The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Managing India and China
New American concept of alliances and allies

MANAGEMENT of the “rise of two great powers”, India and China, and decline of another great power, Russian Federation, will form the key elements of Republican administration’s foreign policy, if George W. Bush finally makes it to the White House in the Presidential poll in the USA.

According to Ambassador Richard Armitage, senior Policy and Defence Adviser to George W. Bush, the ‘three events’ need to be managed simultaneously in a way that brings general stability and peace, and hopefully, prosperity to all concerned. “We acknowledge the desire and right of India and China to take place on the world stage.

“A benign stable, and economically healthy addition to the world stage will be most welcome. But we want this to be accomplished with minimum disruption to regional stability,” the Republican Adviser on foreign policy said.

Regarding Russia, Mr Armitage said: “We understand the high gulf between her national aspirations on one hand and national capability on the other. We need to be respectful in our dealings with Russia, while being firm about the need for political openness, including freedom of press”.

In a question-answer session, Mr Armitage also admitted existence of ‘philosophical’ differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on foreign policy issues, for instance, trade. Bush has steadfastly supported the WTO membership for China and sees trade liberalisation “as a rising tide which raises all boats”.

Asserting that there was a ‘major difference’ between the two parties on Asia, Mr Armitage said while the Democrats saw their ‘most important strategic relationship’ with communist China, the Republicans believe that their most important strategic relationship is with Japan. “It is the relationship with Japan, after all, that allows the USA to effect all our security cooperation in Asia. Our ability to use Japanese bases allows us to have a military presence in whole of Asia, as well as to preserve peace and stability in Northeast Asia. This relationship must be nurtured and restored. So these are among the differences”.

Mr Armitage listed the “strong use of alliances” as a major factor of Republic foreign policy. “George Bush believes very strongly in the need to nurture and maintain alliances, and believes that if you’re going to rely on allies in times of travail and difficulty, you have to respect them in times of peace and stability. That is, it’s important to maintain consistently good relations with our friends and allies.

“Finally, I think the major difference, and I would put it in a sentence, is that George Bush is very aware of the need to be excellent in the international arena without being arrogant. And I don’t think that’s something that the present administration can particularly say”.

What is George W. Bush’s view regarding a National Missile Defence (NMD) system and how does it differ from the Democratic position?

First of all, Mr Bush has indicated that he wants to field an effective National Missile Defence as soon as possible. I think the major difference between ourselves and the Democrats is in the true desire for the system. Mr Bush wants a missile defence system to protect our citizens. The Democrats, we feel, are doing the absolute minimum to assuage the Congress and the American public without doing anything really meaningful toward the creation of such a system.

You spoke of the need to nurture our alliances with countries overseas. How would a Republican administration deal with the concerns that have been expressed by US allies about an NMD system and about the US failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)?

Well, these are two different things. First of all, regarding the NMD and our allies, my first suggestion would be to change the terminology from NMD to Allied Missile Defence (AMD). I think if we made very clear that what protects us can in large measure protect our allies, then there might be a little different view of this.

On the CTBT, the Republican view has been discussed many, many times. We’re not in the business of ratifying treaties that are unverifiable. I think a Republican administration would be much more inclined to negotiate a treaty that actually would hold water and might have verification measures in it that would withstand scrutiny.

How do you respond to the criticism by some Democrats that George W. Bush lacks foreign policy experience and expertise?

George W. Bush has been the Governor of a US state. I might respond, if I were being facetious, by saying that Vice-President Gore lacks executive expertise. After all, he’s been in the US Congress, which is not an executive body, and he’s been the Vice-President, where he had no executive duties.

But I think I would rather concentrate on the areas where George Bush does have expertise — that is in decision-making, not passing the buck, and taking responsibility for his actions.

More on point, he has had, as Governor of Taxas, a very robust and well-developed relationship with Mexico and countries in the Southern Hemisphere. So to classify him as a neophyte in the world of foreign affairs is to be unfair.

Do you believe that both major political parties could do a better job in handling foreign policy issues during presidential campaigns? And, if so, what advice could you offer to improve the treatment of foreign policy in US elections?

Well, there are those who believe that foreign policy should not be a partisan issue. I myself think that foreign policy should enjoy a very indepth debate just as every other issue should, whether it is taxes or social issues or anything else.

The last truly bipartisan vote in the US Congress that I remember on a foreign policy issue was the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorising presidential action in Vietnam, which didn’t turn out very well. So I don’t think that we should continue to insist on bipartisanship; these are issues that have a partisan flavour, number one.

