Bharat Rakshak

BJP mustn't let Govt fall

The party must realise that it's least prepared for a mid-term poll, says Prafull Goradia

The BJP has erred in opposing so vociferously the India-US civil nuclear deal. In public perception, its opposition is largely political. This is not the time to let the UPA Government fall. The BJP needs a year or two to get its manifesto made sharp and clear before facing the national electorate. The Sangh Parivar would also need to arrive at a consensus on the prime ministerial candidate. Moreover, the State elections in Gujarat, Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh should precede the Lok Sabha election and not follow them.

Why is the CPI(M) playing its cards the way it is? There has always been a method in its madness - realpolitik and not ideological. A Kolkata grapevine, located not far from the party headquarters, reported in late June that the nuclear agreement will not go through.

The CPI(M) is sensitive to Muslim sentiments. All these decades, the Bengali-speaking Muslims have stood four square behind the party. The faithful following has been soured across rural West Bengal by the Nandigram clash. Farmers and peasants have felt let down. They can no longer rely on the CPI(M) to protect their land. Signing anything with the US or even seen to be supporting an India-US deal could be playing straight into the hands of Jamiat-e-Ulema. Although the voters are over a fourth of West Bengal's electoral rolls, for the Left they comprise a third of its supporters.

Kerala, which is the second bastion of the CPI(M), also poses a serious problem. Christians are upset with the Left Front Government for interfering in their schools and colleges. The community comprises over 20 per cent of the population and are more resourceful than their numbers. The Syrian Christians are wealthy and the network of churches adds up to a great deal of influence.

The acquittal of Maulana Abdul Nasser Madani by the court at Coimbatore has made him a hero. Unexpectedly, he has resolved to abandon his extremism, sound reasonable and unite Muslims with Dalits. If he succeeds, he would have quite a sizable vote-bank. Why, therefore, annoy Muslims who support the CPI(M) either directly or through other parties? The least that the Left can do is to be seen to sabotage an India-US deal.

While there is need to avert the threats to the CPI(M) in Kerala and West Bengal, there are opportunities elsewhere. Assam, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh offer potential. Bihar is ruled by a coalition which has a BJP Deputy Chief Minister. Whereas Uttar Pradesh has a Government which is seen as having come to power largely on Hindu support. The Samajwadi Party of Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav continues to enjoy Muslim support but, when out of power, followers are liable to get dispersed. The Left can aspire for some pickings. In any case, the CPI(M) must appear pro-Muslim if it expects to align with the SP.

BSP leader Mayawati echoed this view last week when she said that the 123 Agreement with the US could hurt the sentiments of the minority community, which is bitterly opposed to American policy in Iraq and elsewhere. The BSP has been candid while the Left Front has been cagey. But the syndrome is the same.

The fortunes of both the Congress and the BJP have declined. The emerging vacuum is being filled by the rest of the parties who comprise 48 percent or 260 seats, of the current Lok Sabha. Since the 2004 general election, the two national parties have weakened. The Congress is caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, the Prime Minister has proclaimed his preference as 'Muslims First', of favouring development of Muslim majority districts, of modernising madarsas et al. On the other hand, he is widely perceived as an accomplice of the US. He lost sleep over the families of Islamists involved in the recent attack on Glasgow airport. Earlier, he had warmly hosted the visit of US President George W Bush to Delhi.

The BJP has got caught in a self-contradiction. Its cadre is steeped in Hindutva for decades. Yet, it abandoned even the expression at the chintan baithak at Goa in 2004. Earlier it had lost power in the general election despite offering to employ two lakh Urdu teachers. Committed Hindus, its only permanent supporters, find the party's silence on anti-Hindu issues and incidents, as deafening. A Hindu party in search of Muslim votes!

If the Left Front were to withdraw support to the UPA Government, the obvious consequence appears to be a mid-term poll. Its early advent would be inopportune for the BJP. On current indications, it would lose seats which, in turn, could bring a 'Third Front' to power. Whether the Prime Minister would be Mr Prakash Karat, Ms Mayawati or Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav or someone else is anybody's guess. But it would be neither Mr Rajnath Singh nor Mr Manmohan Singh. A coalition without a national party leading it would also be undesirable.

