The Indian Scene

During the last three months the Indian Scene was dominated by the inhuman tragedy enacted by the military junta of Pakistan in Bangla Desh and the large influx of refugees which it brought into the country. What started as an internal problem of Pakistan has become much more of an internal problem for India and so far the Government has not been able to find an effective solution for it. A situation is developing in which, unless the Government is prepared to take some unilateral action of a drastic character, it will have to reconcile itself to living with the problem as it did all these twenty-three years when faced by an identical problem. The influx of refugees from Pakistan is not a new phenomenon,

But the influx today brings consequences of a most serious character. It is not only sudden but also unprecedented in scale. In the early days of April it was only fifty thousand but gradually it increased and it stands at nearly seven millions today. There is nothing to indicate that it will stop at this figure. It is now more than clear that it is the deliberate policy of the Pakistan Government to utilise the present opportunity to expel from Bangla Desh all the Hindus–numbering ten millions–and those Muslims who are in active sympathy with the cause of autonomy and independence. It will not be a surprise if in another four or five months the number of refugees swells to twelve millions.

This is sure in the first place to bring economic ruin to India. She is a poor country struggling to bring about some kind of economic growth. She is already faced with the presence of twenty million unemployed of whom two millions belong to the educated categories. There is no doubt whatever that her economy will be completely disrupted if she has to provide continuous relief to the millions of refugees now flowing from Pakistan. It is estimated that each refugee costs two rupees a day. There are as yet no signs of other countries or international agencies coming to the rescue of India on a substantial scale. She alone has to bear the brunt of the burden.

But this is not the most serious consequence arising from the refugee influx. More serious are the administrative and political consequences. In the sensitive State of West Bengal it has led to the intensification of the problem of law and order which has already been acute there. Administration has completely broken down. An elected ministry found impossible to cope with this situation and resigned. The state has come under President’s rule. Now that the Government has decided on dispersing the refugees among other states similar situations are sure to arise in them. The Naxalites have been a source of trouble in West Bengal for several years. They are now in a position to secure a large number of recruits from the refugees and their capacity to foment disorder and violence and to strengthen the revolutionary forces will increase. It is also possible that the influx of Muslim refugees into Assam, Tripura, and Manipur will upset the balance between Hindus and Muslims and become a source of communal tension. We should also note that among the refugees there are several Pakistani spies and saboteurs. Some Indian politicians have already been found to be in league with them. They will serve as fifth columnists and pose a threat to the security of the country.

The only solution to this problem which has brought such serious consequences in its train is to send the refugees to Bangla Desh. Is the Governmentin a position to do this? So far there is nothing to indicate that the Government is in such a position. Let us see how it has looked at the problems all these months and on what lines it is thinking of solving it.

Government has been telling the public that the stay of the refugees is a temporary one and that it is determined to send them . Till recently it told the public that within six months this could be achieved. But now the Prime Minister and the other persons occupying responsible positions have stopped all reference to a time limit. They are now saying that though the refugees will be sent they will not be sent to be butchered by the Pakistani armies. The implication of this view is that it is only when Yahya Khan’s military regime comes to an end and a democratic and secular government guaranteeing equal rights of citizenship to both Muslims and Hindus comes into existence that they will be sent . It is only then that the refugees will be willing to return. The question therefore is whether in the foreseeable future there is any likelihood of the military regime coming to an end in Bangla Desh.

It does not look so. Pakistan is from the military point of view much stronger today than she was when the civil war began in the last week of March. The army which then stood at 40,000 is now 1.00,000 strong. Besides these regulars there ate the para-military troops numbering 80,000. More than 10,000 Chinese well-trained in guerilla warfare are helping them. More Chinese will come if the situation demands it. It is no doubt true that freedom-fighters have been putting up a heroic fight but there is no possibility of an untrained and unarmed people continuing the fight for long. All those who could have supplied leadership to them–lawyers, doctors, teachers, and other professionals among the intellectuals have fled to India. Those who remained have been murdered There is very little territory under the effective control of the Bangla Desh Government and it is not in a position to co-ordinate the activities of the freedom-fighters in different regions. In this situation there is no near prospect of the military regime collapsing and of its being replaced by a democratic regime which can inspire confidence among the refugees and make them willing to return to their homes.

