Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's address to joint meeting of U.S. Congress

Washington, D.C.
May 18, 1994

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Congress of the United States:

It is with great pleasure and a deep sense of honor that I address you today. Standing in this august Hall, as two great Indian statesmen did before me, is an inspiration to all who hold democracy and freedom above all else. If, as Thomas Carlyle once wrote, `the history of the world is but the biography of great men,' then much of the world's recent history is owed to these Chambers.

The histories of our two nations have been intertwined by the words and deeds of great men and women. Christopher Columbus set off to discover a new route to India, only to discover a new world. Out of that unintended discovery was born a great Nation. Undaunted by the rather big difference he discovered in his destination, Columbus remarked, this time with perfect accuracy, that the more you go east, the more you are assured to come upon the west. Thus America has a special place in the Indian thinking, as a continent found further east of the known east. This direction is significant in its own way.

In his final inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson spoke of `Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of Habeas Corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.' When India gained independence, we accepted these fundamental freedoms, and looked to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights while formulating the constitution of the world's largest democracy. Now, both countries are forever joined by the shared values of secularism, political pluralism, and the rule of law.

The spirit of America's Declaration of Independence so moved Indian spiritual leader Swami Vivekananda that on July 4, 1898, he wrote a poem titled, `To the Fourth of July.'

Move on, O Lord, in the resistless path!

Till the high noon overspreads the world,

Till every land reflects thy light,

Till men and women with uplifted head

behold their shackles broken, and

know in springtime joy, their life renewed.

Author Henry David Thoreau was influenced by early Indian philosophy and thought, from which he drew his inspiration for the essay, `Duty of Civil Disobedience.' Thoreau wrote, `If the law is of such a nature that it requires you to be an agent of injustice to another, then I say break the law, let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.'

Thoreau's essay influenced Mahatma Gandhi tremendously while he was in South Africa and in fact gave him the inspiration for the great nonviolent civil disobedience he was to practice in the subsequent years so effectively. I am sure his spirit showers his choicest blessings on free and democratic South Africa today.

In turn, Gandhi inspired Dr. Martin Luther King, who learned from Gandhi that `non-violent resistance paralyzed and confused the power structure against which it was directed.' Dr. King wrote that `Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals, to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and non-violence that I discovered the method of social reform that I had been seeking for so many months.'

Thus the United States and India have learned a great deal from each other throughout history. Distances did not matter. Indeed distances never mattered in the transmission of ideas, because their medium is the mind. They travel at what is known as mano-vega in the Indian tradition, meaning the speed of the mind, higher than anything anyone has ever imagined or can ever imagine.

So ideas, and born of them ideals, have echoed back and forth between India and America. Some perceived them, some experienced them, others did not,

as often happens. Swami Vivekananda, Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, Thoreau, Emerson, Martin Luther King, and many others, known and unknown all these names seemed to belong but to one nation of humans. Hundreds of American missionaries spread into the remotest tribal areas of India, learned their complicated languages and numberless dialects and served the people there with unparalleled devotion. I am personally acquainted with some of your sons and daughters, and a few who were born in my own district.

For over a century grew this great friendship, a relationship purely between the peoples, with no trace of domination of selfish motive of any kind. Americans rejoiced in India's political freedom. India forever acknowledges the debt we owe to Franklin Delano Roosevelt for his role in pleading with the British for India's independence. Everything looked fine.

We had the unique opportunity of shaping the history of the post-war world--a history which could have offered the peace dividend to all, East or West, North or South, by enabling countries to attain their full potential by giving their citizens the better life they deserved, but which they had been deprived of, for ages.

Then came the cold war.

That great opportunity seemed to be slipping through our fingers, even as we tried to hold it in our hands. Today, we have to worry about the fingers.

Mr. Speaker, I shall now skip the cold war. Not being a historian, I am under no obligation to recount it. Being transient, term-bound representatives of our peoples, you and I have neither the time nor the need to review what we do not wish to repeat. It is the future we have to think about, in fact worry about. And, of course, the fingers.

The fingers are, simply, democracy and development. From my own personal experience, I have no doubt that this is an extremely difficult combination, and equally essential, in India's view.

India has undertaken the first steps to shaping our history for the next generation. After decades of centralized economic policies, India recently embarked on a reform program designed to modernize our economy, liberalize trade, and realize our economic potential. We welcomed private investment and competition and encouraged free market growth. As a result, India is becoming globally competitive and the standard of living of our citizens is gradually on the rise. The momentum of these reforms will carry India into the next century as the single largest free market in the world.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of India's ambitious economic reform program is the smoothness with which the transition from a closed, protected economy to an open, export-oriented economy has occurred. Far-reaching changes have been undertaken in a short span of 3 years, at the same time devising prompt and effective steps to obviate severe social consequences which could have threatened future reforms. With these steps, coupled with popular support and a broad consensus across India's diverse political spectrum, the reform process has now acquired a momentum of its own.

