My reading of the American press is that basically the reports have been critical, especially by those reporters who were stationed in India and then once they leave are free to write more effectively.

Mr. PODDAR. I don't accuse the American media of the sin of commission. It is only a sin of omission. Mrs. Gandhi's point of view has been very effectively publicized throughout the world and any criticism has come from American journalists themselves and American political leaders.

The point of view of Indians such as ourselves, Indians for Democracy, has received very little play. The point of view that is given by JP has received very little play for understandable reasons but we have speeches made on the floor of Parliament by the opposition members. We have speeches that have not been publicized in the Indian press.

Mr. DERWINSKI. But they cannot be publicized in the Indian press under the present regime.

Mr. PODDAR. No; but I am talking about the American press has not publicized so it is the failure or error of omission so that people have gotten the mistaken impression. One simple illustration of thisearly in July when the Parliament met in the monsoon session 323 members of India's Parliament ratified Mrs. Gandhi's policies. By January 1976 only 89 people were voting in favor of Mrs. Gandhi. In spite of the fact she has this kind of dramatic show that was not very heavily played up so people did not get the impression that she does not necessarily have full support.

Mr. DERWINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRASER, Mr. Koch.

Mr. KOCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Poddar, the problem I always have with respect to what the United States should do generally comes to a bottom line where I posed the question to myself and to others. Why should we not cut off all economic aid to a country like India notwithstanding the fact that it would have an adverse impact on the population-it involves food-for the purpose of causing the people in that country to take whatever steps they think appropriate without any interference on our part to depose that government which in fact we prop up by providing the economic aid!

Now, let me just give you some figures just reading a brief paragraph. "The United States provided India with $227.7 in loans and grants for 1975 and $195.5 in 1976. Although the United States pr vided no direct bilateral development assistance to India in 1970 cause of the worsening relations with Mrs. Gandhi, the Agen International Development was to provide a $60 million loan and $1.7 million in economic development grants for 19 addition, the Department of Agriculture plans to provide in food grants and $61.1 million in food loans under

480 food assistance program in 1977."

Now, what would you think of this Congr

Mr. PODDAR. I am glad you raised th

of Indians for Democracy that I re

sanctions to be imposed by anoth

most of us, Indian citizens. However, our rule is to provide mi mation and let the American people make up their own mind.

Now, since I have lived in the United States almost half of

I would be very happy to give you my personal view CC suggestion.

No. 1, at the moment India enjoys two good harvests. We cient bumper stock that allows us 2 years of drought. W-ETup 13 to 14 million tons of food, so whether we ge worth of food this year or $270 million of food s inconsequential.

The second aspect to your question is: Would the cutoff have an adverse impact on the population!

Most of the forms of aid are used either to repa it is used to buy industrial goods, mostly produse ma Most of the economic policies of Mrs. Gand way of massive transport of resources from the society to the better-off section and that itempolicies.

So the things that we are exporting tour exported below our production costs so we can import goods with whiei 1 frigerators or air conditioners.

So this is not in our national inte

masses.

The second aspect is this, that the me which is so significant in Mrs. GancisIndia, one-fourth of our budget, tas to bankruptcy.

Mr. KOCH. Who is in that co

Mr. PODDAR. The three nation 2 dom and the United States. The democratic societies, With t countries in Western Europe Mr. KOCH. Is that inside g Mr. PODDAR. It is outside Mr. KоCH. Outside, 4Bank about 43 percer familiar with that!

Mr. PODDARIof that if it is th Mr. Ko

your feel

by the

the

.k

of

atma

you see or is that

ers of the eriod from a's Republic i campaign in antarily courted rybody that was put these people

-sful. In my judgment Now, because there is a in Bombay and there ombay but nobody knew y went and witnessed it. s away the extent of all

Irs. Gandhi's government is from her statement but the ne kinds of uprisings that you India whose earning powers in nt in a 20-year period, they were ficial poverty line in India is $4 that some people get only $2 per at economic power in half you are evitable.

making a suggestion to you and to pleasure of meeting in my office not

if those persons like yourselves, who being arrested, would advise Members other communications that you believe acy in India that the United States termi

much as the Western countries have in 1 year. Russian capacity is very limited by their own difficulties.

Mr. KOCH. Let me get to one aspect of the Indian situation. I read in the New York Times on August 13 of this year that the chief proponent of compulsory sterilization in India, Dr. D. N. Pai, had received the necessary law authorizing him to forcibly sterilize men and women within 180 days of the birth of their third child. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. PODDAR. Yes.

Mr. KоCH. I also read that not only is this offensive to people just on the general humanitarian grounds of being forcibly sterilized but also because it violates the religious code, particularly that of the Moslem population. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. PODDAR. Yes.

Mr. KOCH. Is that a fair and accurate statement?
Mr. PODDAR. Yes.

Mr. Kocп. Why is it with such a horrendous practice-and I consider forcible sterilization to be a horrendous practice-why is it that there has not been either an uprising comparable to that which Mahatma Gandhi organized simply by people throwing themselves on the railroad tracks-that is the memory I have of Gandhi-or alternatively a forcible overthrow of that government? What causes people to suffer this?

Mr. PODDAR. I should first say that there has been a tremendous uprising on this issue. There were 20 policemen killed by the people when the family planning doctors took them to force people to submit to sterilization right in New Delhi, and I don't know if the New York Times reported this or not.

In a newsletter that we published this forced sterilization campaign is not nationwide, has not been implemented in many places yet. They have made trial runs in various places and they have run into strong objections not only on the part of the Moslem community but generally speaking all segments of the society, including Moslems and Christians. It goes against the Hindu belief. The having of a child is almost like a sacred duty. Economically speaking for the vast masses of our society, in the rural society it is not looked upon as an economic burden. In the national sense it is but the rural children start working quite young in the fields and they also provide old age insurance to the parents.

