P A G E
Friday, December 24, 1999
spotlighttoday's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Friday, December 24, 1999 |
| weather spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
Mocking
Parliament
A
CASE OF MISPLACED OBSESSION
Sino-Russian
strategic ties |
 |
To
sign or not to sign CTBT ?
Face
to face with apartheid
December 24,
1924 |
||||||||
 |
|
Mocking Parliament PARLIAMENT grants its members iron-clad immunity, but that does not cover ugly behaviour or nasty remarks. That is precisely what some members indulge in, mistaking crude action and uncivilised words for machismo. Even those getting inured to such dismaying spectacles or sounds that bite were in for a shock on Wednesday. An honourable Lok Sabha member threatened to assault a Minister and in the other House an equally honourable member managed to provoke a normally unflappable Shabana Azmi. The rumpus in the lower House was particularly alarming. The MP’s itch to assault erupted after an unbecoming verbal clash between two very senior leaders. Railway Minister Nitish Kumar, otherwise a soft-spoken man, accused Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav of being ignorant of parliamentary procedures. The former UP Chief Minister earned this rebuke for rightly protesting against an incomplete answer to a question raised by a party colleague. His normally short-switch blew up and he warned the Minister not to lecture him on basic norms. His loyal supporters read in this a signal to attack the Samata leader with more than words. One member forgot that inside the House everyone addresses the Chair and does not shoot verbal missiles at others. The other failed to seek relief from, again, the Chair and also gestured to his Samajwadi colleagues to take over. Thanks to this sideshow, the inadequate relief to the flood affected in two UP districts — Pratapgarh and Jaunpur — receded to the background. Who will tell the honourable MPs that they are bound by the mandate to take up the people’s causes and not take on the people sitting in rival benches? The Rajya Sabha was
virtually shut down for the day thanks to a particularly
hurting remark by Shiv Sena member Sanjay Nirupam. He has
not denied the words attributed to him, though a party
colleague did but after blaming an unnamed person as the
provocateur. Deputy Chairperson Najma Heptulla refused
any action on a technical ground. She said the remarks
came during a din when nothing was audible and hence
there was no recording. But the protests came from three
members with impeccable credentials for fairplay. Shabana
Azmi is a cerebral artist and is calm even under
pressure. But on Wednesday she became extremely emotional
and did the most unexpected: she walked over to the
offending Nirupam’s seat to remonstrate against him.
The CPM’s Mr Biplab Dasgupta too joined the demand
for some stringent response from the House as did the
very correct Mr Peter Alphonse of the Tamil Maanila
Congress. The point is that this trio must have been
genuinely upset at something Mr Nirupam said on the
incendiary subject of a Shiv Sena leader’s death in
Rajasthan. And if he speaks as acerbically as he writes
— he edits the Sena’s Hindi eveninger in Mumbai
— it is hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. |
Expedite Ayodhya cases FOR those who refuse to forgive or forget the alleged transgressions of those now holding high public office the month of December invariably brings back unhappy memories of the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and its bloody fallout in Mumbai and elsewhere in the country. They had pinned their hopes, for getting justice, on the findings of the Srikrishna Commission on the post-Ayodhya communal riot in Mumbai. The commission's report was summarily rejected by the then Bharatiya Janata Party-Shiv Sena government in Maharashtra. The victims' only hope of getting justice now rests on the promise of Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh of having a second look at the controversial report. However, it is doubtful whether he would have the political courage to touch a report in which, apart from Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, even some senior Congress men have been made to share the blame for, perhaps, the worst communal carnage in post-Independence Mumbai. The fact that some of those named in the report are now in the NCP of Mr Sharad Pawar, without whose support the government in Maharashtra would fall, may also make Mr Deshmukh develop political insomnia. As far as the sufferers of the Ram Janmabhoomi-related carnage are concerned, they may have to learn to live with the fact that neither the perpetrators of the Mumbai riots nor those who supervised the demolition of Babri Masjid may be punished in the near future. According to an update on the status of the masjid-related criminal cases, in which charges against Mr L. K. Advani, Mr Murli Manohar Joshi, Ms Uma Bharati and 46 others have to be framed, these may drag on for years because of the introduction of the factors which amount to taking unfair advantage of the due process of law. The sessions trial is being postponed for the past two years because a revision petition challenging the trail is pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Although the High Court
