If we were to apply Western standards to all of the countries of the world with respect to political rights and refrain from aid, would we not have many countries to whom we could not give aid? One of the vehicles for international aid are the international institutions such as the World Bank. We have been arguing that the actions by the international banks ought to be free of political considerations; only economic considerations should prevail as to whether a particular project is worthy of being financed.

In fact, this issue was on the floor of the House not long ago because there was an amendment offered to cut the U.S. contribution to the World Bank in an effort to force a reduction in aid to India.

What is your view of that question? Namely, to what extent should the international development institutions take into account the question of human rights in the provision of aid to countries?

Mr. PODDAR. I don't think that regardless of the source of aid any country that is signatory to the United Nations declaration of human rights and that consistently violates it, shows no movement in the direction of establishing democratic principles and democratic practices in their life, should resent other countries who value these rights dearly.

There is no amount of economic price that you and I are willing to put on political and religious freedoms. These countries then should be called upon to finance a process which goes completely contrary. To the extent that these international agencies derive their sustenance from the taxpayers, from the people who believe in these strong values they have every right--not only right, I should say moral obligation to withhold that kind of financing. If that kind of financing in India is stopped for suppression, I am sure it will be done in other countries. Why should we be party to the financing of that suppression? Most of the aid does not really filter down to the people, it gets in the pockets of the corrupt officials.

Mr. FRASER. You would argue that the international institutions should add to their considerations the status of human rights?

Mr. PODDAR. Absolutely. For instance, in the case of Chile the international institutions did enter a consideration just on the other side.

Mr. FRASER. There is some evidence that the World Bank Act disengaged from the Allende regime and then vigorously stepped in to help the new regime. These actions constituted a politicization of the World Bank.

Mr. PODDAR. In the wrong direction.

Mr. FRASER. You would argue it should be politicized on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Mr. PODDAR. The word "politicize" bothers me because you don't want favoritism simply on the basis of these countries exercising an independent foreign policy, for example, but on some values that we really hold sacrosanct. I think it would be improper and unwise. I mean, we cannot picture America surrounded completely by a military dictatorship all around and hope that we would retain the democratic freedoms right here at home. Should we be party to a process that leads to that kind of fate for our own people it should also weigh in our mind just as much as the morale issue involved.

The 200,000 political prisoners in India that have been languishing in jail, we should think of their morale, what their feelings and

thoughts are, what their thinking would be. If this kind of event had happened in another country, what would we have expected them to do? We have to look at the reverse side of the coin. We are not asking for military assistance for the underground in India, we are not asking for arms, we are not asking for American boys to fight for the freedom of Indians.

All we are asking is the moral support of the United States and whatever sanctions that the American people feel are wise to help the cause of freedom and democracy in India. Those people have been waiting too long. They have families that are entitled to compensation while they are under detention who are on the verge of starvation and they are languishing. So it is a very human drama on a very big scale. I don't think there is any other country in the world with that large a number of political detainees right now on the face of this Earth.

Mr. FRASER. I don't suppose we can settle that issue but I guess my view is that the question of the extent to which international institutions should take into account the human rights is probably becoming a more urgent question to be addressed.

Mr. PODDAR. I would agree with that.

Mr. FRASER. Otherwise we run the risk that when the United States for policy reasons begins to disengage, the international institutions increase their assistance.

Mr. PODDAR. Which seems to be the case in the case of India. Very clearly there is very little bilaterally; that is mostly through multilateral sources.

Mr. FRASER. Mrs. Fernandes, what is your status now with respect to returning to India? Do you expect to return?

Mrs. FERNANDES. I hope I will be able to return one day, that is my dearest wish, but I don't think with the present government in India it is possible for me except if I want straight away to go into a jail.

Mr. FRASER. Do you think if you went back under the present circumstances and particularly in light of your outspoken comments about the Government that you would not be free very long?

Mrs. FERNANDES. I would also be branded as a fugitive from justice and fleeing the legal processes of India. Who knows, I may receive a letter of some sort from the Embassy here on the lines that has been received by other Indians living abroad and who have expressed their dissent openly. There is no question that I would face some reprisals if I were to return. I would not consider it for a moment.

As I said earlier, I took the risk as a mother of a child who was just 20 months old to venture out into the world with hardly any money in my pocket and it must have been quite a situation for anyone to take that kind of step. I don't think I want to go back there unless I am clear that I can live my life freely without fear and that my son can grow up without fear and without persecution.

Mr. KоCH. There may be a philosophical difference in our approach. I don't think there is, but I think I have to make an additional point. I happen to believe it is not simply a question that there are a number of countries around the world that need assistance and therefore we will simply say we are going to support our "friends," although I do believe that you support your friends. I am not talking now about

the military aspect, I am talking about the ideology of the regimes we support. To those that don't fit that democratic category you say, "All right, there is a limit to our resources so we will just ignore you. I am not telling you what to do, we are just going to walk away." I don't think that is enough, and I don't think you do either, because if that were the situation, then we would not be sending letters to the Argentine Government protesting what the Argentine Governmen is now doing. We would say:

Listen, we are not going to give you any aid, because there are democratic countries that we are going to provide for, but you go ahead and do whatever you want to do there.

That is not your position, and that is not our position. We do take a role. I am not talking about a military role. I believe that there is a morale code. We may not always be right, but there is a morale code and we have an obligation to speak out, and we have an obligation to say to India:

Now, it is not an internal matter that you are repressing your own people. We are not going to go to war with you over it, we are not going to end diplomatic relations, but we are not going to send you any food and we are not going to allow any monies to go to prop up your government.

