Karamat’s call bodes ill
IT is always easier to deal with a democratically elected government than with a military dictatorship or any other totalitarian regime.
Impeachment — stage one
PRESIDENT Clinton is an unusual politician. Even as impeachment clouds gather over Washington, it is business as usual for him.
States of discontent
THE Vajpayee Government’s initiative to create three new states — Vananchal, Chhatisgarh and Uttaranchal — appears to be in danger of being scuttled by the friends and foes of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led coalition.

PROJECTING NUCLEAR INDIA-I
by Hari Jaisingh
THERE are various aspects of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's visit to New York and Paris which need to be looked into objectively and in totality.
Unmaking of a President
by V. Gangadhar
TWENTYFOUR years back, Richard Milhous Nixon resigned as the President of the United States of America to avoid impeachment proceedings. America did not shed many tears, but heaved a sigh of relief.

Pak economist’s agenda for talks by T.V. Lakshminarayan NEW DELHI: there is need for three-pronged strategy, including taking rapid strides towards economic cooperation, to put relations between India and Pakistan on a healthy footing, a senior Pakistani economist, Dr Akamal Hussain, has said. In defence of bachelors by Inder Mohan Puri TO marry or not to marry was the question troubling my mind while I was walking on the pathless woods beyond Sarovar Marg of the “dream” city, that is, the City Beautiful.

75 Years Ago

Dev Samaj Girls School, Ferozepore
MR Tru Bremner, Assistant Commissioner, Ferozepore, visited the Dev Samaj Girls High School, Ferozepore, and entered the following remarks in the Log Book:

Karamat’s call bodes ill

IT is always easier to deal with a democratically elected government than with a military dictatorship or any other totalitarian regime. Viewed from this angle, the assertion of Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Gen Jehangir Karamat, that the armed forces in that country should be allowed to play an active role even in non-military areas — which means in running the government — is an alarming development for India too. It is obvious that the desire of the military expressed openly to control the administration in Pakistan must have stunned the lovers of democracy in that country. But for India, it is something more than that. There are two specific reasons for this line of thinking. One, the scheduled talks between India and Pakistan for changing the texture of their relations will be rendered meaningless. Two, if yet another spell of army rule becomes a reality in Pakistan, even through a new method, the ISI may get greater vigour and may launch a more destructive campaign in Jammu and Kashmir and other vulnerable parts of India. Such a scenario will demand greater vigil on the part of India’s security network.

The Pakistan Army Chief is apparently sick of the goings-on in Islamabad, and this might have prompted him to express doubts about the efficacy of the political process to tackle his country’s problems. But this kind of reaction can be expected of any member of the armed forces there. What gives the signal of a change in the ruling dispensation is the suggestion of General Karamat that Pakistan should go in for a national security council (NSC), which means the institutionalisation of the role of the defence forces in the running of the government. This can also be interpreted to mean that the Nawaz Sharif government will have to go lock, stock and barrel if it does not accept the NSC idea. No one knows what kind of an NSC the General has in his mind. If he wants the revival of the organisation that died after the formation of the Nawaz Sharif ministry in February, 1997, he will be seen seeking a lesser role. The defunct outfit was a diluted version of the NSC idea of Gen Zia-ul-Haq. Going by General Karamat’s statement, made on October 5 at Pakistan’s Navy War College in Lahore, there is the least possibility of his settling for something which recognises the significance of the democratic process of governance. If he wants the formation of an NSC on the lines of what General Zia had disclosed, that will mean snuffing life out of the nascent democracy in Pakistan. That democratic politics in Pakistan is miles away from getting matured can be understood from the fact that Ms Benazir Bhutto’s PPP, Mr Wali Khan’s ANP, Mr Imran Khan’s Tehrik-e-Insaf and Mr Ejazul Haq (General Zia’s son) of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League have voiced their support for General Karamat’s move to disrupt the growth of the democratic process of governance. The NSC that General Zia wished to set up had a clause giving it the power to suspend the operation of the country’s constitution during a national crisis. One can easily say that such a crisis already exists in Pakistan — the economy being a shambles, total breakdown of law and order and sectarianism threatening to destabilise the entire system. Only the NSC is missing, which may not be far behind. One can draw this conclusion from the nervousness of Mr Nawaz Sharif, who had an emergency meeting with President Mohammed Rafiq Tarar. Someone has rightly said that an army which has tasted political power cannot remain in the barracks forever. That too in Pakistan, where it is welcome by a section of the political class, to settle scores with the ruling group!