Number two, I think that in order to bring the American public more into the debate, we’d have to go back to the basics and try to develop in our schools and in our institutions of higher learning a greater appreciation, not only for world history and foreign cultures, but for the fact that although we’re a great power and, perhaps for a time, the most powerful nation on earth, we live in this world, we’re citizen of the world, and should take a greater interest in the activities of the world. And some schools do this.

There is good news and bad news, I think, associated with this. The good news is that in a time of relative peace, our citizens concentrate on other things, and that’s good. We don’t want a tragic world crisis to be there in order to get people’s attention. But the bad news in that for a time, people are occupied with other things rather than looking at our responsibilities and duties in the world.

How would you assess the American public’s knowledge of and interest in foreign affairs?

I think it’s an interesting question. On one hand, we’ve got more Americans going abroad than ever before. We’ve got a very vibrant immigrant culture developing in the USA again, yet another wave. Birth rates are down in this country, yet we’re sustaining ourselves with valuable immigrants who bring skills, energy, and vibrancy to our society. And this is something that benefits us as a nation and I think makes us more eclectic as a society. So from that point of view, Americans are very involved in international affairs.

Now when it comes to specific knowledge about different foreign countries or certainly when it comes to linguistic ability, I think Americans fall for short. Perhaps they ought to spend a little more time really getting in depth into other cultures, to include languages.

How do you view the role and character of security policy in the elections now that the Cold War is history?

Well, there is a debate right now, in the security sphere, about the state of our military. The question revolves around readiness. There’s no doubt, and I think the Democrats would agree, that the US military is the best-trained, the best-equipped military in the world.

The debate revolves around the direction in which the military is headed. We on the Republican side feel that there’s been a lapse of readiness. We do note that in this last year of the Clinton administration there’s been an increase in the defence Budget. This is not unlike 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s administration. But I don’t think anybody will be particularly fooled by that.

Defence Secretary William Cohen has probably put forth very strenuous efforts to try to bring the defence debate forward, but it wasn’t until this last year that he was able to prevail upon the President to put a more robust military Budget in place. In previous years, you’ll notice, the direction of the Budget was not very congenial to fixing our readiness. It was not congenial at all to recapitalising in our procurement account. And the over-extension of military forces — that is, their use in so many different places at the same time — has seriously hampered the training process and has harmed morale.

Beyond the immediate readiness question, there’s a question of how we transform our military and, by extension, our security policy to be able to handle the new missions and challenges of the 21st century — for instance, how to project power without access to forward bases; how to conduct operations in an urban environment; how to handle conflict in space; how to deal with information assurance and information dominance. These are areas of great debate between the Republicans and the Democrats nowadays. Therefore, the debate has been confined to the arguments over readiness and sterile numerical indicators. Governor Bush wants to broaden the debate to include how we can best use all levers of our national power, not just the Department of Defence, to bring about a more stable security environment. And then we can get to the question of which party is best suited to lead us to a new and stable future.

What would be the top foreign policy priority of the Bush administration?

Well, I think it would be, as I indicated earlier, to be excellent in the international environment without being arrogant. It is one thing to be, for a time, first among equals — or as journalist Charlie Krauthammer would say, the “sole superpower”, one who has interests in every part of the globe and without whose participation nothing very meaningful can take place in any part of the globe. It’s one thing to know that is the case; it’s quite another to trumpet it, saying that we’re the indispensable power.

Mr Bush feels that we ought to be much more quiet and excellent, and by our excellence be the “shining city on the hill”, not by our rhetoric.

— (IPA Service)

Meeting security challenges at their source

MR Al Gore, the Democratic candidate for the post of American President, will deal “more effectively” with areas of potential conflict in the world, if elected to power.

According to Ambassador Marc Ginsberg, Adviser on Foreign Policy to Vice-President Al Gore, it is meeting “security challenges at their source” that divides the Democrats from the Republicans. The Republicans have shown no interest in addressing this issue, he noted.

The second issue on which the Republicans and the Democrats are divided, Mr Ginsberg said, is the unilateralism of the former, especially on the “two key issues that concern our allies and alliances abroad and the integrity of those alliances — the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and National Defence System, representing a ‘fundamental disagreement’ between the Republican and the Democratic parties.

Asserting that the disagreement on ‘nuclear issues’ formed the ‘most significant area of disagreement’ between the two parties, Mr Ginsberg said, the key foreign policy issue for the Democrats was the continuance of prosperity at home by maintaining stability abroad.

