 www.indiawrites.org |
|
||
| Search | |||
|
Nuclear deal re-born on fourth of July!
There was a more than festive touch to the fourth of July celebrations at the American embassy. US ambassador David Mulford waxed lyrical about American values of democracy and justice and blossoming relations between the world’s two largest democracies. Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, too, surprised many by showing up at the function and chipped in with generous praise of the American genius for batting for freedom not only of Americans but those of others. Mulford had much to be thankful to Mukherjee for throwing his weight behind the deal and he showered praise on him, calling him the most experienced politician in the government. Neither of them spoke about the deal, but clearly it was the deal, which was the prima donna everybody seemed to be in love with. In fact, as one seasoned diplomat wryly remarked, it looked more like a thanksgiving party for rescuing the deal from the evil eyes of America-baiters. Scores of diplomats, know-all journalists and in-love-with-America socialites appeared hugely relieved that a dear one they gave up for dead has been miraculously reborn. Habitual conspiracy theorists, who are prone to suspect grand designs behind everything, had their own take. Nuclear deal re-born on the fourth of July? It can’t be pure chance, quipped one socialite, snickering at her pretty little joke. Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh, the man who played the knight in shinning armour to rescue the deal from the Red ambush, was the toast of the party. The wily political networker, who knows just about everybody who matters in rising India, turned up slightly late at the party. American diplomats were quick to embrace this most unusual saviour of the nuclear deal and onlookers were amazed by their new-found love for the man they suspected to be an America-baiter till a few days ago. Not only the US ambassador hugged him and profusely thanked this new apostle of the deal. But just about every official of the embassy made it a point to shake hands with him and put their gratitude on record. Amar Singh tried to play down all this attention coming his way and told his American hosts with a disarming smile he did it all for national interest. Nuke this nonsense: Hindu deal or Muslim deal? The nuclear deal controversy seems to have brought out some of the worst aspects of Indian politics. As much is evident from the cynical manner in which several parties are trying to communalise the issue by suggesting, without a shred of factual evidence, that Muslims will be antagonised by the pact with the US. Blatant cynicism has, of course, marked the entire discourse about the path-breaking initiative, which will end the nuclear apartheid from which India has been suffering since Pokhran I in 1974. While the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been opposing it even while saying that it was not against strategic ties with the US, the Communists, who are the Manmohan Singh government's allies, have been threatening to withdraw support not so much because of specific objections to the agreement as because of their fear that it would take India into the "neo-imperialist" American camp. The attempt to exploit Muslim sentiments, however, is perhaps the most unprincipled of all these political tricks to scuttle the deal. That the supposedly "secular" communists are not averse to playing this communal card was evident from the comments of M.K. Pandhe, a member of the politbureau of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), about Muslims being against the deal. Although the CPI-M general secretary, Prakash Karat, distanced himself from the observation, it had nevertheless shown the kind of insidious, behind-the-scene propaganda that the Left might carry on to sabotage the measure. In contrast, the fact that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati will be more forthcoming was evident from her unambiguous remarks about Muslim alienation if India signs the deal. But what all these worthies seem to have missed in their eagerness to boost the position of their parties by pretending to be friends of the minorities is that there is little overt sign of Muslims as a whole being against the step. It doesn't stand to reason that the entire community of 140 million thinks on the same lines. As election results have shown more than once, their response to the various issues is as varied as that of other Indians, depending on region, social and educational status and a general understanding of the events of the day. Not surprisingly, voices for and against the deal have been heard from groups of Muslims. But the most prominent statement of support has come from none other than the former president, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who was also one of the scientists behind Pokhran II in 1998. The supposedly negative Muslim response to the deal is, therefore, a red herring that is intended solely to create confusion. All that can be said about the Muslims is that they usually tend to vote tactically to