***Apportionment of the blame for the tragedy will now be clouded by the exigencies of domestic and international politics. Something much worse is, however, on the anviL.***

THE burning down of the shrine at Charar-e-Sharief is in itself a tragedy of immense proportions. The shhne had been, for nearly five hundred years, a reminder of the Inspiring teachings of the great Sufi saint. NuruddlH Nooranl. At the core of sufism stands out the message to tolerate and respect one s fellow beings and the ideals and beliefs they hold. How the burning actually took place has already become the subject of intense controversy. The report put out by the authorities at Srinagar and New Delhi may be right, or at least partially right. The fact nonetheless remain that few, very few. amongst the citizenry in the Kashmir valley are prepared to accept the official Indian version. Its credibility is equally low with the foreign media and. therefore, in foreign countries.

Apportionment of the blame for the tragedy will now be clouded by the exigencies of domestic and international politics. Something much worse is. however, on the anvil. The lobby which is extra keen to ensure that defence expenditure in the poor, developing countries continues to be high and soaring has been provided with an opportunity to raise the scale of their propaganda in the South Asia region. In situations where passion is inflamed, clarity of thought is usually the first victim: blind emotion emerges as the dominant element in decision-taking. It is therefore nearly certain that. In the wake of the Charar-e-Sharief disaster, all talk of arms control and reduction in defence outlay will receive the short shrift in both India and Pakistan. The jingo spirit will very much assert itself, whoever in either country suggests a planned cut-back in defence spending will be accused of a substantial lack of patriotism.

Since reasoning will now take a back seat, it will, at least for some while, be awfully difficult to put across such points of view as thal by raising the load of defence expenditure, we do not necessarily strengthen our defence capability in relation to that of the nation we regard as our prin-

cipal adversary. If India raises her defence outlay. Pakistan would immediately follow suK, that Pakistan too has raised its defence spending would then constitute the ground for raising further India's defence outlay at the next round: Pakistan would once more follow suit; India would predictably retaliate by spending even more on defence: Pakistan would reciprocate. This could be an unending story, and neither nation thus madly Involved in this competitive game of fortifying defence capability is likely to succeed in establishing herself at any point as stronger than what she was at the start. Perhaps, at one or two stray moments, one of the two countries would gain a temporary advantage over the other on some aspect or other of strategic defence arrangements: this advantage is how ever likely to be soon wiped out by hurried new initiatives taken by the government of the other country. The only gainers from this insensate race to strengthen defence would be the armament merchants and commission agents, apart from countries that are the major producers of war weaponry of various descriptions.

Since the arms-manufacturing nations are by and large industrially advanced and enjoy a high level of economic prosperity. enlarged defence outlay on the part of the poor, underdevelopment countries would in fact mean a transfer of income from the poorer nations to the rich. For this particular development, the Third World nations could hardly find fault with the world's rich countries: they should blame only their own Intolerance which keeps them away from engaging in talk with their neighbours in an attempt of rapprochement and reconciliation of views and Interests. Life is not worth living if the fellows across the border are not taught an appropriate lesson which they will not forget for the rest of their lives is an understandable sentiment under some situations. But in case it is impossible to teach the neighbouring country a lesson of the intended sort, passion ought to. be cooled for one's

own sake. Unfortunately, in circumstanoes which emerge in the wake of occurrences such as the Charar-e-Sharief tragedy, passion refuses to be cooled, and there is a stubborn reluctance to recognise what Is basic reality. The final losers are the poor, deprived of the opportunities of education and nourishment and shelter and employment in both countries, since resources would now be diverted in an even greater proportion than before away from development into defence.

Consider, for example, thia-year’s budget of the Government of India. Of the total proposed outlay of Rs 166.000 crore, roughly one-fourth — 25 per cent — would be covered by appropriations In the name of defence and Internal security. As a matter of fact, allocations for defence are tucked in under different budgetary heads, so much so that the actual outlay for the purpose could be even higher. Contrast this with the demands for grants that have been voted for the Ministry of Industry, which comprises three crucial departments — the Department of Industrial Development, the Department of Heavy Industry, and the Department of Small-Scale Industries and Rural and Agro industries. The outlay for these three major departments taken together barely adds up Rs 1.600 crore, that is to say. it is even less than 1 per cent of the aggregate' budgetary appropriations.

Of late, a number of countries in East Asia are being held up as role models for India in her endeavour to accelerate the pace of economic development. This list of countries includes Japan, China. Korea and Singapore. Were one to analyse their budgetary allor cations, it would be quite a revelation. Since they are on a higher economic plateau and enjoy much higher levels of per capita income, public spending in these countries to foster and sustain industrial growth will of course be much higher compared to ours. What, however, rivets attention is the proportion of the aggregate budgetary outlay that is spent on industry: as against our paltry 1 per cent, they

tend to spend as much as 25 to 30 per cent — tn some instances, even more — of their budgetary funds for promoting industrial growth.

A perfectly valid case can be mounted against the present government and the party it represents on political grounds, the current tragedy in Kashmir is very much their own handiwork, and a direct consequence of the foolish manner In which a duly elected government in the valley was brought down by New Delhi s machinations in the last week of June. 1984. Kashmir has been rendered into an almost lost cause since then. The immensely greater calamity is. however, that yesterday's folly has now been transformed into an alibi for committing greater follies today. Should economic development screech to a halt In the country because scarce resources are decided to be diverted to defence, and Industry and agriculture would hence suffer, much worse tragedies might then wait the nation. — Mandira

The author is former finance minister of West Bengal and now a Member of Rq)ya Sabha.