COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Pro-India Forces in House Win Big In Defeating Anti-India Amendment

A P Kamath in Washington

Asserting that the effort to impose punitive treatment on India over its votes in the General Assembly was unfair, unproductive and senseless, 254 members of the Congress joined Gary L Ackerman and Frank Pallone Jr, both Democrats, in defeating an amendment proposed by William Goodling, a Republican.

One hundred and sixtyone Republicans voted in favor of the Amendment and 54 against while 8 Democrats favored it and 201 opposed it. One independent vote went against the amendment which in practical terms would have served as a symbolic slap at India.

But to the members of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, the fight against the amendment was of serious nature. For if the amendment was voted in, Ackerman, the co-chairman of the caucus argued, India would feel that its principled and restrained stand against the Kargil aggression was not appreciated.

"The irony of this amendment was that it would penalize India while holding Pakistan harmless at a time when the world community had just caught Pakistan red-handed in the commission of terrorists acts and acts of aggression," Ackerman, a New Yorker, said. "While India conducted itself in a statesmanlike fashion, using admirable restraint as a nuclear power."

The Goodling amendment to the State Department Authorization bill sought to prohibit foreign military assistance to the countries that fail to support the United States at least 25 pc of the time in the General Assembly.

During the debate, Rep Ackerman, vigorously opposing the amendment said: "This is an attempt to bash India... India is our friend."

India should not be put in the same class with states like Syria, Libya, Cuba, or North Korea, he continued... "US assistance to India serves our interests by addressing transnational problems such as child labor and trafficking in women and children," he continued "In fact, the US government is working with India on these very issues and the Goodling Amendment, if adopted, would prohibit the State Department from providing assistance to India to deal with those issues."

"The UN voting record is only one of many indicators of a country's relationship with the United States," Ackerman said. "The Administration already factors the voting record into decisions on foreign assistance. But the Administration must also consider cooperation on human rights, counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, the environment, defense and trade."

Echoing Ackerman, Pallone said the General Assembly voting "is largely irrelevant way of determining who our friends and foes are. Under the Goodling Amendment, all of our other diplomatic, political and strategic or economic interests would be sacrificed to the mostly symbolic indicator of General Assembly votes -- often on issues of peripheral importance."

He pointed out that the "vast majority" of resolutions passed by the General Assembly are adopted by consensus. "When you count those votes, India votes with the US 84 pc of the time."

Ackerman said after the vote that he and his peers "were privileged once again in being victorious over those who were senselessly bashing India for whatever reason of their own."

Ackerman, a leading member of the House International Relations Committee, continued: "When the vote on the tally board indicated that the Goodling Amendment was surging ahead, we sprung into action to rally the pro-India forces [in the House] to stop the momentum. And then we strongly turned the vote around."

"Because of our efforts, members [of the House] understood this reality and helped us in defeating this short-sighted amendment," Ackerman continued.

Earlier in his speech he called India " a thriving sister democracy, which recently celebrated its 50th year of Independence"

"There's much in common that we share with the world's most populous democracy. There are many issues that bind our relations with India, including the significant contributions made by the well-educated and productive Indian American community. US assistance to India, and elsewhere, serves our national interests and is provided because it promotes our policy ends, not because it is a reward," he said.

"An aid cut-off is too blunt an instrument to succeed in achieving the intended purpose, and may be counterproductive. US assistance, including that to India, promotes our policy interests around the world. Assistance is provided because it serves our interests, not as a bribe for a vote or an unwarranted award."

Pallone said, during the debate, the House ought to approve provisions to build "on the significant issues that unite America and India, and not magnify our minor disagreements."

Next story: Unanswered Questions In Student's Murder

Tell us what you think of this report