A Nation of Losers

This is the ninth trust vote that the Union government is facing since 1979. Prior to that, there was no need for any trial of strength in the Lok Sabha to determine whether a government has the right to continue because till then the Congress had always had a steam-roller majority in Parliament. In fact, the need first arose when Charan Singh was Prime Minister after an earlier split in the Janata Party. But Charan Singh who knew he was going to lose, did not come to Parliament on the day of the voting. This was the first of the two occasions when the Prime Minister had to resign before facing the vote of confidence. The other occasion arose in 1996 when Atal Bihari Vajpayee resigned on the floor of the House before the voting took place. We have nothing against votes of confidence. On the contrary, we realize that they are inevitable at times in a healthy democracy, especially when a country has to make do with a coalition government comprising disparate elements. We have nothing against close finishes either, though a razor-thin majority can make governance extremely difficult. But whatever the kind of crisis and whatever the provocation, no democracy worth its name should be subjected to the kind of unethical political games that are being played in New Delhi now — all in the name of saving the Congress-led UPA government.By the standards of the Indian polity, nothing may seem to be wrong with all this. After all, the list of criminals who are in Parliament as lawmakers is growing longer with each parliamentary election. They have successfully subverted all democratic ideals to make the wrong seem right and the unethical to seem normal. But going by the standards of a civilized democracy, there is nothing at all to be happy about. The most noteworthy sin is that a political party and the coalition it leads are taking precedence over the country and its people. It is as though the Congress and the UPA have to be saved no matter what happens to India. The second sin is perpetuating the rationalization that in politics the means do not matter at all. Look where this has taken us! The equation between the UPA (minus the Left parties and the Bahujan Samaj Party plus the Samajwadi Party) and the rest (primarily the Left parties and the BJP) is so evenly balanced that it is the tiny political parties with three, two or even one Lok Sabha MP that are going to make the ultimate difference to the equation. So the cost of ‘winning’ over even the sleepiest and most worthless MP has reportedly gone up to Rs 100 crore from the figure of Rs 25 crore that was the upper limit just two days ago. It would hardly be surprising if the price went up to Rs 200 crore for the last few MPs by today morning. And where has all this money for horse-trading come from? Not from the personal coffers of the chairpersons of coalitions or party presidents forming new alliances. Not even from the funds of our political parties. The money is most likely to have been siphoned off from one or more of the several schemes for guaranteeing rural employment for which huge sums are allotted in the budget by pious governments year after year. Such a scenario would mean that the government of the day has legitimized the misuse of funds meant for the poorest of the poor to buy MPs in order to stay in power! This is not only a total repudiation of the principle of the means being paramount, but a blatant misuse of power for staying in power.However, this is not all. What is in glaring evidence is the reliance of the Congress-led UPA government on the most untrustworthy political parties for survival. Take the case of Mayawati and the Bahujan Samaj Party. Mayawati is on record repeatedly asserting that it is not her business to form governments but rather to break them. She has demonstrated this twice at the Centre. She withdrew support from the NDA government just before a trial of strength and stage-managed its defeat at the very last minute. She had walked out of coalition governments in Uttar Pradesh three times, each time to the great benefit of her party, till she did not need any help from any quarter in the last Assembly election. Political parties that she had ditched in the past time and again should have learnt their lessons but did not. And what of the ‘untouchable’ Samajwadi Party? Can it be counted on to prop up its worst foe in Uttar Pradesh till next year?Finally, the Congress has had to make the most deplorable compromises with small political parties like the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM). For its five members to return to the UPA fold, the Congress has to make its chief Shibu Soren a cabinet minister and make room for another minister besides granting scheduled tribe status to a list of tribal groups submitted by Soren. We are all aware of the criminal charges that had led to Shibu Soren’s ouster from the cabinet. Now the Congress is sending out the clear message that even criminals can become ministers if they support the UPA. Who is the ultimate loser in all this? Why, the nation itself — the people of India. The heavens would not have fallen if the UPA government were to fall a few months ahead of its time. The Congress might be able to buy itself some time today. But how much, even if it survives the vote of confidence? Maybe a few months or maybe up to March next year if it is very lucky. Are a few more months in power a good enough reason to turn Parliament into an auction centre for legislators? If it loses, the Congress will probably make a few worse bedfellows next time to save the dynasty. But who will save the nation? source: sentinel assam

Is the Left still anti-communal?

