Introduction

Indian Foreign Policy over the last twenty years since the end of the Cold War has been forced to reinvent itself and revisit some of its older principles and alliances.   While every country was doing the same, in India this was accompanied by a changing political and economic paradigm within the country.  In many ways, 1991 marked a watershed era in both domestic politics and international policy.   In this short intervention, I will concentrate on pointing out the areas where domestic politics and political ideologies have impacted India’s foreign policy considerations over the last two decades.
Domestic politics started becoming more important since the Congress started losing power at the center and we saw the emergence of coalition politics at the center.  Prior to this, India’s foreign policy was clearly defined as Non-Aligned and post the 1971 war, prompted by the growing  relationship between Pakistan, China and the USA, India tended to support a Soviet led foreign policy agenda.  This was clearly visible in our voting patterns within the UN and in our support of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  The execution of foreign policy was easier since the Congress was the only single largest party in the nation at this juncture.
The emergence of  smaller regional and caste based parties, driven by more local issues, that emerged in post 1977 India,  have tended to focus on vote bank politics when it comes to issues of foreign policy.  Thus the Smajwadi Party tends follow a radical muslim agenda, the BSP has no foreign policy per se, the TDP similarly has none that is apparent.  Similarly, the Tamil Parties tend to impact our Sri Lanka policy to an extent and the Tamil Eelam feeling was crucial in the initial support that India gave the LTTE.   However, they have had minimal national policy impact.
It was the coming to power of the  BJP in the NDA alliance of 1999 that set in place a different agenda for India’s foreign policy and the impact of political ideology took on the difference between the BJP and the Indian National Congress.  In recent years, we felt the impact of the other actor on the domestic front is of course the Left Parties.  I will deal with the basic premises of each political alliance briefly. 

The Congress Party
The Congress continues to take Nehru’s foreign policy principles as its own basic policy guidelines.  The Party’s leadership position within the Freedom Struggle, its avowal of solidarity with all struggles of freedom within the colonial world and its espousal of principles of equality for all nations irrespective of size within the United Nations, characterized the initial years of India’s foreign policy.  Nehruji has always been seen as an international statesman who put forward the idea of Non Alignment to forge a Third World Solidarity against both major powers of the Cold War.  Rajiv Gandhi put in place the first major reassessment of India’s foreign policy when his visit to China in 1988 created a basis for better relations between Asia’s two largest countries.  The collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a new geo-political era for the world as a whole and India was no exception.

 In the post 1990’s, the first foreign policy changes  were discernable in our attempt to expand our relationship with East Asia.  1991 saw the evolution of our Look East Policy that has since become a major foreign policy plank and has been further nurtured by current UPA regime with its emphasis on membership of ASEAN and its push to sign Free Trade Agreements with ASEAN.  While still supporting the broad contours of Third World Solidarity, the Congress has worked on improving its bilateral ties with the United States.  This has been a continuation of the BJP’s tilt towards the US but the Congress has been more reticent on issues of Iran and Iraq than the BJP which saw the US’s was against Islam as a support for its own anti-Islamic minority agenda in India. 

India and the US have come closer together.   We have signed the Indo US Nuclear Agreement and also put in place a detailed economic and strategic partnership.  Moving forward from non-alignment, while not abandoning it or Panchsheel as principles, the Congress party led UPA government has pushed for and increasing role for India at all international fora, especially the Security Council, a role commensurate with its growing economy and strategic might.  The UPA government has also improved its relationship with Japan and entered into intercontinental partnership through its support for the India Brazil South Africa or IBSA forum.  During this period, India has also worked on creating a broad based relationship with China.  Since the visit of Rajiv Gandhi to China in 1988, this policy of rapprochement and dialogue has sustained itself, despite the  continuing disagreements over the border.  China has once again claimed Arunachal and India has maintained its own stand on the issue.  Despite these real irritants, the growing economic relationship between the two countries has ensured that relations remain on an even keel. Today China has a 40 billion trade with us and this is expected to touch the 60 billion mark soon.  Things may slow down on this account because of the overall global recession but each still sees the other as a major future trading partner.  The two countries have also signed a strategic partnership that has led to military exercises jointly. 
Thus overall, the Congress has consistently leveraged India’s national interest while continuing to capitalize on what Nye has called, its Soft Power.   The Congress has always downplayed India’s power projections and this is most visible in its nuclear posture, where despite allowing weaponising, the Congress refused to test a devise.

The Bhartiya Janta Party
The BJP’s foreign policy is characterized by what it itself defines as cultural nationalism.  Its six years in power can be characterized as an aggressive nationalism that saw India go openly nuclear.   Although the ground work had been done, this was BJP’s coming out party where the world was concerned.  The BJP’s tenure was also identified by the first serious turn towards a alliance with America.  Strobe Talbot’s book about his talks with Jaswant Singh show how keen the BJP leadership was to cement ties with the United States.  The commencement of the Iraq War even saw the BJP offer troops to fight in Iraq.  The BJP, based on its ideological cultural Hinduism also sees a broad anti-Pakistan alliance as important.  The Kargil War during the BJP regime meant the end soft approach to Pakistan within the BJP.  Any attempt to woo the minority vote through this strategy was thus laid to rest.  Instead, the BJP concentrated on wooing America and putting in place forum’s such as BIMSTEC that openly excluded China.  They also complicated policy with China when first Vajpayee as PM wrote a letter to Bill Clinton pointing out how India has to go nuclear because of the China threat in its neighbourhood.  This claim was further strengthened by George Fernandez public claim that China was India’s enemy number one.  The BJP thus saw itself as representing an India that represented the interests of a rising middle class by its pro-American policy and its strong nation image through its nuclear posture.  
Within the RSS, of course, even prior to partition,  the idea was of a  Vedic Akhand Bharat that encompassed all the pre Islamic regions up to Afghanistan and included parts of South East Asia on the other side.   In this history, the Aryans were not invaders but the spreaders of a civilization that spread outwards from India.  In their vision, modern India’s foreign policy should once again try to reclaim these lost lands.  This Akhand Bharat ideology has not directly impacted Indian foreign policy and remains an ideological tool to motivate cadre with a dream.  However, their anti-Pakistani jingoism is loud during every election.

The Left
As a third major force ideologically in India, the Left  has always had a clear anti-American posture to its foreign policy.  The Lefts pro-Soviet stance was visible even during the Independence movement when the fledgling Communist Party under the Comintern guidance of M.N. Roy supported first the Germans when the Stalin was aligned with them and supported the British once the Soviet-Allied pact was signed.  Consequently,  they opposed the Quit India movement that was launched in 1944 by Gandhiji. 
Post Independence, the Communist Parties again took their cue from the Soviet Union and opposed India’s freedom with the slogan, ‘Yeh Azadi Jhooti hai’.     They were banned and only emerged once they had agreed to enter parliamentary democracy.  Interestingly, the split between the Communists in India can have said to have occurred due to foreign policy issues.  The 1962 war between India and China brought into the open a split that had been simmering since the break in Sino-Soviet relations since the death of Stalin.  By 1960, Mao had repudiated Kruschev as revisionist and taken over the mantle of the true revolutionary in Asia.  The CPIM supported China while the CPI supported the Soviet Union
In recent years, the CPIM has tried to combine its own ideological anti-Americanism with attempts to cultivate a pro minority (muslim) profile within India.  They have consequently supported all anti American Islamic agendas as well as emerged as Venezuelan President Chavez’s main supporters in India.   They have also led the demonstrations against the Indo US nuclear agreement and lined up with fundamentalist Muslim parties to oppose Bush.  They also tried to paint the Indo-US nuclear agreement as being anti Muslim. Karat, the CPIM General Secretary has also objected to  an Indo-US tie up, calling it an American strategy to gang up against China.  They continue to see China as an important ideological mentor.  They did manage to impact India’s foreign policy to the extent that they held up the agreement till the recent vote of confidence in  Parliament when they withdrew the support of their 60 MP’s to the UPA.  Since then, certainly, their clout has diminished. 

Conclusion
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, when arguing in favour of the Nuclear Agreement with the USA had pointed out how India had failed in recent years to articulate a clear national interest.  Instead, ideological shibboleths and outdated politics withheld the country from playing its full role.  While this may be largely true where the Left is concerned,  on the whole it could be argued that India has had a consensus on foreign policy.  The fact that foreign policy decisions and the signing of all international treaties is seen as the prerogative of the ruling government and an executive decision of the Prime Minister has meant that foreign treaties do not need to be ratified by Parliament.   Over all, each successive government has continued the broad contours of India’s foreign policy as the guarding of India’s territorial integrity, expanding Indian influence internationally through trade and soft power rather than aggression.  Recently Gurcharan Das pointed out how India’s rise does not cause fear while China’s does.  This is because India broadly retains its peaceful and democratic image.  The polyphonic Indian democracy visible in different positions on foreign policy spell a success rather than a detriment for India.  
In the wider perspective, changes in India’s foreign policy have coincided with the end of the cold war.  The emergence of regional power groupings  with an economic and region driven agenda has meant India too has  calibrated its responses by pushing for membership in regional forums such as ASEAN and creating regional forums of its own. It has also meant a reevaluation with the USA, the sole super-power over the 1990s. We have also worked at creating strong ties with Central Asian republics and with the Gulf region.   This has remained a common thrust irrespective of the government or alliance in power.  In the final analysis, we could argue that it is precisely our democratic credentials that we should leverage for foreign policy gain.  This holds true whether it is on issues like Kashmir or on our difference with China.  In a multi-lateral world order, it is precisely India’s consensus building skills that can be a best weapon. 

2.

FOREIGN POLICY IS AN EXTENSION OF DOMESTIC POLICIES

Response to QUESTIONNAIRE

1. One is often disappointed at the lack of adequate appreciation in India of the changing nature of our relationship with the world and indeed with the region around us. Very often, we adopt political postures that are based in the past and are out of line with our current interests as an increasingly globalised and globally integrated economy. Do you agree with the view  that there is inadequate recognition at home of the increasing interdependence between India and the [rest of the] world, and the consequences thereof for our domestic policies?

1.Your basic assumption that there is not adequate appreciation of the changing nature of our relationship with the world and indeed with the region around us, itself is unfounded.  People raising such doubts actually presume that foreign policy is an independent phenomenon and should be determined by the changing nature of the world. Foreign policy of any country is actually extension of its domestic, especially the economic policy. Economic policies determine the so-called “national interests”. Foreign policy has to promote these national interests.

One can see it in American policy pronouncements. For each and every misadventure world over, Americans will justify it calling it in their “national interests”. Here I need not elaborate what Americans mean by their national interests. Imposing their hegemony, both politically and economically, is key to their national interests. For oil and access to other’s natural resources, Americans will not hesitate to destroy one or the other country.  The American foreign policy postures in Middle-east clearly demonstrate this position.
Unfortunately, in India, certain sections are indirectly suggesting that the foreign policy should be determined by recognizing the inter-dependence of the world, an illusion created by the protagonists of economic neo-liberalism and not by our national interests.

2. Should serious and complex foreign policy issues become the subject of a political drama being played out in public as witnessed in recent  times ?

3. Do you agree with the view that Indian foreign policy has been hijacked by the minority agenda? How do you  look at the attempts to communalise the foreign policy issues?

One should always remember that there was a national consensus on foreign policy till India adhered to the path of mixed economy. This was the concept of mixed economy propounded by Nehru and carried forward by Indira Gandhi and to some extent by Rajiv Gandhi that gave rise to concepts like non-alignment and unity of the third world. As the basic nature of NAM was anti-imperialist, communists too joined the efforts to build national consensus on foreign policy. It started cracking when Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh duo started deviating from the concept of mixed economy under the garb of economic reforms. It totally collapsed when the subsequent ruling coalitions went for full-fledged implementation of economic neo-liberalism and chewed all the baits thrown by imperialist economic institutions like IMF-World Bank and financial sharks like transnational corporations.  This brought the distortions in the foreign policy.
4.Should the political parties use foreign policy issues for domestic politics and convert matters of national interest into electoral issues?

4.As stated earlier, foreign policy is extension of domestic policy. The two are not separate phenomenon. Differences on economic policies will definitely have reflections on foreign policy.

5. What has led to the erosion of political consensus on foreign policy matters? How to evolve a non-partisan and consensual approach towards sensitive issues?

6. How do you look at the politics of opposition in matters of foreign policy as political parties in power and in opposition indulge in double talk?

7.What is the impact of politics of coalition government on foreign policy matters as parties present regional interests as India’s national interest?

Soon after winning the tainted trust vote, Prime Minister said that he had been freed from the “bonded labour” status. Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said that now the process of economic reforms will be carried forward freely. Both felt that the Left was the main hurdle in carrying forward the “economic reforms” that is carrying forward the agenda of economic neo- liberalism. Provident fund and Pensions fund are being handed over to the private operators in the name of “reform”. Legislation has been introduced to hand over the banking and insurance sector to foreign capital.

8.If domestic politics impacts India’s relations with the rest of the world, the issues of foreign policy and foreign policy interactions also impinge on domestic  politics and domestic policy processes. Do you agree?

9.How to strike a balance between the concerns of various ethnic , national and religious groups and the formulation of non-partisan and consensual foreign policy based on national interests? 

10. Should foreign policy issues be determined by national interests or ideological posturing which sometimes leads to a situation of win or lose? 

• As repeatedly asserted in this write up, there is nothing like de-ideologisation of foreign policy. This concept propagated by Gorbachev brought the disaster to erstwhile Soviet Union. It will be much more disastrous for India, a multi-ethical, multi linguistic and multi-religious country.   

3.

There has to be a  consensus on matters of national security

-NNJha

Former Ambassador of India
& Lt. Governor

 

(NN Jha, former Indian Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Nepal , in conversation with Dr. Mahendra Gaur , Director, FPRC, responds to questions on various aspects of ‘Indian Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics’.)

 

MG :  Welcome to an interview with former Indian Ambassador N.N.Jha.

NNJha : An important question here is “Should foreign policy issues be determined by national interests or ideological posturing, which sometime leads to a situation of win or lose.”  I think this is perhaps the most important question of this questionnaire and there can be no two opinions about the fact that foreign policy issues must be determined solely by national, and if I may add, security interest considerations.

To give a most recent example, current example in fact, is the present government’s reaction on the Israeli attack in Gaza.  It can be said, it can be argued that the Israeli reaction has been very disproportionate to the actual damage inflicted by the ‘Hamas’ on Israel, through shelling and so on.

That’s one line, well that’s one point but more important  point is that the statement should have, instead of condemning, talked of deploring or expressing deep regret and called upon both sides to commence the process of negotiating a settlement.

MG :  Do you think it’s not a balanced reaction?

NNJha:  No I don’t think so because firstly both sides are responsible in different degrees, as I said earlier.  But that apart, we must, at all times, keep in mind that our security linkages with Israel are very, very strong.  After Russia it is the second largest supplier of weaponry and military technology to India and even some orders, even the other day I saw in the papers, some joint projects in the defense field between the Indian DRDO and the Israeli IAI, Israel Aircraft Industry, something like that.

Now that should be the first primary consideration in our mind and if one has to be thick skinned, one should be  thick skinned about it .But in all event realistic and practical.

MG:  What about the reaction of the Indian political parties when Indo-US nuclear deal was being  debated in India?  Don’t you think that position adopted by the government and the opposition parties was an example of extremes ?

NNJha :  In this case the main opposition party, the NDA, the BJP-NDA, its reaction was somewhat I would say different from the CPM and others.  The NDA was upset by the fact that there was no great transparency about negotiations with the U.S. and that no attempt was made to take along the main opposition party that is the BJP-NDA.

Had the government tried to do that it would have got some greater mileage, both at home and abroad.

MG :  What about the Leftist?  They were going to the other extreme-  either you go with the deal or you don’t go with the deal and they put the government also at a stake.Should foreign policy issues be determined by ideological posturing …?

NNJha :  No, not at all, not at all.  Their opposition is based entirely, as I see it, on the fact that it was an agreement with USA. Had it been with China, they would have supported it strongly and also secondly, because they felt that there is a great deal of talk about the agreement being directed eventually at China, this was not acceptable to them.

So, it is more a kind of an emotional reaction based on considerations of the past, which are now outdated.  But having said that, I think the ultra secrecy with which the whole thing was negotiated by the government, the total lack of confidence was harmful to India’s interests.   Had they consulted the BJP-NDA the latter could have come up with some very interesting suggestions which would have made the agreement more palatable.

MG :  Do you think instead of the UPA-Left Coordination Committee, it should have been an all-party committee which should have gone in to this issue…?

NNJha :  At least on this issue. On important issues there has to be a  national consensus on matters of national security and vital national concern, like there is in U.K., U.S. etc.  When the 9/11 took place in the U.S. there was no sort of mudslinging at each other, I mean but that possibly came later.  But at that particular moment there was completing unanimity and solidarity among all sections of the American people to combat this terrorism.

MG :  When this deal was being discussed in the U.S. Congress, both Senator McCain and Obama, were looking to the national interest, their business interests , that’s why they were united in what they said on this subject.  They did not make it an issue in U.S.  Presidential poll.  Should we also not work  on  similar lines ?

NNJha :  Exactly, we have to move in that direction and we have to, after 61 years of independence, show a little more understanding, a little more maturity in such matters. We should also understand that the Indian people now are more mature about foreign affairs and are much more interested in foreign affairs now than they were previously.

MG :  One is often disappointed at the lack of adequate appreciation in India , of the changing nature of our relationship with the world and indeed with the region around us. Very often, political postures adopted are based in the past and are out of line with our current interests as an increasingly globalised and globally integrated economy. Do you agree with the view  that there is inadequate recognition at home of the increasing interdependence between India and the [rest of the] world, and the consequences thereof for our domestic policies? Should we not come out of that old ‘cold war’ mindset?   We should go by what is currently happening in the world and how India can relate with these  developments  in international politics.  We should look at our own interests and have relations with the countries.

NNJha :  Exactly, I agree with you.  I am glad you said so.  This is exactly the way we should pursue our foreign policy and there has not been enough of that in my opinion and there’s too much concern with the electoral considerations, voting patterns, keeping certain sections of the population happy and on their side.

MG : It is said in certain quarters that our foreign policy is being hijacked by the minority agenda.

NNJha :  Well, I will personally, in all fairness , not go to that extent – hijacking by the minority, organizations or by minority thinking but the minorities  had  perhaps  been given an impression that the government ,on its part,   in its overall scheme of minoritism ,  is not entirely averse to what they feel or how they react.  So it is a kind of an approach that seizes on each other’s approach.

MG :  When Indo-US nuclear deal was being discussed, there was an attempt to communalize such an important foreign policy issue. All sort of propaganda was being made -that this is against a particular minority community in India, that’s why we should oppose it. Should such propaganda or such campaign should be there in case of foreign policy issues…?

NNJha :  Not at all, this was a wrong ground on which to oppose it.  If it had to be opposed, as everybody was fully within his rights to oppose it, it’s individual right and a party’s right to…

MG :  Then it could have been on the merits of the…

NNJha :  On merits of the case and for bringing up further improvements.

MG :    There was a time when we always used to talk about consensus on foreign policy issues and the previous governments had this in mind that we should take along all the political viewpoints whether it is ‘right’ or ‘left’.  Do you think that this consensus base has  eroded?

NNJha :  Oh very much so.  There’s no such thing as political consensus now.  The political consensus should extend to this – foreign affairs matters-vital matters of foreign affairs and national security and also on important domestic legislation.

 MG :  What should be the mechanism to evolve consensus on foreign policy?  How we should proceed in this direction to evolve consensus on foreign policy issues?

NNJha :  Well, the government of the day should keep in touch with the opposition leaders and exchange ideas with them.  It could be at the high level or it can be a small step below the high level and that is for every one to decide at the time and also given the importance of the particular question at either the high level or medium level or somewhere in between.

That’s not important but the point is there should be consultations and if they evolve now, if they start the system now I am sure that it will strike roots before long and become a matter of course of our routine.

MG :  When 26/11 took place, the approach of all the political parties and the government was on the right track.  They were all united. Should this practice not become a permanent feature of our polity…?

NNJha :  It should be a permanent feature but this was such a major and serious event when Indians were so angry and so bitter that no political party anywhere in the world would have had the guts to oppose it or not fallen in line.  Though I dare say there were some individuals who took a somewhat different line which is regrettable, mainly in the government.

MG :  There has been a complaint about regional parties that they take up regional issues  having an impact on  India’s relations with foreign countries, particularly neighbours. The  regional political agenda becomes  a national agenda so far as foreign policy is concerned.  Recent developments in Sri Lanka have become an issue in Tamil Nadu politics.

NNJha :  Well, this is quite understandable up to a point because Tamil Nadu is the main factor which I think you have in mind. 

MG :  There is also the issue of  influx of Bangladeshis in Assam…

NNJha :  That’s for different reason, the Congress and the CPM parties, they are valuable vote bank for them.  It’s not because of Bengali sentiment, not at all.  But in Tamil Nadu the main problem understandably is the Sri Lanka situation because about 13% or 14% of the entire total population of Sri Lanka is Tamilian, either we call them Indian Tamils or they call them Jaffna Tamils  but they are all Tamilians and Sri Lanka is only 20-odd miles separated from the Indian mainland by sea.  The southern tip of Indian mainland and the northern tip of Sri Lanka, that part, the tip is Tamil areas of both sides.  So it’s understandable up to a point and I am very glad that the Tamil Nadu politicians, most of them have recognized that it’s a tough issue for the Center, can not interfere in domestic affairs of other countries and so on and so forth but it also means that Sri Lankan government should take this fact into account in formulating  its policy towards the Tamil militants and Tamil population in general.

MG :  Then only some sort of solution can come out,  taking the sentiments of people of Tamil Nadu into consideration.

NNJha :  That’s right. I mean they cannot go entirely by what they say , guided by them, but they should factor it into their overall thinking and overall foreign policy projections in Sri Lanka because this is their main problem, foreign affairs problem. It’s the Tamil Nadu versus Sri Lanka, so they won’t match that way.

MG : It has been a regular complaint against all political parties that  
their stand on various important issues of foreign policy depends on their being in power or in being in opposition. How do you look at the politics of opposition in matters of foreign policy as political parties in power and in opposition indulge in double talk?

NNJha :  Unfortunately, we haven’t got to the stage yet, as I said earlier, or we are already in consensus certainly on vital national issues.  I think we will slowly reach it and we should be patient about it because the circumstances or the way things evolve will compel this recognition.  Secondly, as I said earlier, the Indian people’s greater interest in foreign affairs, thanks mainly to the communications revolution, the TV, the media etc., will compel all concerned  to take them all united or closer cooperation approach toward the evolution of foreign policy with any country.

So I am not particularly worried about that because I would like it to be there but I know that we have to be patient.  This still is a young country in the sense of important practices.

MG :  Public opinion then becomes very relevant in this matter…

NNJha :  And become more and more so because the media is now much more powerful than ever before in India.

MG :  Anything more you would like to say on the subject…?

NNJha :  Indian foreign policy should always be concerned with projecting national capabilities, protecting national interest and safeguarding them in every possible manner. 

Foreign policy is not an exercise in morality, in any country, not only us, it’s been any country in the world.

MG :  In that case public diplomacy exercise will become more important and relevant.

NNJha :  It does, it does, yes. It gives everyone a chance to emphasize the national priorities.

MG:  And there should be more communication between the people and the government,

Thank you very much.

 

4.

National interest is not a term of explanation or guidance, it is essentially a term of justification

-Achin Vanaik
 

(Achin Vanaik is a professor of international relations and global politics at Delhi University. He’s a founding member of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, a group founded after India conducted its first nuclear test in ’98. Professor Vanaik, in an interview with Dr. Mahendra Gaur, Director, FPRC,
expresses his views on ‘Indian Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics’, the central theme of this issue of FPRC Journal.)

MG :  Do you agree that there is inadequate  recognition at home of the increasing interdependence between India and the rest of the world and the consequences thereof, for our domestic policies. 

AV:  Well, the answer to this more general question is that in poor countries like India, the vast majority of people will not be preoccupied with issues of foreign policy.  If you are referring to your Indian elite or the Indian middle-class,  then of course the answer would be somewhat different.  There is obviously going to be much more interest and concern about interdependence between  India and the rest of the world.

So that would be my short answer to this question about concern.  If you are talking about political parties, academic institutions, the media, then the answer is obviously different than just the question of how people in India feel about it.  The English language national media does take note of it.  Other regional papers which have significant circulations also do. And of course, there is a kind of filtering of news and analysis from the big papers towards other smaller papers but those smaller papers of course will be much more concerned  with local issues, being local papers themselves.

So that would be my view about the media. And academic institutions must the same. But academic institutions are not so preoccupied when they think of foreign policy with contemporary events.  They have their own syllabuses and follow that.
 
MG :  Actually  this question lays emphasis on the fact that we should come out of the old mindset about our relations with the rest of the world. 

AV :  Well in that regard what I can say is that the problem is not so much coming out of the old mindset.  The problem is what kind of a new mindset you are adopting, just the fact of it being new doesn’t necessarily make it good.  So, for example, many of us would be fiercely critical of the new direction that Indian foreign policy is taking, including the Indo-US nuclear deal, which is reflective and expressive of that.

MG:  Should serious and complex foreign policy issues become the subject of the political drama being played out in public as witnessed in recent times?

AV :  My short answer to that is yes.  There’s a contradiction between the first question and the second question in the sense that on the one hand one is asking is there enough concern about Indian foreign policy and its processes of integration of the Indian economy with the others, and then the second question is that should they become a subject of political drama?

MG:  The question is should we discuss the issues seriously or should we make just mere postures about foreign policy?

AV :  Oh, you have both.  You have both these elements in the media, by political parties, that varies from political party to political party  because different political parties don’t necessarily have that much interest in these issues and so on, and there is posturing by the government and there is posturing by political parties.  There is serious discussion in media, there is unserious discussion in the media.  There are all kinds of things and one thing is that when you have some issue like the Indo-US nuclear deal or anything else, which is controversial, that each side will accuse the other side- Oh! we are doing the sensible discussion and you are doing the posturing. On one side, we are the sensible people and you are making it unnecessary political drama.  So Manmohan Singh and others will say why is the Left making political drama out of this?  Right?  And the Left and many people say  ‘what nonsense?  You, Mr. Manmohan Singh and the Congress party and the BJP are posturing and making it and refusing to have serious argument and discussion and covering up matters because it suits you and you want to justify your policy. So this exchange of political drama is going on both sides and that’s what you expect.

MG:  Do you agree with the view that Indian foreign policy has been hijacked by the minority agenda?

AV :  What do you mean by the minority agenda? 

MG:  Our foreign policy and our relations with certain countries have been influenced by the minority vote bank. Our relations with Israel to a certain extent have  been influenced by …

AV:  Minority, do you mean muslims?

MG :  No, I mean minority agenda, the vote bank  politics

AV :  So which vote bank politics are you talking about, because there is the vote bank, Hindu vote bank politics, there’s muslim vote bank, also there is caste vote bank politics, so what exactly you’re referring to when you are talking about the minority agenda?

MG :  So far as the relations with the countries of Middle East are concerned

AV :  Then you are referring to muslims and party of this thing…

MG :  For long domestic Muslim population played a significant role in influencing, shaping and at times determining India’s Middle East policy. Our diplomatic relations with Israel were delayed for a very long time. 

AV :  No, not necessarily.  In fact the interesting thing is that there is strategic consolidation and the growing close relationship between India and Israel is itself an indication that the muslim vote bank or minorities are not influencing significantly.

MG :  Don’t you think, it was a delayed realization on the part of India?

AV :  No, in fact I am deeply hostile to the India-Israel relationship.  I think it is one of the most disgraceful aspects of Indian foreign policy which is now reflecting itself in the what you call ‘hypocritical’ manner in which the Indian government is responding to what Israel is doing in Gaza.  In fact there is a complete lack of any influence, forget about minority agenda  and sober  realization of what Israel stands  for.

The two most horrible injustices in the world over the last 30 years has been, of course, the question of apartheid and the question of Israel and Gaza and instead of an Israel being isolated and weakened what you’re having is a rationalization and justification of that agenda etc., and unfortunately, this is of course what is connected to the communalization, the second part of your question, how do you look at the attempts to communalize the foreign policy?

The communalization of foreign policy issue is done from the ‘right’, and from the Hindu ‘right’ , not from the muslims who are of course majoritively much more powerful.  In fact it is the Hindu ‘right’ and Hindutva which smashed previous Indian foreign policy perspectives by having the 1998 nuclear test which has now become the elite consensus including the Congress and so on.

MG :  What about the attitude of the muslims towards  Indo-US N-deal. It was propagated that they  were  against  it …

AV :  Those are broad generalizations about muslims, they  must be opposed to the nuclear deal and so on.  This of course is a communalization but the more serious, I mean this is presented as if they are really influencing there and that they shouldn’t, we shouldn’t listen to their concerns.

The tragedy is in fact Indian foreign policy has been communalized by the Hindu majoritarian ‘right ‘which then accuses others. In fact let me remind you, the first time that Sharon was invited came under the BJP rule.  Earlier, of course, there were attempts but they were secret, it came under the BJP rule.  A further acceleration, a very substantial acceleration of the India-Israel relationship came from that whereas ideological commonalities of a very significant kind between Hindu communalism -Hindutva and Zionism and so the communalization that has taken place is not just standard critique of how muslims and other parties which are concerned about the muslim vote bank instead.

It’s in fact a much more serious shift which has come from the pressure of the Hindu ‘right’ and Hindutva which has grown over the last 10-15 years and what they have done has become a kind of common sense.  In fact it was the Strobe Talbot and Jaswant Singh talks which took place, which opened the new era.  It was Clinton’s visit a year after during the NDA rule led by the BJP that were crucial turning points and the Congress and others have accepted it.

It’s a break from the past and break from the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi’s horror at nuclear weapons and his commitment to the Palestinian cause.  Now that is one break which in my view is absolutely shameful.

