Becoming a junior partner

The outcome of the Clinton visit marks a turning point: the Vajpayee government has now aligned itself formally with the global strategic interests of the U.S.

PRAKASH KARAT

THE Clinton visit to India illustrates starkly the major shift in the foreign policy and strategic approach of India that has been brought about by the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government. This major change, which has been developing behind the scenes for nearly two years, has now been presented before the world in the full glare of publicity. In the first visit by an American President in 22 years, Clinton spent barely two days in New Delhi. In that short period, however, the joint statement issued b y the U.S. President and the Indian Prime Minister and the speeches made by them have made it clear just how far the BJP-led government has gone in abandoning a non-aligned foreign policy and how ready it is to accept the status of a junior partner of th e U.S.

The outcome of the Clinton visit marks a turning point in the sense that the Vajpayee government has now aligned itself formally with the global strategic interests of the U.S. This change is evident with respect to all the issues that came under discuss ion during the visit. The issues of nuclear non-proliferation, the U.S. role in South Asia, the content of the economic relations between India and the U.S. and the political-ideological character of bilateral relations have all been framed and articulat ed on the basis of the perceptions of the U.S. This process began when the Vajpayee government decided to enter into a prolonged dialogue with the U.S. in the aftermath of the Pokhran tests. The ten rounds of talks between Jaswant Singh and Strobe Talbot t have culminated in the decisions taken during the Clinton visit.

angavastram

In its quest for recognition by the U.S. as a nuclear weapons power, the BJP-led government has expressed its readiness to accept the U.S. as a hegemonic power. It is willing to act within the U.S. strategic designs for South Asia and the world. In the j oint statement issued after the Clinton visit there is the explicit recognition of the U.S. role in South Asia in the maintenance of regional security and peace. Kashmir is still a disputed territory for the U.S. and the BJP's policies will continue to a ccord the U.S. a role in the India-Pakistan confrontation over Kashmir.

The BJP's desire to become a strategic ally of the U.S. is not a sudden development. Even in its earlier incarnation as the Jan Sangh, during the days of the Cold War, it had wanted the U.S. to replace Pakistan with India as a strategic ally in the regio n. The only point of friction in the pro-imperialist world-view of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been Pakistan and its enduring links with the U.S.

The BJP has concentrated its efforts on trying to persuade the U.S. that an India ruled by the BJP is a far better strategic partner in South Asia than Pakistan. That explains its pathetic pleas to Clinton not to visit Pakistan. In its turn, the U.S.' st rategy towards India has changed over the last two decades. After the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has identified the containment of "regional powers" - India being one such - as one of its strategic objectives. Thus, until India is brought under the he gemonic umbrella of the U.S., pressure is relentlessly being mounted on India to curb its technological and defence potential.

This combination of circumstances has led to the talk of a strategic partnership between the U.S. and India. The fact that the content of the Jaswant Singh-Strobe Talbott talks has never been in the public domain indicates that India has made major conce ssions to the U.S. on issues that affect its sovereignty and vital interests.

THE U.S. has gone ahead in achieving some of its major economic goals with respect to India. The decade-long liberalisation process has enabled the U.S. to gain a vantage point from which to exploit the Indian market, penetrate the Indian economy and buy up India's assets cheaply. Two decisions taken on the eve of the Clinton visit highlighted the subservience of India's present rulers. First, in December 1999, the Indian Government signed an agreement with the U.S. administration whereby India will rem ove quantitative restrictions with regard to imports on 1,429 items by April 2001. This includes all agricultural commodities and many items reserved for the small-scale industries sector in India. India is to be flooded with goods that are offered at mu ch lower prices than the agricultural commodities produced by Indian farmers, thus affecting Indian agriculture and threatening our self-sufficiency in food production. Domestic industry, particularly the small-scale sector, will be severely affected.

The second major decision, which was taken by the Union Cabinet on January 31, was to allow foreign capital entry through the automatic route to acquire shares to the extent of 100 per cent of the equity of a company. This is to apply to all sectors of t he economy other than a small number of industries still in the reserved list. Even before this decision was announced, a major demand of the U.S. was conceded when the BJP-led government finally succeeded in pushing through the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Bill, which lays the basis for opening up the insurance sector to foreign capital.

IN 1998, during the early rounds of the Strobe Talbott-Jaswant Singh talks, the Vajpayee government committed India to signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), reversing India's firm stand, taken in 1996, not to sign discriminatory treaties. Bef ore the elections of 1999, this politically inconvenient commitment was sought to be camouflaged by stating that the government would sign the CTBT only after creating a domestic consensus on the issue. After the Vajpayee government came back to office, it has failed to get the support of Opposition parties for this move. The commitment, however, was made: in a widely published article written on the eve of his visit to India, President Clinton reminded India and Pakistan of the commitment they made in this regard. (" India and Pakistan should sign the Treaty, as they have committed to do, for the same reason." See p.1, The Times of India, March 20, 2000.) The Vajpayee government has not contradicted this claim.

