Advising Hu

He also warns China not to make the mistake of those in the US “who believe that they can continue to bait and taunt India without any fear of a response.” America’s refusal to treat India on par with other nuclear weapons states such as France and UK, he adds, offers a window of opportunity to China “for were Beijing to accept New Delhi as a power with the same rights and status as itself, it would begin a process that could culminate in an India-China partnership. Such an alliance would have the effect of reducing substantially the effectiveness and influence of any outside power in Asia.”

CPM’s ‘treacherous’ pro-China line

Taking a different tack on China, this week’s editorial slams the CPI(M)’s alleged closeness to that country. Headlined “Chinese stooges”, the editorial claims that just as E.M.S. Namboodiripad had refused to condemn the 1962 Chinese aggression, the current general secretary Prakash Karat has “refused to join the rest of political class in condemning the Chinese ambassador’s claim” over Arunachal Pradesh. The editorial goes on to say that “ever since the UPA assumed office the CPM has become more explicit in expressing its old fascination for China and its desire to privilege their interests. The Left parties particularly the CPM have been brazenly using their leverage with the UPA to push Chinese interests, the same way as they lobbied for the killer Maoists in Nepal.”

Claiming that “Indian political opinion is appalled by the treacherous CPM stand”, it calls upon “patriotic political parties in the country to openly condemn and disassociate themselves from the 21st century stooges of a regime that craves territorial expansionism and warmongering.”

Maoists wrecking Nepal

After China and CPI(M), Nepal’s Maoists also come in for a great deal of bashing in the current issue. Columnist Sandhya Jain accuses “the Christian rebel Prachanda” of inveigling himself into the interim government in Kathmandu “with the active connivance of the Sonia Gandhi-led UPA regime, which has been supremely unconcerned about the deteriorating security environment in India’s neighbourhood since its ascension.”

Elaborating on that theme, Jain writes: “India’s decision to accept UN supervision of arms surrender by Prachanda’s guerrillas is inexplicable unless one factors in the Italian Christian origins of Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who is suborning the national interest to serve a Western agenda in the region.” She also claims that an increasing number of people in Nepal do not favour the end of monarchy, that the Nepalese army is unhappy at the removal of the king as supreme commander of the armed forces, and that the Maoists have no popular support in the country.

According to Jain, “The fact is that large sections of Nepalese society view the Maoist insurgency as one of the biggest problems facing the country. Many observers feel that in a fair election, the Maoists would not get more than a quarter of the vote, because their presence on the ground is perceived as oppressive ¿As such, observers believe that the Maoists, knowing that they are hated, will try to keep their arms to ensure election to the constituent assembly.” The “observers” cited in the column remain unidentified.

Regulate SEZs

The president of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), Girish Awasthi, sharply criticises the government’s decision to develop Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in the country and insists that SEZs are “against the interest of the farmers, labourers and the common man.” Demanding that the government form a Regulatory Authority to reconsider the whole issue of developing SEZs, he suggests that waste and barren land should be put to use for the purpose and not fertile and productive agricultural land. The BMS chief also demands that the government permit trade unions to function in the SEZs “to prevent exploitation of labour” and that 75 per cent of the allotted land should be used to setting up industry and 25 per cent for commercial activities.

— Compiled by Manini Chatterjee