MG :  Should the political parties use foreign policy issues for domestic politics and convert matters of national interest into electoral issue?

AV :The problem here is assumption that there is something called,  as a matter of routine, national interest that guides us.  In fact this is precisely the problem.  National interest or the idea that states can actually do  , as a matter of routine. Of course there will be occasions like a national liberation struggle or whatever, where the national popular will is so strong that you can talk about national interest but all societies like India and others, are classed and socially divided and the state is structurally biased towards particular classes and entities.

What does this mean?  It means that the idea of national interest assumes that you have a socially neutral state which pursues the national interest of everybody because anybody is crazy enough to believe that the United States is more concerned about the interests of poor blacks  than the corporate sector.  Do you think that the Indian state is as deeply concerned about landless labourers than it is about the corporate sector in India? Do you think that the Indian state is as concerned about Dalits as it is about upper caste or do you think Indian state is as concerned about women as it is as committed to men?  So the whole notion of a national interest is guiding this thing, has been repeated so many times that everybody believes in it instead of questioning it.

In fact, the most important point to recognize about national interest is that it’s not a term of explanation, it is not a term of guidance, it is essentially a term of justification.  Anything can be done in the name of national interest.  We should have the deal; we should not have the deal; we should have the bomb, we should not have the bomb; we should do this; we have this, the very notion doesn’t even have any control over the range and option of policy choices.In fact that’s precisely the point.  It’s a term of justification, that’s essentially what it is.

Every person pushes his particular point of view and the state, which is structurally biased against different classes and others, pursues its interest which are not reflective of the interest of the whole community but which are biased towards others and then present its choice and justifies its choice in the name of national interest and then of course we’ll have the other side also doing, that’s what is meant by the idea of national interest, is a term of justification.  It is not a term of guidance, it’s not a term of explanation.  I have written about this and it’s a long discussion.

In fact once you recognize that the state is structurally biased then don’t talk about the state pursuing interest of everybody.  Only on certain rare occasions, somebody has attacked us and we have, just unfairly, we have to overthrow authoritarian rule like an emergency which benefits everybody or something.  But otherwise, let’s not delude ourselves that this, it’s a serious term in foreign policy thinking.  Unfortunately it dominates.

 MG :  Now we come to  another important question on the subject. What has led to the erosion of political consensus on foreign policy matters and how can we  evolve a non-partisan and consensual approach towards sensitive  foreign policy issues?

AV :  My response to that is why should we have a consensus?  It’s only you’re going to talk about consensus if you’re going to say ‘oh, national interest demands a consensus’.  The moment you question the notion of national interest they are going to question the notion of consensus.  In fact what is necessary is that representatives and forces which represent the poorest sections of Indian society, the most discriminated and exploited sections of Indian society, women, lower castes, Dalits, the poor urban and rural etc., they are the ones whose interest should be put forward first and considered first primarily but it is not.

So therefore the idea, the role of political consensus becomes a disguise for pushing the interest of the dominant categories, classes, castes of India and then justifying them ‘oh, why don’t you listen to us? There should be consensus because we are doing this for you, for your good’.  What is the contradiction between the corporate sector and lenders, if we benefit you will benefit,  so we will all benefit.  Why should anybody accept this? In fact, the interest of corporate sector and middle class clash with others, the interest of upper caste and lower caste clash, the interest of men and women clash, therefore you have to choose your sides and you have to fight for what are the interests you wish to defend and you have to pursue your foreign policy in the interest of those who most need it and not your pretend yourself another that ‘oh, there is some consensus between them’ which is of course the standard attitude with regard to the debate in India on this thing. 

So I question that debate seriously, incidentally, you’re not going to find this kind of thing coming from your standard politicians, academics and others that you’re linking but that my view shows the intellectual and moral lack because in the name of national interest and so- called amorality, you justify the things whether it’s nuclear bomb, whether it’s a strategic alliance with the United States, whether it’s a strategic alliance with Israel.

MG :  The question of consensus, you know, was emphasized in the context of Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attack. It was  suggested that we should have some mechanism by which we can evolve some sort of consensus on vital foreign policy issues.

AV :  No, I am afraid there’s a problem over there.  The attacks in Mumbai were terrible of course, what has to be done about it and so on, but when you talk about the problem of terrorism there’s a great difference between the terrorism of the non-state actors and the terrorism of the strong and the terrorism of the strong is actually the terrorism that is carried out by the state, the Indian state for example.

We talk with terrible horror about how this attack on 200 civilians is a great offence to Indian society.  The biggest danger in Indian society is the rise of Hindutva.  Let us not forget that Modi organizes and is responsible for that POTA and let us not forget that the Prime Minister at that time Atal Bihari Vajpayee rationalized it and justified it. And that is a far more serious danger than what happened in Mumbai, which of course is something that we have to oppose but look at the scale of terrorism that is carried out by the states and by non-state actors.

200 people die here, how many people have been killed in Gaza by the Israeli state, and what do you have on terror, should we learn from this and how could we beat terrorism?  This is the language that has been talked about it here by the Indian elite.And do you know how many civilians have been killed by the United States of America over the last 50 years  after second world war period?  They have killed, if you like, in the millions, innocent civilians.

And what does United States of America say?  Oh, we must have a way of war on global terror.  They keep their mouth shut about what Israel is doing, they support that, they justify their killings, over 6, 7, 8, 9 million people have died, more than the number of civilians killed by all the other countries put together outside of their borders.  Inside of course there are terrible things etc.  So let’s be serious about this question of how to deal with terrorism.

Just like, what my point is that the debate on foreign policy is as dishonest and distorted as the debate on the question of terrorism and this distorted debate in many ways gives rise to this argument about that.  We have a responsibility to fight for a much more moral and humane and impartial society in which we are going to condemn and oppose what happened in Mumbai and we’re also going to condemn and oppose what the Indian state is doing in the North East, what it is doing in Kashmir.  What Hindutva has been doing and Modi and others are not even been touched by the Indian state.  We have a very, very, very serious problem and it cannot be just by simplicities about how we must build a consensus and how we must deal with that and the usual questions.

MG :  Now we come to another question. How do you look at the politics of opposition in matters of foreign policy as political party in power and in opposition indulging  in double talk?

AV :  Well they don’t just indulge in double talk.  If you look at political parties in India you will find that there are basically three political parties that take, I mean the political parties would take the question of foreign policy seriously, the Congress, the BJP and the Left parties.

The other parties which are, if you like, socially sectoral parties or regional parties, if you like, they are regional parties, they are basically of two types.  One are regional parties which will remain regional parties and have no ambition to expand, Akali Dal, Anna DMK, DMK, TDP… they are based there.

BSP is a sectoral party which has a social base among Dalits which would like to expand. Of course JD and others, they would like to expand into other parts but TDP doesn’t want to go into U.P. and all that.  So this geographical and socially sectoral character means that they are much, much more preoccupied with domestic politics on how to expand there and therefore they don’t have a problematic perspective worked out about what to do internationally.

So they will basically go along to whatever extent is the party in power on the basis of bargaining that ‘you give us this and this and therefore Indo-US nuclear deal… and all that, huh’?  So it’s more a question of not having, in fact what’s very striking is that these regional political parties are very important for any government to be formed at the center but they don’t have an international perspective, they don’t even have an all India national perspective, precisely because of that.

Again, they are a regional party but they always have, because that’s a peculiarity of the Left, the CPI and the CPM, even if they are small or even if you have a small Left group they will always have an international perspective and a national perspective even if they had no capacity to be able to follow that.

MG :  Now I come to a very important question of the impact of politics of coalition government on foreign policy matters.

