Exhortations & hard facts
THE Armed Forces have been exhorted by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to maintain constant vigil on the country’s borders. An occasion like a periodic combined conference of military commanders does draw such advice from the Head of the Government and the Defence Minister customarily.

Change of guard in Goa
ANOTHER round of musical chairs has been gone through at Panaji, at the end of which the Congress has had to let go yet another State, a luxury that it can ill afford, particularly at this stage.

REGENERATION OF INDIA
Is PM ready to face new challenges?
by Hari Jaisingh
IS PM ready to face new challenges? One good thing about the Vajpayee government is that it is showing selective promptness in taking decisions on pending political and administrative matters.

Privatising defence production
by Praful Bakshi
WEAPONISATION of mankind is as old as mankind himself. The relationship between arms and humanity became so intense that not only did it become a source of safety for the man but also for tribes, kingdoms and the entire civilisations.

Seattle conference: resist new impositions
By M.S.N. Menon
ARE we threatened by a demographic time bomb? Will there be enough to eat in the next century? Can we eradicate poverty? Will democracy last? Will women gain their rights? These were the questions raised by UNESCO in its report entitled "The World Ahead: Our Future in the Making". It was meant to prepare the world for the 21st century.

Lingua franca
by Usha Bande
I HAVE always been proud (secretly though) of my skill at mastering the intricate nuances of languages. But, pride, they say, "hath a fall", and rightly so. Never had I dreamt that I would have to raise my hands in defeat and exclaim, "Sorry, I don’t understand your language."

75 Years Ago

November 26, 1924
Europeans and Indians
AN observation made by Mahatmaji in the course of an interview deserves more than passing notice. Asked as to what should be the attitude of non-official Europeans in India at the present time, he said:- "In my opinion their way is perfectly clear. So far as I am aware, all India will cooperate with them in discountenancing and putting down anarchical activities.

Exhortations & hard facts

THE Armed Forces have been exhorted by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to maintain constant vigil on the country’s borders. An occasion like a periodic combined conference of military commanders does draw such advice from the Head of the Government and the Defence Minister customarily. The Pakistani occupation of and attacks on the Kargil region this year were nullified as a result of the combined efforts of the Armed Forces. The hackneyed view that mere intelligence failure led to the mischief in the difficult high-altitude belt has been sought to be explained away by the Defence Minister, Mr George Fernandes. "The misadventure in Kargil was not an aberration but part of the chain of events which began in 1947-48". The commanders might have taken the top-level view and the rhetorical extension of the unhistoriographical assessment as words, words, words. The vigil by the sentinels on the border cannot be less than constant and —as Nehru said—eternal. The Prime Minister knows more about the continuing India-Pakistan conflict than the Defence Minister. The former was Mr Morarji Desai’s External Affairs Minister during the dark days of General Zia’s rule. He should, therefore, direct his thinking towards India’s defence weaknesses and over-indulgence in unreciprocated overtures. General Parvez Musharraf was the architect of the Kargil invasion. During the escalation of the conflict, it was proved beyond doubt that unmoved by the busload of Mr Vajpayee’s goodwill, Mr Nawaz Sharif played his war game using General Musharraf, or being used by the present military ruler, in a sleazy manner.

There should be no mythologising of the subcontinental defence realities. Mr Nawaz Sharif was not a lesser India-baiter than General Zia. General Musharraf is no Kemal Ataturk; he is a hardened anti-India military ideologue and strategist. The burgeoning proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir has little scope for escalation. The Badamibaghs and the daily killings throughout the state remind us of the extent of open Pakistani misadventures. Mr Nawaz Sharif does not deserve laudation. In the land, which he made lawless by destroying all democratic institutions, he is a victim of his own acts. General Musharraf is tightening the noose around Mr Nawaz Sharif’s neck and the approver status of his co-accused, the former Director of the Civil Aviation Authority, should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the Zia-Bhutto story. The tunnel discovered in Punjab links explosive points between Pakistan-occupied territory and a terrorism-hit Indian state. When Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was going to be hanged, India’s reaction was thundering silence — or, at best, a feebly expressed belief in the doctrine of non-interference in the neighbour’s internal affairs. Will India, with ominous clouds floating over the mountains, keep silent on the darkness surrounding Mr Nawaz Sharif’s fate or the increasing fetters on his country’s Press put by General Musharraf? The commanders who gathered in New Delhi on Wednesday know their job and their officers and men are perched on Kargil-Dras-Batalik peaks as bravely as their brothers are situated in Siachen. Pakistan has put a heavy financial burden on India by creating a new Siachen. The Home Minister should see if at the end of the "Punjab tunnel" there is any hope of proactive light! There is no choice between Mr Nawaz Sharif and General Musharraf for democratic India. What we need is a firm policy to nip Pakistan’s continuing military adventurism whose bud has almost blossomed.

