unity and integrity of the country. There is simply no compromise on these.

INSURANCE REGULATORY BILL

At long lost some bill during the currency of the 8 month long BJP-led Government is hopefully slated to be through. The differences on it have been resolved within the BJP Parliamentary body and the party. BJP President has given the nod while the Parliamentary body has been asked to vote for the Bill. The differences with alliance partners are not that acute since it was the unanimous decision of the cabinet in which ministers from all parties okayed the reform in the insurance sector. Talks with Congress Party are on and since the idea of throwing open insurance sector to foreign equity participation originated from Congress Government during its stint from 1991 to 1996 and fully supported by the successor Government of United Front where Finance Minister Chidambaram aggressively supported the reform, it would in the fitness of things to expect both Congress as also erstwhile supporters in UF for this move. Congress Party is after all a national party with 140MPs and surely it won't like to come in the way of any step that helps Indian economy. Leftists parties and trade unions as usual oppose the measure due to political expediency and non-concern for the economy. It must be borne in mind that opening up banking sector to foreign banks and other private Indian banks has helped healthy competition to improve services and creditworthiness. Likewise throwing open consumer electronics has benefitted Indian consumer when he can get best TV for almost half the price now. Same way liberalised insurance sector would be more competitive and better service-oriented for the people.

Misconceptions about Islam today
By: Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

In actual fact, it is the self-styled Islamists who believe in militancy. And due to their misrep resentation of their own religion, other have come to think of Islam as a militant religion. This is simply a misrepresentation of Islam. The facts are quite the opposite. The aggressive picture of Islam as presented in an American magazine some years ago is no exception. Such reference to Islam are common occurences in modern times. Once during a journey to a European country, I met a Muslim youth who told me of an experience he had during an interview, which started as follows:

"Are you a Muslim?"

"Yes".

"Then you must be a terrorist."

This is a clear indication of what the image of Islam has become in modern times - that of a terrorist religion. For this reason, people have come to regard Islam as a constant threat to universal peace, co-existence and solidarity. This, however, is a complete misunderstanding, and is totally unrelated to the actual state of affairs. The only acceptable way to determine the real position of Islam is to find out first of all what Islam sets out to achieve. Its goal is very clearly expressed in this verse of the Quran: "O believers, be worshippers of the Lord." (3:79) The word used in this text is rabbani, that is, devoting oneself to God and to no other. That is to say that, your love and your fear should all be for God and God alone. The true goal of Islam is thus to form such devout individuals. Obviously, a human being of this kind cannot be formed through violence and war. This is entirely a matter of intellectual revolution and of a change of heart. And such a heart and mind can be brought about only by advice, counselling and da'wah, and not be recourse to violence.

If one were to speak of a 'violent merchant' this would be a contradiction in terms. This is because no true businessman can afford to depart from the norms of peace. Commerce, by its very nature, makes one peaceable and willing to adjust. The same is true of Islam, which by its very nature, is a wholly pacific and conciliatory faith. An atmosphere of strife and brutality is anathema to the performance of Islamic 'da'wah, which can produce results only in an atmosphere of peace. How then could Islam possibly approve of war and violence.

When Islam is, in truth, a peace-loving religion, how has it come to be portrayed as the very opposite? This is a complete misapprehension which is traceable to some historical factors.

Let us consider these contributory causes. It is a historical fact that certain battles against non-Muslims did take place during the Prophet's lifetime. These wars, however, were in no way related to the principles of Islam. They resulted rather from the external circumstances prevailing in the world of that time. These wars did not break out because Islam wanted to fight, but because others, by waging war against the Muslims had forced Islam to defend itself.

Islam came to the world one thousand years ago, in an age marked by religious persecution. It is a matter of historical record that, in those days, a man considered it his birthright to suppress by force all religions other than his own, or that of the State.

That is why in ancient times each religion experience violent reactions from the adherents of other faiths. For instance, for about fifteen hundred years from the time of its inception, Christianity was continuously subjected to persecution. Everywhere its followers met stiff opposition and were even subjected to torture or killed outright. Whereas today, the proponents of that same Christianity are engaged in all-out missionary work without the slightest risk of victimization.