Impeachment — stage one

PRESIDENT Clinton is an unusual politician. Even as impeachment clouds gather over Washington, it is business as usual for him. He jets around the country helping his partymen raise funds for the November 3 elections, meets media persons outside the White House to share his troubled thoughts on world economy and tells Finance Ministers from more than 130 countries that the key to early recovery lies with Japan. Not once during these engagements does a line of worry crease his face. He is either totally innocent of the grave charges his tormentor, Mr Kenneth Starr, has levelled against him or a consummate actor and liar. Either way his voters are going to love him for this nonchallant and virtuoso performance, as opinion polls prove again and again. If he goes about his job as the US President for a few more months without showing nervousness or impeachment hearing fatigue, and retains the broad popular support at the present very high level, he would vastly improve his chances of defeating impeachment moves and escaping with a sharp rap on his knuckles. President Clinton and his advisers are working precisely for this miracle, the people of America getting disgusted with the legislators acting out a silly sideshow over an everyday wrongdoing and out of political partisanship. Nothing frightens a politician as much as perceived popular revulsion and nothing immobilises his inquisition as much as mass anger. The Clinton camp expects a definite swing of public opinion even before the November 3 poll or by the end of the month when the hearing in the House judicial committee would be ready for the final vote.

The road to this likely denouement was cleared on Tuesday when the judicial committee formally sought authority from the entire House to frame formal charges against the President. It will first set out the criteria of impeachable offences and test against this the 11 criminal acts made out by Mr Starr. This is sure to be a messy affair, provoking much legal and constitutional squibbling and peppered with high-blown rhetoric. The two-day hearing provided a taste of it. The Republicans argue that the President is a law-breaker apart from being a liar and hence should be shunted out. The Democrats laugh at this and retort that there is no Watergate but a simple extramarital affair. Can a President be hanged for his dalliance with a high-spirited and ambitious young woman, who also happens to be rather dumb? Surely the two sides are not talking to each other but are addressing the people and canvassing support. The televised hearing starting next week will spew out spirited speeches and ceaseless partisan posturing. The world would be condemned to viewing a good chunk of the proceedings without the benefit of a vote. It is going to be a people’s trial in all but form. Will a weird sexual interlude in the Oval Office be seen as a diverting destraction or a dangerous act that answers the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanour”, which alone calls for impeachment?

States of discontent

THE Vajpayee Government’s initiative to create three new states — Vananchal, Chhatisgarh and Uttaranchal — appears to be in danger of being scuttled by the friends and foes of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led coalition. Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav’s volte-face on the creation of Vananchal means that the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha’s demand for a separate State is not likely to be met in the near future. The Chhatisgarh project too has run into difficulties because of political differences over the area to be included in the proposed State. The divergent views of the allies of the BJP on the proposal to include Hardwar and Udham Singh Nagar in Uttaranchal is giving sleepless nights to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. The 26 amendments in the original proposal introduced by the Uttar Pradesh Assembly have only added to the worries of the Centre. Chief Minister Kalyan Singh’s insistence that generation of power and water should remain with UP even after the creation of Uttaranchal suggests that even this project may have to be put on the backburner. During the debate on the Uttaranchal Bill in the UP Assembly, both ruling party and Opposition members put pressure on the Chief Minister to accept their demand for the creation of Purvanchal comprising the economically backward eastern part of the State. The Centre could have spared itself the embarrassment of having to deal with hostile allies and Opposition parties on the question of the creation of three new States had it set up a States Reorganisation Commission to examine the feasibility of creating Vananchal, Chhatisgarh and Uttaranchal and similar demands received from all parts of the country on a regular basis. It is still not too late to undo the damage caused to the image of the BJP-led coalition. Mr Vajpayee should call an all-party meeting to discuss the proposal for the creation of a permanent States Reorganisation Commission.