Acharya this is serious if ths 3rd front comes to power, this is absolutely serious....

I have said the first time in nuke thread, BJP are again playing their cards in wrong way, They should join congress...and form a coalition if that is ever possible.

Why does Uday Bhaskar use the words "Sectarian Objective"? Usually it means one sec or a group? Which group is he referring to? And how are the group's interests affected by the 123 agreement?

I wish they dont hide behind euphemisms.

Given the widely divergent strategic goals and policies followed by India and the US in the past, particularly on nuclear non-proliferation, the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement was never going to be as simple as one, two, three!


The US, since the mid-sixties, has actively sought to deny proliferation of nuclear weapons/technology outside the P5 countries. It was the principal promoter of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). President Clinton revised the US nuclear strategy and doctrine for a more active role when new threshold states including India started emerging. The Defense Counter-proliferation Initiative of 1993 included eight functional areas: intelligence, counterforce capabilities, surveillance, inspections, passive defence, active defence, export control and counter terrorism. President George Bush upgraded it to a ‘forward policy’ in 2002 by including pre-emptive or preventive use of force in handling proliferation and ‘taking anticipatory actions to defend’.

For much of the Cold War period, India’s bilateral relations with the US had remained rancorous partly due to different perceptions of the world order but mostly due to US support to Pakistan. Some of those doubts continue to persist. When India blasted its way out of nuclear ambiguity on May 11,1998, causing a major setback to non-proliferation, the US reaction was immediate and severe.

Given this, the tight-rope walking involved in negotiating this deal can well be imagined, especially after

Dr Manmohan Singh committed in Parliament that India’s strategic autonomy shall not be compromised in any way, and the US Congress passed the Hyde Act in December 2006. It is evident that the 22-page ‘The 123 Agreement’, named after Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954, worked out after two years of tough negotiations cannot and will not meet every aspiration of the two parties in perpetuity. But I believe that, despite some doubts in a toothcomb analysis, India’s strategic autonomy has not been compromised.

One, the Agreement does not impinge on India’s military strategic programmes. Two, it does not deny us the right to carry out nuclear tests. The tests will no doubt cost us a lot, but that ought to be weighed against (a) our ability to build strategic reserves, (b) the strategic circumstance requiring further tests, and (c) our determination in worldwide sanctions imposed after the Shakti nuclear tests in May 1998. Given

India’s new stature, any sanctions even if imposed would be less effective. Three, the right to re-process the spent fuel is not denied. Again, there is some conditionality of ‘arrangements and procedures’. But even if there is a delay or denial in such ‘arrangements and procedures’, no one can walk away with the spent fuel from India without the government’s consent. Four, the Agreement does not grant or promise dual use technologies to India. But such inputs cannot be stopped once other governments and multinational companies, after NSG approval, begin investing in India’s nuclear power generation plants. Overall, the shadow of the Hyde Act notwithstanding, the 123 Agreement concedes more to India than what many had expected.

Given the nature of our polity, the debate on the 123 Agreement can be expected to carry on even after all pending steps are taken to make it operational. But the real difficulties in its implementation may arise in a crisis situation on which India and the US do not see eye to eye, or if there is a souring of bilateral relations. What matters then is not so much the fine print, but the political will to look after national interests. There are many political leaders and parties who believe that by signing the 123 Agreement, India would become a US camp follower. This is not necessarily the case. In the present world order, a nation of India’s standing can and should play a non-aligned, independent role and cooperate or compete with other nations, depending upon its national interests. However this too depends largely on political will.

Globalisation and India’s enhanced status will require a more active participation in international security issues. Have we developed the necessary strategic culture and political will to do this? Traditionally, India has seldom been demanding on strategic matters. It has been reluctant about using its hard power even when critical national security interests were threatened. One reason for this is the lack of political consensus.

While we discuss the 123 or other agreements, it must be realised that a nation’s strategic culture and political will to make effective use of its soft and hard power potential is an essential requirement for their implementation in national security interests. Also, while it is necessary to discuss national security concerns in politics; playing politics with national security can be harmful

More heat. Less light. More confusion. Less clarity. Only those endowed with clairvoyant insight or intuitive understanding can make sense out of the cacophonous chorus inside and outside Parliament. Not one in a hundred grasps the complexity, intricacy and scientific jargon of the nuclear deal and 123 Agreement. Varying degrees of ignorance are on rampant display.