Change of guard in Goa

ANOTHER round of musical chairs has been gone through at Panaji, at the end of which the Congress has had to let go yet another State, a luxury that it can ill afford, particularly at this stage. The State has fallen in the lap of the Bharatiya Janata Party, although at the cost of the moral posturing that it loves to flaunt. Nearly every participant indulged in a naked dance of vulgar ambition and defection. That is not a trait peculiar to Goa but is rather an all-India phenomenon. The trouble is that today everyone who has become an MLA thinks that becoming a minister is now his divine right, which he has to exercise by hook or by crook. And the taking of the oath as a minister is not the fulfilment of the dream either. Then starts the quest for a better portfolio. That is what the main problem in Goa was, although there is no denying that there were several other reasons too. The new Chief Minister, Mr Francisco Sardinha, was not fibbing when he said that he and his colleagues had revolted against the "single-man authority of Mr Luizinho Faleiro backed by the High Command". The dissension was brewing for long but the leaders in Delhi made light of it. Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s boast that "we will certainly survive in Goa" was perhaps an indication that she was not fully conversant with the gravity of the situation. And before that even Mr Madhavrao Scindia, the Congress general secretary in charge of Goa, did not show too much of far-sightedness in handling the situation. On learning about the split in the party on November 19 evening, he is reported to have instructed Mr Faleiro to expel the five Cabinet Ministers out of the total 11 from the splinter group. At the same time when the Congress tried to engineer a split in the BJP, it was more or less certain that the game was up for it. Ultimately, Mr Faleiro had to resign ahead of the trust vote. This was the second time that he had been ousted as Chief Minister in a year. Defections were his undoing at that time also.

The end result is that Goa now has its fifth government in 16 months. It will be futile to point the accusing finger at any particular person or party. Nearly all of them have lowered their stature in the public eye. No doubt all this has been done elsewhere too but that does not make it any the less ugly. Nor is there any hope that the latest change will improve the situation in any way. There are enough contradictions in the coming together of the breakaway group of the Congress and the BJP to give rise to any hope of stability in the days to come. Nor the "back to the people" call can have any meaning in the light of recent developments.

REGENERATION OF INDIA
Is PM ready to face new challenges?
by Hari Jaisingh

IS PM ready to face new challenges? One good thing about the Vajpayee government is that it is showing selective promptness in taking decisions on pending political and administrative matters. The soundness of such decisions taken, of course, leaves much to be desired. This is mainly because of the fact that he continues to be a prisoner of circumstances he has either created for himself or finds himself in.

There is apparently no fresh thinking in tackling the problems we are faced with. Nor are there any visible signs of a desire to break free of shackles and come out of the hackneyed and outdated thinking process. Perhaps, Mr Vajpayee prefers a safer course in the politics of survival and this is understandable in the country's complex polity.

Not that there is any threat to his position. He has grown taller by a few inches after the last elections. This has provided him a golden opportunity to set the country on a new path of development keeping in view the challenges of the next century.

More than anything else, India needs persons with a vision. The advantage of Mr Vajpayee is that he has emerged as an elder statesman. He is no longer seen as a mere BJP leader. Today he is the tallest national leader. This is both his strength and weakness. Strength because he has a level-playing political field; weakness because he cannot cross the saffron rekha too frequently lest his detractors within the Sangh Parivar should pounce on him. So, he has to tread cautiously.

I am not sure whether Mr Vajpayee is aware of the larger role the people expect him to play—beyond narrow party considerations. Of course, he has been rightly emphasising the need for evolving a consensus on vital national issues. But then consensus is a two-way street. It cannot be built selectively and in isolation. It is a painstaking process which requires an open mind and an honest and objective dialogue with persons holding different views. This is quite a task in today's politics.

