Chemistry of Feudal Socialist Oxides and Zionist Gandhian Carbides
Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams: Chapter 19
Palash Biswas
http://troubledgalaxydetroyeddreams.blogspot.com/ I despise most the Socialist and the Gandhians!
The chemistry of Feudal Socialist Oxides and Zionist Gandhian
Carbides is doing its best to sustain the Colonisation of Sovereign,
Independent and Democratic India.
Socialist are the most awesome unpredictable chemical quotient of the
decaying feudal set up of Indian ruling class.
On the other hand, Gandhi`s reincarnation from Apartheid South
African background has changed the fate of this country as the
British transferred power to the Zionist Brahmins.
This Chemical equation is working right from the break of mid night
on 15 th August, 1947.
I discussed the issue with full details in my interactive Hindi Novel
AMERICA SE SAVDHAN ( Be Aware Of america) which was serially
published in daily Awaz in Jamshed Pur and Dhanbad in Jharkhand. I
deliberately selected the Aboriginal Audience with the Legacies of
Munda and Santhal Insurrections against Imperialism. The publication
stopped as the daily faced Closure mysteriously. I really don`t know
whether it had any link with the Novel. Readers responded
overwhelmingly. Even the critics. All poets in Hindi supported me in
the venture. But the prose writes did not support me so much as they
had reservations against my experiment of interactive format. But
Personalities like Mahashweta Debi, Nagarjun, Shalabh Shri Ram Singh,
Trilochan and Manager Pandey did support me. The chapters of the
novel were published in scores of little mags countrywide and the
discussion continued. But the novel was never published in Book
format. Even today, while I visit any place anywhere in the country,
readers enquired about the Novel. Recently, while I addressed the
department of Amebdkar studies in Nagpur University, I had to answer
queries on the Novel from Dias.
But the Intelligentsia never remembered the Novel as it insisted the
alliance of Indigenous aboriginal people worldwide.
I am grateful to Mahashweta Di, that a global personality like her
remembered the attempt. I am thankful that she wrote on America Se
Savdhan in Dainik Hindustan today. i am just waiting for the
responses. Meanwhile, I opted for English also and tried to adopt Net
as an alternative interactive media. I am not writing anything so
called creative for years and discarded all my earlier manuscripts as
Face intense crisis of Money, Time and space crunch. As my career has
been destroyed and I have to struggle to support my family.
I may not say thanks to Mahashweta Di. I always criticised her stance
in West Bengal. I snapped the relationship as I thought she was not
interested to break the Brahminical hegemony in Bengal. I have my
commitment to my people , the Refugees. Thus, I left Bhasha Bandhan
Also.
I am glad that Mahashweta Di still remembers me and does her best to
highlight my writings to the Nation, which were neglected hitherto.
I am not in a position to call her. On so many occasions, she was on
the Dias and I remained in the front row. But I never tried to meet
her.
I have been always that Brute and hardly spared my father also. I
hope Mahashweta di will forgive me. I still remember the day when we
first met in Dhanbad. AK Roy was the organiser of Premchand jayanti
in RLY Institute. I was not selected as a speaker initially. But our
dear friend Madan Kashayp, the renowned Hindi poet had to leave
Dhanbad for some urgency and I just replaced him. We shared the dias
and the relationship began. She was courageous enough to send me her
magazine, Bartika.
Before sometime , Mahashweta Di called me and supported the idea of
alternative media. She also described Nandigram Insurrection as an
Indigenous black Untouchable Insurrection. She suggested to circulate
the documents relating Stravation in India. she selected me. But I
was rather busy to solve my personal problems with constant deficit
in my budget as all avenues of my sustenance as a writer and a social
individual have been undermined.
I am really very sorry, Didi! I am surprised to see where from you
got so many details about my student life!
Indo-US relationship can truly be called a strategic partnership, no
doubt. Indian ruling class never resisted Imperialism at any point of
History. In independent India, under cover of Non Aligned Movement
Indian Ruling Hegemony did the excellent balance work with
maintaining relationship with United states of America and Soviet
Russia. India never played any role to resist US aggression in Asia
from the days of Korea and Vietnam wars. It maintained silence during
Soviet Military interference in Afghanistan in late seventies.
Bangladesh Liberation War was never meant to resist Imperialism.
It
became an inevitable incidence with continuous Refugee Influx across
the Border. The Ruling Class played Hindutva card and subverted the
Naxalite Movement, crushing the thundering spring led by aboriginal
Naxalbari People, the dalits and tribals supported by Muslims and
students, down to earth with full killing power of Politics and state
power. Indian Military was engaged in fighting on the both part of
the border. In West Bengal it was against naxalites and in East
Bengal, against the Pakistani army.
During Gulf war One and Two, Indian ruling Brahminical class rather
supported United states of America with all its resources. Oil Price
Hike is caused by recession in US Weapon based Sub Prime Economy. The
downwards value of Dollar is responsible for the Energy crisis.
Indian ruling Class did everything to make Indian Economy the colony
of United states of America. Defence deals had been the main source
of resource to hold the power in the best interest of brahmins and
High castes in India. Saddam Hussein tried to shift Oil Economy and
he favoured transaction with EURO. US preempted this with Gulf war
One.
Indian ruling Class did nothing to resist Oil War. Rather it opted
for Nuclear Option with Buddha1s Smile long before the Oil War.
The Feudal Socialist Oxides and Zionist Gandhian carbide polluted the
Geopolitics of Indian Ocean peace zone more than Union Carbide did in
Bhopal.
Support to n-deal based on national interest: Mulayam
Jaunpur, Jul 6 (PTI) Justifying his party's decision to support the
Congress on the Indo-US nuclear deal, Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam
Singh Yadav today said that the decision was taken keeping in mind
national interest.
"We supported Congress on the nuclear deal issue in national
interest. It has given a good message in the world that Indians can
take decision in interest of the country," Yadav told reporters here.