So, how does one find one’s way out of this nuclear deal maze? The adamantine and worrying fact is that the nuclear deal has now become a political issue. Parliament is divided, the country is also witnessing a breakdown of the 60-year-old consensus on foreign policy. It is for the government to repair this grave damage. I, for one, get the distinct impression that members of the Congress are groping in the dark. The media is having a ball. Yesterday, an editorial in the Hindustan Times was not so gently critical of Dr Manmohan Singh. The Hindu had a blistering editorial yesterday. It was unsparing in its disapproval of the Prime Minister’s handling of this matter. Mr Prakash Karat’s article was even more strident.

The debate on the nuclear deal in Parliament should cause a break in the nuclear clouds hovering over Sansad Bhavan and beyond.

The UPA allies have not gone public but are obviously uncomfortable. They do not relish the idea of a mid-term election. Not many parties do. Those who think or wish that the UPA government will fall or that Dr Manmohan Singh will resign are mixing hope with facts. The UPA government may be wounded but not mortally. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is unlikely to resign. Nor is he going to be dumped. I say this with utmost respect, but I was surprised by his remarks to a Kolkata daily and a well known weekly magazine. He is a man who uses words with care and precision. Then why in his 76th year did he decide to embrace indiscretion? Why did the mild mannered Prime Minister go ballistic — "take it or leave it," "so be it"? Totally out of character. The interview to the weekly magazine was both baffling and bizarre. "Havans," "higher power," "destiny." The television is a cruel mechanism. It is merciless in focusing on "body language." The Prime Minister seems to have lost the well known spring in his walk.

The opposition in Parliament to the nuclear deal is not likely to disappear. The Left parties have taken a principled stand. So have the BJP and the UNPA. They do not support the deal. They go much further. They are opposed to growing American influence which is doing injury to India’s foreign policy. They ask: Why has government not made any statement on the continuing horror and tragedy in Iraq? Why is the sinister Hyde Act not being openly talked about? The other parties too have similar concerns. These must be addressed.

I do not, for a moment, agree with those who say that India is being sold. We are a great nation, a great people and a great civilisation. No one can browbeat us or even push us around. The proud people of India will never, repeat, never, tolerate a subservient foreign policy. Unfortunately, the impression has been created that the Prime Minister is bending backwards to accommodate President Bush. This impression is widespread. A corrective is needed.

The spokesmen of the government maintain that the deal cannot be re-negotiated. Why in the name of heaven not? Read history — US President Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) signed the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The US Senate shot it down. Mr Wilson did not resign. More recently, Bill Clinton was hellbent to sell the CTBT to the world. When he took it to Senate it too shot it down. Mr Clinton did not quit. The European Union had a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. France and Denmark voted against the draft. The whole thing was re-negotiated and an amicable solution was found. Treaties, agreements, deals etc., can always be re-negotiated, re-worked.

Will this adversely affect our international image? Not if we go about it the right way.

In the final analysis, the Prime MInister of India is answerable to the people and Parliament of India. Not to any superpower. Indian national interest is paramount.

The nuclear deal, dovetailed with the Hyde Act, has one very vital domestic dimension. The 150 million Muslims of India are totally opposed to the nuclear deal in its present form. The Left parties, the BJP, the emerging Third Front cannot but be mindful of this factor. This, I presume, is also the position of the vast majority of members of the UPA.

What is the way out? Take all political parties into confidence. Tell President Bush that we have to carry Parliament and the people with us. We are a democracy. We cannot railroad. For great countries the "loss of face" syndrome does not apply. Statesmen should not despair. They should not only contemplate problems, but find answers for them. The UPA government is not short of talent, or diplomatic experience. As I have often said, crisis management is our forté. Here is a momentous challenge for our diplomacy and foreign policy. Let us face it and overcome it as a united people and a united Parliament.

The Prime Minister must work to achieve national consensus on nuclear deal.

