Category: India

Defining "National Interests" in Indian Foreign Policy


Pratyush Chandra

There has been a tremendous growth in politico-intellectual interest in interpreting Indian foreign policy. On the one hand, journals and newspapers are overflowing with analyses of India’s international activism, and on the other, we find a rise in institutions or ‘think-tanks’ specializing in it, both within India and abroad. However, it can be effectively contended that there is rarely any novelty in the approaches taken by these intellectuals, institutions and politicians on the issue. Most of them are restricted to producing permutation and combination of preconceived and ill-defined notions of “national interests”, “security interests”, “terrorism”, “pre-emptive measures” etc. Even progressive and ‘counter-hegemonic’ discourses are unable to go beyond conceiving the Indian policies as those of a ‘comprador’ third world ruling class, submitting to external pressures. This leads to analyses limiting themselves to mere tautological descriptions of the policies, different only in tone and of course in humanist tenor, but rarely disputing on the basic foundations of policy-making, that inform even the rightist jingoism and centrist pragmatism.

1. Indian “National Interests” – the Left-Right-Center Combined

The domestic opposition to Indian rulers’ intervention in international politics today is broadly confined on the following lines:
(1) They are compromising on the “national interests”,
(2) They are coming under the “American pressure”,
(3) As the consequence of (1) and (2), they are betraying their erstwhile “Non-Aligned Movement” (NAM) comrades.

Such tenor of opposition itself provides the Indian state a viable framework to rationalize its position. It can restrict itself to demonstrating how “national interests” are being served and sovereignty is not compromised, that it is taking its own decision and is being treated as an equal partner in the international strategic forums; further, that it is “leading” its erstwhile NAM comrades by actively representing them and supporting their political and economic sovereignty. This is effortless defense since there exists no need to defend the basic premises of the Indian foreign policy. There is unanimity across-the-board over the sanctity of “national interests”, sovereignty, the principle of “not coming under any external pressure” and India as a leader of the “third world” or “NAM” countries. The opposition counts on the evidences on which these sanctified principles are being violated, while the government in power provides counter-evidence on the same lines.

Recent debates “on the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP), the July 18 Agreement with the United States, the September vote in the IAEA and the recent deliberations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)” are typically confined to this mode of discourse – whether led by the leftists, rightists or centrists.

Seemingly, there is no disagreement on India’s right to be a “Nuclear Weapon State” while remaining “committed to the goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons”. Not long ago, when with the rightist Vajpayee government’s nuclear tests in 1998, political forces of all hues and colors not only refrained from criticizing the act, but on the contrary they fought to take the credit for promoting researches which led to India’s nuclear capability. Nobody apparently denies the ideal “that the best and most effective nuclear non-proliferation measure would be a credible and time-bound commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons from existing arsenals, including India’s own nuclear weapons” and that we should “have no desire to perpetuate the division between nuclear-haves and have-nots”. However still, the left, right and center all are guilty of aspiring to see India as “a permanent member of the Security Council”. They all want India to demonstrate “a growing capability to shoulder regional and global responsibilities”, and “focus … increasingly on trans-national issues that today constitute the priority challenges – whether it is terrorism or proliferation, pandemics or disaster relief”. Further, “we cannot sit out the debates on the big issues of our times. Our interests demand a vigorous and articulate diplomatic effort that explains our positions and advances our interests.”

The quotes above are taken from a single lecture by the Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran on “Nuclear Non-Proliferation and International Security” (1), wherein, despite its usual diplomatic nature, he eloquently presents the unanimous aspirations of the Indian political elites. Everybody (left, right and center) will agree with him that India’s approach to nuclear non-proliferation [or on everything] should be “a consistent one, a principled one and one grounded as much in our national security interests as in our commitment to a rule-based international system.”

While defending the recent decisions by the Indian government and its agreements with the US, he says,

“There is a continuity and consistency in our approach that may sometimes be masked by the particularities of a specific decision…. What appears to some observers as inordinate external influence over our decision-making in sensitive areas is, in fact, rooted in our own well-considered and independent judgment of where our best interests lie. This is in keeping with our tradition of non-alignment… We must adjust to change, change inherent in our emergence as a Nuclear Weapon State, change inherent in the sustained dynamism and technological sophistication of the Indian economy, and, as a consequence, change in global expectations of India as an increasingly influential actor on the international stage.”(2)

As a bureaucrat who is supposed to be “above politics”, Shyam Saran is not wary of making it a point to stress on the continuity and consistency in the policies of the Indian state, always reminding of the consonance of the present left-supported ‘centrist’ government’s policies with those of the erstwhile rightist Vajpayee government. In his defense of the Indian vote on the IAEA resolution on Iran, he stressed in his press briefings:

“I do not think that you should interpret India’s position as being aligned on the Left or on the Right or aligned with this group of countries or that group of countries. I think India has all along taken decisions on issues of concern to itself on the basis of its own assessment, and on the basis of its own national interest. So, the question of this representing a shift in India’s policy does not arise.”(3)

And he is obviously not wrong. All depends on how you define the “national interests”. And on their definition there is hardly any difference between various parties involved in the debate. One side says the government serves them, other side denies it; but nobody seeks to describe what those interests are and which sections of the society determine them.

2. “Uses of Domestic Dissent”

This fact of unanimity makes all mainstream approaches on the Indian foreign policy merely repetitive. They rarely question the basic foundation of the policy decisions. One says “compromises”, other notes “cooperation”; one notes “subjugation”, other says “equal partnership” etc. But this discursive exercise has a definite ideological role. Howsoever, this exercise seems futile, it significantly emasculates any decisive domestic opposition to the Indian state as they combine in unity on making it evermore “stronger” in the name of challenging ‘external pressure’, giving ‘international leadership’, and serving ‘national interests’ etc. It is this unanimous ‘nationalist’ tone in the Indian politics that has left the Indian hegemonic [militarist] exercises complementing and supporting the expansion of ‘national capitalist’ interests internationally unchecked.

The Indian interventions in the politics and economy of its neighboring countries and elsewhere are universally termed self-conceited and ‘big-brotherly’, but not imperialist. Hence what is seen as required is simply correcting this ‘aberration’, making the Indian policy towards these small and weak neighboring countries more ‘responsible’. The preconceived notion of a ‘third-world’ country imposed on the late capitalist countries does not allow the analysts to perceive their leadership as serving ‘national’ political economic interests by maneuvering internationally.

Further, any gesture of confrontation with the First World is termed ‘anti-imperialist’. This ‘anti-imperialism’ stresses the importance of the reconstruction of a ‘non-aligned movement’ and ‘south-south’ cooperation. But it does not take into account the material basis of a state-to-state cooperation between the “third world” countries. It does not consider the contradiction inherent in the ‘nationalist anti-imperialism’ in countries like India. At the juncture when India owns 35 percent of the FDI in Nepal, when it is the biggest investor in Sri Lanka since 2002 and has Bhutan and Maldives as perfect clienteles, do we expect India to lead another NAM? And if it does, what will be its role? Will it not be similar to that of Germany’s in EU, howsoever subservient to the US or any other global hegemonic power? Backwardness or lopsidedness of the Indian capitalism and society does not stop it from becoming expansionist and imperialist.

