Back
National
We have chosen the middle path after much thought: Sinha
By Amit Baruah
Delivering the Rajendra Mathur memorial lecture organised by the Editors Guild of India, Mr. Sinha took a nuanced view of the Indo-U.S. dynamic: "India cannot remain silent simply out of fear of incurring the displeasure of others and India-U.S. relations should not be viewed through the prism of only one issue.''
Several objective factors had brought India and the U.S. closer. New Delhi, he said, had adopted the "middle path'' on an issue such as Iraq with considerable deliberation. "There are some in our country who believe that India should have been in the trenches fighting the U.S. and the U.K. with the Republican Guards of Saddam Hussein. There are others who would like us to be a vassal State and to subjugate our thought and action to the rich and powerful.''
India, Mr. Sinha said, would go to neither extreme, continuing to balance national interest with principle. "Neither will we sell our souls to others nor will we pursue blindly antagonistic policies for the sake of antagonism."
The war on Iraq, he maintained, had led to the creation of a "new reality'' in West Asia. "It is still too premature for firm conclusions to be drawn as to the direction of future events...'' Mr. Sinha was clear that pre-Iraq or post-Iraq, India's pre-eminent concern and challenge remained the menace of terrorism. He claimed that terrorism had become an instrument of war by other means; an instrument of revenge. ``What some countries and groups are unable to obtain through peaceful and democratic means is sought to be grabbed through the systematic and deliberate use of terror as an instrument of policy...this is the reason why the term proxy war is most appropriate to describe the policy of cross-border terrorism being sponsored by our neighbour (Pakistan).'' Arguing that there could be no ambivalence on the question of use of violence, Mr. Sinha continued to refer to the double standards in the international battle against terrorism. "Much has been said in this regard and I have no desire to point fingers or cast blame in any direction''. Without naming anyone, he said: "... As is evident, there is a tendency amongst some to condone terrorism in some places while condemning it elsewhere. This is completely counter-productive. Such lenience will only boomerang on everyone.''
Arguing that terrorism has often turned on its mentors, he stated that it was only when terrorism "struck close to home'' that "many in the world'' realised they should have woken up earlier and "before they became a victim''. India, however, had been facing this danger for over two decades. ``Similarly, our views may today (on Pakistan and its role?) meet with some opposition based on short-term expediency. But, we have a responsibility to continue to express the truth as we see it and also meet the challenge facing us.''
In implicit criticism of those who felt that Pakistan played a stellar role in the war against terrorism, he said that "compartmentalised national approaches'' could not deal with terrorism and its linkages. ``No region or country is insulated; neither distance, power nor wealth provides immunity.'' And, terrorism's "most egregious'' manifestations were found in India's neighbourhood. ``We owe it to ourselves as well as to the world to push, prod, persuade and mobilise the international community into redoubling efforts aimed at eradicating the phenomenon of terrorism from its very roots.
``It is particularly important for us in India to speak out... in a loud and clear manner. What we may have to say may not be palatable to some. Criticism and opposition may come our way. We must, however, continue to speak out.'' And, on the issue of terrorism, which impinged on the very core of India's security, "India would remain steadfast and single-minded in the pursuit of her national interests," he added.
Related Stories:
India ready to work with U.S., U.N. on Iraq
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu