Much is happening around the nuclear deal over the past few days. I am not qualified enough to comment on the complexities of the issues, especially when the headlines in two newspapers were diametrically opposite the day after the issue surfaced. (One claimed we can do the nuclear tests the other exactly opposite of that….)
But what has surprised me is the amount of dust this is raked up and how the Left is justifying its stance. Mr. Karat, Ms. Patkar et al, you have written articles on Rediff.com to educate the masses. But, if you would care to elucidate your stance and objectives more clearly, it would be of great help.
In the second paragraph of your article, Mr. Karat you state that
“It may be difficult for ordinary people to grasp the implications of the
nuclear agreement with all its technical aspects and intricacies. The supply of
nuclear fuel, the fuel cycle, the enrichment and reprocessing technologies and
the safeguards agreement are all not within the knowledge of lay people.”
Well, if you are above everyone’s intellect, Mr. Karat, why don’t you explain it to the lesser mortals? Instead of just shouting at the top of your voice, if you come up with a point-by-point list of objections and ask for a rebuttal from the government, wouldn’t it help you garner more support? Up till now, we have heard only vague objections and allegations from you. Besides, passing judgment on the intellectual capabilities of over a billion people by just a stroke of a pen is not only preposterous but also merits more explanation.
Reading your article does not make it clear whether you are in general against anything America or just this agreement. I am going by the assumption that you are against anything America. You state that, we will acquiesce our sovereignty if we sign this treaty; again, would you care to explain how. If the UPA government has been dealing with the Americans and has signed a 10-year Defense Framework, why did you not oppose that? We hear you talk about the Defense Framework only now! Was the Left-machinery sleeping when the comprehensive agreement was being worked? Didn’t the government need your support when this framework was being signed? How is it that signing a defense framework with one country puts our sovereignty at stake? Did this rule also apply when we signed a friendship pact with the Soviet Union? If so, did you object to that at that time or consider it as a mistake when you retrospect? Or let me ask a different question: would you have reacted in the same way, if we were signing something like this with the Soviet Union instead of the US?
You also mention the nuclear-Iran issue and your objection to Indian vote in the IAEA. How, in your opinion should India have voted? Agreed that the issue is being raked up by the US to serve hegemonistic principles of the Bush Administration and that Iran is still far away from developing nuclear weapons, but would you rather prefer a nuclear state right up India’s alley? You oppose the joint-defense exercises, but again without explaining why! Hyde Act is also a bone of contention, but if the US is smart enough to protect its interests and if India is not, it calls for a different discussion, scrapping the whole deal is not an answer to it. If you and your honored brethren in the Parliament (irrespective of the party-lines) allow logical, well conducted debate on such issues, may be, even India can come up with an Indian-Hyde Act of our own to counter the US Hyde Act. Would you concur with this less intellectual compatriot of yours, Mr. Karat?
And lastly, as Ratan Tata had said sometime back, it is the Common Minimum Program that you have signed with the UPA government. How about going above and beyond that for the betterment of the country? Where does the word “Maximum” find a place in your lexicon?
Now, Ms. Patkar et al, you started your article with a grand notion of amending the constitution. You had better stuck to it! Ever heard of deflective arguments – where, to make your point, you talk about everything else but the point. Your article is an example of this. The title of the article is really misleading. You start with the imbroglio of the UPA-Left, then strategic relationship with the US, your objection to capitalism in general, nuclear fuel and nuclear arms in particular. Then you talk about the renewable energy resources, US governmental and corporate control, Iraq war, BJP etc.
How are all these related to our constitution? You want to allow a public debate on the issue. So, isn’t this happening right now? You and Mr. Karat getting a chance to write articles, TV interviews, discussions, other specialists writing their opinions in the press and so on? If you meant a debate in the parliament, then, even that is happening right now (well, more in terms of shouting and disrupting). What you want to talk about is a ratification policy, right? Then why not state it as that? Allow every treaty to be ratified. Or are you thinking of general referendum for all treaties? Good suggestions both, but you need to make your case more intensely than just beating around the bush on various issues that are not related to amending the constitution.
What I would like to know, Ms. Patkar et al, is what your opinion was when the BJP government talked sometime back of a thorough review of the entire constitution. Would you support something like this? And if you are serious about amending the constitution, can we expect a follow up article from you on how, why etc.? A series of articles, perhaps?
Ms. Patkar, I believe you are one who belongs to the principled lot. So, all the disruption of the parliament, walkouts, shouting and heckling, do you not deplore this? If so, we never heard you talk about such things. You do have a voice in the society as a leader of several agitations. Would you write an article about what you, in your own words as the representatives of people’s movement, perceive a model code of conduct for the elected members?
Mr. Karat, Ms. Patkar, you claim to represent the good of India. Well, then just as you say, don’t believe the treaty is good only because Dr. Singh says so, you also need to come up with particular objections to the treaty. My problem isn’t that you are opposing the deal, it is the way you are doing it. Oppose anything America/Capitalism should not be the only underlying principle of your concerns. After all, the world of Foreign Policy has changed now…and approach that is more pragmatic is required to deal with the problems. Why my-way or hi-way attitude? If there are serious issues with the treaty, we would like to know exactly what they are. If you were only looking for arm-twisting the government and fifteen-minutes of fame, you already got that. So either move on or make your stand clear!
Any how, I ramble much…thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment