.

EDITORIAL

NEEDED- A FIRM POLICY

The manner in which Pak sponsored terrorists continue to humiliate our system by the day calls for redefining security in its entirety. Too much damage has already been done due to lack-lustre approach even when it comes to dealing with national security. Soft- pedalling continues to be the rule rather than an exception. If only firm policy was in place when first signs of insurgency manifested its ugliness in last quarter of 1989, it would not have led to present sorry pass. While ....more

STALEMATE PERSISTS

The seven day old strike of the state government employees has begun to tell upon the health of the citizens adversely. The last round of talks with the government has failed to yield any tangible solution for the simple reason that not a single demand has been conceded by the government. The ....more

National policy on
competition

By M. N. Minocha
The Union Finance minister Yashwant Sinha has described himself as "a man in a hurry". ...more

Guru Tegh Bahadur:
Symbol of freedom

By Darshan Singh
The concept of freedom of religion and democracy which are enshrined in our constitution and of...more

New Pak rulers:
'Same wine in old bottle'

By Joginder Singh
Pakistan has a new self-proclaimed ruler in less than a decade after democracy....more

SPOTLIGHT
India has reason to take closer look at CTBT

From B L Kak
The official announcement has been made: US President, Mr Bill Clinton, will visit India in......more

EDITORIAL

NEEDED- A FIRM POLICY

The manner in which Pak sponsored terrorists continue to humiliate our system by the day calls for redefining security in its entirety. Too much damage has already been done due to lack-lustre approach even when it comes to dealing with national security. Soft- pedalling continues to be the rule rather than an exception. If only firm policy was in place when first signs of insurgency manifested its ugliness in last quarter of 1989, it would not have led to present sorry pass. While successive governments at the centre cannot escape the responsibility of remaining imbecile all through the decade, the incumbent NDA government owes an explanation to the hapless citizens asto why things keep on going haywire despite claims of having done this and that. It is not the question of which government is in place nor who holds what portfolio. It is the all important question of reacting only when the enemy inflicts unbearable damage on the body and mind of every Indian by continuously surprising our system that remains spineless and rudderless in the face of determined enemy which does not hide its designs.

Let us put the things in its place. First, Kashmir is not the issue as repeatedly parrotted by Pakistan and its cronies and mentors. The intention is to implement Zia-ul-Huq plan for causing balkanisation of India through widespread mayhem. This was in evidence even before the Bombay chain blasts of March 12, 1993. That was the signal of Pak ulterior motives to take the proxy war right inside the country rather than confining it Jammu & Kashmir or the north-eastern region. This fact gets fully endorsed from the subsequent Coimbatore blasts that also took heavy toll of life. This means the enemy has succeeded in establishing its citadels in West, in South, in East and in the North. If Kashmir was the only contentious issue, then there was no need for Pakistan to sponsor insurgency in Punjab or carry out chain blasts in Mumbai or disturb peace and tranquility of South with Coimbatore blasts or rock the north eastern states with frequent blasts and ambushed. So let it be very clear to the powers that be that Pakistan overtly and covertly supported by some other countries has designs to fly its flag at Red Fort as recently disclosed by two front line Pak-based terrorist outfit leaders.

Second aspect is the soft-pedalling syndrome when hard options are the need of the hour. Be it Kashmir or elsewhere, there is no evidence of any pro-active plan. It continues to be reactive in nature. Reaction is as well sluggish and self-defeating besides being self-deceptive. The nation can ill-afford the prolongation of terrorism which strains the national resources to the detriment of development and other productive pursuits. Let it be understood once for all that near normal situation in J&K when popular government took over in October 1996 has all the ingredients of 1989-90 scenario. The laws are there but not used. The forces are there but lack clear orders or have to live with conditional orders. Orders can never be conditional in army terminology. Orders are always clear without any ambiguity. Too many ifs and buts results in pusillanimity when determined action with single minded pursuit is indispensable. The situation is similar to the famous adage, ''Too many cooks spoil the broth''. There are tasks that can best be handled by the armed forces. It is no kid-play to treat the war ruggadised terrorists (mostly mercenaries) with soft-options. The entire policy has to so recast asto be not only pro-active but instantly reactive. That calls for giving standing instructions to the Armed forces to take instant counter-action in any crisis situation. You can't leave it to the politicians for giving permission after they hold several meetings and yet remain undecisive. One can draw a cue from the Pak Navy aircraft that intrued into Runn of Kuchh and was instantly shot down by our IAF jets. Had the IAF gone about seeking Prime Minister's permission aircraft would have escaped back to Pakistan after mapping all the vital installations in the region. Such orders must apply to hijack situations as well because army is best equipped with all types of paratroopers and commandos. All important question is that of instant reaction failing which even hijacked aircrafts would land in Amritsar only to fly into hostile territory because of inaction. This immediately becomes advantage enemy, courtesy lack of any rational policy and standing orders.

