A New Socialist Venture

The double challenge of the growing communalisation of the polity and the adverse impact of globalisation on the working classes stirred a number of socialists to try to get together, with a view to co-ordinating their scattered efforts. They were disillusioned no less by the tardy implementation of some of their cherished programmes like social justice and devolution of power to the grassroots. Privatisation of public sector units and several departments of the Government was, apart from playing havoc with the policy of reservations, affecting the working class. While joining in the campaigns against communal forces and globalisation with all other groups, they felt it necessary to establish an organisation which could contribute distinctly to these struggles but also work for the consolidation of like-minded socialists under one canopy. Those from among them who had been in contact with various groups of activists were discovering how scattered the old socialist cadres had become although they were actively working on several issues affecting the lives of the poor. But they also understood that there was a new urge among those who had learnt from experience of mass work that abroad platform of democratic left was extremely necessary.

The S.M. Joshi Socialist Foundation, based in Pune, with Madhu Dandavate and Mrs. Mrinal Goray as President and Acting President respectively, decided , therefore, to convene a three-day camp. It invited all those socialists who accepted these premises and were strongly opposed to the policies pursued by the Government of the National Democratic Alliance. The camp, held in the first week of June, had been preceded by a preliminary one-day meeting in January, to test the waters. The background for the discussion in the camp was an article written by a distinguished trade union leader of old times, Bagaram Tulpule, who was General Secretary of the Hind Mazddor Sabha from 1952 to 1963, that is, in the early years of the latter’s foundation. This article was published in the Janata weekly of Mumbai which also brought out several other articles on the same theme. The camp analysed the causes of the rapid growth of communalism with particular reference to the violence in Gujarat on the first day and globalisation on the second day. On the last day, it discussed the organisational forms to be adopted and came up with the resolve to set up the Socialist Front.

The participants in the camp came from various groups, who joined in their individual capacities. Leading socialists in the Janata Dal (Secular), the Samajwadi Jana Parishad, the People’s Union of Civil Liberties, the Hind Mazdoor Sabha, the National Alliane of People’s Movements, Yuva Kranti Dal and the Lokayan joined it, as also some unattached writers, journalists, academics and former bureaucrats. Notables among them were Umraomal Purohit, General Secretary of the HMS and President of the All India Railwaymen’s Federation, S.P. Shukla, former Finance Secretary of the Government of India, Rajindar Sachar, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, R.H. Mehrotra former Justice of the Allahabad High Court and Dr. Rajendra Dhasmana, all closely connected with the PUCL, Professor V.P. Singh, General Secretary of the Samajwadi Jana Paishad and Dr. G.G. Parikh, Vice President of the Yusuf Meharally Cenre. two former ministers of the Maharashtra Government, Professor S.S. Varde and Bhai Vaidya were also present as were Vijay Pratap of Lokayan and Savita Bajpayee, a former minister of Madhya Pradesh and Dr Sunilam MLA and President of the Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, M.P.

Having set up the Socialist Front, the first task of the participants took was to finalise the dates to hold state-level meetings which would crate some machinery in every state with the involvement of the maximum number of socialists committed to secularism and a just economic and social order. In these meetings, too, discussions will revolve round making socialist ideas relevant to the present conditions. For, everybody realises that not much meaningful thought has come out to enrich the theory and practice of socialism, during the last three decades, while conditions have drastically changed the world over and in India. For instance, the question of the modernisation of technology was not raised as sharply in the 1960’s as it has been posed in the last decade. Nor was the threat to the physical environment as grave then as it is at present. Moreover, the disintegration of communism in the then Soviet Union and eastern Europe has been falsely presented by the vested interests as the total rejection of the ideals of equality and fraternity. Socialists who never accepted the policies of those countries as truly socialist and democratic, have, nevertheless, to defend these core values of socialism They have to point out that the absence of democratic polity, centralisation in the all spheres of public life and total control of the party over them led to the downfall of the communist system in Europe, and unless other communist-ruled countries change their ways radically, they too would fail.

Socialists’ dilemma has been confounded by the defeats suffered by social democrats in Western Europe where till 1998, socialists were in power in 13 out of 15 States. Although the Indian socialists never accepted their welfare state model, yet, they found them the closest ideologically, even if differing sharply with their foreign policy options. In fact, after the founding of the Socialist International in 1951, its Euro-centric perspective made the socialists in Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, India and other developing countries to set up the Asian Socialist Conference in 1953. However, as democracy as extinguished one by one in Indonesia, Myanmar and Nepal, the ASC was wound up for all practical purposes by the early-60’s. The frequent splits among socialists in India had by then enfeebled them so that they could not resurrect that organisation.

