|
|||||
|
"The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance [UPA] is going back on its own commitments and is getting more and more isolated from the people. The Left parties are not ready merely to watch this detrimental course. We will take up these issues inside and outside Parliament and bring together all like-minded parties on common platforms against the government," said Prakash Karat, general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). He explained the stance the CPI(M) and other Left parties were planning to take vis-a-vis the Manmohan Singh government in the days ahead. Excerpts from the interview:
The Indian government 's vote at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) against Iran and the India-United States nuclear agreement have become contentious issues between the Left parties and the UPA. What exactly does the Left expect from the government on these matters?
The Iran vote and the nuclear agreement are manifestations of a more basic problem - the pro-U.S. orientation in our foreign policy. Actually, the whole approach flows from the statement issued on July 18, 2005, after the Prime Minister's visit to the U.S. The whole understanding that reflected in the statement and in the actions following it was that we were part of a strategic partnership with the U.S. And it is also evident that the U.S. is expecting its ally, whom it views as a junior partner, to fall in line with all its key strategic interests.
For the U.S., targeting Iran is a priority. If you follow the views expressed by U.S. spokespersons you can see that Iran is high on the U.S. hit list. The India-U.S. nuclear agreement was also part of the July 18 statement and it was clear that it was not a stand-alone thing. There are enough indications that the U.S. has conveyed that if India needs cooperation it has to act as a reliable ally. So, in one sense, India is supposed to behave like Japan, a reliable ally of the U.S. in Asia. And our government seems to have accepted this diktat. This is the basic problem.
The Left only wants the UPA to remain steadfast to its commitment to pursue an independent foreign policy. This is a commitment expressed unmistakably in the UPA's Common Minimum Programme (CMP) for governance and obviously there is a failure to honour this commitment.
But issues of foreign policy are only a part of the Left's problems with the UPA. There are serious differences in other areas too.
It is true that there are a number of issues that are contentious at present. Along with the shift in foreign policy, there are issues such as privatisation of airports, foreign direct investment [FDI] in the retail sector and also political differences. The UPA was formed as a secular alliance at the national level and we are supporting its government because we have a common interest in fighting the communal forces. These communal forces are active, particularly in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. Reports are coming every day of attacks on minorities as well as of communalisation of the administration and the educational system. The RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh] is even setting up a university in Rajasthan. But we are not seeing any real, serious attempts by the Congress and the UPA to counter this at the political level. The political resolution passed at the recent All India Congress Committee [AICC] also did not pay sufficient attention to this aspect. We are of the view that the Congress has provided advantage to the communal BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] through this indifference and lack of attention to its political tasks. The electoral reverses in Jharkhand and Bihar followed by the collapse of the secular government in Karnataka, all reflect this indifference, and, consequently, have helped the BJP attain power in one State after another.
It is in the context of this drift that the CPI(M) has decided to take these issues to Parliament. We will not be confined to the UPA-Left Coordination Committee. And we will also try to rally other parties from issue to issue. This has already begun on the Iran issue. We have been conducting a campaign from November onwards on this issue with other parties. This will continue during the forthcoming visit of U.S. President George Bush to India. This united struggle would extend to issues such as FDI in the retail sector too, both inside and outside Parliament.
The response of the Prime Minister and the Congress to the Left's criticism is that the world has changed and that the country's foreign policy is dictated by enlightened national interest.
We would contest this claim on the national interest. Is it in our national interest to spoil the relations with Iran in order to meet U.S. interests in West Asia? Everybody knows what the U.S. wants to do in West Asia. It wants to repeat in Iran what it did with Iraq. Is it in our national interest to alienate and antagonise a country with which we have had a long, traditional relationship? That too a country which is important in terms of our energy security concerns.
But what about the concerns about proliferation of nuclear arms in the region? The IAEA vote on Iran is also related to that concern...
The best way to ensure that Iran develops nuclear technology only for peaceful purposes is to see that it remains within IAEA framework and complies with IAEA inspections and safeguards. The U.S. is not really concerned about the nuclear issue. It wants to use the issue as a stick as it did with the weapons of mass destruction [WMD] campaign in Iraq. We cannot buy the American argument blindly, simply because they are suspect and have been proved suspect. Our party is of the firm view that the Indian government should not go along with the U.S. view when the IAEA has its next meeting on March 6.
The Samajwadi Party (S.P.) has announced that it will bring a no-confidence motion against the government if it votes in favour of the U.S. on March 6. Will the Left go along with that move?
We have had discussions with the S.P. leadership. We have decided to take it step by step. We will raise a discussion in both Houses of Parliament before the IAEA meeting of March 6. We will decide after seeing India's position on March 6. But definitely the Left parties are of the view that we will have to express our disapproval in Parliament in case the government goes ahead with the same policy direction that we have witnessed since September last year. How we will go about this, we will decide after discussions with the S.P. and other parties.
The perspective of the CPI(M) on a third alternative was that this has to develop through mass movements, agitations and programmes based on ideological and political matters. It also said that this could not be merely an electoral adjustment or alliance. Given the way in which your cooperation with the S.P. and some other parties is developing on the Iran issue as mass movements and coordination in Parliament, do you think a third alternative as visualised by the CPI(M) is getting formed?
I think this is the beginning of that process. The issue-to-issue cooperation with other parties and building of common campaign platforms on matters such as the Iran vote, Bush visit and FDI in retail should eventually pave the way for the formation of the third alternative.
We could say that the process for the development of the common policy platform visualised for the third alternative has begun. Some people have the misconception that we are talking in terms of bringing about a government of the third alternative right now. That is not what we are talking about.
The Left's earlier interventions on several of these issues have not been effective. In fact, the Left's opposition has been overruled on many occasions on a variety of issues, including FDI and the Iran question. In such a background what is the difference that you expect out of the new initiatives and alliances?
The main difference now is that there is a greater focus on the initiatives in Parliament. We have now decided to take our opposition to the government's wayward policies to Parliament in a full-fledged manner. This will reflect on a variety of issues like the airport privatisation and FDI in retail. I am confident that the government will be forced to acknowledge and accept this initiative.
If the UPA does not listen to this, it will get more and more isolated from the people. In such a situation, we will not be responsible for the future of the government.
Printer friendly
page
|