Our economy is increasingly dependent on stability in foreign markets and the economic prosperity of our key allies. Al Gore wants to continue to build on-the-track record of helping the allies resolve their international financial difficulties — whether it be the Mexican Peso crisis or the South East Asian financial crises, it’s a way of insuring that American prosperity continues. So that’s first.

Second, and not any less important, is obviously maintaining the American security and ensuring that our military continues to remain strong, is capable of dealing with and addressing the issues that challenge the USA. In coming years, that means helping to enhance the quality of life for our men and women in uniform, ensuring that the revolutionary technology that the USA is producing in this information age is available to them and ensuring that the military is able to do the job that it’s called upon to do as we address the new global issues that we face.

From what you’ve said, it appears to be your view that economic security issues have come to be at least co-equal with military security.

Oh, they go hand in hand. Americans will not feel secure economically or militarily unless we use our global leadership to prevent conflicts that undermine the American security and financial markets. We are increasingly interdependent in a globalising era where our economic and military strengths go hand in hand.

How do you view the role, the character of security policy in the elections now that the Cold War is past?

Well, as I said earlier, the USA faces new challenges that we didn’t face in the Cold War era. That’s again the major difference between the Republicans, who are stuck in the mindset of the Cold War, and a Democratic party and a President and a Vice-President who have been prepared to address the new challenges that the USA faces. A perfect example is the spread of disease around the world — AIDS in Africa. The Vice-President gave a major address to the United Nations in January this year, in which he for the first time indicated that the spread of AIDS in Africa poses a long-term national security threat to the USA. Why? It’s not just a humanitarian issue that’s at stake here, it’s the fact that a whole generation of young African leaders is being wiped out by a disease, and that could accelerate instability in that continent. And we consider Africa to be important.

There are issues of nuclear terrorism that have to be dealt with. There are issues of environment, global warming — issues that threaten our children and grandchildren — that a good President, a forward-looking President, needs to address. You can’t just deal with the issues of nuclear security and pretend that by dealing with these issues we’ve somehow been able to address all long-term threats that the USA faces.

We are in a unique position in history. The USA is, by far, the strongest power in the world, and a power that most countries still look to for guidance and advice and counsel and leadership. In this unique posture, we have an opportunity to help address these issues that are going to affect our children and grandchildren, and that’s why it’s important to engage in these global issues. And we’re not just sounding an alarm. All one has to do is look at the threats on the Asian subcontinent, for example — Kashmir. One only has to look at the threats that Taiwan faces from China. One only has to look at the evolution of the peace process in the Middle-East and what will flow from that process; the consequences to the American security from ethnic conflicts and hatreds; the spillover from the Cold War that has now given the USA more challenges to address; just this year, the spread of information technology and the opportunities and challenges it presents. These are all issues that a 21st century American leader is going to address.

You made a couple of references earlier to National Missile Defence. What is the Vice-President’s view on whether or not the United States should proceed with the development of an NMD system?

The Vice-President has clearly stated that he believes that the USA faces a missile threat from rogue states, and not only from the rogue states but also from terrorist organisations, and the USA needs to have an effective security deterrent to deal with those threats in the years to come. But he believes that there are four factors that need to be addressed before making a decision on the NMD.

First of all, the technical feasibility of the system. There’s no point in having the American taxpayers spend billion of dollars on a programme that is technically not feasible. No one knows yet the feasibility of such a programme — whether it would be a land-based system or a Star Wars-based system as the Republicans favour, but that’s the first factor. The second factor is the threat assessment. The third is the effect that a deployment will have on arms control and alliance system abroad, and so that has to be taken into account. The fourth factor is the cost. This is the American taxpayers’ money. We have to make sure that when we spend their money, the money should be spent wisely and in a way that accomplishes the objective.

We are not prepared to do what the Republicans and George Bush favour, which is to arbitrarily decide, before there has been any effective determination of the feasibility of the project, to spend $140 billion — which would break the back of our budget — on National Missile Defence. The threats that they claim that their system is going to address are threats based on a Cold War mentality that is no longer applicable. But what the Vice-President has said is that National Missile Defence must deal, not with the old threats, but with the new threats that we face.