The indigenous corporate capitalist interests (immaterial of the adjectives we might choose to characterize them) today frame the agenda for the Indian state in the international scenario, whether pro-US or otherwise. These interests are formidably conscious and mature, as can be seen from the way the Indian state and capital combines their various strategies – a militarist combination with the US-Israel nexus, supposedly “progressive” alliance with various “third world” powers in WTO, independent oil dealings with varied forces, investments in oil fields, offer of lines of credit to developing countries in Africa and Tsunami affected countries, pipeline diplomacy and readiness to militarily-politically support all these. We cannot simply isolate one aspect of the Indian capitalist interests and generalize it to grasp their hydra-like nature. Competition and collaboration are inherent in the capitalist political economy. Will it not be just and appropriate to use this same principle to assess the “Indian designs”? Or else, we will only support them asking the Indian state to be “stronger” and will convert the opposing voices to mere instrument in its international bargaining. (4)

References:

(1) Lecture on “Nuclear Non-Proliferation and International Security” by Foreign Secretary Shri Shyam Saran at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, October 24, 2005, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
(2) Ibid.
(3) “Press Briefing by the Foreign Secretary on the events in UN and IAEA”, September 26, 2005, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
(4) In fact in a recent article by Harish Khare such use of dissent has been proudly advocated. See Harish Khare, “Uses of Domestic Dissent in Foreign Policy”, The Hindu, October 26, 2005.

For a different interpretation of Shyam Saran’s lecture, see Siddhartha Varadarajan’s India submits to the Bush doctrine?

India’s “Persian Puzzle” – A Possible Solution


Pratyush Chandra

[The recent Indian vote on the IAEA resolution is being generally interpreted as a sign of the Indian state’s subservience to the US. However, the reality belies this simplistic analysis. At the risk of being labelled economic determinist, this article brings out some facts that indicate towards the growing expansionist interest of the Indian capital. It is this expansionism that drives the Indian state to defy its ‘non-alignment’ past and design its own game-plan, which at least for now coheres with the US global strategies.]

India has finally voted in favor of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution on Iran. Everybody was speculating that at last an issue has come up that will break the pace and uniformity of the growing Indo-US relations. But India has made its choice clear in the world market of strategies and alignments. There are various lines of explanation that dominate the discussion on the rationale of India’s choice on the issue. The most prevalent one is of course based on the belief that the “third world” states are congenitally incapable of taking such decisions except under the pressure from the West. This view generally presumes these states to be ‘soft’ and their ‘national’ hegemonic interests to be weak, which can easily be swayed by the external pressures. Further, any gesture of confrontation between these states and the Western states especially the US is generally taken as potentially anti-imperialist. However, this view cannot explain the Indian case as it does not capture the basic political economic processes that are increasingly integrating the Indian hegemonic interests within the global strategic alignments and realignments.

The Official Justification

Even before voting for the resolution, the Indian government had been categorically stressing that there was “no difference in objectives between India and the United States vis-à-vis Iran even if the two sides differ on tactics”.(1) Further, even when India stressed on “diplomatic consultations to evolve an international consensus on how to deal with Teheran’s decision to continue its uranium enrichment programme”, it never wanted “another nuclear weapon state in its neighbourhood”.(2) Under these circumstances India’s vote must not be taken as a surprise.

The Indian foreign ministry is not wrong when it says that India’s vote on the resolution was actually in line with whatever had already been happening. This continuity is what constitutes the “evolutionary” foreign policy of India, as envisaged by its present Foreign Minister. The Indian leadership has consistently expressed all its international dealings in terms of “national interests”, “security interests”, etc. Once again, with regard to its vote on the IAEA resolution, the justification given by the Indian state is based on an ideological depoliticization of the so-called “national interests”. In the words of the Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran:

“I do not think that you should interpret India’s position as being aligned on the Left or on the Right or aligned with this group of countries or that group of countries. I think India has all along taken decisions on issues of concern to itself on the basis of its own assessment, and on the basis of its own national interest. So, the question of this representing a shift in India’s policy does not arise.” (3)

However, it all depends on the way you define the “national interest” which under neoliberalism (the professed ideology of the Indian state at least since 1991) means nothing but what provides leverage to the Indian businessmen and their businesses.

The Context

While analyzing India’s strategic maneuverings internationally, the analysts very rarely note their economic dimensions. It is scarcely admitted that India’s relationship with other developing countries after 1991 has been increasingly based on the export of capital and the Indian investment abroad. And in most of the cases, such economic relationship has been simultaneously equipped with militaristic aid to those states. India has been offering credit lines to many Afro-Asian countries that they can utilize for infrastructure building and other business purposes with a condition that they will employ Indian companies. India’s ‘non-aligned’ past has allowed it to have a major share in the capitalist subordination of the backward economies in Africa and Asia. In fact, the rhetoric of non-alignment (“South-South cooperation”) plays an efficient ideological role in rationalizing the expansionist drive of the Indian capital. Recently after India refused the foreign aid for its own Tsunami victims, the Indian External Affairs Minister, Natwar Singh, while offering Indonesians “concessional credit for reconstructing roads, buildings, harbours, ten units of fully equipped hospitals”, rattled proudly that “they were lumping us with the others but now we are seen separate offering our help and assistance”. (4)

Definitely, since 1991 India has been consistently endeavoring to be recognized as a faithful ally of the US. Its nuclear graduation and global politico-economic interests have shown the US leadership that it is a force to be reckoned with, and its subordination provides one of the most reliable allies to oversee the Indian Ocean and meet up with China. In recent years the growing energy needs of the Indian capital has forced the Indian State to invest in the oilfields abroad – India has operating assets in Sudan, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Myanmar, Libya, Syria, Sakhalin Islands, etc. It has been acquiring competitive amounts of shares in foreign oil companies. All these make India a player in the global oil politics too both as an investor and a consumer.

The Indo-US relationship is thriving in this context, and has a clear-cut ‘material’ semantics. India requires not having a confrontation with the “global police” state when its capital is struggling to stabilize its share in the global pool of surplus value, of which a major portion comes from the American market and the Indian investment in the US. Further, by providing dual citizenship to the Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) recently, the Indian state has further increased its own responsibility of protecting NRI capital in exchange of ‘rent’ and the assurance of repatriation of profit.

In this scenario, apparently one may interpret the Indian vote on the IAEA resolution as an appeasement of the US-led ‘coalition’. But here too there is a vital interest of the Indian capital that is playing an important role. The recent pipline diplomacy between Iran, India and Pakistan is quite well known. It is impossible to interpret the Indian vote, which is unequivocally affirmative (not even abstention!) on a resolution that is meant to isolate Iran, without connecting it to the facts of the Indian ‘oil politics’ in general and its pipeline diplomacy with Iran in particular.

The Nature of India’s Oil Interests and the Global Coalition

Recently, while rationalizing the Indian nuclearization, the Indian Defense Minister noted:

“India is a heavily energy deficient country. Of all the variables that could hinder India’s economic progress, energy scarcity and dependence are probably the most serious. Seventy percent of our crude oil is imported. Per capita energy consumption presently is only 1/5th of the world average. Considering a high growth rate of around 8 percent of GDP per year in the coming years, growth of oil demand is projected to be 6 percent per annum. If so, dependence on oil imports could rise from 70 percent to 80 (percent), to 85 percent over the next two decades. It is therefore imperative for us to look for cost-effective and long-term alternatives to meet our energy requirements. Indian oil companies are currently actively involved in a search for energy in the form of oil and gas fields, pipelines, LNG, and other new and non-conventional sources. But most hydrocarbon resources underline our dependence on limited reserves and others for this critical requirement. They also carry scope for avoidable strategic energy rivalries.” (5)

The clue to India’s alignment with the US hegemony in the Middle East lies here. Its energy deficiency, yet the desire and ability to proactively make up for it, makes the Indian rulers a player in the Middle East conflicts. Major, yet low productive oil producing industrialized countries, including the United States (6) and oil deficient industrialized economies can influence the global oil price only by appeasing or isolating OPEC countries. Since a major determinant of the oil price today is the differential oil rent appropriated by the highly productive oil economies like those of the Middle East, “cost effective” energy appropriation requires reducing this rent. The bully tactics (“either with us or against us”) of the US and other Western powers in the Middle East has been mainly geared towards this purpose.

