The 2009 Verdict and the Left: An Appraisal of Critiques
The serious electoral reverses suffered by the Left Parties in India, particularly the CPI (M), in the 2009 Loksabha elections have generated an intense debate. It has spurred reactions and responses of various hues, ranging from sympathetic critiques and “admonitory counsel” to passionate expressions of scorn and disgust. Given the gravity of the situation, this is not altogether unexpected. Some of the criticisms made by the well-wishers of the Left as well as the critics are valid. A few critiques, however, have raised questions regarding the basic understanding of the CPI (M) of the very world we live in and how to make it better. Other critiques have focussed on the issues confronting the Left in West Bengal and drawn strong conclusions, questioning the ability of the CPI (M) to offer economic and political alternatives to bourgeois-landlord rule in India in the era of globalisation. This has led in some cases to a diagnosis of irredeemability in the CPI (M).
In the backdrop of this ongoing debate, the CPI (M) has also conducted a self-critical review of its electoral performance. This review, which was undertaken from the grassroots level upwards to the State Committees and the Central Committee, has sought to outline the political and organisational causes behind the electoral reverses and also identify some specific factors, on the basis of which corrective measures can be initiated, in the short as well as the medium run. In the light of that review, the present article (attached herewith) makes an appraisal of the critiques that have been made regarding the CPI (M) and the Left from various standpoints.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| verdict.2009.&.left_.pdf | 67.29 KB |
Printer-friendly versionVideos from Newsclick
- Theatre Should be a Fundamental and Accessible Part of Our Lives.
- Angelina Jolie's Mastectomy: Patenting Genes is Patenting a Discovery
- Pakistan Elections: Regional Mandate- A Threat or an Opportunity
- India's External Balance Deficit: Impending Macro-Economic Crisis
- Prison Reforms needed - not a Sanaullah for a Sarabjit
Recent comments
-
West Bengal: Theatre of the Absurd
-
Appeal to make the enquiry report on Com. TPC's killing public
-
TPC Memorial Committee holds Press Conference in Delhi
-
TPC’s Murder: Questions that Remain after One Year
-
TPC’s Murder: Questions that Remain after One Year
Comments
In 2004 election, we had
In 2004 election, we had larger representation, we should have started fighting against the structural faults of parlimentary democracy in india. This doesnot mean that we shouldnot intervene where ever neccessary as we did in Indo US Nuclear deal. The Party should have a natural growth, ideologicaly and politicaly towards communism, irrespective of the party in power or not. Like any other slogan we have today, agaist neo liberal policies, imperialism, why dont we have a slogan against the structural faults of parlimentary democracy.?
Text of an interview with Prakash Karat, general secretary of th
particular flashpoint between any government you form and Obama. The future of the India-U.S. nuclear deal. Before the election campaign began, you were committed to scrapping it. You actually said so many times. During the election campaign you stopped talking about scrapping, began talking about renegotiating.
Reworking it.
What's your final position?
No, I think with a Democratic administration, Obama administration, we can talk about reworking this deal.
comprehensive response to the
comprehensive response to the critics of the CPM. the reply to amartya sen is convincing. but ashok mitra's criticisms have not been responded properly.
Health and Education
An excellent essay, which creates a useful space for a rational and reasonable discussion/debate on the future of the Left in India. I hope that it will spur more dialogue, and not send everyone to their corners.
One issue that certainly calls for much more introspection is the slow pace of health care and education in Bengal. What accounts for the problems here? I have not read anything that provides an explanation for the poor social indicators in these areas. Prasenjit raises this issue well, but his is not the essay to answer the question I have posed (since it is outside the problem he addresses so well). But others?
What next?
No doubt this article is indeed worth reading and to ponder about. It is a tight slap to all those who have been busy in end-less fault finding activities in post 16th May session (with due respects to eminent scholars like Dr. Sen) . This article was necessary since critiques in every mainstream media were trying to justify as if it was “another himalayan blunder??" to withdraw support from UPA government on account of nuke deal.
What these critiques fail to answer, was there any way left for CPIM as a communist party when PM Dr. Singh in a designed interview said "I told them that it is not possible to renegotiate the deal. It is an honourable deal, the cabinet has approved it, we cannot go back on it. I told them to do whatever they want to do, if they want to withdraw support, so be it….” I look forward to their answers.
