are essential in achieving even a minimum existence on our own planet, or any section thereof. Not either/or, but both. Civil and political rights are not a luxury in the Third World, even when people go hungry, for policy formulation to prevent continued starvation depends upon a consideration of the widest possible choice of alternatives and that requires the exercise of civil and political rights. One remains suspicious of those leaders who cherish civil rights, but do not give people enough to eat-as some present leaders of our own country. But also one remains suspicious of those leaders who say thye are trying to find enough for their people to eat, but cannot allow their people freedom and postpone elections.

There is one unique reason for the continuance of democracy, especially in India. That is that India needs democracy to keep together. Rajni Kothari in the January 1976, issue of "Seminar," published in New Delhi, perceptively asserted that any prolongation of the emergency will push the country on a dangerous course which will only lead to its demise as a nation, as a policy, and perhaps even as a civilization. The democratic experiment along which the nationalist leadership embarked—and indeed took long strides is the only viable system for a country so large, so diverse, and with a long history of strife and disunity. Democracy can constitute cement to make a strong economic and social society.

It is, however, gratituous for any individual or any government to suggest to another individual or government what social system is best for them, including the quality of civil liberties or human rights permitted. That is their sovereign decision. We have learned to cherism pluralism in social systems. The cold war is over. We Americans do not want to make the world in our image. Practically, we now know we can't. The Marxists, to be sure, have not officially given up their hope for worldwide communism if no longer by overt conquest. However, pluralism does not mean that we can acquiece to violations of human rights in different societies. Since World War II, the world community has devised international standards of human rights. Furthermore, we know that human rights are attached, inherent, to the individual and not to the state in which he or she at the moment might live. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a standard for the treatment of individuals, whether they live in the First, Second, Third, or Fourth Worlds. Indeed, this standard applies to Russians, Chinese, South Africans, Chileans, Americans, ArabsIndians. As a matter of fact, India voted for the adoption of the Universal Declaration, 16 months after its independence.

A final reason why Americans should be concerned about human rights in India today is the effect this overt concern may have on members of the opposition who are trying to relight the flame of freedom. It is important that their morale be considered and enhanced. If it is right to sustain the spirit of freedom fighters in the remaining colonial lands-and much of the U.N. system is committed to do thisit is also right to sustain the spirit of those fighting for freedom in independent nations which are totalitarian. If the United Nations is buoying the spirit of those fighting for the freedom of Zimbabwe and Namibia, the United States and some day the United Nations should hold high the spirit of a Sakharov in the Soviet Union, a Kim Chi-ha in East Asia, or a J. P. Narayan in South Asia. Perhaps

morale-building is a proper function of nongovernmental organizations more than governments. But we know that editorials critical of the Indian Government, news stories of demonstrations in front of Indian consulates, and other evidences of overseas criticism of the erosion of human rights in India are eagerly awaited by members of the opposition who pass such evidences from person to person, hand to hand. I can attest to this practice among the opposition in India today. This, then, is an additional reason for world and American

concern.

In conclusion, let me acknowledge that some Americans who know India better than I do arrive at a position on human rights in India today and should be done about them-far different than my own. However, an increasing number of Americans whose lives in one way or another have been touched by India are rising above their loyalty to India, or acting out of this loyalty, and are publicly opposing the violation of human rights in India today. One group of 80 Americans issued a statement which was published in the New York Times on March 5, 1976. I submit this statement as exhibit 3 of my testimony. Mr. FRASER. We will include that in the record.

Mr. JACK. As a final exhibit, No. 4, I submit two editorials from the New York Times to reflect some American public opinion on this issue.

Mr. FRASER. We will include those in the record as well.1

Mr. JACK. Since the Vietnam war concluded, many Americans have slipped into the pattern of not feeling deeply about issues. True believers are a vanishing species. This is good in that it eliminates sloganeering, irrationality, and stubbornness. It also encourages pragmatism, accomplishment, and realism. Yet something is missing if advocacy and conviction disappear. I feel deeply about the loss of liberty in India today. I wish more Americans felt similarly. When they do, I hope this concern will increasingly be reflected in American policy.

Thank you.