The increasing Indian investment in the oilfields abroad was definitely triggered by the need to satisfy the domestic energy requirements, but ultimately as it happens with all capitalist ventures, these investments eventually develop their own logic of earning profit. With increasing divestment in the state owned oil companies of India and intrusion of private capital, this becomes furthermore true. Hence, the need to minimize the differential oil rent, which the oil companies have to pay to the oil producing countries, becomes an important aspect of India’s international political intervention, too. So this unity of ‘economic’ interest serves as the background for the increasing Indian intervention in the Gulf politics and that too in consonance with the US hegemony and other non-OPEC powers. India’s readiness to refuel the American warships during the First Gulf War and later during the Afghan War all point out that there exists an Indian consciousness of possible material gains from its subservience to the US led coalition. However, because of a formidable domestic anti-imperialist opposition, until now the capitalist preference in India could not come out as openly as it has in the vote on the IAEA resolution.

It is worthwhile to note that that a major hitch in the Indo-Iranian negotiations on the proposed pipeline was also related to pricing. “India has taken the position that any price above the US$3 per million British thermal units (BTUs) currently being paid by its power and fertilizer sectors for gas on the international market is unacceptable. Iran, in contrast, appears to be seeking more than US$4 per million BTUs, a rate that will only go higher if Pakistani transit fees are added.” (7) This might have been one of the major reasons in persuading the Indian state to go with the scheme of the West, since the isolation of the Iranian regime and its consequent desperation to earn revenues in the midst of enveloping sanctions can make the Iranians more compliant to the Indian demands and increase the weight on the side of the Indians in the negotiations for the pipeline.

References

(1) The Times of India, September 16, 2005
(2) The Hindu, September 21, 2005
(3) “Press Briefing by the Foreign Secretary on the events in UN and IAEA”, September 26, 2005
(4) Indian Express, January 8, 2005
(5) Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s Talk on “India’s Strategic Perspective”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington DC, June 27, 2005
(6) Cyrus Bina, “The Economics of the Oil Crisis: Theories of Oil Crisis, Oil Rent & Internationalization of Capital in the Oil Industry”, Merlin Press, London, 1985.
(7) A.J. Tellis, “India As a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington DC, 2005

Ways of Waste Management


Economic Times, Sunday, August 7, 2005

Even the most rabid globalist would admit that globalisation, too, has its “discontents”, although most likely he would reason them to be due to insufficient effort towards globalisation on the part of governments, or ignorance on the part of the general public or its inclination towards immediate results.

In fact, there has been an increasing trend in social researches, coming out of premier First World institutions, of moralising social conflicts. They see them as “greed disguised”. But at least this much everybody will admit that the dream of a peaceful, post-Cold War global village has not materialised.

…

This leads to a general apathy towards legal political processes as they do not allow the “multitude” even the illusion of influencing the institutions that affect their economic well-being. The recent nos against the new EU constitution are symptomatic of the general mood against such depoliticisation.

That apart, the general unrest in Latin America against free-trade agreements originates from similar political consciousness. And though one should not draw up any definitive blueprints and conclusions for the future, history does force us to imagine limited possibilities.

Full Text:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1193605.cms

Advani’s Jinnah Drama


Advani’s Jinnah Drama – An exercise in Goebbelsian parliamentarism

Advani’s recent visit to Pakistan was quite meaningful. Perhaps the most apparent reason was to assuage his aggressive communalist image, which is seen as a hindrance in posing him as a ‘national’ leader of a ‘secular’ India. Vajpayee’s image of a moderate rightist made him more acceptable, despite Advani’s unique popularity among the ranks and files of all the rightist forces in the country, due to the latter’s leadership in the movement that led to the demolition of the Babri Mosque and communal riots across the country (although he denies his own participation in the actual demolition). If we understand this purpose, the total game plan behind the just finished Jinnah ‘controversy’ seems deliberate and well designed. It shows the strength of the fascist forces in India and their ability to manipulate opinions and coordinate their own organs skilfully. How does it matter, at least, to BJP, VHP and RSS whether Jinnah was secular or not? Taking into consideration their perception regarding the state and the role of religion in defining it, it is highly suspicious that they are reacting against Jinnah being called secular. They could have made it an occasion to tell people that Pakistan is the result of what they call ‘pseudo-secularism’, as they are always ready to reinterpret their leaders’ meaningless utterances. But they did not choose to do that, or rather they wanted to take time in doing so. It was only after the drama that BJP started convincing its bewildered cadres that Advani was actually suggesting that despite Jinnah’s secular speech at the time of independence, he created a theocratic state. However, the collaboration between the different organs of the ten-headed (dashanan) RSS was perfect as always, and it corroborates the Italian anti-fascist leader Togliatti’s characterisation of fascism as a chameleon –
1. Advani calls Jinnah secular,
2. VHP’s Togadia croaks immediately in his regular spirit of mindless denunciations,
3. RSS too does some chastising,
4. Advani is defiant; he resigns and calls for an open debate,
5. BJP is in temporary crisis,
6. “Secular” toadies in NDA, like Nitish Kumar, come in support of Advani, and threatens to pull out of the coalition,
7. Vajpayee and the BJP leadership soothe Advani and,
8. Advani withdraws his resignation.

Logical Conclusion: Within a few days of drama, Advani has become fit for leading a ‘secular’ India. Togadia’s abuses, RSS’ chastising and Nitish’s mediation all are necessary for such qualifications.

Tsunami, Aid & Imperialism


Pratyush Chandra

ML INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER (MARCH-APRIL 2005)

1. The Tragedy Engineered!

Colin Powell while heralding the American aid missions for tsunami affected areas rightly summed up the American Spirit, “I think it does give to the Muslim world and the rest of the world an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action”.(1) As if the Christian god has created the devastation to allow the American angels to show kindness, and the third world simpletons to hail the virtuosity, lordship and “freedom” of the Americans. That their wretchedness would make them understand that it is for their good that the Americans make war, as it is for them that now the Americans give aid, and that they must not hate America’s “freedom”. But it was William Blake who once said in one of his prophetic poems:

Pity would be no more,
If we did not make somebody Poor

You make us poor to serve us! Facts do sufficiently tell us that the enormity of the devastation caused by tsunami could have been avoided. Even if it was not consciously designed, the callousness with which the warning of the impending disaster was treated and disseminated is peculiar of the imperialist mind set and work strategy. Their techniques fail and targets are misfired only when others are victims, giving the imperialists opportunity to show off all those things what they say. It happened in Bush’s first tenure on 9/11 (he found a mission!) and it happened now during Bush’s second tenure.

The bulletins issued by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PWTC) show a striking irregularity exclusively with regard to the particular “megathrust” earthquake that hit Indonesia on December 26 leading to the Tsunami waves. It had predicted and reported every small and big seismic event before that particular quake in the region judging their implications. However, this biggest earthquake was casually reported. Even when the warning was issued, it was selectively disseminated – “according to the statement of the Hawaii based PTWC, advanced warning was released but on a selective basis. Indonesia was already hit, so the warning was in any event redundant and Australia was several thousand miles from the epicentre of the earthquake and was, therefore, under no immediate threat.” Of course, “the US Military and the State Department were given advanced warning. America’s Navy base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean was notified.” The excuse came, “We didn’t have a contact in place where you could just pick up the phone.” But several Indian Ocean countries are members of the Tsunami Warning System! One witnesses the unprecedented activism of the US military in the region after the disaster, yet they did not care to disseminate their foreknowledge of the impending calamity!(2) Although the monopoly over information and its selective dissemination are necessary to remain powerful and are strategically very important to have an edge in the imperialist (politico-economic and military) competition in the era of “imperialism without colonies”, it would be premature to assess the degree of deliberation in this particular case, without the danger of being hounded as a conspiracy theorist (poor Ward Churchill!).

