Author: G Parthasarathy
Publication: The Times of India
Date: June 9, 2008
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/Editorial/Red_Star_Over_South_Block/articleshow/3111987.cms
Introduction: Indian communists' agenda undermines
the nation's security concerns
As the Manmohan Singh government enters its
last year in office, the contradictions in the approach to national security
and foreign policy issues between a mainstream national party like the Congress
on the one hand and the communist parties, which appear determined to make
India a client state of China on the other, are becoming increasingly evident
from the communist opposition to the Indo-US nuclear agreement. There are
also other serious differences between the approach of the communists and
virtually all other national parties on crucial issues of defence, national
security and foreign affairs - differences that cannot be papered over any
longer.
In its 2004 election manifesto, the CPM has
advocated talks between India and Pakistan for a "denuclearised environment"
in South Asia. This CPM formulation would result in India acceding to the
Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) by the back door and in China to becoming the
only nuclear weapons power in Asia.
Interestingly, this formulation coincides
with what China has constantly advocated since 1998, when it demanded that
India should give up its nuclear weapons, sign the NPT and agree to UN intervention
in Jammu and Kashmir, as demanded in the UN Security Council Resolution 1172
of 1998. These demands have been reiterated when China speaks of its reservations
on the Indo-US nuclear deal.
The real reasons for Chinese opposition to
the Indo-US nuclear agreement were voiced in an article in the August 2007
issue of the influential Renmin Jiabao magazine, which stated: "The US-India
nuclear agreement has strong symbolic significance (for) India achieving its
dream of becoming a powerful nation...In fact, the purpose of the US to sign
a civilian nuclear agreement with India is to enclose India into its global
partners' camp. This fits in with India's wishes". The CPM finds fault
with the India-US nuclear agreement for precisely the same reasons as China.
While decrying India's nuclear weapons programme
and making China the sole guarantor of nuclear security in Asia, the CPM overlooks
the entire China-Pakistan nuclear nexus. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are of
Chinese design. China has, over the past three decades, clandestinely provided
Pakistan with nuclear weapons designs and technology, including plutonium
facilities for manufac-turing thermonuclear warheads. Even if we sign a bilateral
agreement for a denuclearised South Asia as the CPM proposes, how do we deal
with clandestine Chinese proliferation to Pakistan? Moreover, the Shaheen-I
and Shaheen-II missiles that Pakistan periodically tests, which are capable
of striking at cities across India, are of Chinese origin. Despite this, the
CPM joins the Chinese in expressing opposition to missile defence systems.
Does the party want Indian population centres to be defenceless against attacks
of nuclear-tipped missiles? Have CPM leaders ever voiced concern about the
Pakistan-China nuclear and missile nexus to their Chinese comrades during
their visits to the Middle Kingdom?
In July 2000, a CPM delegation including Jyoti
Basu and Somnath Chatterjee visited Israel, met then Prime Minister Ehud Barak
and discussed possibilities of increased investments and cooperation in a
number of areas including agriculture, information technology and electronics,
for projects in West Bengal. But, the CPM now vociferously objects to defence
collaboration with Israel, knowing fully well that apart from sophisticated
systems like missiles and airborne warning systems, the electronic monitoring
systems that Israel supplies are crucial for checking infiltration across
the LoC and safeguarding the lives of our soldiers. In its manifesto, the
CPM steadfastly avoids any reference to Pakistan-inspired cross-border terrorism,
while championing the cause of India-Pakistan dialogue, primarily to contain
American influence, while Chinese influence in the region grows. One has yet
to hear a CPM leader unequivocally condemning Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.
While condemning the foreign policies of the
NDA government as being supportive of "US Imperialism", the 2004
CPM manifesto asserted that on foreign policy there is no difference between
the Congress and the BJP. Unlike the CPM, which wants China to be the dominant
power in Asia, with India denuclearised, the Congress party's 2004 manifesto
promised to "fine-tune" India's nuclear and missile capabilities,
while reiterating the country's commitment to nuclear disarmament. Moreover,
while there is a broad-based national consensus on improving ties with China,
virtually every political party in India has been forthright in condemning
continuing Chinese claims to Tawang and indeed to the entire state of Arunachal
Pradesh. The communists alone continue to waffle on Chinese border claims
and maintain that it was India and not China that was guilty of aggression
in the 1962 conflict!
Despite the Indo-US nuclear agreement, there
is strong opposition in the non-proliferation lobby in the US to ending nuclear
sanctions against India. An American academic opposed to ending sanctions
recently noted: "We did not realise that your communists are as opposed
to your nuclear programme as the Chinese. We believe that they would be as
good allies as the Chinese in joining us to end your nuclear weapons programme.
It's a pity that we did not realise this earlier". What our communist
comrades fail to realise is that wittingly or unwittingly, their recipes for
foreign policy and national security fit in beautifully with Chinese long-term
objectives of isolating India by strengthening their own growing ties with
the US, while getting others to undermine India's relations with the United
States.
- The writer is a former high commissioner
to Pakistan.