In reply to a question, Yadav criticised BJP leader Lal Krishna
Advani and termed him "opportunistic".
"He should introspect before making comments on SP's stand on nuclear
deal," Yadav said. PTI
NATION AND ITS INTERESTS
The words "national interest" has re-entered the nation's lexicon
with a new urgency, thanks to the controversy over the Indo-US
nuclear deal. It is necessary to unpack the idea and the implications
of the phrase. At a very simple level, it means that India as a
nation has certain interests. These interests are supra-government
and supra-political parties. In other words, if something is seen as
being beneficial to the national interest then it is good for India,
irrespective of the party that rules India at a given point of time.
The opposite is equally true: something that is harmful for India is
bad, no matter which party is in power, the Congress, the Bharatiya
Janata Party or the Communist Party of India (Marxist). At a more
complex level, there could be questions about who defines what the
nation's interests are, who decides what is beneficial or not, and so
on.
Yet the controversy over the nuclear deal reveals that the confusion
lies at the simplest level. The deal and what constitutes national
interest have come to be identified with the Congress. The fate of
the deal has come to be tied to the continuation of the government
that is led by the Congress. The BJP, which is second only to the CPI
(M) in its opposition to the deal, took the last and dramatic step to
make India a nuclear power. It would not be wrong to assume from this
that the BJP has no principled objection to nuclear power and its
uses. It believes that nuclear power is in India's national interest.
It was under the BJP government that India moved closest to the
United States of America in terms of foreign policy and related
matters. Thus the BJP has nothing against the US and nothing against
India's use of nuclear power and energy. Yet it is opposed to the
Indo-US nuclear deal, which will enable India to bring supplies to
its starving reactors. The BJP's opposition to the deal is
inexplicable unless one draws the conclusion that the BJP is opposed
to the Congress doing the deal. If a BJP government signed such a
deal, obviously there would be no problems. This only highlights the
point about national interest made earlier. To be fair, it needs to
be pointed out that there is no guarantee that had the Congress been
in the Opposition, it would not have objected to a similar deal if it
were being made by a BJP government.
In the case of communists, the matter becomes more complex, since in
their ideology, the national interest is made to intersect with other
interests, specifically those of class. It has made the assertion
that the deal will undermine India's sovereignty, but has never
substantiated the claim. Critics of the communists could also point
out that communists in India have not always supported policies that
are incontrovertibly beneficial to the national interest.
The phrase national interest has thus become an item in the
politicians' rhetorical baggage. It is fished out whenever some group
of politicians finds it convenient to do so. Politicians are not the
sole guardians or repositories of national interests. Politicians
only make what are matters of national interest into electoral issues.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080706/jsp/opinion/story_9508496.jsp
People's Democracy
(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
----------------------------------------------------------
----------
Vol. XXXII
No. 26
July 06 , 2008
POLIT BUREAU COMMUNIQUE
CPI(M) To Withdraw Support If Govt Goes Ahead On Nuke Deal
The Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) met in New
Delhi On June 29, 2008. It has issued the following statement:
On Nuclear Deal
THE Polit Bureau heard a report on the current impasse arising out of
the prime minister and the Congress leadership's insistence on going
ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal.
The Polit Bureau wishes to point out that going to the Board of
Governors of the IAEA for approval of the Safeguards Agreement will
be a flagrant violation of the understanding arrived at in the
November 16, 2007 meeting of the UPA-Left committee on the nuclear
deal. The UPA had pledged not to proceed till the committee arrives
at its findings, which includes the conclusions to be arrived at on
the text of the Safeguards Agreement.
The Polit Bureau wishes to point out that the UPA was formed to keep
the communal forces at bay. By taking such a step and the political
consequences thereafter, that purpose will be undermined. We appeal
to the partners of the Congress in the UPA to ensure that no such
steps are taken which will help the communal forces.
The Polit Bureau reiterates its firm opposition to the 123 agreement
which does not provide for full civilian nuclear cooperation; does
not meet the needs of energy security and which will severely
undermine the country's independent foreign policy and strategic
autonomy by cementing a strategic alliance with the United States.
In case the government decides to go ahead with such a harmful
agreement, which has no majority support in parliament, the CPI(M)
will withdraw support to the UPA government in concert with the Left
parties.
Inflation and Price Rise
The Polit Bureau expressed grave concern at the galloping inflation
rate which has touched 11.42 per cent. The Manmohan Singh government
has abjectly failed to tackle inflation. The price rise of essential
commodities imposes a crushing burden on the people. The poor are
finding it difficult to survive given the rising cost of food stuffs.
It is unfortunate that at a time when the government should be
gearing up to take comprehensive steps to tackle inflation and price
rise, the prime minister and the Congress leadership are more
concerned about fulfilling their commitment made to president Bush to
operationalise the nuclear deal.
The Polit Bureau notes that wedded to neo-liberal policies, the
Congress-led government callously refuses to take the urgent steps
necessary to curb price rise and provide relief to the people.
The CPI(M) will, after consultations with the Left parties launch an
intensive campaign unitedly to expose the Congress-led government's
surrender to national interests on the nuclear deal and its failure
to curb price rise.
http://pd.cpim.org/2008/0706_pd/07062008_1.htm
Gandhians and socialists have been capable to hold the state power in
the best interest of the three percent ruling Zionist Brahmins since
1947.Only the Left with unique mastery on Ideological strategical
jugglery helped the Sangh Parivar to enter the Power arena in 1977
and 1989 branding Congress Hegemony as Dictatorship absolute. Once
again, a chemical experiment is on in the National Political
laboratory to mix up two opposite elements of Marxism and Hindutva to
invent another equation of power sharing just to save the Left front
governments in three states.
