India, 1999

It is a particular pleasure to see

Mr. Gurirab presiding over the last session of the General

Assembly of the twentieth century. I consider myself

singularly fortunate and greatly honoured to be representing

my country, India, on this occasion. I do believe that, in the

many years that he spent here pursuing the dream of

independence for his people — which, happily, is now a

reality — he, more perhaps than others, has seen the United

Nations at its best. That is why the perspective that he

brings to the office of the President, enriched as it is by

living through the very articles of faith of the United

Nations, is near unique. I am sure we will all profit from it.

I take this opportunity also to warmly welcome three

new Members to the United Nations: Kiribati, Nauru and

Tonga. I have no doubt their presence shall enrich our

deliberations.

Even as I address this Assembly, the century draws to

a close and the world prepares to meet the year 2000. It is

only appropriate and instructive, therefore, to look back and

to reflect upon the journey that humanity set out upon 100

years ago. Where did we think we were then headed and

where have we actually reached? Could any then foresee

what 1999 would bring? Thus, are there, in the passage of

the years that have gone by, any landmarks that could

indicate a path for our future? For that, we need to assess

the twentieth century, and there is but one yardstick by

which we can judge: the criteria of the stated objectives

of the United Nations.

Indisputably, the twentieth has been the bloodiest of

all centuries. But, in contradistinction, it has also been a

century of the most profound transformations and of the

most significant social, political and technological

advancements. This, above all, has been the century of

the ascendancy of the individual and of democracy. It is

that period in which dynasties vanished and revolutions

swept empires off the face of ancient lands. Centuries-old

colonialism became history against the irresistible heave

of the colonized to reclaim their lands, their souls, so that

oppressed humanity could regain a voice, a say in its own

political and economic destiny. It is the century in which

we plumbed the depths of the oceans and soared into the

infinities of space; when man first set foot on the moon,

reached Mars and even deeper into the recesses of the

unknown. In a wired-up world, the computer has today

become what the fountain pen was in the early years of

the twentieth century. The revolution of the digital has

arrived.

Humanity today is healthier, better fed and more

sheltered than our forefathers were. But want and hunger,

disease and deprivation are still widespread, including in

developed societies. We have at our command more

information than ever before, but are we that much wiser?

Literacy has spread, but is mankind better educated? We

are more connected globally, but are we as humankind?

Have this linkage and interconnection reduced conflict

and animosity? And thus, the tabulation of our assets and

liabilities of this century flows.

As we have improved upon and added to almost

everything that we inherited in 1900, so most sadly have

we to violence, too. This century has been the most

bloodthirsty, perhaps because it is in these last 100 years

that humanity has employed science to perfect means of

killing as never before. Our passage has seen us move

from the Gatling gun to a world menaced today by

MIRVs. That early machine gun, the then-great mower

down of the early 1900s, seems today almost a toy by

comparison. We have split the atom, but employ the

released energy less for peace and more for weapons of

unimaginable destruction. Chemical defoliants and

sophisticated biological weapons are also this century's

contribution.

The century that passes experienced not two, but

three great wars. Each was a cataclysm, fought globally

and at enormous cost. When the first ended, the survivors

39

emerged from the trenches, searching for a better world so

that war would not recur. In response, we created the

League of Nations. But war, regrettably, was not avoided.

The League failed because we failed the League. And thus

followed the second great war, at the end of which the

world emerged armed with weapons that could destroy all

that human genius and ingenuity had created and every

vestige of life. But, from the ruins and devastation of the

second also emerged the United Nations, with mandates of

broader powers and responsibilities. The third great conflict

was the cold war. This deeply affected, shaped and

influenced the development of the United Nations. This

war, too, extracted a heavy price, directly and through

proxy conflicts, as well as political and social upheavals,

but then these became its epilogue. What significance lies

in the observation that no global peace conference has taken

place to mark the end of this last war?