2. The Game Plan

The immediate effect of the Tsunami disaster was that it shifted the whole attention away from Iraq where the American imperialism was caught compromised and naked in bloody orgy. Lately the invasion in Iraq was increasingly marred by the revelation of sex ‘scandals’ and other heinous atrocities committed by the American torturers to humble insurgencies. Insurgencies themselves were on increase along with the intensification of global protests against the illegitimate elections. Moreover, the US needed other venues of expansion for further strengthening its strategic and political economic control globally, while its lesser allies went on with cleaning the mess it has left, and its competitors still coping with the shocks in the money market due to the dollar’s instability (showing their dependence on the US economy).

On the other hand, the European impotence was starkly evident right from the beginning. Initially, the European powers accused the US for being indifferent in providing aid to the devastated region, but later they were themselves left behind as militarist activism allowed the latter to be swifter and far more visible in the whole effort. The unilateral announcement of the coalition, with only Japan, Australia and India invited, came as a jolt to the European confidence. However, after a few days only, Powell announced that “the coalition will be disbanded and folded into the broader UN-led operations” as “it served its purpose”. In fact, “the “core group” was announced by President George W. Bush at his Crawford, Texas ranch on December 29 as he tried to dispel criticism that his initial reaction to the disaster was slow and the initial US financial aid of $15 million stingy.” (3) The “stingy” US made others feel stingier. The European countries were found concentrating “support in areas where their nationals have suffered more”.(4) Jeremy Seabrook rightly concludes, “For the western media, it is clear that a tourist’s tragedy is more important than that of the ‘locals’”. This is true not only of the media but even the governments there. They seem to believe that “in death, there should be hierarchy”.(5)

Further, the US (like its competitors) found a new veil of aid to cover its shame and new accomplices, like India and Sri Lanka, with old ones once again readied for the occasion. Regarding what foreign aid is, Hattori has rightly pointed out, “What most clearly defines foreign aid is the symbolic power politics between donor and recipient. Aid practice transforms material dominance and subordination into gestures of generosity and gratitude. This symbolic transformation, in turn, euphemizes the material hierarchy underlying the donor-recipient relation. In this process, recipients become complicit in the existing order that enables donors to give in the first place.”(6) Powell’s tenor in the statement quoted in the beginning starkly attests this conceptualization of the foreign aid. The tsunami tragedy provided US imperialism an opportunity to refurbish its old bases established at the time of the Korean, Vietnamese Wars and other occasions, and to articulate actively with regional forces and “powers” once again. It allowed the regeneration of the “donor-recipient” relation in the region, which was getting loose in the post-Cold War era. The regional ‘rentier’ interests that were once precious allies in the coalition against the Soviets went dissatisfied and independent due to a divergence of the imperialist concentration, and even posed threat to global hegemonies by fuelling fundamentalist populisms (which in essence diverted genuine popular anti-systemic sentiments). In the tsunami aid drive, these interests in Indonesia, Malaysia etc can once again be harnessed and militarized. On the other hand, the US military for the first time openly traversed through South Asia, which was relatively independent due to its ‘relative’ non-alignment. Thus, one can say that the Tsunami tragedy has allowed an overhauling of the “international” power relations in the region under the US hegemony.

3. The Politics and Economics of the Indian Aid

India, which has been ever ready to respond to the slightest gesture from the US for military cooperation in the post-Cold war era, was flattered to find the open invitation to join the US led “tsunami coalition”. It did not wait to rethink its old stance to strengthen the UN, which is increasingly being used as toilet paper by the imperialist forces. However, what they call, “inter-operability” and “mil-to-mil” relations were already at place after 9/11, where they could jointly visualise, “The U.S.-India defense relationship has grown to a stage where the future is clear. It is one in which the two militaries can work in unison to combat the regional and global challenges of terrorism, administer peacekeeping and humanitarian action, keep the high seas safe for the movement of commerce and energy, take the lead in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and be a force for stability in Asia.”(7) Joint military and naval exercises in the regions of insurgencies like Northeast India and in the Indian Ocean have already become frequent. Tsunami ‘coalition’ gives this cooperation an immediate purpose and provides an opportunity to legitimize the relationship. It creates, at the cost of the victims, an occasion to have an overview of the region and to build up the infrastructure necessary for pre-empting any future bellicosity in the region uncomfortable for the global power relations.

The snake charmers of non-alignment themselves seem to be charmed away by Bush’s infantile abracadabra of “strong partners”, “against evil”, “for virtues”. However, who knows better about the materialist function of such chants than we Indians whose ancestors would bring rain and grow plants using magical spells and incantations. The Indian ruling class has its politico-economic motive to go into the relationship with the cowboy. After India refused the foreign aid for its own victims, and the Indonesian President thanked India for its aid and assistance to Indonesia, the Indian External Affairs Minister, Natwar Singh’s rattled proudly that “they were lumping us with the others but now we are seen separate offering our help and assistance”.(8) But is this pride mere vanity? Does not the politics of foreign aid, which applies to the assessment of every other imperialist forces hold true for India too? Is India the only country devoid of any crass Shylockian motive behind “its gestures of generosity and gratitude”? Do they not euphemize the “material hierarchy”?

One pop intellectual in India, while writing an eulogy on the tsunami “coalition”, says, “The immediate motivation for the four-nation cooperation involving India and the U.S. is one simple fact that no one country can manage the consequences of the extraordinary disaster we are confronted with today.” But he himself provides the clue to the hidden motive – “India and the U.S. also want to ensure the security of energy supplies from the Gulf region. They also seek to ensure the safety of sea-lanes, which carry oil and a lot other commerce in the Indian Ocean. While these broad common objectives were recognised, there had been no real occasion for the two countries to actually work together in managing security in the Indian Ocean. The tsunami disaster has provided such an opportunity.”(9)

The Sri Lankan socialists perhaps know the meaning of aid in clearer terms. The United Socialist Party has demanded the withdrawal of all the foreign (American, British and Indian) armies that have arrived in the name of tsunami aid. They claim to have “received a very good response when they exposed the hypocrisy and true intentions of US imperialism and also of Indian imperialism. Both are allegedly deploying troops for humanitarian reasons but, in truth, are aiming for increased economic and military control in the region.”(10) For them the danger is quite evident as both the US and India have the similar reading of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, where both have dubbed the LTTE to be terrorist.(11) Further, India has increasingly defined its “national security interests” in Bushist terms – perceiving every conflict in its neighbourhood and South Asia as threat to its security. It recently pulled out of the SAARC meeting explicitly citing the recent events in Bangladesh and Nepal as reasons.

In the particular case of Sri Lanka, India has sufficient political economic interests to take care of. “India has recently become an important investor as a result of the India–Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement… Indeed, India was the largest investor in Sri Lanka in 2002.”(12) Further, with regard to the aid to Indonesia, too, the cat was almost out of the bag, when Natwar Singh met the Indonesian President. “Apart from the assistance sent so far, we could also offer them concessional credit for reconstructing roads, buildings, harbours, ten units of fully equipped hospitals”.(13) Washington Post saw India’s contribution in relief efforts as a sign of its emergence as regional power, and finds, “Although India still accepts some foreign aid, such help is declining in importance with the country’s rapid economic growth. In the last few years, India has begun to transform itself into a donor nation, offering lines of credit to developing countries in Africa and elsewhere.”(14) Hence, India is perfectly in line with the other imperialist forces in capitalizing on other people’s sufferings.

4. Conclusion

All shades of progressives, leftists and relatively conscious human beings booed when Bush talked about the American compassion and generosity. The tactic to divert attention from the brutality of Iraqi occupation was evident to everybody. Anti-imperialists consistently and timely exposed the real facts behind Bush’s rhetoric and Tsunami tragedy, while continuing to irritate the imperialists and their media hogs by not allowing them any rest and exposing their plans and blunders in the Middle East.