The Prime Minister can play an effective role in critical areas if he is ably assisted by persons of proven ability and intellectual calibre. He has undoubtedly gathered around himself a few committed persons. But he does not have the advantage of persons who see national issues in broad national perspective, and not through narrow party angularities. Perhaps, Mr Vajpayee has not yet carved out the sort of role he ought to be playing as a national leader.

History is not a record of rhetoric. Nor does it look kindly at those who do not turn opportunities to their advantage. History judges persons and events sharply and mercilessly.

The people wish to see a new beginning in the nation's life. But this cannot be brought about by giving sermons on the first or the second generation of reforms.

More than the multinational-oriented reform process, the country needs basic reforms from the grassroots upward as well as a change in the attitude of the ruling elite. It is equally necessary to drastically change the colonial rules and regulations which have ceased to have any relevance. As for basic reforms, they have to be in tune with the common man's needs.

Also, certain crucial changes have to be initiated in the financial and administrative regime bearing in mind the magnitude of poverty and social deprivation. Indeed, at the present critical juncture, the ruling elite must not lose sight of the nature of challenges facing the nation. The real meaning of development must include all tasks aimed at tackling the problems of poverty and unemployment and ensuring social and economic equality. Economic populism cannot take us anywhere. The tendency to treat the poor as donkeys before whom carrots are dangled is self-destructive.

How do we create a new society and a new socio-economic order inspired by equality and motivated by cooperation and a search for consensus?

First of all, we have to learn "to weigh" every person not on the basis of caste, religion or creed but his being an Indian whether living in Punjab, Kashmir or the far-off Andamans and Nicobar and Kerala.

Second, it is equally necessary that we understand the reality which we wish to change and the problems we want to overcome.

Third, it is imperative to properly grasp the ethos of the Indian nation and its traditional strengths and weaknesses. The past has to be blended with the present needs and future projections. Otherwise, we will not be able to take things forward to the desired goals and objectives.

Fourth, it is also important to objectively analyse global realities so that we are able to evolve a right response system.

Knowledge is a powerful instrument of change. And knowledge comes from "increasing questioning" and not from conventional wisdom and narrow ideological lines. The Prime Minister has not been able to create the impression that he has really begun to look beyond the 20th century with the sole objective of building an economically stronger India in the 21st century.

Are we ready for the challenges ahead? Not yet. What to talk of bigger things, we seem to falter even in handling routine matters like appointing Governors. There was no method in the recent selections. Decisions are either political or ad hoc or of accommodating those who are required to be rehabilitated politically or otherwise.

Apparently, the government is following the pattern set by past Congress regimes. This brings us to the crucial question whether the present government is different from its predecessors. Nothing much can be said in its favour on this count. For all practical purposes, it is following the same beaten track.

Of course, there is no dearth of high-sounding declarations. Lofty ideas and public declarations, however, can hardly help to usher in the changes and improve the system. For this, we need a clarity of thought and a strong political will. The moot point is: do the persons at the helm understand the basic needs of the people?

Equally crucial is the question of evolving a national consensus in critical areas which have a direct bearing on the lives of the people. In his high-sounding speech at the FICCI annual conference in Delhi the other day, Union Home Minister L.K. Advani promised to initiate far-reaching reforms in the administration, the judiciary and the internal security system to evolve an effective state which could be an inspiring instrument of change in the economic sphere, leading to rapid social development.

I am not sure what exactly Mr Advani means by an "effective state". The people of India will be happier to see an efficient state which is both accountable and responsive to their needs. The people do not want an interventionist state. They would like the state to create a proper infrastructure for the development and safety of all sections of society.

In fact, the curse of the nation has been over-governance—that too in unproductive areas. The other day, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh cited the example of the failure of the Adult Education Programme run by layers and layers of the supervisory staff. Indeed, several developmental programmes have failed miserably because of over-bureaucratisation of the system.