My earnest request to those friends of left . please do not play to the tune of capitalist media .. In today’s India where mainstream media is fully corporatized and only concerned about their bosses P/L statement while making any views …. even news also , one shall be very cautious while try to form any opinion.
But my question is what next ? where shall we head to ? A light should have been thrown on that aspect also. In this troubled time , when every body is advising CPIM on what to do and what to eat , where to sleep , what to drink … I think it is TIME for Pragoti to invite a session on this . looking forward to inputs coming from width and breadth of Progoti in that forum.
Get a reality check
Prasenjit, you have misunderstood a very important point in your understanding of the world that we live in. People elect a party to govern a state or a country. While they are interested in other peripheral issues that are linked to them, the sole purpose of a government is to provide service to its people. I think CPIM does not understand this point very well. Let us first talk about our own state, West Bengal. After having lived under CPIM rule for almost 35 years, people in the state still lack basic infrastructure like roads, hospitals, schools, electricity and water supply. For last so many decades, CPIM has successfully created various mass organizations, including teacher's union. A large portion of the teaching community in colleges and schools are direct recruits of the party. While that helped the party to create a solid support base among teachers, the purpose of teaching got lost in the process. Teachers are busy in organizing and demanding pay hike than teaching students and provoking new ideas in them. For last several year (at least from 2006 to 2008), West Bengal ranked below 30 in primary education among 35 states that were surveyed by the central government study while Kerala was consistently at the top (http://www.educationforallinindia.com/Flash%20statistics2007-08.pdf). Imperialist forces did not prevent Left Front from educating children in West Bengal. There cannot be any excuse for this failure after 35 years.
Then there is NREGA for creating unemployment in the rural areas. Left Front govt in West Bengal could give an average of 18 days jobs to rural poor, whereas Gujarat clocked near about 80 to 100 days. May be the party will list 100 different reasons why it did not work well in West Bengal, but that would not justify a failure of such a critical project which could potentially change the economic conditions of millions of poor people in our country. While CPIM may claim that a role in making NREGA a reality, the state that it ruled for 35 years did not get any benefit from it. What I am trying to say is that no matter how much you claim to have good intention in your heart, you never really showed that in practice except in land reform. Ultimately, people will judge your party for how you have contributed to their economic well being not be your anti-imperialist slogans. I think your party does not get this point and it’s a matter of time your party will go into political insignificance unless it changes its basic understanding.
This topic will hopefully
This topic will hopefully continue to capture an important space in Left debates in India for a while. The article “Verdict 2009...” has come at an important time. It answers many questions and at the same time asks new ones too. However, it doesn’t answer some existing questions. A few observations that I would like to make on this present debate of ‘Left debacle’ are as follows.
Imperialism and Nuclear Deal
Sen got befitting reply to his ‘friendly’ teachings on imperialism that he offered to the Left in general an CPI(M) in particular. Pragmatism does not always lead to logical conclusions – the man of logic should have understood. However, an important question was almost never asked and certainly never asked by those who consider withdrawing support from the UPA as a mistake. That question is, why the Party backtracked from the demand of ‘No’ to Nuclear Deal and settled with the demand of ‘reworking’ it? Such important change from the tracks of the original protest should be accompanied with a clear cut theoretical explanation, and not merely common-sense ‘should-be-understood-by-all’ half-explained constraints of the so called third front. At the same time, the theoretical basis of (electoral) alliance with any other (particularly non-left) political party should have been clearly debated and explained.
At the same time, an important question has to be asked and debated regarding the major challenges the Party is facing and the agitations it will organise vis-à-vis the consciousness of the masses. Imperialism, with its tool of international finance capital, is wrecking havoc in the lives of the poor and middle class. But is that level of consciousness attained by the masses where the nuclear deal is seen as a strengthening hand of imperialism, which in turn is destroying lives? That the Party could not rally the people around this stand shows that that level of consciousness hasn’t been attained by the masses.
This leads us to the most important question: how is the party planning to take forward its anti-imperialist agenda to the masses?