In the tsunami-affected regions, as in Sri Lanka, people are categorically stating that, “The tsunami aid which is a product of the sacrifices of the working people around the world should go to the needy people directly, as quickly as possible. All the reconstruction and relief distribution should be in the hands of democratically-elected committees of the affected people and the trade unions.”(15) Voices are being increasingly raised against the covert agenda of the new coalitions between the indigenous ruling interests and global hegemonies in the tsunami-affected regions. The Thai people are protesting the increased American military presence after December 26 and disapprove of the proposed build-up of the American military at Utapao air base and in the Gulf of Thailand, which were used in 1967 to station aircrafts for bombing North Vietnam.(16) Further, the Indonesian ruling elite had considered the American ‘humanitarian’ and military aid an opportunity to bring back political legitimacy and stability, similar to what the Americans visualized in it for themselves, according to one American historian, “an opportunity to try to move beyond the frustration of Iraq and pre-emption and tensions with the Islamic world… an area where the U.S., with its financial resources and its logistical capability, can work in a cause that no one can argue.”(17) But all these seem to be illusory at least till now; the corrupt polity in Indonesia seems to make things furthermore complex, while the Americans always find their dream of being welcome as liberators rebuffed – Vietnamese rebuffed it, Iraqis are continuing to do so, and even the tsunami victims, howsoever they are helpless, are not inclined to do any different.

NOTES

(1) “Powell: US values in action”, CNN (5 January 2005), available at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/tsunami.disaster/

(2) Michel Chossudovsky, “Discrepancies in the Tsunami Warning System” (14 January 2005) available at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO501C.html and “Foreknowledge of a Natural Disaster” (29 December 2004) available at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO412C.html

(3) “US disbands India, Japan, Aus tsunami group”, posted on Indian Express website (6 January 2005) http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=40427

(4) “EU downplays transatlantic row over Asia aid”, posted (5 January 2005) on http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/050105162445.jhwxapg9

(5) Jeremy Seabrook, “In Death, Imperialism lives on”, The Guardian (31 December 2004)

(6) Tomohisa Hattori, “Reconceptualizing Foreign Aid”, Review of International Political Economy 8:4 (Winter 2001)

(7) ‘People , Progress, Partnership – The Transformation of US -India Relations’, available at http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/in1/wwwhppp.html

(8) PTI, “Indonesia praises India for tsunami help”, Indian Express (8 January 2005), available at http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=40490

(9) C. Raja Mohan, “India and the Indian Ocean: from isolation to multilateralism”, The New Nation, (7 January 2005), available at http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/printer_15238.shtml

(10) “Sri Lanka after the Tsunami”, The Socialist (22 January 2005), available at http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2005/377/index.html?id=pp4.htm

(11) C. Raja Mohan, op cit. “India and America also now share the objective of peace and stability in South Asia. They have a joint interest in countering terrorism and extremism in the region. In Sri Lanka for example, New Delhi and Washington are both opposed to terrorism by the Tamil Tigers and seek to maintain the unity and territorial integrity of the island nation.”

(12) UNCTAD 2003 Investment Policy Review: Sri Lanka

(13) PTI, op cit.

(14) John Lancaster, “India Takes Major Role In Sri Lanka Relief Effort: Aid Is Sign of Nation’s Emergence as Regional Power”, Washington Post (20 January 2005). Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22194-2005Jan19?language=printer

(15) Same as in (8)

(16) “Tsunami Relief as a Subterfuge? The Pentagon Scrambles to Reenter its Old Thai Air Base”, available at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SIR502A.html

(17) David E. Sanger, “Aid Summit Talks in Jakarta: U.S. Is Facing a Choice and an Opportunity”, The New York Times (02 January 2005), available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/international/worldspecial4/02diplo.html

Bush’s Re-Election and the ‘Indian Dream’


Pratyush Chandra

ML INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER JAN-FEB 2005

Interesting reactions over the US elections came from two sections of the Indian society – those vocalised by different associations of the Indian capitalist class, and those coming from the right reactionary forces of the country. More interesting is their open concurrence not only with regard to their assessment of the economic impact of Bush’s victory, but also with regard to their politico-militarist tenor. In my opinion this concurrence speaks a lot about the character of the so-called “national” bourgeoisie and their immediate interests.

Generally, it is assumed that the Indian ruling interests in the foreign political developments are rent-oriented, i.e., gathering favours for offering Indian markets. This judgement is too simplistic and does not match up to the complexity of capitalist international relations. Further, it fails to grasp the nature of capitalist development in India. Marxists enriched the concept of “imperialism” in the second decade of the 20th century to grasp this very complexity of relationships in capitalism. They saw in imperialism a “dense and widespread network of relationships and connections” causing “the propertied classes to go over entirely to the side of imperialism”. (Lenin: 133) They recognised the crisscross nature of international associations and treaties between “national” ruling classes. With the later development of “shareholder” capitalism and MNCs/TNCs, inter-national relationships have become more complicated, which cannot be explained by strict geographical conceptualisation of core/periphery divide. The Indian ruling interests have to be explained as embedded in the global logic of capitalist accumulation, their aim, like their competitors’, being to siphon away as much profit from the global pool of surplus value as they can, by collaborative or aggressive tactics.

This complex relationship between the Indian capitalist class, their political representatives and global politico-economic developments is evident in reactions to Bush’s victory. Strategic and militaristic concerns are predominant in them. They perceive Bush’s victory as an opportunity to ensure the implementation of “Next Steps in Strategic Partnership” (NSSP) with India, which was elaborated in his first tenure. NSSP outlined collaborations in high technology, civil and nuclear space programs and trade. Bush’s commitment to the partnership was taken to be evident in the setting up of the U.S. India High Technology Cooperation Group, U.S. India Cyber Security Forum and the Joint Working Group on Terrorism.

The Indian political and economic elites rely strictly on the “strategic calculus” that would garner Bush’s attractions for India. Since the collapse of Soviet Union, the Indian ruling class has been trying hard to sell themselves as a regional force that can act as a reliable watchdog for global imperialism. The decision to refuel the Anglo-American warplanes in 1991 during Chandrashekhar’s regime, India’s desperate graduation as a nuclear power and bargaining favours on its basis, and sycophant persuasion to get employment during the Afghan War – all amount to the same goal of selling themselves as a power to be reckoned with for any strategic building up in Asia. And they feel now the time has come to realise the “Indian Dream”.

Just after the elections the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) hoped for President Bush’s visit to India early in his second term to provide a new thrust to U.S.-India relations. Rumsfield has already arrived to pave the way for the mission. The CII finds, “Bilateral defense relations are at record highs with the two countries organizing joint military exercises and patrols and are now looking at cooperating in newer areas such as missile defense”, and “a second term now provides an opportunity to build on these initiatives.” The CII being a prime association of the Indian corporates finds the economic gains packaged in this aggressive military relation that puts the government-to-government agreement for cooperation in place. The Indian bourgeoisie seem to agree with the pop-intellectual of American imperialism, Thomas Friedman (1999) that “the hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist – McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnel-Douglas, the designer of the F-15”, and that the hidden fist that keeps Silicon Valleys and their technologies safe is the army, navy and air-force. I think he forgot to add private armies and “Ku Klux Klan” rioters, who do what “legal” forces can’t do. Further, with the Indian stakes in McDonalds, why will not F-15s be refuelled in India?

A representative of the Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), Prasanta Biswal, voiced a similar hope and found that “the republican administration has been pro-India with people like the under secretary of Commerce, Ken Juster, and former ambassador to India Robert Blackwill. We just hope that the initiatives that have been taken will be carried forward and at the same time, they will take newer initiatives.”