But, that is old history, as are the splits which torn asunder the movement as a whole. Even now, those socialists who are totally opposed to the communalist politics of the NDA and its surrender to global capitalism are divided. The Samajwadi Party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, the Samajwadi Janata Party, the Janata Dal (Secular) have parliamentary representation, while Samajwadi Jana Parishad, the Loktantantrik Samajwadi Party and the Lok Shakti Abhiyan do not. Yet, this account does not exhaust the list of all the socialist groupings. One major task therefore is that all those who have retained their ideological commitments and did not have to go pragmatic under the compulsions of the deteriorating electoral practices could co-ordinate their efforts to pursue a common agenda of the resurrection of socialist values. The concept of Lok Shakti-people’s power-as enunciated by Jaya Prakash Narayan, can be the pole star of these efforts.

Socialists have remained united in several organisations as the powerful national trade union centre, the HMS and the Rashtra Seva Dal. The S.M. Joshi Socialist Foundation, Nanasaheb Goray Academy, Keshv Goray Trust, Dr. P.V. Mandlik Foundation, Lohia Trust, Yusuf Meharally Trust, Madhu Limaye Trust and Acharya Narendra Dev Samajwadi Sansthan are some of the anchors which also bring them together. As do cooperative societies like Apna Bazar in Mumbai, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Forest people and Forest Workers organisation, NAPM, Indian Solidarity Committee and socialist study groups. The Socialist Front would ensure that they join hands for reviving the socialist movement on ideological lines. Since other leftist groups have also gained new insights, mutual discussions and joint actions with them could help in building a broad platform of democratic left.

A New Entente?

Prime Minister Vajpayee’s special adviser Brajesh Mishra has advocated the creation on an alliance of the USA, Israel and India, all of which, according to him, are democratic, civilised and pluralistic countries. This description of the countries is correct, but the rulers are hardly civilised or pluralistic, including our own, unfortunately. However, look at the timing of the suggestion. Only a fortnight before it was made, our parliament unanimously deplored the aggression of the USA against Iraq. The US Government struck without the sanction of the Security Council and in complete defiance of massive international public pinion. Three out of five permanent members of the Security Council namely Russia, France and China had opposed it. The gravity of the offence was highlighted by the absence of any proof of the charge that Iraq had been storing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction to use them against her enemies.

Israel is the major beneficiary of the victory scored by the USA and her allies, mainly the United Kingdom. For, the struggle against the terrorism that her Government has been indulging against the Palestinians will be eroded by the ferocity of the US attack. Iraq was supporting them, but the ‘regime change’ brought about by the USA has changed the situation. Syria was warned and has reportedly agreed that the Hezbollah, located in Labanon, must not get her support. Syria has also agreed to ensure that her troops vacate Lebanon, even though they were there on the basis of an agreement among herself, the USA and Israel. Israel controls parts of the territories of Syria, but the USA is not asking her to vacate them. She has continued to set up new settlements in the Palestinian territories which were given to them under a U.N. agreement. She has defied over a dozen resolutions, adopted by the UN, asking her to give them up.

The Palestinians, with whatever support they can muster from other Arabs, have been resisting the expansionism of Israel. They had to resort to human bombs, for they lack a trained army as the Israelis have, which has over 300 nuclear weapons. The USA which destroyed Iraq on the false pretext that her ruler Saddam Hussain had stockpiled such weapons has never asked Israel to dismantle them. Israel’s response is to call the Palestinian fighters terrorists and crush even the common citizens as she did when bulldozing the refugee camp at Jenin. Israel, which plans to capture a whole area from the Nile to the Jordan, claiming that this is the PROMISED land given her by God, has never cared for whatever restraints the UN put on her.

These are the two allies, the USA and Israel, whose Governments, civilised and pluralistic, which Brajesh Mishra, wishes India to court. The other aspect of the timing of his advocacy is that it was made after the Prime Minister asked for a resumption of dialogue with Pakistan, ruling out mediation by a Third Party, including, obviously, the USA. Public opinion in Pakistan is extremely hostile to her. As for Israel, no one there can forget the utter hostility between her and the Arabs. This suggestion can, therefore, weaken the force of the Prime Minister’s welcome initiative. Whether Mishra adopted this course deliberately, one would not know. However, if he thought that by his suggestion, he was winning over the USA to India’s side in her dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir, then, again, he was repudiating the Prime Minister’s policy against allowing mediation. However, he is the special adviser of the Prime Minister and must know what he was doing. Possibly, he had the Boss’s blessing. If that were the case, then it would only expose our duplicity.