The United Nations could have been cast anew, made

contemporary and democratized, drawing upon our

collective experience to tackle new challenges with greater

responsiveness. Can we, even now, do something at this

last session of the General Assembly of this millennium to

correct this? Can we pledge afresh to invest this institution

with faith, commitment, political will and the resources that

it needs to make it the vehicle capable of realizing the

aspirations of all humanity, an instrument that will steer

planet Earth into the next century?

We do not enjoy an abundance of options. The

sapping of the vitality or the diminishing of the centrality

of the United Nations must not be permitted. We have but

one Earth, and there is but one United Nations.

Another development of this century, of crucial

significance, is the transformation that we have experienced

in the role of the State. From an agency that controlled and

regulated all spheres of human activity, we move into a

phase wherein the State must become more supportive,

caring and encouraging of the citizen's individual and

collective endeavours; it must release, not contain, the

energies and genius of its people.

It would be an error, however, to assume that the days

of the State are over. The State continues to have a crucial

role and relevance; also, therefore, do national

sovereignties. The United Nations was not conceived as a

super-State. It will not ever become so, principally because

there is no viable substitute for the sovereign State. Even

globalization can work only through State intermediaries.

To diminish, marginalize or ignore the State would also be

bad practice, because the weaker the State is rendered, the

less it shall be able to promote the interests of its citizens.

The State needs to be strengthened functionally, not

weakened. Besides, it is axiomatic that a United Nations

of weak nations can only be a weak United Nations.

Globalization is an idea that has re-emerged, but also

its reverse: fragmentation. The first is politico-economic,

the second entirely political. Let us dwell a bit on this.

Obviously, the technology that is driving this process can

now scarcely be unlearned; the speed of travel and of

communications will only increase; the age of the digital,

as I said, has dawned. However, though globalization may

apparently be driven by impersonal market forces, it is in

reality impelled by power seeking political and financial

advantage. It is, in essence, a political process, and if

history teaches us anything, it is that such processes are

not linear. Simply in terms of economic indicators, the

world was as globalized at the turn of the century as it is

now. A backlash followed: barriers went up, confrontation

replaced cooperation and the world jostled into the

tensions that led to the first great war. Are we, for the

sake of temporary gain, perhaps even unwittingly,

repeating yesterday's mistakes? Political hindsight tells us

that globalization has to be politically directed for

creating equal economic opportunity, both within States

and among States.

In India, we cherish the creative genius of the

people. We believe that Indian excellence lies in the

freedom of the individual. We do not subscribe to

constricting choice through State impositions. But can free

markets offer true freedom of choice to those that are not

even a part of the market? That is why the State

continues to have the responsibility to protect the needy,

to strengthen the weak. That is a part of our democratic

creed, too.

We note that human rights have been made a cross-

cutting theme of the work of the United Nations. That is

important. The flowering, however, of human rights

requires economic development and growth because many

of the deprivations faced by individuals, whether in the

developed or in the developing world, are rooted in

marginalization created by poverty. We believe, therefore,

that development should be the cross-cutting theme of the

United Nations and that the multilateral development

system, which has been one of its successes, must be

strengthened, its focus narrowed to the core challenges of

economic growth with social justice, and it must be given

the resources it requires to respond to the needs of the

developing countries. The international community will

find that no investment yields better returns.

40

I have the honour to address the Assembly as a

representative of the largest democracy in the world. Even

now, as I share these thoughts, an electorate of about 600

million, matching the combined populations of the United

States, Canada and Western Europe, is going through the

exciting process of democratically electing its next

Government in my country. It is an awe-inspiring spectacle,

this unstoppable flow of the great Ganga of Indian

democracy. It is a democracy whose economy grew by

more than 6 per cent last year, even in the aftermath of the

major shocks to the international economy brought about by

what was described as the East Asian meltdown of the mid-

1990s.

We move with the challenges posed by globalization,

without either retreating into a “fortress India” or

abandoning our social objectives. We have worked out our

own answers and devised our own policies to meet these

new challenges because we hold that the sheer diversity of

mankind dictates differences in approach, in human beings'

respective search for relevant alternatives. This is a truth

borne out by the fact that the twentieth century has been

witness to the detritus of many false certainties.