[Mr. Jack's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. HOMER A. JACK, SECRETARY GENERAL, WORLD CONFERENCE OF RELIGION FOR PEACE

I have been involved with India and Indian-American relations for almost 35 years. I was born here in the U.S.A., but I have come to know India better than any country other than my own. Despite this long, admittedly subjective, tie with India, I am today prepared to criticize the violations of human rights in India today.

I must give my bona fides, immodestly at some length at the onset of this testimony, only because the Government of India is especially critical these days of Americans who dare question Indian policy. I have criticized the Government of the U.S., and on many counts including human rights, so I hope that I may be allowed to criticize the Government of India.

My long involvement with India began in 1942 when as a theological student at the University of Chicago I participated in the worldwide "Quit India" day and protested in front of the British Consulate in Chicago. (Gandhi and Nehru were arrested in India; some of us only received publicity in "The Chicago Tribune.") I continued association with J. J. Singh, Roger Baldwin, and others in the India League of America until India gained its freedom in 1947. During the 1950's I was a friend of Indian Ambassador G. L. Mehta, in the period when U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was especially cool toward India. 1

76-718-76- -2

was a Chicago representative of Pearl Buck's campaign to send American wheat to India to prevent famine. During the 1950's I was a special correspondent for "The Hindustan Times" and wrote articles from Washington, the U.N., and Africa.

I have visited India a dozen times, first in 1955. I had discussions with Prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru on several occasions, not only in India, but in Indonesia (at the Bandung Conference), Yugoslavia (at the first Summit of Non-Aligned States), and the U.S. I was a close friend of Prof. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan-the scholar of comparative religion-when this scholar-statesman was Vice-President of India and during his two terms as President. I also dealt with, more than in an honorific way, with two other Indian Presidents, Mr. Rajendra Prasad and Dr. Zakir Husain.

Although I never met Mohandas Gandhi, I was a friend of two of his sonsDevadas and Manilal-and spent several weeks with the latter in South Africa at the ashram founded by his father. Within the past year I visited both the daughter-in-law of Gandhi, living in Madras, and one of Gandhi's grandchildren, living in Bombay. I have studied the life and teachings of Gandhi and have edited two volumes: "The Wit and Wisdom of Gandhi" (Beacon Press, 1951) and "The Gandhi Reader" (Indiana University Press, 1956). I have long been associated with the Gandhi Peace Foundation and was co-secretary of its International Interreligious Symposium on Peace in 1968 at New Delhi. I write frequently for the Foundation's quarterly. "Gandhi Marg," the latest article being in the January 1976 issue on the U.N. debate on racism and Zionism— probably one of the few articles critical of this Arab action printed in India. I have known and worked with several of the other architects of independent India. I was a friend of C.R.-Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, the first GovernorGeneral of India-and helped his international deputation to prevent atomic war. Also I worked with J.P.-Jayaprakash Narayan, the American educated Gandhian-cum-democratic-Marxist-especially in his effort to inform world public opinion about massacre in East Pakistan and to advocate the independence of Bangladesh. I saw J.P. at the zenith of his career at Patna in March 1975 and on his sick-bed at Bombay last January.

I last visited India for a short period in December 1975 and January of this year, after the Emergency was declared. Finally, I am acting chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Human Rights in India, with headquarters in New York City. Beyond my interests in India, I am a Unitarian Universalist clergyman and, since 1970, have been Secretary-General of the World Conference on Religion and Peace, an international non-governmental organization in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the U.N. However, I give this testimony in my personal capacity.

During this brief oral testimony on human rights in India, I would like to attempt to answer five questions. First, to what degree have human rights in India-called fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution-eroded since the Emergency was declared on June 26-one year ago Saturday? Second, to what extent has the Emergency been necessary or desirable to bring about social and economic reforms? Third, how should the U.S. Government react to the erosion of human rights in India today? Fourth, if the U.S. Government decides to react negatively, will such action make any difference in the policies of India, especially concerning human rights? Fifth and last, why should the U.S. and the world be concerned about the erosion of civil and political rights in a society which has yet to attain most elemental social and economic rights? I can touch on each of these five questions only briefly, but I will submit four exhibits which I hope may be placed in the appendix of these hearings.