EPW’s AM and Democratic Centralism
From the beginning, I must clearly state that I do not share AM’s view that if CPI(M) “fails to equip itself for the challenge it faces, others are likely to step in” because “nature abhors vacuum, so too do historical situations”. For if CPIM fails, there is no guarantee whatsoever that another Left force will ‘step in’ to fill the vacuum. To carry out a Left movement is a conscious process, not an automatic one. And this is the concern which is forcing us into this debate.
Also, I do not share the view that there is a possibility of non-communist forces leading left progressive movements in this country. Had that been a possibility, then why would we scratch our head for finding the mistakes that CPIM has made and possible solutions that can be worked out!
AM’s argument against the principle of Democratic Centralism has been incorrect, too. However, there are issues to ponder about regarding the question of inappropriate working of Democratic Centralism. The practical malpractices (not to be confused with petty-bourgeois meaning of ‘corruption’) and non-communist trends within the party have to be figured out and uprooted entirely. Waning away of party education among the rank and file of the party and its mass organization is one of the major reasons which has led to distortion of Democratic Centralism.
Let the discussion continue…..
Stop preaching others
Get rid of your "imperialism" hysteria and behave like a responsible opposition with constructive criticism. Look at what happens when a govt fails to work for the poor, for example: tribal people. They are now up in arms who were once CPIM(M)'s most loyal supporters. So, learn a lesson from the poll debacle and stop lecturing other. That way you can avoid getting a "tight slap" ( a term many of the blog readers have reserved for the opposition including Amartya Sen). Then only you will have any chance of coming back to power in future.
@ Anonymous
You have obviously not read the article, have you? No wonder what you say is purely crap. The CPI(M) won in Jhargram Lok Sabha constituency, which was the largest tribal constituency in West Bengal by the largest margin compared to others in an election which was otherwise a debacle. So your thesis that the tribals have en-masse refused to endorse the CPI(M) is wrong.
The poll debacle does not suggest that the CPI(M) should give up its opposition to imperialism and to roll over and please the corporates and multinational forces as you want to do. If that's the only way to come to power and anyone feels so decisively, that person has obviously compromised her/himself.
Go ahead and provide your tight slaps to Nobel laureates like Amartya Sen. You can get your vicarious pleasure of it, but the people will be worst off.
Well, you misunderstood my
Well, you misunderstood my point. I was not suggesting to drop your political agenda or abandoning of your political philosophy. What I tried to say is that while you talk about "imperialism", you must try to do a good job in governing. Ultimately, people in the villages understand who is working to improve their economic well being, providing electricity, building roads and providing basic healthcare. They understand very little of "high-minded" discussion of imperialism and its relevance in their lives. All they know when they go to local panchayet office to look for jobs, they do not find any. When they want to send their kids to school to get primary education, they find that either there is no school in their village or there is no teacher in school to educate their kids.
Also, I did not say that your party needs to appease corporations. Good governance means a govt that works for everybody. While it takes care of the common people and their interestm it needs to balance the interest of the people and the private businesses. We do not live in a socialist country nor will we ever live. So, your party needs to understand that corporations are also part of our society. While their only goal is to make profit from their business operations, they also contribute a lot to the society by providing jobs in addition to other social responsibility that many of them feel ( for example: creation of IISC, TIFR etc). So, they should be a part of our society just as rest of us are. I agree that many times corporate interest and peoples interest may collide, and that is a reason we have regulations that a govt administers to keep them in check. However, your party considers private businesses as evil forces and always at war with them. Which I find is completely out of sync with the reality.
Finally, I did not want to slap anyone, rather it was some of your sympathisers in this blog used the phrase to describe the Mr.Bose's response to the Amartya Sen and others.
@ Anonymous
It is a myth that people don't understand the imperialism problem. If that was the case, the freedom struggle would never have happened. Just like it was necessary to emphasise on the role of colonialism in harming the peoples' interests during the days before independence; so it is necessary to highlight how the interests of the people are harmed by certain policies that pertain to nuclearisation, to strategic embrace, to caving into demands of multinationals; to hand over assets belonging to the people at large to corporate bodies; to give in to faulty and dangerous logic of financial liberalisation; to let peasants continue to suffer from structural agricultural policies that are favoured toward corporations and so on and so forth.
The question is whether the Left has done enough about addressing these concerns and to mobilise the people enough indeed against such policies. The answer is yes, it has and no, it has not been enough - apparently as the industrial policies in West Bengal and shortcomings in welfare governance has paid its price in terms of voteshare in elections.
