Votebank over national interest

For Mulayam Singh, domestic politics is more important than national security

Vijay Sanghvi

For the first time, the Indian Parliament is confronted with the question of whether a section, religious or political, can be given veto power over critical foreign policy. This stark statement is borne out by the manner in which parliamentary parties are interpreted to have voiced their position on India's upcoming vote on Iran. Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh is trying to do something clever. He is using his opposition to the Iran vote in an attempt to vest veto power in the hands of the Muslim community, his vote bank. In some ways he is trying to hand over an important weapon to Iran and those, especially Muslims, opposed to the Security Council referral. If he can make India abstain from voting then he would become a messiah of the Muslims not in India alone but even abroad.

Mulayam Singh Yadav wants solid backing of Muslims whenever elections take place in Uttar Pradesh. Indirectly, with their eyes on the electorate, Left parties are supportive.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's carefully-worded speech to Parliament on the issue tended to imply that opposition to India's stance would play into sectarianism. The speech alluded to the dangers of a nation in the vicinity building up its arsenal, with the tacit support of an unnamed but identifiable unfriendly neighbour. With Pakistan and China already nuclear powers, adding another nation to the list of needing watching was not a reassuring prospect. From his cautious words in meetings with the leaders of his party as well as with the leaders of the Left parties, it was apparent that he had had much more intelligence information than he was willing to share with them.
Mulayam Singh, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, has taken the position that India's decision to vote against Iran, a traditional friend of India which had lent support during the critical crude oil price boom in 1972, would hurt the sentiments of Indian Muslims. This factor should act as a restraint on India's vote in March. To add to pressure on the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), Mulayam Singh declared his intention to move a no-confidence motion against government in the budget session.

The Left has to walk a tightrope between its support for the UPA at the centre, and satisfying its cadre which will demand explanation for the negotiated compromise on the issue. The other factor which is being raised is that for the upcoming assembly elections, in the left stronghold of West Bengal and Kerala, resides a substantial Muslim population in key constituencies. 

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leadership had initially taken the stand that India's vote was a symbol of abject surrender before the United States of America. However after the Sangh Parivar came out in open to support the Manmohan Singh government on the Iran nuclear issue, the BJP leadership was forced to revise its stand and agree that India can ill-afford the emergence of yet another nuclear power in the vicinity though they found flaws in the manners in which the Manmohan Singh government went about with its vote.

However what Mulayam Singh is seeking with support from the Left parties is nothing more than condemnation of the entire Muslim community because of the implication that the Muslim community would be hurt by India's vote because Iran was an Islamic nation. The logical inference is that Indian Muslims as a community would give precedence to Iran as an Islamic nation over India's security concerns. One of the leaders said in the Central Hall recently, "Why do you take Muslims in India to be fools? Are they naïve enough to believe that nuclear weapons developed by an Islamic nation would not kill any Muslim in India but only others?" 

There is no danger to the Manmohan Singh government if the no-confidence vote as threatened comes to the Lok Sabha next month.  The survival of the UPA is assured by the stand of the BJP as they would make the critical numbers. What would stand exposed is how partisan considerations outweigh larger issues. The Parliament is consequently reduced to a display of wrestling prowess in a contest whose outcome is predetermined. It is no longer the theatre where the fine art of politics is aimed towards seeking national solutions to problems of national interests through informed debates.