Alliance Adultery
Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams: Chapter 23
Palash Biswas
LONDON: Biman Bose, one of India's most influential Marxist leaders, has said that the Left can consider supporting a BJP-led coalition if that party sheds what he called its "communal agenda".
In surprising remarks made in London Thursday, he also said the Left may have made "a mistake" by not withdrawing its support from the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government earlier and accused the Congress of trying to "bail out" the Republican Party through the nuclear deal ahead of US elections.
Bose, one of the most senior leaders in West Bengal and a member of the Communist Party of India-Marxist's (CPI-M) politburo, made his startling remarks while briefing a select group of British diplomats, bankers, and government and Commonwealth officials over dinner in London Thursday night. IANS was the only Indian media group invited to this meeting.
The dinner was hosted by industrialist Shishir Bajoria of the Kolkata-based multinational, Bajoria Group. Bose, who is general secretary of the West Bengal CPI-M, was asked pointedly if there were any circumstances under which the Left would support a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led coalition in New Delhi.
"The Left never subscribed to the communal politics of the BJP. That does not mean the BJP all the time did only mischief. It does not mean that. But the BJP could not leave its communal agenda," Bose said.
"If it happens that the BJP is opposing communal politics, then the real stand will be clarified. Whether the BJP is more dangerous than the Congress or the other way round depends on some distinct political twists and turns, and parties' principles can be judged only in those twists and turns, not in normal conditions.
"So wait for some days - or some years - to see those twists and turns. "If the BJP moves with the same politics with which they are moving today, the question (of supporting the BJP) doesn't arise at all," he added.
Asked if the CPI-M wanted the BJP to support a common minimum programme, Bose stressed the importance of secularism.
"They are to cut religion and politics. They mix up religion and politics. Religion should remain in temples, churches and mosques or in gurdwaras. That should be the private belief of the person concerned. Religion should not be mixed up with politics," he replied.
Earlier, speaking exclusively to media, Bose said that when it came to the post-election scenario, the Left would support a Congress-led coalition "if the Congress has learnt their lesson".
"They have to bring down inflation, and introduce a universal public distribution system, and universal and free health and education."
Bose said real inflation in India was over 12 per cent and could "touch 13 or 14 per cent this year". Bose, wearing a formal Bengali dhoti in a roomful of men and women in dark business suits, hinted at a larger, global reason behind the Left's withdrawal of support to the government over the India-US nuclear deal.
"The (popularity) rating of George W. Bush in the US has gone down to 28 per cent. This has never happened before in history. The lowest used to be 38 per cent - now it is 28 per cent," he told his audience.
"In that political scenario, the government of India is going to bail out George W. Bush by signing the nuclear agreement," he said, adding that nuclear energy would account for only eight percent of India's energy needs.
Asked why the Left had not withdrawn support earlier, Bose replied: "There you might blame the Left parties."
He said the Left held back because the UPA government did implement some parts of the Common Minimum Programme, such as the non-privatisation of public sector units known as the Navaratna that he said had laid the foundation for independent India.
Meanwhile, Bose's CPI-M politburo colleague Sitaram Yechury left London Thursday after a three-day visit at the invitation of the British foreign office.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/PoliticsNation/Left_may_support_BJP_if_it_sheds_religion_from_politics/articleshow/3223136.cms
Sleeping with Enemy is quite in Vogue in India and it is never considered as a case of adultery. Political Adultery is justified on every occasion. in war and in peace!
India does not expect any problem in the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group over getting approvals and exemptions necessary to take forward its nuclear deal with the US and has the powerful G-8 "on board" over the issue.
Indo US Nuke deal drama targeted to Resurrection Hindutva as Superpower Indian Hindu Nation aligned with Zionist White Apartheid Corporate US Imperialism is at its best a classic example of alliance story where the marriage ends formally , but Copulation without any accountability continues for ever. The Left right politicians have always been the best players of such Bedroom Board room games!
Rising inflation, weak industrial output, renewed surge in crude oil prices, disappointing quarterly numbers and guidance from technology bellwether Infosys Technologies.... the list of bad news seemed endless.
Foreign institutional investors net buying Rs 934 crore worth of shares was the only silver lining to the dark clouds over the Dalal Street. Still, that was not enough to prevent the 30-share Sensex sliding 456.39 points or 3.3% to close at 13,469.85. Bulls tried to fight back, taking the index above the psychological 14,000-mark briefly during the day. But in the end, the torrent of negative newsflow proved too much for them.
The key indices Sensex and Nifty ended the week in positive amid various negative factors. Disappointing industrial data, soaring inflation as well as global crude oil prices and IT giant Infosys Technologies result weighed on the market sentiments erasing major part of the week`s gains.
The Indian barometer breached psychological mark of 14K at mid-week, but failed to maintain the level due to uncertain political conditions.
The Sensex ended the week at 13,469.85, with a marginal gain of 15.85 points, or 0.12% from last weekend`s close. The 50-share Nifty gained 33.00 points, or 0.82% to end the week at 4,049.00 from last week close of 4,016.00.
Indian Media also inherits the Mythomania Sexmania crimemania as we see in Arushi case!