It has all along been a part of the belief of the Government of India that through diplomacy it will be able to induce some of the world powers to bring pressure on the Government of Yahya Khan to restore democratic rule in Bangla Desh. It was with this view that it sent emissaries to various foreign countries but these have returned practically with empty hands. Other countries are prepared to extend relief to some extent to the refugees on humanitarian grounds but very few of them have undertaken to bring any political pressure on the Government of Pakistan, the kind of pressure advocated by India. It is true that as our emissaries are never tired of repeating, the governments abroad have a better understanding of the situation in Bangla Desh and a better appreciation of India’s stand in relation to it, especially of the restraint she chose to impose on herself. But one of them is prepared to go further than this. What is needed to set things right in Bangla Desh is not understanding and appreciation but action which will compel Pakistan to abandon its policy of deliberate genocide and come to a political settlement with Mujibur Rehman and his Awami League. No government has so far taken action in this direction. On the other hand very many of them continue to give economic and military aid to Pakistan’s military Government. All of them agree that what is needed is a political settlement but no one is prepared to take any measures to bring it about.

There is nothing surprising in this. The world is dominated by the super-powers–the United States and the U. S. S. R. and most of the other countries are their satellites. Neither of the super-powers is in favour of the breakup of Pakistan or of its becoming politically and militarily weak. It is a part of their political creed that in the sub-continent a balance should be maintained between India and Pakistan. This is the reason why all along they have been extending economic and military aid to Pakistan and they do not want to stop it because they are afraid that such a policy would strengthen India and raise her to the status of a great power and enable her to play a significant role in international politics. This is why even after assurances have been given to our external affairs minister, the United States has been sending economic and military aid to Pakistan. U. S. S. R. also has not modified her policy in this respect.

India should have noted that this has always been the policy of the so-called great powers in the history of modern world–of England, France, Germany, etc., in the past–and of U.S.A., U.S.S.R. and China today. They are great because they have the military, the economic and the political strength to create tensions where they do not already exist or intensify them where they exist. They have never been found interested in easing them. If tensions do not exist they will have no role to play. Korea, Indo-China and West Asia have become the areas of tension mainly because of the policies ofthe two great powers of today. Tension between India and Pakistan is welcome to them. It supplies the nourishing food which they always want. There is no basis for the naïve belief to which the Government of India is a victim that they will, through her diplomatic persuasion, do something effective to bring out the right kind of political settlement in Bangla Desh.

All the Muslim powers in the world are behind Pakistan. Some of them like Saudi Arabia have extended substantial economic aid to her. Iran and Turkey are her allies in the CENTO. Some of the military aid which America wants to give to Pakistan is being routed through these countries. In spite of the determined efforts of the Indian delegates, the Afro-Asian Unity Conference recently held was not prepared to condemn Pakistan’s policies. The attitude of Indonesia and Malaysia continues to be pro-Pakistan.

It is not only in respect of individual countries that the diplomacy of India has failed but also in its attempt to involve the U. N. O. in the matter. The International Organisation should have taken action to put a stop to genocide under the articles of its Charter. But nothing of the sort happened. Even U-Thant, the Secretary-General, has not thought it appropriate to take any initiative in the matter. The conscience of the international community has not been stirred. All that it is prepared to do is to extend some relief to the refugees. It does not think that the political situation in Bangla Desh and the tension between India and Pakistan are matters of any concern to it.

