[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 18, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 ADDRESS BY HIS EXCELLENCY, P.V. NARASIMHA RAO, PRIME MINISTER OF THE 
                           REPUBLIC OF INDIA

  Prime Minister RAO. Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members 
of the Congress of the United States:
  It is with great pleasure and a deep sense of honor that I address 
you today. Standing in this august Hall, as two great Indian statesmen 
did before me, is an inspiration to all who hold democracy and freedom 
above all else. If, as Thomas Carlyle once wrote, ``the history of the 
world is but the biography of great men,'' then much of the world's 
recent history is owed to these Chambers.
  The histories of our two nations have been intertwined by the words 
and deeds of great men and women. Christopher Columbus set off to 
discover a new route to India, only to discover a new world. Out of 
that unintended discovery was born a great Nation. Undaunted by the 
rather big difference he discovered in his destination, Columbus 
remarked, this time with perfect accuracy, that the more you go east, 
the more you are assured to come upon the west. Thus America has a 
special place in the Indian thinking, as a continent found further east 
of the known east. This direction is significant in its own way.
  In his final inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson spoke of ``Freedom 
of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the 
protection of Habeas Corpus, and trial by juries impartially 
selected.'' When India gained independence, we accepted these 
fundamental freedoms, and looked to the Declaration of Independence and 
the Bill of Rights while formulating the constitution of the world's 
largest democracy. Now, both countries are forever joined by the shared 
values of secularism, political pluralism, and the rule of law.
  The spirit of America's Declaration of Independence so moved Indian 
spiritual leader Swami Vivekananda that on July 4, 1898, he wrote a 
poem titled, ``To the Fourth of July.''

     Move on, O Lord, in the resistless path!
     Till the high noon overspreads the world,
     Till every land reflects thy light,
     Till men and women with uplifted head
     behold their shackles broken, and
     know in springtime joy, their life renewed.

  Author Henry David Thoreau was influenced by early Indian philosophy 
and thought, from which he drew his inspiration for the essay, ``Duty 
of Civil Disobedience.'' Thoreau wrote, ``If the law is of such a 
nature that it requires you to be an agent of injustice to another, 
then I say break the law, let your life be a counter friction to stop 
the machine.''
  Thoreau's essay influenced Mahatma Gandhi tremendously while he was 
in South Africa and in fact gave him the inspiration for the great 
nonviolent civil disobedience he was to practice in the subsequent 
years so effectively. I am sure his spirit showers his choicest 
blessings on free and democratic South Africa today.
  In turn, Gandhi inspired Dr. Martin Luther King, who learned from 
Gandhi that ``non-violent resistance paralyzed and confused the power 
structure against which it was directed.'' Dr. King wrote that ``Gandhi 
was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of 
Jesus above mere interaction between individuals, to a powerful and 
effective social force on a large scale. It was in this Gandhian 
emphasis on love and non-violence that I discovered the method of 
social reform that I had been seeking for so many months.''
  Thus the United States and India have learned a great deal from each 
other throughout history. Distances did not matter. Indeed distances 
never mattered in the transmission of ideas, because their medium is 
the mind. They travel at what is known as mano-vega in the Indian 
tradition, meaning the speed of the mind, higher than anything anyone 
has ever imagined or can ever imagine.
  So ideas, and born of them ideals, have echoed back and forth between 
India and America. Some perceived them, some experienced them, others 
did not, as often happens. Swami Vivekananda, Gandhi, Rabindranath 
Tagore, Thoreau, Emerson, Martin Luther King, and many others, known 
and unknown all these names seemed to belong but to one nation of 
humans. Hundreds of American missionaries spread into the remotest 
tribal areas of India, learned their complicated languages and 
numberless dialects and served the people there with unparalleled 
devotion. I am personally acquainted with some of your sons and 
daughters, and a few who were born in my own district.

