By Seema Mustafa
Truth. This has been the casualty of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s decision to throw wide open the Indian doors for the United States in agriculture, defence, business, trade and of course civilian nuclear energy cooperation. Everything is being done under a cloak of secrecy, through denials, half truths, outright lies from the government that is seeking a radical change in the relationship between New Delhi and Washington without taking the country into confidence.
It was clear from the beginning that the Prime Minister was aware that he was acting against the tide of national consensus, but he was determined to go ahead regardless, and a decision had been taken somewhere along the way that if the truth was unpalatable for the people of India it could be dressed up in half truths and lies. What one is witnessing currently in Parliament is the effort by democratic India to make the Executive accountable to the will of the people, and to ensure that the truth of the strategic alliance between India and the US is placed before the country for close scrutiny.
Every perceived bottom line in relations between the two countries has been overturned. The defence framework agreement signed by Pranab Mukherjee with the US, when he was the defence minister, is already on the fast track for implementation. The US is particularly interested in the Indian Navy that has been drawn into a large number of exercises with the Americans and its allies in the region. The Quadrilateral set up by the US with India, Australia and Japan had China issuing a demarche to the participating nations asking for explanations. Instead of pausing for thought, or even attempting to understand and analyse how this quadrilateral would work for the future of India, the government is now going in for naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal with its new allies and Singapore. This will be the largest naval exercise since the Cold War.
The US has it all worked out. It is not acting with the blindness of the proverbial monkey. Any number of strategy papers have been prepared on different aspects of India-US relations, coming at the question from all sides, offering words of caution, advice, and detailing recommendations that have all gone into determining US strategy for India. For instance, think tanks had recommended the need for the de-hyphenated relationship between India and Pakistan long before it became the official policy of the US state department. The point being made here is that the Americans have put a lot of thought and work into the emerging relationship with India, and based it on, one, India is a huge market and cannot be ignored for business and trade reasons, at least that is what is used to sell the strategy to the big corporations and a public driven by money; two, India with its large Muslim population is a good ally for the US in West Asia; three, it is the only power in the region that can contain China; four, it has one of the most professional militaries that can now be used by the US to effect its strategic plans in the region, such as monitoring the Malacca Straits; and five, a system of checks and controls over India would boost US plans for the world.
It is a well known fact that the Americans examine several options before finalising strategy. Theirs is not a random approach. For instance, the civilian nuclear energy agreement became the fulcrum of the new relationship between the two countries, but to make sure this happened, the US government worked hard to tango to a rhythm that represented a certain fusion of Indian (read government) and American interests. The growing inability of the Indian politician and the journalist to link a series of events into a strategic whole is being used by the clever tacticians to compromise India’s interests before the nation itself is aware of what is happening.
Take just the civilian nuclear energy deal. The Americans sold us a big lollipop: we are giving you nuclear energy, we will take away the restrictions on your nuclear programme, we will bring you out from isolation of the pariah into the mainstream of nuclear acceptance; we recognise you as a nuclear power, as a responsible nation, and we will reward you with energy. And in doing so we will meet your interests; because energy will help your growth; it will help deal with the pollution; it will create jobs and it will help you grow and prosper. The government here has repeated all this with the loyalty of the parrot who recognises the hand he wants to be fed by.
But the differences in approach really arise after this. The Americans go on to point out that the deal addresses their interests as well: it gets them nuclear business that will run into crores; it brings India into the global order that they are seeking to build to promote their own might; it curtails independent Indian foreign policy, and ensures its support for issues as vital as Iran; it takes defence cooperation to new heights and allows US access to a military that had always treated it as hostile; it reins in India’s nuclear programme and brings it well within the non-proliferation limits set out by the US. The only objective that the US is still a little cagey about, at least in public speech, is that India has been identified as the counter to China and now even an increasingly volatile Pakistan in the region.