First, let me describe in very brief terms the erosion of human rights in India today. Returning from India in January. I wrote an extensive memorandum on this topic which, somewhat updated, I would like to place in the record of these hearings as Exhibit 1. Let me outline this material very briefly.

The declaration of the Emergency by the President of India on June 26, 1975 was preceded by events of several years, and I present a chronology in Section 1 of the exhibit. The most recent date is June 16-when the Government of India extended for one year its right to hold political prisoners without trial or formal charges. The Emergency Decree itself was all very legal (as indicated in Section 2). However, the Emergency cannot be separated from Mrs. Indira Gandhi's own emergency, her conviction on June 12, 1975 of two charges under the Indian election laws (and given in Section 3). There are some parallels between the predicament of Richard Nixon and Indira Gandhi. Both were involved with minor

infringements of the law which symbolized their far greater misunderstanding of the essence of their respective political traditions. Both Nixon and Gandhi sadly identified—almost using the same accents-their personal future with that of their nation. However, Mrs. Gandhi was a far better politician in her ability to survive; or, perceived in another manner, the American people were far more jealous of their prerogatives and far less able to be manipulated than the Indian people.

A week after the Emergency was declared, on July 1, 1975, Mrs. Gandhi promulgated her 20-point economic program (Section 4). The Emergency, and its aftermath, is a complex political phenomena for India and it cannot be regarded in simplistic terms. Some of its effects, including that of the 20-point program, were positive. I can only list some of the positive aspects here: more discipline, less corruption including fewer economic offenses, less inflation, and lower prices. I discuss these at some length in Section 5. I would warn, however, that the discipline is external, not internal, that corruption continues but may be more expensive, and that what economic indices are rising are the result of many factors, including good weather, and thus it is difficult to determine how much is due to the Emergency.

I turn now to the legal erosion of fundamental rights. In Section 6 I provide a list of some of the legal measures taken. In Section 7 I discuss the problem of political prisoners and make a conservative estimate of at least 50,000. One should not be conservative, however, in reflecting evidences of torture. Later I will put into the record of this hearing several documents in this regard. In Section 8 I discuss press censorship. In Section 9 I discuss the postponement of national elections earlier this year and other problems facing the Indian Parliament. In Section 10 I discuss surveillance and fear which is pervasive in India today. In Section ii, I discuss the lessening of the rights of workers. The rest of the paper deals principally with the Opposition and other efforts to oppose the growing totalitarianism. Appendix A contains a discussion on "Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution." Efforts are continuing to amend the Constitution, but perhaps not as drastically in its human rights provisions as originally feared. Let me turn now to the second question, this asked specifically by the Chairman of this Subcommittee in a letter inviting me to this hearing: to what extent has the Emergency been necessary or desirable in terms of bringing about social and economic reforms? Mrs. Gandhi was in power for almost ten years before the Emergency was declared. After the 1971 war with Pakistan, and especially from 1972 onward, she had the good will of the Indian people and of much of the world. She possessed large political majorities. Yet the inertia and the corruption of the ruling Congress Party, under the undisputed leadership of Mrs. Gandhi, led to the all-party movement of J. P. Narayan and others in 1974 and 1975 to get India moving. Whatever prevented Mrs. Gandhi's leadership in social and economic reform was not due to any great interference with existing Government programs on the part of the Indian people through the use or abuse of their civil liberties. Her leadership was weak; the corruption was great.

While Mrs. Gandhi and her Government have leaned on any excuse to explain the Emergency, they have most often perhaps used the rationale of needing stability. They argue that the country was falling apart and such Draconian measures as the Emergency were needed to keep India together. India was falling apart, admittedly, but not because of opposition to any social and economic reforms initiated by Mrs. Gandhi and her party. It was falling apart because few significant social programs were in operation.

My own opinion is that the Emergency so far has only marginally aided social and economic reform. Few of the 20 economic and social programs are new, but they are being more carefully implemented, both by the Central Government and the States-and today the Congress Party controls all the States. But few feel that, because of the Emergency, there is a new spirit, a new dynamism in India today. At least there was none when I visited New Delhi and Bombay in January. What is desperately needed in India is the spirit which Gandhi provided for the freedom movement and the program which Nehru provided for the early, heady years of freedom. They provided both spirit and program. But these are both lacking even with the Emergency in effect.