AV :  Well first of all you know what I think about India’s national interest, it’s a phrase which is a cover up for seriously thinking about such matters rather than a contribution for seriously thinking about such matters, and the other part of the question I have already answered.  The most striking thing about regional parties here is that they don’t think about either the national or the international level, they think in terms of how they can expand, what they can get and that thing.

MG :  If domestic politics impacts India’s relations with the rest of the world, the issues of foreign policy and foreign policy interactions also impinge on domestic politics and domestic policy processes.  Do you agree?

AV :  Yes, yes, and that’s absolutely what it is.  In fact you cannot separate the domestic and the international and what you mean by international politics is of course many things and you have domestic politics influencing international politics and you will have international politics also influencing domestic politics.  I’ll give you examples.

The accession to power of the BJP and the Sangh combine this thing here, halted, in a very important way, international policy.  For example, the 1974 Pokharan test till 1998,  the consensus view among the parties was ‘keep the option open; don’t close it; don’t exercise it’.  Even BJP said this is lowest common ground but do you know that the BJP and it’s forerunner, the Jansangh were demanding the bomb from the 1950s, before China had the bomb, before Pakistan had the bomb, they were saying it and in fact I was one of the people, as far as I know, publicly, I wrote a book in 1994 which came out in 1995 and I predicted that if the BJP comes to power they will go ahead with a bomb and as far as I know I was only public…why did I believe that?  Because it has nothing to do with Pakistan and China.  It had everything to do with the ideology of Hindutva as to how to make India strong.

What is the famous line of Savarkar?  ‘Unite Hindus and militarize Hindus’ and this domestic factor, they are not hiding it.  They were saying it from the 50s, it was very, very crucial so that’s one way.  Domestic politics, BJP and some combined, remember that that was a coalition government, right?  But all the political parties in the NDA coalition did not know about the test.  The RSS which is not elected was actually privy to the decision.  This is a disgraceful aspect but there it is.

What is the other way?  Of course the international politics of United States and others to try to promote a particular form of economic globalization has crucial impact on domestic politics.  We want FDI, we want this thing FDI and foreign investment and we want the integration of the elite so that the elite can also enjoy the consumerism of that and that of course Chandra Babu Naidu says very good.  What we must do is we must allow much more freely foreign investment into Andhra Pradesh because that will help us and they are very happy that now they can have more flexibility with regard to the central government to do that because of changes in domestic policies and so on.  So these are all ways in which the two act.

MG :  How to strike a balance between the concerns  of various ethnic, national and religious groups and the formulation of non-partisan and consensual foreign policy based on  national interest ? This question  has become relevant in the context of happenings  in Sri Lanka and its impact on Tamil Nadu politics .

AV :  It’s not but again my answer is very simple.  Give up this idea of the importance of national interest and that there is something called national interest and that adopt it as a consensus.

MG :  Do you think that their concerns  should not be taken into account?

AV :  No, let me finish what I am saying here. I am saying is of course is that there are different, I think the starter groups, various groups and all, right?  The crucial distinction you have to make with all of these things is not simply to try and carry that along because that’s never going to happen.  The crucial thing is you have to decide what do you stand for?  Do you stand for a perspective, both domestic and international, that moves towards greater decency, justice, against and opposed to oppression or exploitation of different groups, both domestically and internationally?

If that is the perspective you have then of course the crucial question is that how you are going to move towards that?  Here is the capacity of different oppressed groups of various kinds to be able to exercise pressure and change the relationship of forces.

Now with regard to ethnic groups, they state these distinctions  are important, you have to have a system of dialogue for all the various groups and their representative, and in that context a central government can at least listen and respect and try to understand this thing and they should also come into the public arena for serious debate.

But of course that doesn’t happen.  The good example of this is -  look at the behavior of both the Pakistani government and the Indian government in Kashmir. Both the Pakistani government and the Indian government says this is an issue for us to resolve bilaterally, where do the people and the representatives of Kashmir, on both sides of border, come into this and say ‘look, this is our future which you are deciding, we must play a crucial role’, and what does the Pakistani government do?  Well it keeps the control over their part.  What does the Indian government…?  Yes, yes, yes, we must listen to you, this, that etc., and then of course but you’re not that important, we would deal with our Muslim vote.

Ultimately we will not tolerate this, you thinking that you should do it here.  So these are very real, very, very real problems and issues that justified the much more fundamental foundational structural change that you have to bring in at both levels, both in terms of India and both in terms of internationally and let me assure you that there are standard bunch of academics, media people, strategic experts, governments don’t think this way.  They think that ‘oh, what is this nonsense about moving towards greater justice and this and that, internationally etc.’.  The world is amoral, it’s a question of power, we must get power.

MG :  Thank you very much for talking to FPRC.

 





5.


STOP COMMUNALISATION
OF
INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

                            -Dr. Shyam Mohan Mishra
Jiwaji University

The debate on the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement was a political one and the arguments stemmed from the political persuasion of the protagonists. Rarely has an international treaty evoked the passion which the Indo-US agreement has managed to. The reason for the same is not far to seek. It is apparent that the passion has more to do with the politics of the agreement than the actual terms of the agreement. By far the worst manifestation of the politicisation of the 123 Agreement, and Indian foreign policy, was the regrettable attempt to communalise the issue. Nothing could have been more avoidable than the remark that those "supporting" the deal would lose their Muslim votebank. In the history of Indian democracy, this remark must rank among the most damaging to its secularism and diversity. It is unfair to the Muslim community in India to assume that it opposes the agreement by virtue of religion.