Enough work can be found for the proposed commission to justify its status as a permanent body. The people of Vidarbha want a separate State, Pondicherry too wants the status of an independent State, and similar demands are being raised by the people of Telengana, the Bodos and the Gorkhas of the Darjeeling region. The political class must recognise that no arrangement can satisfy any class of people forever. However, for the effective functioning of the proposed States Reorganisation Commission the political parties should take a pledge that the award of the commission would be accepted as final. The brief of the proposed commission should include the scrutiny of demands for the creation of new states or integration of the existing ones or redrawing of the existing inter-State boundaries. In fact, the proposed commission should be the last court of appeal for the resolution of all inter-State disputes. It should also have the power to review the state governments’ decisions for the creation of new districts and divisions. Ms Mayawati, as the Chief Minister of UP ordered the creation of new districts and divisions by violating all the prescribed norms. A new State cannot be created without an Act of Parliament and the concurrence of the parent State. Similarly, new districts and divisions should not be allowed to be created without the concurrence of the parent districts and divisions. The proposed commission can play an important role in keeping under control the urge of most Chief Ministers to create new districts, not because they are administratively viable but because their creation helps the Chief Ministers to gain short-term political advantage. The Centre should also realise that if there is a permanent States Reorganisation Commission, the Bodos and the Gorkhas would bring their demand for separate States to it and not indulge in senseless street violence for being seen and heard.

PROJECTING NUCLEAR INDIA-I
US attitude a big hurdle
by Hari Jaisingh

THERE are various aspects of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's visit to New York and Paris which need to be looked into objectively and in totality. The trip was primarily meant for addressing the 53rd annual session of the United Nations General Assembly. This in itself was an important event in the post-Pokhran setting.

The job of putting across India's views at the world forum was, by and large, well handled. Mr Vajpayee spoke passionately about India's commitment to establish "a world free of nuclear weapons" which, he rightly observed, "enhances both global and India's national security". He justified the five underground tests, which were for ensuring "a credible nuclear deterrent for India's national security".

He explained India's self-imposed moratorium on further nuclear explosions and conveyed the country's willingness to move towards "a de jure formalisation" of this. "In announcing a moratorium, India has already accepted the basic obligation of the CTBT," the Prime Minister declared.

This was a positive statement. Still, looking at the lack of understanding and prejudices prevailing elsewhere against this country, the efforts for the dissemination of right information about India have a long way to go. There are wheels within wheels in global diplomacy. This calls for constant vigil and the pursuit of an aggressive but informed diplomacy.

The address to the UN Assembly apart, the second component of Mr Vajpayee's visit was the exchange of views with those leaders who were available and willing to discuss matters of mutual interest. The scope was limited. Mr Vajpayee's interaction was mainly confined to meeting the Foreign Ministers of some friendly countries like Egypt, Zimbabwe, Malaysia and Portugal. He also had an extensive meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu. President Clinton had left New York a day earlier. In any case, a meeting with the US President would have been futile before the conclusion of the dialogue between the Prime Minister's special envoy, Mr Jaswant Singh and the US Assistant Secretary of State, Mr Strobe Talbott.

Contrary to the earlier impressions, the Indo-US dialogue has still a long way to go. Sharp differences persist on the CTBT and related matters of sanctions and technology transfers. More of this later.

It must , however, be said that during Mr Vajpayee's sojourn in New York the US administration maintained a distance. Even a routine courtesy call by any senior official was missing. At play probably was America's diplomacy of arrogance. This was in sharp contrast to the solicitude extended to the PLO leader, Mr Yasser Arafat.

The third component of the trip was Mr Vajpayee's scheduled meeting with the Pakistan Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif. Here everything was pre-planned. Even the joint statement was in circulation before the two Prime Ministers formally met.

