In My View

Dealmaking in Heartbreaksville

The streets of Lutyen’s Delhi, I believe, are now lined with broken hearts. Ahead of Monday (17 March) coordination meeting between the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the Left parties, the buzz can no longer be heard on the ‘loser takes all’ talk about the Congress staking its claim on national power over the ‘nuclear deal’ with George W Bush’s Washington.

The Indian elite, known for its ‘faido kya?’ mercantilist mindset of framing foreign policy issues, has made it clear that it was not willing to topple the applecart on something as ephemeral as a ‘nuclear deal’ of at best dubious value. The bigger agenda item of pushing India even more close to the USA would have to wait for more opportune climes. In short, one should live for another day.

So one should not be very surprised if the media briefing after the 17 March coordination meet begins instead with a condemnation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) newly found testosterone-driven campaign of violence against the CPI (M). That should define the common ground where the pragmatic section of the Congress, and the Left could meet.

This would be quite ironic after former US deputy secretary of state, Strobe Talbott revealing another “kiss and tell” story concerning the BJP. The fact that he revealed the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government was ready to accept a deal “50 per cent less” than the current agreement, showed that the BJP is still to pay full wages for its short, albeit chequered sojourn in national political power.

While the BJP’s stentorian Jaswant Singh is surely heartbroken at his friend ‘Strobe’s’ betrayal of trust that underlaid the behind-the-scene deal/s, it would further erode the party’s ability to take an overly nationalistic pose when the ‘nuclear deal’ with the USA finally bites the dust.

Early this month the party must have noted with growing alarm at how India allowed to be led by Cuba in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on a Non Aligned Movement (NAM) opposition to a resolution for sanctions against Iran. This could even be considered New Delhi’s attempt at correcting its position on the country. This is also a clear challenge to the Hyde Act

In this milieu of reduced conflict in its relations with the Congress-led UPA, the Left parties could now choose to delineate their fundamental positions on the nuclear issue, that also impinge on India’s own self-assessment as a nation. Evidently, from the various articulations of the party over the past two years, it is clear that (1) it does not believe that India shares the same strategic imperatives of the USA for it to ally with that country; (2) the CPI (M) also is afraid of the dilution of sovereign authority in India’s foreign and security policymaking; (3) it has serious doubts about how much India would gain in terms of scientific knowledge and technical assistance stemming from the deal; (4) also there are serious doubts about whether this know-how and supply of equipments need to be sourced just from the USA or whether the same could be procured from other countries like Russia and France; and also, (5) the party had grave concerns about the efficacy of emphasising on nuclear power for the country’s development.

But despite all these situational expressions of intent, the CPI (M) still needs to satisfy the questions in the minds of the people about how it envisions India’s location in the global ‘correlation of forces.’ It needs to take the lead in lines of the Chinese Communist Party and articulate its alternative vision of India that steps away from the inherited colonial belief systems of the Indian elite.

The CPI (M) needs to signal to the scientific community that it’s, otherwise truncated, post-colonial resurgence is more important to the country than just in terms of technical accomplishments.

While the primary focus of the party is correctly on the economic dimensions of the Indian society, the discourse of development that abounds in the country’s polity engenders an articulation of the position it seeks for India in the world. It has to be commensurate with the stage of economic development of the country.

By challenging India’s attempt at gaining proximity with the USA, the CPI (M) is seeking to redefine India’s Weltanschauung that was never really rid of the vestiges of colonial influence. For it to embark on a path to rid the people of India of the colonial mindset is seeking to free them from the legacies of bondages they have lived with even after gaining political independence in 1947.

The CPI (M) thus have to make it clear whether their opposition is just tied to the nuclear deal framed within their resistance of the US government’s policies. Or whether that antagonism relates civilisationally to free India for the first time from the hegemony of the imperial metropolitan powers.

That is the debate which needs to be joined.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in