[BJP News]: Jaswant Singh: A Servant of Indian Nationalism
ROBIN WRIGHT,
Los Angeles Times
Posted on
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_000_01C027D9.3E4EFF88
Content-Typtext/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Your message
To: vtlima@essex.ac.uk
Subject: [BJP News]: Jaswant Singh: A Servant of Indian Nationalism
Embraces the Nasdaq
Age
Sent: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:57:47 +0100
did not reach the following recipient(s):
vtlima@exchange1.essex.ac.uk on Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:46:25 +0100
The recipient name is not recognized
The MTS-ID of the original message ic=GB;a= ;p=Essex
University;l=SERNT120009261646TVFC3KN6
MSEXCH:IMS:University of Essex:CAMPUS:SERNT12 0 (000C05A6) Unknown
Recipient
------_=_NextPart_000_01C027D9.3E4EFF88
Content-Typmessage/rfc822
Message-ID: <200009261557.LAA07047@admin.wwwcorp.com>
From: OFBJP Admin
To: vtlima@essex.ac.uk
Subject: [BJP News]: Jaswant Singh: A Servant of Indian Nationalism Embrac
es the Nasdaq Age
DatTue, 26 Sep 2000 16:57:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
X-MS-Embedded-Report:
Content-Typtext/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
TitlJaswant Singh: A Servant of Indian Nationalism Embraces the Nasdaq
Age
Author: ROBIN WRIGHT,
Publication: Los Angeles Times
DatSeptember 24, 2000
Jaswant Singh represents India's transition. He grew up in the
British colonial days of the raj. He was a horseman in newly
independent India's first cavalry, following a long family tradition
of military men. He resigned to run for office and has since served
in both the upper and lower houses of India's Parliament, where he
had a reputation as a powerful orator. He's a staunch advocate of
Indian family values. He's a passionate Hindu nationalist.
That's the traditional India in him.
Yet, as foreign minister of the world's most populous democracy, he
has a Hotmail address for his private e-mail. During his visit to the
United States last week, he toured the Nasdaq stock exchange, where
he'd like to see more Indian companies listed. He read biographies of
Walt Whitman and Simon Bolivar over the summer. He loves golf.
Western music hums in the background of his office all day long.
That's the new India in him.
Although virtually unknown in the United States, Singh has
orchestrated the dramatic diplomatic transition in relations between
India and the United States. Reciprocal state visits--President Bill
Clinton to India in March and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to
Washington this month--marked a new era in relations, according to
U.S. officials.
India's press has chided Singh for his initiative.
"De-satanization of the so-called American Imperium is in full swing,
and Jaswant Singh is the exorcist-in-chief," wrote India Today
magazine this summer. "India has come a long way from [former Foreign
Minister Inder Kumar] Gujral's embrace of Saddam Hussein to Singh's
Madeleine moment."
Singh does like to show Indian journalists the inscribed photograph--
"with admiration and affection"--of him and Secretary of State
Madeleine K. Albright. They have already met three times this year,
and Albright may visit India, where her father served in Kashmir,
again this fall.
Singh's diplomatic initiative is not limited to the United States.
Although he is a senior official of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the
staunchly Hindu nationalist party, the frequently flying foreign
minister has a reputation for reaching out to countries once shunned
by India in the days it headed the Non-Aligned Conference. He's even
visited Israel.
Singh is the first foreign minister educated in public schools. His
two sons have carried on the family tradition. One is in the army
reserve and participated in the bloody battle for the strategic
Kargil Heights in Kashmir last year. The other ran for Parliament and
lost. The foreign minister was interviewed during Prime Minister
Vajpayee's state visit to Washington this month, following their trip
to the U.N. Millennium summit in New York.
* * *
Question: After decades of cool relations, India and the U.S. are now
considered close allies, and you are widely considered the architect
of the change. Why the shift?
Answer: I'm not the architect. The architect is the times, the
circumstances, the transformed global situation. In the years after
World War II . . . the United States felt its national interests were
best served by a variety of alliances that didn't include India. In
those early years after its independence, India had to move into a
position of balance between the two competing superpowers, hence,
nonalignment. . . .
What we need in Indo-U.S. relations is stability and predictability.
Also, the ability to engage with each other with candor, in
confidence and with the sense of being able to deal with differences
of approach on issues.
Q: Despite improved relations, U.S. sanctions, imposed on both India
and Pakistan after their 1998 nuclear tests, remain in place. How
much impact are they having on India?
A: We didn't believe sanctions would have the results you expected.
India has a continental-size economy that sustains 1 billion human
beings. So far, sanctions have been counterproductive. Trade has
grown by 27% over the last year, and it hasn't reached its true
potential because of sanctions. Exports from India are growing, and
imports from the U.S. are sluggish. So you're only hurting yourself.
Q: Do you foresee any change in India's position on nuclear tests and
signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Under what circumstances
would India use a nuclear weapon?
A: I don't see any circumstances. We have announced a no-first-use
policy. We've also announced no use against non-nuclear states.
Weapons of mass destruction are . . . meant for the role of deterrent.
India has a voluntary moratorium on any future nuclear explosive
testing. We have said we will not stand in the way of the entry into
force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and that our moratorium
will continue until then. . . . Since the substance of our obligation
on banning explosive testing is there, we're only looking at the
style as to how you comply with that substance. We've said that until
we have a domestic political consensus on this issue, please have
patience. We intend to do it. Parliament will meet in November. It's
my expectation that we'll have a full-fledged discussion and that the
political community will eventually come around to a consensus.