On the other hand, the USA is quite keen to get involved in settling the Kashmir stalemate. On April 30, Colin Powell, her Secretary of State, had announced that after they were finished with Iraq, they would turn attention to South Asia. Later, his deputy Armitage arrived was going about in Islamabad and New Delhi, carrying Musarraf’s message to Vajpayee. In this context, our Deputy Prime Minister appropriately asked him a straight question: why cannot Musharraf make the same suggestion directly to Vajpaye? Advani himself is scheduled to visit Washington next month. President George W. Bush has indicated that he too would like to visit New Delhi. Yet another visitor might be the Israeli Prime Minister Sharon who has also been invited by our Government.

If the masses of the Arab people as also those Muslims who consider the attacks of the USA against Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the crusade against Islam get alienated from India, it might make a rapprochement between us and our estranged neighbour a little more difficult. Yet another important consideration is: what attitude which all those who opposed the US aggression against Iraq as inappropriate, will adopt. They include our eastern and south eastern neighbours; the big powers, Russia, Germany, France and China, north, south and east Africa and Mexico, Venezuela,Brazil, Chile and some other, in the American continent. Why must we lose their goodwill? Why need we to weaken our chances of joining the economic group of south eastern countries? Why do we become junior, subsidiary partners of the gendarme of the present uni-polar world and sour our relations with the European Economic Community and the above-mentioned countries?

That resistance against this uni-polar scenario is bound to grow. It will grow as the US Multinational Companies get to monopolise all oil supplies and sell them dearly to other
developed countries, in particular, so as to weaken rival challenges to their dominance over world markets. It will become deep-rooted in the developing world as the USA makes another conspiratorial attempt to oust Chaves, the President of Venezuela, or tries to unsettle the Brazilian President Lula. It will, or might, snowball, as the USA reshapes west Asia as Bush has pledged to do, mainly to give over the charge of ruling over that huge land-mass to her trusted Arab cronies like the Saudi monarch but more so to her all-time cohort, Israel, hated universally by the masses. Whether it is Africa, south America, or Asia, the developing world everywhere has witnessed with increasing concern their economic degeneration as the WTO regime rules further ensnare them into dependencies of the developed countries. Is it too late to recall our Commerce Minister Murasoli Maran’s experience from the WTO ministerial conference in Doha in November 2001 where India got utterly isolated, had to accept what she did not want to and Maran returned to emphasise the urgent need to build a ‘Development Coalition’ of the developing countries?

Instead of building that coalition, Mishra wants India to join those whom that coalition was sought to contain. Moreover, if the resistance against the uni-polar world is going to blossom and such diverse interests as the EEC, Russia and China and other developing countries of the southern hemisphere are to make different kind of common causes, why should we give up all our options in favour of the one with those going to be progressively challenged? The entire world-system is in transition after George W. Bush decided the
direction of the policies of the USA. We should certainly co-operate wherever our interests are served; but, closely watch her general line economically; and as her real agenda for
Kashmir unfolds, politically as well. It is best to remain unaligned, for the present in any case, and hope that the initiative of the Prime Minister succeeds.

Not a Drop to Spare

It is obvious to most observers that the unexpected developments of regional politics in the west Asian and central Asian regions have been closely related to the politics of oil. it has been pointed out that blood has flown in Iraq, Afghanistan and neighbouring areas over the ‘black gold’. While the acquisition of the sources of oil will continue to generate conflicts, blood will be shed in the next quarter century over such a common thing as water. The frenzied mobs of farmers in Karnataka have already foretold the future prospects of our generation and the next. Yet, this incident might pale into insignificance if the agitation that has been developing in northern Kerala were to take to violence. A small area in the northern districts of the State is highly perturbed because the manufacturers of the coca-cola drink have been given the exclusive right over the use of water, both above and below the surface. The people and their cattle as also their fields are thirsting for water.