— (IPA Service)

A crusader for the tribals
by Harihar Swarup

Number game might have favoured BJP’s Babulal Marandi to become the first Chief Minister of Jharkhand state but the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) supremo, Shibu Soren, was the fulcrum of the movement for the separate tribal homeland. The demand for separate homeland was raised by an Oxford educated “Munda”, the late Jaipal Singh, as far back as 1939 and since then it has fired the imagination of the people of Jharkhand region. A political party named after the region — Jharkhand Party — was formed in 1950 with the objective of attaining the homeland for the “Adivasis”. It won 21 seats in the Bihar Assembly in the 1952 elections, repeated its performance in 1957 but withered away with its support base declining by the time of the 1962 poll.

The sixties saw exploitation of tribals touching a new high with money lenders, land grabbers, landlords, businessmen and forest mafia getting a foothold in the coal and mica belts of the Jharkhand region and bringing with them all the vices. They plundered the forests, seized the land of “Adivasis” and desecrated the rivers. Tribal people called them contemptuously as “outsiders”. From the midst of mistreatment of tribals rose a young man who took up cudgels against the tyranny of exploiters. Shibu Soren organised mining workers, dalits, backward classes under one banner and posed a challenge to the mafia; came to be known subsequently as “ jungle leader” and “tribal crusader”. Murder of Soren’s father at the instigation of a money lender made him a rebel and he vowed to get his land freed of the tyrants and initially his slogan was “Jharkhand ko shoshan se mukti do” (free Jharkhand from exploiters). Subsequently, the movement gave rise to a political party — Jharkhand Mukti Morcha — and Soren became the torch-bearer of the struggle.

Weakness of the Adivasis for liquor and their abject poverty was used by the mafia to exploit them. Soren organised the tribal youth and launched what came to be known as “matka foro” ( break the earthen liquor jar) movement . The mafia did not take kindly to Soren’s rising clout and used all its muscle and money power to break the movement. They succeeded in splitting the JMM many times but his supporters say “determined and fearless” as Shibu was, he kept the movement alive and never cared about threat to his own life. His party revived after each split.

Fifty six-year old Soren made his debut in the Lok Sabha in 1980 and returned in 1989, 1991 and 1996. His rival in the 1991 election was BJP’s Babulal Marandi, who he says, has usurped the Chief Ministership of Jharkhand as “ I was betrayed by the BJP’s leadership and let down by the NDA”. Now a Rajya Sabha member, Shibu faced defeat in the 1998 mid-term poll and his rival was, incidentally, his arch rival Marandi. Both Marandi and Soren are “Santhal”.

Soren is a bitter man and accuses BJP leaders of being deceitful. “If leaders convert solemn promises into depiction, there is little I can do. But make no mistakes, these people will have to pay”, he says. The JMM supremo tells his party cadres: “JMM has roots in Jharkhand and its people will not tolerate false promises made to our party. I have struggled for 30 years for the creation of Jharkhand state and now that it exists my claim for Chief Minister’s post cannot be ignored”.

Marandi was more thrilled by humbling of Shibu Soren than his victory in the 1998 poll. First thing he did after coming to Delhi was to have a dip in the “Ganga” unmindful of the impending ministry making. He was, as if, doubly rewarded for his devotion to the holy river . He was virtually dumbfounded when informed on return to reach Rashtrapati Bhavan the next morning to take oath as Minister of State. The Vajpayee government was short-lived and the country went for another mid-term in 1999; Marandi was lucky this time too having been returned in the election and inducted in the government as MOS.

Having solid RSS background with a stint with the VHP, 42-year old Marandi has the full support of the power behind the throne and his choice to head the first government in the newly created Jharkhand was inevitable. It is said he is the choice of Home Minister L.K. Advani. Unlike Soren, who has studied only up to matriculation, Marandi is a graduate. Right from his school days, he became an RSS activist but switched over to the VHP in 1983 and worked in Santhal Pargana for seven years spreading what his detractors say “ venom of communalism”. On Marandi’s part, say BJP leaders of Jharkhand, these were most productive years of his life enabling him to move from village to village and acquaint himself with the people of the region.

Marandi officially joined the BJP as late as 1990 and within months made the organising secretary of Santhal Pargana. Within a short span, he rose to the post of Secretary of the Bihar unit of the BJP and entrusted with the task of the party’s affairs in the proposed “Vananchal” . It was under his leadership that the BJP won 12 of 14 Lok Sabha seats in Jharkhand region in 1998. Considering his background, the BJP leadership, obviously, preferred him to much more seasoned Karia Munda.

