[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 65 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E757-E758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THE IMPORTANCE OF STRONG UNITED STATES-INDIA RELATIONS

                                 ______


                            HON. JOHN LINDER

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 9, 1996

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of Members 
of the House the op-ed piece written by William Safire that appeared in 
the May 2, 1996, New York Times. In his essay, Mr. Safire points out 
the significance of the recent elections in India and the importance of 
strong United States-India relations. As a member of the Congressional 
Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, I gladly submit Mr. Safire's 
article for the Record.

       Washington.--In 1975, when Indira Gandhi assumed 
     dictatorial control of India and threw her opponents in jail, 
     President Ford asked his U.N. delegate, Daniel P. Moynihan, 
     what to make of that.
       ``Look at it this way, Mr. President,'' said Moynihan with 
     a courtler's irony. ``Under your Administration, the United 
     States has become the world's largest democracy.''
       When Mrs. Gandhi later confidently stood for election, 
     India's voters threw her out. Freedom was back, and the U.S. 
     happily became the world's second-largest democracy.
       This week, with dignity, honest balloting and relatively 
     little violence, 400 million of India's citizens--65 percent 
     of eligible voters, higher than here--go to the polls to 
     select candidates from 500 political parties. It is the most 
     breathtaking example of government by the people in the 
     history of the world.
       Americans don't hear a whole lot about it. President 
     Clinton is busy being campaign manager for the Labor party in 
     Israel's May 29 election, in effect telling Israelis to vote 
     for Shimon Peres or else.
       When he is not intervening shamelessly in Israel's 
     political affairs, Mr. Clinton is barnstorming with Boris 
     Yeltsin, trying to help him defeat Yavlinsky's reformers and 
     Zyuganov's Communists in Russia's June 16 election. 
     Washington is also headquarters for

[[Page E758]]

     the Clinton campaign for the U.S. Presidency, where he beefs 
     up beef price to consumers while pouring strategic oil on 
     troubled motorists. But in all the campaigning, no mention is 
     made of India, where voters outnumber those in Israel, Russia 
     and the U.S. combined.
       As a result of this uncharacteristic White House for 
     bearance, television coverage here about the biggest election 
     has been next to nil. Not only do Americans not know for 
     which Indian candidate to root, but hundreds of millions of 
     voters are forced to go to the polls ignorant of Mr. 
     Clinton's preference.
       Why? Do nearly 900 million Indians not matter? American 
     lack of interest is not new; a former Foreign Minister of 
     India, one of Nehru's acolytes, told a U.S. envoy: ``We would 
     far prefer your detestation in your indifference.''
       One reason is that India strikes a holier-than-thou 
     diplomatic pose, remaining nonaligned when there is no longer 
     one side to be nonaligned against. Year after year, India 
     is near the top of the list of nations that consistently 
     vote against the U.S. in the United Nations.
       We're wrong to let that overly irritate us. China votes 
     against us, too, and unbalances our trade and secretly ships 
     missiles to rogue states and jails dissidents and oppresses 
     Tibet and threatens Taiwan and (cover the children's eyes) 
     pirates our CD's--but we care more about what happens in 
     China than what happens in India.
       That's a mistake. Contrary to what all the new Old China 
     Hands and other Old Nixon Hands tell you, India will draw 
     ahead of China as a superpower in the next century.
       Yes, China's economic growth rate has doubled India's, and 
     China's Draconian control of births will see India's 
     population exceed China's soon enough, to India's 
     disadvantage. But China does not know what an election is. 
     Despite the enterprise and industriousness of its people, 
     despite the example of free Chinese on Taiwan and the 
     inspiration of the dissident Wei Jingsheng, jailed in 
     Beijing, China is several upheavals and decades away from the 
     democracy India already enjoys.
       Without political freedom, capitalism cannot long thrive. 
     Already the requirements of political repression are 
     stultifying the flow of market information in China, driving 
     wary Hong Kong executives to Sydney. The suppression of 
     dangerous data undermined technology in Communist Russia; it 
     will hurt China, too.
       Though more Chinese are literate, many more Indians are 
     English-literate (more English-speakers than in Britain), and 
     English is the global language of the computer. American 
     software companies are already locating in Bangalore, India's 
     Silicon Valley. Bureaucratic corruption scandals abound; 
     India's free press reports and helps cleanse them, China's 
     does not.
       I'm rooting for Rao, the secular Prime Minister, who is 
     more likely to move toward free markets than Vajpayee, his 
     leading opponent. But whoever wins, it's a glorious week for 
     the world's largest democracy.

                          ____________________