Socialist oxides are more than useful to grab Power with clubbing of
castes and communities in a multi cultural bleeding divided
geopolitics like India while the Sanatan Aryan Zionist Hindutva has
always been successful to sustain the Caste Community and Nationality
divided Indian society.Brahmins rule just because Indigenous people
are divided in more than six hundred castes. The society is also
divided by many religious sections. Nationality question is never
addressed. In these circumstances, the followers of Gandhi ensured
Power Transfer to Indian Brahmins. They adopted British Parliamentary
system with Majoritarian electoral system. Clubbing of a few powerful
castes and communities with manipulated demographical readjustment
creates favourable mobile Vote Bank for the ruling class where eighty
five percent of the population hardly gets any opportunity of
representation.
For this Brahminical power politics, the Indian ruling class
captured all colors of politics and every genre of ideologies without
any commitment to the people they are meant for representation.
Congress was set up to divert the heritage of Insurrections against
Colonial Rule. All these insurrections were led by the Aboriginal
people of India and were supported by the SC and OBC and Muslim
Peasants. Decaying Feudalism had no escape route as the Permanent
land Settlement failed miserably with the introduction of
Industrialisation, Capitalism and Imperialism. The world wars broke
up the feudal economy and production system. The Ruling Class which
was hitherto supporting the Rulers all throughout Indian history,
suddenly turned patriotic and launched so called National struggle of
Independence led by the Zionist caste Hindus like Gandhi and
Nehru.British rulers understood the threat earlier and were
successful to alienate the SCs and STs and provided some concessions
like opportunities in Jobs, education and abolishing untouchability.
The Indigenous people launched a national movement to liberate
themselves as leaders like Dr Ambedkar and Jogendra Nath Mandal
emerged. but this Indigenous movement failed to resist the feudal
Brahminical upsurge as they succeeded to manipulate the Muslims and
tribals. Muslims understood the fact very soon and they organised
themselves in Muslim League. It further helped the Brahmins to create
a suitable geopolitics and demography to hunt freely the Indigenous
and Nationality lives, livelihood, human rights, citizenship and
identities. Tribals were never been a part of the dalit movement and
even a leader like Dr Ambedkar failed to resist partition with
transfer of power to the Brahmins. However, the East Bengal
Indigenous people ensured his entry in the Parliament. Thus, Dr
Ambedkar got reservation for the SC and St communities and he left
enough space for the OBCs.
The Ruling Class never accepted the fundamental rights of the
aboriginal, black, indigenous and untouchable people. The leadership
of Gandhi originated from Apartheid legacy of South Africa. His
reincarnation in India helped the ruling Class to strengthen the
divides of caste system and ensure the sustenance of Brahminical
hegemony eternal.
Gandhi betrayed with the slogan of Harijan Liberation as the Marxists
are betraying with the ideologies of people`s revolution. The
Socialists and the Gandhian always spoke against caste system, but
with clubbing of powerful castes and communities they succeeded to
sustain the bondage and the slavery.
Personally I dealt with the Gandhians and the Socialists lifelong. I
was also fortunate to know all the betrayals of the Brahmin
communists since my childhood. It was first the Dhimri block
Insurrection in 1958 back to back Telengana uprising which exposed
the character of Indian Communists who imported the radical Ideology
and captured it for the Ruling Brahmins just to resist any Soviet or
Chinese type revolution in India. While the Maoists in Nepal
introduced proportional representation in the first election after
the demise of Monarchy. the result is that almost every caste and
community in Nepal have the representation in the National Politics.
In India, no political party ever demanded for proportional
representation and every party tried their best to create favourable
vote bank with clubbing of most powerful castes and communities. In
Bengal, Marxists tried their best to hold the entire Muslim, dalit
and Tribal population hostage. Thus, it is so invincible. In Uttar
Pradesh and Bihar, a few dalit and OBC castes with Muslim alliance
have the key of power. It was repeated in UP also unless mayavati was
successful to upset the Apple cart with her own brand of Social
engineering called, casteology. In karnatak, Vokkalingas and
Lingayats hold the key of power. This time BJP en cashed it and broke
the jinx in the south.
Communal politics was the cause of partition which aborted every
possibility of liberation for the aboriginal , black, untouchable
indigenous eighty five percent population of India. Every political
party plays the game of Communalism and amusingly opposes it
vehemently. The communists and the socialists are the masters of this
hypocrisy.
I remember the edits written in the most circulated Two Hindi Dailies
published from New Delhi during Operation Blue Star. Both of them
happened to be renowned as the Most famous Gandhian Intellectuals in
Hindi Dunia. They not only supported Operation Blue Star, but
dictated the Armed Forces to enter in the Golden temple for the final
kill.One of them expired long before, the Second person survives with
daily focus in electronic media. This Chief editor being a Gandhian,
had been always the most favorite Manager Editor in a setup of RSS
minded people. He lived that RSS life lifelong and never resisted. He
is also better known for his notorious edit in favour of Sati.
This Gentleman is known to insert most of the RSS cadres as resident
Editor who had been also Brahmins. In his newspapers, though some
type of quota was followed with a Harijan Gandhian Editor.But he
ensured that every promotion or decision making status remained with
Brahmins only.
I knew the Man in Meerut where he presided National Conferences of
Sangh Parivar. how he tried to have an entry in Rajyasabha , it is no
secret to anyone in intelligentsia. This man is crazy about Sachin
Tendulkar and dead against Saurabh Ganguli. He never enjoyed any
other game at all. National issues had always been an opportunist
game for this Icon Brand who chose the suitable issues only and
diverted anytime either in Cricket or in pure Nostalgia. He is best
known as a teacher of Gandhian Morality in Life and Politics.
This Man is also known to select the most intellectual and energetic
journalists and dump them on caste line. Many careers have been
destroyed by this gentleman. At the same time , he promoted the most
notorious personalities in Journalism to kill the rebels.
However, this is a real life story of the Hindi journalism and
literature. Gandhian, socialists and Communists rule the arena. Most
of the Gandhians and Socialists are well known for their mastery on
language and manipulation. Most notorious editors in India always
have been the Gandhians and the Socialists.