Today, when capital moves without almost any

constraint, it is virtually impossible for developing countries

to resist either its demands or manage the consequences of

its sudden departure. Let us reflect upon the absence of

order, system or any global oversight of currency flows,

particularly short-term flows, even as we attempt to bring

order and equity to trade in goods, services and

commodities. But how are we to address the problem when

currency, instead of being a vehicle of trade, has in itself

become a commodity of trade, when the volume of trade in

currency daily has outstripped global trade in goods and

services or even global gross national product manifold?

If globalization is to benefit all, and as we simply

cannot accept that wheels of progress should grind down

the common man, then surely some new international

regulation, some order, is needed here. Let the United

Nations take the initiative to hold an urgent international

conference on financing for development.

In the political domain, too, managing change

demands openness and reasoned discourse, an essential

ingredient of which is abjuring violence. That is why

terrorism is the very antithesis of all that the United

Nations represents and stands for. Terrorism is the great

global menace of our age. In this age of democracy, it is a

violation of the very basic precepts of it. Because its

principal targets become the innocent, it is a crime against

humanity, a violation of basic human rights. It is also

now a grave threat to international peace and security.

That is why I urge that we strengthen the international

consensus against terrorism. India has called for a

comprehensive international convention against terrorism.

We hope to make progress on the issue in this session of

the General Assembly.

We also know how terrorism uses the international

financial system, how it exploits the breakdown of

countries and societies, and how it has preyed on the

nexus between drugs and the proliferation of small arms.

Thus, today, we witness a scimitar of narco-terrorism

cutting across the Caucasus to the South Asian

subcontinent. Two of the world’s largest sources of illicit

drugs flank us. Terrorism financed by drugs has for years

been the deadly export of our neighbours.

Here the crippling intermixing of cause and effect is

cruelly exemplified in Afghanistan. The world has been

witness to the decades-old distress of the innocent men,

women and children of that country. The disorders of

Afghanistan, and the near anarchy into which that country

has been pushed, are a consequence, chiefly, of the play

of external forces and of a reversion to medieval

fundamentalism of the most obscurantist variety. This

disorder now overspills; it is also exported. It is not that

human rights, particularly of women and children, are

routinely violated there; they simply do not exist.

Our relationships with this neighbour are ancient and

rooted in a past that we share. That is why we urge this

Assembly to be seized of the enormous human suffering

of the Afghans, and to encourage and support the early

formation of a Government truly representative of all

sections of that society and country.

Terrorism is a menace to which open societies are

vulnerable; it becomes particularly difficult for

democracies to counter when terrorists are armed,

financed and backed by Governments or their agencies,

and benefit from the protection of State power. Cross-

border terrorism, sponsored from across our borders, has

taken the lives of thousands of our citizens and ruined

those of countless others. We will counter it, as we have

done over the past decades, using the methods available

to a democracy. India will defeat such forces. That is both

our duty and our obligation to our citizens.

Earlier this year India was subjected, yet again, to an

act of premeditated aggression. In February this year,

hoping yet again to set aside the sterility of relations of

41

the past half century to set the South Asian subcontinent on

the path of development, with a view to addressing the real

adversaries of our region — poverty, want and hunger —

Prime Minister Vajpayee extended a hand of peace, amity

and cooperation to neighbouring Pakistan. The pathbreaking

bus journey from Delhi to Lahore followed. In Lahore we

concluded a triad of agreements, among which was the

Lahore Declaration. It was the route chart of moving

towards lasting amity and peace.

This act of faith was betrayed. Premeditated

aggression by regular forces was committed against India.

Not simply was the Lahore Declaration violated, but so was

the Simla Agreement, which had prevented conflict for

more than a quarter of a century. In self-defence, yet with

the utmost restraint, India took all necessary and

appropriate steps to evict the aggressor forces from its

territory. Most regrettably, this aggression has set back the

Lahore process of peace that we had initiated. For whereas

aggression over territory can more easily be vacated, that

territory of trust which has been transgressed is infinitely

more difficult to restore.

