Achievers
Books
Business
Calendar
Community
Controversy
Cuisine
Eateries
Education
Enterprise
Faith
Good Samaritans
Health
Infotech
Media
Memories
Movies
News Archives
Opinion
Specials
The Arts

Burton withdraws anti-India amendment

Vinay Kumar

Congressman Dan Burton may never get an anti-India amendment passed but you have to give him points for trying.

Burton, no friend of India, has now withdrawn an amendment seeking to whittle away at US aid to India after many Congressmen opposed it. This is the third time he's had to do it.

Congressmen led by chairmen of the India caucus -- Democrat Gary Ackerman and Republican James C Greenwood -- urged that the amendment be rejected, saying it would "unfairly stigmatise India and inflict major damage to our efforts to have American business prosper in the world's second largest consumer market".

"Adoption of the amendment would have serious consequences for the massive investment in India and would play right into the hands of those who would turn back the clock on major economic reforms that have been put in place," the Congressmen said in a letter yesterday.

"Rather than debate amendments that divide the US and India, we ought to work with India and help it come to grips with its problems and be a partner in the development of technology, trade and culture," the letter stated.

Congressman and former chairman of the India caucus, Frank Pallone said the Clinton government had proposed a $ 46.53 million aid package for India in development assistance, $ 20.67 million for child care and $ 92.48 million in food aid which the amendment sought to reduce to $ 35 million.

It was perhaps Jim McDermott (Democrat, Seattle) who spoke most passionately on India's behalf in a statement that said the amendment "never passes" and was "brought up just to be inflammatory".

He said India was a thriving democracy where suffrage was universal and voting rates higher than in the US. A dictator had never ruled it and the military there has less say in governance than the US military had in America.

"Proponents of this amendment say that India suppresses and violently intimidates its religious minorities. That is bakwaaz -- pure nonsense. India is one of the most secular states in the world. India recognizes and guarantees religious freedoms and has the commitment to the rule of law to enforce those guarantees," the statement read.

Ackerman hailed the withdrawal of the amendment as "a huge victory for the Indian-American community and US policy towards India." On the floor of the House of Representatives, he said the Burton amendment "is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. In the wake of President Bill Clinton's successful visit to India, the US and India have a new opportunity to build a broad-based relationship."

Pallone, said the amendment enjoyed the support of only member Dana Rohrabacher.

McDermott said the proponents of the bill were basing the amendment on isolated incidents -- "anomalies really" -- that had made the news worldwide. He said India has responded effectively, appointing a Supreme Court inquiry, for only the second time in its history, to investigate a Christian missionary's death. He also noted that India had a Human Rights Commission that was active and independent.

"India has its problems, but it is a nation dealing with those problems. Rather than debate amendments that divide the US and India, we ought to work with India help them come to grips with their problems and be a partner in the development of technology, trade and culture. The US and India have much in common and the potential to be great partners; we must not cut India off," the statement read.

With inputs from Agencies

Previous: 'High school was just not for me'

Next: Art as communicator

Tell us what you think of this report