During most of the period in August – September, South Asian political scenario remained dominated by events relating to the Millennium Summit of the United Nations Organisation, the visit of the Indian Prime Minister to the United States of America, and the visit of the Prime Minister of Japan to India. Even though the US played host to all most all the top leaders of the world, including as significant from the South Asian point of view, the Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, the visit of the Indian Prime Minister held importance in a completely different perspective. For one, the visit was in acceptance of the invitation and in return to the visit of President Clinton to the sub continent in March this year which as described by the Indian Prime Minister himself, must be seen "as the defining moment". While the visit evoked considerable interest and was widely discussed, the same was not the case with Musharraf whose fulmination about change in US approach to the region received even less than a passing reference. ( The Indian Express 12 September 2000)

The Millennium Summit introspected on the efficacy of multilateral diplomacy in an era of almost unipolar world and against the background that the UN has often been decried as a talking shop engaged in nothing better than ineffective peace keeping missions. But as the Secretary General was to emphasise, in a world that is rapidly shrinking, decisions taken within a country have their effect elsewhere and without a forum for discussion. the world would be even more dangerously unstable than it is now. ( Edit The Statesman 10 September 2000.) Though the sheer habit of one upmanship might have compelled Vajpayee to a sharp but dignified rebuttal of the Pakistani dictator, General Pervez Musharraf's jeremiad against India rendered at the same forum earlier, Prime Minister’s address nevertheless made a lofty exposition of India's world view, explanation of this country's nuclear policy. (Edit: The Pioneer 11 September 2000.) It was a careful reiteration of known positions on most issues, from terrorism and the perfidy of its promoters to the CTBT and India’s case for a seat in the Security Council. (Edit : The Indian Express 11 September 2000.) Emphasising on India's strong democratic moorings the Prime Minister made a strong case for its inclusion in an expanded UN Security Council. "Mr. President, because there can by definition be no equitable development without democracy, it is essential that the United Nations promote democratic norms." (The Statesman 9 September 2000 ) The Prime Minister also stressed that democracy was the real vanguard in the global struggle against poverty, illiteracy, hunger and disease. "We cannot have development without peace between nations and democracy within them. Peace, democracy and development secure one another." Urging the world body to renew the pledge to wage war against inequalities that still prevail in the world, the Prime Minister committed India's unstinted support for UN initiatives in this regard. The Prime Minister also reiterated India's commitment to a nuclear-free world. "During the last half of the century gone by, India was in the forefront of the campaign for universal nuclear disarmament. But we raised our voice to no avail. India was forced to develop these weapons in 1998 because the principal nuclear weapons states refused to accept the almost universal demand for disarmament," and that the spread of nuclear weapons in the neighborhood made India especially vulnerable. "India's bitter experience has taught her that she has to be strong to defend peace." (The Pioneer 9 September 2000).

The Prime Minister, Mr. A. B. Vajpayee, used his turn to speak at the Summit to strongly urge the international community to focus sharply on the dangers of cross-border terrorism. By implication, the Prime Minister's remarks were intended to offer a perception sharply different from that presented by Pakistan's General Musharraf to the Summit earlier. In what were remarks clearly directed at Pakistan, the Prime Minister said that India "has been a victim of cross- border terrorism" for more than a decade now and that international terrorism with "its links to religious extremism, drug trafficking and the commerce in illicit arms" was the most dangerous of the many threats to peace, democracy and development that faced the global community. "Terrorism feeds on violence against innocent people and seeks to undermine plural, open societies... I call upon the international community to act against terrorism before it is too late." In a sharp if implicit denunciation of General Musharraf's stand that Pakistan was prepared to take bold initiatives through a dialogue with India, including a no-war pact, Mr. Vajpayee said: "Many statesman-like words have been delivered from this high tribune. Unfortunately, some of them are a mockery of the truth. The world must see the reality as it is. The acid test of sincerity of purpose is not words, but deeds. Terrorism and dialogue do not go together." ( The Hindu 9 September 2000) In A forceful rebuttal of Pakistan's assertions, Prime Minister asked the world community to see through Islamabad’s "Orwellian mockery of truth." "The authors of a terrorist campaign that has claimed more than 30,000 innocent lives in India are now offering new initiatives for dialogue," They are also the ones who actively sabotaged a historic peace initiative (meaning the dialogue with a separatist outfit last month) ( The Hindustan Times 9 September 2000)

As an adage to the concerns expressed in the millennium summit, Conference of the Presiding Officers of National Parliaments committed to offer necessary political backing to the world body as the cornerstone of the international cooperation system. Asserting that Parliaments of the world are firmly behind the United Nations and this support is both political and practical Dr. Najma Heptullah, President of the Inter- Parliamentary Union and President of the Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments in a statement to the Millennium Summit said "We are also committed to allocating the resources which the U.N. and other inter- governmental institutions need to accomplish their noble mission."( The Hindu 10 September 2000)

