Chemistry of Feudal Socialist Oxides and Zionist Gandhian Carbides

Chemistry of Feudal Socialist Oxides and Zionist Gandhian Carbides



Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams: Chapter 19


Palash Biswas


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.