And by far the greatest threat emanates from leaving the borders wide open with our neighbours. It is so in J&K that is an integral part of India. Pak won't allow its fencing even on international border in Jammu and India has succumbed in most unbecoming manner with defeatist mentality. Bangladesh border remains highly porous all these 53 years leading to inflow of no leas than 1.5 crore Pakistanis/Bangladeshis so much so that Assam is now threatened with total demographic change with original inhabitants reduced to virtual minority. ISI has extensively used bases in Bangladesh to infiltrate spies and terrorists into this country. To hell with such friendly country that allows ISI activities to go on unabated. Worst story emantes from open borders with Nepal. It is high time that it is treated as much a foreign country as Pakistan. Reports confirm infiltration of hard-core Pak sponsored ultras via open Nepal borders totalling over 5000. It is they who spearhead the insurgency in Kashmir. If it is a friendly neighbour, it should have stopped ISI activities from its land. Reverse happens to be true so much so that crores of rupees continue to flow into Nepal from Pakistan for sustaining ISI bases meant to cause balkanisation of India.

Let there be no more nonsense. Let the security forces be put in the vanguard of all crisis situation for instant reaction. Let the proactive policy start yielding results. Let the porous borders with neighbours having friendly pretensions be plugged. Let the soft-pedalling syndrome swap places with well-defined hard options and policies.

STALEMATE PERSISTS

The seven day old strike of the state government employees has begun to tell upon the health of the citizens adversely. The last round of talks with the government has failed to yield any tangible solution for the simple reason that not a single demand has been conceded by the government. The administration continues to expect more from employees and give nothing in return. That is not on. For any dialogue to succeed, it is always on give-and-take basis. Unfortunately, the state has the ready excuse of government coffers being empty. But government is functional all the same. So this alibi of empty coffers is not salable because of the simple reasons that at least one demand of second instalment of Pay Commission arrears is pretty old when financial position of the government was not as bad as today. Another reason for not taking the government's word at its face value is the repeated wriggling out of written commitments. This becomes all the more relevant when government claims augmentation in its income over that of last year and the previous one. Another aspect that has caused heart-burns amongst the employees is the type of provocative statements being issued whereas need of the hour is to apply balm. All this and much more had added to the woes of the people who remain the prime victims of official apathy towards employees demands. Government must adopt give and take policy immediately.

National policy on competition

By M. N. Minocha

The Union Finance minister Yashwant Sinha has described himself as "a man in a hurry". There is no reason not to take him for his word. The fact, however, is that he is running to be stationary. In whichever economic area he proposes to push reforms he finds legalistic hurdles stalling his pace. The talk of second generation reforms assumes that the first generation reform process is complete. Unfortunately it is not true. Majority of the legislative amendments moved in the 12th Lok Sabha are still pending. So, reference to second generation reforms becomes irrelevant unless the first generation reforms are approved by the new House.

Doing away with a few rules and regulations do not mean that the first generation reforms have been carried out and one can move towards the second phase. To sanctify the changes undertaken earlier, relevant amendments have to be made to the outdated laws, making the first generation reforms effective. Take crucial sectors like infrastructure. Several bills relating to privatisation of mining and power segments and, deregulating industrial investment in key sectors like telecom are pending before Parliament. Unless these hurdles are overcome, Mr. Sinha will not be able to forge ahead in his bid to usher in an era of free market economy, which entails all round competition.

