E D I T O R I A L   P A G E

EDITORIALS

A “hat-trick” of states
THE seeds of the three new states, about to be born, were sown more than a decade ago. However, even "political seeds" need the blessings of a good "monsoon" for them to germinate. The current monsoon session of the Lok Sabha has at last brought the much needed "political rain", which may help Chhattisgarh, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand grow into healthy and prosperous states of the Indian Union.

FRANKLY SPEAKING

OPINION

Improving slums is cost-effective
by Bharat Dogra
AFTER a lot of experience of eviction and relocation of slums, several officials and government experts have reached the conclusion that in most situations it is much more sensible and cost-effective to improve a slum instead of demolishing it.

Russia-China military cooperation
Should it bother India ?
By M.S.N. Menon
NO, but read on. Military cooperation between Russia and China has always been a matter of some concern to India. More so, today, when there is a “strategic partnership” between the two. What is the nature of this relationship? The Russians dislike the Chinese and the Chinese are no less hostile to the Russians. The Russian people have always treated China as a “potential enemy”. Their relation is, therefore, not natural.

SPIRITUAL NUGGETS

BJP’s chief choice

THE BJP will have a dalit, Mr Bangaru Laxman, as president, and pretend that his caste has nothing to do with its choice. And it will hope that the people of this caste-ridden country will believe its claim. It is like Home Minister Advani’s claim in 1997 that he was happy that the country was electing a dalit as Speaker in the golden jubilee year of Independence, while the fact was that the Telugu Desam Party selected Mr Balayogi and the BJP stumbled on his social origin just before he filed his nomination at the very last minute. The party is also simultaneously plugging the line that he is from the South and fluent in Hindi as his essential qualifications. It is as though his heart beats for one part of India and the head thinks for the other part. From the way the BJP is projecting his image, he is the most suitable man for the job and scores heavily over other contenders. If it is indeed so, why was he not the first choice and why were two other South Indian names — those of Mr Jana Krishnamurthy and Mr Venkaiah Naidu — doing the rounds until Mr Laxman emerged as the dark horse? Even a political dimwit would vouchsafe that caste is the most important factor in elections and despite the BJP’s strenuous denial, it practises this brand of politics with as much enthusiasm as any other. The elevation of Mr Om Prakash Singh as party chief in UP, the rejection of Mr Rajnath Singh as the state Chief Minister and giving up its claim to the top job in Bihar and rushing Mr Nitish Kumar to Patna are all caste-driven decisions. Mr Naidu may lambast Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav as a casteist but the Bihar leader can hurl back the same charge with equal justification. Not many believed that the saffron party could raise the above caste calculation even a few years back when its internal wrangles remained strictly internal and not public knowledge as now. It gathered strength in those states where the Congress was in the fast lane to irrelevance or where it was the only opposition party. In other words, it simply took over the anti-Congress votes. Now anti-Congressism has lost its sting and politics runs on caste, the natural faultline in Indian society. The BJP’s dilemma is that it is a late entrant to this game and finds little left to capture.

Mr Laxman’s unanimous selection also brings out another growing weakness of the BJP. Its leadership consists of Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mr L.K.Advani and no one else. Even Mr Thakre belongs to the second rung. For some years now, it has brought a few youngish RSS pracharaks and is trying to groom them. The experiment is not an unqualified success and men like Mr K.N.Govindacharya and Mr Narendra Modi continue to work in the RSS style of semi-secret society. A close look at the list of its state-level leaders reveals that not many have charisma, nor any appeal beyond the party or state. The BJP wins elections because of the RSS cadre and very recently because of Mr Vajpayee. It is another virtue it has absorbed from the Congress. All this is doubly true of Mr Laxman. He is not known outside his party in Andhra Pradesh and outside the BJP Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Morcha at the national level. In the South dalit politics is inert inasmuch as dalits have long been coopted into regional parties. That is why the new president’s vote-gathering or base-expanding capacity is very limited. In the North, anchal politics is equally important and it will restrict his role. The BJP’s shortcut will not be of much help. At the Nagpur session later this month, the party should devote much time and energy on the issue of the narrow base of its leadership. 