Marxist have been the Super Stars of Coalition politics since general election, 1967. It is all about clear cut Opportunism, Ideological deviation, Power Politics, Economism, Defection, Black mailing and brgaining. Jyoti Basu and Harkishan Singh Surjeet have been an alliance of Grand slams all the way. But the Historical Blunder as termed by no one else but Jyoti Basu himself made them fail at a critical turning point of Indian Nation while CPIM pulled Basu from the Projected ivory Tower of the status of prime Minister of India. But the jugglery of anti Imperialism and anti Fascism got them to ensure a Solid Unbreakable En Block Vote bank of Muslims which further enabled them to hold power for the Brahminical hegemony in west Bengal. The coalition called left front is nothing but a pure Brahman front which denies life and liberty for all the indigenous communities, eighty five percent of the population, in West Bengal. Three percent Brahmans enjoy Hegemony in every sphere of life thanks to Marxist Ideology and the Pragmatic politics of Basu and company. Not Even all Brahmans have the privilege to taste Power,maximum one hundred or two hundred Brahman Families captured every field in Bengal. SC, ST and OBC with minority Muslims could not hold ground despite Nandigram and Singur insurrection as the Mass mobilisation was hijacked by the Brahman dominated so called civil society equipped with Media.
Four years of Marxist finger-wagging have made many of us forget how national politics has operated after the Congress ceased to be a natural winner.
The Bengali Barhmins Buddhadeb, Pranab Mukherjee, Somnath Chatterjee and Sunil Gango played the Coalition game and indulged in full political adultery hubnubing with RSS. Anti communal marxists tried their best to annihilate Muslims every time and cried foul elsewhere, say Gujarat or Mumbai.It withdrew support from the UPA government in which they had been Bed partners all these years, quoting anti Imperialism agenda while running blindly on the capitalist Imperialist corporate MNC Builder Promoter Highway with Brand Buddha and Grass root level gestapo.
Media highlights the so called divide amongst the Communists, which is nothing but a well planned strategy of Got UP Power game to dodge the public as well as rivals!
The Left seems to be divided on the question of Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee and also on whether it should be seen as the one responsible for bring down the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government.
Sources have told CNN-IBN that Chatterjee is likely to put in his papers early next week just days ahead of the UPA Government facing a Vote of Confidence in Lok Sabha.
Chatterjee's position has become embarrassing with his party, the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), including his name in the list of 60 MPs who are to vote against the Congress-led Government when the trust vote is conducted in Parliament on July 22.
But CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat has said that the party has not taken any decision yet to ask him to quit the Speaker's post.
Chatterjee's Lok Sabha office issued a press release earlier in the week saying that the Speaker didn't want any speculation on his quitting office.
Basu insists to save the Government, karat does not Oblige.
But Karat is not committed whether the LEFT with would join the UPA all over once again while the LEFT Partner CPI has hinted meanwhile that it would.
Have the Brahman Marxists any ground to stand against US Corporate Imperialism while the LEFT Front government has done everything to ensure the Sovereignty of Global Market, IT, Free flow of Foreign capital and multi national retail Network with all round drive for SEZ, Chemical Hub, Privatisation of all public services including basic needs of the people medical Health, Education, Infrastructure, Food, employment, Industrial and Agro production, Urbanisation, indiscriminate land aquisition in favour of the MNCs, Nuclear plant in Haripur?
Have they any ethical ground to cite anti communalism while Buddha befriends Lal Krishna Adwani and speaks the language branded for RSS, supports the State Power to kill the constitution and laa kind of anti people communal legislation including SEZ act, Citizenship amendment act, revising all welfare laws and constitutional guarantees for Indigenous communities including the Minorities?
With the political decks cleared for taking the India-US nuclear deal forward and elections looming on the horizon, the government has launched a publicity blitz by taking out full-page advertisements in leading newspapers in support of the deal.After the decisive push from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to approach the IAEA board for approving an India-specific safeguards agreement, the government has finally shed its defensive attitude and is going all out to convert the sceptics and win popular mandate for the deal, which it considers is in the supreme national interest.
The advertisement in leading dailies, including The Indian Express and Hindustan Times , shows a smiling Manmohan Singh and United Progressive Alliance (UPA) chairperson Sonia Gandhi waving jubilantly at pulling off the deal. The government lost the Left parties' outside support after it pushed for the deal and will now face a trust vote in parliament on July 22.
The ad carries an endorsement from none other than Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar, a key interlocutor in the nuclear deal, who is quoted as saying: "If we don't do it now, history will not forgive us."
The ad also cites the manifold benefits the nuclear deal will bring to a fast developing but energy-starved India, especially in the context of escalating oil prices.
Giving a patriotic spin to rally support for the contentious deal, the advertisement says: "The nation now needs to unite and support the government for the economic growth and better future of the country."
The advertisement is probably the first attempt by the government to reach out to the people to pre-empt the move by the communist parties to make the deal a major issue in the next general elections.
Terming nuclear energy as the "most efficient, environmentally cleanest and safe source of energy", the advertisement says it produces more energy than any other source.
The advertisement has been brought out by the ministry of petroleum and natural gas to project the deal as primarily an energy issue that will spur economic growth of the country, and to rebut the charge of the Left that the deal allegedly aims at drawing India into a strategic alliance with the US.
Kerala is one of the most politically conscious state in India. Politics and Cinema dominate the entire discussion arena. Kerala produced the first Communist Government in India through ballot and was the forerunner in coalition politics in India. Polling percentages in excess of 90 percent are common here.
The political mass is divided among two camps from 1950 onwards, the left of the centre parties, headed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Centrist alliance dominated by Congress (I). The LDF camp comprises of Communist Party of India-CPI, Kerala Congress (Joseph)- KC (J), Revolutionary Socialist Party- RSP, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Janata Dal (United)- JD (U).
The United Democratic Front (UDF) cohabitants are Muslim League, Kerala Congress (Mani)- KC (M), Kerala Congress (Jacob), Revolutionary Socialist Party (Bolshevik)-RSP (B), Kerala Congress (B)- KC (B) and Communist Marxist Party- CMP. The right of the centre parties consisting of communal entities are yet to spread its tentacles in Kerala.
In provincial elections held in several states in late 2003, the BJP registered impressive triumphs and the party leadership was led into thinking that, in calling for early elections, it could consolidate its gains with a magisterial showing in national elections. The BJP waged a campaign on the slogan of “India Shining”, trumpeting the emergence of India as a major power. However, the Indian electorate once again showed that it was not to be taken for granted, and the BJP and its allies lost to a coalition headed by the Congress party. [See India’s Moment: Elections 2004.] The Fourteenth Lok Sabha convened on 17 May 2004 and Manmohan Singh (1932-) assumed the office of the Prime Minister at the head of what is known as the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government. The UPA is supported by the Left Front, a coalition of parties headed by the CPM, or the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) is the name of the present ruling coalition of political parties of the Government of India. The UPA was formed soon after the 2004 general elections to the Lok Sabha, determining the composition of the 14th Lok Sabha. An informal alliance had existed prior to the elections as several of the current constituent parties had developed seat-sharing agreements in many states. However it was only after the election results were announced and it became evident that the rival BJP led coalition was not in a position to head the government that the alliance started taking shape. Initially, the proposed name for the alliance was the Secular Progressive Alliance.
The UPA's policies are defined through a common minimum programme and the alliance is generally perceived as a center-left coalition dominated by the Indian National Congress whose president Sonia Gandhi is its chairperson.
In the state of Jharkhand, the constituents of the UPA are by mutual agreement supporting the government led by an independent politician, Madhu Koda.
"With the replacement of the Dominant Party System of India, minority and/or coalition governments in New Delhi have become the order of the day. Except for the Congress Minority Government of P.V. Narsimha Rao and National Democratic Alliance Government of Atal Behari Vajpayee, all such governments since 1989 have been unstable. Yet instability apart, coalition governments have been effective in enhancing democratic legitimacy, representativeness and national unity. Major policy shifts like neo-liberal economic reforms, federal decentring, and grass roots decentralization, in theory or practice, are largely attributable to the onset of federal coalitional governance. Coalition governments in states and at the centre have also facilitated gradual transition of the Marxist-left and the Hindu-right into the political establishment, and thus contributed to the integration of the party system as well as the nation. The same major national parties which initially rejected the idea of coalition politics have today accepted it and are maturing into skilled and virtuoso performers at the game.
In a rather short span of over a decade, India has witnessed coalition governments of three major muted hues: (a) middle-of-the-road Centrist Congress Minority Government of P.V. Narsimha Rao, going against its Left Centre of reputation, initiated neo-liberal economic reforms in 1991; (b) three Left-of-centre governments formed by the Janata-Dal-led National/United Front; and (c) two Right-of-Centre coalition governments formed by the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance under Atal Behari Vajpayee, a votary of secular version of Hindu nationalism.
In the wake of the decline of Congress Dominance, the fragmentation of the National Party System and the emergence of party systems at the regional level have turned India into a chequered federal chessboard. The past and likely future patterns of coalition governments in New Delhi are suggestive of at least three models of power sharing: (a) coalition of more or less equal partners, e.g. the National Front and the United Front, (b) coalition of relatively smaller parties led by a major party, e.g. National Democratic Alliance; and (c) coalition of relatively smaller parties facilitated but not necessarily led by a prime minister from the major party, e.g. the coalition of parties formed in 2004 around the Indian National Congress, avowing secular Indian Nationalism.
People's Democracy
(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. XXXI
No. 29
July 22, 2007
PROMODE DASGUPTA MEMORIAL LECTURE
The Present And Future Of Coalition Politics Belongs To The Left
Biman Basu addressing a gathering on 'Future of Coalition politics in India'
THE slogan ‘struggle-unity-struggle’ that the Bulgarian communist leader Georgi Dimitrov declared as essential for bringing together the communists and Left with the mass of the working people, was cited by Biman Basu as an example of the dynamics of coalition politics in Bengal.
Biman Basu stressed that the Left that must take the leadership in building up waves of democratic movements in the country. The Left must strengthen its base continuously and nationwide, by expanding the horizon and ambit of the democratic movements and struggles while carrying forth the class struggle, above the surface or at the subterranean level.
It was around this basic tenet that he weaved his arguments while addressing a packed gathering on the ‘Future of coalition politics in India.’ The venue was the Promode Dasgupta Bhavan in Kolkata. Biman Basu stressed repeatedly how the CPI(M) and the Left must go beyond Bengal to spread the democratic movement and to do this they must augment and expand their organisational base in a large way.
Based on the widening democratic movement, the Left must build up a coalition / front that would be a real alternative to the coalitions being set up by the forces of reaction led by the big bourgeois and the big landlords. The alternative coalition shall look to the interests of the common people just as the coalition of the forces of reaction and their lackeys serve the interests of the capitalists, the zamindars, the affluent, and the merchants.