The drought affecting the lives of the people and their cattle as also irrigation for the crops has been, at least partly, been a natural phenomenon. The traditional patience of the people has therefore restrained them. In the case of the Cauvery River, too, the scarcity of water which is the bone of contention between Karnataka and Tamilnadu is similarly caused by nature. The same, however, does not hold for the area where the coca cola factory has drained most of the available water. Now that a whole river, Shivnath near Durg and Bhilai in Chhatisgarh, has been sold to a private company, a trend appears to have set in which shall have far-reaching repercussions. The farmers and their cattle were turned away by the new owners, and obviously they are sorely disappointed. Eye-brows had been raised in the early 1950’s when the dam on Rihand River was constructed to supply water to the Hindalco, then our major aluminum processing company. However, the neigbouring settlements were not denied the use of water, although, since the early 1980’s, they had started to complain against pollution of the river and the consequent diseases affecting human beings and the cattle.

It might be recalled that about two yeas ago, the World Bank Chairman, Wolfensson, had announced in New Delhi that water was such a valuable need for human kind that it must not be supplied free. He had pleaded for its commercialisation. Someone had joked at that time that since air was necessary and one could not live without it in for ten seconds, its commercialisation might be even more profitable. Whatever that be, water is being sold in India in large quantities in the name of providing safe drinking water. The Government of Delhi has announced a scheme to fetch water from the Tehri dam in Uttaranchal, process it in some factory in Wazirabad and then supply it to the people in Delhi at a particular price. This may be the shape of things in respect of other metropolises, with the consequence that for the poor in these cities and most people in the rural areas, there shall be no guarantee of safe, potable drinking water or water for cooking purposes. After some time, the supply of drinking water will be privatised and its cost will continue to rise to render it into a luxurious item.

Everybody is aware about the over-long dispute between Haryana and the Punjab over the construction of Sutlej-Yamuna link canal. In respect of the distribution of water from the Nangal dam, the disputants include Rajasthan as well. Under-surface water levels have declined dangerously in the Punjab and Haryana, mainly because of intense farming strategy evolved in the late 1960’s. On the other hand, silting of the Nangal dam has also started. One knows how dry the first dam, built over the Damodar River in Bihar-Jharkhand, has become. Yet, while some areas have experienced drought, some others have been devastated by floods. While both the phenomena have only one common cause, that is, the systematic destruction of forests which continues illegally and the consequent denudation of the hills, the collusion among the contractors and the authorities allows it to go unpunished.

As for a concrete policy on water, on the provision of potable and safe drinking water, on irrigation or on building up of dams, neither the Central Water Commission nor the Ministry of Environment has bothered to offer suggestions. There is, however, vague mention of linking the northern rivers with the southern ones so that the excess of water in the north which is supposed to cause floods travels to the south to help augment the water in Penner, Cauvery and Tungabhara. Whoever be the author of this grandiose scheme, it ought to be understood that apart from the costs involved, the distribution of water will create very many complications and quarrels. On the other and, a scientific and rational policy of the conservation of water and its regeneration is not spelled out, although there is no dearth of available knowledge about various experiments in the field.

Before discussing these experiments, one should ask for equity in the distribution of water. The astounding disparities in the water for the ‘sahibs’ in the Rai Sina hills and around and those residing in the outskirts should be drastically reduced. We must learn to ration water before it is too late. Similar disparities between urban and rural areas must also be addressed. All luxuries related to the use of water in private gardens, the flush system and the spectacles of fountains in big cities can only be discouraged.

Secondly, anti-pollution laws must be implemented with seriousness and sincerity. Most industries pollute the rivers. Strictness must also apply to the destruction of forests. The myth that the tribals living in the forests or in their neighbourhood ruin them must be set at rest for good. Forests are part of their culture and hoary traditions and they identify with them as their kith and kin. Unfortunately, the Forest department has treated them as disposable commodity and even the courts fall into the trap by ordering the wholesale ouster of the residents in the forest-villages. Instead of continuing with the Forest department, it would be wiser to ask the communities in and near the forests to build their van-panchayats. These bodies, elected by the local people, should be given the rights over the forests and their upkeep as the use of minor forest produce. However, the colonialesque prejudices against the people and their traditional wisdom have permeated too deeply in the minds of our rulers.

Instead, the Union Government nominated a body over two years ago which was entrusted with the task of advising it on joint forest management, JFM. The committee was stuffed with the representatives of foreign governments and foreign MNCs. This might lead to social forestry, but in no case would the regeneration of forests and the greening of the hills in a big way be on their agenda. The Government’s agenda would be export. One just cannot eliminate floods and avoid the recurrence of frequent droughts without the essential exercise of greening the areas of heavy rainfall and other sources of water.