A presentiment, definitely, existed that the Democrats would have faced difficulty in avoiding the nationalist pressure of the biggest labour union in the US, the AFL-CIO, which has been the most formidable support base for the Democratic Party. This could have resulted into the curtailment on outsourcing etc., which is an important source of tapping on low wage zones for global profit making which then is shared by the MNCs in the first world and their collaborators in the Third World. In India especially in the IT industry there was an uneasiness and apprehension. The Hindu (Nov 5, 2004) reported, “The re-election of George Bush as President of the U.S. has ended the brief period of uncertainty for the Indian IT industry. Mr. Bush’s rival John Kerry’s protectionist promises that included ending the outflow of call centre and software development business from the U.S. to other countries had made the Indian industry, one of the biggest beneficiaries of this relocation, apprehensive.”

However this fear was false because, on the one hand, any “mature” democracy and its parties are fully trained to dupe such support base while still maintaining it. On the other hand, both Republicans and Democrats have always been involved in propaganda competition on who fulfils the “American Dream”, hence both play on chauvinism to hoodwink the American masses, while remaining consistently married to the expansionist drive of the capitalist class. Even the “democratic” Clinton sagely commends the “conservatives” for drawing “lines that should not be crossed”. (Walsh, 2004)

In fact, the chauvinist tenor of the American Dream and American values herds together the masses behind expansionism as supposed “resolution” to their plight. It is true, the organised labour everywhere has been on defensive in the phase of globalisation, when capital flight works as the regimenting factor. In the face of non-availability of any immediate revolutionary option in the society, they revert to the ideology of desperation, of introversion, to slogans like “buy American, be American”. On the one hand, this forces them to convince the capitalists of their commitment to the industrial “peace”, to make “national” industries competitive in the global market! On the other hand, it consolidates the domestic market for the “national” bourgeoisie of the US. Hence, the “labour support” nowhere binds the hands of the US state or any capitalist state to do what it is meant to do as the governing body of the ruling class.

Particularly interesting is the response of Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS); though one never knows which part of its sounding zone will be claimed official – fascism is always cacophonous. A few months ago RSS Chief Sudarshan “discovered” about the US funded programme to christianise India completely by 2010 or so, and propounded the US to be India’s worst enemy. But now in the columns of RSS’ mouthpiece, Organiser (Nov 21, 2004), one finds Bush as the emancipator of the world from “oriental Talibanism and occidental anarchy” and by re-electing him the Americans have salvaged their civil society. In this column entitled “America, America … says the PM, Comrades want him to shut up” (a usual and unimpressive stuff of anti-communism), Rajendra Prabhu finds “the relationship between India and the United States has been transformed from the cold war suspicion to strategic partnership where the two have deepening mutual interests”. He praises Bush for bringing democracy and freedom to Afghanis and Iraqis. “Today our companies, our government, our experts are building roads, hospitals and schools in that country.” Afghan war was in “our national interest” (one of the Bushisms).

Prabhu, further, notes, “the Presidential election campaign in the US has thrown up the deep divide within that country over Bush’s action and strategy in Iraq.” But then “it was Iraq action that sent the shivers in Pakistan also that the American President could act if the Musharraf regime refused to tango with it in suppressing the Islamic fundamentalists”, thus the US action once again fulfilled “our national interest”.

In a sycophantic tone, peculiar to the “liberal” section of RSS, he lauds Bush’s messianic goals. “From Indonesia to Egypt, the historic Muslim Crescent did get a message in various intensities that the days of oppressive regimes are numbered. Regimes have changed no doubt through elections in Indonesia and Malaysia, and stirrings of a more liberal approach are buffeting the royal regimes and semi-autocracies. If finally an elected government takes office in Baghdad, the President would be vindicated. It looks doubtful at present given the rising level of violence. It looked impossible in Afghanistan also even six months back. But it has happened.” The cowboy spirit of Bush makes possible all Missions Impossible.

Finally, Prabhu concludes – “In this US election, besides Iraq and terrorism, the most divisive issue was the destruction of family values through such aberrations as gay marriages, legalization of lesbianism and such social viruses. For years it seemed the New England liberal establishment and California’s aberrant communities would hijack core values of the country. But suddenly the silent majority gave up its silence and spoke through the ballot to restore the social balance. American ultra liberals may be in mourning. And the Islamic fundamentalists are angry. Civil society needs to be saved both from oriental Talibanism and occidental anarchy. At least that is what the Americans accomplished in this election.”

Both the Indian capitalist class and the rightist forces find strategic and militaristic collaboration between India and the US as crucial for the Indian “national interests”. The only difference is that the latter provides the former with a voice that can draw the general masses behind these national interests with the help of the homogenising effect of aggressive chauvinism. It allows the ruling class interest to become a national interest. Sudarshan’s rabid anti-Christian rhetoric ghettoising masses on communal lines uniquely combines with the “secular” urge of profit-making that can be fulfilled only by joining forces with the US imperialism.

Sections of the Indian capitalists suffered a heavy shock a few months ago to see Vajpayee government voted out of power. It was the government that represented their interests while perfectly taming the masses with its rightist rhetoric. It is not that they were averse to the Congress, which has been their representative for the longest period of time. But the Congress could not sustain itself as such because of its inability to combine various sectional interests within the rural/urban ruling classes while simultaneously regimenting the general masses. In the neo-liberal phase of global capitalism it could not provide a stable government with an aggressive tenor required to support the domestic capital to collaborate and compete in the post-Cold War globalising market. After numerous ups and downs, Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) graduated as that political power. But its defeat and moreover the parliamentary left’s position in a crucial role of stabilising the new government made the capitalists desperate.

Now, the new Congress government has the dual task of competing with the rightist political gymnastics and moderating the damage on the state’s legitimacy by the earlier government by its naïve open communal preferences. Further, it has to continue with the act of settling in the evolving global polity. The biggest contribution of the earlier rightist regime was its determination to fashion its international surroundings in favour of the corporatist interests in the country. Its tactics ranged from the hype of nuclear blasts to the laughable sycophant persuasion of the Anglo-American masters to get employment in the Afghan war. The Indian oil interests and other corporates had their heyday during Vajpayee government. It was the first consistently “outward”- oriented (even if not expansionist in the normal sense of the word) regime, concentrating on building a place in the global polity as a junior partner in global imperialism. As a result, Manmohan’s government has the major task of internal re-legitimisation of the Indian state with a furtherance of the basic orientation of the earlier government, i.e., its economic and foreign policies. In fact, the left support gives his government the essential political legitimacy to pursue these tasks. The parliamentary left was quite easily tamed by the manipulated stock exchange turbulences just after the general elections. It is being time and again forced to reassure the “business” community of its moderated nature. Even when it says that its support must not be taken for granted, it is extremely afraid of the immediate fallout of any hard-line on its part. This situation has become another self-justification for not waging “class struggle” leading to their further reduction as a distinct force of the working class. This tamed radical has become the biggest asset of the capitalist state, which was struggling for its legitimacy right from the initial days of liberalisation in the country.

Frankly as regards to the American policies it hardly mattered who won the election – Bush or Kerry. But for the Indian politics Bush’s victory is significant in the sense, that it allows the rightist forces to once again pose themselves as the smarter representative of the capitalist class attuned to the global needs, which is evident in their respective reactions to Bush’s victory. Further, it pressurises Manmohan to be on the “right” track even with a left support, as he has already demonstrated recently. His initial efforts to start a dialogue with nationalist and left extremists were perhaps laudable, but he has not shown any sign of doing away with Vajpayee government’s belligerent rhetoric and apparatus to wage its own regional “war against terrorism” that includes fighting the left insurgency in Nepal. Bush’s re-election is definitely a gift to the Indian capitalist class and the rightist forces in India, as it would continue to build an atmosphere of aggressive globalism. And they have aptly interpreted the result of the American elections – a victory for militarism and rightism.