Union Minister for Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation Jagmohan pointed out recently that one of the biggest failures of the post-1947 India has been its inability to "evolve and inspire an ideology of work and to infuse the institutions of governance and public services with that spirit." The consequences of this were not only casualness and colossal corruption in public life but also an ever-increasing incapacity of the country to cope up with the manifold challenges that have already arisen and many more that are bound to emerge in a still more complex form.

It is worth quoting him: "The evils of bureaucratic sprawl, bureaucratic imperialism and bureaucratic casualness have been increasing. Of the 43 lakh civilians on the rolls of the Central Government, only a few are engaged in creative and constructive work."

What is disturbing is that our bureaucracy has been promoting and feeding upon what the late P. N. Haksar once called "a culture of dominance and dependence". Delusions of grandeur and benevolent maa-bapism pervade the corridors of power and the citadels of the bureaucracy. And there are no signs of any visible change in the attitudes and the style of governance of the new rulers. "They (bureaucrats) are wrong if they believe that their benevolence and patronage are necessary for modernising the country", the great thinker-cum administrator observed.

Just turn this country into a land of opportunities sans redtapism and unnecessary control mechanism. What modernisation requires is a more functional view, in which "the real agents of change are the producers and innovators, with the political gurus and bureaucrats playing at best a facilitating role."

But can we rationalise the system of governance? Can we cut down red-tapism? A UNDP report has rated India as one of the least well-governed countries. A number of studies suggest that we are also highly corrupt.

The tryst with destiny still eludes us. Why? I have a very simple answer to this: mental sloth, moral cowardice and opportunism marketed as a new political wisdom in the country's coalition bazaar. Repackaging old hackneyed ideas can hardly help us in fighting new challenges for the regeneration of Bharat that is India. We need the right kind of bold decisions which must be implemented efficiently and within a set timeframe.

Privatising defence production
by Praful Bakshi

WEAPONISATION of mankind is as old as mankind himself. The relationship between arms and humanity became so intense that not only did it become a source of safety for the man but also for tribes, kingdoms and the entire civilisations.

No other procurement is so heavy on the state exchequer as the procurement for defence, and no other industry is such revenue generating as the defence industry. Thus, rightly so, it requires deep thinking at all levels covering the economy, local industrial capabilities, foreign relations and the overall standing of a nation to come to an acceptable decision.

The prime factor is to identify and quantify the need. Top professional thinkers and planners in the field, after evaluating and studying the project, formulate the qualitative requirements (QR) for the system. The team is also fully aware of economic and political factors though it may be beyond its mandate at that particular juncture.

The recent denial of technologies by American Lockheed Martin and Israel for the Indian LCA and other projects is still fresh in our minds. Or take the case of Pakistan. The USA denied it the supply of F-16s even after accepting hard cash, because of political hurdles. Or the classic case of India. When it wanted the F-104 from America in the early sixties the plane was not only denied it, but also the same was supplied to Pakistan. India had to go in for its second choice, the MiG-21s, and faced criticism, but has not regretted the decision.

Very often, under foreign influence, a government may force the Service Hqrs, to change the QRs to accommodate the new suggestion, making a mockery of the initial study and the QRs. In yet another case the government may decide to procure the equipment from the national market, instead of the suggested foreign supply, as was the case with night-vision devices required by the BSF. The last 50 years have seen the Indian defence spread its reach into a number of fields and disciplines. The ordnance factories produce small arms and ammunition, other field devices as compasses and binoculars and even mines. The defence public sector undertakings have achieved remarkable success in the field of missiles and shipbuilding with close to 60 ships manufactured till date, including two subs. Main battle tank Arjun, though behind time, is yet to come to the Army’s expectations.

HAL and the aviation complex have had some history of indigenous production and licence building of trainers, transport and fighter aircraft, like the HT-2 Kiran, Avro and the HF-24, and licence producing the MiG-21, MiG-27 and the Jaguar. The LCA as mentioned earlier is way behind schedule due to a host of reasons. Though the defence industry has spread its reach in so many spheres, it has yet to achieve self-sufficiency in any single discipline due to faulty calculations and planning, wrong decisions owing to a lack of understanding of military matters, compounded by a lack of guidance from any sort of defence doctrine or guiding principles. The famous case of HF-24, which really did India proud by having one of the finest airframes in the world, needed an engine to match till its last day.