granted only a temporary stay, the trail court is
reluctant to proceed with the case, and rightly perhaps,
pending the disposal of the criminal revision petition by
the superior court. Even if the High Court rejects the
revision petition, the wheels of justice may still move
at an excruciatingly slow pace. The sessions court has
fixed February 9, 2000, as the next date of hearing
because the High Court is to hear the revision plea on
January 11. Nevertheless in a case which has assumed
political significance the sessions court is unlikely to
show any great urgency in examining 500 witnesses and
scrutinising 85 kg of documents. Not too much should be
made of the fact that regular hearing in the case is
being deliberately delayed because the main accused, Mr
Advani, is the Union Home Minister. The mosque was
demolished when Mr P. V. Narasimha Rao was Prime
Minister. He did not deem it necessary to set up a
special court at least for disposing of the criminal
cases — there are at least five civil suits pending
since 1950 on the ownership of the disputed site in
Ayodhya — arising out of the demolition of Babri
Masjid [with international television channels showing
the event live brick by brick as it were] within a
specified time-frame. The United Front government had to
fight virtually every day for survival during the two
years it lasted. Since it claimed that its source of
power lay in its commitment to rooting out the forces of
communalism it should have paid special attention to the
expeditious investigation and hearing of the masjid
demolition cases. It is now for Prime Minister Atal
Behari Vajpayee and Mr Advani to decide whether any
political purpose would be served by letting the wheels
of justice remain stuck in the rut of legalities and the
due process of law. Of course, if Mr Advani were to allow
the the jammed wheels the freedom to move faster than
they usually do, he would earn for himself and the party
the goodwill of even his detractors. Just as he had done
when he had resigned from the Lok Sabha after being named
in the hawala scam. |
A CASE OF MISPLACED OBSESSION
KASHMIR has been an obsession with Pakistani leaders. And, ironically, this has been a major cause of their undoing as well. This is a historical fact. A mere look at the rise and fall of both democratic and military regimes in Islamabad will support this point of view. In fact, competitive politics pursued by the various leaders have only helped the military establishment in Islamabad to consolidate its hold over different centres of power. It has also helped Islamic fundamentalist forces to spread their wings in Pakistani society. The Islamic fundamentalist groups could widen their area of influence in critical segments because of the wrong policies and postures of the country's ruling elite. History is not only a great leveller of men, matters and issues but also knows how and when to give the green signal for an impending disaster. The Pakistani rulers have, more often than not, been forewarned about a bloody fallout of their follies. But they never cared to reflect on their wayward policies and misadventures. At the height of his glory Zulfikar Ali Bhutto talked about waging a thousand-year-long war against India. He picked up Gen Zia-ul-Haq as his Man Friday. Since the General was an ambitious person, he did not take long to dethrone his benefactor. Bhutto was hanged on a cooked-up charge and thrown into the dustbin of history. What a way for his thousand-year-long war against this country to end! General Zia, on his part, had his own agenda on Kashmir and beyond. He fomented trouble across the border with his deceptively friendly diplomacy. His game was deep-rooted. Very soon the nemesis caught up with him. He, too, was lost in the horizon. History is repeating itself in Pakistan. General Musharraf was picked up by Mr Nawaz Sharif as the Chief of the Army Staff by dumping three Generals. Mr Sharif, who was till the other day the most powerful democratically elected leader of Pakistan, is now facing a trial under the same legal provisions which the former Prime Minister had adopted to tighten his grip on different power centres. It is a matter of time before Mr Sharif, too, becomes part of Pakistan's bloody history. Or, will there be a last-minute thriller or a miracle? We have to wait and watch. Looking back, Mr Sharif used the Taliban for his geopolitical ambition. But as things turned out,he himself became the victim of the struggle for power between the civilian authorities and the combination of the armed forces and religious militants. The fate that has befallen Mr Sharif should teach a lesson or two to Pakistani leaders. What was his major folly? My one-point answer will be: the Kargil misadventure. I personally believe that Mr Sharif had been playing a