References:

Dutt, Rimin (2004) “Indian business groups welcome Bush’s re-election”, IndUS Business Journal Online Nov 15, http://www.indusbusinessjournal.com

Friedman, Thomas (1999) “What the World Needs Now”, New York Times, March 28

Lenin, V.I. (2000) Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Left Word Books, New Delhi

Prabhu, Rajendra (2004) “America, America … says the PM Comrades want him to shut up”, Organiser Nov 21, http://www.organiser.org

Special Correspondent (2004) “IT Sector greets Bush’s Re-elections”, The Hindu Nov 05, http://www.hindu.com/2004/11/05/stories/2004110503541500.htm

Walsh, David (2004) “Opening of Bill Clinton’s library: a sordid gathering of the “fat cats””, World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) Nov 20, http://www.wsws.org/

Tsunami, US & India


Pratyush Chandra

[This article analyses the ‘confident’ moves of the Indian state during the Tsunami crisis. It seeks to demonstrate that India’s increasing integration with the imperialist camp is not driven by any “ideological” illusion but rather is a manifestation of the definite material needs of the Indian capital, which are essentially expansionist.]

1. ‘Tsunami’ Coalition – Context & Implications

In India, the ruling Congress Party has finally buried the remains of the Nehruvian foreign policy. In 1992, Narasimha Rao destroyed one of the major pillars of the so-called “nonalignment” that guided India’s international relations during the Cold War, when he established full ties with Israel. Before this, Chandrashekhar’s desire to allow the refuelling of the American warplanes in 1991 had already announced the way things were going to shape up. The Vajpayee government stretched this to the extent of a complete abandonment of the principle of nonalignment. Manmohan Singh has now completed the process, by abandoning the formal Indian stand for strengthening the UNO as the global coalition to resolve international disputes and provide humanitarian aids. Becoming a part of the US-led 4-nation coalition (which includes its most stable allies in the region, Japan and Australia) for tsunami relief efforts, the “pragmatic” India has shown the world, other western powers and its former comrades in the NAM (non-aligned movement) that it sides with the US. It has aligned with the US’ unilateral strategy to impose its own designs on the world community, by announcing its moves and then using the UN as a rubber stamp.

The coalition came as the American response to the initial criticism from its European competitors for late rising to the occasion for providing relief to tsunami victims. Only Australia, Japan and India were invited, excluding not only the European nations, but also the time-tested militarist allies of the US in the region. India’s initial ‘displeasure’ over deploying of the 1500 US Marines in Sri Lanka was shut up in the sheen and prospects of being close to the US. The latter, knowing that it cannot compete economically with other Western powers, nevertheless is aware of its only strength – its military might and the capacity to go anywhere and bully anybody. Even the European Union foreign policy head Javier Solana’s spokesperson had to admit that the United States’ military muscle allows it a higher visibility in the current crisis around the Indian Ocean.

The US is effectively using the occasion to extend its militarist tentacles in Southeast Asia and Indian Ocean. It is returning to its Vietnam War bases like Utapao Royal Thai Naval Air Force Base on the Bay of Thailand, in the name of setting up a “command centre” for the tsunami emergency relief effort. It has revamped all its ties in the region. Sri Lanka’s ruling elites have found new muscle support allowing the US Marines to venture its terrain. Most importantly, it is the occasion for the US to strengthen and test its relation with India, as its most stable support in the region. In the name of humanitarian aid it has established sweeping ties with the regimes in the region and refurbished its strategic machinery within a few days after the tragedy.

But what does the Indian refusal to “humanitarian aid” for its own victims signify? Is it not ideological, “anti-imperialist” stand? Not at all. If it had happened 20 years ago one could submit to such illusions. This refusal along with its readiness to provide aid to other victim countries involves something more than this simplistic rhetoric. Definitely, India seeks to demonstrate to the world that it is self-dependent and a power in itself with which western powers must reckon to pursue any strategic designs in the Indian Ocean. Its “ambitions” must be understood as culmination of the particular configuration of material interests composing the character of the state in India, its assessment of its own capacity to hegemonise the region.

2. US Interests in India

The US knows how to pamper such “ambition”, and aptly responded. Bush lauded India’s “very strong leadership” thanking it “for taking a lead in this issue”. Regarding the coalition he said, “one of the first things that we did was to put together a core group of nations, nations that are capable of organising relief efforts around the region, and the Indian Government has been especially strong, as a part of this core group”.

The European powers, not in the Anglo-American coalition, understand the American design, but cannot do anything about it. France thinking it an opportunity came in defence of India, when it was criticised around the globe for refusing the aid. The French Defence Minister Michelle Aillot Marie said, “Those who criticised the Indian government’s decision not to accept the aid don’t really understand or know the country’s technological, financial and economic strength and its capability to deal with such crises.” However, it is clear in this competition, for the present at least, the US military prowess allows it to go so far, where others still fumble to tread.

It was arguably the greatest “mainstream” economist of the 20th Century, John M. Keynes, who once said “Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth.” The present century was already going through endless wars, when the tragedy of tsunami occurred. It would be a matter of immense research and controversies to assess the exact “positive” economic value of these disasters. But Powell has already made it clear that the US aid for tsunami victims will be beneficial for its strategic designs and “war against terror”. He said in the tone typical of the Yankee politicians, “I think it does give to the Muslim world and the rest of the world an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action”.

The induction of India in this design signifies a clear extension of the American front throughout the Indian Ocean. The growing economic and consequent political might of China is a concern for the US and the erstwhile “Asian Miracle” states, who are invariably its allies. China plays a crucial role in the global rivalry for hegemony between the US and EU. The US cannot depend on Chinese road to capitalism, which has its own peculiarities and strength, as it cannot depend on Russia or any other East European states, humbled and weakened as they are now. China has been “unbalancing” the hegemony of dollar in the region and world. Indian clientele therefore acts as a definite respite, as no other economy has the potentiality in making up to the Chinese with regard to size, strength, resources and stability. Further, it is the only credible state, which can oversee or even intervene in the political, military and economic activities in the Indian Ocean. The submission of India, being a growing economy (though with its own uneven pace and specificities) and with a stable political system, unlike other American allies in the region, provides an immense potentiality for the strategic interests of the US. What could be a more auspicious opportunity for such alignment than the relief efforts for tsunami victims? It is the time when only a few can smell deception, and those who do are so humbled by the disaster that they lack guts to point fingers.

3. Reasoning Indian Interests – Mere Big Brotherly or Imperialist?

On the other hand, the growing expansionist motivation of the Indian capital drives the Indian state to muster its own strategic plans. There are evident political economic reasons underlying these designs, but characteristically these are generally ignored even by the radical “anti-imperialist” forces in favour of arguments based on the simplistic rhetoric like “big brotherhood”, etc. Perhaps this is due to the overwhelming persistence of the ossified conceptualisation of the strict division between core and periphery, where both are homogenously and geographically defined. However, below are cited some relevant facts, which demonstrate that there are sufficient reasons for the Indian State to give aggressive support to the hegemonic material interests of the Indian capital, which are perfectly attuned to the dynamism of global capitalist accumulation.

Firstly, India’s tiny, yet growing oil interests, forces it to be with the US’ “war on terrorism” (although, toned down because of the domestic pressures), play love-hate relationship with Pakistan, have rightist love affair with Israel, nourish its little-known interest in Sudanese and other African and Arab conflicts. Although most of the Indian manoeuvrings in the international oil market is through the state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), Oil India Ltd (OIL) etc., there is considerable private motivation directing them. The upcoming “oil baronage” of Reliance Industries taking over the state’s Indian Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (IPCL) and divestment in other public sector undertakings in core sector including ONGC are increasingly solidifying the oil interest in the country. Until the Indian “private” capital is confident enough in the world of petro-oligopolies, the State’s mantle can provide the essential leverage required to make up to these oil giants. In fact, states in the OPEC countries are virtually the “organized body” of the “oil” capitalists and business negotiations are executed state-to-state. As an example of recent achievements in this regard is the ONGC being “in the race for picking up Canadian firm EnCana’s stake in a cluster of oil fields in Ecuador. The state-owned company is also in talks with Russia for picking up stake in the assets of oil major Yukos.” (Business Line, “ONGC eyeing EnCana’s stake in Ecuadorian fields — In race for Yukos assets” (11/01/2005)) Further, Business Line (08/01/2005) informs “ONGC Ltd is negotiating a 12-year loan to raise $600 million for financing a Sudan refinery expansion project for its subsidiary ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL)”. Sudan is already hosting the largest Indian investment abroad in the oil sector. This sufficiently explains India’s defence dealing with the Sudanese regime when Sudan’s defence minister visited India in December 2003 preceded by its oil minister’s visit. Besides Sudan, ONGC has operating assets in Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Myanmar, Libya, Syria and Sakhalin Islands. On Sep 3 2004, ONGC Videsh Ltd announced that it reached agreement with Vanco Energy Company, USA to acquire 30% participating interest in an exploratory block, Offshore Ivory Coast.