Bardhan’s homily to party colleagues

IT is a popular perception that Communism and iron curtain are synonymous. However, it seems times are changing. The four-day long plenum session of the CPI National Council was an indication towards the changing trend. In the presence of the electronic and print media, Communist Party of India General Secretary A.B. Bardhan, not only admitted that his party had weakened and was losing momentum but also felt that there was no fresh blood. The veteran Communist leader asked senior party colleagues not to use their trip to New Delhi for meeting friends and relatives but to concentrate on the deliberations so that the party could rebuild itself as an effective, militant and fighting force.

Man behind Marandi

People are surprised as to how a young Minister of State of the Vajpayee government Babulal Marandi could manage to become the first Chief Minister of the newly created state of Jharkhand,leaving all those behind who had been at the forefront of the movement for the new state. A little bird says Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, who hails from the region, has single handedly pushed Marandi’s case. Sinha, who has not only succeeded in crowning Marandi but has also been able to send former Cabinet Secretary Prabhat Kumar as the first Governor of the mineral-rich state, has done all this with an eye on the future. If six-time Lok Sabha MP and a former Cabinet Minister in the 13-day Vajpayee government Karia Munda had become the Jharkhand Chief Minister then Sinha would not have been able to pull strings from behind. But with Marandi on the throne the Finance Minister is in full control of the state.

Misplaced loyalty

Loyalty to the dynasty is the very soul of Congressmen and they would display it even when they are not supposed to. In the just-concluded organisational elections of the party, a large number of votes were rejected. The rejected votes (229) counted far more than the tally of Jitendra Prasada (94), who had challenged Mrs Sonia Gandhi for the top post. Most of the votes rejected, Congress Election Authority chairman Ram Niwas Mirdha said, were of voters who had signed their votes and had thus revealed their identity. And among the signatories were many PROs (Pradesh Returning Officers) who were actually supposed to supervise that elections were held faultlessly!

It is Swaraj all the way

Bharatiya Janata Party politicians have always known the firebrand style of the Information and Broadcasting Minister, Ms Sushma Swaraj. But possibly for the first time one of them found himself pitted against her and realised that she does mean business.

Till now it was the Opposition which had to face the fierce lady while discussing issues, but this time it was the turn of Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha. At a recent function he found himself pinned down not only by the film community but also his colleague in the Union Cabinet.

The film community was demanding a uniform entertainment tax and Ms Swaraj joined in with them. She in fact led the chorus demanding more concessions for the industry. And when the Finance Minister said that he would refer the matter to the State Finance Ministers conference, she would not take that.

She retorted: “We don’t want references, we want a ceiling”. By the end of the function while Mr Yashwant Sinha was a little uncomfortable, Ms Sushma Swaraj had made her presence felt again.

Right question

Union Minister Pramod Mahajan, who also doubles as the Cabinet spokesman, knows the mind of the media personnel more than anybody else. The other day Mahajan was busy explaining the government’s policy to dilute its share further in nationalised banks from the existing 51 per cent to 33 per cent. Explaining that it was only an enabling provision, the Minister said it was for the banks to utilise the option. He also clarified that the public sector character of the bank would be maintained and the government would not leave control of the management. At this juncture a scribe wanted to ask a question. Mahajan preempted him and said he would complete the question. And, he hit it right. “Who will buy the bank share if the Government is going to have full control over the management?”

Unfortunately, the Minister had no answer but only the right question.

Honour for Sikh dentist

Dr Manjit Singh, a renowned Indian Orthodontist, has a special place in the world of dentists. The soft spoken Sikh doctor has been honoured by the prestigious American College of Dentists by conferring him “the fellowship of the college” for his dedication in the field of dentistry and his contribution to the health of the citizens of the world.

This is the highest honour given by the American College of Dentists to eminent dental surgeons world wide in recognition of services and devotion to the advancement of the science and art of dentistry. Dr Manjit Singh is the 10th Indian dentist to receive this honour in last 80 years.