Recharging of water has proved that it can be regenerated. Experiments of Salunke, Anna Hazare and Rajendra Singh have brought out this fact, eloquently. These leads must be followed. For otherwise, using water without regenerating it would make us insolvent as happens with a creditor who draws money but does not deposit it in his Bank account.

The Road Ahead

To recapitulate in short the developments of the last fortnight: anticipating strong pressure from the USA for resumption of negotiations with Pakistan, Vajpayee, our Prime
Minister, proposed the same, in his speech in Srinagar. The invitation received cautious welcome from Pakistan. Later, Vajpayee offered to send an envoy to Islamabad immediately if President Musharraf stopped cross-border terrorism. Pakistan has asked for talks without conditions. It appears, however, that despite any reservations from either side, the talks shall be resumed. Both Governments realise the changed mood of the sole gendarme of the world order.

Pakistan’s position has been that her own existence is incomplete without Kashmir and that since the partition had given her all the Muslim majority contiguous areas, logically, Kashmir must go to her. India‘s case is that she had never accepted the two-nation theory based on religion, that secularism was the basis of her nationalism, she could not, therefore, accept Pakistan’s logic. India’s complaint that Pakistan has sought to grab the territory by force repeatedly and has been indulging in cross-border terrorism, she has violated international law and must stop all such activities. Moreover, all disputes between the two neighbours must be settled bilaterally as per the Simla agreement. Pakistan characterises the terrorists as freedom fighters, accuses India of suppressing the people of the State and counters India’s assertion about bilateral talks by pointing out that the matter has been on the agenda of the United Nations since 1948.

When the next round of talks starts, will these long held positions undergo changes? Will the two disputants go half-way to accept the Line of Control, with minor adjustments if necessary, as the permanent international frontier, a formula which was accepted by Indira Gandhi and Z.A. Bhutto in Simla? After that, both parties have turned it down, repeatedly. Will they agree to arbitration of the dispute by a third party? India is dead set against it. For her, the accession of the State to India is final and irrevocable. Can integrating the two parts of the State held by either neighbour and given a joint guarantee of internal autonomy or independent status, under the aegis of the UN, as the JKLF had proposed, bring about a solution? Or, does one revive Lohia’s formula of a loose federation between India and Pakistan, by enlarging it to add the J&K as the third unit?

While at no time would a Government in New Delhi or Islamabad take the risk of a compromise on their old positions on J&K, the recent public mood in either country is the least conducive to a give-and-take of any kind. In India, it is Hindutva; in Pakistan, it is the emergence of the hard-line MMA as a strong political party and the public outrage at the destruction of Iraq. It is argued by some observers, however, that if the people in Pakistan could not challenge the Musharraf regime’s alliance with the aggressor in Afghanistan and Iraq, then the USA really does not have to worry about this factor. Hindutva, too, presumably, is a political ploy and can be discarded by the BJP leadership, under strong US pressure. But, then, all other parties have to come to an agreement. But, for both countries, it will have to be without major concessions on their territorial claims on J&K.

In these circumstances, what would the emissaries of the USA wish to achieve? That India has emerged as a strong supplier of service via the internet, earning 10 billion dollars annually from it alone, and though most US majors have their offices in Mumbai, Bangalore or New Delhi, she dos not hold all the cards of the USA at this stage. Not only the volume of trade and services between the USA and India are negligible, China aspires to take on India in software service. Moreover, the USA is deeply involved in West Asia, and, in particular in Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and she might need to keep Pakistan on her side, in order to offset the Islamic fundamentalist anger. The most that the interlocutors can possibly strive to achieve is stoppage by Pakistan of cross-border terrorism, strengthening of civil liberties in the two parts of the State, introduction of democratic rule in ‘Azad Kashmir’ and strengthening civil liberties in both parts of J&K. They might wish to introduce some personnel to monitor the elimination of terrorism. Agreement on disengagement of the troops on the borders might also be attempted. Setting up of a permanent negotating machinery could be another item on their agenda. Reduction in visa restrictions and resumption of trade and cultural exchanges, as well.

However, peace can be restored only partly, and only for some time, by these measures. Firstly, the mass of the people in J&K must accept whatever solution emerges, temporary as it might have to be. If they are not satisfied, then problems will continue to arise. The situation in the POK is no better, if not much worse, than that obtains on this side of the border. There is no democracy, nor are there any civil liberties. Introduction of democracy in the absence of an indigenous administration, a free press and a competent and free judiciary would be a joke. Therefore, conditions in that part could remain unstable, affecting the situation on this side. On this side, the role of the Security forces must be cut progressively, but substantially. The peace offensive of the Mufti Government is slowly making an impression, however, the Pundits must be brought back, ensured full security and respectable rehabilitation. Issues relating to autonomy of the State within India and internal autonomy of the three regions within the State have yet to be settled. All political parties, together, have to ensure that future general elections will be as fair, if not fairer, as the last one.

