Facing India-bashers with panache

The immediate crisis they have to tackle is an upcoming amendment in the foreign aid authorisation bill which may seek to cut aid to India for voting against US at the UN.

The Washington Group has represented India for more than two years in its avatar as Rafaelli, Springer, Spees and Smith and is known to have good Democratic contacts. The American Continental Group was briefly last year on a three-month basis because of its sound Republican connections.

However, unlike in the past, the Washington Group has been offered a limited contract only till the end of this year. The fee has also been significantly reduced from the 650,000-a-year the government pointed up on previous annual contracts. ACG on the other hand should have no quarrel since the deal is better than the one it had.

The new deal has caused some heartburn in the Washington Group and the firm has been talking about 8220;reducing the scope of its work because of the reduced fee.8221; The firm is yet to file its documents before the justice department, as lobbyists are obliged to, suggesting there is still some negotiations going on. Both the embassy and the firm declined to comment on the subject. The two firms were initially offered a six-month contract starting July 1, but the dates were advanced and the contract offer validated with immediate effect following an unexpected crisis on the Hill that has ambushed the Indian government.

Apparently, a foreign authorisation bill currently under consideration of the House contained an amendment seeking to cut foreign aid to countries which have voted with the United States at the UN less than 25 per cent of the time in crucial votes.

Surprisingly, the five countries that surfaced in this list were Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iraq 8212; and India. How India came to figure in this 8220;rogue list8221; is a bit of a surprise, considering countries like Iraq and Libya 8212; the usual suspects 8212; are not in it.

But Indian officials at the UN say Washington has a distorted view of the UN voting procedure. If one takes into consideration some 250 annual votes, nearly a third are by consensus 8212; which means India agrees with the US on these issues. it is only issues that come before the UN First Committee 8212; mainly disarmament subjects 8212; that come to a roll call vote on the floor. And here India has voted consistently against the US.

8220;Naturally, we don8217;t agree with the US on many disarmament issues. We have a principled position and can8217;t be expected to vote along with the US views. Besides, it is not as if we are voting for or against the US, we vote on the issue,8221; argued Prakash Shah, India8217;s Permanent Representative to the UN.The House International Relations Committee apparently took this argument into consideration and voted down the amendment 19-17 in the committee itself. But GOP Congressmen Goodling of Pennysylvania reportedly took objection to this and promised to bring it up for vote again on the floor of the House.

India also has to worry at this time about the annual tamasha involving Republican Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana who will move a separate amendment to the foreign appropriations bill seeking to cut aid to India because of its alleged human rights abuses towards his wards and patrons, the Kashmiri and Khalistani separatists.

The amendment has been defeated for several years in a row, but the whole process and the accompanying spotlight put a tremendous strain in Indian diplomats. Last year, Burton8217;s amendment was routed by a 296-127 margin. The Indians are keen to better the margin this time and the pressure is on the lobbyists to deliver the goods.

Total US aid to India is a pittance 8212; in the region of 150 million 8212; and this year there was serious thought given to simply rejecting the aid package instead of suffering the 8220;indignity8221; of having to fight for it. But the idea was shot down by the more dominant section in New Delhi which felt it was not so much the money, but the principle which was at stake. A vote against the amendments would mean the majority of the US House endorsed the human rights situation in India, it was felt.