People's Democracy(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
October 07, 2007
Fight Both Imperialism And Communalism
OUR detractors attacking our principled positions on the Indo-US nuclear deal simply do not seem to tire with their preposterous fabrications. We had repeatedly stated in these columns that we would welcome criticisms and would enjoy taking them on, on their merit. However, shorn of a substantial critique, our critics have emboldened to hurl abusive charges. Our opposition to the deal, we were told, was due to our extraterritorial predilections and were designed to help China and by implication Pakistan. When it was pointed out that the deal by enforcing a cap on India’s strategic nuclear programme is the one that gives a relative advantage to both China and Pakistan since they are not handicapped by any such extraneous commitments, it was clear that the boot was on the other foot. In these columns we had earlier debunked similarly the theory of 1942, 1962, 2007 (PD, September 09, 2007).
Having failed to rouse an umbrage against us on such charges, our critics have now changed both their gear and lane in their drive to spread calumny against us. The latest in such an arsenal is that the CPI(M) has abandoned its struggle against communalism and has instead chosen to highlight its anti-imperialist credentials. Which is more dangerous we are being asked: communalism or imperialism?
Once Comrade Stalin was asked as to which deviation – Left adventurism or Right revisionism – is more dangerous to the revolutionary movement. His reply was indeed a classic. He said that deviation is more dangerous against which one does not put up an effective fight. This is precisely the point concerning communalism and imperialism. Both are dangerous, both need to be fought and at no cost can the struggle against one be given up leave alone weakened in the name of struggling against the other. The CPI(M) has an unblemished record of protecting the unity and integrity of India’s social fabric with its relentless struggle against communalism. Equally, the CPI(M) has an unparalleled record in protecting and safeguarding our country’s sovereignty from being eroded by imperialist incursions.
Further, in today’s world US imperialism is seeking to impose a unipolar world order under it tutelage. In the post cold war bi-polar world the natural tendency of international relations was a movement towards multipolarity. Instead of allowing this to evolve, US imperialism is aggressively intervening to impose its hegemony and create a unipolar world. In this background, India, given its own heritage and previous record in international relations, needs to strengthen the bonds of solidarity with all developing countries in resisting the imposition of such a hegemony. The post cold war world situation by itself provided the USA with opportunities for such an intervention. These were further bolstered by its post 9/11 `global war against terrorism’. The world is witness to its gendarme tactics and aggressive military interventions. The military occupation of Iraq, the continued support to Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and the consequent misery heaped on the beleaguered people, the preparations to repeat the Iraq experience now in Iran are all hallmarks of this imposition of aggressive hegemonism on the world.
In this background, India’s foreign policy ought to be tuned to remain uncompromisingly independent while developing friendly relations with all countries. Indeed this is what the UPA government’s Common Minimum Programme states. In fact an earlier draft of the CMP had contained a formulation that India would seek a strategic relationship with the USA. With the objections correctly raised by the CPI(M) this was amended to read as follows: “Independent foreign policy be pursued to promote multi-polarity in world relations and oppose all attempts at unilateralism.” This is precisely what the CPI(M) is asking the government to adhere to.
This formulation, in fact, marked a significant change from the foreign policy direction which the six years of the BJP-led NDA rule gave to India. The communal forces had committed to take India into a direction of subservience to US imperialist strategic interests in the world today. Till date neither the parliament nor the people know of the content of the eight round of secret talks held between US’s Strobe Talbott and then foreign minister Jaswant Singh. It was Talbott who revealed the extent to which India under the BJP-led NDA was willing to bend to satisfy US interests. It was during the course of these six years that various measures were put in place to facilitate the penetration of US capital into core and critical areas of our economy permitting them to reap super profits. Indeed through these columns during that period we had continuously exposed the illegitimate nexus between imperialism’s trimurti – the World Bank, IMF and WTO – and the communalism’s trishul. The interests of India as a nation and the livelihood of our vast millions of people need to be protected from being squeezed between the trimurti and the trishul.
The CPI(M) and the other Left parties had extended outside support to this UPA government precisely to prevent the communal forces from holding the reins of State power. This support however, was based on the CMP. Surely, no one can expect the CPI(M) to support this UPA government, which in violation of the CMP, is pursuing to continue the direction of India’s foreign policy that was begun in the first place by the BJP-led NDA government.
Therefore, under these circumstances the Indian people simply do not have a choice. Both communalism and imperialism need to be fought against. Those who pit one against the other are doing disservice to both the country and our people and are in fact aiding both these forces that seek to erode our sovereignty and therefore our strength as a strong independent nation in the world.
Finally, to our detractors we once again repeat that they either come up with substantive arguments on the merits of our opposition to this Indo-US nuclear deal or accept that they do not have any substantive critique. The way extraneous issues are being brought into play and such humongous fabrications are being weaved, it appears that our critics indeed are bereft of substantive criticisms of our positions on this issue.