Actually, the framework for the resumption of the Indo-Pakistan dialogue had been prepared during the NAM summit at Durban, which Mr Nawaz Sharif could not attend because of domestic compulsions.

The fourth important aspect of the Prime Minister's New York journey was his interaction with the Indian community in the USA. This was the brightest spot of the trip.

Thousands of professional Indians abroad are the country's unofficial ambassadors and they can be depended on during any adverse situation India might face. They look up to the country with which they have deep emotional bonds. A credible Prime Minister invariably becomes a symbol of this bond. During my visits abroad I have noticed that the NRIs lap up any Prime Minister visiting the USA. This should be very satisfying to the visiting dignitary, whether he belongs to the BJP, the Congress, or any other party.

In Mr Vajpayee's case, his communication skill and oratory make him an instant hit. Even otherwise, he has personally proved to be the tallest of all politicians in the country today.

The fifth component of the visit was Mr Vajpayee's presence in Paris. France is a willing supporter of India's overall global strategy. The relationship between the two countries is based on mutual interests. France has clear business sense. It wants to promote commercial, cultural and political ties with India.

France has proper appreciation of India's nuclear blasts. It does not see the world through American eyes. This suits India. In fact, New Delhi needs to diversify its diplomatic efforts and engage itself in talks with a number of important countries, including China, Japan and Britain, keeping in view its priorities and targets.

Whether we admit it or not, the Pokhran blasts initially came as a shock to India's friends. Even some of the country's old friends either developed reservations or did not know how to react to the new situation. This exposed serious gaps in India's diplomacy. This was very much visible during the NAM summit at Durban. By referring to Kashmir President Nelson Mandela did not surely display understanding, though he is a dependable friend otherwise. His critical reference to India's nuclear tests and the Kashmir issue brought out India's vulnerability. The matter has been sorted out since then, but it has left a bitter taste.

For that matter, the annual report of the UN Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, contained some uncomplimentary observations concerning the Kashmir issue. This in itself was a departure from the stance adopted by the UN. Indeed, it must be said that Indian diplomacy never had such a bad time as in recent months. How far Mr Vajpayee's address to the UN Assembly and his presence in New York have made a difference in the attitude of the world community will be difficult to assess straightaway. Only the future will tell us where exactly we stand. There is nothing like an instant diplomatic cure-all in such matters.

On his part, Mr Vajpayee has played his role competently though the drafting of the UN General Assembly address left much to be desired. On the whole, the impact of Mr Vajpayee's address was wholesome in the sense that he delivered his speech in Hindi and quite eloquently.

On the critical issue of CTBT, he said: "India having harmonised its national imperatives and security obligations and desirous of continuing to cooperate with the international community is now engaged in discussions with key interlocutors on a range of issues, including the CTBT. We are prepared to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion, so that the entry into force of the CTBT is not delayed beyond September, 1999. We expect that other countries, as indicated in Article XIV of the CTBT, will adhere to this Treaty without conditions."

It is clear from the above para that India is willing to sign the CTBT though there are several ifs and buts attached to the whole matter. And these ifs and buts will, to a large extent, depend on the attitude the US government adopts towards this country.

It will not be an exaggeration to suggest that the US administration today has somewhat better understanding of India's national imperatives and security concerns than ever before. This is probably due to the on-going dialogue between Mr Jaswant Singh, the Prime Minister's special envoy, and the US Assistant Secretary of State, Mr Strobe Talbott. Success, however, in this area is still limited despite four rounds of talks.

The expectation was that all differences between the USA and India would be sorted out by the time the Prime Minister addressed the UN General Assembly. These expectations have since been belied; experts from the two countries are now to meet later this month followed by yet another round of talks. Much will depend on the outcome of these negotiations. One thing, however, is clear : the USA is not yet ready to link the question of lifting the sanctions with the signing of the CTBT by India.