I also have known a socialist known as Narayan Dutta Tiwari who
turned Gandhian to gain political mileage. This man is also a master
of language and manipulations. So all of them have been. The Gandhian
and Socialists always posed to fight the Monarchy in Nepal and ended
up defending the Feudal Monarchy.
We all know the roles of known Gandhians and Socialists in India. I
am not discussing the roles played by the Sangh Parivar and the
Communists in this article.
Claiming that Samajwadi Party had conveyed its support to the nuclear
deal, Congress on Friday expressed gratitude to it but was non-
committal on the issue of inclusion of the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led
party in the government.
"We thank Samajwadi Party for supporting the deal," Congress
spokesman Shakeel Ahmed told reporters in the capital after SP
leaders Yadav and Amar Singh met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and
Congress President Sonia Gandhi.
Congress leader Veerappa Moily also insisted that Yadav and Amar
Singh "expressed support to the nuclear deal" and "reiterated the
support" during their meeting with Gandhi.
The Congress' claim about SP conveying support to the deal came even
though Yadav and Singh maintained that they had not given
any "commitment so far" and would decide on it only after talking to
other UNPA constituents.
The Samajwadi Party today clearly indicated that it would not vote
against the UPA government in Parliament but stopped short of
formally announcing that it has wrapped up a deal with the Congress.
"Communalism is a bigger threat than imperialism today...Today the
Left parties, BSP, BJP and Chautala may vote together. If our friends
from the Left want to defeat the government with BSP and BJP, we
don't want to say anything. But we can't do this work," SP general
secretary Mr Amar Singh told reporters, a day after wrapping up a
deal with the Congress.
He also refused to say what his party would do on the floor of the
House in case of a trial of strength. "Let the confidence motion come
then we will decide," he added.
At the Press conference, Mr Singh maintained there was no formal talk
of any alliance with the Congress so far during discussions with its
president Mrs Sonia Gandhi or Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh.
"Neither have they asked for our support nor have we committed ours.
We are outsiders till now. Karat and Sonia Gandhi are insiders. They
have formed the government and are running it. There is no divorce as
yet. They (Left) have only given a warning. This warning has been
going on for a year," he said.
Justifying his party's new friendship with the Congress, Mr Singh
launched an attack on the BJP saying: "For us communalism is a bigger
danger than imperialism. Advani is a bigger danger than Bush." When
asked about supporting the government on the floor of the Lok Sabha,
he said it was secular versus non-secular and not nuclear deal versus
non-nuclear deal.
The Congress, however, was non-committal on the possibility of SP
being included in the Council of Ministers in case they join the
government.
"It is a matter for the UPA, Prime Minister and Samajwadi Party to
decide," Ahmed said.
The UPA government will sign the civil nuclear deal with the USA in
time 'come what may' and there was no threat to the Manmohan Singh
government, Union Minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi said in Raiganj.
BJP had come up with a fresh proposal just four days back to the
Samajwadi Party for toppling the Manmohan Singh government and had
claimed the backing of Left as also BSP to the move, SP leader Amar
Singh claimed today.The sensational disclosure was made by the SP
leader in an interview to IBN7 adding that the party had rejected the
proposal by BJP leader Jaswant Singh as it did a year back during the
2007 Presidential elections, the channel said in a release.Singh said
his party rejected the proposal as there was no question of aligning
with BJP as his party consider that communalism is a bigger danger to
the country than any other issue.
"This Italy government has to go," the BJP leader told Amar Singh,
the release said.
The SP leader's revelation came a day after Jaswant Singh admitted
that the BJP had attempted to topple the Congress-led coalition at
the Centre by promising Prime Ministership to the UNPA in lieu of
support for Bhairon Singh Shekhawat in last year's Presidential polls.
At a press conference he jointly addressed along with BJP's Prime
Ministerial candidate L K Advani, Jaswant Singh had said that he had
visited Amar Singh's residence four days back to see "which way wind
is blowing in the Samajwadi Party".
His visit had come on a day when the SP leaders were briefed by
National Security Advisor M K Narayanan about the nuclear deal.
The release said that when Amar Singh was quizzed further on any
communication established between BJP and Left front, he said "he had
no idea".
Meanwhile, Leader of the Opposition LK Advani on Saturday asked Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh to "immediately" seek a vote of confidence by
calling a short session of parliament before going ahead with the
India-US civilian nuclear deal. On the other hand, The Left campaign
against the UPA will be launched on July 14 in the capital, where top
Left leaders will "attack" the government for its "refusal" to take
appropriate steps to tackle the runaway inflation and back-breaking
price rise besides explaining their opposition to the deal.
As the Indian government seemed set to move ahead with the stalled
nuclear deal with the US, a top American daily has underlined there
was no reason for the Bush administration to rush as it had given
away "too much and got far too little".
President George Bush, who was "eager for any foreign policy win"
before the expiry of his term in January 2009, is pressing the Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh "hard to finally work this (nuclear
deal) out," The New York Times said.
In an editorial headlined, 'No Rush, Please', the American daily
argued "there is no reason at all to rush. President Bush gave away
far too much and got far too little for this deal".
Even as it praised President Bush for building on the Clinton
administration legacy to forge stronger ties with "a burgeoning power
whose democratic values provide a unique basis for cooperation," the
daily said: "It was a mistake to let India and industry lobbyists
persuade him to make the nuclear deal the centerpiece."
The Times underlined that now it would be "a mistake for the United
States to try and ram through the remaining approvals by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board, the Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG) and Congress just to meet the artificial
deadline of Bushs presidency."
It said President Bush may be running out of time, but Congress, the
IAEA and the NSG "will need plenty of it to review the agreement
before deciding whether to grant their respective approvals."
"At a minimum, they must insist that international suppliers halt
nuclear trade if India tests another nuclear weapon, as it last did
in 1998. And they must insist that India accept the fullest possible
monitoring of its civilian nuclear facilities by IAEA inspectors,"
the daily stressed.