Mr. Sinha spoke of a 'national policy on competition' in his last Budget speech. He even asked the Department of Law to prepare such legislation. He could have made some headway in this direction but for the fall of the ministry in April. Beginning his third stint, Mr. Sinha has again put the process in motion by reiterating his stand on the policy.

How can one decode the competition policy in simple terms? Doing away with controls, rules and regulations impeding competition and free flow of private investment is the crux of the policy. Unfortunately for India, it has lived under an umbrella of protection ever since Independence, with an all-pervading public sector clutching its tentacles over all crucial economic activities, including infrastructure, heavy industries and even the financial and insurance sectors. It is strengthened further by an administered price regime.

The highly protected economy has written off competition as of today. So far, the public sector has been a holy cow. The private sector also enjoys protection from foreign competition. Surprisingly, India is named amongst the 10th most highly industrialised nations in the world!

The bubble bust in 1989-90 when India was forced to pawn its gold to meet the international interest obligations. It hit the nations hard. Realisation dawned that living in fools' paradise could not continue forever. Financial constrains forced the government to look outwards and invite domestic private investments and throw open its doors to the overseas investors, particularly in highly capital intensive areas, who never wanted to sink in their funds in an uneven economic ground. This could not have been achieved without removing numerous legalistic hurdles. Thus, the talk of a policy of competition.

World over there is a serious debate for replacing the antitrust laws with that of comprehensive competition policy. To merge with the global economy successfully, India will eventually have to think in long-term policies. Presently, its main concern is to devise laws that will allow rudimentary competition. Besides, if financial sector reforms have to be carried out denationalisation of banks, the RBI statute and insurance laws have to be worked out and approved expeditiously.

It is good that the government has freed the insurance sector from total control, but reforms in the banking sector will need a lot of homework. The legislative provisions will have to be worked out from the start. The government cannot divest in the PSU banks unless the Bank Nationalisation Act is scrapped. Similarly, the RBI statute will have to be reworked to make it an independent regulator. A comprehensive legislation can be done to substantially reduce the government equity in the entire PSUs, to say 26 per cent, from the present 51 per cent. Even with a 26-per cent hold the government has veto powers.

Sectors like telecom and power should be completely freed. It is such a step that will force the lethargic SEBs and telecom majors like the MTNL and VSNL competitive. This will help the consumers as well. To ensure that no irregularities take place, an over all regulator should be appointed. In fact, it will not be a bad idea to redefine the role of the Planning Commission and make it responsible for the implementation of the policy on competition.

On the administration price regime the only mantra that will work is that utility should bear its costs. It will help the Finance Minister to evolve a system of targeted subsidies rather than free lunches for one and all. But will the NDA government be able to carry out these reform promises? It is hoping against hope. A consensus amongst its partners will be the very first hurdle. Remember how some of the partners in the ruling alliance were opposed to hike in diesel prices. The second major hurdle will be the Opposition parties. The Congress will not let go of the chance to embarrass the government on every single occasion. Wedded to the principle of political consensus Vajpayee will not get much help from his friends and foes to carry out the 100 days reforms agenda forward. INAV

Guru Tegh Bahadur: Symbol of freedom

By Darshan Singh

The concept of freedom of religion and democracy which are enshrined in our constitution and of many countries of the world, was upper most in the mind of the Ninth Guru of Sikhs, Guru Tegh Bahadur. His obsession in life was to fight for human rights and freedom of the oppressed irrespective of their creed, belief and ideology. He held the view that political authority has no right to annihilate prevalent cultures.

Guru Tegh Bahadur has been a 'unique saviour' of oppressed humanity who gave his life not for his own faith and doctrines but for the fundamental rights of Brahamins, the custodians of Hindu religion to worship the deity as per their tradition.

Guru Tegh Bahadur, whose 324th martyrdom was observed on December 13, was the father of Guru Gobind Singh, who established the Sikh Panth in 1699 A.D. His martyrdom took place at a time when the tyrannical rule of Mughal empire had degenerated to its climax with hundreds of thousands of innocent Hindus being put to death because they did not embrace Islam as ordained by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.