It is because Yahya Khan knows that India is completely isolated and that he will continue to get aid from other powers that he emboldened himself to announce the kind of political settlemenf for which he is prepared. He is determined to continue martial law. A new Constitution will not be framed as previously announced by the elected National Assembly but by a committee of experts nominated by him. The Awami Leaguers elected to the Assembly will not be allowed to take their seats. By-elections will be held to fill their places. Even then it is not known what kind of Civilian Government will be finally set up. It is however clear that it won’t be the kind of democratic and secular government which will induce the refugees to return.

What then is the way out for India? She has only two alternatives. One is to reconcile herself to the present situation, absorb the millions of refugees and rehabilitate them whatever be its cost in economic, administrative and political terms. The other is to take unilateral action of a drastic character irrespective of world opinion and the attitude of the great powers and create the democratic and secular government which will inspire sufficient confidence among the refugees and induce them to return.

The first of these alternatives will amount to a confession of her weakness and be inconsistent with her self-respect. The people of the country will lose all confidence in the present Government and it will further strengthen the view that India has no independent foreign policy of her own, and that the so-called policy of non-alignment is really one of alignment with both the great powers. No section of the public in the country–the debates in Parliament have shown this–will support the Government if it chooses to follow the first alternative. Such a course becomes all the more ludicrous when Government thinks that by sending millions of refugees into India, Pakistan has committed an act of aggression against her. No country keeps quiet when it is subject to aggression by a neighbour.

This analysis makes clear that the only sound policy for the Government is to accept the second alternative and put it into effect. This is what Shri Jaya Prakash Narayan advises the Government to do. He is no war-monger and if there is any one sincere and real lover of peace, it is he and no other. After five weeks of visits to all the important world capitals he has come to the conclusion: “Let this be clearly understood in this country that the great powers are all anxious to preserve the status quo in terms of the balance of power already established in the world. Some of them are particularly keen to preserve the balance in South Asia which has been created by them through a deliberate policy of neutralising India by bolstering up Pakistan.” He said he found no evidence anywhere that anyone was prepared to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for us and that all the political, social and economic burdens should be borne by India alone. He advocated the immediate recognition ofBangla Desh by India and felt that if India did so some other countries would follow her. He emphasized the need for unilateral action.

A similar view was expressed by Sri J. B. Kripalani. He even went a step further and said,  “If neither the U. N. nor the big powers intervene, will India allow her national life to be disorganised by the action of Pakistan without the latter firing a shot? Even if India has to go down it is better to have fought and lost than never to have fought for causes we cherish and the nation we love. Let us realise that we are already at war with Pakistan in which it is the aggressor.” It is only when there is a real war that the great powers will actively interest themselves in finding out real and effective solutions. Acharya Kripalani, should be noted, is also not a war-monger. He is a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi and one who understands best his philosophy of Ahimsa.

From some of their recent utterances the Prime Minister, the Minister for External Affairs, the Defence Minister and several other persons occupying responsible positions seem to share views similar to those of Jaya Prakash and Kripalani. Addressing an All-India Congress Seva Dal camp on June 29, the Prime Minister said that India could not regard the developments in Bangla Desh as an internal problem of Pakistan, irrespective of what the world’s comity of nations thought. She explained that even big powers were afraid that if they extended support to the freedom-fighters of Bangla Desh they might have to face similar situations in their countries and said that whatever might be their attitude we must find a solution ourselves for the problem of refugees and that at an early date. This is a clear recognition; though a little belated of the need for unilateral action. Both Swaran Singh and Jagjivan Ram expressed similar views. Dinesh Singh, a former minister of external affairs, warned the Government that a situation might be forced on India to go to war, according to the time chosen by Pakistan. He asked–he was speaking in Lok Sabha–“Why should this be allowed to happen?” He further observed that Pakistan must be taught that settling issues militarily was not always a paying proposition.

