| Published on 24-08-2007 In National | | Viewed 1275 times | | Are Manmohan and Karat traitors? What nonsense! |
|
| Written by
Girish Nikam | 
Two and half years ago, July 2005, when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George Bush came out with that statement pledging to work for strategic ties between the two countries, a pandora's box had opened. The left parties, who have always been allergic to anything American, had their antennas up. But the UPA Government went ahead with the talks and finally over the last nearly two and half years won what Prime Minister Singh and his hardworking team of officials and diplomats thought was a sweet victory, with the finalisation of the 123 agreement.
Obviously neither the formidable CPI (M) nor its junior partners in the left front shared the same enthusiasm. With decades of ideological opposition, to what they term as "imperialistic" ambitions of the Americans, the leftists found many flaws in the agreement, especially in the Hyde act. According to them it has the potential to make India subservient to the American interests, and also bind India's foreign and nuclear policy.
At this stage of the intense debate, it looks as if both sides have a point of view, which needs careful consideration. However unfortunately both sides, be it Prime Minister Singh or CPI (M) leaders like Prakash Karat and his CPI counterpart A.B.Bardhan, have raised the ante to such an extent that they have started viewing each other suspiciously. Worse an atmosphere has been created wherein it seems like personal prestige of leaders are ruling the roost, though more worrisome is the talk of a mid term poll.
Now why has this whole debate reached such a stage? There is no doubt that Prime Minister Singh has provoked the leftists, by that extra-ordinary interview he gave to the Telegraph's Delhi editor Manini Chatterjee, apparently in complete consciousness of what he was doing. That he went to the extent of completely closing the door on any re-look, and even dared the leftists to withdraw support, is something even the hard core congressman and others who have nothing but admiration for the Prime Minister, have not been able to understand. Just to remind his words, this is what he said-- " I told them (the Left) that it is not possible to renegotiate the deal. It is an honourable deal, the cabinet has approved it, we cannot go back on it. I told them to do whatever they want to do, if they want to withdraw support, so be it...."
The prompt response of the left parties to this shocking statement was equally stinging. The stage was set for a confrontation between the Prime Minister and the supporting left parties, the kind of which has not been witnessed in the nearly three and half years of their cohabitation.
What is more worrisome is the level to which the blame game has reached. While leftists dub Manmohan Singh and all those who clinched the deal as American stooges out to barter the country's interests, leftists are now being dubbed as Chinese agents and in turn Pakistan-supporters, as any scuttling of the deal is being seen as helping only these two countries.
From an ideological debate it is becoming more and more personal. The media has also predictably hopped on fuelling the name-game to such an extent that it almost seems that we are being led by people who are enemies of this country.
Fact however remains that be it Dr.Manmohan Singh or Prakash Karat or Sitaram Yechury or Bardhan or Raja or other actors in this high drama, no one can question their patriotic credentials.
How can Dr.Singh be dubbed an American agent? Any dispassionate assessment of his career would draw only one conclusion--- that he is no less patriotic than any other Indian worth his salt. However, he certainly does not share the allergy, which the leftists have towards anything American. So does it mean that he is an American agent? If he is, most of the urban population in this country, not to leave out a significant rural population will also have to be dubbed as one.
There is no doubt that the Indian communists carry a certain baggage of having looked up to their ideological co-travelers in China and Russia, at one point of time, for inspiration. But that does not mean that either Karat or Yechury will barter the country's interests to suit their Chinese "masters" as their critics would like us to believe.
It is imperative therefore for both sides to acknowledge that they are all working for the country's interests, and none of them are traitors to the cause and all of them have the best interest of the country in their mind. Having acknowledged it, both sides then need to put aside the personal prejudices and prestige issues, and then proceed to work through the ideological landmines, to arrive at a consensus, which serves the country's interests both in the short and long run.
As far as the media is concerned it serves no one's interests to sensationalise the difficult dialogue process. However, it is imperative on the part of the media to rationally put across both points of view, so that the ideological discourse gets an impetus, and the readers and viewers appreciates the democratic churning process.
The leftists also have to appreciate the fact that we are living in a different world post 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Dogmatic approach to the issue on hand, will neither take them nor the country anywhere. Globalisation is a reality and America and its strength cannot be wished away with statements which sound as relics of the cold war era. Imperialism is a word they would like to throw around, when it comes to Americans. But in the changing global realities, it wont be long before India itself is seen as an "imperialistic power", what with our Tatas, Ambanis, Mallyas and others going on an international merger and acquisition spree. A re-definition of what "imperialism" means would soon become inevitable.
On the other hand no one can doubt the valuable contributions the left parties have made in pressurizing the UPA Government to go that extra mile and not to succumb to the American arm-twisting tactics, which has resulted in what the world now sees as a highly biased deal in favour of India. However if they decide to become so dogmatic, and arm-twist the UPA itself to such an extent that the arm breaks, it will be committing political hara-kiri.
On the other hand, Prime Minister Singh will be well adviced to yield ground and "pause" as Yechury has suggested and address their concerns, instead of sticking to his moralistic stance that "only I know what is good for the country" attitude. A little give and take without prejudices should solve the present crisis. But will the actors in the drama display the statesmanship necessary to overcome it? One hopes so. |
|
|
|
|
| Social Web |  |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Processing please wait ...
Top Stories