The Left parties on Friday wrote to the government seeking a definite
answer by July 7 on whether it is approaching the IAEA for the India-
specific safeguards agreement.
Indications from the Left, however, point to actual withdrawal of
support coming between July 9 — when the PM returns from Japan — and
14, the day it launches its nationwide campaign against the
government.
"We wish to know definitely whether the government is proceeding to
seek the approval of the safeguards agreement by the
Board of Governors of the IAEA. Please let us know the position by
July 7, 2008," said the letter, addressed to External Affairs
minister Pranab Mukherjee, signed by the general secretaries of the
four Left parties — CPM, CPI, AIFB and RSP. Mukherjee is also the
convener of the UPA-Left committee on the Indo-US nuclear deal.
Later, CPM politburo member Sitaram Yechury said the withdrawal would
not come when the PM is at the G8 summit. "We have always been
considerate and very reasonable. We have kept the dignity of the PM's
office and the nation in mind. The Left will not take any step when
he is there (in Japan)."
Two years after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George
W Bush inked the historic nuclear agreement that had heralded an era
in which India's N-isolation would be a thing of the past, the UPA
Govt finds itself in a bind, and is facing the worst-ever crisis
after it came to power in 2004. ...Before this deal really goes
through, there are many issues that need to be resolved: IAEA
safeguards, NSG clearance and so on. But before Manmohan goes whole
hog about allaying NSG's fears on proliferation, he has to put his
own house in order, what with snap poll staring the Govt in the face,
courtesy Left and an overzealous Opposition.
As their "political marriage" is all set to end, Left parties are out
to target the ruling UPA for which they are preparing a "chargesheet"
against the government detailing its "unkept promises"
and "obsession" with the nuclear deal.
The CPI(M), CPI, RSP and Forward Bloc will come out with
a "chargesheet" citing UPA's several drawbacks and failures,
including "rising prices and inflation, surrendering of national
interest, and unkept promises with regard to the Common Minimum
Programme (CMP)", a senior Left leader said.
Feeling "hurt" by Samajwadi Party's "betrayal", the Left parties will
also "expose the marriage of convenience" between Congress and SP in
its campaign, said the leader on condition of anonymity.
The Left is awaiting a reply from External Affairs Minister Pranab
Mukherjee on whether or not the Centre will go ahead with seeking
IAEA board approval of the safeguards agreement as part of the India-
U.S. nuclear deal.India's trajectory of development on an independent
basis with an independent foreign policy that retains strategic
autonomy will be imperiled if the country goes into a defence and
military alliance, a strategic and economic partnership and a
civilian nuclear deal with the United States, Prakash Karat, general
secretary of the CPI(M), said in Kolkata on Saturday.
Amid the stand-off between the Left parties and the Congress-led
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) over the India-US nuclear deal, the
Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) general secretary Prakash
Karat Saturday met party patriarch Jyoti Basu here to discuss the
political situation. Karat, who flew into the city Saturday morning,
held a 40-minute discussion with Basu and briefed him on the
developments.
West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and state party
secretary Biman Bose were present during parleys at Basu's residence
in the satellite township of Salt Lake.
The India- U.S. deal "will greatly erode independent foreign policy
and the country's strategic autonomy," he said while speaking at a
function to commemorate the birth centenary of Hiren Mukherjee.
"Ensuring that an independent foreign policy, strategic autonomy and
interests of the country are protected and defended will be a great
tribute to the memory of Comrade Mukherjee," Mr. Karat added.
"Today, there is talk of the nuclear deal with the U.S. and it is
argued that it is essential for our energy security. But the
safeguard agreement with the U.S., instead of ensuring energy
security will be detrimental to our energy needs.
"We would like to believe that what he [Professor Mukherjee] stood
for is relevant and meaningful in today's world….We should understand
that imperialism continues to be a reality and exercises its
malevolent influence in world affairs."
Behind the rise in oil prices worldwide were the designs of
imperialism to re-order West Asia by controlling its energy reserves,
Mr. Karat said. Oil supplies from the region were being severely
disrupted by "the single-minded quest of a superpower to remake the
map of West Asia."
He said: "In our country today, it is not possible to talk about
inflation and the huge burden of an increase in oil prices on our
economy without seeing the role of imperialism in price rise and
inflation."
Vital impact
The strategic alliance being talked of between India and the U.S. has
a vital bearing on the course India would take in the coming years,
Mr. Karat said.
"The India-U.S. nuclear agreement is anchored in the Hyde Act, which
has so many prescriptive clauses about our sovereignty," A.B.
Bardhan, general secretary of the CPI, said.
Describing Professor Mukherjee as a "great parliamentarian, a great
historian and above all a communist," Mr. Bardhan pointed out that
though he belonged to the CPI, he espoused the cause of communist
unity "and was not a partisan." He said: "Let us hope that his cry
from his heart will someday come to fruition."
Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee recalled that Professor
Mukherjee used to underline the need for governments to direct their
efforts towards the emancipation of the poor.
Addressing a press conference along with Jaswant Singh, leader of the
opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Advani said: "As the UPA is now a
minority, it has no right to execute any binding international
agreements… The BJP demands that the government must immediately now
call parliament into session and take it fully into confidence."
If the government fails to seek a confidence vote, the BJP will ask
President Pratibha Patil to direct the PM to do so, Advani added.
Asked if the BJP would press for a trust vote, Advani said he
expected the PM to take the initiative.
The Congress rejected Advani's demand and described his remarks
as "irresponsible".
"No one has withdrawn support so where is the question of a trust
vote? It is extremely unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition
has tried to create a spectre of instability when the prime minister
is about to go abroad… There is no instability in the government and
politics. If there is any instability it is in the mind of the Leader
of the Opposition," spokesman Manish Tiwari said. In
his "desperation" to become PM, Advani was living in a world of "make
believe", Tiwari said.