The Left shares Amartya Sen's concern about human development, welfare, eradication of poverty and focus on primary health and education while not taking away the struggles for these from the broader struggle for peoples' sovereignty and cutting away from collaboration with pelf and super-profit seeking institutions of the North.
It would be interesting to know at what point you differ with the left on the above and why.
A simple reading of the world
A simple reading of the world history would tell us that imperialism did exist in the past, engendered by both capitalist and socialist block of countries. I am sure it exists today in some form or other. Although this is relevant, how much of it currently exists and in what form is another debate that I have no interest to engage in this forum. Only point that I want to make here is that an educated population is a prerequisite for the understanding of the current discourse of imperialism which is so different from the colonial time. But by turning West Bengal into one of the lowest ranking states in primary education in India after 32 years its rule, I do not think your party is honest about educating people of the state on imperialism. One might even question if all the talk of imperialism by your party really stems from the fact that without it the party cannot justify its existence! So, my point is quite simple, whether or not you practice your ideology or political belief, what is more important for the people is to get good education, healthcare, a sound legal justice system, and a decent earning to keep pace with the time. If those requirements are met, I am sure people would be willing to listen to your nuanced argument on imperialism and its effect on thier lives based on its merit.
@Anonymous
It is good that you have travelled some distance and agree that there is some form of imperialism that still prevails today.
But to take issue with you on West Bengal, I agree that there are shortcomings; but what you say is hyperbole. West Bengal is situated in a region - the East that suffers from some of the worst indicators of human development and economic indicators for years. When the left came to power in 1977, the literacy rate was pathetic (my memory says ..about 28%). Today its around 70%. There has been a transformation of rural livelihoods (and democracy) in the earlier days, and that released Bengal from a vicious cycle of stagnation through land reforms and increased purchasing power. Over time, Bengal has also turned toward industrialisation after the over-reliance on agricultural production for economic sustenance has become unviable. The trouble has been with the way and manner of industrialisation (big capital led, incentive driven and involving land acquisition). That has made the left lose sections of its support base, which stood solidly with it due to its past achievements at poverty alleviation, at better livelihoods and at imparting dignified lives for the rural poor.
What you are suggesting is merely episodic and rhetorical. If indeed West Bengal suffered from a case of complete neglect and deterioration, the left would not have voted to power repeatedly (and overwhelmingly). In order words, for the left to retain its overwhelming support and to win back sections that have stood by it, it has to re-orient its government's priorities toward welfare and strengthening the health and educational fronts rather than focus primarily on a rapid industrialisation drive.That is what is necessary for the state government to do.
Having said that, at the national level, the contradiction between the peoples' interests and imperial interests have intensified during the past 20 years. But for a section of the middle class (and of course the upper elite), neoliberal reforms have affected livelihoods badly (farmer suicides - check; contractualisation of labour - check; vast social-security less informal labour - check; rabid migration and crowding in unliveable areas in urban shanty towns- check; degradation of tribal livelihoods and high intensity of corporate loot - check;). The left has to identify central policies and alliances with imperialism in its struggles to address these. It is not contradictory to what its governments must do in power (in Kerala, WB and Tripura), as you are pointing out to.
In simple words, the people of WB will judge the left by what it does in power - yes; but would also want the left to keep articulating concerns of the vast majority of the Indian population elsewhere. And elsewhere, only by articulating such concerns would the left manage to grow and transform the socio-economic situation.
Some of the efforts in that direction have been successful. The Congress led government was pressurised into implementing welfare measures such as the NREGA, the Forest Rights Bill, take positions on the Patent Act and other such matters, because of the role that the left played in parliament in the last 5 years. This broke a neoliberal consensus on continuing a policy of reducing state expenditure and contraction of the state and reliance on the market. Of course, the measures in themselves are not enough; but the struggles against "imperialism" and the neoliberal consensus brought about those changes. And more articulations and positions on the same, should bring about more change toward a better set of people-friendly policies. The opposition to the nuclear deal, brought about in the public debate the importance of using alternate renewable sources of energy and the dangers of a strategic embrace with imperialism - an early consequence is the unnecessarily heightened tensions with China, for e.g. And so on.
That is the point I am trying to make.