In a sense that is expressing what it is that will make it possible for that government to receive aid. Now that would be interventionist based on your definition as I thought you defined it, but if that is interventionist then I am an interventionist.

Mr. PODDAR. I might also point out there have been unconfirmed reports that India recently imported $70 million worth of surveillance equipment from the United States.

Mr. FRASER. We have plenty of it to export, I guess. [Laughter.]

Mr. KOCH. Once again, Mr. Chairman, just to sum it up, I think that there are morale opinions, and I think we have an obligation to state them and to press in a peaceful way and in a diplomatic way— not at all referring to any military action but in a peaceful diplomatic way-what it is we expect countries to do if they want our assistance. Mr. FRASER. Well, I raised the other formulation because it is a question that we have to probably talk about. I go back to the problem of so many countries with varying degrees of violations of human rights. I think India is a fairly clear-cut case because they had a rather well-developed democratic system.

Mr. Koсн. If I can just pursue this; I think Mr. Poddar put his finger on it in stating his reason why we can make this demand. If a country joins the United Nations and becomes a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and if they expect to get assistance on a multinational World Bank approach, what is wrong with the World Bank saying:

We are going to hold you to one of your contractual obligations with the United Nations, and if you don't perform according to your contract, which you freely entered into, you will get no loans or other assistance. There are countries that don't belong to the United Nations, and they have not signed that, you have signed it. We are going to hold you to it.

I think that is a very good formulation.

Mr. FRASER. We just have the one-party state.

Mr. KOCH. What I want to have happen is to say that is not the major thrust, whether it is a one-party state. I agree with you that

there are now less than 24 countries in the world that are democracies in our image. I don't think you will find very many people who take the position that we will only deal with countries that have democratic forms in our image. I think that what we have said comes under the formula of the Harkin amendment, that countries that engage in persistent forms of repression against their own people will not receive economic or military aid. That is the formulation.

I am not talking about whether they have a one-party system or not. I may not like the system, and I, therefore, might distinguish between countries which are democratic friends and those which are one-party states, but that is not the basic formulation; it is the question of repression of their own people. There can be a one-party state which I abhor and I deplore as hard as I know how. But the people of that country have to make the decision for themselves whether they will continue or overthrow it or whatever.

That one-party state may be benign compared to a country like India which allegedly has I don't know how many parties-37

Mr. PODDAR. Twenty-six parties.

Mr. KOCH [continuing]. And is repressive of its own people.

Mr. FRASER. The Harkin amendment terminates economic aid unless the aid goes directly to the needy people of the country.

Mr. KocH. That is not what we originally passed in the House. That was the administration's watered-down version of it and that is why I asked them whether or not we would not be doing a greater service to those people if we did not allow the food to go, because the Harkin amendment does have this escape clause, which in effect allows the food to go because it goes through religious organizations and other groups other than the government and reaches the people. But our witnesses say cut it off. Is that right?

Mr. PODDAR. Absolutely.

Mr. FRASER. AID says that all of its aid programs serve the needy people by definition under the mandate of Congress and that there is never any question. [Laughter.]

I think India must get title I assistance which is essentially balance of payment aid.

I think the forms of aid to India ought to be the subject of a hearing when we ask the Department.

I want to thank both of you. I am sorry we got off into this more general discussion about what is the U.S. responsibility with respect to human rights, but I think Congress, itself, is still sorting now as to how we respond to the changes in government.

I must pay I find your testimony quite persuasive. There are some cases, it seems, where you can perceive to move toward authoritarianism on the basis of external conditions which may justify their own country where it seems to be designed simply to perpetuate some person in power. That seems to be increasingly common in many countries today which sort of changes the interpretation I think our Government ought to put on it on advancing in order to fashion our own policies. Well, thank you very much for a very helpful presentation. Mr. PODDAR. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned to reconvene at 2 p.m., Thursday, Sept. 23, 1976.]

HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1976

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 2:17 p.m., in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald M. Fraser (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. FRASER. Today the Subcommittee on International Organizations continues its series of hearings on human rights in India.

The subcommittee shall begin by receiving testimony from the Department of State and the Agency for International Development regarding the human rights situation in India and a description of the assistance programs which are provided for India, either bilaterally or multilaterally.

Our witnesses are Mr. Adolph Dubs, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs and Mr. Arthur Z. Gardiner, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Asia, Agency for International Development.

Following the completion of their testimony, we shall receive testimony from Mr. Claude-Armand Sheppard, observer of the trial of P. R. Sarkar in Patna, India. Mr. Sarkar is the leader of the Ananda Marga religious society. Mr. Sheppard is a member of the Canadian Bar and undertook this mission for the International League for the Rights of Man.

We will begin our hearing then with Adolph Dubs.

STATEMENT OF ADOLPH DUBS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. DUBS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express appreciation on behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Gardiner and myself for the opportunity to appear before you.

I have a statement which is relatively brief, and with your permission, I would like to read it now.

It is our understanding that the committee is interested in a discussion of U.S. economic assistance, both multilaterial and bilateral to India and a review of developments there over the past year.

My colleague, Arthur Gardiner, from AID, is prepared to speak directly on the subject of economic assistance. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide a background to his remarks by sketching out the main Indian internal trends since the proclama