The Indians, on the other hand, are cagey from the word go. Little politicians stand up in Parliament with their only defence: trust us, we are patriotic, we will not let the country down. Specific questions are not answered, empty assurances are given but not met, rhetoric and passionate speech are expected to substitute for the truth. For truth is certainly not respected by the politicians heading this government. They use half truths, disinformation and now even total lies to take the country straight into the US embrace. Why? That is a question that Parliament must ask Prime Minister Singh to answer. Why? How can he and his party presume that they know better what is good for the country than the majority of politicians representing all the states in India, many of them having more contact with the masses and the grass roots than those leading the Congress party today? So then why? Why this desperation, that the Prime Minister is prepared to resign, to threaten, to cajole, to lie — and all for a deal that no one else wants on the present terms? There has to be a reason, and it is certainly not India’s interest that is determining this government’s response. For if it was, then Dr Singh and his government and party would have paused for thought when confronted with the will of Parliament, and dropped a deal that serves only US interests.
Lies and subterfuge. The Congress party has been isolated in the eyes of the people as a pro-US party. The Texas ranch is more important than Indian Parliament. The NDA has taken a firm stand. But it is the Left that is facing the brunt of the Congress anger. First, it was ridicule. Every Congressman sitting around 10 Janpath would catch the passing scribe to say: Oh, the Left cannot do anything, it will not do anything, it can’t even bark let alone bite. When it started becoming clear that the Left meant business, there was a tinge of desperation. Prime Minister invited CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat for breakfast. It did not work, and the politburo issued a statement re-warning the government not to go ahead with the deal.
Slowly the realisation that the Left did mean business, that it was impervious to Congress threats and bribes, started dawning. A worried Prime Minister went into Parliament, and in a bid to get its support again compromised the truth. He said that India had retained its sovereign right to test. A testy state department, getting fed up with the continuous Indian lies, fielded its spokesperson to say that India did not have the right to test. It might be recalled that earlier US state department sources, followed by negotiator Ashley Tellis, followed by US undersecretary Nicholas Burns have all raised some faults with the Indian briefings about the 123 Agreement.
The government is in crisis. Dr Singh will have to decide whether the deal is more important than the government. Just as Parliament has decided that the nation is more important than the government. The Left will not back off. The word is out: the anti-India deal cannot be operationalised.
Seema Mustafa
Truth. This has been the casualty of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s decision to throw wide open the Indian doors for the United States in agriculture, defence, business, trade and of course civilian nuclear energy cooperation. Everything is being done under a cloak of secrecy, through denials, half truths, outright lies from the government that is seeking a radical change in the relationship between New Delhi and Washington without taking the country into confidence.
It was clear from the beginning that the Prime Minister was aware that he was acting against the tide of national consensus, but he was determined to go ahead regardless, and a decision had been taken somewhere along the way that if the truth was unpalatable for the people of India it could be dressed up in half truths and lies. What one is witnessing currently in Parliament is the effort by democratic India to make the Executive accountable to the will of the people, and to ensure that the truth of the strategic alliance between India and the US is placed before the country for close scrutiny.
Every perceived bottom line in relations between the two countries has been overturned. The defence framework agreement signed by Pranab Mukherjee with the US, when he was the defence minister, is already on the fast track for implementation. The US is particularly interested in the Indian Navy that has been drawn into a large number of exercises with the Americans and its allies in the region. The Quadrilateral set up by the US with India, Australia and Japan had China issuing a demarche to the participating nations asking for explanations. Instead of pausing for thought, or even attempting to understand and analyse how this quadrilateral would work for the future of India, the government is now going in for naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal with its new allies and Singapore. This will be the largest naval exercise since the Cold War.
The US has it all worked out. It is not acting with the blindness of the proverbial monkey. Any number of strategy papers have been prepared on different aspects of India-US relations, coming at the question from all sides, offering words of caution, advice, and detailing recommendations that have all gone into determining US strategy for India. For instance, think tanks had recommended the need for the de-hyphenated relationship between India and Pakistan long before it became the official policy of the US state department. The point being made here is that the Americans have put a lot of thought and work into the emerging relationship with India, and based it on, one, India is a huge market and cannot be ignored for business and trade reasons, at least that is what is used to sell the strategy to the big corporations and a public driven by money; two, India with its large Muslim population is a good ally for the US in West Asia; three, it is the only power in the region that can contain China; four, it has one of the most professional militaries that can now be used by the US to effect its strategic plans in the region, such as monitoring the Malacca Straits; and five, a system of checks and controls over India would boost US plans for the world.