The final tragedy of this aircraft was that the decision-makers decommissioned the entire fleet overnight, with a number of aircraft having flown for only 6 to 10 hrs, with years of engine and airframe life left in them. This happened primarily because India wanted to procure new fighters without increasing the total squadron strength of the IAF, hence the decommissioning of an equal number of fighter squadrons. This is an unparalleled example of faulty planning and decision-making in the history of military aviation, primarily due to the lack of a supporting doctrine.

It is without doubt that for procurement from foreign sources, it is a near impossible task to arrange for the finances. Yet there can be a number of viable options, which, along with a balanced political approach, can achieve the desired results. Let us for a while observe our worthy neighbour, China. When India went for the MiG-21s in 1963, China too went for this aircraft around the same time.

China, with its aggressive policy in achieving self-sufficiency in the field of defence, not only licence-produced foreign equipment but also carried out reverse engineering to make entirely new ones. It subsequently jointly produced with Pakistan and Korea, and also exported these equipment to a host of other countries. This way China has not only been able to finance its defence requirements but is also in a strong position to finance its R&D.

India, with licence-produced aircraft, failed to find a suitable market for its wares. With its massive aviation complex, India should plan out joint manufacture and development of these aircraft and the much needed AJT. If Russia has suggested to us the MiG-AT as the AJT, and we decide to go ahead with it, then we should put our best professional minds together to study the viability of the scheme, including the joint manufacture, keeping in view our strategic and economic interests.

While on the topic of procurement, one must realise that most of the countries like Israel, China and South Africa as also the super power now go in for upgradation and re-modification of the older weapon systems and platforms. This results in getting as good as a new system for the next 10 to 15 years at one-third of the cost. India too is in a position to put its massive manufacturing and R&D infrastructure in operation. It can become the springboard in this field for other developing countries of the region.

As mooted about three years back, if some suitable incentive is provided in the field of defence to private industries, we would build a strong base for future self-sufficiency. This suggestion has been strongly supported by the three Service Chiefs, the Ordnance Factory board and the defence PSUs. Encouragingly, the MoD has taken some positive steps in this direction, and the Confederation of Indian Industries has been asked to form six task forces to identify specific partnership areas with at least seven DRDO labs, developing dual-use technologies, bio-technologies and software products. This will not only enable India to counter the political sanctions imposed on it from time to time but also evolve long-term procedures for cooperation between the DRDO and private industrial units.

According to the Defence Minister, Mr George Fernandes, privatisation would not only lead to the upgradation of the old DRDO machinery but also enable India to substantially increase its export earnings. The DRDO’s chief, Mr Abdul Kalam, feels that this private sector involvement in the defence sector would increase and guide India towards its target of 70 per cent self-sufficiency in military hardware by the year 2005.

All this calls for a complete overhaul in our thinking and planning in the field of defence procurement. To make the recently introduced defence export department operate optimally, the private sector should be helped wholeheartedly. However, before all this it has to be ascertained that our country has a well-defined defence policy and security doctrine, so that all decisions, including the procurement ones, are taken correctly in a transparent manner by the right professionals, to achieve right results. Had this been done in the early 1950s, India like China would have been riding the crest of self-reliance, with no danger of jeopardising its security at the hands of other countries. — ADNI

The author is a retired Wing Commander.

Lingua franca
by Usha Bande

I HAVE always been proud (secretly though) of my skill at mastering the intricate nuances of languages. But, pride, they say, "hath a fall", and rightly so. Never had I dreamt that I would have to raise my hands in defeat and exclaim, "Sorry, I don’t understand your language."

It all started when my little nephew "advised" me to watch WWF on the TV. "It’s fantastic," he said. Since we both share a passion for the wildlife programmes, I was elated. It must be some good stuff sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund of the UN, I thought. Being well-versed in abbreviations, I knew what WWF stood for. However, I was bewildered by the vulgar display of violence and brutality on the screen and almost shouted, "Where is WWF?" "What’s this, then?" my nephew counter-questioned, puzzled. "I thought, it would be wildlife," I ventured. He giggled, almost awestruck at my ignorance. I realised then that my knowledge was dated. I failed in my language test. Who says WWF should stand for World Wildlife Fund? After all, language changes and with passage of time our concepts should also change.