LEFT PARTIES
The Leftists, particularly the Marxists, opposed the nuclear deal, on ideological grounds. M.K. Pandhe, a member of the CPM Politburo, introduced a new dimension to the party’s opposition to the deal in the context of conflicting signals from the Samajwadi Party over its stand on the deal. When asked about reports that there had been a warming up between the Congress and the Samajwadi Party, Pandhe said: “It is no doubt a serious development. We still hope that Mulayam Singh Yadav will think twice before he decides to go with the UPA on this issue (the deal) because an overwhelming majority of the Muslim masses are not in favour of it.” He wondered how the Samajwadi Party could be persuaded to support the deal as “Mulayam’s support is much more among the Muslim masses”. He also asserted that a majority of the Muslims are opposed to the deal. It is not known on what basis he made these assertions . It was not for the CPM to bother whether a policy decision taken by the Samajwadi Party will be acceptable to its cadres. It is true that self-serving politicians use religion for political purposes. The Marxists who believe that religion is opium for the masses were not expected to use the religious card in the debate on the nuclear deal.  A couple of years ago, party General-Secretary Prakash Karat used a Muslim rally in Lucknow to criticise India’s stand against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency. Seen in conjunction with Mr Pandhe’s statement, it seems one of the undisclosed reasons for the CPM’s opposition to the nuclear deal was the fear that Muslims in West Bengal and Kerala would turn against the party. Prakash Karat, the CPM General Secretary, distanced his party from Politburo member and CITU chief M.K. Pandhe’s identification of this country’s Muslims with opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal. Pandhe had tried to halt speculation about a possible Samajwadi Party bailout of the UPA in case the government risked the Left’s support and went ahead with the deal. He suggested to the SP that it could lose the Muslim vote, thereby imputing to this country’s Muslims a reflexive religious identification with anti-Americanism and, by extension, prioritisation of their religious identity above considerations of the national interest. It was a shocking statement, loaded with communal provocation. By the promptness and unambiguity of the rebuff it elicited from Muslim leaders and organisations — and even from the SP — it showed the falsity of these generalisations about Muslims.
SAMAJWADI PARTY
SP general secretary Amar Singh said it was unfortunate that attempts are being made to communalise the issue. According to him, those forces trying to communalise the deal and claiming that the Muslims were against it were questioning the integrity of the minority community. Stating that the deal was in the national interest, he added: “Muslims are Indians first and they will support anything that is good for India.”  A group of 50 Muslim intellectuals emphasized that an electoral alliance with the Congress was essential for the SP. “The most important thing is to form a secular front including the Congress, to fight communal forces in the state.  “The nuclear deal is much lower in the Muslims’ priority list.” “The nuclear deal is not a Muslim issue. It is an energy issue involving the interests of the country.”
The Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party  were battling for Muslim votes in Uttar Pradesh and the big issue, this time, was the nuclear deal. The main concern of the Samajwadi Party, supporting the United Progressive Alliance government and the nuclear deal, was the reaction of Muslim votes in Uttar Pradesh. Its leaders were rightly worried about the consequences the party may have to face in Uttar Pradesh — more so, since Muslims form the biggest support base of the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh — than the advantages of saving the United Progressive Alliance government at the Centre. With the contours of a Congress-Samajwadi Party pact taking shape, the focus of the two parties was to prevent the Bharatiya Janata Party from coming to power at the Centre and also to counter the threat posed by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Mayawati. Former Minister and SP’s Muslim face, Mohammad Azam Khan said that the common Muslim masses were unaware of the nuke deal and the Darul Uloom, Deoband has issued a fatwa that the Muslims should stop worrying as the nuclear deal was not a religious issue. Deriding the Muslim clerics for meeting Ms. Mayawati, he said they were earlier with Mr. Mulayam Singh for 20 years but failed to get even 20 votes. The Naib Imam of Lucknow’s Aishbagh Idgah, Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali, who was in the delegation that met the Chief Minister, said they had gone to meet Ms. Mayawati in her capacity as the Chief Minister and the nuke deal was not the sole issue but a list of problems faced by the community was presented to her. The SP MPs deplored the Muslim angle given to the nuclear deal and said the community has been unnecessarily dragged into the controversy. “What is good for the country also holds good for the Muslims, it is rather unfortunate that a Muslim flavour has been added to the nuclear deal. It is not at all linked to the Muslims and those who are saying so should concentrate on the welfare of the minority community,” said Salim Sherwani, MP.
The Samajwadi Party led by Mulayam Singh Yadav, by going to seek an "impartial" opinion from former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who before his elevation to the country’s highest office was well known as one of India’s top nuclear scientists, and is now one of the most articulate votaries of the Indo-US nuclear deal, not merely kept to its course of moving closer to the Congress and the UPA government, but virtually played a charade on its partners in the United National Progressive Alliance. Dr Kalam’s views on the nuclear deal was well known: he has said over and over again that the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States was in the "national interest." Mulayam Singh Yadav took his UNPA allies for a ride by heading for the former President’s residence immediately after the UNPA meeting was over. Interestingly, by going to Dr Kalam and seeking his counsel on the deal, Mr Yadav managed to deftly deflect the accusation put forward by his arch political rival, Uttar Pradesh chief minister and Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati, that the American deal was "anti-Muslim." This was a masterstroke delivered by the regional satrap of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav. The Samajwadi Party tried to send out the signal that the deal was being supported by none other than Dr Kalam, a Muslim himself.
BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY
The BJP criticised the Left parties, especially the Communist Party of India (Marxist), for “communalising nuclear deal politics” and “foreign policy issues” even as CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat made it clear that Polit Bureau member M.K. Pandhe’s remarks were “not the views of the party.” BJP leader M. Venkaiah Naidu said that there was no reason why Muslims, like all other citizens, should not think in terms of India’s national interest, not the interest of China. “The Left stands totally exposed as it is looking at an international agreement on the basis of divisive politics based on religion and religious identities,” he claimed. The BJP’s Muslim face Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi criticised the Samajwadi Party for dragging former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam into the nuclear deal controversy. He also felt that there was a resentment among the minorities over the contentious nuclear deal. Attacking the SP, the BJP vice-president said Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav’s outfit should make it public "what exactly transpired in the meeting between them and Dr Kalam."
INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS
Congress was of the view that "international issue" could not  be linked to a religion. "Deal or no deal, it has nothing to do with Hindus, Christians, Muslims or Sikhs. The issue has to be decided by taking into account the interests of the nation". The damage control exercise by the CPM did not stop the Congress from speaking out its mind on the matter, especially since the ruling party sufficiently realised that if the nuclear deal were to be a dead document, CPM would be the principal spoilsport. "We would definitely term as unfortunate and regrettable any attempt to communalise a national issue like the nuclear deal," Congress spokesperson Jayanthi Natarajan said . “The BJP’s “volte-face” was the latest in the long list of its “doublespeak.” “The architecture for the present strategic alliance with the U.S. and the impetus to developing the alliance came during the six years of the NDA rule.” In 1999 for the first time India participated in an international military exchange training programme of the U.S. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the then Prime Minister, A.B. Vajpayee, offered India’s military facilities to President George Bush in his country’s war on terrorism. The then Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, who visited the CIA headquarters to discuss security cooperation, now said opposing the nuclear deal was a question of suraksha (security) and swabhimaan (self-respect), as if reneging on an international agreement would enhance India’s stature. The Congress said the Left’s objections to the India-U.S. nuclear deal were “ideological, rather than rational.” “We are endangering our economic growth prospects for short-term electoral prospects or due to blind ideological obduracy.” Hitting back at the CPI(M) a day after its attack on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the Congress said the Communist parties are indulging in "irrational" and "absurd arguments" on the Indo-US nuclear deal.  The Congress dismissed BSP supremo Mayawati's contention that the Indo-US nuclear deal was against the Muslim community and accused her of communalising the issue. "The deal has nothing to do with any community. It is unfortunate that some parties were trying to communalise the issue for political benefits," party spokesman Shakeel Ahmed said. "Muslims also need electricity. Nobody should try to communalise the issue. The deal is in national interest," he said. AICC Secretary Manish Tiwari underlined the importance of the deal, saying "Whichever party has the long term interests of India in mind, is supporting the deal." Tiwari said the Congress was banking on the political parties of the country to take a decision which helps the country in the long run. Congress accused the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M) of attempting to give a communal colour to the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear deal. That party needed to explain how the deal was going to affect the Muslim community. The deal was an international accord aimed at the welfare of the nation.