keep their bete noire, the BJP, at bay. As such, Mayawati may have overplayed her hand by talking of the adverse Muslim response, as the current conjectures about her proximity to the BJP will alienate them more than the deal. Her comments have also shown that notwithstanding her electoral success in India's largest state via a remarkable Dalit-Brahmin "rainbow" coalition, she remains essentially a regional politician with limited understanding of the larger national issues. As such, her undisguised ambition to be prime minister one day will seem more of a pipe dream than before. However, her main opponent in Uttar Pradesh, the Samajwadi Party, has been no less opportunistic in its attitude towards the deal. While the party had been ambivalent about it earlier because of its closeness to the CPI-M as well as the fear of losing its Muslim "vote bank", it has since changed its mind because of the expected alliance between Mayawati and the BJP. Since this combination will be quite a formidable one in Uttar Pradesh, the Samajwadi Party has evidently deemed it wise to move closer to the Congress, and the only way it can do so is by offering to support the Manmohan Singh government during a trial of strength in parliament. What this change of attitude shows is that the parties are not concerned so much about the merits or demerits of the deal as about how to boost their own position. It doesn't seem to matter to them that the national interest may be harmed if they block the deal. All that they care about is their partisan causes. Thus, we have the BJP opposing the deal because its acceptance will be a feather in the Manmohan Singh government's cap, the Communists opposing it because of their dogmatic anti-Americanism of the Cold War days, and regional parties like the DMK and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) lukewarm about it because of their uncertain election prospects in Tamil Nadu and Bihar. The Congress too has been uneasy about the Muslim reaction, which is why one of its important members, Salman Khurshid, questioned the government's "now or never" attitude. But these doubting Thomases have all been marginalized by the prime minister's insistence on signing the deal before it is too late. The clincher in a way has been Kalam's statement, which has given a valid excuse to outfits like the Samajwadi Party to back the government on a supposedly pro-American measure.
Comments |
|
Defying pundits and critics itching to write its obituary, the much maligned India-US nuclear deal looked set for a re-birth on the fourth of July, the American independence day, hinting at a larger providential stake in the success of the deal.
I can't go on, says Beckett's Unnamable. I will go on. A writer's injuries are his strengths, and from his wounds will flow his sweetest, most startling dreams.
And Proust, too, killing himself to write his book comes close to the concept of dharma when, echoing Balzac, he says that in the end it's less the desire for fame than 'the habit of laboriousness' that takes a writer to the end of a work. But dharma, as this ideal of truth to oneself, or living out the truth in oneself, can also be used to reconcile men to servitude and make them find in paralyzing obedience the highest spiritual good. 'And do thy duty, even if it be humble,' says the Aryan Gita,
'rather than another's, even it be great. To die on one's duty is life: to live in another' death.
My discovery over the years is that the mother tongues have so much in them, so much that is alive, and are much more pervasive, in all strata of society, in all ages from children to the very old, men and women, literate and non-literate. What holds them together? It's not Sanskrit. It's these mother tongues. I think I went into linguistics because of that. That spoken languages had to be very, very important. It was important in my youth to have discovered this.
Writing is a concentrated form of thinking. I don't know what I think about certain subjects, even today, until I sit down and try to write about them. Maybe I wanted to find more rigorous ways of thinking. We are talking now about the earliest writing I did and about the power of language to counteract the wallow of late adolescence, to define things, define muddled expression in economical ways. Let's not forget that writing is convenient. It requires the simplest tools. A young writer sees that with words and sentences on a piece of paper that costs less than a penny he can place himself more clearly in the world. Words on a page, that's all it takes to help him separate himself from the forces around him, streets and people and pressures and feelings. He learns to think about these things, to ride his own sentences into new perceptions.
Always dream and shoot higher than you know you can do. Don’t bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself. An artist is a creature driven by daemons. He doesn’t know why they chose him and he is usually too busy to wonder why. He is completely amoral in that he will rob, borrow, beg, or steal from anybody and everybody to get the work done.
I am trembling with cold