Four Left parties, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India, the Forward Bloc, and the Revolutionary Socialist Party are already working at the national level through close coordination so that the Left can play a bigger and more significant role on the national plane, pointed out Biman Basu.
POLITICAL SCENE IN BENGAL
Turning to the political scene in Bengal where a ruling Left Front has been in office for the past three decades, Biman Basu said that all the constituent parties of the Left Front must abide by decisions and resolutions taken by the Bengal Left Front and by the cabinet of the Bengal Left Front government. A constituent partner of the Bengal LF may well have difference of opinion or view in a certain issue or issues. The difference of opinion should be amicably resolved through mutual discussion within the LF and not outside of it. It is observed nonetheless that some of the LF parties would not deign to follow uniformly the decisions arrived at some issue or the other at the LF meetings and at the LF cabinet of ministers. The CPI(M) is never found involved with any effort to create hatred and animosity against any LF constituents. Those who are in the vanguard of the Left movement in India should scrupulously refrain from maligning one another, and try to fulfil the historical tasks before them. They should play a leading role in building up the Left forces in the country. This will crucially decide in which direction coalition politics in India shall move in the days to come, said Biman Basu.
POST-1977 COALITION POLITICS
Dwelling on the post-1977 coalition politics in India and Bengal Biman Basu pointed out that at present and in the future, coalition politics would dominate the political scenario. There should be a line of clear distinction drawn, said the CPI(M) Polit Bureau member, between the coalition politics being put in motion in Bengal, Tripura, and Kerala on the one hand, and those in the rest of the states. In the other states, the ruling classes would like to see that their lackeys run the governments. Additional ingredients of these state coalition governments are elements of clan and community. All this, however, has served to enhance the political domination of regional parties. In states like Chhatisgarh, there are even regional parties based on districts. The situation overall has prevented the big national parties from coming to office in a monolithic manner. Thus, coalition politics has started to dominate the politics of India as such.
Biman Basu also detailed out the nature of the Left Front in Bengal that had been formed before the elections of 1977. This made the front different from other fronts. He also said that the Left Front was a pro-people, especially pro-poor front. Biman Basu concluded by presenting a laudatory evaluation of the crucial leading role the late CPI(M) leader Promode Dasgupta had played in the formation of the Left Front and in nurturing its growth through difficult times.
http://www.cpim.org/pd/2007/0722/07222007_biman.htm
On Shastri’s death, the Congress was once again engulfed by an internal struggle. Gulzarilal Nanda once again served as the acting Prime Minister, again for a period of less than a month, before being succeeded by Indira Gandhi, Nehru's daughter. By the late 1960s, Indira Gandhi had engineered a split in the Congress, as the only means to ensure her political survival, and the Congress party, which with every passing year was losing something of its shine, now went into a precipitous decline. In 1971, India crushed Pakistan in a short war that also saw the birth of Bangladesh, and Indira was now at the helm of her powers. But the Congress was now a mere shadow of its former self, and as domestic problems mounted and popular movements directed at Indira Gandhi began to show their effect, she resorted to more repressive measures. An internal emergency, which placed almost the entire opposition behind bars, was proclaimed in May 1975, and only removed in 1977; and the same opposition, which hastily convened to chart its strategy, achieved in delivering the Congress party its first loss in national elections. This government, serving various political interests and led by the victorious Janata Party, which had been formed out of various opposition parties, lasted a mere three years. It was led by the controversial Gandhian and Congress stalwart, Morarji Desai, for two years, and for another year by Chaudhary Charan Singh (1902-1987), who came from a Jat farming community with roots in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. The Lok Sabha or Lower Assembly never met during Charan Singh’s Prime Ministership and the political alliance crumbled. Indira Gandhi rode a spectacular wave of victory in 1980. But she did not live to complete her term: shot by her own Sikh bodyguards, who sought to avenge the destruction unleashed upon the Golden Temple, the venerable shrine of the Sikh faith, by Indian government troops given the task of flushing out the terrorists holed in the shrine, she was succeeded by her son, Rajiv Gandhi, in late 1984.
In the December 1994 Lok Sabha elections, Rajiv Gandhi and the Congress party won a landslide election. But Rajiv’s premiership was to be marked by numerous political disasters, and Rajiv’s own name was tainted by the allegation that he had received huge bribes from a Swedish firm of Bofors, manufacturers of a machine-gun for which the Indian army placed a large order. His own finance minister, V. P. Singh (1931-), once a Indira Gandhi loyalist who had been picked by her in 1980 to serve as the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, was to turn against Rajiv; and in 1989, V. P. Singh led the Janata Party to an electoral rout over the Congress. However, the revived Janata party mustered only 145 votes, and it had to take the support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by L. K. Advani and Atal Behari Vajpayee, in order to form a government. It is at this juncture that India truly entered the era of coalition governments. V. P. Singh would soon be brought down by two disputes: one over the status of the Babri Masjid, a sixteenth-century mosque that Hindu militants claimed had been built over the Ram Janmasthan [birthplace], and the second over the recommendations of the Mandal commission pertaining to quotas for various elements of India’s underprivileged masses. On 7 November 1990, by a vote of 356-151, V. P. Singh lost the confidence of the Lok Sabha, and some days later Chandra Sekhar (1927-), with the support of Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress, was sworn in as the next prime minister. However, Congress withdrew its support in March 1991, and elections were called in May.
