December 1995, Pages 38, 119

The Subcontinent

Brown Amendment Prepares Way for Arms Delivery to Pakistan

By M.M. Ali

To solve a five-year-old impasse over arms that Pakistan has paid for but the U.S. has not yet delivered, the House-Senate conference committee approved 11 to 3 on Oct. 24 the Brown Amendment that sought a one-time waiver to the Pressler Amendment (Section 620E of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961). The Pressler Amendment requires that the U.S. president certify that any country allowed to buy U.S. military hardware is not developing nuclear weapons. In 1990, President George Bush declined to make such a certification regarding Pakistan. Consequently, all U.S. arms deliveries to Pakistan were suspended.

The action ended a period of extremely close cooperation during the 1980s when the United States funnelled large quantities of arms to Pakistan for use by the mujahideen (freedom fighters) in the Afghan war against the former Soviet Union. At that time, Pakistan was allowed to order F-16 aircraft and also purchase conventional military equipment for its own use. Pakistan had paid more than $600 million for the planes and $368 million for the other arms when the 1990 freeze halted their delivery.

In an Oct. 21 editorial, the Boston Globe urged the U.S. Congress to redress the situation: "Today Pakistan has neither its aircraft nor its money. The planes are parked in Arizona [and] incredibly, the United States has started adding storage and maintenance fees." Now, while the conference committee vote has cleared the way for the delivery of the conventional weapons, the U.S. still is looking for a third country to buy the F-16s so that the money can be repaid to Pakistan.

The Brown Amendment, which is part of the larger foreign aid bill, goes back to both houses of Congress and then to the president for his signature.

In the weekly Indian magazine Sunday of Oct. 15-21, M.B. Naqvi wrote: "So, the Pakistani navy might finally get the PC3 Orion aircraft for naval patrolling with 28 Harpoon missiles and other odds and ends. The army and the air force would also get some bits of ammunition...The navy's share is the largest—$191.8 million. The air force's share is $98.8 million and the army's amounts to just $77 million." In his dispatch from Karachi, Naqvi wondered: "One has had occasion to doubt the rationality of Islamabad's dependence on the U.S. for its military supplies. The U.S. has never supplied even a single stick of dynamite without minutely calculating that its effect will be very close to zero insofar as the maintenance of the existing balance of Pakistan's military strength with India's is concerned..."

Both the Pakistani and Indian reactions were exaggerated.

Despite such justified sour notes, reaction in Pakistan at the passage of the Brown Amendment through the conference committee was euphoric. Pakistani Ambassador Dr. Maleeha Lodhi called it a "positive action" that will "enhance the credibility of the U.S. worldwide." However, the Indian ambassador, Shankar Ray, predicted that even a one-time waiver would adversely affect the climate for U.S. investment in India, although an Oct. 25 Reuters dispatch from Delhi quoted an "official spokesman" as saying that "U.S. businesses need not worry."

In fact, both the Pakistani and Indian reactions were exaggerated. Although Pakistan has received what was long overdue, it has not come without a price. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto agreed to freeze her country's nuclear program. Meanwhile, India loses nothing. It has its Agni and Prithvi missiles, and its nuclear program remains on track. The Pressler Amendment still applies to Pakistan, while India labors under no such burden. The Pressler law has done nothing whatsoever to stop nuclear proliferation in the subcontinent because it is country-specific legislation that applies only to Pakistan, leaving India in the center of Asia, and others like Israel and North Korea on its fringes, to do what they like.

Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who has been rather generous in the past, would do well to include Hank Brown, the Republican senator from Colorado, in her list of civil awards for this year. Ambassador Lodhi also deserves to be recognized. It is ironic, however, that a lot of people have to be thanked for the partial (the F-16s still are in Arizona) repayment of a long-overdue debt.

Changing Indian Scenario

Indian President Shankar Dayal Sharma imposed president's rule in India's most populous state of Uttar Pradesh. He dismissed the state government when the Bhujan Samaj Party of Chief Minister Mayawati lost the support of the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party in the legislature. Her government lasted only four-and-a-half months.

In an assembly of 425 members, the BSP had 126 seats and the BJP had 176 seats. The two parties joined hands to form the government after attaining the majority in the House. The next largest party is the Samajwadi Party of former Chief Minister Mulayam Singh, followed by the Congress Party. The president has dismissed the Uttar Pradesh government but not the state legislature on the advice of the prime minister. The governor approached leaders of other parties to seek the legislative majority and form the government. All have declined. The stalemate allows the prime minister, who belongs to the Congress Party, to control the powerful state of Uttar Pradesh and time the new elections. All parties, except the Congress Party, have sought early elections in the state.