Next came my computer-graduate niece with her bio-data to be browsed through for possible correction or suggestion. My attention was immediately caught by the column "Languages known."

"What’s this?" I growled.

"The languages I know," said Meenu.

"Yes! But what is this C++? You should have mentioned the languages — Hindi, English etc. Don’t use symbols in bio-data. It’s wrong."

I spotted a faint smile in Meenu’s young bright eyes. Then she took upon herself to educate me. It was something to do with computer language and I stood looking at her wide eyed, open-mouthed, almost like a nincompoop.

Next she started prattling something about "Oracle". The word attracted me and not willing to let the opportunity to repair my lost self-esteem slip by I immediately pounced on the word.

"Oh, Oracles? They were the medium of divine revelation. They were revered figures in ancient Greece," I blurted out, bringing my bulky, old, overused dictionary. Meenu just set it aside and continued her harangue on how "Windows-95" became obsolete with the installation of "Windows-98." Now, all those of my generation will agree that after all, a window is a window and it does not lose it’s utility (or charm, should we say) so long as the house stands firm on it’s foundation. Those steeped in Hindi language and literature would vouchsafe the typical nuance of "Jharokha." Even the numerous windows of the famous "Hava Mahal" of Jaipur hold their charm after centuries.

Words like "Web", "Inter" "Net", "Cyber", "Space" and so on are not new to us. Web is a cobweb or may be the one woven by "Tennyson’s Lady of Shalott". A "net" is a "hair-net" or may be, fishing net. Wasn’t it Jesus who, on seeing two brothers casting there nets into the sea said unto them, "Come, I will make you fishers of men," and thus initiated them as his disciples? There is really something "fishy" about all this rapid change of meanings, connotations and denotations of the English language.

I do not understand the jigsaw puzzle of the youngsters with their "hardware" "software" concepts. For me, something soft should be like silk, or a tender word, or a soft look. How can a computer made of durable plastic be "soft"?

Probably, I am "soft" in the head. Or maybe, we the pre-computer era generation have suddenly become language-illiterate.

Seattle conference: resist new impositions
By M.S.N. Menon

ARE we threatened by a demographic time bomb? Will there be enough to eat in the next century? Can we eradicate poverty? Will democracy last? Will women gain their rights?

These were the questions raised by UNESCO in its report entitled "The World Ahead: Our Future in the Making". It was meant to prepare the world for the 21st century.

None of these questions will be raised at Seattle at the WTO conference. Its main agenda is: how to make WTO an effective instrument like the IMF to serve the cause of the rich. And how to exact new concessions from the poorer countries.

Frederico Mayor, Director of UNESCO, says: "we must create an ethical society." It is difficult to associate the WTO with such an objective.

Of late, there is talk of the need for "coherence" in the objectives of multilateral economic associations. In other words, they must not pursue contradictory objectives. I agree. But why not "coherence" in the objectives of WTO with that of UNESCO, UNICEF, UNIDO, UNCTAD and so on? For that matter, why can’t we have coherence among all the UN multilateral organisations? That would be laying a sound foundation for the 21st century.

Today, more than half the humanity lives below the poverty line, who is to be blamed for this? There can be no second thought on this. The world economy is controlled by the rich. They determine the model and dictate the rules. The poor have no say — not even on how they should get out of their poverty. So, if half the humanity goes to sleep hungry, it is the rich who are responsible for it.

Throughout the postwar years, the USA has used its vast credits to purchase markets and raw materials through its aid programme. If some other nations also came to benefit from this opening of the closed markets, it was only by the way. It was never the US objective.

But all good things must come to an end. The US dominance had to decline. That began when the European nations and Japan were able to offer aid to promote exports. In the process, they cut into US trade.

How did the USA react? It said: hell with free trade, what is important is reciprocity. Today, free trade is dead. Instead, we are supposed to have reciprocity. How does reciprocity work in practice? It still works against the interests of the poorer nations. US goods are still not competitive, which explains why the USA pioneered the creation of WTO, a trade organisation which can enforce its rules.