On 21 May 1991, as intense electioneering was taking place, Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Sri Lankan suicide bomber. The mantle of Congress leadership fell on the veteran P. V. Narasimha Rao (1921-2004), who led the party to triumph, even as the BJP raised the number of its seats in Parliament from a little over 80 to 120. On 6 December 1992, acting in defiance of Supreme Court orders, Hindu militants destroyed the Babri Masjid, and so initiated one of the most intense crises in India’s post-independent history. Rao weathered many a storm, and presided over the liberalization of the economy -- the architect of which was Manmohan Singh, then Finance Minister and, since 2004, the Prime Minister of India. But Rao could not keep the BJP and its friends in check. In the general elections of 1996, the BJP emerged as the largest party, but its 194 seats were not enough to give it a working majority in the 545-seat Lok Sabha, and Atal Behari Vajpayee’s first government lasted a mere twelve days. A 13-party coalition of the United National Front and the Indian left was brought into power, and Deve Gowda, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, was raised to the office of the Prime Minister; but after less than a year in office, he resigned and was succeeded by Inder Kumar Gujral, whose main contribution in office was to bequeath “the Gujral doctrine” – a reference to his genuine attempts to mend India’s relations with its South Asian neighbors, based on the principle that as the largest country, India could afford to be generous, and did not have to require reciprocity for all its munificent actions.
Adultery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another person who is not his or her spouse, though in many places adultery takes place only when a married woman has sexual relations with someone who is not her husband. In most cases, in western countries, only the married party is said to have committed adultery, and if both parties are married (but not to each other) then they both commit separate acts of adultery. In other countries, both parties to the adultery are considered guilty, while in others again only the woman is able to commit adultery and to be considered guilty.
Adultery is also referred to as extramarital sex, philandary or infidelity but does not include fornication. The term "adultery" for many people carries a moral or religious association, while the term "extramarital sex" is morally or judgmentally neutral.
The interaction between laws on adultery with those on rape has and does pose particular problems in societies which are especially sensitive to sexual relations by a married woman, such as some Muslim countries.[1] The difference between the offenses is that adultery is voluntary, while rape is not. If a woman claims that she has been raped, and the offense cannot be proved, then a conclusion that the sexual relations were voluntary may be drawn, and the consequences of adultery may result. In those circumstances, the woman victim would tend not to report a rape against her.
The term adultery has a Judeo-Christian origin, though the concept of marital fidelity predates Judaism and is found in many other societies. Though the definition and consequences vary between religions, cultures and legal jurisdictions, the concept is similar in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and Hinduism has a similar concept. But the word should be used cautiously when discussing various cultures, some of which permit less permanent forms of marriage, or even sexual "lending".[2]
Historically, adultery has been considered to be a serious offense by many cultures. In some countries, adultery is a crime. However, even in jurisdictions where adultery is not itself a criminal offense, it may still have legal consequences, particularly in divorce cases. For example it may constitute grounds for divorce, it may be a factor to consider in a property settlement, it may affect the status of children, the custody of children, etc. Moreover adultery can result in social ostracism in some parts of the world.
It has been claimed that adultery results from a mental disorder.[3] Whether correct or not, adultery is common. Three recent studies in the United States, using nationally representative samples, have found that about 10-15% of women and 20-25% of men had engaged in extramarital sex.
A leading think-tank in Washington has advised Nuclear Suppliers Group and the American Congress not to make a hasty decision on the Indo-US nuclear deal, given the "dangerous" ramifications of the agreement for non-proliferation efforts.
"India and the Bush administration have played fast and loose in negotiating this agreement, disregarding the clear conditions that Congress had stipulated," Leonor Tomero, Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation at the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said in a statement.
"Given the discrepancies between the provisions that Congress insists on before completing the deal and the agreement that the administration negotiated with India, it is incumbent upon Congress and the Nuclear Suppliers Group to give the agreement careful consideration and to not allow themselves to be rushed into a hasty decision," he said.
The IAEA Board of Governors is expected to meet on July 28 to consider the safeguards agreement, after which the NSG members will be asked to exempt India from rules barring nuclear trade with those states that do not accept full-scope safeguards agreements on all of their nuclear facilities.
"These are not trivial issues," said John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Centre.
"This exemption would tie the hands of the next administration and greatly compromise US and international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and materials," he added.
The Centre has said that the Nuclear Suppliers Group may meet in September and that it is expected that at least two sessions will be needed to come to agreement. Once these two steps have been completed, the US Congress will be free to vote on the final Indo-US 123 agreement. Time is running out, however, as the US Congress is scheduled to adjourn for the year on September 26," the Centre has said.
Bangkok, November 24 (PRD),
The Ministry of Culture warns that news coverage about adultery scandals of public figures, including politicians and celebrities, might violate Article 9 of the 2007 Act Protecting the Victims Suffered from Family’s Violence.
The Director of the Center for the Protection of Children’s Rights Foundation, Mr. Shapphasit Khumpraphan , says the media cannot reveal the victims’ names of families’ violence as prohibited by Article 9 of the Act. Penalties include an imprisonment of not exceeding six months and/or a fine of up to 60,000 baht.