Problems of social and economic development in the two parts of the entire State would require peace, inter-border traffic of the people and the goods, building up of the necessary infrastructure and progressive growing up of small industry, for which the State was renowned for ages past. Politicians in both countries could be apprehensive that all this can lead to a desire for the re-integration of the whole State, though no one knows what the future will be like. Much will depend on the development of amity among various religious communities as well as among the three regions. In the POK, too, the tensions between the Punjabis, the Mirpuris and the migrants have to be taken into account. These are so many imponderables. Will the Pandits return? Will the Hurriat groups create a favourable climate for it? Will secularism, Sufism and Kashmiriat flower again to weld the truncated society into a fraternity? Will the old feuds between the influential families end?

No less unpredictable is the evolution of international politics. The relations between China, India, Pakistan, Russia, the USA, on the one hand, and the growth or otherwise of
Islamic fundamentalism or Us expansionism on the other, would influence the course of the politics of the whole region, including J&K. Yet, people-oriented regimes in both countries, whenever they assume power, might end all the disputes, build a common future of an egalitarian, federal, political and economic sub-continental community. That exercise can encompass all south Asia. The cultural and economic bases, as also the administrative-judicial structures do exist, in these regions, for an ambitious exercise of this magnitude. J&K will be part of the design.

President Bush’s War Mania

Popular demonstrations in Washington, San Francisco and other cities of the USA or several European capitals including London against the hysteria that has gripped the rulers in Washington and London have not had the slightest impact on the situation. The British Prime Minister Tony Blair is arguing in favour of the inevitability of launching a war against Iraq, as he thinks that the International community cannot shirk its responsibility. In is own country, according to press reports, 47 % of the people are opposed to his support for war, while only 30% favour it. Some leading M.P.s of his Labour Party have warned Blair that he might lose his parliamentary majority in case he spoiled for war without the sanction of the United Nations. However, he is not his own master, having sold his soul to the modern Mephistopheles, George W. Bush, the President of the USA.

The French Foreign Minister, Dominique De Villepin has, in his direct talk with the American Secretary of State Colin Powell, told him of his Government’s total opposition to an attack on Iraq. The German Chancellor Shroedder has been taking a stronger and more consistent line. The declaration by George Bush on January 21 that his Government would go ahead, come what may, prompted the French President Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Shroeder to issue a warning in the joint press conference the very next day that they would be strongly opposed to a war against Iraq. China has not said anything publicly, but is known to oppose war. Russia has also cautioned the USA against it. Most of our opposition parties have openly and collectively denounced it. Several west Asian countries like Iran and Syria have done the same. Even Saudi Arabia does not support the USA, willingly. It is, therefore, difficult to understand which international community Tony Blair is talking about.

The United Nations’ Inspector of weapons, Hans Blix, is to report to the General Secretary Kofi Annan about his findings on January 27 and the Security Council is to discuss his report on January 29, as per its last resolution. In that meeting, it is expected to decide the course of action to be adopted in case there is a material breach of its mandate that Iraq must not possess any nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The US administration, however, does not consider this necessary. It is quite probable, as a Vice President of Iraq, Taha Yassin Ramadan, has said, that whatever be the case, the USA is determined to attack Iraq. Iranians, even President Musharraf of Pakistan, believe that that would only be the beginning. They and so many others apprehend that George W. Bush, in his ambition to shape the world as per his desire, could next take upon other countries in the region, one by one.

Everybody recognises that the primary objective of the Government of the USA is to monopolise all oil production in west Asia, after the resources of natural gas and oil in the
Central Asian Republics came under the dominance of the USA, during the war against Afghanistan. Oil in central America is already controlled by the MNCs of the USA. The press has reported extensively the troubles that Venezuela’s new leftist regime is undergoing because of the closure of oil production by the MNCs in a bid to overthrow the regime. Oil in Nigeria in Africa is also in the control of the MNCs. The same is the case with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. That leaves the two countries which the USA has already counted among the countries characterised as the axis of evil, Iran and Libya. Hence, the apprehension of President Muhammad Khatmi of Iran that his country could be the next target. Monopoly of oil would give unfair and over-riding advantage to the USA vis-a-vis other industrialised as also the developing countries since oil is an extremely important input in economic activity.