— Pranjit SaikiaThe recent developments regarding the Indo-US nuclear-deal have converted the Indian politics into a theater of opportunism. The Left parties which who fervently opposed the deal have ultimately stood along the BJP which once which was communal in their eyes. Some may say that it is the ideological stance of the Left, who have been opposing the deal from beginning. But where their ideology stands in so far as communalism is concerned? In the last Lok Sabha election, Indian people had given mandate against communal forces. People were fed up with the BJP-kind of “Signing India”. This had given a chance to all secular forces to come together and form a secular government. But four years down the line, what made the comrades to join hand with the communal BJP to oppose a government deal is baffling. But more astonishing is that, when CPI (M) politburo member M.K. Pandhe, who heads the CPI (M)-affiliated Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), warned Samajwadi Party, that it would lose Muslim vote for supporting the deal. This statement had faced opposition from different quarters, which made Karat to quickly downplay his colleague’s remark. But it is very unfortunate to give a communal colour to the issue. Now the question is should Muslims oppose the deal as it involves the US as a party? Again should Hindus and Christians support the deal as it may be opposed by Muslims? This has really put the Left in a very ridiculous situation as opposing to communalism has long been their ideological stance. But Pandhe’s remark is very dangerously poised as it attempts to communalise the Indian foreign policy. No political parties should not think that, if they support the deal they will be dumped by the Muslim community. Equally, no one should support the deal as it is a Pan-Islamic in nature, as it involves United States, who is the enemy number one for the Muslim world. The support or opposition to the deal should be on the basis of the national interest. If we look at our foreign policy, it is not bent to any community or religion. To serve the national interest it is very essential to come above those wobbly perceptions. Since long back India has been maintaining cordial relations with the Arab world. As no body from any political quarter had opposed India’s gas pipeline project involving two Muslim countries – Iran and Pakistan, there should be any question of opposing the nuclear deal involving United States, if it serves the national interest. Again for a long time some political classes have been opposing to establish full diplomatic relation with Israel in fear of losing Muslim support. But one should remember that our foreign policy is never determined by religious consideration. Because of Israel’s Pan-Islamic nature of its foreign policy, we can not restraint ourselves to have a strong foreign relation with Israel. Equally, Arab world is also not at all supportive towards Israel. Because of that should we cease to have cordial relation with Arab countries? No foreign policy can be so selective. In the era of expertise, one has to rely on others irrespective of their nature of foreign policy. In case of foreign policy, only determinant is to fulfil country’s national interest. The recent statement of the Left leader is essentially communal in nature. The party which claims to be the custodian of secularism in India has ultimately tried to bang on “minority votes” by motivating them on religious line as a preparation for upcoming Lok Sabha election. Again, they have entangled with the communal BJP to oppose the government’s move. Dose it mean Left’s affirmation of communal politics? How do we believe that the Left is anti-communal?The recent developments have diminished Left’s credibility on its long standing secular stance. The Left have faced opposition for their moves from within. Senior Left leader Jyoti Basu time and again cautioned that the BJP is more dangerous than George W. Bush. He urged the top chunk of Left leaders to reconsider their decision to go with the BJP in trust vote against the government. It is high time to de-communalise the foreign as well as the domestic policies. All policies are going to affect us irrespective of our caste, race and religion. Rather opposing policies on the basis of caste, class and religion, we should oppose anti-people policies. The opportunity provided by the people to fight against the communal forces should not be lost out to fulfil one’s narrow political interest. Again the Left’s a narrowly politicised stance on the issue forced the Congress leadership to rope in the SP for their survival at the Centre, which presents the extreme form opportunism in Indian politics. The party, which was once “enemy number one” for the Congress, has now become the soul-mate in the changing political scenario. But this form of opportunism does not represent a good sign for future of Indian politics. It is true that, in politics no one has permanent friends and foes. But even in politics too, some amount of ethics and morals should prevail upon in choosing friends and foes. In earlier incidents ethics and morals were lacking, but in the recent incidents these two noble human qualities have completely withered away. But still time is not yet over. Among all political classes there is need of “new thinking” and change of perception towards policy formulation. It is high time to cease politics of opportunism. Because politics is not only about mega deals, a web of strong words, revenge and vandalism; it must also be about ethics, about ideas, about passion, about vision for society, about a struggle for justice, about a struggle for downtrodden class. Otherwise the parliamentary system in India will remain a mockery.(The writer teaches Political Science at Biswanath College) source: assam tribune