The joint statement issued after the talks in Hyderabad House does not state clearly the stand taken on the CTBT. However, the fact that the BJP-led government has agreed to work with the U.S. towards nuclear non-proliferation constitutes an implicit acc eptance of the U.S. agenda.

IN its quest for a strategic alliance with the U.S., the BJP-led government has conceded the major demands of the U.S. in respect of the economy. The acceptance of the World Trade Organisation regime and the talk in the joint statement of "open trade" ar e clear indications that the U.S. demand for unrestricted access to Indian markets has been granted. The agreements signed for scientific and technological cooperation and on environment and clean energy and the high-level dialogue initiated between the two Commerce Ministers constitute ample evidence of the surrender of India's vital interests. None of India's real concerns was dealt with. These include, for example, removing the quota system in the multi-fibre agreement, lifting curbs on the flow of s killed Indian personnel and professionals to the U.S., and lifting the sanctions (which have been in place for three decades now) on the import of dual purpose technology.

The craven attitude of the BJP-led government and Indian big business has emboldened the U.S. to impose its ideological agenda on India. A little-noticed announcement in the joint statement is that India will be a co-sponsor with the U.S. of a conference of "Communities of Democracies" in Poland. The mainstream media have not bothered to find out what this proposal means. From the 1980s, the U.S. ideological offensive has been powered by the twin slogans of "democracy" and free markets. U.S. imperialism has always linked democracy with open markets; this has been a way of advancing its agenda of liberalisation and privatisation. In the 1990s, one of the key initiatives of the Clinton administration was to set up a platform called the "Communities of De mocracies". These are arrangements to bring together its client states and allies in order to advance "democracy" that is hospitable to big business and multinational corporations and to promote the idea that only free enterprise can nurture and sustain democracy.

A "Communities of Americas" was floated to strengthen U.S. hegemony in South and Central America. This was followed by a Communities of Democracy in Europe backed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. An attempt is now being made to float a global C ommunities of Democracies. U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has peddled this idea assiduously, and the U.S. has now succeeded in netting India in this ideological enterprise.

The seven countries sponsoring the Poland conference are the U.S., India, Poland, the Czech Republic, Mali, Chile and South Korea. While the five other co-sponsors were won over to the U.S. in earlier years, India is the new "emerging ally". Significantl y, the conference in Poland is being funded by two organisations - the Stefan Batory Foundation of Poland and Freedom House of the U.S. The former was established in 1998 by George Soros, the financial billionaire, to promote "democracy and open markets" . As for Freedom House, it is funded by a host of American big business foundations and the State Department. Interestingly, no one in the Vajpayee government seems to know anything about this major political venture except Jaswant Singh, who, as Externa l Affairs Minister, is scheduled to attend the conference in Poland in June.

Alongside this foray, India has become host to another pet project of the U.S. The National Endowment for Democracy, which is funded by the U.S. State Department, plans to establish an Asian Centre for Democratic Governance, to be located in New Delhi. B y American norms of good governance, democracy has to be partnered with big business, and the Indian partner in this enterprise is to be none other than the Confederation of Indian Industry. The project is important enough for President Clinton to have a nnounced it in his speech after the joint statement was signed.

The portents are disturbing indeed: a government that accepts the economic doctrine of the imperialist superpower has to fall in line with its political and ideological values as well. Democracy in India, already under siege, will be weakened further to suit imperialism and the free market.

THE visit of President Clinton has also been a spectacle that has lowered the self-respect of the country and the self-esteem of its citizens. At no time has servility been so shamefully on display. The swadeshi BJP was not alone in the scraping and bowi ng before the American President; other ruling class politicians competed in the obsequious display in the Central Hall of Parliament. The only honourable exception has been the President of India. His banquet speech was the one redeeming feature in the official display of a neo-colonial mentality. President Narayanan's emphasis on the relevance of non-alignment and his rejection of a sole headman in the global village was far more representative of the true feelings of the Indian people than all the fa wning coverage by the commercial media.

Mercifully, vast sections of the Indian people were appalled by the content and style of the visit. Though dissent was hardly featured in the mainstream media, tens of thousands of people in different parts of the country participated in various forms of protest actions and anti-imperialist manifestations. They represent the true voice of the Indian people.

Prakash Karat is a member of the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).