India's national elections are scheduled for March-April 1996. However, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao has the authority either to delay or expedite the date by up to six months. Since he still has to consolidate his party position, the collapse of the Uttar Pradesh government is a godsend for the octogenarian premier.

Another opportunity is emerging in the Gujarat state, where the BJP government, or at least some of its members, seem to be committing political suicide. This is the first opportunity that the BJP has had to form governments in the states. The right-wing BJP itself is a combination of several Hindu-oriented groups like the Vishva Hindu Parishad, the Shiva Sena and the Rashtriya Sewak Sang.

Loyalties of the rank and file are to several political figures. The equation between the party high command and the elected legislators is not yet fully defined, and there exists a serious gap between the leadership at the helm and the states. In the state of Gujarat, BJP Chief Minister Keshubhai Patel has lost the support of his own party members. Shankersin Vaghela has acquired support and threatened to walk out of the party with the legislators if his nominee is not given the chief ministership. Patel would like Ashok Bhatt to replace him. The impasse has brought the state government to a standstill. The BJP finally appointed the party's senior leader, Atal Behari Vajpayee, to intervene and act as arbiter. A compromise candidate has been found in Suresh Mehta, who has now been sworn in as the new chief minister of the state of Gujarat. The BJP may have overcome the crisis, but the bad blood that was created in recent weeks has made the BJP look bad on the eve of national elections. Rao can benefit from this as well.

Update on the Kashmir Dispute

The 50th anniversary of the United Nations brought scores of world leaders to New York this October. Along with South Asian luminaries like Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan and Narasimha Rao of India there were leaders from both Srinagar (in Indian-occupied Kashmir) and Muzzafarabad (in Pakistan's side of Kashmir). Once again, the Kashmir dispute was tabled at several fora, inside and outside the U.N.

Bhutto also dispatched to London and New York a senior politician, Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, whom she had appointed chairman of her country's Kashmir Committee to aid and advise her on the issue. Khan also visited Washington, DC, bringing with him "good tidings" that for the first time the Labor Party in England has included in its electoral platform support for solving the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the U.N. resolutions—a stand that major British political parties have avoided taking previously. Khan also reported that Bhutto had raised the issue at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) conference in Bogota, Colombia, just before the U.N. gathering. For his part, Indian Prime Minister Narasimha Rao is planning elections in the Indian-held region of Kashmir, despite strong opposition from Kashmiri independence groups.

The situation inside Kashmir itself remains as volatile as ever. The fate of the five foreign hostages in the custody of a previously unknown group that calls itself "Al Faran" remains unknown. Despite the fact that after a previous attempt to hold elections, Rao had to postpone them and extend the president's rule for another six months, he seems emboldened by elections held recently in the Leh district of the occupied territory. Leh is an area of Kashmir where Muslims are not in the majority, and in 22 of the 24 constituencies, candidates ran unopposed. New Delhi knows, however, that the rest of Kashmir is a totally different story.

According to Nasrullah Khan, who now is in his mid-70s and who has spent much of his life in the politics of the subcontinent, "international opinion is slowly but surely" coming around to see the "injustice that has been perpetuated on the Kashmiri people." Besides reports that he found awareness in the UK and the U.S., he pointed out that at the last foreign ministers' conference of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), seats were accorded to the delegations that had come from both sides of the Line-of-Control in Kashmir and both were invited to express viewpoints.

Sardar Abdul Qayyum and Sikander Hayat, president and prime minister respectively of Azad Kashmir on the Pakistani side of the line, advocated "plebiscite" and eventual merger of the state of Jammu and Kashmir with Pakistan. Maulavi Farooq and others who came from the valley of Kashmir on the Indian side of the line demanded self-determination for Kashmiris, but wanted to cross one bridge at a time rather than anticipate the final outcome. The Indians, however, are not prepared to get to even the first bridge if they can help it. New Delhi has always asked for bilateral talks on the subject with Pakistan, without the presence of a third party. It is interesting to note that Pakistani Foreign Minister Sardar Asif Ahmed Ali recently expressed willingness to debate the issue with his Indian counterpart on any international TV network. On being approached by the Cable News Network (CNN) with the proposal, reportedly Indian Foreign Minister Pranah Mukerji declined the offer.

M.M. Ali is a professor at the University of the District of Columbia.