If Christians were persecuted in ancient times, it was not because of their adherence to any militant ideology, the tenents of Christianity being the same in those days as they are today. The hostile reaction of the ancient world, as compared to the complaisance or even indifference in which religious persecution was the order of the day.

The modern age is totally different in that it is one of religious freedom. That is why religious missionaries now meet, not with persecution, but with open-mindedness. All over the world, they are now presented with opportunities to carry on their religious work with complete impunity.

The same is true of Islamic history, in which all the incidents conflict were due to the circumstances prevailing in that age, rather than to Islamic teachings. Islam had launched its missionary activities using completely peaceful means, but, it being an age of religious persecution, adherents of other religions opposed it tooth and nail. In this way, incidents of armed conflict became an unavoidable part of Islamic history. Nowadays, with this factor eliminated, the possibility of such warns, in atleast principle, has come to the point of near-elimination.

Those who are unaware of this aspect of Islamic development tend to attributed early conflicts - quite wrongly, of course - to tenets of Islam; they fail to appreciate that they resulted from external circumstances rather than from the internal features of Islam itself. In modern times, Islam's aggressive image can be traced to the circumstances now prevailing in Muslim countries. In all Muslim countries, Muslims are divided into two broad categories - Islamists, and secular of liberal.

With non-religious ideologies dominating people's minds today all over the world, it often happens that when elections are held in Muslim countries, they are won by a secular or liberal group. Now if democratic traditions are to be upheld, the Islamists should bear with the liberals who have come into power until the expiry of their term in office. But Islamist groups in every country consider political power a right that they alone should enjoy. As such, whenever a liberal group is in control, the Islamist group assumes the role of aggressive opposition. Furthermore, whatever the activities of this Islamist group, they are all organized under the banner of Islam. As a result, its aggressive stance, whether ideological or practical, is attributed to Islam per se.

In actual fact, it is the self-styled Islamists who believe in militancy. And due to their misrepresentation of their own religion, others have come to think of Islam as a militant religion. This is simply a misrepresentation of Islam. The facts are quited the opposite. There is hadith to guide us on this subject. It say: 'As you will be, so will your rulers be.' That is to say that it is society which produces the type of people it wants as its rulers. This ruling class then represents society.

That is why Islam has very specifically given us this injunction that when the rot sets in the rulers, or ruling class, we should not directly clash with them. We should rather devote all out efforts to changing the society in a constructive manner. The day society changes, the rulers will certainly change on their own. It is society which determine what type of ruler it wants. That is why the actual problem lies in changing society rather than in launching militant campaigns directed towards the unseating of rulers.

The so-called Islamist groups in Muslim countries have engaged themselves in ideological or practical campaigns directed against the rulers for the last fifty years, with no positive gain to date. What has happened is that the image of Islam has been gravely distorted to that of a religion with violence as part of its creed.

A further error committed by the Islamist groups is to take the whole world as their enemy. Then, in order to counter these 'enemy' nations, they are continuously engaged in ideological and military warfare, depending upon circumstances. Indulgence in violence is thus to be found both on an internal plan, against the Muslim liberals, and on an international plane, against non-Muslim nations.

This supposition that the whole world is the enemy of Islam is entirely without foundation. In the highly competitive world of today, one group or community is always trying to be ahead of the others. This is a state of affairs which has continued since man's advent on earth and it will continue until Doomsday. As such, it should be taken as a human challenge, rather than as a matter of enmity or opposition towards Muslims.

If we eliminate erroneous impressions created by historical circumstances, both in the past and the present, in particular by the Islamists' politics, unguided as they are by the Qur'an and hadith, the image of Islam that will emerge will be that of a religion based wholly on peace and mercy, which, in reality, is what it is. This is the real image as it evolves from Islamic teachings.-CNF

Masks vs Face: BJP should save face
By: M.J. Akbar

It is completely inexplicable how a negative vote has fallen into such bad odour. Ruling parties have managed to convert it into a alibi for survival, as it there was something unjust, or even predictable about it. It has also become a bit of a sneer to deny the winner full legitimacy for the victory.

