US President's India visit Time to rise & Defend Independence Self Reliance Strengthening in agriculture

Now that the euphoria generated over the US president Bill Clinton's visit to India has settled down, one is definitely in a better position to analyse the event with a cool mind. Then one will perhaps better appreciate why a good chunk of our people and the Left parties were opposed to the visit.
One thing is notable at the outset. During his brief Bangladesh visit, before Clinton commenced his official visit to India, he had already given enough indication that imperialism has not changed its colour at all. The fact that Clinton did not go to pay homage to the martyrs of the 1971 Liberation War was not a matter of a lack of courtesy only; such homage could have indicated that US imperialism regretted its role in the sub-continent in 1971. But that was not to be, for imperialism would not be imperialism if it starts respecting the sentiments of the third world countries. It was with this very frame of mind that Clinton began his visit to India.
The way US security personnel and White House officials behaved in India, before Clinton's arrival and later as well, brought the imperialist arrogance in full light. What to speak of the common people, even the Rajasthan chief minister and governor could not escape being heckled by US securitymen. Since much has already been written about it in press and in these columns, we need not dwell on it here.
REAL OBJECTIVE
The visit has to be understood in the international context of today when the world has become unipolar after the USSR's disintegration, with no counterweight to the US-led imperialist camp. From the point of view of the third world countries, pitfalls of this unipolarity of the world are clear, among other things, from the way the imperialist camp behaved with Yugoslavia and Iraq, from the way it tried to intervene in Somalia, from the way it tried to arm-twist the DPR Korea on the atomic reactor issue, from the way it tried to prevail over the Palestinians and Arab countries, from the way the US bombed Sudan and Afghanistan in the name of fighting terrorism; and from the way the US forced Russia not to sell to India its cryogenic rocket engine technology to the detriment of our space research. These are but the latest instances of imperialist depredations whose list is much longer. Cuba's woes due to the US embargo are still continuing. Aggressive NATO is being expanded eastward without any reason whatsoever.
It was in this background that Russia, China and India, three of the biggest countries of the world, realised the need of coming together and strengthening their relations to mutual advantage and to the world's advantage. The process went a step ahead when the United Front was in power in India. Our talks with China led to a situation where we were saving about Rs 4,000 crore a year that would otherwise have been wasted on defence expenditure if tensions persisted on our northern borders. World public opinion also desired further strengthening of the relations between these three countries in the interest of global peace and development.
But precisely this was not to the liking of US imperialism that saw in it a threat to its drive for global hegemony. This explains why the US bosses always desired that there should be in New Delhi a government friendly to them. The two BJP-led governments at the centre have been this very kind of government. The way the GOI went to extreme to generate euphoria on the Clinton visit, justifies our apprehensions on this score. One of the unannounced but real purposes of Clinton's visit to India was to prevent an axis of Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi from emerging, as such an axis could well have become a big force in international politics and a counterweight to the imperialist hegemonic drive.
In fact, the government of India's fulminations against the country's time-tested foreign policy of non-alignment, independence, peace and disarmament eminently suits the imperialist interests in South Asia and on the global plane. The way the GOI has refused to take steps to reactivate the NAM, only underlines its real aim in foreign policy sphere.
CLINTON ON KASHMIR
As for the government sitting in New Delhi today, it had just one demand to make to the US president -- that he should not think of going to Pakistan. We have already explained why this demand was utterly ridiculous; it is another thing that Clinton, on his part, did not oblige the GOI and made a brief stop-over in Pakistan while returning.
While in India, Clinton very cleverly dealt with the Kashmir issue so as not to hurt the Indian sentiments. He categorically said he had no intention of meddling in Kashmir affairs though he did not clarify why he had at all promised to Nawaz Sharif that he would take a "personal interest" in the issue. While the GOI may have reason to be smug over the assurance given by Clinton, for our people there are reasons to be wary of it and to take the statement with a pinch of salt. Going by newspaper reports, US thinktanks are still busy preparing blueprints of a "resolution" of the Kashmir dispute; US policy-making circles (including Madeline Albright) are still describing Kashmir as one of the world's hot spots and a source of potential danger, implying that a US role is still needed in this area. Moreover, Clinton's statement by no means guarantees what the US perception on the issue will be after the change of guard in that country after the year-end.
But the most important thing in this regard is that Clinton did not describe Kashmir as an integral part of India. It is known to the whole world that it was the people of Kashmir themselves who decided to link their fate with India and even fought, with guns in their hands, the raiders that were armed and sent by Pakistan to capture the Valley. Yet Bill Clinton behaved as if this fact of history simply did not exist.
Clinton's self-congratulatory claim of having helped in solving the Kargil issue also amounts to accepting that he is not above intervening in the sub-continent's affairs.
A PARALLEL EXAMPLE
Here it is worth recalling how the Clinton administration intervened in the Middle East affairs. While it is British and US imperialists who violated the UN mandate in 1947 about forming a Jewish and a Palestinian state in the area and instigated and helped the Zionists to capture the whole of Palestine, thus making the Palestinians refugees in their own land, it is the US imperialists who pressurised the Palestinians to virtually give up at Oslo their demand of statehood. Ever since then, as before then, imperialists have always been backing Israeli Zionists and pressurising the Arab states to give in. While Palestinians were forced to considerably scale down their demands, Israel is refusing to vacate the areas belonging to Egypt and Syria, and has not yet fully withdrawn its forces from South Lebanon. To put it plainly, imperialist intervention in the Middle East has never been for a just solution of the dispute; it has been motivated by its own interests in the region. Will it not be too much to expect that US imperialists will play a just role in Kashmir?
In fact, let us recall what Clinton's advice to the GOI has been -- that the line of actual control (LoC) should be respected. What does this mean? Is it not tantamount to saying that the LoC must be made permanent, and that the POK must be accepted as a legitimate part of Pakistan? Behind this repeated emphasis on "respecting the LoC", and turning it into a permeanant line of division is the long-held aim of US imperialism of turning Kashmir into an independent state, through the vehicle of a 'plebiscite'. They are counting on the fact that in the event of having to choose between going to Pakistan, or India, or of becoming independent, the choice will be made for independence. And an 'independent Kashmir' would be the ideal set up and most advantageous to enable the US to have a firm foothold. Let us recall that this region has a unique place in the geo-political strategy of US imperialism; it is a region from where it could hope to gain strategic advantage over India, China, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asian republics and even the Russian Federation.
In fact, Clinton well knows that India cannot afford to forgo Kashmir and that Pakistan cannot really hope to get it by force. Naturally, notwithstanding Clinton's protestations about non-interference, the US still hopes to play a role in the affair -- to its own long-term advantage. This is the real pitfall involved in the US position, which the Indian people have to constantly keep in mind.
Clinton's advice to the GOI about using restraint on the nuclear weapons issue is also not beyond suspicion, howsoever innocuous it may appear. As said last week, while the US has got an assurance from the GOI about no nuclear testing in future, it itself did not give any such assurance, nor did it assure anything about the US agreeing to time-bound elimination of all nuclear weapons from the world. It is true that there is always the danger of a nuclear flare-up in South Asia on the issue of Kashmir and that, therefore, both India and Pakistan will have to exercise utmost restraint in their mutual dealings. At the same time, the two governments have also to see to it that jingoist elements in their respective countries are kept in check. But it in no way minimises the danger which the US nuclear weapons pose to the rest of the world, to any freedom-loving country of the globe. Can we Indians afford to forget the existence of US nuclear weapons in Diego Garcia?
CLINTON IN PAKISTAN
During his sojourn in Pakistan, Clinton tried to impress upon the military dictator, General Parvez Musharraf, that he should try to sort out the Kashmir dispute and other bilateral disputes with India through negotiations. But yet he remained silent about the Pakistani position that no dialogue with India could take place unless their demand on Kashmir was met. In fact, Musharraf's strength lies in the fact that this position is supported by all major parties in that country who think they will only be rejected if they begin talking reason on the Kashmir issue. That is the reason all major parties in Pakistan have been trying to incite passions on the issue.