double game while extending the hands of friendship to this country. He was directly or indirectly encouraging the forces to grab Kashmir by hook or by crook. I still do not buy the theory propounded by Defence Minister George Fernandes that the deposed Prime Minister had no knowledge of Pakistan's plan to infiltrate across the Line of Control in Kargil. He knew about the operation and gave his tacit approval to General Musharraf. His only flaw was that he did not visualise the implications of such a course. The result of Pakistan's blunder is there for everyone to see. Again, it was Mr Sharif's misadventure in Kashmir that has cost him his coveted crown. It now looks like the turn of the self-appointed Chief Executive of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, to outdo his predecessors and adopt a very tough posture on Kashmir. The other day he made it clear that there would not be lasting peace and stability in South Asia unless the Kashmir issue was resolved. But the moot point is: how does one resolve the issue? The two countries have been talking to each other for the past 50 years or so. But because of intransigent Pakistani rulers, a breakthrough has not been possible so far. The trouble with the General is that he has his set target. He does not seem to understand the nature of political realities in the subcontinent and beyond. His postures and pronouncements underline his total obsession with Kashmir which has made a number of Pakistani leaders pay so dearly. The General needs to constantly remind himself that the militant outfits his army is supporting and financing may one day succeed in Talibanising Pakistan. The Chief Executive is unlikely to be tolerated in that setting. It will indeed be a sad day to see Pakistan going the Afghan way! So, the safe bet for Islamabad is to buy peace with New Delhi. The point is that building of stable ties between the two countries need not revolve around Kashmir alone. Bilateral ties can be built on a number of equally important matters. Harsh realities should have prompted the Chief Executive to offer Pakistan's hand of friendship in critical areas of the economy. Indian and Pakistani economies are complementary to each other. This can, in fact, be the starting point for a confidence-building process between the two countries. Without ensuring a minimum framework for social, cultural and economic cooperation, mutual confidence cannot be generated. If Pakistan is serious about a dialogue and means business, it should publicly give up the obnoxious game of exporting terrorism across the border. Unless Islamabad gives up terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy, meaningful negotiations with Pakistan will not be possible. The message from India is clear and candid—either Pakistan abandons its confrontationist posture or it should be prepared to face the consequences of pursuing its policy of grabbing Kashmir by force. It has not succeeded in its design even after waging three full-fledged wars and shamelessly carrying on the present proxy war. Trans-border terrorism does not pay. It becomes counter-productive if overstretched. In any case, the world is opposed to terrorism. India, the USA and several other civilised powers do not approve of the proxy war which actually affects innocent people. Gruesome and barbaric acts of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism have already received adverse publicity all over the world. The American people are also fully aware of the role of the Pakistan government in the proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir. What is, however, regrettable is that despite better understanding between New Delhi and Washington on this question, the US government refuses to declare Pakistan a terrorism-exporting state. Be that as it may. General Pervez Musharraf has also held out a nuclear threat. He has depicted South Asia as a nuclear flashpoint unless the Kashmir issue is resolved. Even a nuclear bomb will be of no avail to Pakistan. For, India can survive a nuclear exchange, but there will be nothing left of Pakistan. Kargil has also proved that the nuclear bomb cannot be used in ordinary circumstances. It can be used only in an act of hara-kiri. We have to hope that the mullahs and mujahideen have not yet decided to commit suicide! What the General seems to overlook is the fact that Kargil has taught Islamabad a number of lessons. First, it is not possible for Pakistan to use its nuclear bomb to settle the Kashmir question. Second, Pakistan can never gain military parity with India. Three, it is time for the two nations to find ways for peaceful co-existence for the sake of the people in the subcontinent. Adversity is said to bring men nearer to God. It has also the potentiality of bringing them nearer to each other. Looking at the blood-soaked events in the subcontinent, the Pakistani leaders need to do some soul-searching in the name of Allah and, for a change, try out the non-lethal game of peace and mutual cooperation and see the difference for themselves in the next millennium. All they need is a change of heart and a change in their attitudes and perspective. The younger generation
in Pakistan would love to see its leaders talk about a
thousand years of peace instead of a thousand years of
war and hostility with the neighbouring nation. Only
peace can give the people the new socio-economic deal
they richly deserve. Indeed, Kashmir ought not become a
graveyard of Pakistani commonsense. |
Sino-Russian strategic ties RUSSIAN President Boris Yeltsin paid his 30-hour (December 9-10) visit to Beijing in spite of his doctor’s advice not to undertake such a long journey after his latest bout of ill health. His basic objective was to secure Chinese support for Russian military operations in the rebellious province of Chechnya. At the same time he wanted that the two nuclear weapon powers should stand together to challenge the hegemony of the United States of America which is not the only super power but has begun to dictate internal policy of various countries, including Russia. It may be noted that since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia and China have established close economic, military and political relations. At present China is the largest customer for Russia’s ailing defence industries. Both countries were major critics of the US-led NATO military operation in Yugoslavia without sanction from the Security Council. Immediately after arriving in Beijing, Mr Yeltsin rejected President Bill Clinton’s warning over Chechnya that Russia would “pay a heavy price” for its assault on the rebellious province, and that the military offensive would deepen anti-Russian feeling in the region and erode Russia’s standing in the world. In the presence of Chinese leaders, Mr Yeltsin said: “It seems Mr Clinton has forgotten Russia is a great power that possesses a nuclear arsenal”. He declared in no uncertain terms that: “We aren’t afraid at all of Clinton’s anti-Russian position. I want to tell President Clinton that he alone cannot dictate how the world should live, work and play. It is we who will dictate.” There was no report about China publicly supporting Mr Yeltsin’s outburst against Mr Clinton though Chinese President Jiang Zemin reportedly criticised US global dominance. While China has been critical of the US policy of dictating the agenda for resolving various crises and international security issues, it does not wish to spoil its relations with Washington to secure favour of Moscow. Incidentally, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin sought to soften the impact of his boss’s statement. In Moscow, he said the President’s words should not be taken as a sign of worsening of relations with the USA. He rather said Mr Clinton’s criticism of Russia’s actions in Chechnya was well meant and due to “lack of information”. In fact, Moscow cannot afford to alienate Washington because the former needs latter’s support for securing economic assistance from various international funding agencies. As far Chinese support to the Russian offensive against Chechnya is concerned, while the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr Igor Ivanov, declared that the Chinese President fully supported the Chechnya campaign, Beijing reported that Mr Jiang “fully understood and supported” Russia’s need to deal with “terrorism and extremism”. As a matter of fact, Beijing has always been maintaining that Chechnya crisis is an internal matter of Russia and no outside interference should be encouraged. It may be noted that China has its own restive Muslim province of Xinjiang (Sinkiang), Tibet and independent Taiwan. Therefore, it would never welcome any external criticism of its policy on its own sensitive issues. But at the same time it has avoided a frontal attack on the White House’s critical statement on Russian military offensive in Chechnya. Apparently, Beijing is a more clever, intelligent and diplomatic operator than Moscow. China knows that Russia needs China more than it needs the support of Russia in meeting the challenges from external threats against its national interests. In the post-Cold War period, while Russia has been a declining power, China has been an emerging great power. The USA has more economic commitments in China than it has in Russia. Thus the Sino-American economic interdependence is quite substantial than that of Russo-American. At the same time Russia needs Chinese consumer goods for its markets and Chinese purchase for Russian military hardware, which has lost its many clients because of the dissolution of the Soviet-led military alliance of the former communist countries of Europe: the Warsaw Pact. It may be recalled that during his first visit to Beijing in 1992, President Yeltsin offered to sell fighter aircraft to China. Beijing immediately accepted the offer because China was in dire need of modernising its conventional armed forces and it lacked the infrastructure to meet its requirements. Subsequently, Russia sold a license for China to manufacture more fighter aircraft. Apart from