It is thus clear that something like military intervention is absolutely necessary if a real democratic government is to be established in Bangla Desh and if the problem of refugees with which we are faced is to be solved. It is for the Government to decide what form this military intervention should take. It may take initially the form of training and arming the able-bodied refugees and sending them to Bangla Desh to carry on the war against Pakistani forces. If this fails other steps may become necessary. In all this the co-operation of the intellectuals of Bangla Desh now in India should be enlisted. Everything should be done through their leadership.

The Prime Minister has been rightly appealing to the people of the country to help her in her efforts to solve the problem posed by Pakistan’s aggression. She may rest assured that the people are more than ready to extend all help and make all sacrifices needed to maintain the honour and respect of the motherland.

II

The problem of political and governmental instability in States continues to plague us. Gujarat and Punjab have come under President’s rule. So also West Bengal. In Bihar one coalition government in which the Congress (O) played an important role gave place to another coalition government. In Gujarat, Punjab and Bihar the change in government was brought about by defectors and by the intrigues of the ruling Congress party. Both these phenomena have dangerous implications from the point of view of political stability and Centre-State relations and it is necessary that the public should take note of them.

All students of public affairs have frequently pointed out that defections are the outcome of the low standard of political morality prevailing in the country. People hanker after power not because they want to use it for promoting people’s welfare but because it enables them to get rich or become influential at the expense of the public. If as members of one party they are unable to realise their selfish objectives they defect to some other party which enables them to get what they want. They have no scruples in a matter like this, though they know too well that all this brings about instability and an increase in public expenditure. To satisfy the defectors and keep them under control the number of ministerships, deputy ministerships and other political offices is unnecessarily increased or sinecure jobs are created involving a wastage of public funds. This is what democratic politics means in almost every state and though several measures have been proposed to put a stop to defections nothing has so far been done to give legislative shape to them. A Bill has now been prepared and it may be placed before Parliament but it is not thorough-going enough to put a stop to the evil.

The phenomenon of defections is only one aspect of the wide-spread corruption which prevails in the country in all departments of public and private life. The Vigilance Commissions have drawn attention to this. Debates on this have taken place in Parliament and State Legislatures. These have revealed that Chief Ministers, Central Ministers, officials entrusted with the management of public sector industries, highly placed officials in Railways and other undertakings are all involved in cases of corruption. But no one has so far been able to suggest ways and means for eradicating or even mitigating it. Some of the banking institutions have recently been affected by it and this, unless checked in the bud, is sure to produce worse evils. It is against this wider ground of corruption that the phenomenon of defections should be considered. Scientists are today talking of pollution of air, water, food and so on in consequence of the new technology which has come into use. Corruption is the pollution of public and private life.

Apart from defections the political instability in states is due to the intrigues of the party in power at the Centre. It is against other parties forming governments in states. Wielding as it does a large amount of economic and social power and holding as it does very many strings of patronage, it is in a position to topple state governments which are coalitionist in character and in which it has no share. It is this that has been responsible for the fall of ministries in U. P. and Bihar to a great extent. Its influence has also been felt in Gujarat and elsewhere. In the old despotic regimes ambitious persons who wanted to become kings, sultans and nawabs kept on intriguing against those in authority. But intrigues today are better organised and better financed. They are therefore more effective.

We have a federal system of government and if it is to work satisfactorily the Centre should interfere as little as possible in state affairs. It is then only that states will enjoy real autonomy. It is unfortunate that the Rajamannar Committee, which speaks so eloquently of the need for granting more powers and more autonomy to states, has not considered this aspect. Whatever autonomy the Constitution gives to a state will cease to be real if the Centre has power to make and unmake ministries. It will mean one-party government over the whole country. Federalism ceased to function in the Nehru Era when the same party ruled at the Centre and the States. In countries like Soviet Russia which are federal in theory, a unitary system is what is functioning in practice because of the dominance of the one Communist party One party-system–whether its basis is theory or practice–is inconsistent with federalism. This is how the advocates of State autonomy should look at the attempts of the party in power at the Centre to topple governments in states.

July 3, 1971