What will be the nature of the compromise is not yet clear. In any case, Washington is not in a hurry. As it is, President Clinton is tied up domestically with elections and the Monica Lewinsky affair. The USA knows India's ability to withstand the sanctions regime. What it is worried about is the fragile nature of the Pakistani economy. Even India will not be interested in crippling Pakistan's economy to the advantage of Islamic fundamentalist forces.

It must be said that India has successfully brought the question of global nuclear disarmament back into sharp focus. This should put the P-5 nations under pressure. Much will depend on the outcome of the conference on disarmament in Geneva. The message from Mr Vajpayee has been clear. He has said that as a responsible State committed to nuclear non-proliferation, India has undertaken not to transfer these weapons or related knowhow to other countries.

However, one key element in India's negotiations with the USA is the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful applications. This matter is very much a sticking point. The Vajpayee government wants the USA to share its nuclear technology so that nuclear explosions can be avoided. Washington has already done so in the case of China by sharing its simulation technology.

Everything now depends on how effectively New Delhi is able to extract concessions from Washington.

Unfortunately, India had not prepared itself diplomatically before going in for the May 11 and 13 nuclear explosions. We are still paying a heavy price for our inability to communicate to the rest of the world promptly, forcefully and effectively. Our attempts in this regard have, at best, been either lopsided or half-hearted.

The author was in the media party that accompanied the Prime Minister during his recent visit to New York and Paris.

(To be concluded)

Unmaking of a President
by V. Gangadhar

TWENTYFOUR years back, Richard Milhous Nixon resigned as the President of the United States of America to avoid impeachment proceedings. America did not shed many tears, but heaved a sigh of relief. Nixon, both in 1968 and 1972, had been elected with comfortable majorities, and his administration had scored significantly in ending the Vietnam war and recognising the People’s Republic of China.

Nixon would have bowed out with very high ratings. But his character had a fatal flaw. Though he was a political animal and a gut fighter, he could not distinguish right from wrong and was seized with the fear that the entire world was conspiring against him. He had become the President after a long and bitter struggle, and he saw conspiracies where none existed. Nixon did not trust anyone, including his closest aides. Determined not to lose the 1972 re-election, he stooped to criminal activities. But, finally, exposed by the American media, reprimanded by the Supreme Court and deserted by several of his own partymen, he had to resign in ignominy. It was a messy chapter in American history.

The USA is now facing a similar political crisis. President Bill Clinton is fighting a different kind of a battle for survival, but it has nothing to do with his politics or how he ran the administration. Like Nixon, President Clinton had been lying to his people. The American political system has caught him in the act and he has to pay the price.

What kind of price? This issue is being debated all over the world. If Nixon had an excellent track record in international affairs, Clinton’s achievements on the domestic front are quite remarkable. The US economy is booming, plenty of jobs are available, blacks and other minorities feel safer, and women occupy high positions in the government. Clinton has also done his bit in checking nuclear proliferation, and helped to bring about a truce in Ireland, which had been torn by civil war and bloodshed for nearly 30 years.

At the same time, Clinton’s crimes were not a patch on those committed by Nixon who tried to abort the political process of the nation and indulged in outright criminal activities. The Starr report indicated that Clinton did lie and tried to obstruct the normal course of justice. But this had nothing to do with the running of the government or putting down his political opponents. President Clinton knew he had erred in his liaison with a girl old enough to be his daughter, and did not want the affair to become public. Even when the affair was at its peak, his running of the government could not be faulted.

Yet the history of Clinton in public life, even before his White House years, revealed certain basic flaws in his character. These flaws were more linked with his personal life, like romantic affairs with a number of women who worked with him. These happened when he was the Governor of Arkansas and continued after he became the President. During the 1960’s close friends of President John Kennedy and many Washington-based newsmen were aware of the President’s bedding down starlets. Somehow, the media in those days felt that these were “personal” issues which need not be aired in public.

The Starr report is something more than sexual trysts. It showed the President of the USA, running around like a teenager, seeking opportunities to make love to his girlfriend. The affair was conducted inside the Oval Office, its bathroom and other convenient places.