The tone and tenor for Vajpayee’s USA visit was set in the background of Clinton’s South Asia sojourn. As the President noted in his trip to India .. "we are the world's oldest democracy, India is the world's largest democracy; and you know with the end of the Cold War we have the opportunity for a new and strengthened relationship with India." The National Security Council briefing added that "We've taken some very specific steps with India since the President's trip, continuing high-level political consultations. They were part of the Community of Democracies meeting that we held in Poland earlier this year. We are trying to improve our commercial, energy and scientific base." ( The Hindu 14 September 2000 ) The Prime Minister himself set the ball rolling by an assertion that an Indo- U.S. partnership necessitated by ``our many common interests in the region'' was "important, above all, for Asia". Above all the Clinton administration exuded warmth about visit particularly as the visit is seen as a significant step towards "institutionalising" the high-profile dialogue between India and the United States, that had begun with the U.S President, Mr. Bill Clinton's visit to India in March. However important matters of national interest remain dominant as in the case of India’s policy approach to the nuclear question. There was a reaffirmation of India’s "resolve to build a multipolar world where we have strategic space and autonomy in decision-making, instead of being subjected to the hypocrisy and hegemony of those who refuse to dismantle their nuclear stockpiles." (The Hindu 9 September 2000 )

Vajpayee's visit provided the United States a great opportunity to right its historical negligence of the worlds largest democracy. The mutually beneficial engagement between the United States and India has come about thus far largely because of globalisation, with very little political or strategic direction or input from Washington The issue of nuclear non-proliferation, enmeshed in a congressional and geostrategic quagmire, can be on the backburner for the moment. (The Indian Express 7 September 2000) Following the visit a broader template has begun to shape Indo-US bilateral relations as a departure from previous focus on nuclear proliferation, Indo- Pakistani relations and the Kashmir dispute. The American perception that the center of international terrorism has shifted from West Asia to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the challenge India faces in combating the forces of extremism being sponsored from its neighbors to the west have created a new convergence of interests between Washington and New Delhi. (The Hindu 12 September 2000) There has also been a broad acceptance of New Delhi's argument that it needs a nuclear deterrent because Beijing has atomic weapons. Departing from the earlier practice of trying to limit India's concerns to Pakistan and bilaterlising India's security issue, Washington acknowledged the link between China’s nuclear weapons built-up and India’s compulsion to follow suit and the provocation that it held for Pakistan. India for a long time is emerging as a counterpoise to China in strategic perspective of the US due mainly to the facts that the no-Millennium first-use principle is not workable in today's world, India provides the US with an alternative geopolitical scheme and an India-ASEAN-Israel-Japan combine can contain China's influence. The time thus is ripe for India shed its diffidence and advance its vital interests more forcefully. (The Times of India 6 September 2000)

Calling for a redoubling of efforts between the US and India to combat terrorism, the Indian Prime Minister cautioned; "distance offers no isolation. It should not cause complacence" with an obvious reference to the possibility of a spillover of such terrorist activity on to the American soil. ( The Asian Age 15 September 2000)

Vajpayee’s address in the US Congress was an envisionment of Asia in the 21st century. "In this Congress you have often expressed concerns about the future contours of Asia. Will it be an Asia that will be at peace with itself? Or will it be a continent, where countries seek to redraw boundaries and settle claims-historical or imaginary-through force? we seek an Asia where power does not threaten stability and secularity. We must create an Asia where cooperative rather than aggressive assertion of national self interest defines behavior among nations". (The Outlook 10 September 2000)

The changing tune in Indo-Us relations was reflected in President Clinton’s remarks; "It is inconceivable to me that we can build the kind of world we want over the next 10 to 20 years unless there is a very strong partnership between the US and India" ( The Times of India 18 September 2000)

In the context that Japan continues to be the biggest bilateral contributor in respect of India, the visit of Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori held significance. There has been a change in foreign and strategic policies of Japan following the end of the Cold War resulting in a detente between the USA and the Russian Federation, substantive expansion of US-China relations, and the success of the Chinese experiment in economic liberalisation. India is not in Japan's primary area of political, strategic or security attention even tough it continues to enjoy preferential status in areas of technology and exports and as a market for investment. Japan continues to distinguish between South-East Asia and South-West Asia though the focus seems to be changing because of India's economic reforms. Japan continues to insist that India must sign the CTBT and accept international regimes on non-proliferation. the G-8 at Okinewa in July. The Okinewa summit statement on regional issues which Mori chaired stated: "The level of tensions between India and Pakistan remains a cause of international concern. We call on the two countries to resume dialogue as soon as possible in the spirit of Lahore in order to realise sustainable peace in the region. We call on both India and Pakistan to join international efforts to strengthen the non-proliferation and disarmament regime. While welcoming those positive statements and steps that have been made, we reiterate our call for them to carry out fully the concrete measures set out in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172, including the signing and ratifying of CTBT." Even though, basic difference remains between India and Japan on approaches to arms control, disarmament and international security, mutuality of political and security interests, in countering terrorism and facilitating bilateral trade is expected to reinforce India-Japan economic cooperation in coming months. (The Indian Express 4 September 2000)

