02 July 2008

Don’t use Muslims as crutch on nuclear deal

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.

Don’t use Muslims as crutch on nuclear deal

Siddharth Varadarajan

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 leader L.K. Advani? Or the manipulative assertion by the Bahujan Samaj Party chief, Mayawati, that the nuclear deal is anti-Muslim.

Sadly, Ms 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 Government on the nuclear issue because, he claimed, “a majority of the Muslim masses are against the deal”. CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat did well to disown this shocking statement two days later by saying Mr. Pandhe’s remarks “are not the view of the party”. But the damage had already been done. Once 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 will point an accusatory finger at the community when the time is ripe.

For the past three years, Ms. Mayawati has maintained a studied silence on the deal despite its supposedly “anti-Muslim” character. Now that an alliance between the Samajwadi Party and the Congress is looking 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 U.S. 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 Tuesday.

As if on cue, Muslim leaders like Zafaryab Jillani have swallowed this poisonous bait hook, line and sinker. According to UNI, Mr. 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 statements? 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 about the deal, the majority of Indians (including the majority of Muslims) are opposed to any kind of military or strategic alliance with the U.S. 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 “communalized” because Muslim organisations demonstrated against U.S. 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.

I was perhaps the first person to point to the fact 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 Ms. 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. 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 shortsighted was the government’s capitulation to American pressure on the question of sending Iran’s nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council. Thanks partly to that vote, there is a much greater likelihood of a new war being launched by the U.S. 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”?

Of course, the original sin of communalizing 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 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 IISS 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”.

Mr. Narayanan was being coy about India’s opposition to the use of force but another speaker at the conference, Ambassador 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 offense. 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, Mr. 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.

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 hundred years. But if Muslims and Gujjars protest against Taslima Nasrin or for Scheduled Tribe status, their irrational demands are almost always acceded to (Of course, they will still get shot).

All parties, whether secular or communal, Left or Right, are welcome 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.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Varadarajan,

You wrote:
Even if they are agnostic about the deal, the majority of Indians (including the majority of Muslims) are opposed to any kind of military or strategic alliance with the U.S.

What is the basis of this statement ? How do you know that the majority of Indians are opposed to any kind of strategic alliance with the U.S. ?

As far as I understand majority of Indians are not against India having some kind of strategic (and military) alliance with the US. Majority of Indians either vote for Congress (I) or BJP and these parties are not opposed to such an alliance with the US. So I wonder what do you mean by this ?

Siddharth Varadarajan said...

No evidence other than my sense of the mood around me at various crucial points in time, such as July 2003, when the Vajpayee government toyed with the idea of sending Indian soldiers to Iraq, as well as now.

Incidentally, the 2004 elections marked the first time in Indian electoral history when the combined vote share of the Congress and BJP/Janata/Jana Sangh fell below 50 per cent.

Siddharth

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't claim that "my sense of the mood around me" as the mood of the "majority of Indians"!

BJP+Congress having only less than 50 per cent has a lot to do with the dynamics of local politics and hardly anything to do with Indo-US alliance. (BJP and Congress leave 25% of the total seats for their local allies to contest)

It is suffice to say that the combined vote percentage of left front parties in India is less than 10 per cent. The rest of the parties wouldn't mind India having some kind of strategic alliance with the US.

I wonder what are you implying when you said "as well as now" ? Are you saying that the majority of Indians oppose Indo-US nuclear deal ?

Siddharth said...

Anon - You are the one who brought in "support" for BJP anbd Congress as some kind of barometer.

I can't say whether the majority oppose the N deal; my hunch is that they do not. But military-strategic alliance, definitely.

Anonymous said...

The author does not seem to be an apolitical person and seems to be a BJP baiter, in which case there would be no merit in any discussions on his professed views. He somehow rationalises the CPM leaders foolish statement of muslims disenchantment with the effects of the Indo US Nuclear deal by stating that the CPM president had immediately corrected the perception and therefore things are prisite and clear. There is a lot of bigotry in his reference to the BJP.

Going by the general mood, there is a lot of debate (Healthy and otherwise)on the usefulness or otherwise of the nuclear deal. If anybody has let down the Country, it is the Communist parties in India. If they had serious reservations about the deal, being the party propping up the government, it should have made things very clear to the Government, at the very outset that they will oppose the deal at all costs. Then the Government of the day could have contended with the issue and taken such corrective measure as needed, one possibility, of which, could also be to seek a fresh mandate.

But here was the catch. Communists, known for their attitude of enjoying power without accountability, would not have the fluke of 60 or more of their MP's imposed on the Country, another time, so instead of being forthright in their negation of the deal, set in motion the various parleys where they kept yielding little by little, even while throwing enough sound bytes to convey that they were still opposed to the deal. But Congress was good enough to call their bluff and the Left is history. So instead of ruing for their arrogance, they seem to spewing venon on all and sundry, willing to embrace people whom they held with scorn. The party has also proved that when it comes to power they are no different from the Congress or other regional parties (example Speaker refusing to toe the line and the CPM President who was (and is) strident with the Congress, suddenly going very soft on him).