I wonder if you think it is
I wonder if you think it is also unnecessary to show outrage when China claims an entire Indian state in NE(follow recent news and China's diplomat's protest for our PM's visit to Arunachal)? If the answer is yes, I would not like to waste my time and energy to argue with you anymore.
I wonder..
I wonder as to how you bring a completely extraneous issue (not that it is not important..and yes, I find it outrageous that the Chinese have heightened their claim on Arunachal Pradesh despite an agreement some years ago to work on a border settlement that does not disturb populated areas) to this discussion. For the record, the CPI(M) has made its position clear on Arunachal Pradesh (perhaps you missed it, or perhaps you want to miss it deliberately?) - http://www.ptinews.com/news/347282_Border-disputes-with-China-can-be-solved--CPI-M- .
Oh, I asked you this question
Oh, I asked you this question since you described the recent outrage in India as "unnecessary hightened tension" with China which according to you proves the "the danger of strategic embrace of imperialism....". I completely agree with you that the dispute should be resolved through peaceful means, given China's military might. But China's expansionist design should be condemned in no uncertain terms without stoking patriotic jingoism. It is China not western capitalist countries that wants to capture/invade certain parts of India. So to term that as some kind of proof of "the danger of strategic embrace of imperialism...." does not make sense and really sound bizarre.
your position is nonsensical
The border problem - interpretations on what India feels is the border and what China feels it is - has existed since independence of both the countries. India wants the McMahon Line ( a colonially determined border) to be made the actual border, while China resists. That much, everyone knows. The point is, whatever interpretations there might be, atleast in populated areas such as Tamang, the case for a new border line demarcation does not exist, as the people in Tamang have participated in elections and are acknowledged Indian citizens. Thats where my problem with the Chinese position lies. The 2003 broad consultative framework on borders between India and China in a sense acknowledged the above and things were quite positively moving toward a resolution.
The trouble for me is that ever since the Indo-US Nuclear Deal and the Indo-US strategic partnership moves (Defence Agreement, military exercises, purported business with US military firms et al), the easing of the border situation and negotiations between India and China over time has come to a sudden abrupt halt. The reason for the same is clear..the strategic partnership moves are targetted specifically at "Containing China"..that much is very well laid out in the documents from the American side as they went about this partnership and deal (read Ashley Tellis' concept notes on the need for the nuclear deal which set the stage for the agreement way back in 2005). The neocon regime in the US (compared to a more mellow Obama administration on US-China relations) specifically targetted a stronger partnership with India to contain China - a game that was wilfully accepted by our own Sinophobic lobby and which wholeheartedly supported the Indo-US nuclear deal in this regard (did you forget George Fernandes' statement for the reasoning behind Pokharan 1998?).
That also explains the exaggerated reporting on the border "tensions" and exaggerated support to the "Free Tibet" cause among some in the strategic community (former diplomat G.Parthasarathy for e.g.) that has followed. In some sense, the Indian government does not want this to go too far either..but the ball was already set rolling for a confrontationist position during the Indo-US Nuclear Deal and the strategic partnership moves with the US of A. That was what I meant by "strategic embrace". The Chinese rhetoric on Arunachal Pradesh does not amount to a position on "invading"/"expansitionist" ploy as you make it out to be. But at the same time, this rhetoric on Arunachal Pradesh is a derivative of our own government's stupid bandwagoning with the neocon led US, that is my point.
You cannot take the context of Indo-China border problems to suggest that these, as they exist, are a greater threat to Indian sovereignty than US led imperialism. The scale and reach of US imperialism in affecting Indian lives are of a greater consequence and bearing than the abstract threat to sovereignty due to Chinese claims (which can be negated through border negotiations). American and imperialist penetration into various spheres - agricultural markets and the offense that it has made on Indian farmers' lives (have you heard about farmer suicides?), into retail (which thankfully has to some extent been reigned in), into availability of medicine (which was also reigned in through the Left opposition and later modification to the Patents' Act) etc - have had a major impact on livelihoods. The enaction of welfare measures are necessary, but so is the necessity to preserve the Indian state's sovereignty in its regulatory frameworks that protect livelihoods.