Besides, it is up to the president to call the government to face a
trust vote, he added.
At the press briefing, Advani and Singh said that the PM must
explain, as indeed must the Congress, as to what reasons compel them
to rush the country into this agreement? "This government has no
right to continue in office now. Let the country decide afresh."
Jaswant Singh even disagreed with former President APJ Abdul Kalam's
support for the deal maintaining that Kalam has
been "oversimplifying" the matter "involving complex issues".
Advani, for his part, added that, "No government has ever been
hustled into acting on an issue of vital national importance, at a
pace dictated entirely by the interlocutors, in this instance the US.
This Congress led arrangement can now no longer call itself either a
United Progressive Alliance or even a government."
But it made it clear that if the BJP is elected to power, it would
renegotiate the deal to ensure that India maintain its strategic
sovereignty and it becomes an agreement between equals."
Criticising the Congress-SP bonhomie, Advani said "Unprincipled deals
of convenience bring yesterday's adversaries as today's allies, Even
the Congress' replacement of Deve Gowda by I K Gujral as Prime
Minister of UF government in 1997 reminded us of Lord Ganesh whose
head was replaced by that of an elephant, what we are witnessing now
is leg surgery. The Left's support — on which the UPA stood so far —
is being replaced by the SP's backing."
The Congress dismissed the charge of political opportunism. "The
nuclear deal is an issue of national importance and getting energy
and the support of any party for it is welcome," Tiwari said.
The Indo-US deal will offer just 3 to 5 per cent of additional
nuclear energy some 25 to 30 years from now at the cost of roughly $
125 to 130 billion at today's price, according to Advani and
Singh. "To trade the country's strategic autonomy for this is not
acceptable," they said.
After days of frenetic political activity, a hush descended Sunday as
Left leaders awaited the Congress' response to their ultimatum on the
India-US nuclear deal and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh got ready to
leave for Japan on Monday morning to attend the G8 summit.
The Left parties on Friday served a July 7 deadline to the Congress-
led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to let them know
whether it was going to approach the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) for an India-specific safeguards pact -- a key step in
making the nuclear deal operational.
In a letter to External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the four
Left parties said: "We wish to know definitely whether the government
is proceeding to seek the approval of the safeguards agreement by the
Board of Governors of the IAEA. Please let us know the position by
7th July, 2008."
"We do not know if the government will respond. They have time till
tomorrow," said Abani Roy, leader of Revolutionary Socialist Party
(RSP).
Most other Left leaders remained incommunicado with their mobile
phones switched off.
Having worked out a survival strategy thanks to the support expressed
by the Samajwadi Party, the government is readying to move ahead with
the IAEA pact to take the nuclear deal forward - a move that is bound
to lead to a final rupture of ties with its Communist allies that are
propping up the government.
Congress leaders too were tight-lipped and, despite repeated attempts
to contact them, did not comment on the party's response to the
Left's ultimatum.
Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) general secretary Prakash
Karat, who was in Kolkata Saturday to discuss the political crisis
with his party colleagues - party patriarch Jyoti Basu and West
Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhatacharjee, was expected to return
to Delhi Sunday.
Left sources said there was still no unanimity on the timing of
withdrawing support to the government. "(CPI-M politburo member)
Sitaram Yechury is not in favour of withdrawing support when the
prime minister is out of India," said a senior Left leader.
On the sidelines of the G8 summit, the prime minister is scheduled to
meet US president George Bush Wednesday, and the two leaders are
expected to discuss the progress of the nuclear deal.
Manmohan Singh will return to India Wednesday night.
While Karat was in favour of withdrawing support to the government
when the prime minister would leave for the G8 summit, he has been
restrained by Communist Party of India (CPI) general secretary A.B
Bardhan, who is not in favour of linking the nuclear deal issue with
the G8 summit.
"The four parties will meet on Wednesday to take a final call on the
timing of withdrawal of support," said a senior Left leader.
Kakodkar backs Indo-US nuclear deal news
05 July 2008
file it to cabinet
attach label to it
bookmark it
send to friends
save note
add it to tracker
print it
currency converter
informachine tools
my profile
my cabinet
my tracker
my labels
my bookmarks
my notes
Mumbai: Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar has again put
his weight behind the Indo-US nuclear deal, saying ''history will not
forgive us'' if we fail to clinch it.
''Here is a chance. Without compromising on our principles, we can
bridge energy security for the future," Kakodkar said while
delivering a lecture on `Evolving Indian Nuclear Programme: Rationale
and Perspectives', organised by the Indian Institute of Sciences in
Bangalore yesterday.
He said we needed nuclear energy and our uranium resources can only
meet (power generation) up to 10,000 MW. We need to augment supply
from abroad till we mine our uranium reserves, he said.
''Our reactors are operating at 50 to 55 per cent due to mismatch
between uranium supply and need. Earlier we were operating reactors
at 70 to 80 per cent,'' Kakodkar pointed out.
He, however, refused to go into the politics of the nuclear agreement.
Kakodkar's statement comes in the background of the Left parties'
strong opposition to the Indo-US deal and a reluctant stand adopted
by other opposition parties, including the SP.
Responding to reporters' queries on time-line for approaching the
IAEA for a safeguards agreement and if the deal can be wrapped up by
year-end, Kakodkar said: "The sooner, the better. But things are not
in my hands."
Impossible Allies: Nuclear India United States and the global order
C. RAJA MOHAN
New Delhi: India Research Press
Pages viii+311, $35.95 / Rs.395.00
One of the current critical discourses in international politics is
concern for "equality" when inequalities persist among nations.
Nations often emphasize the congeniality of values among themselves,
notwithstanding their material and physical differences, to
strengthen mutual understanding and pursue their national interest.
Terms like "alliance," "strategic partnership" are carelessly used,
but mutual accommodation is the law of post-Cold War statecraft. C
Raja Mohan's Impossible Allies underlines the need for realism to
accommodate both domestic compulsions and systemic formulations
culminating in interest-driven national discourse wherein morality
stands circumscribed.