This is an absurdity. What else is a democracy but the right to a negative vote? It is the right to throw out a set of rulers through the peaceful and constitutional process of a free election. This is the unique strength of a democracy, a political system flawed on the surface but perfect in its soul. Modern civilisation increasingly rests on the freedom to change rulers who have failed, into by their own standards but by the estimates of the voter. There can hardly be anything called a "positive vote'' democracy, although some countries have attempted to create this oxymoron. Indonesia's military rulers, for instance, had created a democracy which only allowed you a positive vote; the students of that nation are at this moment sitting on the streets in front of the presidential palace demanding a negative vote. President Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan was another expert in the positive-vote democracy. Dictatorship which deny their people the right to punish them, like China, will have to change or face fire storms that could destroy all that the dictatorship achieved in economic development. In India, all our streets may not even be paved with tar, but we survive and prosper as a nation because we have the right to throw out scoundrels of every kind, denomination and political colour. The negative vote is the most positive thing about India. If democracy was only about a positive vote, every dictatorship would be a democracy.

India's political class too has accepted these terms of reference, if for no other reason than the fact that the negative vote is non-partisan. Mrs Indira Gandhi once questioned the supremacy of the people's will, and regretted it. The very option has been obliterated out of our system. The armed services, conventionally the greatest threat to democratic rights, have shown in the last fifty years an exemplary willingness to keep their behaviour within the strict confines of the law, no matter what their frustrations might be. (The Pakistan armed forces, although born of the same traditions, used the first opportunity to exploit their interpretation of the national interest to destroy civilian rule). Indian voters actually enjoy humiliating any political party which begins to believe that it is indispensable, which makes them very good democrats.

It was, almost inevitably, the Congress which began this wretched conversion of the negative vote into some sort of a moral or ethical negative. The term first began to be heard in 1980, when it was restored to power by a squabbling Cabinet illuminated by the likes of Morarji Desai and Charan Singh, and brightened by names still visible on the political horizon, like Atal Behari Vajpayee, L K Advani, George Fernandes and Sikander Bakht. After keeping their mouths shut for three years after 1977 (widely perceived as a major mercy by the nation) Congress redisovered their nasal whining after Mrs Indira Gandhi restored their cushions of comfort with a dramatic victory in the 1980 general elections. (The price of onions helped bring her back to power, as a housewife of an Indian Airlines Pilot named Sonia Gandhi will surely recall). One theme in that whirling was the rejection of the Janata victory of 1977 as a "negative vote'' So? There was nothing positive about the Emergency, so negative was an appropriate adjective for the response of the people.

Another term is emerging as a closet alibi for survival: the "anti-in cumbency factor.'' The Delhi and Rajasthan defeats of the BJP are being explained away as nothing than the impact of the "anti-incumbency factor.'' So that's all right then. Mr Yashwant Sinha can go on telling Parliament that there has been only one per cent inflation on his watch, as against some multiple inflation during P. Chidambaram's tenure. Normally it takes years of power for a politician to sound incredible; Mr Yashwant Sinha has managed to achieve that in a few months. He is confusing figures with facts. The people see prices rising; they do not consult the Planning Commission. Mr Sinha is the kind of incumbent who ensures an anti-incumbency wave.

Between March and now the price of wheat, common dal and mustard oil has nearly doubled, while onions of course have gone from Rs. 6 per kg in June to Rs. 60 per kg in November. The most important thing that the BJP did in this period was to try and amend the Essential Commodities Act so that the offence of hoarding could become bailable. (It failed because the Opposition stalled this.) The signal went out to the trade that their long years of support to the party was paying off. The trading community became convinced that it would receive protection from those it had protected for so long. The consequences were visible in the bazaar. What might have been a natural annual problem escalated into a crisis that destroyed the credibility of the first BJP genuine Government in Delhi, and did so within the space of a few harsh weeks. The conversion of the popular mood from the post-Pokhran elation to the whiplash sentiment of November is something that the BJP needs to analyse with some objectivity if it means to survive as political force. There is no one else to blame not communists, not Congressman and certainly not the holy or unholy alliance between the two. The BJP is in trouble not because of those who do not lilke it, but because of those who like it. The pressures from the support base are damaging the top of the pyramid. The unrest bordering on civil war over the insurance bill is further proof. Of course, it required a Cabinet completely out of touch with political realities to clear this decision on the eve of a mini-general election: even Mani Shankar Aiyar has better timing than that. Defeat has brought every contradiction into the marketplace, and all sides have equipped themselves with loudspeakers. As winter follows summer, defeat has unleashed a struggle for power within the BJP. The ideologues blame compromise for disaster. The pragmatists continue to juggle with alternatives in a bid to placate different constituencies with different voices. There is clarity among the ideologies, and they are read to challenge their own Government in the interest of the future.