The impact of the changes in India has had a profound effect on Indo-United States economic relations and has benefited both countries. American firms have been in the forefront of forging a new economic relationship. India's vast domestic market, huge educated, skilled and semi-skilled work force, sound financial institutions and time-tested and democratic system offer tremendous investment opportunities for forward-looking companies.

In shaping our history for the next century, we must look ahead to greater trade between nations. An unfortunate by-product of the past half century was the introduction of weapons of mass destruction around the world. The difficult and complex question of nuclear weapons proliferation can be effectively addressed only when we consider their global reach, requiring similar global solutions.

Every nation, large or small, rich or poor, is sovereign and possesses an inherent right and responsibility to its people to ensure their security. I firmly believe that the way to ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction lies in creating a world order based on the universal principles of equality and non-discrimination as means of enhancing security. The answer that we as nations choose will shape the destiny of the world in the coming century.

Progress has been made in establishing an international consensus for banning nuclear weapons testing and halting production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons purposes. India and the United States have worked closely together in helping to forge this international consensus. To consolidate these gains, further meaningful steps should be taken towards de-nuclearization which the international situation now allows.

And so much more remains to be done. A nuclear no-first-use agreement, indeed an agreement to outlaw the use of nuclear weapons is necessary

in the short term by way of precaution, while serious multilateral negotiations are launched for nuclear disarmament, the objective being a nuclear-free world.

Distinguished friends, President Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on the 4th March, 1861 had said:

I hold that, in contemplation of Universal Law and of the constitution, the union of these states is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Physically speaking, we cannot separate this with the so-called self-determination slogans that are being raised today. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them.

Indeed in 1968 your Supreme Court had to say,

When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union and all the guarantees of Republican Government in the union, attached at once to the state. It was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was complete and final * * *

India accepts this statement as truly characteristic of a multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious republic like India or the United States and as totally unassailable.

It is the responsibility of nations to preserve the life and liberty of all their citizens under the law regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. We in India, like you here in this great democracy, are determined in our assertion that the rights of minority groups must be protected vigorously under the rule of law. Our Constitution provides for this, our people demand this, and our heritage requires this.

The task that confronts democratic governments today is to maintain protection of human rights in the face of the most dangerous threat to the violation of human rights, namely, the bullets of terrorists. India is committed to protecting its citizens from terrorism and no government worth its name can shirk this responsibility. We are taking scrupulous care to protect the rights of individuals under due process of law and punish human rights violations whenever they occur. In this difficult and delicate task, we are doing all that is humanly possible.

As regards the United Nations, it has long been a strong defender of the rights of all the world's citizens. We must therefore promote, in all possible ways, the original mandate of the United Nations, namely, to provide collective security as a means of achieving peace.

The U.N. framework for pursuing global security through international cooperation must be preserved, despite the problems and limitations that exist. The international community needs to strengthen the U.N. and provide more resources if we expect it to respond to today's challenges.

It is our strong feeling too, that the U.N.'s decision making bodies must more accurately reflect the regional situation of states in the world today. In order to chart a new course to navigate these troubled but exciting times, we need to recognise the role which many nations can play in the pursuit of peace.

Mr. Speaker, Indo-United States relations are on the threshold of a bold new era. We have seen unprecedented cooperation in a number of areas. Most recently Indian forces patrolled alongside United States and United Nations forces in Somalia. We share common interests in addressing global environmental crises, combating international terrorism, and stemming the tide of international narcotics trafficking. In these areas, the United States and India have worked closely together.

Yet there remain areas where further cooperation is warranted. Export controls on technology, while once a useful means for controlling weapons technology, now hinder, developing countries in their efforts to improve the lives of their people. Much of what is termed as weapons technology in fact has vital applications in a modern civilian society. Many special materials and complicated computer processors found in missile control systems are also found in hospital intensive care units and global telecommunications systems.

In October 1949, India's first Prime Minister Jawaharal Nehru had stated, `It was necessary, even desirable, and, perhaps, inevitable that India and the United States should know each other more and cooperate with each other more.' Later that year, Prime Minister Nehru predicted that the next 100 years are going to be the century of America.

The Prime Minister was right. The 20th century will be known as the American century. Throughout the last 100 years of American and Indian history--through the peaks and valleys of Indo-United States relations--Nehru's words have rung true and a bond has been forged based on affinity and understanding. The success of Indian-Americans in this country reflects the understanding and mutual respect between the world's two largest democracies.

As India stands poised to contribute to global prosperity and peace in the next century, we look forward to continuing our partnership with America and with the American people.

India is one of the developing countries in which the process of development is firmly established. We have realized that no quick fixes are possible and that there is no substitute for hard work with full involvement of the people. The results achieved in India are commended by some, derided by others, on the basis of physical statistics. In all these appraisals, however, one crucial element that has not figured as it should, is the fact that Indian's progress has been achieved in a democratic set up. This dimension, I submit, is extremely important. As an experienced activist in the community development process in India ever since it commenced in the early 1950's, I can vividly recall the hurdles that we encountered in the path of development, for which many people have blamed our democratic process. Many scholars and experts, including some from this country, told us that we were attempting the impossible, and that at that rate, we were heading for nothing but failure and frustration by attempting development under democratic conditions. It almost became a fashion to assert that democracy was inimical to development and was not suited to developing countries in their initial stages of development. It may also be recalled that several countries had deviated from the democratic system in those years in the name of ensuring development in the first instance, as they put it. They were all the facts.