the fighter aircraft, China has also purchased a wide range of Russian missiles, submarines and destroyers worth billions of dollars. During the recent visit of Mr Yeltsin to Beijing, Russia has reportedly agreed to deliver another batch of fighter jets to China. In this respect it may be interesting to note that when for the first time Russia decided to sell modern conventional weapons to China, apprehensions were expressed about the use of those weapons against Russia at the time of a crisis. But the Russian leadership dismissed such apprehensions on the ground that Moscow had substantial military might to deter Beijing from taking any military adventure. The major justification for selling weapons to Beijing was to earn badly-needed hard currency which none other than Beijing was in a position to offer. Be that as it may, New Delhi also expressed its concern over growing Moscow-Beijing military relations but Russia assured India that it would not do anything that will jeopardise India’s security interests. In the current international strategic environment, it will be appropriate to discuss the present status of Sino-Russian strategic partnership and the possibility of New Delhi-Moscow-Beijing strategic relations or axis. All the three countries — Russia, China and India — have been opposed to the US attempts to wield global hegemony and have expressed their desire to work with other countries to establish a just multipolar world. However, they have not taken any concrete steps to realise this goal so far. While Russia has still hopes to establish close political and economic relations with the West and reduce military tension with NATO, China does not want to damage its relations with the USA for the sake of establishing a strategic partnership with Russia or India or both. As far as India is concerned, it has not given much importance to trilateral strategic relationship. By and large, New Delhi believes in establishing bilateral relations. In fact, all the three countries wish to establish friendly relations with the USA but they oppose US attempts to wield global hegemony. The declaration of a strategic partnership has no relevance until the partners work together with the objective to meet strategic challenges from any quarters. Such a spirit is missing among New Delhi, Moscow and Beijing. However, New Delhi and Moscow have better understanding in this respect than Beijing and Moscow or New Delhi and Beijing. — INFA (The author is
associated with the Institute for Defence Studies and
Analyses, New Delhi.) |
Face
to face with apartheid THE attack on Suez Canal appeared imminent when the Anchor Line Ship MV Cilicia sailed from Mumbai in early January, 1957. Myself, my wife and two kids were booked for Liverpool in the all first class ship. The ship’s stoppage at Karachi was uneventful and no Indian passport holder was permitted to go ashore but as we neared Aden the news of the first wave of Anglo-French attack on the Suez installations came through and the ship was diverted via Cape Town to complete the remaining part of her sea voyage. This route was much longer and we were excited. But a new experience was in store for us. As our ship sailed off the port of Durban (South Africa) the captain announced that the ship’s propeller was damaged after touching an underwater rock affecting its speed. He added that it would necessitate the docking of ship at the next major port of Cape Town (South Africa) where the required facilities to replace the defective propeller by a spare one held on board, were available for this purpose. A meeting of all prominent passengers was called in the captain’s conference room. The anticipated time in drydock was three days. This entailed that all passengers on arrival in Cape Town would be shifted to selected hotels during the period of the ship’s dry docking. He also revealed that all Indian passport holders will also disembark irrespective of the fact that their passports had been stamped with a notation that “This passport is not valid for entry in the Union of South Africa” due to the strong resentment of the Government of India against the apartheid policy of the then white racial government of South Africa. He also regretfully informed us that as per the arrangements made by the ship’s agents ashore the white spouses would be lodged in hotels classified as white for persons of white race while the rest will be accommodated in black hotels. Dr Mukul Dixit and his British-born white wife, Mrs Jasmine Dixit, were stunned to hear this. This was going to be their first encounter with naked apartheid in action. But there was no alternative and their sudden hopes of touring Cape Town and its suburbs together were dashed. On January 20, 1957, the ship arrived in Cape Town. It was summer time there. Airconditioned taxis were waiting at the jetty. The white spouses, including Mrs Jasmine Dixit, were whisked away to an all-white hotel located about six miles away east of the jetty. The rest, including Dr Mukul Dixit, were taken to an all-black hotel