கம்யூனிஸ்டுகள் நம்பர் ஒன் தேசதுரோகிகள்

இந்திய கம்யூனிஸ்டுகள் சீனா அணு ஆயுதங்கள் வைத்திருப்பதை ஆதரிக்கிறார்கள்.

இந்திய கம்யூனிஸ்டுகள் சீனா அமெரிக்காவிடமிருந்து அணு தொழில்நுட்பத்தை பெற்றுக்கொள்வதை ஆதரிக்கிறார்கள்.

இந்தியாவையே உலக மகா எதிரியாக நினைத்து வாழ்ந்து வரும் பாகிஸ்தானுக்கு அணு ஆயுதங்களையும் ராக்கெட்டுகளையும் சீனா அளிப்பதை வரவேற்கிறார்கள்!

இந்திய கம்யூனிஸ்டுகள் ஈரான் அணு ஆயுதங்களை வைத்துக்கொள்வதை ஆதரிக்கிறார்கள்.

ஆனால் இந்தியா அணு ஆயுதம் வைத்திருப்பதையும், அணு தொழில்நுட்பத்தை வேறு நாடுகளிலிருந்து பெறுவதையும் எதிர்க்கிறார்கள்!

என்ன தேச பக்தி!


Edits & ColumnsOperation Dr Singh
Jaithirth RaoPosted online: Monday, August 20, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print EmailLeft is targeting only PM, not government, over the nuclear deal. It hopes Congress falls for its tactic



Why did Prime Minister Manmohan Singh give the interview to the Calcutta paper? Opponents of the PM within his own party (who says there aren’t any?) have started a whisper campaign that the real problem is not with the 123 Agreement but with the prime minister’s interview given to a Calcutta paper where he “dared” the Left Front to withdraw support to his government. The puzzling question is why a non-confrontational person like Dr Singh took such a position? One cannot believe that it was a casual remark in the heat of an interview. Curiously there has been no attempt to retract or make use of the proverbial ‘I have been misquoted out of context’ excuse. One can only conclude that it was a deliberate, well-thought-out act.

The PM’s reaction was based on an intuitive understanding of the Left Front’s tactics and therefore an attempt to forestall what he saw as an impending problem of significant proportions. The initial reaction of the Left leaders was clever. They did not oppose 123. They simply said that the government should not “operationalise” it. What was the code word embedded in this enigmatic reference to “non-operationalising” the 123 Agreement?

For the last few years the prime minister has had ample evidence of how the Left stalls many plans of his government. The sale of shares in PSUs was scuttled despite being announced by the finance minister in one of his budget speeches. The convoluted argument was that PSUs could raise money for themselves, but not the government. Insurance reform has been halted at considerable cost to the economy. ICICI’s attempts at restructuring and Chubb’s exit from their joint venture with HDFC (almost the only departure of a foreign investor from India in these heady days) are worrying signs of how delays in reform in this capital-intensive space can hurt us.

The deferment of pension reform for government employees where ample protection is provided to existing employees and where the new attractive programme is made available only to new employees and where most state governments (petrified at the prospect of an endless deterioration of their finances, which among other things, spells a great danger to our federal structure) are supporters, is another example of the Left’s opposition to an agenda which has broad consensus. The most notable example of this ability to use ‘operational’ items to sideline the government has been with respect to Provident Fund, where it has been ensured that a few thousand (not millions of the really poor, mind you) benefited from the authorities paying out more than what they earned.

The prime minister knows full well that it is in the ‘operational’ details that the Left Front members show themselves to be past masters at stalling, controlling and directing broader agenda. To have kept quiet in the interests of parliamentary peace would have shown him up as being weak under pressure; over the next few months 123 could have been quietly buried. The emphasis on ‘non-operationalisation’ was a clever repeat of tactics that have worked successfully till now. If he did not raise the ante by becoming confrontational, the 123 Agreement could easily join the graveyard of stalled initiatives that we are now so familiar with.

The situation is quite clear on our so-called sovereign right to test. We can test nuclear weapons whenever we wish because we are, most emphatically, not signing the NPT. But just as in 1974 and in 1998 there was a cost to testing, so will there be a cost going forward. The enormous achievement of the Indian negotiating team is that this time around the costs would not be asymmetric. The last two times we were lonely losers in the world of international atomic trade. President Clinton went public in 1998 that he would “come down like a tonne of bricks” on India because we had the temerity to test. President Bush has conceded that while the US can react to a fresh Indian test, it will not be costless to them. The US too will pay a price and a stiff one at that. Sovereign behaviour comes with a price tag and, if anything, Dr Singh has lowered the price tag substantially.

The real opposition from the Left, ironically, is to any progress by India in the nuclear space. The Left supports China’s nuclear programme (despite our unresolved border dispute with China and despite their assistance to Pakistan’s nuclear development). The Left parties are vociferous supporters of Iran’s nuclear ambitions (with their eye on Indian Muslim support, which rightly or wrongly they believe is tied to our loud approbation of Iranian violations of a treaty that they voluntarily signed). It is only with constructive progress of India’s atomic industry (which is virtually impossible without removing the “tonne of bricks” currently resting on our heads) that the Left Front has a problem. It is fascinating to note that the Indian Left has enthusiastic supporters in the American Left who too would like to sabotage 123 and ensure that India signs the NPT as is, or else face something heavier on our heads.

The BJP views the current situation with opportunistic glee. If the government falls, who knows what the next elections might bring? It’s a gamble worth taking. The Left is more cautious, for they might be big losers in a fresh election. No wonder they are trying to go with the line that they will oppose the “operationalisation” of the 123 Agreement, but not the government. No wonder they are reserving their wrath very carefully only for the PM, not for any other Congress leader and most importantly not for Sonia Gandhi, who the Left believe can still be persuaded to stay in power while abandoning 123. In this I believe they underestimate her. No one is fooled by the diabolical tactics of the Left. Certainly not Sonia Gandhi or our peace-loving non-confrontational prime minister.

The writer is a commentator on cultural, economic and current affairs