In the midst of wreckage of a collapsing order, Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom triggered a fresh zeal in Guru Gobind Singh, who established Khalsa Panth in 1669 to check the onslaught of Mughal rule.

Guru Tegh Bahadur often said, "Fear not from any one and strike not fear in anyone." Tegh Bahadur advised his followers not to bargain their faith for the sake of worldly favours from ruling authority. "Shed the last trace of fear of earthly authority and seek protection, grace power from God alone."

In May, 1675 A.D., 16 terrorised Kashmiri Pandits reached Anand Pur Sahib under the leadership of Pandit Kirpa Ram and apprised Guru Tegh Bahadur of the atrocities being committed by Iftikar Khan, the local subedar of Kashmir who had unleashed an all out campaign of converting Kashmiri Brahamins by force and was massacring all those who were refusing to embrace the new creed.

Hearing their tale of woes, Guru Tegh Bahadur's heart was deeply moved. The issue at stake was not merely of a localised nature confined to the microscopic Brahmin (minority in the Valley of Kashmir). It was a much larger issue involving millions of Non-Muslims --- Hindus, Sikhs and others whose lives had been miserable. After hearing from his son Govind Rai, who was very young to offer his life to save the sufferings of millions of Hindus, he asked the Kashmiri Pandits to inform the Mughal authorities in Delhi to first convert him to Islam, then they would follow. Thereafter, the Guru left for Delhi alongwith his three faithful devotees to offer the supreme sacrifice.

Different stories have been put forward by different scholars holding different views on the cause of martyrdom. Some scholars have opined that the Mughal ruler wanted to crush the political movement launched by the Guru and charged him with sedition. But, then theory is not accepted by many scholars, particularly the Sikh and British scholars. Guru Tegh Bahadur along with three devotees were tortured and put to death in Delhi for not embracing Islam. When, the Guru refused to show a miracle, he was ordered to be executed. The Guru was firmly opposed to the display of miracles or occult powers as to the acceptance of Islam. The Guru was well aware that the whole tenor of Sikhism was against the use of occult powers.

To understand him properly and make an assessment of his personality, it would be ideal to read his life in four phases. The first phase of Guru Tegh Bahadur's life begins with his birth at Amritsar on April 1, 1621 and ends with passing away of his father Guru Har Gobind on March 4, 1644 A.D. This period includes his early education, his fight against the Mughals at Kartarpur and marriage. He was hardly 23 when he was instructed to move away to Batal and wait for the 'Divine Call'.

The second phase of his lfie commences with his stay at Batala for over 20 years (1644-1664). There is hardly any other prophet known to history who spent 20 years in meditation and in solitude. Infact this was the period which enabled him to overcome any difficulty in life and made his will strong and determined enough to face any onslaught in life.

The third phase of Guru Tegh Bahadur covers the period of six years of this Guruship which took him to Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal, Assam, Kamrup. During these six years, he spread the message of his forefathers and asked the masses to follow the teachings of Guru Nanak and the successive Gurus. His preachings were mostly on his perception which the reiterated time and again.

The fourth phase of Guru Tegh Bahadur's life began in 1669 when Aurangzeb's tyrannical rule began to convert the Hindus and destroy their centres of learning and their temples. The contemporary historian Saqi Mushad Khan has given a vivid account how Aurangzeb decided on April 8, 1669 to convert the infidels into Islamic faith and force them to pay the Jazia Tax.

This phase of persecution and terror ended with the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur. The unique sacrifice of Guru Tegh Bahadur is portrayed by his son Guru Gobind Singh, "When I was mature enough to shoulder duties and responsibilities, my father left for the heavenly abode. He sacrificed his life for protecting the rights of the Hindus, to wear their sacred thread and frontal marks. In this Kali age of ignorance Guru Tegh Bahadur performed a supremely heroic act. He gave his head without uttering a word of sorrow."