located seven miles west of the jetty. The same degree of segregation was noticed when we went to the general post office or during our visit to the nearby diamond mines as well as vineries. Separate reception counters were earmarked for black and white tourists. Under such an atmosphere of racial hate it was observed that the black hotels catering for black customers were over strict in enforcing the dress rules. We were not allowed to have even breakfast without a jacket and tie in black hotels. In fact, we could not venture out of our rooms without a jacket. On the other hand the white hotels did not bother about such things and white men and women could be seen roaming about in the hotel corridors in tee shirts. The curse of the segregation policy became more severe when all the ship’s passengers were invited for a Shakesperean drama in a prestigious theatre in Cape Town. The white wives and black husbands were made to sit in separate enclosures during the three-hour show. During the interval we were taken to separate refreshment rooms on the basis of the colour of our skins. We felt this treatment choking and breathed a sigh of immense relief when the ship finally sailed for Laspalmas in the Canary Islands off the coast of Morocco on our way to Liverpool. In retrospect, Gandhiji
was quite right when he raised his voice against the
discriminating treatment meted out to him in South Africa
by a railway official who removed him from a first class
compartment earmarked for whites only while he was
holding a valid first class ticket. |
To sign or not to sign CTBT ? SIGN by all means: But before we do so, let us have a White Paper on nuclear disarmament and nuclear control. And let us know what transpired at the nine rounds of talks between Mr Jaswant Singh and Mr Talbott. Now that the world knows what is India’s nuclear doctrine, there should be no secrecy or ambiguity in the position of the Government. Let us have more transparency. For four decades, India fought for nuclear disarmament, and abstained from going nuclear in the hope that the nuclear powers would give up their nuclear ambition. Only the Soviet Union was ready for nuclear disarmament. Not the other four. The USA made noises about nuclear disarmament when it enjoyed a monopoly of nuclear weapons. But once Moscow exploded the atom bomb (1949) and the hydrogen bomb (1954), Washington gave up its feigned posture, largely, it was said, because of verification problems. It opted for “control” measures. Where did this policy of “control” lead to? Although designed to reduce the likelihood of war and its scope, and not to reduce arms, it led to an arms race with disastrous results. Deterrence came to occupy an important position in arms control. Even after the nuclear powers acquired the technical competence to ensure verification, they were reluctant to give up the bomb. The point was: the bomb had become a powerful deterrence against potential aggression, which explains why nuclear disarmament has not taken off seriously. Nuclear deterrence has become a kind of insurance against nuclear adventure. But how many bombs are required to deter an enemy? According to a study done at the time of President Kennedy, only 200 bombs are required. This was enough to blow up the earth several times. But according to one estimate the number of bombs in the hands of all nuclear powers rose to 1,20,000 during the regime of President Reagan! The objective of the Reagan regime was to bleed the Soviet Union white by forcing an arms race on it. The folly of the Brezhnev regime was in accepting the challenge. In spite of the disarmament measures after the Helsinki summit, the two super powers — the USA and Russia — possessed 50,000 bombs in 1993. They still possess enormous stocks of nuclear weapons — over 5000 warheads with each. I do not think they have any intention to reduce them. In May, 1995, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was extended indefinitely. It became clear that the nuclear powers had no plan to give up the nuclear option. This explains why India chose to exercise the nuclear option in the light of Pakistan going nuclear. What provoked the Indian authorities was not the Chinese threat (though that is real), but the blackmail that Pakistan was capable of. It continues to talk of a nuclear war over Kashmir. Naturally, India refused to sign the NPT. After having done so, India could not have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, either. India’s main objections to the CTBT were based on two principles: 1) it is not linked to disarmament, and 2) it is not comprehensive enough. But the situation has changed in the last few months. The Shakti tests of may, 1999, demonstrated India’s nuclear capability. India does not need further tests. It has, therefore, announced a moratorium on further tests. In these circumstances, India should have no objection to signing the CTBT. As for CTBT not being linked to disarmament, the USA has been opposed to nuclear disarmament and it is unlikly to change its stand. So, CTBT