US move to cut aid to India rejected by record votes

At the end of the three-and-a-half-hour debate, some 342 members voted against and 82 in favour of the amendment introduced in protest against India's ''poor'' human rights record.

The amendment, moved by Republican Congressman Dan Burton, sought to reduce the aid from $ 56 million to $ 42 million -- a cut of 25 per cent.

The mood in the House was against the anti-India measure from the very outset. Some 27 Congressmen participated in the debate.

Of them, only three members, including its mover Burton spoke in favour. The remaining 24 Congressmen, drawn from both the Democratic and Republican party, opposed it.

The rejection of the amendment is a decisive defeat for the anti-India lobby in the House, which brings such a measure every year, apparently at the biddings of Khalistani and Kashmiri separatists, to embarrass the Indian government.

The opposition to the measure was led by top Republican leaders, including House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin Gilman and its South Asia panel chief Doug Bereuter.

They urged fellow Congressmen to defeat the measure as it would jeopardise US relations with India in a year when it was celebrating the golden jubilee of its Independence.

Other members joined them in highlighting the trade and strategic importance of India and said that its new economic policy, introduced six years ago, offered tremendous opportunities to the US businesses.

Some of them even drew attention to the uncertainty in the US relations with China and said, if there was any cooling off in the Washington-Beijing ties, India could offer an ''equally attractive market for our goods''.

Most of them acknowledged flaws in India's human rights record but made it a point to refer to the steps that New Delhi had taken to remedy the situation.

In this context, they commended the work done by the National Human Rights Commission. Its role in championing human rights and punishing the errant security officials had won praise worldwide, including the state department, they added.

The strongest opposition to the measure came from three leading Democrats -- Gray Ackerman, Frank Pallone and Jim McDermott -- who argued that the passage of such a measure would have helped strengthen separatist militants in Punjab and Kashmir and greatly affect the United States's ability to influence New Delhi in a ''positive way''.

Burton, who has been bringing in such anti-India amendments for the last several years, spoke of the ''human rights abuses'' in Kashmir, Punjab and Nagaland.

He also drew attention to what he called repression of women and ''untouchables''.

The Republican law-maker said the denial of aid would make it known to India that the US would not put up with human rights's violations.

Moreover, India had always been against the Untied States. It had backed the Soviet Union during the cold war and openly voted against the US in the United Nations. Then, why should the US provide aid to such a country, he asked.

In respone, Pallone, who visited India last year, said Burton had given ''outdated , exaggerated and inaccurate'' information about the situation in India.

He said Burton had dealt with only one aspect of the human rights issue, ignoring the constant threat that India faced from the terrorist organisations, many of which had the moral and military support from foreign countries, especially Pakistan.

He said Pakistan frequently supported the terrorist groups in a direct attempt to destabilise India.

Ackerman objected to the manner in which Burton sought to criticise India. ''It was down right India-bashing,'' he said.

UNI

RELATED REPORT:
US wants closer ties with India