Guru Gobind Singh at the young age of nine had realised that degeneration in Hindu society had touched its lowest and none had the courage to lift his father's body after his execution in Delhi for a whole day. The martydom of Guru Tegh Bahadur left such an imprint on Guru Gobind Singh that he felt the need of establishing a Khalsa Panth, which has its separate identity. Though it took Guru Gobind Singh 30 years to establish Khalsa Panth, nevertheless, he was able to complete his mission.

Guru Tegh Bahadur's martydom worked like a miracle and shattered to pieces Aurangzeb's dream of establishing Daru-al-Islam (Islamic state) in the land of Daru-al-Harb (Land of the infidels). Aurangzeb had realized his mistake before his death and he changed his fundamentalistic approach after the execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur. He had earlier executed Sufi Saint Sarmad in Delhi because of his liberal views on religion. He thought he would be able to carve a place for himself in the annals of Indian history as a true Muslim ruler. But, he was sadly mistaken. He had killed his brothers and put his father into prison at Agra. How could such a person be regarded as a supreme Islamic ruler?

The remose of Aurangzeb, a few months before his death, demonstrates that Guru Tegh Bahadur's stirring words and unique sacrifice at last moved his conscience when he wrote, "My years have gone profitless. God has been in my heart, yet my darkened eyes have not recognised His light. Life is transcient and the lost moments, never come back. There is no hope for me in future. Nothing that I brought and into the world but I carry away with me the burden of sins committed by me. I know not what punishment be in store for me to suffer. Every torment I have inflicted, every sin I have committed, every wrong I have done, I carry the consequences with me."

Guru Tegh Bahadur used 'ragas' to recite the 'Adi Granth', which shows his deep faith in God, benefits of remembering Him and renunciation of attachment to wealth and other vices. His emanations of spiritual energy come to us to charge us with 'abhya' (fearlessness) and show us the way out of this 'Darkness at Noon', the current surrender to despair. PTI Feature

New Pak rulers: 'Same wine in old bottle'

By Joginder Singh

Pakistan has a new self-proclaimed ruler in less than a decade after democracy was restored in the country. Delhi-born, 56-year old General Parvez Musharraf has again derailed democracy in the true tradition of his predecessor Generals. They too also had given the same excuse to close the democracy shop. These included collapse of the economy, corruption in all spheres, demoralisation of the Pakistani Army and misuse of position by politicians. Pakistan, a democratic State with theocratic approach, has been reduced to an Army Estate. The civilian Government had a very 'precarious' control over the Army. It was only to the extent the Army permitted or tolerated the civilian hegemony.

This is the fourth Army take-over of Pakistan. General Ayub Khan opened the door to the take-overs on October 7, 1958. He ruled Pakistan for nearly 11 years. General Yahya Khan, who replaced him in 1969, was in office for about three years. When Pakistan lost the 1971 war with India, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, Yahya Khan handed over power to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto lost his job to General Zia-ul-Haq in 1977. Zia hanged Bhutto and was himself killed in an air crash in 1988. The Generals, who ruled Pakistan for nearly two decades, could not resolve the country's economic or social problems.

Democracy briefly returned to Pakistan with Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif alternating as Prime Minister. General Musharraf deposed the elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on October 12, 1999. US Senator Ackerman aptly described the coup, "When a fired general overthrows a duly elected civilian head of the Government, it looks like a coup and it walks like a coup, because it is a coup. It is a military coup in Pakistan and not a military 'take-over'."

The immediate provocation for the coup was the replacement of Chief of Army Staff Musharraf by the Director-General of Inter-Services Intelligence, Lt. General Ziauddin, by Prime Minister Sharif. Pakistan has a tradition of lionising the army. Sharif had earlier sacked Chief of Army Staff Jehangir Karamat, only 90 days before his retirement.

For the present ruler, General Musharraf it was a question of saving his job or bowing meekly to Prime Minister's orders, enabling Sharif to retain his job. The excuses for such an action were widespread corruption, malpractices and rising prices under Sharif's regime. Public anger over corruption in successive civilian Governments has been a favourable factor in receiving public support. In any case, nobody except 'the mad and foolish' dare criticise the Army rulers anywhere in the world, particularly in Pakistan.

