A Question of Answers: We can never be close to the U.S. - Margaret Alva

On April 8, a day before Baghdad fell to the coalition forces led by the United States, the Lok Sabha passed a unanimous resolution opposing the war in Iraq, and proclaiming India's concerns over the violation of international law, the need to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq and the need for humanitarian assistance to the hapless Iraqi people.

It seemed that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had dragged its feet for too long. But there was also the fact that the fortunes of battle turned swiftly in favour of the coalition forces, and there was nothing much that the Indian politicians could have done.

But the resolution reflected the sad reality of India's slow-motion thinking in foreign policy matters. When Parliament reconvened after a short recess on April 7, the Congress, the Communist parties and others in the Opposition promptly demanded a resolution be passed condemning the American war against Iraq.

As Minister of External Affairs Yashwant Sinha pointed out in the Rajya Sabha in March, there was no difference of opinion among the political parties on the rights and wrongs of the war.

The question was one of words. The Opposition wanted the word "condemn" to be used. The BJP-led NDA thought that it cannot use that particular word though it agreed with the sentiment contained in that word.

It was finally decided to pass the resolution in Hindi, and use the word "ninda" - delightfully comprehensive to express the kind of meaning that each wanted.

Senior Congress leader Margaret Alva, who was minister in the governments of Rajiv Gandhi and P.V. Narasimha Rao, participated in the debate.

In an interview with Gulf News minutes after the resolution was passed in the House, she talked about her party's position and perception of the war in Iraq and about India's foreign policy imperatives in the situation.

Excerpts from the interview:

Are there any differences with the government over the Iraq issue?
The resolution on Iraq has been passed unanimously by the Lok Sabha.

Why did it take time to arrive at a consensus?
It was the BJP, no, the NDA government, which took 48 hours to agree to the resolution.

What were the main differences which had to be sorted out?
The government showed resistance on three issues, which were ultimately sorted out. The first was on the issue of language. It was finally agreed that the resolution should be in Hindi. The second was on the question of the territorial integrity of Iraq. The third was on the question of the UN's role in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Is there something the government could have done to tackle the situation?
It was necessary to build pressure in the United Nations. At the moment, the U.S. and other Western powers are marginalising the UN in the same way that the League of Nations was marginalised in the earlier years.

There is the argument that India will not take a strong position because of the Kashmir problem?
It is a wrong perception. If that is the case, India will have to remain amenable towards the superpower. It cannot happen that way. India has to take a stand.

Do you think that after the ushering in of economic reforms of 1991, India has grown soft on the U.S.?
It is not related to economic reforms. It is the fall of the Soviet Union that has changed the situation. And it is not true that India has gone soft on the U.S. We had taken up an independent stance in the WTO negotiations and in other U.S. fora. India is a big country, and many countries look to India for leadership.

Do you think that this government could have done something more on the Iraq crisis, but did not do?
Yes. It should have taken an initiative with the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). And India has a special relationship with Iraq. That country has always supported India on the Kashmir issue. India should have taken a much clearer stand.

Is it because the BJP is ideologically more inclined towa-rds the U.S. and the West?
It is true that the BJP has always been ideologically pro-West. But I do not think that bias was at play in the present context.

Do you think that the BJP has also been soft on the Iraq issue because of its perception on terrorism?
I do not think it is right to say so. The BJP has realised that the U.S. is more inclined towards Pakistan, and that the Americans do not support India.

Given the change in the world situation, do you think that India could be close with the U.S. as it was with the Soviet Union earlier?
I do not think that we can ever be close to the U.S. The common people of India do not trust the West. It is because we know the Westerners. They have ruled over the country for 300 years. The Westerners cannot be trusted.