India resists tsunami aid, reveals new identity

NAGAPATTINAM, India -- Sitting in his dark one-room cottage, Ganesh was adamant in voicing support for India's refusal to accept tsunami relief directly from foreign governments.

"We can stand on our own feet," the 47-year-old typist said as he gazed at a photograph of his wife and pregnant daughter, who were swept away in this disaster, among the nearly 7,000 people from this south India district who died.

Nearly one month later, Ganesh is still emotionally and economically bereft. His office has been washed away, and his employer, once a prosperous fisherman, has lost three of his five trawlers. Ganesh, who goes by one name, subsists on handouts distributed by numerous nongovernmental agencies and on the $90 in cash the government paid.

Although he is due $4,545 in government compensation for his wife's death, it is hardly enough to start life anew, get his two younger daughters married, and look after an ailing mother. Despite the scale of his personal loss, Ganesh has a proud defiance that is not unique. Television and magazine polls indicate there is a popular consensus that the Indian government's rejection of aid from sympathetic countries was appropriate.

Days after the Dec. 26 tragedy, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the most-affected country, Indonesia, eagerly accepted multilateral aid. But India made it clear that it did not need such help, though it would accept aid from United Nations agencies and nongovernmental organizations.

"We have enough resources to deal with the tragedy, but we have asked donor agencies for funds for long-term rehabilitation," said Sanjay Baru, spokesman for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Such agencies would include the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. "If the need arises, we can ask for assistance later, but for now we have the resources."

In New Delhi, many analysts say they believe the position has paid off by casting India in a new international light.

"Somehow, with the tsunami, India has come into its own," said Imtiaz Ahmed, a political scientist at Jawaharlal Nehru University. "Refusing government aid was an opportunity to show the world a new self-reliant, assertive India."

By giving aid and sending naval relief ships to stricken nations, India put itself in a different slot, of being both victim and savior, the analysts said. Globally, the nation sought to make a transition from being a recipient into a donor.

"We may have hurt foreign governments by refusing aid, but it was a necessary rebuff," said Swapan Dasgupta, a political commentator. "India has to permanently relinquish its begging bowl and Third World image. We need to show that we can help ourselves as also others."

Not all hold such strong convictions.

"Given the magnitude of the human tragedy and the need for extensive long-term rehabilitation, the government needs to reconsider its stand," said Jesurathinam, director of SNEHA, a nongovernmental organization based in Nagapattinam working with the fishing community. "National pride cannot be greater than the actual need of the 2 million people who are estimated to have been affected by the tsunami."

In the past, India has accepted foreign aid, in any form, after a disaster. Following the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, the government initially refused international assistance but changed its mind when it realized the scale of the disaster, which killed 13,000 people.

India's caution in accepting aid from governments stems from its history of dependency on foreign assistance, analysts say. After gaining independence from Britain in 1947, the country found it difficult to emerge from 200 years of colonial rule as a self-sufficient, independent nation. To build up infrastructure, the government borrowed heavily from friendly countries and donor agencies. Despite the need, foreign funding, especially from the West, was viewed as suspect.

For decades, a socialist-inclined India lurched from one devastating famine to another, depending on the United States and others for wheat and other food supplies. After the Green Revolution of the 1970s, when technology improved food production, the country built up surplus food stocks.

By rejecting well-meaning offers, said former diplomat G. Parthasarathi, India may have offended countries that saw it as exhibiting arrogance. But in the process, Parthasarathi said, India has bolstered its case for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council by strengthening its qualifications as a donor nation.