Search the Internet          Tips

India caucus gives Dan Burton cold feet

Aziz Haniffa in Washington

They were all ready. The Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans. The Indian-American community. US businesses with interests in India. And, of course, the Indian embassy in Washington.

They were waiting to counter the annual ritual performed by India's bete noire on Capitol Hill, Indiana Republican congressman Dan Burton, who religiously attacked New Delhi on the House floor for alleged human rights violations.

But this time, Burton -- darling of the separatist Council of Khalistan headed by Gurmit Singh Aulakh, the Kashmiri American Council and the pro-Pakistan lobby, who contribute handsomely to his campaign coffers -- backed off.

In fact, he didn't even table his usual motion in the House of Representatives seeking to slash US developmental assistance to India until the president certifies that New Delhi has alleviated the human rights situation in Punjab, Kashmir and several other regions of the country.

It was obvious he knew that the humiliation he has suffered over the past few years at the hands of the pro-India lobby -- which repeatedly routed his proposal -- would repeat itself.

In earlier times, Burton's amendment always received considerable support and was even adopted once, though finally not enacted. This was largely because most lawmakers would blindly support any legislation that spoke of human rights violations.

But after the formation of the India caucus in 1993, and the concerted efforts by the Indian American community and US corporate houses doing business in India, things started changing.

This powerful lobby soon convinced most lawmakers that any such legislation would be inimical and counterproductive to US-India relations, particularly to the burgeoning trade and commercial ties between the two countries.

Burton's annual amendments soon began to lose steam and were defeated by larger margins each year.

But, obviously, he had to earn the money he was receiving from the separatist lobbies. So he would introduce his amendment and make a big deal of it by holding up huge posters and photographs of alleged human rights abuses by Indian security forces in Punjab, Kashmir and other parts of India on the floor of the House, fully aware that this would be beamed nationwide by C-SPAN, a cable channel that provides gavel-to-gavel coverage of the debates in the House and Senate.

"Last year, he had at least tabled it and then withdrew it. This year he didn't even table it. He knew the writing was on the wall," said a senior diplomatic source.

"We were on the alert. We were mobilised. The embassy had sent out letters to the Indian American community, to the business community", alerting them to the possible amendment and asking them to contact their respective lawmakers to vote down the amendment if it did come up, said the source.

Congressional sources in the offices of Representatives Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, and Ed Royce, California Republican, co-chairs of the caucus, also said that "all systems were go and we had done all the work, were fully mobilised to fight the amendment if it did come up, but he got cold feet".

One source said, "This time around, he didn't even have anything drawn up, so he wasn't even at a point where he could table it, unlike last year.

"But we were prepared because he always does his thing when the Foreign Operations Bill comes to the floor, and we had the word out that everybody should be ready because if he decided to go with it this would be the time," the source added. "So we had mobilised the troops, but it wasn't needed."

But in an obvious attempt to give his campaign contributors at least a fraction of their money's worth, Burton used the only vehicle available -- The Congressional Record -- to record his vitriol against New Delhi.

Referring to the recent defence contracts between India and Russia, reportedly worth $10 billion, he argued that "this is not good for American interests in the world or for the cause of freedom".

He also said that while much has been written "lately about the Indian government's desire to improve its relations with the United States", it should not be forgotten that "India recently voted to oust the United States from the UN Human Rights Commission". How he got this information is anybody's guess, because the vote was by secret ballot.

Citing a report from May 1999, when Defence Minister George Fernandes had convened a meeting "with the ambassadors to India from Cuba, Communist China, Libya, Yugoslavia, and Russia, to construct a security alliance against the US", he declared that "America's national interests are best served by seeking new allies in South Asia".

And the "the best way to achieve that is to support the legitimate aspirations for freedom of the occupied and oppressed nations of South Asia such as Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagalim (sic) and several others by means of a free and fair plebiscite under international supervision on the question of independence."

He asserted that "until India allows that democratic vote and permits all the minorities and every citizen to exercise their rights freely, we should cut off all aid to India".

India, he said, "should focus its attention on practising democratic principles, not on grabbing every available military technology in pursuit of hegemony in South Asia."

Indo-Asian News Service

Back to top

Tell us what you think of this report