Here are some of my
Here are some of my thoughts:
I don't know how updated you are on neocon philosophy, it is not a dominant political idea in American politics. Last eight years of Bush era may have given some life to it (post 9/11), but mostly it is a minority opinion in their political discourse. So, to think that neocon idea somehow shapes the US foreign policy to the extent that it wants to pit India against China is a wild stretch. More importantly and ironically, one needs to understand that today US and China need each other more than we can imagine. Economies of these two countries have become deeply dependent on each other. As you may know, China holds the biggest US debt in the form of US Treasury Bond, which currently amounts to 14 Trillion dollar. If you think through a little, you would understand that US simply cannot antagonize China directly or indirectly, let alone pitting a country like ours against China. The reason is simple, if China decides to stop buying debt from the US, US federal govt would almost shutdown overnight and the country will come to a screeching halt. In another word, there will not be any dollar for the US budget (US debt is 93% of GDP). At the same time, if the US stop consuming goods from China, all the jobs that had spurred Chinses growth would evaporate immediately. So, these two countries are currently in a symbiotic relationship, not antagonistic, no matter how much one wants to believe the latter. So, US simply cannot afford to act against China or Chinese interest and vice versa. That would be self-destructive for the US. This has fundamentally changes the US policies to China. US has accepted Tibet as China's territory, and did not say anything about Chinese crackdown on Uighurs Muslim that killed almost 200 people and so on. In anycase, my point is that sometime it is helpful to think outside the box to understand the new reality rather than to give in to the age old thoughts within the ideological echo chamber.
On India-China border issue, your argument really sounded like a defence lawyer arguing in a trial court to defend a murderer, where he accepts that defendant is guilty, but still makes some long winding statements to claim that defendent is not guilty. Well, if that is your position on Chinese diplomatic agression on Arunachal, I have nothing to say.
I really would have liked to make a lengthy comment on Patent law, but I guess I would save that for some other time. I am tired now.
@Anonymous
Basically you have nothing at all to say about the border issue and its implications, beyond some inane metaphor. I suggest humbly that you should read up a bit before discussing the same next time around.
On US-China relationship, thanks, but no thanks. I am well aware of the intricate financial and economic relationship between the two countries. I am also aware that the Bush era pitted India against China in the geopolitical sense very directly. Check this report by Ashley Tellis which explains this very clearly. Quoting The Hindu's correspondent, Siddharth Varadarajan -
Ashley Tellis argued in a recent monograph, "[the U.S. would] threaten to place New Delhi at a severe disadvantage vis-à-vis Beijing, a situation that could not only undermine Indian security but also U.S. interests in Asia in the face of the prospective rise of Chinese power over the long term" (India as a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005). This, then, is the real value of the deal in American eyes and the Indian public should be aware of it.
I agree that the neocon world view differs from the "Liberal imperialist" world view -you should check my article on the same in Pragoti written a while ago. I say -
The neoconservative project in the 2000s identified (and correctly according to the paradigm) that China, with its growing clout as the manufacturing base of the world, was re-emerging as a hard power and it was necessary to contain its rise. Hard power could not be used as Chinese and American interests were intertwined through the complex, intricate set up of economic relationships between the countries over the years. Enter the new logic of stopping the Chinese dragon on its tracks - containment through "balancing". How to go about it? Engage the services of the other "growing tiger" in the continent - India. Ergo - the Indo US Nuclear Deal.
...
The Obama administration in contrast to the Bush's or the hypothetical McCain's, would want a greater engagement with China, in particular to address the US' own financial economic plight as it stands. That would mean that the aggressive moves to use India as a balancer against China, an approach used by the Bush regime would not quite follow. But again, there would be a liberal internationalist zeal in the American foreign policy toward India- perhaps accommodating the rising Indian elites in the global economic clout clique - the G8 or other forums. There would be a return to the hyphenation thing; Pakistan is still important for the theatre of operations in Afghanistan and for the US' withdrawal from this affair (in contrast to a Republican intensification of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan). This explains the strategic community's angst against Obama and fear about his moves vis-a-vis India. I am not sure if Manmohan Singh would have an interest in expressing India's love for Barack Obama.
Thus, while indeed there is a shift in emphasis between the neocon era and the Obama era on China and India, it is also true that the Indian elite would prefer to bandwagon with the US against China as a Bush would have wanted. And that also explains why the Indian elite - sections of the strategic community, the media etc - are keen on ratcheting up tensions with China over a variety and gamut of issues.