Indo- Pak relations:
Concern were however raised at the combative and in fact bellicose tenor of the rhetoric that Mr. Vajpayee used against Pakistan, in his speeches at various forums in New York that could cast a pall on the emerging bonhomie. At the Asia Society which marked Mr. Vajpayee's first major engagement in the United States and where the anticipation among a largely intellectual and policy-maker audience was that the Prime Minister would spell out his conceptual vision of India's role in Asia and the world, the Prime Minister instead seemed to launch into a tirade against Pakistan. There was evidence that Mr. Vajpayee's hosts would not like the newfound friendliness between Washington and New Delhi to be reduced to a matter of scoring points against an estranged neighbor - Pakistan. While there is no longer any ambivalence at the highest policy-making levels that Washington wants a closer relationship with New Delhi to develop and in fact regards India as the major power in the South Asian region, it is also clear that it is not about to embark on an isolation or marginalisation of Pakistan. The Clinton administration appears to be working behind the scenes to create political space for the attempts to build a peace process in Kashmir. Mr. Pickering's discussions with Pakistani and Indian officials have been to the effect that the specific steps taken by India to ease the political context in Kashmir ought to be supported by all the parties in the picture, including Pakistan. Interestingly, the American effort has been to persuade Pakistan to give up its insistence that it be involved in the initial stages of negotiations between India and the Kashmiri militant groups. With Pakistan agreeing to vacate space for India to have its own negotiations with the militants, India in turn would be expected to acknowledge at some stage that Pakistan would have a necessary role in the eventual resolution of the Kashmir issue. (The Hindu 14 September 2000)
After a visit which at best was a non-event Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf admitted that the US priorities regarding South Asia had lately shifted away from Islamabad but "it does not mean that they are marginalising Pakistan. Pakistan is located in a very strategic location, which cannot be denied... We cannot be sidelined," he asserted. ( The Indian Express 12 September 2000) Stating that Pakistan was a "nuclear power of 140 million people" and "sitting in an area between South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle-East", he wanted to know "who can deny this geography?" The U.S. had bilateral interests with India "but that does not mean it will be at the total cost of Pakistan". ( The Hindu 12 September 2000) Musharraf nevertheless urged the United States President, Mr. Bill Clinton, to use stronger methods to press India to resolve the Kashmir problem. Arguing that he was not disappointed by the U.S. response to his pronouncements on Kashmir, and that Mr. Clinton is indeed trying to resolve the dispute, Gen. Musharraf said, maybe a stronger method of persuasion is required to really get things moving." (The Hindu 9 September 2000)

In yet another significant development Pakistan's overt and direct involvement in fomenting insurgency in Kashmir has forced even pro-Pakistan officials in the United States government to reevaluate their perceptions and declare Pakistan a terrorist state. Some prestigious US newspapers which over the years have also backed Pakistan's cause, are also questioning the US government's Pakistan policy and want the US State Department to spell out their stand. There are indications that the United States is considering declaring some militant groups in Pakistan as terrorist outfits.

Economy and Business
Coinciding with the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, the US Congress passed a resolution sponsored by the Republican Chairman of International Relations Committee Benjamin Gilman and ranking Democrat on the committee Congressman Sam Gejdenson urging lifting of all the remaining sanctions against India in mutual interest to expand and strengthen relations while intensifying cooperation over major issues. Clinton administration , however, appears to remain adamant over continuing to link lifting of the sanctions, including even development loans, to India's signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (The Hindustan Times 14 September 2000)
In a candid appraisal of Indo-US business relations, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee expressed disappointment at the slow pace of the inflow of US investment, but also set an ambitious target to make up for lost time. In his address to the US-India Business Summit, organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) at Washington on 13 September, Mr Vajpayee called upon US industry leaders to accept a target of US $ 5 billion as the annual amount of fund inflow to India. Admitting that the sluggishness was also the result of structural problems in India, the Prime Minister announced the setting up of a Strategic Management Group in the PMO to speedily resolve problems encountered by large investment projects. Assisted by an Inter-Ministerial Cell, the Group would report directly to Mr Vajpayee once every month. (The Pioneer 14 September 2000)

In a bid to lure investment The Prime Minister reiterated the commitment for second round of reforms in India. "Your choice is diverse. It ranges from infrastructure to manufacturing, from financial services to knowledge based enterprises". The opportunities and commitments were spelled out thus:

- a project to build 13000 Km of improved and expanded National Highway by 2007.