  For over a century grew this great friendship, a relationship purely 
between the peoples, with no trace of domination of selfish motive of 
any kind. Americans rejoiced in India's political freedom. India 
forever acknowledges the debt we owe to Franklin Delano Roosevelt for 
his role in pleading with the British for India's independence. 
Everything looked fine.
  We had the unique opportunity of shaping the history of the post-war 
world--a history which could have offered the peace dividend to all, 
East or West, North or South, by enabling countries to attain their 
full potential by giving their citizens the better life they deserved, 
but which they had been deprived of, for ages.
  Then came the cold war.
  That great opportunity seemed to be slipping through our fingers, 
even as we tried to hold it in our hands. Today, we have to worry about 
the fingers.
  Mr. Speaker, I shall now skip the cold war. Not being a historian, I 
am under no obligation to recount it. Being transient, term-bound 
representatives of our peoples, you and I have neither the time nor the 
need to review what we do not wish to repeat. It is the future we have 
to think about, in fact worry about. And, of course, the fingers.
  The fingers are, simply, democracy and development. From my own 
personal experience, I have no doubt that this is an extremely 
difficult combination, and equally essential, in India's view.
  India has undertaken the first steps to shaping our history for the 
next generation. After decades of centralized economic policies, India 
recently embarked on a reform program designed to modernize our 
economy, liberalize trade, and realize our economic potential. We 
welcomed private investment and competition and encouraged free market 
growth. As a result, India is becoming globally competitive and the 
standard of living of our citizens is gradually on the rise. The 
momentum of these reforms will carry India into the next century as the 
single largest free market in the world.
  Perhaps the most impressive aspect of India's ambitious economic 
reform program is the smoothness with which the transition from a 
closed, protected economy to an open, export-oriented economy has 
occurred. Far-reaching changes have been undertaken in a short span of 
3 years, at the same time devising prompt and effective steps to 
obviate severe social consequences which could have threatened future 
reforms. With these steps, coupled with popular support and a broad 
consensus across India's diverse political spectrum, the reform process 
has now acquired a momentum of its own.
  The impact of the changes in India has had a profound effect on Indo-
United States economic relations and has benefited both countries. 
American firms have been in the forefront of forging a new economic 
relationship. India's vast domestic market, huge educated, skilled and 
semi-skilled work force, sound financial institutions and time-tested 
and democratic system offer tremendous investment opportunities for 
forward-looking companies.
  In shaping our history for the next century, we must look ahead to 
greater trade between nations. An unfortunate by-product of the past 
half century was the introduction of weapons of mass destruction around 
the world. The difficult and complex question of nuclear weapons 
proliferation can be effectively addressed only when we consider their 
global reach, requiring similar global solutions.
  Every nation, large or small, rich or poor, is sovereign and 
possesses an inherent right and responsibility to its people to ensure 
their security. I firmly believe that the way to ridding the world of 
weapons of mass destruction lies in creating a world order based on the 
universal principles of equality and non-discrimination as means of 
enhancing security. The answer that we as nations choose will shape the 
destiny of the world in the coming century.
  Progress has been made in establishing an international consensus for 
banning nuclear weapons testing and halting production of fissile 
materials for nuclear weapons purposes. India and the United States 
have worked closely together in helping to forge this international 
consensus. To consolidate these gains, further meaningful steps should 
be taken towards de-nuclearization which the international situation 
now allows.
  And so much more remains to be done. A nuclear no-first-use 
agreement, indeed an agreement to outlaw the use of nuclear weapons is 
necessary in the short term by way of precaution, while serious 
multilateral negotiations are launched for nuclear disarmament, the 
objective being a nuclear-free world.

  Distinguished friends, President Abraham Lincoln, in his first 
inaugural address on the 4th March, 1861 had said:

       I hold that, in contemplation of Universal Law and of the 
     constitution, the union of these states is perpetual. 
     Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental 
     law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no 
     government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for 
     its own termination. Physically speaking, we cannot separate 
     this with the so-called self-determination slogans that are 
     being raised today. We cannot remove our respective sections 
     from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A 
     husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence 
     and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts 
     of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to 
     face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must 
     continue between them.

  Indeed in 1968 your Supreme Court had to say,

       When Texas became one of the United States, she entered 
     into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of 
     perpetual union and all the guarantees of Republican 
     Government in the union, attached at once to the state. It 
     was the incorporation of a new member into the political 
     body. And it was complete and final * * *