A “hat-trick” of states

THE seeds of the three new states, about to be born, were sown more than a decade ago. However, even "political seeds" need the blessings of a good "monsoon" for them to germinate. The current monsoon session of the Lok Sabha has at last brought the much needed "political rain", which may help Chhattisgarh, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand grow into healthy and prosperous states of the Indian Union. In a manner of speaking, the Lok Sabha can claim to have performed a hat-trick of sorts by ensuring the passage of the Bills for the creation of the new states on three consecutive days with the minimum of fuss. A birth without the usual labour pain is rare. The discordant noises made by some members of the ruling National Democratic Alliance and minor parties in the Opposition should be seen as signs of the births being normal. The Rashtriya Janata Dal went through the motion of opposing the introduction of the Bihar Reorganisation Bill, with half-hearted support from the CPM and the Samata Party. The Biju Janata Dal caused a minor flutter by demanding that Saraikela Kharsuan should be "returned" to Orissa before the creation of the proposed Jharkhand region. The dispute over the status of the "Oriya territory" in due course may begin to look like the one between Haryana and Punjab over Abohar and Fazilka. In the case of Chhattisgarh both the principal parties, the Congress and the BJP, are on the same side. They are currently engaged in a war of political words with both claiming credit for the creation of the new state. The Akali Dal made the expected gestures over the gifting of the Sikh-dominated Udham Singh Nagar to the proposed state of Uttaranchal. The Loktantrik Congress, an ally of the Bharatiya Janata Party in Uttar Pradesh, too made similar gestures over the inclusion of Hardwar in the second hill state, after Himachal Pradesh, of the region.

For the BJP the support to the creation of Uttaranchal is a calculated gamble. Given its hold on the districts which would form part of the new hill state, the saffron party should have no problem in romping home with an impressive margin in the first assembly elections. However, the loss of what in any case is saffron territory would create problems for it in U.P. where it is already on the backfoot ever since Mr Kalyan Singh raised the banner of revolt against Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. The creation of Uttaranchal has something to do with the creation of Himachal Pradesh. It became an independent entity in the sixties along with the creation of Haryana out of the non-Punjabi speaking areas of Punjab. Those who first raised the demand for Uttaranchal had the Himachal model in mind. However, Himachal was fortunate to have Dr Y. S. Parmar as its first Chief Minister. A building can survive faulty architecture if its foundations are strong. But a building raised on faulty foundations needs constant repair for remaining intact. No one can take away from Dr Parmar the credit for being the architect of Himachal. Similarly, in spite of his many shortcomings, Mr Bansi Lal's contribution to the growth of Haryana cannot be ignored. And it is not just Uttaranchal, but Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand too, which may need architects of the calibre of Dr Parmar for laying sound foundations of the new states. Well begun is half done. The phenomenal growth of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh after attaining statehood has given strength to the theory that smaller states are administratively more manageable than big states. However, manageability should not be the sole criterion for determining the size of a state. Without an efficient manager even the most manageable task becomes unmanageable. Goa is an easily manageable state, but it has yet to find a political leader who can help it realise its full potential. The story of Pondicherry, a "city-state", is no different. Endemic political instability has retarded their growth. Only time will tell whether the proposed states are able to discover the political leadership which Haryana and Himachal Pradesh were fortunate to have in their formative years. If that does not happen, the cure for the economic backwardness of large states like Bihar, U.P. and Madhya Pradesh may prove to be worse than the disease.

Enter Hizbul Mujahideen 
Politics of talks and the gun
by Hari Jaisingh

THE Central leadership is once again caught on the wrong foot in blood-soaked Kashmir. Nothing surprising about this. For, if Kashmir has become a bloody problem today, it is because the authorities have chosen to live in a make-believe world.

Instead of setting the pace for “events” as desired, the persons at the helm move half-heartedly and selectively, not knowing what is in order and what is not.

I am not questioning the Centre’s basic decision to explore the various avenues for peace in Kashmir, including the idea of having a dialogue with the Hizbul Mujahideen. But before responding to the Hizb leadership’s ceasefire-cum-talks offer, did the Centre critically and objectively examine its implications? Also, did the Central leadership properly care to find out why this Pakistan-based militant group has suddenly decided to hold out an olive branch to New Delhi? What could be its motivations? Is the Hizb leadership united in its “peace” move?

How about the ISI? Will the various groups of foreign mercenaries relish this? Won’t they try to sabotage the whole process at the prompting of the Pakistani authorities? In any case, duplicity is very much part of Islamabad’s diplomacy. The Prime Minister does not seem to have learnt much from his Lahore bus yatra and the Kargil episode.

