In My View

For whom, Power?

As the crow flies, the distance between New Delhi and Kathmandu is 802 kms. Yet, the ‘bourgeois’ power elite – as the communists are wont to call some - in the two capitals are so similar in their approach and desire for power. First let’s see Nepal, where I was a fortnight ago.

The main communist party there, the CPN (Maoist) has won in a general election so handsomely that they have emerged as the single largest party. Since the election is for a Constituent Assembly of the country – to frame a new Constitution – the CPN (Maoist), whose ‘democratic’ credentials are being questioned there everyday, said that they wanted a government of national consensus to govern in the interim period, while the country’s constitution is drafted.

But to do that, the previous government needed to resign. That government is led by Nepal’s old war-horse, GP Koirala of the Nepalese Congress (NC). And he refuses to resign. Why? Because he says that the interim constitution by which he was positioned as the prime minister in 2006 did not have an explicit provision calling for the government to resign to pave way for the victors in the popular polls.

If that piece of logic seems impossible, his apologists have some more. For, a senior editor in Nepal who calls himself ‘left liberal’ – one can recall how many people turned ‘left liberal’ in New Delhi soon after the Congress-led UPA government came to power with the support of the left – told this writer that Koirala is “not resigning because he wants to own up for the past mistakes.” That is the reason why he wants to become a president of the new republic. How ludicrous can you get?

So the Maoists now have pushed Koirala’s hands. Their ministers have resigned from Koirala’s cabinet. And they are making one last ditch effort to form a government with the CPN (United Marxist Leninist) – the third largest party - keeping the recalcitrant NC out. Last fortnight they seemed like a party straining at the leash of Parliamentary politics, trying to deal with sobriety a situation that ‘bourgeois democratic politics’ in that country has handed out.

But Baburam Bhattarai, the CPN (Maoist) leader had told me that if their attempts at forming a government is foiled by the so called ‘democrats’ they would go to the people and mobilise them while allowing the Constituent Assembly to frame the new constitution. Thereby hangs one tale.

The other story is now being played out in New Delhi which has similar cast of characters. Here is a group of communist and left parties who support the Congress-led UPA government from outside of government, differing with the latter vehemently about what kind of a country India should be. Should India become a strategic (read military) partner of the USA that has wreaked havoc in this part of the world – Asia – since the 1950s? The Indian left parties also fear that if India gets locked into that kind of a relationship with the USA it would for a long time be in an antagonistic relationship with a giant next door neighbour, China, all for the sake of a partner 14,000 kms away. And finally, the left parties are not sure what the Indian power elite would do next for their constituents in Washington if the deal went through.

One may ask the question that hey, this is just a deal for civilian nuclear power. That question today is really moot. For had it been just about nuclear power, would a Congress prime minister stake his all on that deal. A story is being touted around the country that the Indian nuclear power programme is facing severe shortage of uranium, hence we need the deal. But doesn’t the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) have a ‘safety clause’ emergency provision by which even a non-NPT country can seek Uranium from one of the member countries. Just in 2006 Russia gave India Uranium under that provision for Tarapur and later informed the NSG.

So this is not about just ‘a’ nuclear deal. There is more to it and the Congress leadership knows it. But did they contest the 2004 election on the issue of forging a strategic relationship with the USA? They did not. Shouldn’t they have held a referendum in the country before concluding such a deal and got a popular verdict beforehand? What do the democrats say, social or otherwise? Or does the Congress leadership in India like GP Koirala want to ‘own up past mistakes,’ thus be in power?

For the past few days I had been reading declassified exchanges between Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon on the one side and the Chinese leadership on the other. These took place in 1971-2. And at one place, Nixon argues for establishment of a relationship with the Chinese on the fact that the latter could be attacked by India, backed by the Soviet Union!

How time changes, but people don’t.

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