(Contributed by Satish Misra, T.V. Lakshminarayan, Girija Shankar Kaura, Prashant Sood and P.N. Andley)

Gujral still favours talks with Pak
by Humra Quraishi

I AM not the seminar/conference type. In the sense I am critical of them. It’s the same set of people who hear each other and then after all that hearing and nodding and eating (lunches and dinners and not to miss those tea and coffee breaks) nothing much seems to emerge after those-day long deliberations etc. Anyway, after writing this, let me add, almost like a paradox, that I am just back after attending the first session of the three-day South Asia Media Conference (organised by the Press Council of India, South Asia Media Association and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Foundation). What some of the speakers said did set me thinking about the hopelessness of the political situation in the region, in the sense the last meeting of SAARC was not held at all and there seems no sign of the next meeting. Ajit Bhattacharjea, Director of the Press Institute of India and Chairman of the South Asian Media Association, said “the political differences between India and Pakistan have come to the pitch, where even cricket is not spared...” And former Prime Minister I.K. Gujral picked up where Bhattacharjea had ended and added that the dialogue with Pakistan must continue. “Kargil chapter has to close and talks must never stop... Nawaz Sharif and I believed that the differences had to be resolved and in 10 months I had met him four times — besides meeting him at Rawalpindi we also met at New York, Male, Dhaka and each time we discussed ways and means to sort out the differences...”

Needless to add with political differences the first to be hit is the human being. “Whether it is the plight of the fishermen caught on the shores and languishing in the jails or the young adults forced into crossing borders is inadequately reported, though ironically these and similar instances are on the rise”.

And though the Chairman of the Press Council of India, Justice P.B. Sawant, was emphatic that human development must be the topmost agenda and even came up with a set of inputs to further the SAARC bond (but is there a bond?). “SAARC countries could come up with a common Media Council, common forum for human development, a common features/news pool along the lines of The Guardian, and together with that SAARC countries should also ask for a complete ban on nuclear weapons...” But, then, he too realised that political hurdles stood in the way. Plus, of course, other hurdles. In fact, Bhattacharjea minced no words when he stated that our media has moved towards commercialisation in the sense the role of the Editor has lessened and the proprietor/publishers’ are making it into a money-making business.

And I really don’t know whether it was coincidental with Sports Minister Uma Bharti’s latest political move but none of the delegates for this conference turned up from Pakistan. In fact the absence of Karachi-based Javed Jabbar (founder Chairman, SAMA) was noticed by many and when asked whether the absence was linked to Bharti’s unromantic rulings one of the organisers diplomatically put across “we don’t know — they didn’t get the visas...”

House of Mr Patel

UN Information Centre’s former Director Bhaichand Patel had retired (from the UN and from the capital) a couple of years back but, then, resurfaced last year. Bag and baggage, to settle down here for good (I suppose). And last week hosted a sit-in dinner (who said those days of sit-ins and much more are over!) for the latest knotted pair of the capital — Lt-Governor’s daughter wedded to Fab-India’s son (No this isn’t the title of the latest Mr India competition but the store that boasts of ‘Indianness’ right to the core). Anyway, before we move towards the spread (people and what lay spread around them) two things definitely impressed me about Bhaichand’s home — huge black and white photographs of our heroines of yesteryears — as though they were alive and kicking — kicking you to see their beautiful faces. And when I asked Bhaichand who had been his favourite, he first looked at Meena Kumari’s face and quipped, “she of course had the tragic look, but I have loved the face of Madhubala — there’s something about that smile, something about her face.”

In fact, that evening I didn’t eat much but spent a long time just staring at these photographs. The other aspect was the music — again old songs. Why can’t we revive our interest in the bygones, for those lyrics and the music really touch you?

And together with this his guest list was nice and impressive — Khushwant Singh, the US Ambassador to India Richard Celeste together with his wife and mother-in-law (are the Indian men reading this?), The Statesman and Khaleej Times former Editor Nihal Singh, Richard Holkar, Fab-India lady Bim Bissell and many others. Space constraints drive me crazy in such situations where I would like to fit in other names too but then can’t. Bear with me.

Palestinian Day

As the ‘Day for Solidarity with the Palestinian People’ (29 November) approaches, one is not sure what our Foreign Policy makers would mouth. With disturbances still continuing in West Asia, isn’t it time we open our sealed mouths to utter two words, if not more.

Bad planning?

Union Minister of Commerce and Industry Murasoli Maran has been critically ill (officially that is) for some weeks yet the invite for the India International Trade Fair 2000 and the Asia Pacific Millennium Trade Fair 2000 which was inaugurated on November 14 had his name as the chief guest. Of course, he couldn’t have come from the hospital bed and Minister of State, Omar Abdullah, inaugurated the fair.

Hungarian police

The Hungarian Information Cultural centre is perhaps the most active centre here and the latest at their end is this rather unique documentary exhibition on 150 years of The Hungarian Police! Your guess is as good as mine — Kiran Bedi, Joint Commissioner of Police, will be the chief guest at the opening of this exhibition on November 20.