Sonia Gandhi has decided that it is extremely unwise to murder a Government deeply committed to suicide. It would be a vindication of her judgment if the insurance bill was either diluted out of recognition, or defeated by a spot among the BJP MP's" at least 76 of them want it withdrawn.

It is only a matter of time before the tussle within the BJP develops into a straight tussle for power between the mask, Atal Behari Vajpayee and the face Lal Krishna Advani. The BJP ideologue, Mr Govindacharya, who first described Mr Vajpayee as the mask of the party later withdrew his remark, or denied; he should not have. No truer word was spoken. But a mask fools not only the world, but also, given time, itself. It begins to take itself seriously. It begins to believe, particularly in an environment as prone to self-delusion as political office, that it is the real thing and not a cover. It begins to rationalise its existence. Why should a mask be needed if the face was not ugly, if the face had no warts? The mask begins to see its role as a duty, it feels it must hide the face in the best interests of both. Very soon the mask has occupied the high moral ground and can barely conceal its contempt for the face.

The face has no such problem. It has always had contempt for the mask.

Imagery has coincided with reality. The BJP has lost face because of the mask. If it does not save face now there will soon be nothing left behind that mask.

Saving our economy from foreign assault
By : S V Vaidyanathan

A country has many defining moments in its history and India is now facing one such moment. Since the nuclear tests in May, there have been attempts to bring India in line with the demands of geo-political forces of capitalism.

History has shown that capitalism cannot survive without the developing world, its huge markets and its huge reserves. Capitalism is an empire by itself not just an economic designer tag. In a book When Corporations Rule the World, David Korten says that ''of the top 100 world economies, 51 are corporations. Two-thirds of the international trade now involves transnational companies and one-third involves trade within a single transnational.'' So when we let such corporations enter our country it is, in a sense, like an alien government coming in and dominating us very subtly.

These geo-political capitalist forces (GPCF) have divided the world into four convenient zones as it were-- the US, Russia, the Islamic states, and Japan. India and China are not included because their economies are not entirely opened to these forces like the other were. The Japanese generally oversaw the south-east Asian countries, it had a symbiotic relationship primarily through exports and imports.

Germany put, after its reunification, large investments into Russia and the US oversaw Latin America, India and China got funds from Japan, the US, IMF and World Bank, but not one of them could really dominate either of the two largest countries in the other were. The foreign institutional investors were welcomed with tremendous advantages over their Indian counterparts.

Before we Indians realised what was happening the West started dumping everything in the name of globalisation- from washing machines and refrigerators to Cartier watches and pens and whiskey into the market. Some of them rode piggyback on Indian corporates to get in but as the economy liberalised they set up 100 per cent owned subsidiaries. The result was over capability in several industries.

The stock market for one saw a harrow son et lumiere show by the FIIs. Their ability to manipulate the market became evident: When they bought, the index went up; and when they sold, the sensex dropped. They could play god with the market which is dominated by bears who have a vested interest in keeping the market bearish.

Most of the stocks that the FIIs own were bought from Indian financial institutions in bulk directly or through brokers. Earlier, the market had floating stocks of just Rs 2000 crores to Rs 3000 crores. After the FIIs came and bought institutional stock as well as stocks inthe market, the market became a little more liquid but the shares in the hands of the FIIs upset the whole balance and gave them tremendous leverage with the index scrips. The result of all this is that the FIIs or any one wanting to destroy the sentimet of the market, create economic panic and chaos, destroy the confidence of the investing market.

The geo-political capitalist forces would like to tame India which, now more than ever under the BJP rule at the Centre, tries to take a nationalist stand. The BJP government is probably the first government in 50 years that has stood up to the United States and the rest of the world and said that it would pursue an independent nuclear policy. There are even second thoughts on India joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which is nothing more than a glorified serf of the International Monetary Fund and the US Treasury.

The assault on India's economy was sought to be engineered by the sanctions, but it did not hurt India much. Then came Standard and Poor's act of downgrading India because of the perceived repercussions of the sanctions. That too didn't do much damage. So they decided to hit at India's largest financial institutions and this will be followed next by an assault on India's development banks and nationalised banks. They are the pillars of India's economy.