So, until we have those kinds of guarantees to the society that they will be provided for under the old age, no forced sterilization campaign, no matter how brutally forced upon them, will succeed because people will fight back.

One important point also to recognize is that India does not have the manpower in technical and paramedical resources to adequately sterilize and they have by their action created a terror. They went out and sterilized 100 people without providing post operative care and some people died, they got infected. So it is easy to promulgate a policy from New Delhi. It is one thing to say and it is an entirely different thing to implement it.

Mr. KOCH. Why do you think that there is so little denunciation of the repressive practices of India, those you alluded to and others. I am sure that exist while so much of the world quietly denounces

repression elsewhere, as we have had witnesses here do, and as I and the chairman and others have done. We have denounced the repression in Uruguay and Paraguay and Argentina. Why is it that more people are not denouncing the repression in India? Why is there this double standard that we apply?

Mr. PODDAR. There are two basic reasons. No. 1, is that in other cases the United States is usually behind the military regime and in an executive capacity they are supporting it so there is more reason for the American people to get aroused.

The second reason is that India seems so complex and so far away that people simply feel not very qualified to comment on it.

As I pointed out earlier, it is Mrs. Gandhi's point of view that what she is doing for the weaker section of the society she has managed to fool some people who are pro-Indian, who are pro-Indian's people to think that maybe this was necessary but in the due course I think as people wake up you will find there will be increasing criticism of Mrs. Gandhi's policies.

Mr. KOCH. Do you see any possibility of a peaceful Mahatma Gandhi-like overthrow of your Indira Gandhi government? Do you see people out in the streets doing what Mahatma Gandhi did or is that an era that will never come back?

Mr. PODDAR. I will report to you what some of the members of the upper House of Parliament told us, that in a 6-week period from November 14 on Nehru's birthday until January 26, India's Republic Day, over 140,000 citizens of India offered a peaceful campaign in 4,000 different centers across the country. They voluntarily courted arrest. Today Mrs. Gandhi did not really arrest everybody that was against her campaign because they have no place to put these people in jail.

Mr. KOCH. Why isn't it successful then?

Mr. PODDAR. I am not saying that it is unsuccessful. In my judgment it is successful but it takes time to mobilize. Now, because there is lack of press publicity, my wife was in India in Bombay and there was a Satyagraha campaign in the city of Bombay but nobody knew about it. She found out and she personally went and witnessed it. We don't know here sitting 10,000 miles away the extent of all activities.

Let me also say this, that the policies Mrs. Gandhi's government is following are so contradictory, not only from her statement but thẻ impact on the lives of the people, that the kinds of uprisings that you speak of are inevitable. The people of India whose earning powers in real terms have been cut down 50 percent in a 20-year period, they were subsisting. The cutoff point of the official poverty line in India is $4 per month per person which means that some people get only $2 per person per month. When you cut that economic power in half you are really doing havoc so that this is inevitable.

Mr. Kocн. Let me conclude by making a suggestion to you and to Mrs. Fernandes, whom I had the pleasure of meeting in my office not very long ago.

I think it would be helpful if those persons like yourselves, who can speak out without fear of being arrested, would advise Members of the Congress by letter and other communications that you believe it is in the interest of democracy in India that the United States termi

nate all economic aid. We are not providing military aid to India at the moment so far as I know. I believe we should end all economic aid, grants, loans of any kind until there is a restoration of democratic rule, but I believe that people worry that by cutting off economic aid we injure innocent civilians in India and that we would not be doing the right thing.

Your conclusion is that we would be doing the correct thing and I think you have to bolster us in that belief.

Mr. PODDAR. I will do so.

Mr. KоCH. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRASER. Mrs. Fernandes, do you have any comments on the last point? Are you in general agreement?

Mrs. FERNANDES. I am in agreement with the point made just now because I think one way to exert pressure is to cut off this aid which is in fact bolstering that government. It is not helping the people of India to perpetuate that regime, so if by cutting off aid that government is made to fall, it will benefit the people of India long term.

Mr. FRASER. Let me advance a different proposition and see what your view is.

In the formulation that Mr. Koch has suggested there is a kind of interventionist overtone to it that somehow the responsibility of the United States is to determine the kind of government that shall govern another country. An alternative formulation may well be that were the United States only having at least limited resources that have been made available by action of the Congress to assist in development around the world that we ought to emphasize in our development priorities those countries with whom we share some common values and that where a government begins to pursue policies that do violence to our values that rather than pass judgment on them we simply disassociate ourselves, we disengage in the theory that if they have embarked on a different tract or course that is their responsibility not ours, but we want to assist those governments with respect to the political rights of the people.

What would you say of that formulation rather than one that simply says that we will attempt by withdrawal of funds to force a change in Government.

Mrs. FERNANDES. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about results and the results of the alternative approach will be exactly the same. Therefore whatever is more appropriate is what needs to be done and what should be done. I really don't want to get into what the U.S. Government should be doing or not doing, it is for the U.S. Government to decide that.

Since human rights and the violation of human rights is a matter which should be of concern. If the way suggested now for showing that concern, if that is a better way of doing it, that is fine, it is a matter of approach and it is not for me to comment on it. Far be it for me to advise on it.

Mr. FRASER. That leads to a related question.

The issue of human rights is very much tied up with political issues in the countries; that is, in many countries there are one-party states where the degree of press freedom varies. The attitude of the government toward dissent varies from country to country; some are more hospitable to it and others exercise more harsh repression.