Increased violence was very much in the air after the Hizb announcement. Did the Indian authorities take extra measures to provide a foolproof protective shield to the Amarnath pilgrims and mount special vigilance at strategic points?

The militants strike at will. They select soft targets and get away unharmed and unpunished. Is this our much-proclaimed proactive policy? What a shame! We even cannot accuse South Block of pursuing a well-conceived and coordinated policy and action. The Central leaders have just been hopping from one option to another without trying to formulate both short-term and long-term plans of action. Yesterday it was the Hurriyat. Then they all got busy humouring Dr Farooq Abdullah. Then surfaced the Hizbul Mujahideen. Now, for the past three days they are busy managing the post-massacre crisis in the valley and beyond. Indeed, crises have become endemic to Kashmir.

It is no secret that the Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister raked up the autonomy issue after the Centre’s initiative to open a dialogue with the All-Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC). As discussed earlier in these columns, he saw in this move a potential threat to his very survival and hence his high drama in Srinagar and New Delhi.

Dr Abdullah’s apprehensions on this count were surely not misplaced. His concern was genuine. So was his desperation. However, it is not clear whether he had the prior knowledge of the Hizbul Mujahideen’s ceasefire plan and its offer to hold talks with the Indian government.

The Hizb move may not be a mere publicity stunt. The fact that the Army has also declared a unilateral ceasefire and suspended military operations against the Hizbul Mujahideen shows that the Indian authorities are willing to take a chance. New Delhi surely wants to defuse the crisis and find a lasting solution to the Kashmir tangle.

However, there are several other points which demand immediate attention: Can the Hizb leaders be trusted? Isn’t New Delhi taking a grave risk? Where is the guarantee that the militant groups would not utilise the ceasefire grace period to regroup themselves and continue to strike at will? The large-scale massacre in the valley by foreign militants including those belonging to the Lashkar-e-Toiyaba, during the past three days shows serious gaps in India’s peace efforts.

As it is, militancy-related statistics are disquieting. There are roughly over 3,500 militants in Kashmir, including 1,700 foreign mercenaries. About 2,000 militants are said to be hovering around the Line of Control (LoC), waiting for an opportunity to cross over to the Indian side. Another 3,000 militants are undergoing training in 45 camps in Pakistan, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Afghanistan. It needs to be remembered constantly that the control of militancy has passed into the hands of foreign mercenaries.

The road to peace can never be straight. It has to take a zigzag course. So despite the grave risks involved, a dialogue for peace has to be constantly explored. After all, we must not forget that the silken threads of emotions, history, geopolitics, cultural traditions, etc, bind the Kashmiris with the rest of the country.

Of course, a line has to be drawn between the Kashmiris and foreign mercenaries on the one hand and peace-loving Kashmiri people and trigger-happy terrorists on the other. The foreign mercenaries and hardcore militants working at the bidding of outside forces have to be tackled ruthlessly and eliminated totally. Can we do it?

Amidst the growing complexities in Kashmir, it will be worthwhile to see the developments within a larger global framework without ignoring domestic compulsions.

One, there is no denying the fact that the US Administration is keen on exploring the right answer to the Kashmir problem. It has been active on the diplomatic front. American diplomats and specialists on Kashmir affairs have been in touch with Hurriyat leaders and other militant groups. They have been meeting in New Delhi. This is known to the Indian authorities.

Even President Bill Clinton’s message was clear and candid during his visit to the subcontinent early this year. The US President put extra pressures on the Pakistani Chief Executive, Gen Pervez Musharraf, and asked him to behave and put a stop to cross-border terrorism. Will Mr Clinton be able to make the Pakistani dictator see reason now? That the Americans have certain tentative plans on Kashmir is known to South Block.

Two, to say this is not to suggest that the initiative for talks by the Hizbul Mujahideen has been blessed by the Americans. Far from it. The move has mainly come from Kashmiri militant leaders who, among other things, do not want their “movement” to be hijacked by foreign mercenaries. They have apparently changed their strategy keeping in view the new ground realities and the disgust of the local population at the large number of cases of rape and atrocities committed by foreign mercenaries. They also cannot ignore the growing desire for peace among the local people.

In fact, in an interview with the Urdu service of the BBC (July 27), Abdul Majid Dar, operational commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen, made it clear that “outside forces have no right to interfere in our affairs” and added that he had decided on a ceasefire plan because “we were under pressure from the Indian forces and did not want more bloodshed in Kashmir and wished to create the right atmosphere for a meaningful dialogue. We took this decision after thinking about it for a few months. Other groups are also realising that our stand is correct”.