I am not merely recalling history. I would like to submit to this august assembly that the agenda for democracy is by no means over, all over the world. The principle of the system is perhaps universally accepted now, but even this acceptance is not unqualified. In the ultimate analysis, the survival and acceptance of any system would depend crucially on its capacity to deliver the goods. This may not be so obvious in countries where democracy has become a way of life and the political process has been rooted in the principle for centuries, making it normal and unquestioned. But elsewhere, the temptation to cut corners for immediate benefits and the tendency to superficialize democracy while the real wielders of power only make it a mask--these are phenomena that should make genuine votaries of the system sit up and think.

I may be forgiven for striking this new, if discordant note in the orchestra of prevailing opinion. I submit, sir, that the basic and most essential agenda of the world hereafter, perhaps through the next century, is the consolidation and concretization of democracy. On this single plank, directly or indirectly, will depend the prospects of peace, disarmament and development--in one word, the survival of humankind. I am not referring to the processes of democracy, but to its content which should, in essence, mean that the will of the ordinary citizen, as it is and not as it is manipulated for a given occasion, prevails. I do realize that this is a tall order; yet nothing less will do, if the dangers to democracy are to be met effectively. The 21st century must prove that development is best assured when democracy is assured.

The crux of the matter is, how much is the real stake in democracy that has been created for all people of the world, not just some? How effective is democracy in solving the problems of the people where it has been newly adopted? This is a crucial question for the system to take root in what may be called somewhat alien soils.

In developing countries, government is a serious matter. A much larger proportion of people are affected by changes in government there than in affluent countries. This can be easily seen. It accounts for the heavier turnout of voters in developing countries when elections are held. By the same token, one could imagine the frustration and consequent erosion of faith in the system if the system fails to deliver. The success of democracy is therefore a very important part of political stability everywhere. The question therefore is: Since the bloc configuration which did not, and perhaps could not, put any great value on democracy then, is not such a compelling necessity now, what can the established democracies do for the success of their system in the world so that governments become transparent and are run according to the common aspirations of the common people everywhere? I have no ready-made answers, but I am sure that the task is worth taking note of. And I beseech your attention, as a tested and tempered person from the grassroots of a developing society who, in the footsteps of great stalwarts, struggled for freedom, attained freedom and has ever since been involved in consolidating that freedom in a vast and complex country where nothing has been easy through the long centuries, where life has been a perpetual walk on a razor's edge.

There is another matter in which we come face to face with the need for responsibility, in thought and in action. It is a similar sense that must inform our tending of our planet's resources. The pace of development often prompts the appropriation--or misappropriation--of what is not ours, this generation's alone, legitimately. I recall the felicity with which, I, in my campaign to be a State legislator, promised roads to my constituents 40 years ago. We built the roads, but lost the forests. That, perhaps, epitomizes the dilemma of a development that must sustain itself and sustain the heritage within which it is rooted. Today's easy options could prove to be tomorrow's regrets; so it is in the quest for technologies that allow development with responsibility that we have yet another critical area for the partnership between India and America, and our peoples.

Mr. Vice President, 2 years ago you authored a book which one critic, very aptly, described as remarkable for a political figure in that you wrote it yourself. Going through it, with an interest compelled as much by your style as your subject, I came across an anecdote about Mahatma Gandhi that I had not chanced upon earlier. It bears repetition, and I hope you will allow me. Gandhiji, you write, was approached one day by a woman, concerned that her son ate too much sugar. She requested him to counsel her son about its harmful effects. The Mahatma promised to do so but asked her to return after a fortnight. This they did and Gandhiji advised the boy as he had promised. The mother was profuse in her gratitude but could not conceal her puzzlement as to why Gandhiji had insisted on the interval of 2 weeks. He was honest in his reply, and said: `I needed the two weeks to stop eating sugar myself.'

We are now in the closing years of a century ravaged by war, made heroic by the scientific, intellectual and creative attainments of man, enfeebled by want and deprivation and yet made strong by our collective capacity to identify solutions that had eluded us in the past. We recognize those solutions, but like Gandhiji, we will have to take our 2 weeks to practice them before we acquire the authority to prescribe them to others. That, in a sense, is what responsibility is all about.

Lala Lajat Rai, one of the great fighters for India's freedom, had written of the `numberless American men and women who stand for the freedom of the world, who know no distinctions of color, race, or creed and who prefer the religion of love, humanity, and justice.' Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, and distinguished friends, the people of India count upon those numberless women and men of this great country to work together with them to realize the vision that our shared experience and practice of democracy have made possible and the responsibilities of our times have rendered necessary.