Thiland officially banned news coverage about adultery scandals of public figures including politicians and celebrities there. It is never banned in India. Even in literatuere, the elite and highcaste adultery remains intact under dirty linel. While the Mythical indigenous life style is exposed with portrayal of sex Maniacs as we see it in different colors of human documentation of Hatred specially in Indian languages since Tara shankar Bandopadhyay. The Hindu Morality is nothing but Hipocricy infinite full of sex rivalary and sex starvation. Thus the Blue film culture broke the spine of so called Great indian hindu civilisation with the first stroke of Globalisation and Information explosion.
Slavery of Indian Woman continues in Post Modern Globalization age with resurgence of Hindutva which used all the holy scripts to make the woman a SEX Machine. Corporate Imperialism has made the post modern woman a SEX Doll, marketable Commodity in Iconised Economy tagged with US Zionist weapon Industry. Female Infanticide in India is a theoretical and discursive intervention in the field of post colonial feminist theory. It focuses on the devaluation of women through an examination of the practice of female infanticide in colonial India and the reemergence of this practice in the form of femicide (selective killing of female fetuses) in post colonial India. Femicide is seen as part of the continuum of violence on, and devaluation of, the post colonial girl-child and woman. In order to fully understand the material and discursive practices through which the limited and localized crime of female infanticide in colonical India became a generalized practice of femicide in post colonial India we have to closely examine the progressive British-colonial history of the discovery, reform, and eradication of the practice of female infanticide. The violence against woman was the monopoly in Highcatse society in Pre Independence India misusing the family fabric, institution of marriage, in which Verginity was extremely a Femal affair while the High Caste Man was privileged to have SEX with anyone anywhere and it was never considered Adultery at any level. Urbanisation and Industrialisation inflicted the Virus of Violence aginst women in the Indigenous communities hitherto known for equal social and economic status for woman!
This anarchy of Sex Life glorified with Virginity culture and the Institution of Sati has made Indian Power politics the most Corrupt and Immoral political entity well expressed by the politics of adultery, alliance and Defection. This Political adultery involves all kinds of National and international bargaining and blackmailing with full fledged Money, Media and Muscle power!
Specially, in Indian politics, the Brahminical hegemony is nothing but the Real story of Alliance ADULTERY enveloped into high class philosophy and Ethics. Freedom at Midnight is reflected best as a high profile case of adultery between Nehru and Edwina!
And just read this!
Sex Antics of Mohandas Gandhi: His Failures, Pedophilia, Adultery, Incest, Sexual Perversion & Fetishes
Posted on December 25, 2007 by Moin Ansari
THE NAKED FAKIR UNMASKED-Updated July 4th, 2008
Sexual Antics of Gandhi–His political and personal failures, urine drinking habit, love for enemas, consumption of his own piss, his drinking of Holy Cow urine, Pedophilia Incest, Adultery, weird fetishes, and Sexual Perversion.
“it costs the nation millions to keep Gandhi living in poverty.” Sarojini Naidu
This issue contains these articles:
1) “Sexual Antics of Gandhi:” An anthology or research based on the books by Gandhi’s grandsons.
2) “Gandhi’s Girls“:- very comprehensive Time Magazine article with blow by blow details of the exploding news about Gandhi’s indiscretions,
3) “Was Gandhi a Tantric:” Well researched article on the details of his liaisons.
4) Other articles are being included and updated. The works of Tim Watson and G.B. Singh published in 2008 are bing added/updated.
http://rupeenews.com/2007/12/25/six-stories-of-mohandas-gandhi-his-failures-sexual-perversion/
Mayawati said that old cases are being opened by the CBI at the behest of the Congress which in turn is trying to keep the SP in good humour following its crucial support to the Indo-US nuclear deal. BSP supremo and UP Chief Minister Mayawati on Saturday slammed the Congress for misusing CBI to falsely implicate her in phony cases. She also leveled allegations that she is being harassed as a part of the recent deal between the Congress and the Samajwadi Party. The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati today accused Congress and BJP of ganging against her. Addressing a press conference in Lucknow, BSP supremo said that there is a well planned political conspiracy to malign her and her party ahead of Lok Sabha polls.
The BSP chief also stated that such campaigns against her are launched whenever there are elections. She made it clear to the media that the Congress-led government at the Centre should not think BSP will be scared by such conspiracies.
Amid reports of an aggressive BSP trying to woo dissenting Samajwadi Party MPs, leaders of the Mulayam Singh Yadav's party are working overtime to redress their grievances over the decision to back UPA on the Indo-US nuclear deal.
Many Muslim MPs of the SP have come out in support of the party high command's decision, saying they are solidly behind Yadav.
Terming dissident Munnawar Hasan (from Muzaffarnagar) as an opportunist, Ruab Sayeeda (from Bahraich) told that he is the lone Mulsim MP to have expressed his views against the party high command.
"All necessary explanations were sought from relevant authorities including former president A P J Abdul Kalam. Now there are no doubts either in the party leadership or among MPs," said Sayeeda who is also the wife of senior party leader and MLA Waqar Ahmed Shah said.
Party MPs Rashid Masood, Shafiqur Rehman Burq and Salim Shervani also said that they had no doubts and the nuclear deal is not anti-Muslim. They criticised BSP president Mayawati for giving the controversy a communal colour.
Sayeeda warned Muslims and their religious leaders against falling prey to her gameplan. "Muslims are not a separate entity and if the deal is in national interest, the community cannot keep harping on a mere speculation."
