In the past the Left strongly criticised the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) for leaning towards the US, withdrew support to the first UPA government and precipitated a trust vote in 2008 after the Indo-US civil nuclear deal was signed. Has US President Barack Obama’s visit to India changed the Left’s perception in any way? Sitaram Yechury, Politburo member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and leader of the Left parties in Parliament, discusses the impact of Obama’s visit with Saubhadra Chatterji. Excerpts:
You have been accusing the UPA government of tilting towards the US. But after US President Barack Obama’s just-concluded visit to India, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao are scheduled to visit Delhi soon. Isn’t it clear that the Manmohan Singh government is balancing itself vis-a-vis world powers?
As far as the government is concerned, it is trying to show that it is maintaining good relations with various world powers. That is good. We welcome these foreign visits. We also don’t have a problem with President Obama coming to New Delhi. Our objections are centred on the contents of the US president’s visit. Our problem with the US has been and continues to be that whenever it enters into an agreement with India, it comes with strings attached.
While talking about India’s position on the international platform, the US president clearly said that with increased power comes increased responsibility. He has also defined this “responsibility” in his own way in terms of Burma and Iran. He is talking about universality of values. But this universality of values must also mean universality of its applications. Human rights in Burma, no doubt, are a matter of concern. We also raise this issue regularly in our party forums. But what about human rights violations in Palestine? That, too, should be a matter of concern for the US. The same sense of values should also apply to human rights in Iraq where you still have your 50,000-strong force.
When you are talking about peace, security and rights of every nation, then what about the embargo against Cuba? Every year, barring the US and Israel, all other countries vote against these sanctions on Cuba but they continue. This political selectivity should go. On the one hand, the US president talks about expanding democracy, but on the other hand, the US continues to maintain close links with Saudi Arabia and supports the Sheikhdoms there year after year.
But for the first time, a US president has also said that terrorist safe havens inside Pakistan are unacceptable. Isn’t it a significant statement that strengthens India’s position in the war against terror?
Merely mentioning these facts cannot make us happy. The US needs to do something on the ground as well to check this menace. What about David Headley? The US knew all along that this guy was involved in terror activities. And mind you, Headley was not caught because of 26/11; he was found masterminding terror plots in the Danish capital.
Likewise, on Pakistan, Obama’s statement in Parliament comes after the US has given a $2 billion aid to Pakistan. Tough talk should be followed up by tough actions.
More From This Section
Also, the issues between the US and Pakistan have more to do with the Taliban presence in Afghanistan where the US is fighting a battle. It will be naive for us to believe that all the US concern about terror is linked to the safety and security of India; it is for saving its own skin in Afghanistan. So, we, in India should not live under any illusion and always remember that our fight against terrorism has to be fought on our internal strengths. We cannot depend on the US to fight our battle against terror.
President Obama has pitched the agreements between the two countries as a win-win situation for the US and India. No doubt, some of the agreements will lead to employment generation in the US but the US president also pointed out that the transfer of technologies and related steps will lead to high-tech and high-wages job in India as well.
I am not buying this argument. This is only a sop to India Inc. In the final analysis, most of the products under these agreements will be made in the US. The maintenance will be done in India, which is only a minor part of the production process. Also remember, these technologies will be sold to India. So, here again the US is looking at India as a market to sell its technologies. Therefore, let us understand this very clearly that the thrust of Obama’s visit is on opening up our market so that the US economy can turn around. He has been successful in doing that to a large extent. He is offering us new technologies as a sop to get the Indian market. But buying new technologies also involves issues like how far they can be effectively used in the Indian context. And again, he is very quiet about outsourcing.
But the two sides have signed an in-principal agreement for setting up a $10 billion fund for infrastructure. Don’t you think this was urgently needed?
There is no doubt that India needs greater investment in the infrastructure sector. But this fund will help us only marginally. We have our own experience of foreign investment in infrastructure. Enron was a classic case. Our experience is that infrastructure essentially requires public investment. Remember, from the US to the People’s Republic of China, whatever the nature of the state, infrastructure was built mainly through public funding. Private capital, be it foreign or domestic, can at best complement the government’s efforts, but it certainly cannot be the basic pillar of infrastructure. We have to raise our own resources. Robust growth will follow if the government mops up its internal resources and spends on infrastructure. The inclusive growth that this government keeps talking about can only occur in this trajectory and not through private capital. In the last two years, the government has offered tax concessions worth Rs 10 lakh crore to India Inc in the hope that this spending will trickle down and boost finances at the bottom of the pyramid. This has not happened. So the government must stop giving these sops and mop up this money for infrastructure.
President Obama claimed that together with the partners, the US has made G20 the premium forum for international economic cooperation and given more power to emerging economies like India in the international financial institutions.
(Laughs) All G7 countries were hit by a recession of their own making. For G7 to recover, it required the emerging economies and their markets. So, G20 was the best way to co-opt the emerging economies. So the transition from G7 to G20 was not charity, it was a compulsion. Therefore, we need to see how they will try to squeeze us to get out of recession. Obama has also batted for opening up markets and lifting barriers in foreign investments. Basically, the US president wants foreign direct investment (FDI) in sectors like multi-brand retail trade. We have been hearing Planning Commission Deputy Chairperson Montek Singh Ahluwalia pitching for this. There’s nothing strange about Ahluwalia batting for foreign retail giants. But our position is clear: restrictions must remain. We are in the favour of FDI only if it satisfies three conditions — augments existing production capacity, generates more employment and upgrades technologies. Apart from generating more employment, what other conditions will FDI in the retail trade be able to fulfil?
