--- On Wed, 7/16/08, CK VISHWANATH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: CK VISHWANATH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Playing the Muslim card on Nuclear Deal-Siddharth varadarajan
> To: "C.K. Vishwanath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 10:08 AM
> Economic and Political Weekly
> July 12, 2008
>
> PLAYING THE MUSLIM CARD ON NUCLEAR DEAL
>
> by Siddharth Varadarajan
>
> The nuclear deal and other questions of foreign
> policy should be opposed or defended on their own
> merits. Sadly, both the government and its
> opponents have played fast and loose with the
> "Muslim" card, to the detriment of the
> community's larger interest.
>
> Going by the statements Indian politicians make,
> Hindus and Muslims must be the most gullible
> people on earth. How else can one explain the
> cynical revival, in the run-up to the next
> general election, of the Ayodhya temple card by
> Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L K Advani?
> Or the manipulative assertion by the Bahujan
> Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati that the nuclear
> deal is anti-Muslim.
>
> Sadly, Mayawati is not the only one to look at
> one of the most important foreign policy issues
> confronting India in this manner. On June 23, M K
> Pandhe, a member of the politburo of the
> Communist Party of India (Marxist), warned the
> Samajwadi Party against supporting the UPA
> govern- ment on the nuclear issue because, he
> claimed, "a majority of the Muslim masses are
> against the deal". The CPI(M) general secretary
> Prakash Karat wisely disowned this shocking
> statement two days later by saying that Pandhe's
> remarks "are not the view of the party" but the
> damage had al- ready been done. Now that it has
> been let out of its bottle, this dangerous genie
> will not be exorcised easily. Parties eager to
> hoodwink Muslims into supporting them feel they
> now have an issue. And waiting in the wings are
> the traditional Muslim- baiters in the BJP, who
> thrive on the com- munalisation of any issue and
> will point an accusatory finger at the community
> when the time is ripe.
>
> For the past three years, Mayawati has maintained
> a studied silence on the deal despite its
> supposedly "anti-Muslim" char- acter. Now that an
> alliance between the Samajwadi Party and the
> Congress is look- ing increasingly likely,
> however, she is discovering she can no longer
> afford to sit on the fence. "The UPA government
> is adamant to sign the nuclear deal with the US
> at the cost of much cheaper gas from Iran but
> Muslims would never accept the deal", she
> declared at a press conference in Lucknow on July
> 1.
>
> As if on cue, Muslim leaders like Zafaryab
> Jillani and Kalbe Sadiq have swallowed this
> poisonous bait hook,line and sinker. According
> to UNI, Jillani asked why the Congress government
> at the centre was supporting the deal when
> the minority community was against it. Can there
> be a better way of offering communal grist to
> the BJP's political mill than the issuing of
> such
> foolish statements?
>
> Apprehensions on Nuclear Deal
>
> Like a large number of Indians, most Muslims
> probably have apprehensions about the nuclear
> deal adversely affecting India's national
> interest. Even if they are agnostic or ignorant
> about the deal itself, the majority of Indians
> (including the majority of Muslims) are opposed
> to any kind of military or strategic alliance
> with the US. It is perfectly legitimate to hold
> such sentiments and express them too and it was
> wrong for the Congress Party to claim the foreign
> policy debate was being "communalised" because
> Muslim organisations demonstrated against the US
> president George W Bush when he visited India in
> 2006. However, for Mayawati or anyone else to
> suggest that the deal is "anti Muslim" or that
> the agreement should be scrapped because the
> Muslims are not in favour is an act of political
> cynicism that the "Muslim masses" would be well
> advised to be wary of. For today they are being
> used only as alibis to justify a political
> realignment. Tomorrow, they could well be turned
> into scapegoats when the next realignment occurs.
>
> In 2005 I had argued that the Manmohan Singh
> government was under pressure from the Americans
> to sacrifice the Iran pipeline for the nuclear
> deal ('A Farewell to the Gas Pipeline?', The
> Hindu, July 22, 2005) so I have no problem with
> Mayawati attacking the Congress for this. But how
> is this a "Muslim" issue? India, I wrote at the
> time, needs Iranian gas till well into the 21st
> century and that it would be foolish for Manmohan
> Singh
> to "give up the energy in hand for two in the
> Bush". Already, the shortage of gas in the
> country has led to more than 7,000 MW of
> installed thermal power capacity lying idle.
> According to ministry of power data, 13,400 MW
> of electricity generating capacity in the
> country is operating on gas with a plant load
> factor (PLF) of only 53 per cent as against the
> required 90 per cent.
>
> The pipeline from Iran would help alleviate this
> shortfall and it is shocking that the UPA
> government is needlessly dragging its feet on the
> negotiations with Tehran and Islamabad. Equally
> short- sighted was the government's capitulation
> to American pressure on the question of sending
> Iran's nuclear file to the UN Security Council.