Criticising Mayawati, Sayeeda said her recent moves are another attempt to deceive the Muslim community. She said the BSP leader was earlier aligning with the BJP to grab power.
Sayeeda said leaders like Raj Babbar and Beni Prasad Verma have also supported the SP on the issue and will be following the party whip.
Expressing similar views, Rashid Masood from Saharanpur said that even the two main sects of the Muslims representing the Deoband the Barelivi school of thoughts have viewed that the deal is not against Muslims.
Shafiqur Rehman Burq from Moradabad said that Mayawati had been playing politics on the issue and trying to portray herself as the well wisher of Muslim community. "Instead of saying such things, she should have done something worthwhile for their welfare."
Salim Sherwani from Badaun said what is good for the country is good for all communities. Afzal Ansari from Ghazipur and Atiq Ahmed from Phoolpur are presently in jail but Sayeeda said they would also go by the party's stand.
The SP claims that all its 39 MPs who fought previous general elections on its symbol will support the trust vote of UPA government.
Two days ago, Jai Prakash Rawat from Mohanlalganj said he would vote against the deal on the floor of Parliament and also claimed support of 12 other party MPs.
The party leadership is now trying to pacify some MPs like Salim Sherwani from Badayun who was earlier unhappy with the party's stand.
"All the countries we have spoken to are positive in their attitude (over India's civil nuclear cooperation with the US)," National Security Adviser M K Narayanan and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon told journalists accompanying Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on his way back from the G-8 summit in Japan.
On discussions Singh had with US President George W Bush and other G-8 leaders on the sidelines of the Summit, the officials said they do not anticipate any problem from other countries that India has spoken to.
The officials gave the reply when specifically asked whether Japan was on board on the Indo-US deal.
Menon said in discussions the Prime Minister had with leaders of the G-8, with the exception of one, the prime minister brought up the nuclear deal.
"No country gave a negative response," Narayanan said.
On Japan' stand, Menon said its Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who was Chairman of the Summit, has in his summary reflected the positive outlook.
"You have to ask him. He read out the text as Chairman of the G-8. He said they are ready to cooperate in nuclear energy."
"I can only speak about the leaders we have spoken to. They have expressed themselves in the statement. All the G-8 members are on board. All the other countries we have spoken to are positive," the two officials said.
Menon quoted the G-8 Chairman's summary which had a separate chapter on Civil Nuclear Cooperation with India.
"We look forward to working with India in the IAEA and the NSG and other members, to advance India's non-proliferation commitment and the progress so as to facilitate a more robust approach to the civil nuclear cooperation to help it meet its growing energy needs in a manner that enhances and reinforces the global cooperation in non-proliferation programme," it said.
On the civil nuclear cooperation, Singh informed Bush that the government was going ahead with the initiative.
Bush told the Prime Minister that he has been discussing the subject with the G-8 leaders and their views have been reflected in the Chairman's summary, Menon said.
He said President Bush has made no secret of his determination on the nuclear deal that "he would do what they have to do in the matter".
The subject of the nuclear deal came up during discussions with all the leaders with India informing them of its intention to proceed with the initiative and getting a positive from all of them.
Asked about the US attitude, he said "I think that stage as to who will do and what was settled in 2005 (July 18, 2005 joint statement by India and US). Both sides are committed and both sides will do that."
To a question on Australia's stand which has refused to supply nuclear fuel to India, Narayanan said there was no reference to the uranium in the discussions between Singh and his counterpart Kevin Rudd.
"We have not taken up the subject with them because we have to get the NSG clearance first. The Australian side was extremely positive and they would consider."
Addressing media persons at a press conference in New Delhi, Mayawati said, “Whether it BJP or Congress, whoever is in the power at the Centre, they use CBI against me and try to rack up some cases to tarnish me and my party’s image.”
On Thursday, CBI had told the Supreme Court that it had “sufficient” evidence to prosecute Mayawati in a disproportionate assets case registered against her five years back. The investigating agency had incidentally distributed copies of the affidavit to various media houses before it could reach the Chief Minister's lawyers.
Questioning the timing of the filing of the affidavit by the CBI, she said, “Why the CBI changed the scheduled hearing of the case before the normal hearing. Also, it comes just before the trust vote in the Parliament.”
"Congress-led UPA should not be under any illusion that we will be intimidated and come under their pressure," Mayawati said but sidestepped questions over her party's stand on the trial of strength of the Manmohan Singh Ministry on July 22.
Inspite of questions like her reported attempts to break Samajwadi Party MPs and about her strategy in the trust vote, her refrain was that she would hold a separate press conference to announce her decision.
Singling out the CBI director for attack, she said that filing the affidavit soon after her party's withdrawal of support to the Centre and before the trust vote, brings the action of the premier investigative agency under "needle of suspicion".
CBI’s affidavit in Supreme Court is part of behind-the-scene conspiracy against me, alleged Mayawati.
Meanwhile, senior BSP leader S C Mishra said that the party will explore all legal options to file defamation case against CBI officials.
In India’s Coalition Math, Marxists’ Power Is Magnified
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
Published: October 9, 2007
To a stranger, Prakash Karat and the organization he leads, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), would seem like anachronisms in the roaring capitalist economy that is India today.
But quite improbably, by seizing on India’s deepening friendship with the United States, Mr. Karat and his party have lately emerged as a sharp and dangerous weapon against the coalition government, making it plain that though the Communists do not have the strength to rule India, they have the power to spoil the plans of those who do.