- A massive rural road connectivity program to link all the villages with population of more than 500 with all weather roads by 2000.

- Deregulation in the area of telecommunications. "we have fully liberalised national long distance, basic telephony and under sea optical cable"

- the monopoly of the state owned VSNL would end by early 2002 instead of 2004 as at present mandated. The government had announced the corporatisation of the Department of Telecom Services, and had allowed 100 percent foreign investment in areas like voice mail, internet, and laying of dark telecom fibre. And last month, the government had opened up domestic long distance telecom traffic to private players.

- The insurance sector had been opened up and the first batch of private licences would be issued by October 1.

- New civil aviation policy is on the anvil that envisaged to enable foreign airlines to bring more flights and business to India.

- The Reserve Bank of India is willing to consider further expansion of foreign private banks in India. (The Times of India 18 September 2000)

Information Technology
Britain is keen on attracting high quality skilled information technology professionals from India, as stated by Ms. Patricia Hewitt, the British Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce. "We have taken initiatives to strengthen U.K. education and training systems while at the same time attracting high-quality skilled professionals from other countries such as India," to meet skills shortage, she said delivering the keynote address at a one-day seminar on information technology jointly organised by the Indian High Commission and the Confederation of Indian Industry in Birmingham with participation from senior representatives of British and Indian companies. (The Hindu 9 September 2000)
At present levels of demand India is comfortably placed till 2008 for domestic information technology manpower requirement. However, the concerns enlisted in the discussion paper presented at the first meeting of the Task Force on Human Resource Development in Information Technology, are the unpredictable growth of IT sector world-wide, the consequent exodus of Indian IT professionals as also the country's inability to move up in the IT value chain. (Business Line 4 September 2000)

Microsoft and Infosys announced a tie-up on 14 September 2000 during the visit of Bill Gates to India to celebrate 10 years of his firm's presence in India. The software giant is well positioned to enjoy all the advantages of being first and being there-or rather, everywhere-when India gets seriously into infotech applications. Whether it is government, business or higher education and who knows, maybe even basic education, there is no competitor in sight today and unlikely to be one for a long time yet. When Microsoft sets up on line advanced training for software engineers, shares sources codes with Indian institutions, it makes itself indispensable but it is also offers India invaluable opportunities. (Indian Express 14 September 2000)

SAARC & Regional Security
Pressure mounting is on India from some of India's smaller neighbors for the "revival" of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. (The Times of India 8 September 2000 )
Pakistan allays Indian security concerns on the 1500-km India-Iran gas pipeline saying that there was no hurdle from Pakistan's side to the construction. In an interview to the Middle East Broadcasting Corporation, Pakistan Petroleum Minister, Mr. Unsman Aminuddin said that Pakistan had positively responded to the Iranian proposal on the pipeline project and was prepared to address all security concerns of India. "We also consider the project viable and favorable to our own interests. The Pakistan Government attached top priority to the cooperation among the regional countries for development of oil and gas sector." (The Hindu 8 September 2000)

While continuing to recognise the exiled Rabbani government, India is willing to work with other world powers to establish a multi-ethnic government in Kabul...There is unanimity among strategic thinkers here that India would be the single biggest beneficiary if ever the Afghan mess is cleaned up. ( The Hindustan Times 4 September 2000 )

Human Security
Opening the United Nations Millennium Summit with largest ever gathering of world leaders, the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, challenged world leaders to protect their people from misery and to develop an agenda that would get rid of poverty and disease and forge peace. "They look to you to protect them from the great dangers of our time; and to ensure that all of them can share in its great achievements... Let us not disappoint them." (The Hindu 7 September 2000)
The Indian Express editorial dated 13 September 2000 has spoken about policy lapses having human security implications in India. Instead of investing in education, public health and empowering the poor by rebuilding their entitlements, the state continued to regulate and throttle the markets for the first four decades. Today, instead of planning out the strategies of long-term poverty alleviation, it has even abandoned the basics of governance.

The USA has pointed a disapproving finger at India's "ineffective investigation and prosecution of attacks on religious minorities" in its second annual report on religious freedom. (The Statesman 7 September 2000)

Citizenship Issues
A high-level committee appointed by the Center is currently going into the merits of allowing dual citizenship for Indian citizens or people of Indian origin settled abroad. It is hoped that the committee takes a fresh and imaginative view of the situation, and comes up with positive recommendations. Apart from the capital, technology and professional expertise they can transfer to aid India's development, their success has destroyed the myth of the naturally lazy and intolerant Indian...they have thus energised economic reforms, and could provide further impetus to economic growth if their free access to and from the country is facilitated. (The Statesman 6 September 2000)


Compiled by

Arabinda Acharya and Utpal K.Pati