The reason for the United Kingdom and some other countries like Italy in Europe to go along with the USA in its madness to go to war with Iraq arises from this vulnerability. France and Germany also face this dilemma. However, they think that instead of bargaining for their share in a temporary deal with the USA which gives her monopolistic power over oil, the far-sighted policy might be stop her in her tracks. Whether they will stick to that position and or how long would depend on the attitude of other world powers, that is Russia and China. However, President Bush has made his resolve to go alone and not care about the United Nations, amply clear. If he did not do so last time, it was, as revealed by Bob Woodward in his new book named ‘Bush at War’, because Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, warned the President in a forthright manner of all the risks involved in the venture.

No country, however, has asked why the USA has been encouraging Israel all along to manufacture nuclear weapons. Issam Makhoul, a member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, told the House recently that the country possessed 200 to 300 atomic bombs. This fact was first revealed by a research worker Mordechai Vanunu in 1986, who said that the number was about two hundred, for which he was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment which he will complete in four years. This big nuclear arsenal is in the immediate neighbourhood of Iraq which is being asked to dismantle all kinds of weapons, even though the mutual hostility between the two countries is a well-known fact. Israel being the lynchpin of the west Asian strategy of the USA has been getting ten billion dollars annually as aid from the time of her existence. She has systematically driven the Palestinians out of Palestine; and her President Sharon is determined to reverse the Oslo accord and gradually occupy the whole of the former Palestine. She has flouted every single resolution of the UN with impunity and has often unleashed terror against even the defenceless people. Nevertheless, Tony Blair and his ‘International community’ are silently watching it.

Our Government, on the other hand, had been living in a fool’s paradise, trusting that Bush would pressure Pakistan into stopping terrorist raids in Jammu & Kashmir while, as Woodward describes, he assured Musharraf that the USA would never let Pakistan down. While our leaders were stewing in their own juice, they followed US policies blindfold, including the acceptance of her line on International Criminal Court, or on Iraq or Palestine. They have been quite cozy with Israel, for the same reason. It is to be welcomed therefore that Yashwant Sinha took a public stand, even though belatedly, on the Iraq issue.

The International community is ranged against USA’s war on Iraq. It is more solidly with Iraq than ever before. The Indian people have demonstrated their opposition from the
beginning. At the Asian Social Forum in Hyderabad, they, along with other Asians, again expressed it. India has several vital stakes in this regard. Our oil import bill has been going up, and we are hopelessly dependent on the import of this commodity. Unfortunately, the privatisation drive would weaken the State drive for further oil exploration in order to cut the heavy import bill. Oil’s monopolisation would obviously help shoot up its price. India must therefore take a strong stand on this issue. She may also take a hand in galvanising the support of the non-aligned countries for Iraq.

Quo Vadis?

After the welcome initiative by the Prime Minister which has cleared somewhat the way for a fruitful dialogue with Pakistan, our Defence Minister visited China in search of a negotiated settlement of our dispute with our powerful eastern neighbour. Now, the Minister for External Affairs has proceeded to Brasilia to participate in a troika meeting with his counterparts from Brazil and South Africa, the biggest countries in the continents of South America and Africa. The Prime Minister Vajpayee has been in Petersburg to join the celebrations of the three hundredth anniversary of the birth of the famous city of the Russian Federation where he rubbed shoulders with the Presidents of Russia and the USA. There he raised the issue of cross-border infiltration by terrorists from the Pakistan side of the border. According to him, President George W. Bush of the USA assured him that he would ask President Musharraf of Pakistan to check the phenomenon.

The most significant initiative in this flurry of diplomatic moves is the effort by India, made for the first time ever, to build common cause with the two most important continents of our hemisphere. This significance is increased by the fact that the dignitaries representing Chile had paid visits to India before. During the last five decades, the dispute with Pakistan over Jammu & Kashmir has so overwhelmed our foreign policy that India as well as Pakistan were courting the big powers to gain favour, to the utter neglect of the Third world. This was in spite of the initiation by India of the first Asian Relations conference on the eve of her independence and later her active participation in the Bandung conference in 1954, where the five principles or pachasheel were enunciated. One consequence of this neglect of the developing countries by India was the gradual erosion of the non-aligned movement and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)which together almost silenced the voice of the poor countries of the southern hemisphere. The ominous success of the trade rounds initiated by the developed and powerful countries which have ensnared our countries in the unequal treaties under the WTO, too, has resulted from the absence of concerted actions by the developing countries, once led by India.