In an attempt to blunt the edge of the Left campaign dubbing the nuclear deal as a sure step to hurt Muslim sentiments, Congress pointed out that the Gulf countries had actually appreciated the "new dynamism" in relations between the US and India. "The Gulf Cooperation Council countries, who have close relations with the United States, have noted the new dynamism in the relations between India and the US," the party said. Coming days before the crucial trust vote in the Lok Sabha, the Congress statement was clearly an attempt to remove 'misgivings' about any shift in the country's foreign policy as a consequence of the nuclear agreement. The approval from the Middle East seems to have come as evidence that there is no apprehension in the Islamic world about India's nuclear agreement. The statement also sought to reject the Left contention that as a fallout of the deal India would be reduced to a "client" of the US. Congress insisted that the country's well-established foreign policy would remain independent with its emphasis on multilateralism. "The fundamental tenets of India's foreign policy have remained steadfast and unaltered despite the changing world order," the party said in a statement. With the Left accusing the government of taking the nation to the orbit of US influence, Congress made an effort to dispel such an impression by insisting that the basic principles of the country's foreign policy had remained unchanged since the Nehruvian era. "
BAHUJAN SAMAJ PARTY  
Days after she withdrew her support to the UPA government citing price rise and political prejudice, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati came out to slam the growing warmth between the Congress and her bitter rival Samajwadi Party. She said that both were coming together on the India-US nuclear deal because they were wary of losing Muslim support by pushing the deal. That’s why, she said, that “both these parties were spreading canards that the BSP is going for an electoral understanding with the BJP for the next Lok Sabha elections.” “Obviously, the propaganda against the BSP is meant to create confusion in the minds of the common people and in particular among the Muslim vote base of the BSP (it has 29 Muslim MLAs in the UP Assembly),” said Mayawati. “The UPA government is adamant to sign the nuclear deal with the USA at the cost of the much cheaper gas from Iran but Muslims would never accept the deal”. Mayawati ruled out any alliance with the BJP and termed such “insinuations” against the party as “baseless,” and “part of a political conspiracy.” She claimed the SP had to support the nuclear deal as part of a “bargain” with the Congress given the inquiries against Mulayam Singh Yadav and his relatives and friends. Accusing the Congress and the SP of launching a malicious propaganda against her party to harm its political interests, Ms. Mayawati said both were worried at the prospect of Muslims shifting to her party on the controversial nuclear deal issue. Ms. Mayawati claimed that Muslims were opposed to the nuclear deal.
 BSP MPs and MLAs belonging to the Muslim community  were asked to fan out in their constituencies and other Muslim populated areas to explain to their community members that UP chief minister Mayawati did not support the nuclear deal and withdrew her support to the UPA government since the deal was against the interests of Muslim minorities. Muslim MPs and MLAs were being provided information about the nuclear deal and its possible impact on Islamic nations. "We are telling them that the deal had been designed by the US, which had already proved its anti-Muslim credentials in the past few years. Apart from the Left parties, it is the BSP alone that has dared to take a stand on the issue". The BSP, obviously, was in a buoyant mood after a group of senior Muslim clerics met the chief minister and thanked her for taking a stand against the nuclear deal. The party saw this as an opportunity to consolidate its base among Muslims on the eve of the Lok Sabha elections. According to a senior BSP functionary, "For Muslims, America is almost synonymous with President Bush, who is ‘responsible for the devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan’. The SP, which enjoyed the maximum minority support in UP, has now decided to support the Congress at the Centre which is being perceived as a ‘betrayal of sorts’ by Muslims. The BSP now stands as the only hope for Muslims in the state."This, perhaps, explains Ms Mayawati’s eagerness to rubbish all reports of a possible post-poll alliance with the BJP as she does not wish to be seen as a prospective NDA ally until the elections. Bahujan Samaj Party president Mayawati said the UPA government ought to have evolved consensus by convening an all-party meeting to create awareness among the people of the “controversial” nuclear deal before going ahead with it. The BSP and the masses were opposed to the nuclear deal, which threatened to make India a “slave country,” she said. The people were confused and there were several misconceptions, including among a particular section of society.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE
NC president Omar Abdullah condemned the likes of Mayawati who sought to link the Indo-US nuclear deal to the “Muslim concern” in India and said that while the deal’s merits can be debated ad nauseam, it must not be dubbed in religious terms. Omar said : “The Muslim community has been relatively silent over the country’s growing ties with Israel or the country’s economic engagement with the US. I cannot understand how leaders like Mayawati have suddenly found a religious dimension to the nuclear deal. Would that mean that the deal is good for the Hindus and bad for the Muslims? Or that electricity generated will reach only Hindu homes?”  Devoting his post on his blog to the nuclear deal, he wrote: “I can understand it being against the national interest or against economic interest but I can’t understand how it can be against any one religion.” Most responses to his post supported the view. “There were some who wanted the Israel-Palestine conflict to condition our views, but I don’t think that the common man who doesn’t even understand the deal fully, would be inclined to dub it in communal terms,” Omar said. The young leader said “while he didn’t fully understand the deal”, he had no reasons to doubt former president A P J Abdul Kalam’s views on the subject. “Kalam was not given a second term by this Government. Yet the former president has spoken in the national interest. I would go with him rather than some politician who would be more interested in whether the deal is being done with the US or China,” said Omar. Wrote  Omar in his blog: “The US is no friend of the Muslim world, but what about the Muslims working in American companies based in India or for that matter even based in the US. What of aids set up with US money or earthquake relief to Kashmir (if any did) from US based aid agencies? The National Conference, a special invitee to the United National Progressive Alliance, didn’t attend its last meeting.
That J&K National Conference leader Omar Abdullah would not oppose the nuclear deal — despite being in opposition to the UPA in the state — was well-known but in his speech in the Lok Sabha in support of the confidence motion, he was at his impassioned best. “I am a Muslim and I am an Indian,” he began. “And I see no distinction between the two. I don’t know why should I fear the nuclear deal. It is a deal between two countries which, I hope, will become two equals in the future,” said Abdullah. “The enemies of Indian Muslims are not America or deals like these. The enemies are the same as the enemies of all those who are poor — poverty, hunger, lack of development and the absence of a voice.” Slamming the Left for acting like judges on the secular credentials of political parties, Abdullah said, “Today, the Left is telling me that all secular parties should stand with the BJP to bring down this government. The same Left treated me like a political untouchable when I was with the NDA.”
AIMIM
AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi attacked the opposition BJP and criticizing the Left for its new alignment. “I would like to counter the canard that is being spread that the Muslims of this country are against the nuclear deal. I just want to ask why don’t the rulers of UP and West Bengal CMs single out and tell whether the Dalits or the Hindus of their state support the deal or not,” asked Owaisi. “I am supporting the government because I do not want at any cost the leader of Opposition LK Advani as the Prime Minister.” Owaisi also took swipe at the Left parties for playing the ball along with the opposition BJP in this situation.
PDP
Without attacking the Left, the PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti took potshots at the opposition BJP saying that while they are not against nuclear deal with the US they want to re-negotiate is as they want to take credit for such a historical decision. “Let me accept that many people in this august house does not understand the nuclear deal in detail. But it is surprising that the BJP, which has been the pioneer of the nuclear deal, is now opposing the deal simply because they would like to take credit for such a deal. But now they are opposing,” said Mufti.
 The Indian Union Muslim League
IUML decided to support the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government during a confidence vote in the Lok Sabha. However, a meeting of the national leadership of the party decided to convey its ‘grave concern’ over the India-U.S. nuclear deal at a UPA coordination committee meeting. A few League managers believed that some of the UPA government’s decisions on foreign policy, especially those related to Islamic countries, are being used against the party by its critics. They opine that these forces have been trying to erode the party’s support base in the Muslim community.
People’s Democratic Party
Chairman Abdul Nazar Ma’adani said that IUML had resorted to double standards on the issue. “The Muslim community across the world had been facing atrocities sponsored by the US. The deal with an anti-Muslim country should have been opposed by the IUML.” He said IUML would have to pay for its reluctance to address the issue. PDP leader alleged that the IUML stand to continue its support to the UPA government after simply registering its protest against the move to sign the nuclear agreement, was nothing short of deceiving the people. He said the issue here was not a choice between American President George Bush or Bharatiya Janata Party leader L.K. Advani. “Here, the core issue is surrendering the sovereignty of the country in the name of the nuclear agreement and for that reason itself the IUML stand is grossly against the interests of the country,” he alleged. He said the PDP central committee meet in Pathanamthitta urged the Congress to drop the move to sign the nuclear agreement.
This episode should prompt an honest discussion among political activists on the perils of communalising our foreign policy. What is good for the country is also good for all sections of the society. Foreign policy is and should be a seamless and continuous process. It is not a party affair. Of course, it is necessary to evolve a political consensus among political parties on such an important issue. Certainly, if a majority of Indians were opposed to an international agreement, then the government of the day will have to do some serious thinking.