Pakistan's economy is in a mess with bad loans and non-performing assets estimated at Rs. 130 billion, of which only Rs. 8.2 billion have been written-off, according to a report. This is a huge amount for Pakistan, a country of 140 million people. The report states about 1600 individuals and 200 firms availed more than 85 per cent of the bank credit in Pakistan. When Bhutto nationalised 31 industrial units and 13 banks, insurance, shipping and petroleum companies, nearly 75 per cent of these belonged to 22 Pakistani families. The rich and the powerful did as they pleased. It is said that deposed Pakistani Premier Nawaz Sharif, whose personal fortune is estimated at hundred of millions of dollars, paid no income-tax last year and filed a deficit wealth tax return. Citing documents released by the revenue department, 'The News Daily' of Pakistan said Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif, the ousted Chief Minister of Punjab, both avoided making any tax payments.

The 11-member Sharif family is one of the richest in Pakistan with a billion-dollar business empire that includes interests in sugar, cement, paper and steel mills. According to tax statements of June, the total tax paid for the entire family worked out to Rs. 9.40 Lakh. Nawaz Sharif put his own personal income tax liability as 'nil', while his net wealth was declared as being in deficit, with assets of 2.1 million rupees against total admissible debts of 6.4 million rupees.

One of the first acts of the new military regime has been to launch a sweeping anti-corruption campaign in which Sharif and his relatives and prime targets. This is perhaps the only way, the army can provide ex. post facto justification for its acts. Sharif is in judicial custody, ostensibly for not permitting the landing of the aircraft carrying Musharraf to Pakistan from Sri Lanka. The real intention is to push him away from the scene like what was done to Bhutto. It will not be a surprise if a hanging noose is use in his case also.

The primary areas of concern for the people of Pakistan are raising their standard of living. We have to cautiously welcome Musharraf's statement on India made in October. The General said, "The Constitution has only temporarily been held in abeyance. This is not martial law. Only another path to democracy. The armed forces have no intention to stay in charge any longer than is absolutely necessary to pave the way for true democracy to flourish in Pakistan."

In his 30-minute address to the ration, Musharraf said, "Pakistan would welcome unconditional, equitable and result-oriented dialogue with India. While our armed forces are ready to defend.... our territorial integrity, it is our desire that the situation on our borders with India and on the Line of Control should remain calm and peaceful. I take this opportunity to announce a unilateral military de-escalation on our international borders with India and initiate the return of all forces moved to the border in the recent past. I hope this step would serve as a meaningful confidence building measure. "But within hours, there was a clarification, that his withdrawal did not include the Line of Control and the Pakistani support for the separatist and terrorist elements in Kashmir.

Stating that Pakistan and India together could alter the tension-filled scenario in South Asia, Musharraf said that for the objective both countries should sincerely work for resolving their problems --- especially the 'core issue' of Kashmir. Despite the protestations of the new military ruler of Pakistan, it should not be off our mind that the incidents of explosions, massacres, and the Kargil intrusion have been recent happenings. Pakistan's larger design has been to interfere and cause internal disturbances. Planned attacks on military and para-military establishments, bomb explosions in North-East and at Jalpaiguri are grim reminders. It has already established wide-linkage with hard core, fundamentalists, terrorist organisations, with monetary and weaponary support. Its objective has been to exploit Muslim fundamentalist organisations, functioning overtly and covertly in a way which weakens India. We have adequate knowledge, as well as information, about the intentions of Pakistani rulers. One statement, without being backed by action, by the self-appointed military ruler, not accountable to anybody, is not enough to convince us that he wants to live in peace with us.

More convincing evidence is needed to induce any belief in us that there has really been a change of heart. Both India and Pakistan face staggering problem of poverty. Obviously anti-poverty programmes have not succeeded and most of the poor continue to be condemned to life of deprivation and penury.

It is better, if both the countries wage war on poverty than fighting each other. India has always reacted and it has never attacked any other country. In terms of development, India ranks 135th out of 174 nations and Pakistan is no better. According to National Council of Applied Research, the number of absolute poor has multiplied. In 1995, it was estimated at 36 per cent of the population. Nearly half of Indian village have no safe source of drinking water. It is much worse in Pakistan. These problems are common to both India and Pakistan. But the previous misadventures of Pakistan make us carry of accepting the protestations of the new power-grabbers of Pakistan. An impression naturally comes to mind that all this is a facade to lull us into a belief that Prime Minister Vajpayee has rightly refused to fall in the trap of talks to give respectability and recognition to the Pakistani dictator.

One wishes that what is proclaimed by the Chief Executive of Pakistan, who grabbed this job rather than the sack which was intended for him by the former democratically elected Prime Minister, comes true. It is better for Pakistan to compete with India, in poverty alleviation programmes, fight against corruption and malpractice rather than ruin its economy in building up armed forces comparable with India. It needs have no fears about the intentions of Indian rulers. PTI Feature

SPOTLIGHT
India has reason to take closer look at CTBT

From B L Kak

The official announcement has been made: US President, Mr Bill Clinton, will visit India in March in the New Year. And expectedly the announcement has turned the spotlight on Indo-US bilateral relations, with due emphasis on the evolving understanding over India’s nuclear policy.

The announcement has coincided with the Vajpayee Government’s efforts to build a national consensus on the much-debated CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). The Minister for External Affairs, Mr Jaswant Singh, is currently preparing himself for fresh talks with the American Deputy Secretary of State, Mr Strobe Talbott.

Mr Jaswant Singh and Mr Talbott will inter alia determine the broad contour of the agenda for talks between the US President and his Indian hosts. Broad hints used to be thrown by American spkespersons that the President’s visit can only follow, not precede, India’s signing the CTBT.

Significantly, however, after the US Senate refused to ratify the treaty and sent it back to the President with advice to re-negotiate its provisions with countries who doubt its efficacy, the talk of conditionalities has died. Mr Bill Clinton’s visit is scheduled regardless of whether or not India signs the CTBT.

New Delhi has made no secret of its willingness to sign, provided some reservations it holds in regard to its provisions and long-term objectives are met by the nuclear weapon powers. The consensus building efforts are presently confined to consultations with the Opposition parties. But these have not generated the kind of national debate one had anticipated.

This is possibly because popular and media attention has been somewhat diluted by the express readiness of New Delhi to subscribe to the document. There is still, however, a need to analyse the implications of signing the treaty at both academic and popular levels. The primary objective of the big powers is to ensure that new countries, developing or developed, do not gatecrash into the nuclear club, whose membership now consists of only the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

India’s principal objection to signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was that it was discriminatory, and was aimed at robbing other nations of the capability and opportunity of exercising their nuclear options. Similar objections had marked New Delhi’s initial reactions to the CTBT.

Developing countries like India have reason to take a closer look at the CTBT now. The US Senate hearings on the ratification issue have hinted at the existence of side agreements and memoranda of understanding among the nuclear weapon States who negotiated the treaty terms and finally pushed it through in the Geneva Disarmament Conference.

This means that there are secret provisions which are not known to the general body of those who participated in the Geneva Conference. Signing a treaty with overt and covert conditionalities is unacceptable to India. And Mr Jaswant Singh has been told to make this clear to Washington, before Mr Clinton’s visit to India begins. Whatever the Government of India’s attitude towards supporters of the CTBT, there is no denying that there cannot be a national consensus on a treaty whose provisions are not uniformly applicable to all the signatories.

Parliament can approve only a non-discriminatory treaty which will bar all the world nations from conducting nuclear tests of any kind. As it is, nuclear weapon States are irked because, like then, India has also developed the capacity to conduct computer-stimulated non-explosive tests to gather data. The CTBT, it is argued by some circles in India, must contain a provision to the effect that the fruits of research in the nuclear field must be available to all countries which have developed the capacity to conduct non-explosive tests.
 



| home | state | national | business | editorial | advertisement | sports |
| international | weather | mailbag | suggestions | search |
subscribe | send mail |