The President could have saved much of this embarrassment if he had acknowledged the affair earlier and apologised to the country. But he chose to lie, denying any sexual impropriety with Monica. Even when the lurid details began coming out, he was stiff and standoffish. But today, all that is changed. On several occasions, in the presence of VIPs and several million TV viewers, the President of the USA is forced to admit his guilt, choke back tears and mumble an apology. It is not a pleasant sight. How long the apology spree will go on is not clear.

As former Chief of Staff Leon Panetta pointed out, “Mr Clinton lied about the sexual relationships. It was clear he misled the country. He needs to cooperate with the Congress, not engage in the tactics he had used in the last seven months.” Such an approach would satisfy his friends-turned-critics like Senator Joseph Lieberman who had described the President’s conduct in the Lewinsky affair as “disgraceful” and “immoral”. The blot on the presidency,however, will not be erased.

In defence of bachelors
by Inder Mohan Puri

TO marry or not to marry was the question troubling my mind while I was walking on the pathless woods beyond Sarovar Marg of the “dream” city, that is, the City Beautiful.

The words of Zsa Zsa Gabor: “A man is incomplete until he is married. After that he is finished” flashed past my mind’s eye, nay, photo-memory’s lane. Before I could snap out of my reverie, a stranger passed by.

By nature, I am an extrovert person and fond of “cultivating” new acquaintance(s). So, I broke the ice: “Hello! How are you? Say, how is the life going on?”

He stunned me with the exposition that before marriage, WIFE stood for a wonderful instrument for enjoyment. But now he was of the view that WIFE meant worries invited forever.

His tirade went on: Wife is a wife called so because of her constant badgering with whys and ifs. The other day he had exchanged some hot words with his wife and she had given him a piece of her mind.

Continuing the onslaught, he said that he was in total control/command but forbade me to tell it to his wife!

To my query as to how things have come to such a pass, he made a candid confession that he had married for the sake of dowry but now he was of the view that he could have borrowed it cheaper. Besides, since he was not afraid of loneliness, he ought not to have married (Chekovian thought, perhaps). Anyway.

Seemingly, he was on H.L. Mencken’s wavelength: “Bachelors know more about women than married men; if they didn’t they would be married too.”

We had the last “laugh” together when he asserted that he didn’t worry about terrorism since he had been married for seven years (no “itch”).

Wishing me “good day”, he went on his way home mumbling that he must “report” early lest he should be “welcomed” by his better half with the pungent words (hydrogen bomb-like). “What the hell! Why did you get late in bringing milk? Were you milking the cow/bull/heifer or buffalo? The offspring are crying hoarse for the “silvery” liquid. “Vecharay mun chuk chuk kay kadon dey dekhdey paey nein, kay bapu kadon aanda ey tay dud leyanda ey. Becharay... Hu(n)! Wham!!” Some idler, chatterbox, “nakamka, wela, badmash...” must have met you on the way. “Khbardar, agay to(n) agar der naal aya tey.”

Turning about, I recapitulated Noel Coward’s (42 years old) words: “I’ve sometimes thought of marrying and then I’ve thought again.”

Pak economist’s agenda for talks
Suggests mechanism to avoid N-accidents
by T.V. Lakshminarayan
Tribune News Service

NEW DELHI: there is need for three-pronged strategy, including taking rapid strides towards economic cooperation, to put relations between India and Pakistan on a healthy footing, a senior Pakistani economist, Dr Akamal Hussain, has said.

Discussions on resolving the Kashmir dispute and evolution of a transparent fail-safe mechanism to prevent accidental firing of nuclear weapons should be the other two points on the agenda of the Indo-Pak talks, Dr Hussain told The Tribune in an interview here.

Dr Hussain, who teaches at the Lahore University of Management Sciences and runs a major poverty alleviation programme called the Punjab Rural Support Programme, said the Indo-Pak talks while dealing with the three issues simultaneously should not link their progress. Progress on each issue could be at a different pace, he added.

