Post by bhumika on Aug 23, 2007 18:21:53 GMT 5.5
Ideological consistency is not brinkmanship
S Sudhakar Reddy
Secretary, National Council, CPI & MP
It is, indeed, strange that the Indian media has chosen to project the Left’s political position, ideologically consistent and politically serious, as brinkmanship. That, however, does no more than expose the former’s unqualified pro-US bias. It also underscores how ill-disposed the media is towards all those who oppose the concept of “strategic partnership” with the world’s one and only superpower.
India has a glorious tradition of anti-imperialism. And we continue to uphold that legacy even now. As far as our current posture is concerned, it is not new. We opposed the BJP-led NDA regime when it initiated the first phase of evolving a strategic partnership with the US. We are of the opinion that India should look East for its security, and improve relations with its neighbours. The US is trying to pitch us against our neighbours, and that is not acceptable to us.
That is precisely the reason why the Left, despite extending outside support to the UPA government, has been consistent in its opposition to the government ever since it adopted various neo-liberal economic policies, and allowed its foreign policy to be influenced and determined by the US. We opposed the defence pact that the then defence minister Pranab Mukherjee signed with Washington in the first half of 2005.
Our protest, when the prime minister reached an understanding on civil nuclear cooperation with the US, was pretty much in the same vein. We had pointed out right then that it would lead to the surrender of our sovereignty, and endanger our energy security. Our fears have been proved right subsequently. India was asked to abandon the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, a project vital from the point of ensuring energy security for our people.
In the foreign policy sphere, the US forced us to vote against Iran in the IAEA twice. The government has failed to justify this somersault till date. The Indo-US nuclear deal is part and parcel of the American bid to impose a “strategic partnership” on India, which would lead to the nation’s enslavement. Obviously, the Left cannot accept it. Call it brinkmanship or bad politics, we will stick to our position of opposing Indo-US nuclear deal. We cannot be party to surrender of this great nation before any other country.
To the faithful, it is not an act of adventurism
Swapan Dasgupta
Political Commentator
There are two types of voluntary political associations that are common to parliamentary democracies. The first brings together individuals and communities on the strength of broadly common likes and dislikes. The second centres on individuals or interest groups and is treated as a vehicle for the exercise of political power. If beliefs, sometimes called ideology, are the hallmark of the first, pragmatism is the signature tune of the second.
The communist movement, particularly the CPI(M), has been cast in the first mould, although it incorporates strong pragmatic tendencies in Kerala and West Bengal. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and China’s rejection of Maoism, the Left has diluted its insistence on state control of the means of production and settled for welfare economics.
Although the change has been uneven, today’s Indian Left appears more social democratic than old-style socialist. This explains why it is relatively at ease with the paternalist wings of the Congress, those who seek to put public finances into schemes such as rural employment guarantee, than with the modernisers who favour a greater comfort zone for private and foreign investment.
S Sudhakar Reddy
Secretary, National Council, CPI & MP
It is, indeed, strange that the Indian media has chosen to project the Left’s political position, ideologically consistent and politically serious, as brinkmanship. That, however, does no more than expose the former’s unqualified pro-US bias. It also underscores how ill-disposed the media is towards all those who oppose the concept of “strategic partnership” with the world’s one and only superpower.
India has a glorious tradition of anti-imperialism. And we continue to uphold that legacy even now. As far as our current posture is concerned, it is not new. We opposed the BJP-led NDA regime when it initiated the first phase of evolving a strategic partnership with the US. We are of the opinion that India should look East for its security, and improve relations with its neighbours. The US is trying to pitch us against our neighbours, and that is not acceptable to us.
That is precisely the reason why the Left, despite extending outside support to the UPA government, has been consistent in its opposition to the government ever since it adopted various neo-liberal economic policies, and allowed its foreign policy to be influenced and determined by the US. We opposed the defence pact that the then defence minister Pranab Mukherjee signed with Washington in the first half of 2005.
Our protest, when the prime minister reached an understanding on civil nuclear cooperation with the US, was pretty much in the same vein. We had pointed out right then that it would lead to the surrender of our sovereignty, and endanger our energy security. Our fears have been proved right subsequently. India was asked to abandon the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, a project vital from the point of ensuring energy security for our people.
In the foreign policy sphere, the US forced us to vote against Iran in the IAEA twice. The government has failed to justify this somersault till date. The Indo-US nuclear deal is part and parcel of the American bid to impose a “strategic partnership” on India, which would lead to the nation’s enslavement. Obviously, the Left cannot accept it. Call it brinkmanship or bad politics, we will stick to our position of opposing Indo-US nuclear deal. We cannot be party to surrender of this great nation before any other country.
To the faithful, it is not an act of adventurism
Swapan Dasgupta
Political Commentator
There are two types of voluntary political associations that are common to parliamentary democracies. The first brings together individuals and communities on the strength of broadly common likes and dislikes. The second centres on individuals or interest groups and is treated as a vehicle for the exercise of political power. If beliefs, sometimes called ideology, are the hallmark of the first, pragmatism is the signature tune of the second.
The communist movement, particularly the CPI(M), has been cast in the first mould, although it incorporates strong pragmatic tendencies in Kerala and West Bengal. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and China’s rejection of Maoism, the Left has diluted its insistence on state control of the means of production and settled for welfare economics.
Although the change has been uneven, today’s Indian Left appears more social democratic than old-style socialist. This explains why it is relatively at ease with the paternalist wings of the Congress, those who seek to put public finances into schemes such as rural employment guarantee, than with the modernisers who favour a greater comfort zone for private and foreign investment.