Q: A recent Central Intelligence Agency estimate predicts a 40% to
60% chance of war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir in the next
couple of years. What odds would you give the danger of conflict?
A: Far be it from me to comment on the U.S. intelligence system. But
if you were to carry out an analysis of the historical factor of
errors by this great institution [CIA], you would be better able to
judge.
There are nil chances of conflict. I have something to do with policy
formulation. I know what is happening and what we will do. Surely,
you should appreciate that, in 1999, we were put to a severe test in
[the Indian town of] Kargil [in the contested region of Kashmir], not
because we wished to score points but because India is a responsible
nation that believes that, as a nation, we have a responsibility to
the international community, not simply to our Western neighbors. We
suffered casualties. As a soldier, it saddens me. My son volunteered
to be in Kashmir, and we lost over 500 men. But we conducted our
policy, under the most testing times, with great restraint.
Q: Various governments dating back to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
have pledged to grant Kashmir greater autonomy. Why won't your
government follow through?
A: As far as management of our internal affairs and autonomy to
states and decentralization, we had a commission established on it. I
just attended an interstate council 10 days ago, and we discussed the
report of that commission on granting greater functional autonomy not
simply to Jammu and Kashmir but to other states of the union . . .
and the government is moving toward it.
But for you to consider Jammu and Kashmir some kind of territorial
dispute would really be an error. I'm astonished at times that people
don't point out that 38,000 square kilometers of Jammu and Kashmir is
disputed with China and is currently under its occupation. The entire
northern areas are occupied. These is the real territorial dispute.
Q: Human-rights groups have criticized India for the increasing
incidents of violence against minorities, including Christian
missionaries, the use of force in Kashmir and Punjab and the growing
emphasis on Hindu nationalism in the new school curriculum and the
emphasis on one culture, one religion and one identity.
A: Part of this is founded on misinformation, and part is an error of
judgment by those who write about it. India and its government can be
nothing but secular. . . . There have been some incidents, which are
not against churches, and only in three states. One was purely a
criminal element, and immediately the government appointed a justice
of the supreme court to look into it, and a man has been arrested.
The other incidents involved a gang, which has been identified and
[whose members have been] arrested, that was motivated to sully the
name of India. It's an error to say that there is any designed action
against Christian communities. This is an aberration. Christians have
been welcome in India since the first Christian community was
established in 6 A.D.
I believe that there are no human-rights violations in Kashmir or
Punjab. In Kashmir, the greatest violation of human rights is
terrorist activity. When 100 innocent pilgrims on an annual
pilgrimage as ancient as time--when they have to walk long distances
to reach a cave--and they're gunned down, that is the human-rights
violations.
Q: India has increasingly expressed its desire for a larger role in
the United Nations and other international institutions commensurate
with its numbers and leadership in the developing world. What role
would India play, and how might it change the balance of power in the
world?
A: It's ironic that in the early years of the Security Council, a
seat was offered to India, and in an act of possibly the most
profound historical abnegation, the then-prime minister said "no," it
shall not take a seat unless China first gets represented. . . .
India, more than any other country--as a civilization and culturally,
not just because of its membership in the nonaligned movement or the
Group of 77 [developing nations]--has to give voice to those who
don't have a voice and those who are deprived and fall into the
category of want. This is not just India's duty. This is the U.N.'s
obligation, too.
In terms of the balance of power, in India we have always known that
the essence of power is to know the limits of power.
Q: Indians are contributing an extraordinary percentage of the
expertise in developing software programs for U.S. companies, many in
California. How is this changing the nature of relations between the
U.S. and India?
A: Americans of Indian origin have acted as a catalyst to Indo-U.S.
relations that even I didn't see 10 years ago. [They] make up less
than 1% of the U.S. population, but earn nearly twice the median U.S.
income. Of the 80 national groupings that constitute the U.S., for
last five years, Americans of Indian origin have consistently ranked
at the top in education and income. This will play an important role
as they begin influencing your thinking.
What has been the catalyst? Knowledge-based industry. New York
hospital records are being maintained in Bombay because it's more
convenient. [I've been] told that of all the H-1B visas [for
professionals], 47.5% are to Indians; 30% of all start-ups in info-
tech are by Americans of Indian origins.
Q: India had one of the most innovative programs to bring women into
power in the mid-1990s by allocating roughly a million seats to
females in local council elections. There have been repeated efforts,
all failing, to pass a similar law for national Parliament. Why is
there such resistance to bringing more women into power?
A: My party and the democratic alliance is totally and unequivocally
committed to it. One-third of the seats in Parliament ought to be for
women. For that, we require two-thirds of Parliament to amend the
constitution. We in the alliance don't have two-thirds. We have tried
to introduce the bill. Whenever we try to introduce this bill, we
meet a filibustering resistance. We will do it again in the winter
session in November. We will not be defeated in this purpose.
Q: The government claims Prime Minister Vajpayee's recent health
problems are related to his knees and a sore throat. Yet, he canceled
the joint press conference with President Bill Clinton and he looked
rather frail during his visit.
A: He's in fine heath. He has a knee problem, which he'll have
attended to when he returns to India.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Friends of the BJP (USA) .............. Voic(718) 271-0453
54-15, 108th St. ................................. Fax: (718) 271-1906
Corona, NY 11368............................ WWW: http://www.ofbjp.org
BJP's Websithttp://www.bjp.org
Worldwide Friends of the BJ http://www.ofbjp.org/fob
------_=_NextPart_000_01C027D9.3E4EFF88--
This archive was generated by (modified version of) hypermail.pl 1.00