How far other militant groups will go along with the Hizb leadership is difficult to say. The latest acts of terrorism give clear signals. The task ahead for the Central leadership is surely very difficult. There are innumerable unknown factors in the Kashmir situation today which can easily upset peace calculations by any negotiating party. Let us also not forget that the militant groups’ Big Brother — Pakistan — which has been pouring money and arms to keep the business of terrorism in the valley going, is capable of playing any mischief.

Who will counter this? The onus has to be on the Indian authorities and the security forces. This will require coordinated thinking and foolproof counter-strategies. Is India’s “think-tank” ready with such plans? Past experience does not make me confident about this proposition.

The policy-makers have yet to learn the art of working as a team. They generally work at cross-purposes. We did not have a policy or strategy in 1947. We do not have one today. And, ironically enough, the thoughts of those entrusted with the task of handling Kashmir affairs are generally fixed on their rating with their seniors, and not what is good for the country and the people.

Three, the Indian response to these fast developments has been both guarded and cautious, and understandably so. The Government of India is committed to the process of peace and dialogue. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh have made this abundantly clear to the global community.

It is, of course, a different matter that the handling of the Kashmir situation by the authorities in New Delhi has been both clumsy and faulty. More often than not, the right hand of the Government of India has not known what its left hand has been doing. This has invariably resulted in increased chaos and confusion.

Four, India’s response to the peace move in Kashmir must also be seen in the context of the millennium session of the UN General Assembly in September. Both Mr Vajpayee and Gen Musharraf are scheduled to address the Assembly. The Indian Prime Minister’s trip has a special significance since he will also be officially visiting Washington at the invitation of President Clinton. He would, therefore, like to give the right signals on Kashmir to the USA and the world at large.

While India’s genuine desire to end the stalemate in Kashmir is being increasingly appreciated in Washington, the problem lies with the leadership in Islamabad which has been fighting a proxy war against this country. In fact, the policy of brinkmanship pursued by the military leadership in Pakistan has proved to be a major stumbling block to the peace process in Kashmir.

Five, it needs to be acknowledged that the people of Kashmir are fed up with the foreign mercenaries operating in the valley and beyond and genuinely want peace.

Knowledgeable people are indeed alarmed at the behaviour of these mercenaries. They have been playing with the lives of Kashmiri women. A large number of rape cases involving these mercenaries have sent shock waves to the entire valley. The peace initiative by the Hizbul Mujahideen and other militant groups must have been also prompted by horrifying stories of rape and vandalism indulged in by the mercenaries.

Six, it needs to be acknowledged that the Indian security forces have intelligently exploited this disturbing situation to their advantage. They have successfully eliminated a number of foreign mercenaries by getting useful information from the victims of their atrocities. In fact, the mercenaries have been on the run from a number of sensitive and strategic places.

So far so good. The Indian response has to be guarded but firm. It will be wrong to expect a miracle. Miracles do not take place in a complicated setting of global diplomacy and terrorism. A lot will depend on tact, patience and intelligent handling of the issues at stake in Kashmir by the Indian authorities.

It may be worthwhile for the policy-makers in South Block to just remember one sentence: “An extraordinary situation calls for an extraordinary response.” I leave it to them how they interpret this one-line advice!

Improving slums is cost-effective
by Bharat Dogra

AFTER a lot of experience of eviction and relocation of slums, several officials and government experts have reached the conclusion that in most situations it is much more sensible and cost-effective to improve a slum instead of demolishing it.

The National Housing Policy-1994 had it that “Central and state governments would take steps to avoid forcible relocation or rehousing of slum-dwellers, encourage in-city upgradation, slum renovation and progressive housing development with occupancy rights, whenever feasible and to undertake selective relocation with community involvement only for priority sites in the public interest.”

Thus the relocation option need not be rejected entirely. If, for example, the present location of a slum is hazardous, then, with the acceptance and involvement of the community, relocation at a better site is certainly a better option instead of spending development funds at a hazardous site. But in most situations relocation is neither needed nor desirable.

Slums arise mainly because housing costs in cities are much beyond the paying capacity of the urban poor, and a large number of poor people are regularly pushed away from rural areas due to poverty.