The WTO was created to give arbitrary powers to the rich, above all to the USA. The major benefits of the WTO rules have gone to the rich nations. The WTO has opened up the world economy in areas which are of immediate benefit to the rich nations. Where the benefits went to the developing countries, the progress was rather slow.

The WTO has also been insensitive to various non-tariff measures imposed by the rich nations to block the market access of poor countries to the markets of the rich. The WTO is also indifferent to the pressures that the rich adopt against the poor countries. For example, both the USA and EU countries resort to anti-dumping duties. India has been one of the worst to suffer.

No wonder, the developing countries have lost whatever faith they had in the WTO, which explains why they resist a new round of negotiations demanded by the rich, for they know that they will be the losers.

The rich have many other advantages. They can enforce their will on the smaller nations. This is more so, when the small nations seek entry into economic associations dominated by the rich. By the way, these regional alliances have been used to effectively break the unity of the poorer countries. Today, most of the poorer countries are part of the major trade associations. That seals their freedom even to criticise.

The rich are expected to bring up what is called the "millennium round" at Seattle. The EU is a firm supporter of it. The idea is to get new terms favourable to the rich nations incorporated into the WTO rules. The US is also for new negotiations. But the US Congress has already warned that it would not ratify any new concessions made to the developing countries.

India opposes new negotiations on the ground that the earlier agreement has not been implemented. It wants these carried out before new items are added. But it is true that India cannot block further negotiations. It is not a powerful global economic actor. In these circumstances, if the rich are able to carry the day in the face of India’s opposition, India will be isolated. This will in no way help India. It is better for India to move along with others.

Globalisation has been only partial. It has been carried out in areas, which suit the rich. It seeks to integrate the markets of commodities, services and capital, but not of labour. There is no free play of market forces in the case of labour. Why? Because of old prejudices.

There are other reasons: the desire on the part of the rich to preserve their high standards of living. Racial prejudice and pressures from local trade unions have also prevented free movement of labour. It is feared that free movement of labour will deprive the natives of their jobs. But the UNDP report has denied only significant impact.

In theory, free trade in products should have brought about equalisation of prices of products and factors. In practice, factor prices have not tended to equalise. They remain widely different. This should be a cause for concern to the WTO.

Freer mobility of capital became an article of faith with free market economies until the Asian crisis, which has forced some rethinking. But the damage has been done. Will WTO give some thought to this subject?

Regional pacts are not a blessing always. The growth of regional pacts has created discrimination in the matter of tariffs. For example, these new pacts expect free access to the USA, and there are lobbies in the USA which are sympathetic to such demands. This goes against the interest of other developing countries, which have to pay tariffs. Only WTO rules can help in these cases. These rules say that any concession offered to one member must be offered to all. But WTO makes exceptions in most cases. Thus, India’s export prospects have steadily declined.

It is against these facts that we should judge the Seattle demand for new concessions from the developing countries. These are designed to reduce the cost advantage of developing countries. If new concessions are given, the rich will have a permanent advantage over the poor.

As a practical measure, the USA is perhaps going to ask for the creation of working groups on labour standards. Once this is accepted, further steps will follow.

The Singapore meeting of the WTO was categorical that linkages of labour standard and environment to trade is a "misuse" for projectionist purposes. There is no reason to change that stand.

The poor have one advantage: they have inexhaustible patience. They should not give in to pressures. If they stand firm at Seattle, the rich will see reason.

75 YEARS AGO

November 26, 1924
Europeans and Indians

AN observation made by Mahatmaji in the course of an interview deserves more than passing notice. Asked as to what should be the attitude of non-official Europeans in India at the present time, he said:- "In my opinion their way is perfectly clear. So far as I am aware, all India will cooperate with them in discountenancing and putting down anarchical activities. But they are expected to appreciate the Indian standpoint and Indian aspirations and make common cause with Indians in resisting the arbitrary use of authority and co-operate with them in their attempt to vindicate their right to freedom".

This is an admirable summing up of the whole position so far as this particular problem is concerned. So long as Europeans in India continue to co-operate with the bureaucracy in the maintenance of law and order without at the same time co-operating with the people both in ensuring that freedom which is the chief security for order and resisting that arbitrary use of authority which is opposed to the true spirit of law as anarchy itself, so long the breach between them and Indians will remain and perhaps only grow wider and wider.