Some Indians, and some visitors to India, will exude a the-trains-now-run-ontime attitude. We heard that before, on another continent in another generation. The admitted recent infusion of discipline in India should not be confused with a more dynamic society. There is none in India today.

Third, how should the U.S. Government react to the erosion of human rights in India today? India is not just one nation among many. It is the second largest

nation in the world and a leader of the Third World. It is indeed one of the great nations and peoples of the entire world. It has contributed to world culture not only old religious (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism), but new politicsnot only Buddha, but Gandhi.

There are some Americans who genuinely believe that we, as an American people and Government, should do nothing about what is happening in India today. What India does is her business and none of our business. This is a claim both of isolationists and the new, liberal neo-isolationists. After U.S. intervention of various kinds in Vietnam and Chile, we should learn-however belatedly— that we have enough to do here at home and should not judge other countries, let alone try to change their ways of governance! I would submit that this is not the lesson of Vietnam or Chile. We Americans must be concerned about what is happening in the world around us. We Americans, officially and unofficially, must make political judgments and speak out. How we act, officially or unofficially, beyond rhetoric-that is another problem. Thus I would first insist that we Americans have a right and a duty to react to problems anywhere in this shrinking world, doubly so perhaps in the field of human rights.

Thus I believe that the U.S. should, initially, at least speak out in world forums against the loss of civil liberties in India. I am glad that the U.S. has begun to find its voice, and conscience, beginning once again to condemn its friends, its allies, its adversaries, any nation in the world community which is flaunting the standards enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We must speak out-the President, the Secretary of State, the Congress-and there is no more appropriate time to do so than in our own bicentennial year. Speaking out constitutes pressure of world public opinion and the effect of this even on the most tyrannical of regimes should not be discounted. And Mrs. Gandhi's is by no means the most tyrannical today!

What should the U.S. do, about growing Indian totalitarianism, at the U.N. in the context of the protection of human rights—and thus on a multilateral level? The U.S. has recently criticized, and rightly so, the U.N. system for giving selective attention to human rights. The U.N. criticizes human rights violations in South Africa, Chile, and Israel, but never in the Soviet Union, South Korea, or Uganda. Perhaps the U.N. can be more universal in its action on violations of human rights if it added more countries to its list-including India.

There are at least two routes to publicize violations of human rights in the U.N. system. One is by resolution in the General Assembly or the Economic and Social Council, or its subsidiary bodies. Another is by action on communications which reveal a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights. The latter is a much slower and more complicated procedure conducted in secrecy (and one which so far has not resulted in any public condemnation by the U.N.). I would recommend that the U.S. not mount a vendetta at the U.N. against India, but sound out other States about the possibility of proposing a General Assembly resolution condemning violations of human rights in India. Given the configuration of political forces in the U.N. today, such an initiative would stand no chance of success, but serious diplomatic efforts toward this end would be useful-back in New Delhi !

As for using the procedures of the Economic and Social Council, at least two non-governmental organizations—the International League for Human Rights (formerly the International League for the Rights of Man) and Indians for Democracy-have submitted within the past month two long, documented communications on torture and other violations of human rights in India. Since an independent American expert is a member of the working group of the SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities-the first level of the long screening process—I would encourage this U.S. expert (although not a governmental representative, he is in fact a foreign service officer) to look at the evidence carefully. Some of the serious allegations of torture in India today submitted to the U.N. through the two non-governmental organizations I submit as Exhibit 2.

Another level which the U.S. can use with many nations is military aid. However, we do not grant or sell conventional arms to India. There is no evidence that India now or in the near future will want such arms and, in any case, there is no reason for us to resume such grants or sales. (Indeed, we should reduce much more drastically such grants and sales of conventional arms to all nations than the recent ceilings allowed in the new military aid legislation. We could begin by cutting off all arms to Pakistan!) If we were granting or selling conventional arms to India, I would hope such grants or aid would be terminated in conformity to the new legislation-which is in the final stages of passage or has