The Ninth Plan document (1997) admits, “Housing has been largely a people’s activity, but constraints of finance, land and other inputs and the absence of stimulating the environment have pushed the urban housing solutions beyond the reach of the majority of people.” The latest available statistics quoted in this document reveal that in the formal market the cost of an average house (in terms of the annual household income) is equal to 13 years’ income in Mumbai, 12 years’ income in Delhi, 11 years in Bangalore, seven years in Chennai and three to four years in second-grade towns.

While in big cities in the formal market the cost of a house may amount to seven to 13 years’ income for a household, in the informal market this gets reduced to two to three years’ income. After drawing attention to this data, the Ninth Plan document describes slum and squatter settlements as an “ingenious solution to get shelter perfected by the people who cannot enter the formal housing market.” Thus the Planning Commission recognises that many slums are people’s own answer to create some sort of a housing facility within their very limited economic means.

The inability of the government to curb inequalities in urban land ownership and to make land available for the housing of weaker sections has accentuated the problems of the urban poor. The Ninth Plan document clearly admits the “failure to curb or prevent the concentration of urban land holdings, profiteering and ensure equitable distribution of land”. Only 7.5 per cent of the 220,774 hectares of land declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, was actually taken over. Exemption under Section 20 of the Act was provided in 53963 cases. On the other hand only 2984 schemes out of 9638 (31 per cent) received approval under Section 21 of the Act for the construction of dwelling units for the weaker sections of society. The Planning Commission clearly says in this document, “There has been a slowdown in housing development due to delays in the acquisition and transfer of surplus land.”

The government has justified its decision to repeal the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, in numerous ways, but several groups working with the urban poor see this as a negative step. They feel that the legislation’s flaws should have been corrected and its implementation improved. For example, a report on “Urban Poverty and Vulnerability”, prepared by Oxfam, says: “The abolition of this Act means that the surplus land acquired under this Act will be returned to the original owners. The purpose of this Act was to make land available for housing the poor. The Act also had provisions for the owners of excess land to construct houses for the poor and sell them at affordable rates.... With the abolition of this Act, the land available for the poor will go down drastically. If the Act is abolished, the means of decreasing vulnerability will be restricted.... The result is that the poor groups will have no alternative but to continue living on encroached land with the fear of forced displacement.”

If the government really wants to meet the housing needs of the urban poor, it should make available cheap land for housing for them. In addition, it should reform the various slum improvement programmes with the involvement of the local community.

EIUS (Environment Improvement in Urban Slums) is one of the most important programmes for slum improvement, but even this has not seen the close involvement of the local community at most places. A recent review of EIUS by two senior officials, Ajay Misra and S.K. Gupta, says: “Over the years EIUS became an engineering-dominated programme. Little attention was paid to the operation and maintenance of the facilities created under EIUS.

From several slums there have been reports that when a lot of work for paved paths was sanctioned, the contractors worked in complete alienation from the local people’s needs and they raised the paths to a greater height than the huts floor. During the rainy season all the water flowed into the huts. In some colonies the hut-dwellers had to rebuild these huts.

This sort of situation arises when slum improvement schemes are implemented in a hurry mainly to benefit some contractors with little concern for the poor residents of slums. This should change radically. Slum populations should be organised to function as a community. They should have complete information about what development funds are available. These should then be spent with the approval and involvement of the community. Changing the emphasis from demolition to improvement, and involving the community in slum improvement will go a long way in helping the urban poor.

Russia-China military cooperation
Should it bother India ?
By M.S.N. Menon

NO, but read on.

Military cooperation between Russia and China has always been a matter of some concern to India. More so, today, when there is a “strategic partnership” between the two.

What is the nature of this relationship? The Russians dislike the Chinese and the Chinese are no less hostile to the Russians. The Russian people have always treated China as a “potential enemy”. Their relation is, therefore, not natural.

That is why it floundered before. The Russians played a major role in the victory of the Chinese revolution. But Mao never trusted Stalin. And Stalin, I believe, had serious doubts about Mao’s commitment to Communism.

This want of trust, however, did not adversely affect their state-to-state relations. Soviet economic and military assistance played a key role in China’s development.

But this did not prevent the ideological schism between the two developing into an epic battle. It was so intense that China began to call Moscow “enemy number one”. Only a congenital hatred can explain this.