He said the nuclear tests by the two countries in May this year marked a watershed in the history of Indo-Pak relations as there was a balance of power now. It was no more in the interest of the two countries to keep the outstanding territorial dispute alive.

Both sides should demonstrate political maturity if they wanted to enter the 21st century as independent states, Dr Hussain said.

He said contrary to the cold war situation, the probability of a nuclear war in this subcontinent was greater than in any other region of the world. He said during the then Soviet-US confrontation, a nuclear hit required around 25 minutes while today it would take only two minutes for a missile to attack. This gave little response time.

The outstanding Kashmir dispute had created a situation where both countries were susceptible to believing disinformation about each other’s military intention.

Thirdly, neither India nor Pakistan had adequate fail-safe mechanism to prevent accidental triggering of nuclear weapons. Dr Hussain said these three inter-related issues must be discussed by the two sides as it was necessary for the very survival of the people in the two countries.

Simultaneously, it was very important for India and Pakistan to take rapid strides towards economic cooperation. The proposal for a South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) must be quickly implemented, he said.

To begin with Dr Hussain suggested that India should implement former Prime Minister I.K. Gujral’s promise to purchase 3000 mw of electricity from Pakistan. If this power purchase agreement came into place, it would not only have substantial benefit for the middle class people of both sides but it would also open a new chapter on matured economic cooperation between the two nuclear-weapon countries.

Dr Hussain pointed out that unlike Pakistan, which exported traditional items like rice and cotton, India’s export basket contained more of manufactured goods. At a time when the world was heading for recession, it was extremely important for India to engage in regional economic cooperation. The proposed SAFTA should help both India and Pakistan and other countries in the region to insulate themselves from the shock-waves of global recession, he added.

“It is in our interest to form a trading block. We can redirect exports to the region itself. It will provide the necessary leverage in economic diplomacy to secure better terms with trading blocks like the European Union, NAFTA and ASEAN” he said.

On Pakistan according India the Most Favoured Nation status, a mandatory requirement under the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Dr Hussain said MFN status would be accorded once the three-pronged talks were successful. Since India had already given MFN status to Pakistan, it was obligatory on the part of Pakistan to reciprocate.

On the impact of sanctions imposed by the USA on India and Pakistan after the May nuclear tests, Dr Hussain said there had been no direct impact as of now but Pakistan had suffered the indirect impact.

As a result of loss of confidence among the investor community, private capital inflows into Pakistan had dried up and foreign exchange reserves had dipped below the critical 500-million-dollar level. Pakistan required around $ 5 billion for debt servicing and with no money in its kitty had approached the International Monetary Fund for rescheduling of loans.

The sanctions also led to the IMF withdrawing a 1.5 billion dollar tranche to Pakistan this year. Dr Hussain said Pakistan was talking to the IMF to get the necessary loans for debt servicing.

Dr Hussain said an efficient trading block in the region with India and Pakistan playing a major role in it could help overcome challenges like sanctions in the future.

He classified poverty as a common problem afflicting the two countries and felt the resolution of border dispute would help Pakistan and India to shift resources from the military to the social sector.

75 YEARS AGO
Dev Samaj Girls School, Ferozepore

MR Tru Bremner, Assistant Commissioner, Ferozepore, visited the Dev Samaj Girls High School, Ferozepore, and entered the following remarks in the Log Book:—

The outstanding features of the school are the practical methods taught here — while hygiene, social and house-hold economy, self-help, sanitation etc, are taught in theory — each subject is put into practice by the girls in the administration of their own school boarding house.

The value of this practical training is self-evident in the cheery, healthy appearance of the girls and the scrupulous cleanliness of the school premises (which are entirely looked after in person by the girls).

The far-reaching effects of such training carried on in after life in their own homes cannot but benefit the community as a whole by such enlightened example in practical, social and moral uplift.

The devotion of several of the mistresses who give their services free and have devoted their lives to the enlightenment of their sisters is beyond all praise.

The general tone of the school, its precepts and training are a matter for congratulation to the manager, the staff and all concerned.