The D-Day came and went off, smoothly in the end. Surely there were ripples, even a storm-like situation but finally the Manmohan Sing emerged victorious. His government won the trust vote amid all kinds of dramas, allegations of bride, sale and purchase of Members of Parliament. Surely, as some MPs said, Tuesday (22.7.2008) was the saddest day in the history of India’s Parliament. But perhaps it was the most defining moment also.
The government’s convincing victory will not only accelerate the process for signing the nuclear deal with USA but would also enable it to push for economic reforms on the domestic front. And, of course, we shall witness a spate of populist measures as the next general election is not far away.
Politicians are given to speaking all kinds of things, relevant or irrelevant. The debate over the trust motion moved by the Manmohan Singh government was no exception. MPs from the opposition benches chose to speak on a variety of subjects detailing out the government’s failures on a number of crucial issues. But one can hardly miss the point that the trust vote was sought for justifying the government’s stand on the nuclear deal with USA. There was hardly anything new in the speeches delivered by either side of the divide in the House. The treasury benches sought to project the nuclear deal in the interest of the nation as it would put an end to India’s nuclear isolation in the world. On the contrary the opposition leaders, particularly of the Left and the Third Front, condemned the deal as being an instrument of surrender to the U.S. The two diametrically-opposed arguments have been known for quite some time through the print and electronic media.
Whenever there is a polarization even on an otherwise secular issue, the Muslim community finds itself in the crossfire. The Left has been opposing the nuclear deal tooth and nail and some of its leaders in their enthusiasm called it as being anti-Muslim. And the Muslim community felt obliged to clarify the matter. As could be expected, there were differing voices. But the overwhelming opinion has been that the Muslims were not a nation within the nation and therefore whatever was in national interest was also in their interest.
Politics is the art of the possible. It enables politicians as well as governments to be flexible. But the political flexibility is sometimes stretched so much that it begins to resemble what the opposition leaders have described as surrender. The UPA government surely committed such a mistake when it voted against Iran at the IAEA or delayed the process of negotiation on Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. The government committed both the mistakes in its zeal to seal the nuclear deal with the US.
It must be emphasized that the Indian Muslims are tied up with the larger Muslim Ummah by faith. But the Ummah is not a supra-national concept, rather it is a social order that gives the global Muslim community the identity of universal brotherhood. It must be borne in mind that this social order is not above the political order of nation-states. This explains the reasons for differences in the foreign policies of the Muslim nation-states.
Yes, there could be issues on which the Muslim opinion may be different from that of the government of the day. The Indian Muslims rightly feel that India’s current military cooperation with Israel is not desirable. But the reason for holding this opinion is not a blind hostility to the Jewish State. The Muslims are rather opposed to the racist ideology of Zionism which seeks, and has always sought, to either eliminate or enslave the Palestinian Arabs. Likewise the Muslims are opposed to America’s continuous occupation of Iraq or its current hostile policy towards Iran. But it must be kept in mind that the Indian Muslims do not decide to vote for a party on the basis of its foreign policy only. Instead, their own problems at home, such as the absence of schools and civic amenities in their areas, lack of job opportunities and development which keep them perpetually backward, economically and intellectually, are the major factors which heavily impact their voting behaviour. It was refreshing to see the Young Muslim MPs emphasizing these very points during the debate on the trust vote.
The government’s convincing victory will not only accelerate the process for signing the nuclear deal with USA but would also enable it to push for economic reforms on the domestic front. And, of course, we shall witness a spate of populist measures as the next general election is not far away.
Politicians are given to speaking all kinds of things, relevant or irrelevant. The debate over the trust motion moved by the Manmohan Singh government was no exception. MPs from the opposition benches chose to speak on a variety of subjects detailing out the government’s failures on a number of crucial issues. But one can hardly miss the point that the trust vote was sought for justifying the government’s stand on the nuclear deal with USA. There was hardly anything new in the speeches delivered by either side of the divide in the House. The treasury benches sought to project the nuclear deal in the interest of the nation as it would put an end to India’s nuclear isolation in the world. On the contrary the opposition leaders, particularly of the Left and the Third Front, condemned the deal as being an instrument of surrender to the U.S. The two diametrically-opposed arguments have been known for quite some time through the print and electronic media.
Whenever there is a polarization even on an otherwise secular issue, the Muslim community finds itself in the crossfire. The Left has been opposing the nuclear deal tooth and nail and some of its leaders in their enthusiasm called it as being anti-Muslim. And the Muslim community felt obliged to clarify the matter. As could be expected, there were differing voices. But the overwhelming opinion has been that the Muslims were not a nation within the nation and therefore whatever was in national interest was also in their interest.
Politics is the art of the possible. It enables politicians as well as governments to be flexible. But the political flexibility is sometimes stretched so much that it begins to resemble what the opposition leaders have described as surrender. The UPA government surely committed such a mistake when it voted against Iran at the IAEA or delayed the process of negotiation on Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. The government committed both the mistakes in its zeal to seal the nuclear deal with the US.
It must be emphasized that the Indian Muslims are tied up with the larger Muslim Ummah by faith. But the Ummah is not a supra-national concept, rather it is a social order that gives the global Muslim community the identity of universal brotherhood. It must be borne in mind that this social order is not above the political order of nation-states. This explains the reasons for differences in the foreign policies of the Muslim nation-states.
Yes, there could be issues on which the Muslim opinion may be different from that of the government of the day. The Indian Muslims rightly feel that India’s current military cooperation with Israel is not desirable. But the reason for holding this opinion is not a blind hostility to the Jewish State. The Muslims are rather opposed to the racist ideology of Zionism which seeks, and has always sought, to either eliminate or enslave the Palestinian Arabs. Likewise the Muslims are opposed to America’s continuous occupation of Iraq or its current hostile policy towards Iran. But it must be kept in mind that the Indian Muslims do not decide to vote for a party on the basis of its foreign policy only. Instead, their own problems at home, such as the absence of schools and civic amenities in their areas, lack of job opportunities and development which keep them perpetually backward, economically and intellectually, are the major factors which heavily impact their voting behaviour. It was refreshing to see the Young Muslim MPs emphasizing these very points during the debate on the trust vote.
[July, 2008]
No comments:
Post a Comment