Permit me, Sir, to draw attention to the fact that this

aggression upon India in Kargil was a demonstration of

wanting to hold to ransom the world, through an act of

aggression. It was also a manifestation of the larger

disorders that the world has been witnessing in Afghanistan.

There is an aspect that I stress. It was a gross violation

of the Geneva Conventions when Indian soldiers taken

prisoner were tortured, subjected to inhuman treatment and

killed in captivity. These violations took place at a time

when the international community has repeatedly been

trying to establish the rule of law, stripping away the layers

of impunity that have protected those who give the orders

that lead to violations of international humanitarian law.

And it is thus that I find it necessary to reiterate some

essential verities of Indian nationhood. From the earliest

days of our struggle against imperialism and colonial rule

it has been an unquestionable article of faith with us that

India is one nation: a nation of many faiths, a diversity of

beliefs, a cultural harmony arranged through the interplay

of myriad forms and manifestations, but a unity,

strengthened by its pluralism, that is beyond question. And

of this is born India’s democratic vitality, too. Also of this

oneness and unity, the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir

is an integral part, and shall remain so. Because this is not

any territorial dispute; it is the assertion of two antipodal

approaches to national identity. India has never represented

denominational nationhood; it is civic nationalism to which

we subscribe. That is why Jammu and Kashmir is not a

so-called core issue. It is at the very core of Indian

nationhood.

Yet the path of the India-Pakistan composite

dialogue process is open. No preconditions attend it. The

only essential ingredient that remains is an abjuring of

violence and cross-border terrorism, principles that are

integral to both the Simla Agreement and the Lahore

Declaration — indeed, the very process of peace itself.

This process needs to be resumed.

We have been greatly disappointed by this

compulsive hostility of Pakistan, because it is an

aberration in our region today, where all the other South

Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)

countries are at peace with each other, and are trying,

bilaterally and through the SAARC mechanisms, to tackle

together the great challenge of development. But we

remain unshaken in our vision of cooperation and shared

prosperity of the South Asian region, as embedded in the

Charter of SAARC, as well as in our faith in the ability,

talent and will of the people of the region to take their

rightful place in the world community. The destiny of all

our peoples is linked. It is a region with a collective

history reaching back to the beginnings of human history

and of the highest civilizational accomplishments. In

striving to attain the promise of the future in our region,

we also see the recovery of a great past.

This is perhaps the right juncture at which to say a

few words about pluralism in an age of globalization.

Though we find sterile the debate over universal and

regional values, extreme positions are still taken on both

sides. In a spirit of engagement, we would urge our

partners in the West to be a bit more tolerant, and a bit

more introspective. While all democratic Governments try

to promote good governance, human rights and social

responsibility, the perspective they approach them from,

and their ability to implement them, vary. Rigidly

applying, as a universal paradigm, value systems that

reflect the state of western economies and societies in the

late twentieth century, produces an inevitable reaction,

which does not make either for dialogue or constructive

decisions.

Globalization has also influenced our thinking on

security issues by generating a greater awareness about

new security concerns. Equally important, with the end of

the cold war there is a growing realization that peace

cannot be maintained through balance of power or

hegemonic order. To maintain global peace and security,

42

to deal with threats of a global nature, the international

community has to accept the concept of collective security.

The United Nations provides a framework for such a

contract among nations. With the cold war behind us, the

General Assembly should reactivate this framework.

Global nuclear disarmament was the objective set out

by the 1946 General Assembly in the first resolution that it

adopted. That objective still beckons us.

I say this as the representative of a country that has

been obliged to acquire nuclear weapons because of the

failure of the existing non-proliferation regime to address

our primary security concerns. Yet let me also state with

full conviction that India’s commitment to global nuclear

disarmament stands undiluted. India is the only nuclear-

weapon State ready to negotiate a nuclear weapons

convention that will prohibit for ever the development,

production, stockpiling, use and threat of use of nuclear

weapons and provide for the elimination of all existing

weapons under international verification.

