As long as there is no widespread opposition on the part of the Indian people, one has to accept it. Where, it seems to me, the real moral issues come is over the questions of torture and imprisonment. The kind of government to which they are moving does seem to be within a constitutional framework and also, unhappily, within the general acceptance of the Indian people. This, again, is where I am sure Mr. Jack and I will disagree. It seems not to be a form of government that is unacceptable to the majority of people. It may be unacceptable to many liberals but not to the majority of the people. Mr. FRASER. That is a tricky proposition. In all the authoritarian governments I have ever visited, if there is unrest, they say, well that is justification for authoritarian rule. If there is no unrest, they say it proves that everybody is for us. Whether it is Greece or whatever country, because in fact most people most of the time submit to whatever they are under. They do not have a choice. Most of them are more interested in trying to earn a living, Mr. JACK. As I said, I think she could win, but why didn't she have the elections last March? It is a real question mark. One would have thought that, with prices going down, and many plus factors in the economy, she would risk having an election and yet she didn't. One wonders about that. Mr. FRASER. I would like to go to the economic aid issue. The idea in the United States engaging in a large bilateral program with the Government putting people in jail, engaging in torture, does not seem to me to be a useful form of foreign policy. I do not have a problem if the international banks ignore political factors, the IDA or regional banks, that is one thing, since at least we have not implicitly identified ourselves with that kind of government. Bilateral aid, it just seems to me, is a very awkward situation. In the long-run, it seems the salvation of India is going to lie through the social and political reforms, not through per capita GNP changes. Mr. EMBREE. I would agree with your last statement that the changes in India will come about through internal pressures. I think most of us will agree that foreign aid is no longer crucial to India's internal social changes. I think my only disagreement on the question of aid to India, is that I would not want us to single out India and not single out Chile and some of our other friends. Mr. FRASER. We are with Chile, we have been generous in aidMr. EMBREE. It will be easy for us to mount criticism of India, which would seem to me unfair. I think that is where Mr. JackMr. JACK. I am thinking out loud, still, beyond my paper, and in response, Congressman Fraser, to what you just said, what about the other way? What about trying to put some restraints on multilateral aid? I was somewhat offended in reading the consortium statement a few weeks ago. They said, I guess the West German representative in Paris, wherever they met, said the indices are going up and so we are going to continue our level of aid through the India consortium. Maybe it is the role of multilateral agencies to begin to demand some constraints. The problem always with bilateral aid is that it is one country-for example, the United States-telling the world what to do. These 13 nations in the consortium could together say that perhaps if India continues this route they will not give that almost $2 billion. Why would it not be interesting to try some constraints with multilateral economic aid? Mr. FRASER. My idea is, I regard the consortium as really just an aggregation of bilateral arrangements. I differentiate the consortium approach from the bank approach, which is more of an international organization. So, I have no difficulty with your formulation. I have come to the view in looking at this, it is not trying to tell a government what to do. It is a question of where we want to put our resources. The longer I watch and look at American foreign aid, the more strongly I feel regarding bilateral aid. We ought to put our chips behind those governments that share some common values with us. Mr. JACK. Would you exempt food then? Mr. FRASER. It is a foreign exchange problem for countries. If India is buying lots of arms from the Soviet Union-I do not know if it is or not. Let's assume for a moment it is-they are able to make these purchases from the Soviet Union in part because of our food aid program. I come to the view that the food question has to be looked at with some care. I do not have an official position on it. I think one has to recognize that is the situation, that it really just deals with foreign exchange of a country. I think one has to look at where that country is at in general. I should be asking your opinion. We have two thoughtful people here. I thought I would put my own views out. Mr. EMBREE. I think it is a matter, Mr. Chairman, that we inquire a great deal of new thinking about. I must confess, I am no longer as enthusiastic for foreign aid as many of us were a few years ago. I think we have to rethink all those implications. Mr. FRASER. I should say, it has been made clear to me they have no desire for assistance from the United States. So, we are not talking about something they are asking for and we are weighing in the balance. Mr. EMBREE. They buy it on the open market. Mr. FRASER. Just one last question on the corruption issue. I note repeated references to corruption. I concluded it is not something any country really likes. I use to hear in poor countries it was accepted and, therefore, a political issue. But, I have long ceased to believe that. That was one of the main planks of the liberation movement. Any political movement that picks up an issue and uses it for political purposes, they obviously believe it has meaning for the people of the country. I expect India is no exception. Mr. EMBREE. I think corruption in India has a very important meaning. When India speaks about corruption, they are speaking almost always about the day-to-day kind of thing they come into contact with. If you went into the government offices, you had to pay a few cents to get your work done. You had to pay somebody to make sure your application was not always on the bottom of the pile. In effect, it was corruption and touched everyone, so the appeal to India was against this kind of pervasive small-scale corruption which touches people much more than the large kind of corruption one hears about. It was this, I think, that annoyed people and made a political issue. It is this kind of corruption that has disappeared in India in the last year. Nobody supposes that large-scale corruption has disappeared. But, it was corruption that affected everyday people in their ordinary lives that bothered people. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, if I may. In order to keep the support and cooperation of the bureaucracy, has Mrs. Gandhi found it necessary to increase salaries, fringe benefits? How has she handled that issue? Mr. EMBREE. This is one of the interesting points. One of the things they did after the emergency was to do away with fringe benefits. India had a very complicated and expensive system which they argued could not be done away with as long as there were dangers of strikes. The lower civil servants are all organized. Mrs. Gandhi has won their loyalty, not by higher wages, but by cheaper food. The price of food has gone down and this is what one hears everywhere. This is how she has won the loyalties. Mr. DERWINSKI. Under the present emergency decree, there is no such thing as a government employee on strike? Mr. EMBREE. There is no strikes. Mr. DERWINSKI. It would have to be wildcat or near rebellion if a government employee tried to strike? Mr. EMBREE. This is where she can use her power very effectively. Mr. DERWINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JACK. About corruption, I think all governments tend to be corrupt. Some more than others. As I say in my paper, it is wryly observed that corruption is now more expensive, and perhaps the emergency and the so-called discipline have lessened the petty corruption to some degree. I think most people observing the Cabinet of India conclude that on top there is still a great deal of corruption. J. P. said several years ago, The galloping political corruption is affecting and degrading, because of the predominant position politics occupies in an undeveloped society, the entire gambit of national life: business, whether it is private or public; administration; the professions; education; even customs, manners and personal relations. The modern God of India is corruption. Mr. EMBREE. A brief correction. In my testimony I mentioned the Anand Marg, which has groups in this country. I was not in any way referring to the group in this country, only in India. Mr. FRASER. One last question. I read somewhere that one of the parties that was not touched by any arrest was the Communist Party of India. Is this true? Mr. JACK. This is the party that has allegiance to Moscow. This has been in coalition with Mrs. Gandhi for some years and it is still in coalition, but I think it is fair to say that the CPI has been increas ingly restless in the past year partly because of this attitude toward the workers-no strikes, the end of bonuses, and moving certain squatters from the center of the big cities. While there have been, I believe, no votes against Mrs. Gandhi in the parliament by the CPI, one is beginning to hear increasing rumblings of disenchantment. But, with Mrs. Gandhi having visited Moscow, with the relations between India and the U.S.S.R. still pretty firm, I think the CPI at the moment has nowhere else to go. Mr. FRASER. There were no CPI members of Parliament arrested although there were members of the Congress Party? Mr. JACK. There are other Marxists parties in and out of Parliament, and some of their members were arrested. Mr. DERWINSKI. Pro-Chinese? Mr. EMBREE. Some of them. Mr. FRASER. And this is, I gather, because of the coalition? Mr. JACK. By and large, I think it is fair to say that both the Soviet Union and its so-called nongovernmental friends are very supportive of Mrs. Gandhi. One does not see the international Communist network of organizations in any way critical of the erosion of civil liberties in India. The World Peace Council and groups like that have made their peace with Mrs. Gandhi and are supporting her and are in no way critical even though they are critical of the erosion of human rights in Chile, South Africa and Israel. They are silent on what is happening in India. Mr. FRASER. I thank you both. It has been a very informative afternoon. We appreciate your presence. [Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 2 p.m., Monday, June 28, 1976.] HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1976 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 2:20 p.m., in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald M. Fraser (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. FRASER. Today the subcommittee is holding its second hearing on the status of human rights in India. A third hearing will be at 2 p.m. tomorrow. June 26 marked the first anniversary of the national emergency rule prevailing in India. On this occasion Prime Minister Indira Gandhi has stated that she has no plans to hold elections, restore press freedom or civil rights or release political prisoners. She defended the continuation of the emergency on the grounds that the danger of internal and external subversion continues to exist. Amnesty International has appealed to the Government of India. to declare a general amnesty for all prisoners held in detention without charge or trial. Amnesty estimates that there are now at least 40,000 prisoners held without trial with many detained since the emergency was declared. Amnesty repeated a suggestion made in July 1975, that it be allowed to visit India to discuss various measures affecting fundamental rights under the emergency. Amnesty said the Government has not replied so far to the letter. To discuss the situation in India the subcommittee is pleased to hear testimony from Prof. Ved Nanda, of the University of Denver Law School; Bishop James K. Mathews, of the United Methodist Church; and Jagjit Singh Chohan, president of the International Council of Sikhs. I understand that Professor Nanda needs to leave. But I am hopeful that we will be able to proceed in a manner so that we can perhaps hear the testimony from the three witnesses and then have questions. Professor Nanda, do you want to begin? STATEMENT OF PROF. VED P. NANDA, SCHOOL OF LAW, Mr. NANDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am extremely grateful for your kind invitation to appear before this subcommittee to testify on human rights in India. |