It is a well known fact that the Americans examine several options before finalising strategy. Theirs is not a random approach. For instance, the civilian nuclear energy agreement became the fulcrum of the new relationship between the two countries, but to make sure this happened, the US government worked hard to tango to a rhythm that represented a certain fusion of Indian (read government) and American interests. The growing inability of the Indian politician and the journalist to link a series of events into a strategic whole is being used by the clever tacticians to compromise India’s interests before the nation itself is aware of what is happening.
Take just the civilian nuclear energy deal. The Americans sold us a big lollipop: we are giving you nuclear energy, we will take away the restrictions on your nuclear programme, we will bring you out from isolation of the pariah into the mainstream of nuclear acceptance; we recognise you as a nuclear power, as a responsible nation, and we will reward you with energy. And in doing so we will meet your interests; because energy will help your growth; it will help deal with the pollution; it will create jobs and it will help you grow and prosper. The government here has repeated all this with the loyalty of the parrot who recognises the hand he wants to be fed by.
But the differences in approach really arise after this. The Americans go on to point out that the deal addresses their interests as well: it gets them nuclear business that will run into crores; it brings India into the global order that they are seeking to build to promote their own might; it curtails independent Indian foreign policy, and ensures its support for issues as vital as Iran; it takes defence cooperation to new heights and allows US access to a military that had always treated it as hostile; it reins in India’s nuclear programme and brings it well within the non-proliferation limits set out by the US. The only objective that the US is still a little cagey about, at least in public speech, is that India has been identified as the counter to China and now even an increasingly volatile Pakistan in the region.
The Indians, on the other hand, are cagey from the word go. Little politicians stand up in Parliament with their only defence: trust us, we are patriotic, we will not let the country down. Specific questions are not answered, empty assurances are given but not met, rhetoric and passionate speech are expected to substitute for the truth. For truth is certainly not respected by the politicians heading this government. They use half truths, disinformation and now even total lies to take the country straight into the US embrace. Why? That is a question that Parliament must ask Prime Minister Singh to answer. Why? How can he and his party presume that they know better what is good for the country than the majority of politicians representing all the states in India, many of them having more contact with the masses and the grass roots than those leading the Congress party today? So then why? Why this desperation, that the Prime Minister is prepared to resign, to threaten, to cajole, to lie — and all for a deal that no one else wants on the present terms? There has to be a reason, and it is certainly not India’s interest that is determining this government’s response. For if it was, then Dr Singh and his government and party would have paused for thought when confronted with the will of Parliament, and dropped a deal that serves only US interests.
Lies and subterfuge. The Congress party has been isolated in the eyes of the people as a pro-US party. The Texas ranch is more important than Indian Parliament. The NDA has taken a firm stand. But it is the Left that is facing the brunt of the Congress anger. First, it was ridicule. Every Congressman sitting around 10 Janpath would catch the passing scribe to say: Oh, the Left cannot do anything, it will not do anything, it can’t even bark let alone bite. When it started becoming clear that the Left meant business, there was a tinge of desperation. Prime Minister invited CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat for breakfast. It did not work, and the politburo issued a statement re-warning the government not to go ahead with the deal.
Slowly the realisation that the Left did mean business, that it was impervious to Congress threats and bribes, started dawning. A worried Prime Minister went into Parliament, and in a bid to get its support again compromised the truth. He said that India had retained its sovereign right to test. A testy state department, getting fed up with the continuous Indian lies, fielded its spokesperson to say that India did not have the right to test. It might be recalled that earlier US state department sources, followed by negotiator Ashley Tellis, followed by US undersecretary Nicholas Burns have all raised some faults with the Indian briefings about the 123 Agreement.
The government is in crisis. Dr Singh will have to decide whether the deal is more important than the government. Just as Parliament has decided that the nation is more important than the government. The Left will not back off. The word is out: the anti-India deal cannot be operationalised.
– The Asian Age (Aug. 20, 2007)
Heading edited