But more importantly, throughout the 90s and afterwards, India has sought to make South Asia its own political economic regional base by playing crucial role in the political conflicts of other countries in the region, like Nepal and Sri Lanka, whose economies are heavily dependent on the Indian capital. In Nepal, seven countries account “for over four fifths of cumulative FDI. India alone accounted for one third, followed by the United States and then China.” India being the biggest investor in Nepal since 1996, owns 35% of the enterprises with FDI and 35.8% share in the total FDI. (UNCTAD 2003 Investment Policy Review: Nepal) Taking into consideration the enormity of the Indian “imperialist” stakes in Nepal’s economy, India’s growing interest in Nepali politics and the dependence of Nepali political elites (the king, the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML) are not at all unanticipated. Similarly, “India has recently become an important investor as a result of the India–Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. This agreement has huge potential for generating FDI focused on the Indian market. Indeed, India was the largest investor in Sri Lanka in 2002.” (UNCTAD 2003 Investment Policy Review: Sri Lanka) In both cases, low tariffs on import-export in post-liberalisation trade agreements have given the Indian investors the ability to re-export to India goods they could manufacture cheaply in Nepal and Sri Lanka. Even investors from other countries have expressed interest in investing in Sri Lanka and Nepal to export to the Indian market. This gives India further advantage since these investors in Sri Lanka, Nepal and other countries in the subcontinent force their own respective political representatives to seek ties with India to have access to its market.

All these facts, at least, evidence that India has much on stake now to be simply non-aligned to the “hooks and crooks” of global imperialism, and the Indian capitalist class with their political representatives are definitely aware of this. India is defining its own “war on terrorism” and is not wary of having “pro-active” militarist build up for “pre-empting” attacks. It is not at all uncomfortable now with the idea of having “national security interests” across the border, and is ready to cross it if it must. All these add up to graduate India as a strong ideological, economic and military partner of the emerging “Global Right” under the leadership of the US. Tsunami relief efforts are only strengthening this partnership.

New Textile Policy


– A Policy of Dark Intent

Pratyush Chandra

LIBERATION, Vol.7 No.10, December 2000
(Published with some modifications)

It was way back in 1765 when Adam Ferguson declared that capitalist industries “prosper most where the mind is least consulted.” Hence, it is but natural that the Government decided the fate of the millions of “helots” toiling in the textile industry without consulting the trade unions, by proclaiming the New Textile Policy (NTP) on 2nd November.

The textile industry contributes 20 percent of the value addition in the manufacturing sector. Its contribution to GDP is 4 to 5 percent and export earnings exceed 30% of the total exports of the country. Garment exports stand out as the single largest foreign exchange earner. It becomes obvious for the global profiteers to stress upon the opening (or de-reservation) of this sector to prosper on its potentiality.

Even prior to the constitution of Sathyam Committee, which became the basis for the formulation of the NTP, the Government(s) had started responding to the global ‘cry’. The whole approach could be seen from the annual rate of closing down of the units dramatically being crossed within the very first few months of the year 1998-99 when 64 textile mills (57 spinning and 7 composite mills) were closed down till December ’98. 8 out of the 9 subsidiary corporations of the National Textile Corporation Ltd. (NTC) had already been referred to BIFR, which declared them as sick companies. Proclamation of sickness and closure has been the most prominent mechanism to discredit the public sector industrial units and in building consensus on their sell-off, ever since the Indian State embraced the monetarist logic of IMF/WB. Regarding the organised textile industry, the main reason cited by the governments for sickness and closure is “structural transformation resulting in the composite units in the organised sector losing ground to powerlooms in the decentralised sector, on account of the latter’s greater cost effectiveness” (Ministry of Textiles, Annual Report 1998-99, pp.15).

Sathyam Committee appointed in 1998 by the state thus oriented, could not be expected to come out with anything but solid rationalisations for the policy, make it more target-oriented and evolve an efficient strategy for its implementation. It categorically stated that reservation is meaningless in a liberal and global economy. Hence along with the deregulation of Public Sector Mills, the protection of Small-scale Industrial (SSI) Sector has also to be revoked.

Since immediate full-fledged implementation of these recommendations could be outrageous, the swadeshi government has decided to implement them in instalments. The New Textile Policy as the first dose sets off a target to increase textiles and apparel exports to $50 billion by 2010 from the present level of $11 billion. It commits “to encourage the private sector to set up integrated complexes and units and to assist it in setting up special financial arrangements to fund the diverse needs of the industry.” Effectively, since the State itself diagnosed the composite character of the textile mills to be problematic, the new policy tends to erase it through the transference of weaving sections to the big monopolies-run decentralised powerloom sector.

Leaving the Handloom Reservation Act (HRA) and the Hank Yarn Obligation Scheme (HYOS) untouched for the time being, the new policy has already started building a consensual regime by adopting a slow dose policy towards de-reservation. It envisages a cent percent opening up of the garment sector. The ‘decentralised’ small-scale garments industry, which (despite all kinds of legal protection for SSIs) is already oppressively harnessed by the big finance and mercantile capital through credits and ‘putting-out’ system, would now be legally subjugated. It is not at all a secret that the so-called decentralised sector’s efficacy thrives essentially on the insecurity of contractual/casual workforce.

Regarding the untouched HRA and HYOS, it would suffice to mention that waiving-off the quantitative restrictions on imports has already delimited their provisions by de-reserving various handloom items. Further, the government has already accepted the proposal for restructuring the handloom and powerloom sectors into three tiers. Sathyam Committee on the basis of changes in the post-WTO phase has itself recommended a search for “alternative avenues of livelihood for the weavers of the second and third tiers” of the handlooms sector, which would eventually close down.

The policy claims that the dismantling of the quota regime (multi-fibre arrangement) by the year 2004 would further enhance the export of the textile products and garments. The protectionist posture by the developed countries in the name of anti-dumping policy belies this optimism. In fact, duty-liberalisation on our part would further make the balance-of-payments unfavourable for us.

Regarding the hype of “technology mission”, modernisation and mechanisation for a labour intensive industry like textile, in general, would definitely raise the level of redundancy further and in order to tame its implications, labour laws would be further revamped and authoritative socio-political laws would be framed to curb any social fall out. Despite vows like raising cotton production by 50%, the ‘profiteer’-oriented NTP continues with a pro-synthetic policy followed over the last many years and would further add to the sad plight of the cotton-growers.

The NTP is undemocratic in its very essence and content. In its desperation to serve the interests of the owner of capital, it betrays the vast majority of the variables in the “complex sectoral dispersal matrix” constituting the textile industry – workers, artisans, weavers and farmers. The unceasing demand of the workers’ organisations to even discuss the Sathyam Committee Report on the basis of which the NTP was framed, was never taken heed of. It only corroborates the fact that “the ‘retreat from the state’ has not, in general, reduced the role of the state or made society less bureaucratic, but it has meant a direct (re-) commodification of many aspects of social life.” (Bonefield & Holloway, Global Capital, National State & Politics of Money, pp.1)