Many eyebrows have been raised over the Indo-US strategic partnership
and the euphoria attending India becoming an "ally" of the US. Many
are leery over the US's vow to raise India to its natural potential.
Those who favour the new relationship are criticized as "stooges
selling national interest" and those who oppose it are branded Cold
Warriors. Impossible Allies traces why a hegemonic-status-quoist
power (US) is ready to share the mantle of leadership with a
sovereignty-mongering nation (India) by rewriting international
norms. Raja Mohan strongly argues that India will neither be
a "dependent state nor will become a close ally like Britain";
rather "it is more likely to emerge as an Asian France" cherishing
its shared interests and alliance relationships with Washington.
In Bhishma's teaching, to which Raja Mohan is partial, "the force of
circumstances creates friends and foes"; India's choice to partner
the world's sole superpower in the post-Cold War era is explicable.
But why is the country that led the charge to "cap, reduce and roll-
back" India's nuclear programme willing now to change its perceptions
and persuade other nations to accept New Delhi as an exception to the
rules of the international nuclear regime? In the author's belief, "a
unilateral America and a revisionist India had a solid strategic fit"
in the post-Cold War era. There is a mesh between the US and India's
grand strategy. If the US grand strategy aims at pre-emption, regime
change and democratisation, India also strives to rewrite the rules
of the global order to facilitate its entry to the high-seat of the
Security Council, which marks a parallelism between India's interests
and those of America.
Cold War dynamics had estranged the two democracies despite their
often converging national interests. With the end of Cold War, India
has "steadily moved towards thinking structurally" about the world
and less as being a victim of the prevailing world order. After
Pokhran-II, the world has accepted India's concerns and its need for
strategic space. India is also mindful that its aspirations could not
be realized without the dominant power agreeing to redraw the global
order. On the other hand, the imperatives of American security need
India as "a swing state" to maintain a stable and liberal
international order. Raja Mohan has identified eight convergent
objectives in this regard: insulating Asia from the domination of any
single power; fighting terrorism; containing the spread of WMD;
promoting democracy; fostering economic growth; preserving global
commons; promoting energy security; and safeguarding the global
environment.
Though the foundations of the Indo-US rapprochement were laid by the
Vajpayee government, the Clinton Administration did not budge on the
non-proliferation front. In the world trend-line survey made by the
Bush Administration in his first term, China loomed large and India
was perceived as a potential balancer to Chinese power in Asia. Thus,
the US's offer to strengthen India's capabilities to emerge as a
great power was linked to Bush's Asia policy. Critics hold that the
Indo-US nuclear deal is an inducement to draw India into an alliance
against China. Raja Mohan says that this alliance is indeed devoted
to achieving a stable politico-economic-security relationship.
India's strategic behaviour has always been "shaped by structural
factors rather than by ideology", and India has a long history of
maintaining balanced relations with Russia, China and its extended
neighbourhood.
Exposing the folly of the sceptics of the Indo-US civilian nuclear
deal, the author argues that the US was the first nation to encourage
India's nuclear and space programmes. Claiming the deal to be
the "deal of the century", which seeks to end the three-decade
nuclear apartheid against India, he warns against the self-reliance
stance of our techno-scientific community. Effective diplomacy
requires right decisions being made at critical moments. India needs
to recognize that its political choices could alter global outcomes.
Being a great power, India, must come out of the "autonomy" box,
since alliances are important tools of major powers foreign policy,
and the "search for alliances was always a part of Indian strategic
behaviour".
However, shared interests do not mean that India will subordinate its
national interests. Differences between both countries cannot be
overlooked as India is a "sovereignty-conscious country", while US
has no history of sharing leadership. Factors like "differential in
raw power," competing national preferences, differences in
negotiating styles and tactics, absence of any tradition of
cooperation, and diversity of domestic interests may not allow both
countries to form a formal alliance. The author reiterates that the
US has the "habit to lead," and India has "no experience of [being] a
junior partner". Hence, the possibility of sharing leadership is
bleak; whatever engagement emerges would have to be sought on equal
terms.
The author's extreme position on the attitude of the scientific-
bureaucratic community, described as "reluctant" and distrustful is
debatable. In fact, their attitude is based on suspicions of US
policy since they have been its worst sufferers, personally and
institutionally. Owing to their unfamiliarity with diplomacy, they
are conservative and it will take some time for them to come to terms
with the present realities.
Raja Mohan's witty interpretation of the imperatives of Indo-US
relations and the success stories of India's foreign policy, despite
some editorial slips, make Impossible Allies a must for policy-
makers, academia and those with an interest in this subject.
URL: http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?hl=en&q=author:%22Mohan%
22+intitle:%
22Impossible+Allies:+Nuclear+India,+United+States,+and+the+...%
22+&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholarr
Highlights of Indo-US nuclear deal
The agreement not to hinder or interfere with India's nuclear
programme for military purposes.
* US will help India negotiate with the IAEA for an India-specific
fuel supply agreement.
* Washington will support New Delhi develop strategic reserves of
nuclear fuel to guard against future disruption of supply.
* In case of disruption, US and India will jointly convene a group of
friendly supplier countries to include nations like Russia, France
and the UK to pursue such measures to restore fuel supply.
* Both the countries agree to facilitate nuclear trade between
themselves in the interest of respective industries and consumers.
* India and the US agree to transfer nuclear material, non-nuclear
material, equipment and components.
* Any special fissionable material transferred under the agreement
shall be low enriched uranium.
* Low enriched uranium can be transfered for use as fuel in reactor
experiments and in reactors for conversion or fabrication.
* The ambit of the deal include research, development, design,
construction, operation, maintenance and use of nuclear reactors,
reactor experiments and decommissioning.
* The US will have the right to seek return of nuclear fuel and
technology but it will compensate for the costs incurred as a
consequence of such removal.