If this can only be a step-by-step process, the first step

at a technical level is for all countries possessing nuclear

weapons to take measures that will reduce the dangers of,

and provide added safeguards against, any unintended or

accidental use. Coupled with this is the political step of

reorienting nuclear doctrines, towards no-first-use, and then

non-use, thus delegitimizing nuclear weapons globally.

Independent expert opinion across the globe has spoken

strongly in favour of such measures. In fact, every single

study that has been published since the end of the cold war

on the measures to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world

has highlighted the need for shifting to doctrines based on

no-first-use and non-use, and technical measures towards

de-alerting, as the inevitable first steps in the process. We

have taken initiatives to urge the international community

forward on both counts, and hope that in this General

Assembly session the Indian initiatives will receive the

unanimous support that they merit.

Last year my Prime Minister declared in this

Assembly that India was engaged in discussions on a range

of issues, including the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban

Treaty (CTBT). These discussions are in process and will

be resumed by the newly- elected Government of my

country. Our position remains consistent. We remain ready

to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion.

Naturally, this requires the creation of a positive

environment as we work towards creating the widest

possible consensus domestically. We also expect that other

countries will adhere to this Treaty without any conditions.

Notwithstanding India’s readiness to engage in

constructive negotiations on a treaty to prohibit the future

production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and

nuclear explosive devices, the Conference on

Disarmament in Geneva has so far, sadly, been unable to

register any forward movement. This, too, is something to

ponder over, for we all know that a fissile material cut-off

treaty (FMCT) can only contribute to our shared objective

as part of a step-by-step process. Let us then overcome

this reluctance and agree to look beyond the FMCT.

So, at the end of this centennial audit, what is it that

we would want the United Nations to do in the first few

years? It is clear that there are two major problems facing

the United Nations as an institution: Security Council

reform and the United Nations financial crisis. These need

to be addressed. The Security Council must be made

more representative, with developing countries inducted

as permanent members, to reflect the changes in the

United Nations membership and today’s political realities.

As we said earlier, on any objective criteria, India’s

credentials for permanent membership are persuasive.

Sustainable and environmentally sound development

is a goal to which India continues to attach the utmost

importance. In 2002 we will complete a decade of

Agenda 21, adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. I

trust that the current session of the General Assembly will

put in place a preparatory process for the “Rio + 10”

review. This will enable the Member States to take stock

of the implementation of the commitments undertaken by

the Member States in Agenda 21 over the past decade.

Such a process is vital for attaining our common goal of

sustainable and environmentally sound development.

This century has shown us that our challenges are

common; they are intertwined. Problems flow across

boundaries, they batten on each other. Political, security,

economic and social challenges are braided around each

other; when they form a knot, that has to be cut by all of

us together. Here, and nowhere else, can we do this. It is

convenient to look at security issues in the First

Committee, at economic issues in the Second, at human

rights and social issues in the Third, and so on, but we

often do not see them together, and so fail to use the

United Nations as we should.

May I, in conclusion, therefore, propose that in the

next decade the United Nations endeavour to address the

most urgent problems that face us today. We have to do

this as a unity of nations, as also of issues, for it is

evident that solutions in one field will depend on, or be

43

facilitated by, progress in another. Without tackling them

together we will fail to address them at all. Therefore, may

I urge the Assembly to consider the following areas for

action in the opening years of the next decade: an

international conference on financing for development;

binding, irreversible steps to reduce the dangers of use of

nuclear weapons; reform and expansion of the Security

Council; a comprehensive convention against terrorism; and

strengthening of the United Nations development system in

this era of globalization.

I leave you with a sloka from the Rigveda. Though

written 5,000 years ago, it reaches across time to us as at

this session of the General Assembly, in the last year of the

twentieth century. In translation, it reads,

“Be of one heart, one mind and free of hate.

Let your aim be common, your assembly common,

United your mind and thoughts;

May you make your resolutions with one mind,

Perform your duties righteously.

Let our hearts be together”.