could not have been linked to disarmament. India’s final decision, however, must have a consensus. The BJP could have taken into confidence the major political parties before the Shakti tests, or after the tests. But it did not. And it released the Nuclear doctrine document without consulting the Opposition. As a result, the Opposition has interpreted these steps in the light of their party interests. This has given a false impression to the outside world. It could have been avoided. As I said, there is no harm in signing the CTBT. But that is not the end of the story. India has to take into account the evolving situation. And the most serious development is the US decision to violate the 1972 ABM treaty, which prohibits the installation of an anti-missile system. There are more such developments. At the 50th anniversary of the NATO in Washington (April 1999), it announced its new objectives: “to guarantee European security” and uphold democratic values “within and beyond our borders”. In other words, NATO was assuming the role of a world policeman. It was also announced that NATO would keep an “open door” policy with regard to new members. The result was rather dramatic: the attack on Yugoslavia in the name of human rights and inclusion of a number of East European nations in NATO in the face of strong Russian opposition. This is a challenge to the world community and reflects the hegemonic claims of Washington. To these must be added the fact that NATO has not accepted the doctrine of “no first use”. In other words, it wants to be free to use nuclear weapons in a conventional war. Today NATO has overwhelming power in conventional forces and conventional weapons. Yet it is unwilling to accept the no-first-use doctrine. This shows that NATO has come to rely solely on nuclear weapons and it will not give them up under any circumstances. It will be foolish on the part of India in these circumstances if it believes that Washington can be serious about nuclear disarmament. In the immediate post-cold war years, NATO was more realistic. The 1991 strategic concept stated that the fundamental purpose of the nuclear force is “political”. It even said that use of nuclear weapons is a “remote” possibility. Of course, that position has not changed much. But actions belied these assumptions. The attack on Iraq showed that the USA was ready to use its supreme power as the only super power of the world. Although the vast majority of UN members have signed the CTBT, only few have ratified it. Even the USA, Russia and China are yet to ratify the treaty. The US senate is unlikely to pass the ratification without introducing amendments. In short, we do not have a full picture of the CTBT yet. Then there are dissensions within NATO. Germany and France, which saw the devastation of Yugoslavia, are no more for first use of nuclear weapons. And there is a growing opinion in the USA itself among think-tanks and public against the first use doctrine. What is the Indian option in these circumstances? The Government has already announced that it is ready to sign the CTBT. All that it wants is a consensus. Such a consensus will not be wanting once the Government is able to provide all the data that is being demanded. Assuming that a
consensus emerges, signing the CTBT is a simple affair.
But should we ratify it too? On this we must give
considerable thought. India has been sincere by
demonstrating its nuclear restraint. It has announced its
no-first-use policy, minimum deterrence and moratorium on
further tests. We need not rush to ratify the treaty. It
is yet to take its final shape. And it is not going to be
ratified by the US Senate in view of the forthcoming US
presidential election. In any case, till the new
President takes office, nothing is going to happen. There
is no point in rushing with ratification in the meantime.
|
December
24, 1924 THE progress of trade unionism in India is very slow and the labouring class is not exhibiting qualities that make for unity and strength, and without which it cannot influence employers. In Bombay, which is an important industrial area, it is said that the number of members of the existing trade unions is decreasing, subscriptions are not paid regularly and the funds at the disposal of the unions are too small to enable them to work efficiently. Moreover, workers in certain important industries have not taken advantage of the facilities for forming unions. These imperfections are, however, only to be expected at this stage of the country’s progress. Trade unionism in a purely Western form is no unmixed blessing and does not appeal to the working classes who desire to secure what they want by a more simple method, if possible. Their wages are too
small at present to enable them to pay regular
subscriptions to form a union fund to fight out their
case by setting up paid executive agencies. |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pradesh | Jammu & Kashmir | | Chandigarh | Business | Sport | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | E-mail | |