> Thanks partly to that vote, there is a much
> greater likelihood of a new war being launched by
> the US or Israel. But how did these become
> "Muslim" issues? The majority of Indian
> expatriates in the Gulf whose livelihood would be
> threatened by a regional war are not Muslim. And
> aren't Hindus also interested in "much cheaper
> gas"?
>
> 'Shia' Sentiments
>
> Of course, the original sin of communalising the
> Iran issue belongs not so much to Mayawati or the
> Samajwadi Party but the UPA government itself.
> Unwilling to counter the American pressure on
> Iran with strong political and strategic
> arguments of the kind that the ministry of
> external affairs and the directorate general of
> military intelligence were making internally, our
> leaders preferred to buy time for themselves with
> the lame excuse of "Shia sentiments". Both the
> prime minister and Natwar Singh, who was external
> affairs minister at the time, used this dangerous
> argument in 2005 in order to (unsuccess-fully)
> tell the Americans why they were prepared to go
> thus far and no further on Iran. And as recently
> as April this year, national security adviser M K
> Narayanan told the International Institute of
> Strategic Studies' conference in Delhi that
> one of the reasons India was concerned about how
> the west was handling Iran was because it had "a
> very large Shia population".
>
> Narayanan was being coy about India's opposition
> to the use of force but another speaker at the
> conference, the former US ambassador to India,
> Robert Blackwill, was more blunt. If asked to
> choose between Iran going nuclear and a war to
> stop it going down that route, he said, India
> would undoubtedly choose the former. However, no
> Indian leader would dare to spell out our
> national priorities in so forthright a fashion
> for fear that the Americans would take offence.
> It is much easier to use the Indian Muslims as an
> alibi. Of course, the Manmohan Singh government
> is not unique in this regard. If the erstwhile
> National Democratic Alliance government finally
> backed away from the folly of sending Indian
> soldiers to die alongside the American
> occupation forces in Iraq in 2003, this was not
> because of any "Muslim" opposition to its plans.
> Nevertheless, Vajpayee told more than one
> opposition leader who went to see him in the
> run-up to the Cabinet's July 14, 2003 decision
> that if only the Muslims were to take to the
> streets of Delhi to protest the proposed
> deployment of Indian troops, this would make
> his job of saying 'No' to the Americans easier.
>
> No Tangible Gains
>
> For the Muslims of India, the idea that they
> wield so much influence over the country's
> foreign or any other policy must surely come as a
> big surprise. Especially since they have no
> tangible gains to show for this influence. The
> Sachar Committee's report has painted a vivid
> statistical picture of a community that lags
> behind the national average in most
> socio-economic indicators. When the UPA
> government came to power, it promised to do
> something to address the genuine concerns of the
> community.
>
> Four years later, the record is spotty indeed.
> There has been some positive fiscal targeting of
> districts where Muslims live in large numbers but
> it is too early to judge how effective this has
> been. The promised Communal Violence bill - which
> is supposed to ensure that massacres of the kind
> that were enacted in Gujarat in 2002 never
> happen again - appears to have been quietly
> shelved. Even a simple issue like uniform
> compensation for all victims of mass violence and
> terrorism has not been addressed; the
> Congress-led UPA would much prefer making
> piecemeal announcements for each set of victims
> so as to maximise electoral gains.
>
> To make matters worse, non-delivery in the core
> areas of Muslim concern is accompanied in the
> Indian system by quick action or outlandish
> promises on bogus issues. As chief minister of
> Uttar Pradesh, for example, Mayawati is not
> prepared to lift a finger to ensure that the
> ongoing trial of policemen charged with the
> massacre of Muslims in Hashimpura and Malliana 21
> years ago is brought to a speedy and just
> conclusion. But she is all ready to fight the
> good fight against the nuclear deal in the name
> of the community. It is almost as if there is a
> conspiracy to keep Muslims, like other Indians,
> confined to pressing purely identity-based
> sectional demands. Muslims or Gujjars who
> protest against SEZs could find themselves
> arrested or shot and their demands will never be
> addressed in a 100 years. But if Muslims and
> Gujjars protest against Taslima Nasrin or for
> scheduled tribe status, they may still get shot
> at but their irrational demands are almost
> always acceded to.
>
> All parties, whether secular or communal, Left or
> Right, need to fight it out among themselves on
> the merits and demerits of the nuclear deal. But
> to drag the Muslims into the midst of their
> squabbles is to do a great disservice to the
> struggle of the community against marginalisation
> and discrimination and to turn them into nothing
> more than sacrificial sheep at the altar of the
> BJP, if and
> when the party ever returns to power.
>
> How unlikely is it that the party - which says it
> is against the nuclear deal but in favour of a
> strategic alliance with the United States - will
> reverse its stand on the 123 Agreement the next
> time it comes to power in New Delhi? When that
> happens, it is the Muslims of India who will be
> set up as straw figures and demonised for
> allegedly holding back the "progress" of the
> country.Playing the Muslim card on Nuclear deal
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