For his part, Musharraf, in trying to distinguish between 'jehad' and terrorism, and by stating that he is only fighting jehad in Kashmir, is using this distinction to provide a cover for the continuing acts of terrorism both across the LoC and inside Kashmir.
Clinton welcomed General Musharraf's announcement about holding local bodies polls soon. But he did not go beyond asking Musharraf to restore democracy in the country. In fact, on the issue of restoring democracy, he was much less forthright than the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan that has criticised as a farce the holding of local bodies polls without restoring democracy at the national and provincial levels.
A self-appointed votary of human rights the world over, Clinton did not say anything about the human rights violations in Pakistan.
One thing is noteworthy here. By deciding to make a stop-over in Pakistan, Clinton has done two things. First, he has indicated to the government of India that while India is welcome to come under the US umbrella, the US is not going to write off Pakistan. Secondly, Clinton has accorded to the Musharraf regime de facto if not de jure recognition. This must have only gladdened the military dictatorship that is at present facing isolation internationally.
BEHIND-THE-SCENE DELIBERATIONS
But Kashmir and nuclear arms were not the only themes of the Clinton visit; no less important was its economic aspect. Yet the sad fact is that the euphoria generated by the government over the visit only helped to conceal the deliberations that took place over economic issues, largely behind the curtain.
Naturally, it will take some time before all the facts about these economic deliberations come out. But one thing is certain -- that the government of India has conceded many things to the US, to the detriment of our national interests.
In any case, it was evident from the very beginning that something like this was going to take place. The presence of about 250 US and NRI businessmen in Clinton's entourage was in itself an indication that far-reaching agreements were in the offing. Clinton also gave to Ambani a 40 minute interview -- much more than the time he gave to the Indian prime minister. Some details of the Indo-US agreements in economic spheres have already been given in Prakash Karat's article in these columns last week. And now, others too have begun to criticise these agreements. For example, a Delhi-based NGO, the Centre for Science and Environment, has lambasted the Energy Pact signed between the two countries as a sell-out of India's interests to benefit the US regarding its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.
An iniquitous Indo-US Pact on Technology was signed even though Clinton did not say anything about US sanctions on technology transfers to India, whether those imposed much earlier (as in the case of Tarapur atomic power plant) or those imposed after Pokharan II. On the other hand, a former foreign secretary, J N Dixit (The Hindustan Times, March 29), has expressed the apprehension that the US may impose further sanctions against India in the name of non-trade issues like human rights and labour standards.
A REAL DANGER
Overall, Clinton impressed upon India the need to further open up and globalise. While the Indian people are getting first-hand experience of what bitter consequences the policy of liberalisation, globalisation and privatisation is bringing for the third world peoples, now the decks are being cleared for importing foodgrains from the US into India in the name of the same globalisation.
This is, no small matter. It will be noted that the US wheat and rice exports are highly subsidised and that this issue has been a permanent bone of contention between the US and European Union. In fact, this issue also highlights how the WTO rules about quantitative restrictions and etc., are applied only against the weaker countries; these rules do not force the US to stop subsidising its wheat and rice exports. Therefore, the imported of US wheat and rice into India will be much cheaper than the locally produced foodgrains and will ruin the Indian peasantry. At the same time, it will also divert a big portion of our cultivated area to the production of non-food crops.
This is the real danger inherent in such imports. For once the country loses its self-reliance in foodgrain production, achieved after assiduous efforts of our peasants and at a heavy cost, there be nothing to prevent India from becoming dependent on the US for its food requirements, and subjected to the imperialist blackmail of the earlier PL 480 type. The GOI would do well to recall that even Japan, economically a powerful country, does not allow rice imports from abroad.
This is the real challenge for the Indian people, and for the Left and democratic forces in particular, who have to shoulder the onerous job of organising the people against imperialist threats to our country. The issue at stake is not of wage increase or bonus or any other partial demand. It is a matter of defending the very sovereignty of the country, our very independence that was won after innumerable sacrifices made by many generations of freedom fighters. This is a task for which the people's support is assured provided they are aroused and made conscious of the danger looming ahead.