Russian’s want of trust in China led to the growth of Indo-Soviet friendship. Kruschev wanted India to become a great power. And Moscow did everything to build up the sinews of India. He had two objectives: to balance India against China and to bolster up India’s self-confidence in the face of American pressure.

There is no doubt that Sino-Russian enmity played a key role in the debacle of Communism in Russia. If Russia and China had maintained a modicum of friendship, this could have been avoided. Whatever may be said of the shortcomings of Soviet Communism, the Russians were proud of the fact that they were a super power. The coming together of the USA and China accelerated its downfall. I am sure, this must be rankling in the minds of every Russian nationalist. The Zhirinovsky phenomenon was significant.

Be that as it may, Mikhail Gorbachev thought it necessary to make up with China in 1987. Deng Xiaoping’s pragmatic policies did help the process of reconciliation. But what clinched the process was their realisation that the ultimate objective of Washington was to contain them both and break up their “colonial empires”. The decision to protect Taiwan, to extend NATO to Eastern Europe and beyond, and subject Yugoslavia to a punitive war — all these demonstrated US intentions.

The point is: Washington was opposed to the emergence of new rival centres of power. This explains why America did not transfer sensitive military technologies to China. In fact, after the Tienaman incidents in 1989, the West refused to supply military hardware and technologies to China. Naturally, China turned to Russia. It was a time when the Russian military-industrial complex was going through its worst phase. China was thus able to lure hundreds of indigent Russian scientists. They number today over 4000. China not only got the latest Russian military technologies cheaply but also paid for it, more often, in kind.

Is Moscow not aware of India’s sensitivities? It is. This explains why it does not supply, at least directly, military equipment to Pakistan. But in the case of China, it takes a different line. It is argued that India and China are not “enemies”, that they are trying to restore normal relations and that there is no danger of an imminent war between the two. But more pertinent is the point : Russia needs money.

Russian President Putin says that Russia and India are the best of friends. This needs some explanation. Let us not be naive. I will illustrate it. Putin will rather prefer China as a partner against America, not India. But to give a lecture to America in the United Nations, he will request India, not China. Remember, when Clinton said that Russia would have to “pay a heavy price”for the Chechnya war, Yeltsin chose to rush to Beijing to administer him a rebuke. He would have never come to India, for the Indian ruling class is reluctant to identify itself as anti-American. It will not allow Russia to play the Indian card. This is true of China, too, today, but only to some extent. (But both India and China have always used the Russian card against America !) This was the case before and it will continue. We should know these subtleties.

It is clear from the above, that there are limitations to what can happen. Both Russia and China, and India too, are dependent on the West, particularly on the USA, for trade, technology and capital. None can ignore this fact. Whatever they do must be within this limitation. In short, there are limits to what each one can do.

In building up the military potential of China, is not Moscow afraid? Russian experts believe that militarily China is two generations behind Russia. China cannot be a threat in these circumstances, they say, at least for the time being. This holds good for India, too, says Moscow. Again, China’s build-up is modest. It is based on a defensive strategy.

Does China enjoy any advantage in its relations with Russia? No. Both India and China are getting similar military ware and technologies.

Russia does not exercise any discrimination. But there are developments which should worry India. China is in a position to finance joint military research and production of hardware. In fact, both Russia and China are working on a number of military projects. For example, on an anti-missile defence system, in the face of the American threat to cancel the 1972 ABM Treaty and to go for a theatre missile defence system east Asia to project Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. This will not be available to India because China is bound to objects.

It is the US claim that this is directed against North Korea. But China avers. It believes that China is the real target of these exercises. And it is particularly opposed to the US plan to give protection to Taiwan.

The Russian-Chinese collaboration is already at an advanced stage of research. Izvestiva, the Russian daily, hailed it as a “star war” programme.

This has serious implications for India. It will make Indian missiles useless in a war with China, while India itself will be defenceless against a Chinese missile attack. So India may have to go for an anti-missile system.

There is one more inference to be drawn from these developments : the more Russia and China go into joint research and joint production of military weapons, the less those weapons will be available to India, for China will not allow their transfer to India. And, remember, Russia has no other alternative in its present economic condition.

Is there a way out of this situation? I can suggest only one line of thinking: India and Russia must do joint research in essential areas. And it must cultivate normal relations with China. Perhaps China will be less hostile in times to come. Perhaps a triangular relation may become a reality. 

SPIRITUAL NUGGETS

May the Lord of the clouds protect our stores,

— Osho, Dance your way to God