|
|||||
|
ON February 20, the Lok Sabha witnessed a rare development when members of two constituents of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) - the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) - joined members of the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party (S.P.) to boycott the House. Normally, parties in government do not participate in walkouts. The issue that provoked the walkout related to the actions of David Mulford, the United States Ambassador to India.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Basudeb Acharya listed Mulford's exploits - he pulled up West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee for criticising U.S. President George W. Bush, offered to Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi the services of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate a bomb blast case, and commented that the U.S.-India nuclear agreement "would die" if India did not support his country's position vis-a-vis Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - and demanded that the government ask for his recall. The demand evoked widespread support, including from the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Opposition National Democratic Alliance (NDA).
The only party that refrained from joining in the protest was the Congress. However, Congress members were in a state of discomfiture as leaders of various political parties, including partners in the ruling alliance, lambasted the U.S. Ambassador and the government's silence on an issue that involved the violation of diplomatic procedures and challenged the self-respect of the country.
In many ways, the developments in the Lok Sabha presented a miniature depiction of the prevailing mood in the country. Events right from the run-up to the Budget session of Parliament had borne unmistakable signs of a growing anti-U.S. sentiment that perceived the superpower as a nation given to hegemonic manoeuvres and the UPA government as one that gave in readily to its machinations. This mood was steadily developing since September, when India first joined hands with the U.S. on the Iran issue at the IAEA and acquired massive proportions by February, when India voted against Iran again.
The seemingly unconnected global controversy on the denigration of the Prophet Muhammad in a cartoon added fuel to the fire. There was a perception among large sections of Muslims that the U.S. was behind the worldwide propagation of the cartoons and that the Indian government was keeping mum on the matter because it had succumbed to U.S. interests.
Large protest demonstrations were held in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Kerala in early February itself, when India voted a second time in support of the U.S. line. These anti-U.S. demonstrations were in effect driven by the Muslim community, especially in North India, because the anti-Iran moves at the IAEA were perceived as anti-Islam by a sizable segment of the community. However, the participation of non-Muslim communities in this mass movement was not insignificant.
The socio-political climate created by the protests is bound to have its impact on Indian polity. It certainly points towards a serious setback to the Congress' hopes of a revival in North Indian States.
The gainer in Uttar Pradesh is, obviously, the S.P. In a sense, the pro-U.S. line of the Congress and its ramifications at the ground level have helped the S.P. withstand embarrassing political problems such as the drug-trafficking charges against one of its Ministers in the State and the telephone-tapping controversy. The party announced that it would bring a no-confidence motion in Parliament if the UPA government persisted with the anti-Iran line. In the run-up to the Budget session, a section of the BJP, particularly leaders considered close to former party president L.K. Advani, had contemplated supporting the S.P.'s proposed no-confidence motion. The design, however, was thwarted by the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). The RSS made it clear, first through the public approbation of the UPA's Iran vote by Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Pravin Togadia, and later through organisational instructions to back out from an anti-U.S. move, that it would be perceived as favouring global Islamic interests.
According to many Muslim activists in North India, the resentment of the minority community was related not just to the pro-U.S. line. Almost all of them pointed out that there was a general impression that the UPA had not evolved any schemes to improve the lot of the Muslims. "Our community is being treated with utter condescension by the leaders of the Congress and there are no political or administrative measures aimed at its real advancement," said an academic at Lucknow University. He added that most of the minority welfare programmes of the UPA had benefited the Christian community rather than Muslims. This widespread perception, he said, had played a major role in making sections of the community support the Nitish Kumar-led Janata Dal (United) in Bihar and the H.D. Kumaraswamy-led breakaway group of the Janata Dal (Secular) in Karnataka despite their association with the BJP.
The political fallout of all these developments at the national level is the evolution of a relationship between the CPI (M)-led Left and the S.P. in a manner that fits in with the third alternative concept put forward by CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat. The CPI(M) congress held last year had observed that a third alternative should emerge out of common policy approaches and joint struggles with like-minded political forces. The joint campaign of the Left and the S.P. on the Iran issue has progressed on these lines. Karat told Frontline that the joint campaign would continue during the visit of the U.S. President and also on other issues of common concern such as the privatisation of airports and foreign direct investment (FDI) in the retail sector. In his view the campaign could be seen as the beginning of a process that would eventually lead to the formation of the third alternative.
In this context, the Congress too seems to be waking up to the increasing disillusionment among Muslims. The customary address of the President to the joint session of Parliament during the Budget session gave an indication of this as it unfolded a 15-point programme aimed at empowering the minorities. However, it remains to be seen how far such programmes will help the Congress retrieve lost ground, especially in the background of intense passions that issues like the Iran vote and denigration of the Prophet have evoked in the community.
Printer friendly
page
|