  India accepts this statement as truly characteristic of a 
multicultural, multi-ethnic and multireligious republic like India or 
the United States and as totally unassailable.
  It is the responsibility of nations to preserve the life and liberty 
of all their citizens under the law regardless of race, religion,or 
ethnicity. We in India, like you here in this great democracy, are 
determined in our assertion that the rights of minority groups must be 
protected vigorously under the rule of law. Our Constitution provides 
for this, our people demand this, and our heritage requires this.
  The task that confronts democratic governments today is to maintain 
protection of human rights in the face of the most dangerous threat to 
the violation of human rights, namely, the bullets of terrorists. India 
is committed to protecting its citizens from terrorism and no 
government worth its name can shirk this responsibility. We are taking 
scrupulous care to protect the rights of individuals under due process 
of law and punish human rights violations whenever they occur. In this 
difficult and delicate task, we are doing all that is humanly possible.
  As regards the United Nations, it has long been a strong defender of 
the rights of all the world's citizens. We must therefore promote, in 
all possible ways, the original mandate of the United Nations, namely, 
to provide collective security as a means of achieving peace.
  The U.N. framework for pursuing global security through international 
cooperation must be preserved, despite the problems and limitations 
that exist. The international community needs to strengthen the U.N. 
and provide more resources if we expect it to respond to today's 
challenges.
  It is our strong feeling too, that the U.N.'s decisionmaking bodies 
must more accurately reflect the regional situation of states in the 
world today. In order to chart a new course to navigate these troubled 
but exciting times, we need to recognise the role which many nations 
can play in the pursuit of peace.
  Mr. Speaker, Indo-United States relations are on the threshold of a 
bold new era. We have seen unprecedented cooperation in a number of 
areas. Most recently Indian forces patrolled alongside United States 
and United Nations forces in Somalia. We share common interests in 
addressing global environmental crises, combating international 
terrorism, and stemming the tide of international narcotics 
trafficking. In these areas, the United States and India have worked 
closely together.
  Yet there remain areas where further cooperation is warranted. Export 
controls on technology, while once a useful means for controlling 
weapons technology, now hinder, developing countries in their efforts 
to improve the lives of their people. Much of what is termed as weapons 
technology in fact has vital applications in a modern civilian society. 
Many special materials and complicated computer processors found in 
missile control systems are also found in hospital intensive care units 
and global telecommunications systems.
  In October 1949, India's first Prime Minister Jawaharal Nehru had 
stated, ``It was necessary, even desirable, and, perhaps, inevitable 
that India and the United States should know each other more and 
cooperate with each other more.'' Later that year, Prime Minister Nehru 
predicted that the next 100 years are going to be the century of 
America.
  The Prime Minister was right. The 20th century will be known as the 
American century. Throughout the last 100 years of American and Indian 
history--through the peaks and valleys of Indo-United States 
relations--Nehru's words have rung true and a bond has been forged 
based on affinity and understanding. The success of Indian-Americans in 
this country reflects the understanding and mutual respect between the 
world's two largest democracies.
  As India stands poised to contribute to global prosperity and peace 
in the next century, we look forward to continuing our partnership with 
America and with the American people.
  India is one of the developing countries in which the process of 
development is firmly established. We have realized that no quick fixes 
are possible and that there is no substitute for hard work with full 
involvement of the people. The results achieved in India are commended 
by some, derided by others, on the basis of physical statistics. In all 
these appraisals, however, one crucial element that has not figured as 
it should, is the fact that Indian's progress has been achieved in a 
democratic set up. This dimension, I submit, is extremely important. As 
an experienced activist in the community development process in India 
ever since it commenced in the early 1950's, I can vividly recall the 
hurdles that we encountered in the path of development, for which many 
people have blamed our democratic process. Many scholars and experts, 
including some from this country, told us that we were attempting the 
impossible, and that at that rate, we were heading for nothing but 
failure and frustration by attempting development under democratic 
conditions. It almost became a fashion to assert that democracy was 
inimical to development and was not suited to developing countries in 
their initial stages of development. It may also be recalled that 
several countries had deviated from the democratic system in those 
years in the name of ensuring development in the first instance, as 
they put it. They were all the facts.
  I am not merely recalling history. I would like to submit to this 
august assembly that the agenda for democracy is by no means over, all 
over the world. The principle of the system is perhaps universally 
accepted now, but even this acceptance is not unqualified. In the 
ultimate analysis, the survival and acceptance of any system would 
depend crucially on its capacity to deliver the goods. This may not be 
so obvious in countries where democracy has become a way of life and 
the political process has been rooted in the principle for centuries, 
making it normal and unquestioned. But elsewhere, the temptation to cut 