* India can develop strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard
against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of its reactors.
* Agreement provides for consultations on the circumstances,
including changed security environment, before termination of the
nuclear cooperation.
* Provision for one-year notice period before termination of the
agreement.
* The US to engage Nuclear Suppliers Group to help India obtain full
access to the international fuel market, including reliable,
uninteruppted and continual access to fuel supplies from firms in
several nations.
* The US will have the right to seek return of nuclear fuel and
technology.
* In case of return, Washington will compensate New Delhi promptly
for the "fair market value thereof" and the costs incurred as a
consequence of such removal.
* Both the countries to set up a Joint Committee for implementation
of the civil nuclear agreement and development of further cooperation
in this field.
* The agreement grants prior consent to reprocess spent fuel.
* Sensitive nuclear technology, nuclear facilities and major critical
components can be transferred after amendment to the agreement.
* India will establish a new national facility dedicated to
reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material under IAEA safeguards.
* Nuclear material and equipment transferred to India by the US...
India works overtime to shore up nuclear deal with USFont Size:
Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Bruce Loudon, South Asia
correspondent | July 07, 2008
INDIA'S nuclear deal with the US, back on track after a spectacular
weekend realignment of domestic political forces, faced new hurdles
last night as officials worked overtime to thwart international
opposition that they fear could yet stymie the pact.
With an eye on the imminent end of the Bush administration, the
officials in New Delhi were focusing on key members of the 45-nation
Nuclear Suppliers Group, including Australia and Canada, that are
required to approve the deal once it is assured of domestic political
backing.
The NSG and the International Atomic Energy Agency are vital next
stages in the path to approval of a deal that Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh, architect of his country's economic miracle, regards
as the key to its future.
The NSG, established specifically to counter nuclear proliferation,
is required to grant an exemption that would allow India access to
nuclear supplies, while a separate safeguards agreement is needed
with the IAEA.
Spurring the rush to complete the deal is the belief that if it is
not completed well before the US presidential election, it will be
lost.
The Rudd Government's hard line against uranium supplies for India is
a source of high-level concern in New Delhi.
Last month, during a visit to Canberra by Indian Foreign Minister
Pranab Mukherjee, Mr Rudd's Foreign Minister Stephen Smith would say
only that when the Indo-US agreement "comes before either the NSG or
the IAEA, we will give consideration to it at that point in time".
A statement issued after meetings between the two foreign ministers
was silent on the key issue of exporting uranium to countries that
did not accede to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - a central
tenet of Labor Party policy on India.
Reports in New Delhi last night said the US had assured Dr Singh it
would be able to line up support within the NSG. But Indian policy
planners are not convinced and are lobbying members for support. "We
need to persuade Australia and other countries that, having now been
assured of domestic political backing for the deal, no roadblocks are
put in our way within the councils of the NSG and the IAEA," one
senior official told The Australian last night.
"It would be extremely unfortunate if putative allies now made life
difficult for us."
The hectic lobbying followed Dr Singh's success in winning
parliamentary support from the controversial regional Samajwadi
(Socialist) party.
Last night, Samajwadi leaders pledged their parliamentary support for
the Government, a remarkable about-face even by the standards of
Indian politics, given the extent to which Congress and the
socialists were previously at war with each other.
The new alliances should give the coalition a wafer-thin majority in
parliament for approval of the nuclear deal - 275 seats out of a
total of 542.
The opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party, seen as a
shoo-in to win an election, is demanding an immediate vote of
confidence in parliament and believes it has the numbers to bring
down the Government and force the country to the polls.
The influential Economic Times yesterday described Dr Singh's deal
with Samajwadi as "a daring political act that a dyed in the wool
politician would have baulked at. He single-handedly retrieved the
accord from its slow death and put it back on the policy table."
The deal would be a major foreign policy achievement for Dr Singh,
and a rare bright spot in a year of escalating inflation, slower
economic growth and high food prices that have dimmed the
Government's glow and weakened its chances of staying in power.
Political analysts say that compared with inflation and food costs,
however, the nuclear pact will have much less sway when elections
come.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23977962-
2703,00.html
UPA-Left relations: No point of return?
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080055604
Sandeep Phukan
Friday, July 4, 2008 (New Delhi)
For almost a year now the Left and the Congress have battled over the
Indo-US nuclear deal. Now, relations have reached a breaking point.
In an interview on August 13, 2007, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had
dared the Left to withdraw support to his government over the Indo-US
nuclear deal.
He said that the deal in no way compromised India's position and
would in fact end India's nuclear isolation.
The Left differed and the nuclear battle turned bitter.
On August 17, Prakash Karat, CPM General Secretary said, ''The
government should not proceed or else they will have to face serious
consequences.''
Then frantic negotiations followed. The specter of early elections
forced allies to step in and work out a compromise.
The Left-UPA panel was set up to examine the nuclear deal. But it was
clear that there was no meeting ground.
The government wanted to move ahead and the Left was determined to
block the deal. Then in November, there seemed to be a breakthrough.
''We have decided to approach the IAEA secretariat to seek
clarification. The deliberations will be reported to this committee
and the government will proceed ahead only after the Committee
submits its findings,'' said Pranab Mukherjee, Foreign Minister, in a
meeting on November 16.
It wasn't really a breakthrough though, Karat explained to his
partymen that the Left did not want political uncertainty to affect
Congress' chances in the Gujarat elections and so had made a
concession by allowing the IAEA talks to start.
''Once they return from IAEA, if they want to go ahead, we will ask
them to prepare for elections,'' Karat had said on December 9, 2007.
Many believed that the nuclear deal would die out in the endless
meetings of the Left-UPA Committee. But six months later, the
government made a fresh bid to push the deal through.
On June 29, 2008, Karat retorted back, ''If the government moves
forward we will withdraw support to UPA.''
And that is where it stands now. The government may survive now but
it seems that the UPA will have to part ways with their friends of
four years.