A broker who is well versed in the techniques of the market tells us of this assault that took place on October 5, which brought down the BSE to its third largest fall of 224 points. He said almost all the pivotals went into lower freeze levels. There was unprecedented panic among market participants, particularly the small investors. This was the first ever attempt to undermine a powerful financial institution with the media and the market working in tandem. It must be remembered that the financial institutions are the only bulwark against huge buying or selling pressures in a market that is devoid of retail investors. On the October 5 attack, this broker describes the machinations: A campaign was initiated of using the disclosure of the NAV of the US-64 Scheme with devastating impact on the market. After planting media reports that there was a huge erosion in the value of the US-64 Scheme portfolio because of the scheme being mismanaged, they proceeded to goad the investor into redeeming his holdings while simultaneously battering the stocks in which the US-64 scheme had large holdings. This fulfilling cycle, said the broker, is a sure fire formula for ensuring a continuous state of panic in the market.

On Tuesday, September 29, the media reports appeared about the low NAV of the US 3.15 pm on that day a first round of hammering of prices was performed followed by a further fall on Wednesday. Thereafter the markets were closed for holidays till October 5.

On October5, Morgan Stanley Asset Management, one of the largest and hyperactive FIIs, resorted to large scale selling of stocks. About a week earlier it had reportedly effected a purchase of stocks of upwards of Rs. 200 crores as a sequal to its upgrading India in their reputed MSCI index. The bears in tandem with, Morgan Stanely also hammered down the stock prices. It circulated rumours that UTI was liquidating four percent of its holdings. The selling, said this broker, was purposely effected in a manner to create disproportionate fall in prices.

The relationship of the bears with the FII can easily be established by Sebi, though there seems to be some reluctance on the part of the regulator to act with alacrity. It seems to be worried more about what the BSE board members will say or what the foreigners will think, abandoning its duties to the investing public.

According to this broker and many others like him who follow the market closely, there is a definite nexus between the bears and the FII. They reportedly work in tandem in effecting sales and purchases. A genuine and sincere probe of the bear cartel transactions, they say, will establish that their selling and purchasing have either frontrun or run in parallel with the transactions of the fund.

For example, the FII has been selling SBI stock for the last six months in bits and pieces at which time the bear cartel has remained heavily short from a level of upwards of Rs. 300 even still today at a level of Rs. 166, thereby making a killing. It was no surprise that a very limited group on October 5 made a killing after designing the fall. These facts are well known in the market. October 5 will not be the last assault. They are preparing the same treatment for banks and Indian FIs which have NAVs as their Achilles' heel.

That is why one says that this is India's defining moment BJP's nationalism will have to have flesh and the party has to take very firm decisions to clean up our prestigious financial institutions. Corruption will have to be weeded out and the politicians will have to stop dipping into the FI funds for themselves or the crony capitalists. Will this Government live up to its claim to national fervour and get down immediately to tackling this job? (INAV)

US double-standard should not impede ongoing dialogue
By : Abhijit Patwardhan

The US deputy secretary of state, Strobe Talbott, in a signed article which appeared in The Times of India of 13 November, 1998, has outlined his country's flawed policy towards South Asia, particularly in regard to India. Mr Talbott does not take into account the security concerns of India, and as usual equates Indian problems with that of Pakistan on this score. This approach of the Clinton administration has caused resentment in India. After all, we cannot forget the truth that India is a victim of four wars, and a sizeable part of its territory is under illegal occupation of Pakistan and China.

It could not have gone unnoticed, in Washington and other world capitals, that the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, has personally expressed India's hurt feelings. He has indeed gone even further than the earlier statement of the ministry of external affairs had. It's the habitual US 'tilt towards Pakistan' all the way. As much a decade after the end of the Cold War, as during that great confrontation lasting 45 years when any kind of partisanship or chicanery could be justified in the name of the Cold War 'compulsions' and the fact of Pakistan being America's 'most allied ally'.