In other words, you require a wider perspective on relations between states as they exist in the world today. I never tire of saying this aloud...
I understand the border issue
I understand the border issue quite well. It is just that I do not see enough merit to go on arguing against a circular position that I described as "trial court lawyer's argument" in my previous posting. Please do not take this personally. I guess we can live with the disagreement.
Secondly, American Exterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation in particular have lost most of their policy leverage after the end of cold war. They had some effect on the US policies during Bush era especially w.r.t Iraq, North Korea and Iran. I do not have so much faith in the transformative power of one published opinion as you seem to have on Tellis article. Even if I had any, I would not consider that as the basis of US role in India-China relation. But of course, you may choose to think that way.
Also, I did not see anything in your argument to show how US could use India as a balancing act aginst China in the backdrop of deep economic overlap between the two countries (US and China). However, I do not think incorporating India within an international forum is an act of pitting India against China.
Anyway, I rest my case here. Thanks.
Your case..
The nuclear deal was signed as a quid pro quo for Indian containment of China, during George Bush' rule. It is indeed true that the Obama administration has a different take on China, but that does not take away the fact that Chinese containment was a stated aim in the Indo US strategic partnership. And that heightened tensions between the Indians and Chinese are a consequence of the same. You seem not to appreciate this.
I see no understanding of the border issue in your comments beyond suggesting that the Chinese are keen on "invading" India..which is a crazy argument not made by even those who understand the issue and take different positions than I do.
Ashley Tellis was not just any policy wonk at some random think tank, but was part of the set up that assisted Nicholas Burns, the under-secretary during the time when he negotiated the Indo-US nuclear deal with India. My case stands.
imperialism died??
Well at the outset let me say sorry, since some of the readers took the literal meaning of “slap” in my comments posted, it almost brought US and China at breath- taking eye- to-eye stance !!!!
But I also failed to understand the sin by remaining in power for “almost 35 years” (Thanks for not joining the chorus of article 356 !!!) . If some sites portray a very gloomy side of left rule in WB, there are others available reflecting exactly opposite. Because statistics is a subject, where result changes its whole meaning depending on, who the interpreter is. I can not restrict myself on sharing this though on a funnier note, which says “Did you hear about the politician who promised that, if he was elected, he'd make certain that everybody would get an above average income?”
Well jokes apart, I think friends have really gone upset with the “imperialism hysteria” of CPIM and thus the example of Arunachal Pradesh , China , US followed . I think here one needs to keep in mind that in this era of globalization, the word “imperialism” is to be treated with same gravity if not more , since it has also gone through evolution.
It must be noted that , imperialism need not always come with thousands of tanks or artilleries or platoons of soldiers. That path of imperialism has been rejected by its practioners themselves ,when Adolf Hitler did the same with them in World War II . After that period , the form of imperialism changed but it's content remained unchanged ...rather it has become more shrewd in nature . If a super power attacks an oil rich country to protect its own currency value intact with a false accusation of lethal bio-weapons , devastates a thousand year old civilization , carpet bombing hundreds of schools , that is called imperialism in today’s time. When introduction BT Brinjall is lobbied by the none other than the foreign secretary of a super power in her first visit to a country where 1/3 of the world population lives , that is imperialism in today’s time. When the newly elected president of the super power wins the Nobel prize in Peace where nomination closed after a few days he assumed power in his office, that is called imperialism .
Anyway ,…... lets not elongate this list by adding examples , but what I am trying to point out .we might be “tired” of advocating the good side of imperialism , but be assured ,it NEVER tires down to play its original agenda ,although sugar coatings on top of it are sweet enough to lure all of us.
Bogey of Chinese Intrusion
it is not only the case that you have missed the cpim's position on china. it is also indicative to note that you have missed the fact that the Indian government, including the Prime Minister as well as the Chief of Army Staff have categorically stated that there is no chinese intrusion. are they also cpm agents? obviously not. they are only articulating what the truth is. the indian media has tried all means to rake up a jingoistic frenzy in the country on the imagined issue of chinese intrusion. it seems you have fallen in that trap.
Official Chinese Opinion about India
from Peoples Daily:
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91343/6783357.html