Nuclear Treaty & the 'Left'
The parties within the left-front are now quite elated with their ?victory?. And in not it justified? The U.P.A government of Manmohan Singh were going to sell off the ?sovereignty? of our nation through the Indo-US Nuclear Treaty and they had been able to resist it! According to them, the ?sovereignty? of our nation is now on the whole as safe as it was before this deplorable act of Manmohan. At this moment of their ongoing ?victory celebrations? will it be too impolite to raise the question whether there is any reason at all to assume that the Indo-US Nuclear Treaty has been abandoned? The position spelt out by the government is that the proposed talks between I.A.E.A, Nuclear suppliers group and Indian government have been deferred only. How can one conclude from this that such talks will not happen at all, or, the treaty will be abandoned? Furthermore, will it also now be too inopportune a moment to remind them that all the treaties like ?New structure of Indo-U.S. Security Relations? that the ruling class of India have forged with U.S. Imperialism in the past few years are still fully operational and there has not been even an infinitesimal deviation from the ever-increasing tendency of the Indian ruling class to bow towards the U.S. imperialism. In these respects, how superfluous the left-front ?victory? is, is quite clear to the advanced proletariat and not the principle matter of analysis for them.
For the sake of discussion, even if we assume that the ?left? through their ?struggle? became able to get the nuclear treaty discarded, on even more, if we assume that the ?pressure? of the ?lefts? force the Indian ruling class to abandon all the treaties of military relations, like the new structure of Indo-U.S. Security Relations, that they have undertaken with the imperialist powers; will then the ?sovereignty? of India be assured? CPIM and its friends are trying by all means to convince that these recent treaties are all the causes of concern, as if before them, our country was truly ?sovereign?! They are lamenting so pitifully about the tendency of the Indian ruling class to discard the past principle of ?non alignment? and getting aligned more and more with the U.S. imperialism, that it will seem that in those day of ?nonalignment?, the Indian ruling class were following a principle independent of any imperialist influence, control or arm-twisting. The ?lefts? are not trying to pull this bluff for the first time. Since 1947, they have been trying to convince the working class and other toiling masses that though the internal policies of the Indian ruling class, or particularly of their chief representative that time, the congress party, were anti-people, their foreign policy were independent and progressive. All their laments are for the abandonment of that so-called independent foreign policy by the ruling class and they are still deceiving the working class and the toiling people that the main duty of them is to bring back that era of ?nonalignment? principles.
The advance guards of the proletariat must not nurture the faintest of doubt regarding the fact that pursuance of the non-alignment policy by the Indian ruling class did not in any way imply its freedom from influence, control or arm-twisting of the imperialists, or the fact that its domestic or foreign policy were not independent of the influence and control of the imperialist powers. In 1947, the big bourgeois of India came to power by making a compromise with imperialism. Direct rule of the British imperialism came to an end, but nonetheless, exploitation by the imperialist capital continued, on the whole undeterred, and imperialist control, influence and domination remained rooted. Then the ruling big bourgeois undertook the programme for the capitalist development depending upon the imperialism. All the programmes they have taken since the inception of the 5-year plans, were taken depending upon the imperialism, and through these the dependence upon imperialism have continued to increase. In this period, as a consequence of the policy pursued by the ruling class, penetration of imperialist capital has progressively increased, and so has imperialist debt, various ?aid? ?through which imperialist control over the principle fields of Indian economy has increased. Alongside this increased of imperialist control over the country, economy, as a natural fallout, control and domination of imperialism, particularly U.S. imperialism, have increased in different spheres, including politics. Right from the large projects undertaken under the 5-year plans, to the nuclear programme or the program of green revolution in the 1960s ? examples of imperialist control and domination over the programs of the ruling class are many and varied.
At that time, however, the ruling class of the third world countries like India has an advantage. Opposed to the alliance of the western imperialists under the leadership of the U.S. imperialism, stood the so-called ?socialist? block under the leadership of Soviet Russia. These two blocks were engrossed in competing with each other to extend their domination with the aim of conducting exploitation and repression throughout the world. As a result of the contradiction between these two blocks, ruling classes of several third-world countries, including India, got the opportunity of bargaining with them to some extent, though remaining within the influence of this two power groups, i.e., remaining within the influence and control of imperialism. It was with this aim of conducting the bargaining process that the ruling class of the third world countries adopted the non-alignment principle and grouped together in it. Hence, the adoption of non-alignment policy by the Indian ruling class did not imply that they ware pursuing a foreign policy independent of the control and influence of the imperialism. India was not truly sovereign then, nor did Indian ruling class have an independent foreign policy. Hence, those who are clamouring vociferously today as if Indian is suddenly going to lose her sovereignty today are actually obscuring the fact that real sovereignty cannot be achieved without eradicating completely the exploitation and domination of the imperialist capital. And, imperialism can be eradicated from the countries soil only through the peoples? democratic revolution under the leadership of the working class. Of course, it is natural that those who are working not in favour of this revolution, but against it, those who have become sentinels of the existing system instead of its demolisher, cannot do anything but what those ?lefts? are doing. Is not it so?
The next question is, is it possible for the Indian ruling class of today to revert back even to that so-called independent foreign policy non-alignment? Did the Indian ruling class shifted from its policy of non-alignment of its own free will, that they can now, if they wish, revert back to it? As a consequence of the programme of capitalist development depending upon imperialism, that they India big bourgeois ruling class pursued from 1947, the dependence upon imperialism went on increasing, so also increased the burden of imperialist debt. At the beginning of the 1980s, the ruling class took a large loan from I.M.F. for the first time, following which they took the line of opening up the country to the conditionalities imposed by the imperialists. The scope for bargaining with the two imperialist groups was also lost after the fall of Soviet Russia in the end-1980s. At the time, the Indian ruling class was compelled to take a larger loan from the I.M.F once again and initiated the new economic policy. We all know how the control of the imperialist capital has gone on increasing in the Indian economy. The direct consequence of all these is that in various fields of Indian society, including the politics, the control and domination of imperialist powers, specially their band-leader U.S imperialists, have increased manifold. In these circumstances it is only natural that they Indian ruling class will not be able to continue their so-called non-alignment policy and will tilt more and more towards U.S imperialism. It is only this truth that is being experienced through the ?non-military nuclear treaty?, ?new structure of Indo-U.S security relation? etc.
To put in a nutshell, a large-scale change in the national and international situation has forced the Indian ruling class to abandon their so-called ?independent foreign policy? and found themselves in more and more closer ties with U.S. imperialism. Hence, just by wishing to do so, they cannot revert back to their old ?non-alignment policy? or the so-called ?independent foreign policy today?. What is more important is that reverting back to that old ?non-alignment era? can not be the objective of the proletariat, the objective of the proletariat is the complete eradication of the exploitation and oppression of imperialism and thus achieve true ?sovereignty?.
The ?left? parties of India, under the leadership of CPIM are trying by all means through their concerted clamour about the nuclear deal to prove that they are working as the untiring sentinels of Indian ?sovereignty?. But, what has became as apparent as daylight in the past 15 to 16 years is that they are second to none in going begging at the feet of imperialist capital to call invite foreign capital and opening the gates for plunder. On one hand, imperialist capital will be granted the most gratuitous reception, ?while on the other, the ?nation being sold to the imperialist? will be opposed! What castles in the air are the ?lefts? building? Undoubtedly, they are trying to convince us that there is no relation between investment of imperialist capital and increase of imperialist control/domination in political sphere. But is not this effort of them simply an exercise in obscuring the fact that the prime objective of imperialism to establish its control and determination over a country is to facilitate the unrestricted investment of imperialist capital and thus plunder the resources of that country? If need be, for that purpose they don?t even hesitate to lay seize of that country, to colonise it. More over, the control of imperialist capital over the principal fields of economy and the octopus-like grip exerted over a country by the imperialist debt also progressively increase the imperialist control over the political field. Hence, whatever the ?left? try to teach us, it remains true that economics and polities are not disassociated entities to the country, they are closely interrelated and fundamentally, polities is controlled by economics. By extending gratuitous gracious welcome to the imperialist capital anything except opposing imperialism can be done.
Truly, the lefts? objectives are not to oppose imperialism. They have drummed up the recent clamour to showcase their ?hold? on the congress-led U.P.A government at the centre, which, though dependent on their support to stay at power, is still paying no heed to them in taking a number of decisions, one after another. This is in no way connected with real anti-imperialist struggle. The proletariat can organise with the aim of complete eradication of imperialist exploitation only by liberating itself completely from the fake anti-imperialist politics of the ?lefts?. Only then, can emerge the real path of struggle against nuclear treaty and various other treaties like it. [1st November 2007]
Addendum: When this article was going to press, it emerged that the ?left? parties had given the control government the ?liberty? to further their negotiations with I.A.E.A. The way in which this signal was given by CPIM following the barbarous genocide by the murderous gang of CPIM in Nandigram, has led to musings whether this barter of ?concession? or a ?deal? was made between Congress and CPIM over Nandigram. We must also not overlook that meanwhile quite a few representatives of the U.S. imperialism have had their ?discussions? with the ?left-leaders?. So whatever be the reason behind this ?concession-giving mood? of the ?lefts?, this once again serves as a blatant pointer to the falseness of the ?lefts? anti-imperialist postures. [20th November 2007]
Comments:
No Comments for View