Brazil, it might be noted, is currently ruled by the Workers Party whose President Lula has an entirely different vision of the future of the world. The Workers Party has been
sponsoring the World Social Forum with the slogan that Another World is Possible, as a counterfoil to the World Economic Forum held annually in Davos, Germany, considered as a Rich Countries Club. The Government in South Africa has a strong left contingent, although it has had to be prudent owing to the large-scale influence of the Whites and their European backers. As for India, while the present Government is toeing a pro-US line, the public opinion favours an independent foreign policy. However, the meeting of the External Affairs Ministers of these three leading-most countries of the Third World, suffering from under development, poverty and absence of opportunities of employment, should be surveying the whole field of political and economic realities, in the context of the uni-polar world and the tight grip of the Group of Seven on the WTO and through it on the economies of the developing countries. It is obvious that several more meetings of the troika and its extended form might need to be held during thenext couple of years to achieve a unity of purpose to deal with the vice-like grip of the developed countries and the WTO and their hold on the Security Council and the UN.

Yet, any such exercise, if and when it comes to completion, would require from India a clarity of her own vision. If we continue to look to the USA to bail us out in our dispute with Pakistan over J & K, then our contribution to this exercise shall be negative rather than positive; and it shall be vacillating rather than firm. The kind of leadership which India would be expected to provide, along with China, Brazil, South Africa, Argentina and Indonesia, has to come with a firm determination. It may be useful to recall that Murasoli Maran, our ailing Commerce Minister, returned from the WTO ministerial conference at Doha in November 2001, with the lesson that India must help build a “Development Coalition of the Poor Countries”. This cannot happen if India, Pakistan or other countries of our stock lean on the USA and other big powers for settling their mutual disputes. Unfortunately, separatist threats in Indonesia, the Philippines, Srilanka and Sudan and inter-tribal conflicts in the Congo, Zaire, Sierra Leone and other African countries have rendered the creation of such a
coalition quite difficult. Another weak link in this chain is the presence of the least developed countries which were characterised as such in the Lome convention in 1978. In Doha, this group of thirty countries was enticed by the G-7, by promising that all their outstanding debts to them would be waived. However, that was simply a ruse; and this group had to hold a joint conclave in Dhaka recently to decide their course of action at the next ministerial conference of the WTO to be held in Cancum, Mexico, in coming September

This daunting task therefore requires of our countries that we sort out our disputes with our neigbours peacefully by mutual negotiations and meet separatist challenges, mostly based on the explosion of ethnicity, by offering maximum autonomy to respective disgruntled groups within the national frontiers. It must however be added that no set formulations can help resolve all the cases; each one of them has its own compulsions, and it is always wise to leave such issues to the countries concerned. India, possibly, can lead by setting an example; and, the wisdom which her leadership displays in dealing with the Nagas’ demand and the Kashmir issue or in the relation with Pakistan might help the others to tackle their respective problems with wisdom, likewise.

Nevertheless, one cannot be too sanguine about the wisdom of our own leadership. We rushed into the WTO without even a debate in Parliament. Our agreement in December 1999 to lift quantitative restrictions on import of 1429 goods from the USA. Our blow-hot, blow-cold diplomacy with Pakistan, our rigidity in not talking with China for decades together and our total disinterest in the countries which are as poor (or poorer) as we are have been grave errors. However, we were not always to blame. Unfortunately, we became part of a Thirty years’ cold war. Moreover, it is now known that our reputed ‘friend’, the then Commonwealth Secretary Philip Noel Baker, was the villain of the piece in prolonging the Indo-Pak agony in the UN. Whatever that be, India and Pakistan, as also China and India, must turn a new leaf and help create new history. We must no longer be victims of the machinations of neo-imperialism which has appeared in the form of WTO, World Bank and IMF. Nor must an Iraq be repeated.

The developing countries should try to arrive at a consensus to pursue in a determined manner the policies beneficial to them at the Cancum conference. As for a long-term agenda, stronger trade ties among nations of the southern hemisphere must be made and more regional groupings like the ASEAN created and expanded.

For Hindi click here

Copyleft. Any part of the content on this site can be used, reproduced, or distributed freely by anyone, anywhere and by any means. Acknowledgement is appreciated.

Designed and maintained by CAPITAL Creations, New Delhi. Phone 91-11-26194291