There are some sanctions such as the restrictions on the supply of US technology, including dual use technology, on both the South Asian neighbours, which will continue. But in one crucial respect, the decision-makers in Washington have tilted the scales heavily in Pakistan's favour. In relation to India, American opposition to assistance by international financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank, will continue unabated. In the case of Pakistan, the US, 'in cooperation with its allies,' will not oppose IMF or World Bank aid to Pakistan. Indeed, the American objective is to ensure that an IMF 'package' totalling $ 1.5 billion, being negotiated in Islamabad as these lines are being written, is neatly tied up.

One has to hand this to the Americans. They take their time to make up their mind on a course of action, and once having done so, embark on a systematic and sustained campaign to convince the world that what is being done is in the best interest of not only 'all concerned' but also the entire intenational community.

What the US assistant secretary of state for South Asia, Karl Inderfurth, has said in defence of his government's decision will soon be repeated by American media, think tanks and indeed the entire foreign policy establishment, the like of which is conspicuous in this country by its sheer absence. The burden of Inderfurth's song is that Pakistan's economy is 'precarious' and could collapse which would be in no one's interest. That's why, he says, the Clinton administration was keen to 'bail out' Pakistan. Evidentally, it saw no reason to be evenhanded and suspend its opposition to IMF and World Bank loans to India as well. That would have done Pakistan to harm and won Clinton and his government some kudos on both sides of the subcontinental divide. But the American argument, as put forward by Inderfurth, is that the Indian economy is much stronger than that Pakistani.

No wonder that Vajpayee has been constrained to retort that the US rationale meant that India, too, should have bungled up its economy to merit a fair treatment. The point is well taken but it is almost certain to be ignored blitherly by the moves and shakers in the US capital.

The key question now is : Where do we go from here? And the obvious and sound answer is that dismay with the US double-dealing should not be allowed to interrupt to impede the Indo-US dialogue. Clearly, the Vajpayee government has no intention to do so.

About the overriding importance of the dialogue with the US, there will never be any doubt. Whatever this country's grievances, a nuclear understanding with a country which is India's largest trading partner, biggest investor in the Indian market and the only one in a position to rally the bulk of the world is surely vital.

What is more, while everything demanded or needed by India may not be acceptable to the US, an understanding that would satisfy the aspirations of both sides is surely feasible. There is no way in which the nuclear status of India and Pakistan can be wished way. It does not matter therefore if the US continues to maintain that the NPT cannot be amended and under it only five countries can be recognised as nuclear weapons powers. What matters is that within the framework of a commitment both the sides to total elimination of nuclear weapons, they can agree on a non-proliferation architecture that is mutually acceptable and does not undermine any of the supreme Indian interests.

India has never had any difficulty about not exporting nuclear is technology in a manner that would add to the risks of proliferation. A voluntary Indian moratorium on further nuclear testing is already in force, so in Indian willingness to give this undertaking a dejure international status, the dividing line between this and an eventual signing of the CTBT before the target date of September 1999 is therefore rather him. But it is only proper to recognise that opposition to signing the CTBT continues to be strong. Perhaps the best option before the policy-makers here is to announce that India would sign the CTBT it had earlier rejected, only after the US Senate had ratified it.

However, while the search for a nuclear understanding with the US (as with other nuclear powers more willing to accommodate this country, such as France) goes on, there is clear and urgent need to do a few more things.

The first is to take a realistic view of developments and give up wishful thinking. Until recently, too rosy a picture was being drawn about the progress of Jaswant-Talbott talks. The Prime Minister's speech to Asia Society in New York in September showed how misplaced optimism was. The renewed tilt towards Pakistan has its lesson. Successive Indian governments since 1990 have deluded themselves into believing that while the convergence between Indan and American interests is growing, Pakistan's importance in the US scheme of things is on the decline.

This is not so. Surely America needs India and cannot possibly ignore a country of its size and enormous economic potential. But it would be wrong to overlook the American stakes in Pakistan as the bridge to Central Asia with its phenomenal oil and gas wealth that the US wants to exploit and transport to the outside world without having to go through Russia or Iran. This should explain American ambiguity even about the Taliban of Afghanistan.

Rather than fantasise, Indian diplomacy must focus on making the US take a clear stand on the Chinese transference of nuclear technology and missiles to Pakistan as well as Pakistan-backed terrorism in this country, especially in Kashmir. In the US foreign policy establishment, there are many who are sympathetic to India on this score. They require to be mobilised. (INAV).