corners for immediate benefits and the tendency to superficialize 
democracy while the real wielders of power only make it a mask--these 
are phenomena that should make genuine votaries of the system sit up 
and think.
  I may be forgiven for striking this new, if discordant note in the 
orchestra of prevailing opinion. I submit, sir, that the basic and most 
essential agenda of the world hereafter, perhaps through the next 
century, is the consolidation and concretization of democracy. On this 
single plank, directly or indirectly, will depend the prospects of 
peace, disarmament and development--in one word, the survival of 
humankind. I am not referring to the processes of democracy, but to its 
content which should, in essence, mean that the will of the ordinary 
citizen, as it is and not as it is manipulated for a given occasion, 
prevails. I do realize that this is a tall order; yet nothing less will 
do, if the dangers to democracy are to be met effectively. The 21st 
century must prove that development is best assured when democracy is 
assured.
  The crux of the matter is, how much is the real stake in democracy 
that has been created for all people of the world, not just some? How 
effective is democracy in solving the problems of the people where it 
has been newly adopted? This is a crucial question for the system to 
take root in what may be called somewhat alien soils.
  In developing countries, government is a serious matter. A much 
larger proportion of people are affected by changes in government there 
than in affluent countries. This can be easily seen. It accounts for 
the heavier turnout of voters in developing countries when elections 
are held. By the same token, one could imagine the frustration and 
consequent erosion of faith in the system if the system fails to 
deliver. The success of democracy is therefore a very important part of 
political stability everywhere. The question therefore is: Since the 
bloc configuration which did not, and perhaps could not, put any great 
value on democracy then, is not such a compelling necessity now, what 
can the established democracies do for the success of their system in 
the world so that governments become transparent and are run according 
to the common aspirations of the common people everywhere? I have no 
ready-made answers, but I am sure that the task is worth taking note 
of. And I beseech your attention, as a tested and tempered person from 
the grassroots of a developing society who, in the footsteps of great 
stalwarts, struggled for freedom, attained freedom and has ever since 
been involved in consolidating that freedom in a vast and complex 
country where nothing has been easy through the long centuries, where 
life has been a perpetual walk on a razor's edge.
  There is another matter in which we come face to face with the need 
for responsibility, in thought and in action. It is a similar sense 
that must inform our tending of our planet's resources. The pace of 
development often prompts the appropriation--or misappropriation--of 
what is not ours, this generation's alone, legitimately. I recall the 
felicity with which, I, in my campaign to be a State legislator, 
promised roads to my constituents 40 years ago. We built the roads, but 
lost the forests. That, perhaps, epitomizes the dilemma of a 
development that must sustain itself and sustain the heritage within 
which it is rooted. Today's easy options could prove to be tomorrow's 
regrets; so it is in the quest for technologies that allow development 
with responsibility that we have yet another critical area for the 
partnership between India and America, and our peoples.
  Mr. Vice President, 2 years ago you authored a book which one critic, 
very aptly, described as remarkable for a political figure in that you 
wrote it yourself. Going through it, with an interest compelled as much 
by your style as your subject, I came across an anecdote about Mahatma 
Gandhi that I had not chanced upon earlier. It bears repetition, and I 
hope you will allow me. Gandhiji, you write, was approached one day by 
a woman, concerned that her son ate too much sugar. She requested him 
to counsel her son about its harmful effects. The Mahatma promised to 
do so but asked her to return after a fortnight. This they did and 
Gandhiji advised the boy as he had promised. The mother was profuse in 
her gratitude but could not conceal her puzzlement as to why Gandhiji 
had insisted on the interval of 2 weeks. He was honest in his reply, 
and said: ``I needed the two weeks to stop eating sugar myself.''
  We are now in the closing years of a century ravaged by war, made 
heroic by the scientific, intellectual and creative attainments of man, 
enfeebled by want and deprivation and yet made strong by our collective 
capacity to identify solutions that had eluded us in the past. We 
recognize those solutions, but like Gandhiji, we will have to take our 
2 weeks to practice them before we acquire the authority to prescribe 
them to others. That, in a sense, is what responsibility is all about.
  Lala Lajat Rai, one of the great fighters for India's freedom, had 
written of the ``numberless American men and women who stand for the 
freedom of the world, who know no distinctions of color, race, or creed 
and who prefer the religion of love, humanity, and justice.'' Mr. Vice 
President, Mr. Speaker, and distinguished friends, the people of India 
count upon those numberless women and men of this great country to work 
together with them to realize the vision that our shared experience and 
practice of democracy have made possible and the responsibilities of 
our times have rendered necessary.
  [Applause, the Members rising.]
  At 11 o'clock and 40 minutes a.m., the Prime Minister of the Republic 
of India, accompanied by the committee of escort, retired from the Hall 
of the House of Representatives.
  The Doorkeeper escorted the invited guests from the Chamber in the 
following order:
  The ambassadors, ministers, and charges d'affaires of foreign 
governments.

                          ____________________