K. Natwar Singh is a former minister for external affairs

Pran Chopra's last two paras are very significant as he asks GOI to clarify its stance on Hyde Act invocation.

Again why does Natwar Singh, the diplomat and the torch bearer of non-alignment, bring in 150 M Muslims? Isn't this similar to Seema Mustafa's article. Is this the sectarian objective? I though they were in the INC camp with all its Sachar report, quotas and what not.

Was non -alignment all fake. Was it another pseudo-secular stance?

Also, while it is necessary to discuss national security concerns in politics; playing politics with national security can be harmful

The IMs have kept the INC and other political parties of India subservient to their interest and not for National Interest. India has lost 50 years of relationship with the west for this fake ideology. And the rest of the society inside India had no clue to this betrayal and false promise.

Natwar Singh is stuck in his Nehruvian mode of thinking. Notwar is a has been, useless politician. Why would 150 M Muslims vote in a block and think along the same lines. I am willing to bet money that not all of them think that the US-India Nuke deal is bad and perhaps think it is good.

The IMs have kept the INC and other political parties of India subservient to their interest and not for National Interest. India has lost 50 years of relationship with the west for this fake ideology. And the rest of the society inside India had no clue to this betrayal and false promise.

This is known in Islamic circle as "Joint Account" hold over India .

BSP leader Mayawati echoed this view last week when she said that the 123 Agreement with the US could hurt the sentiments of the minority community, which is bitterly opposed to American policy in Iraq and elsewhere. The BSP has been candid while the Left Front has been cagey. But the syndrome is the same.

The nuclear deal, dovetailed with the Hyde Act, has one very vital domestic dimension. The 150 million Muslims of India are totally opposed to the nuclear deal in its present form. The Left parties, the BJP, the emerging Third Front cannot but be mindful of this factor. This, I presume, is also the position of the vast majority of members of the UPA.

Was that the betrayal of Gandhi and Nehru or the strategy of the west to push them towards this pseudo-secularism. Congress legacy has been to make India to disprove the thought process of the division (Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India). In that process they subjugated Indian civilizational ethos and natural strengths.

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/speditio ... 2.htm.html
"Pakistan's Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was the first elected head of Government of a Muslim State who I invited to pay an official visit to the United States of America in May 1950 and he and his wife, Begum Ra'ana Liaquat Ali Khan, made an excellent impression on us". These words were uttered by ex-President Harry S Truman when I interviewed him on October 5, 1957, in Kansas city while touring the USA under its government's Leader Exchange Programme. Speaking of Pakistan with warmth and friendship, Truman recalled that the US Government was one of the first countries to recognise the new State of Pakistan and he and his Secretary of State, George Marshall, had rushed the US Consul-General in Morocco to Karachi to represent the US government in the Pakistan Independence Day ceremony on August 14, 1947 with a message of warm greetings and good wishes from the White House.

150 million holding 800+ million by leash.

Again why does Natwar Singh, the diplomat and the torch bearer of non-alignment, bring in 150 M Muslims? Isn't this similar to Seema Mustafa's article. Is this the sectarian objective? I though they were in the INC camp with all its Sachar report, quotas and what not.

Was non -alignment all fake. Was it another pseudo-secular stance?

Hyde Act - yes. Internal - yes. 123 does NOT state that - yes.

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration on Monday pledged to work with the Indian government to see the civilian nuclear deal to fruition, carefully avoiding any comment on the political furor in India on the matter.

"We don't have any specific comments on discussions within India about the agreement. This is a determination for the Indians to make. We're going to be working with them to hopefully see it to fruition," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said at a briefing.

The remarks came amid domestic political turmoil in India which is being closely monitored in the US because of its potential to bring down the UPA government, which in a parliamentary democracy is far more vulnerable than fixed-term US administrations.

Gallegos said the US is coordinating with New Delhi and with the US Congress to move the nuclear agreement forward.

"I think that obviously this is an important agreement that we believe will help India reduce its energy shortfall and will allow Indians to gain access to advanced technologies that will improve their daily lives," he added.

This was posted before.
Can somebody from pro-deal poster review this. Again no simplified answer.

enqyoob,
Of course, they have succeeded in causing a split between the Cong and the Commies.