On Tuesday, as the International Atomic Energy Agency’s director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, was in India for what the government described as a routine, long-planned visit, political squabbling intensified, and speculation was rife that the increasingly strained relations between Mr. Karat’s party and the government that it has supported were about to give way.
India’s electoral math makes it impossible for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s coalition government, which is led by the Congress Party, to govern without the backing of its Communist allies, principally Mr. Karat’s party. And so, if Mr. Karat carried out his veiled threats to withdraw support, the government could not continue, and fresh elections would have to be called before its five-year term expires in 2009.
In a vague bit of saber rattling, Mr. Karat has threatened “serious consequences” if Mr. Singh’s government advances its negotiations on its nuclear deal with the United States. He sees it as a part of a strategic alliance with the United States, intended to increase American weight in Asia — and he wants none of it.
“We don’t want to be another Japan,” Mr. Karat said. “It’s not in our interest.”
The nuclear accord — initiated by the Bush administration, approved provisionally by the United States Congress and described as a centerpiece of a new relationship between the countries — would allow India to buy nuclear technology to generate energy. It would require India to negotiate separate agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group.
The Congress Party seems to be rolling up its sleeves for a battle. The fourth-generation scion of the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty, Rahul Gandhi, was recently elevated in the party, becoming one of 11 general secretaries. His mother, Sonia Gandhi, the party chairwoman, said Sunday that those who opposed the nuclear deal were “enemies” of progress.
“We need not surrender our vital interests to America,” the leftist parties roared back on Monday in a statement.
Government officials have contended that the deal does not signify the surrender of an independent foreign policy, an assertion that seems to have been borne out most recently with respect to Myanmar, formerly Burma. India has cultivated good relations with Myanmar’s military rulers, and in contrast to American calls for sanctions, it has said little about the latest crackdown on antigovernment protests, except to gently suggest a investigation into the killings of protesters.
Oddly, Mr. Karat’s group has been closer to the American position on Myanmar in that it has urged greater pressure on its military rulers. He is fond of excoriating American policy in Iraq and equally fond of highlighting India’s traditional strategic and cultural links with Iran.
It was the nuclear deal that prompted Mr. Karat’s most ferocious threats against the government and not a host of issues that might be expected to anger the Communists, like the dismal statistics on child malnutrition in India or the poor state of the country’s public health system.
The Communists, long a part of the Indian political fabric, have rarely wielded as much influence as they have in the past three years as the government’s allies. They have been blamed for blocking further liberalization of the economy, including the entry of foreign retail chains, for putting the brakes on proposed changes in labor laws and for opposing the nuclear deal on the basis of a lingering cold war mind-set.
“There is a knee-jerk anti-Americanism,” said the historian Ramachandra Guha. “In some sense they can’t forgive America for having won.”
Mr. Guha also took pains to credit the Communists for having been less corrupt than other parties and for preventing violence against religious minorities in the states they have controlled. Such violence has engulfed many other places across India.
Shekhar Gupta, editor of the English-language daily The Indian Express and one of Mr. Karat’s sharpest critics, said the Communist Party of India’s opposition to the government had nothing to do with performance, only ideology.
“Nothing irritates the left more than people of the other persuasion running a government successfully,” Mr. Gupta said.
The Indian Communists are buffeted by ideological disagreements of their own, with Mr. Karat beating an anti-American drum, while his comrades in West Bengal, a state governed by the Communists, woo American industry to revitalize a sagging economy.
That state-led industrialization drive — call it the Bengal Communists’ more hammer, less sickle policy — has invited violent peasant protests, and some say it has weakened the party’s hold on one of its two key states. Kerala State is the other. The party holds 43 of 545 seats in Parliament, and forcing elections soon would not necessarily improve its standing.
Whether realpolitik will trump ideology remains to be seen. Mr. Karat, at any rate, casts himself as an ideologue. “We’re not going to come into power,” he said flatly. “We may win seats. We may lose seats.”
For the government, Mr. Karat represents only one kind of Communist worry. India has another set of Communists: the Maoist guerrillas, uninterested in elections but increasingly, and violently, active to varying degrees in 13 of 28 Indian states. The prime minister has described those Communists as India’s biggest internal security threat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/world/asia/09india.html?ref=world
Political marketplace: Lessons of coalition politics
Indian Express
India
Saubhik Chakrabarti
Monday, July 07, 2008
Politics is again a bazaar. Ruthlessness, profiteering, greed and basic instincts are in view. It’s a bit ugly. And it’s very, very useful for this country. It’s what a complex country needs to deliver a few key policies. How else can this complex country be run? With national politics not in a stable bipolar mode but with the country requiring that a few key policies be delivered, change-makers have to tactically use the attractions of political power, writes Saubhik Chakrabarti in the Indian Express
NEW DELHI, India: Amar Singh’s braggadocio, which sometimes makes you wince, not Prakash Karat’s easy-on-the-eye gentility, is setting the tone of national politics. Bazaar bargaining is back. Deals are being cut again in the political marketplace. Ruthlessness, profiteering, greed and basic instincts are in view. It’s a bit ugly. And it’s very, very useful for this country.
If carrot has replaced Karat as the principal determinant of national politics, it is only because India’s policy-making system needs a politics that’s pragmatic, even if it’s not pretty. Four years of Marxist finger-wagging have made many of us forget how national politics has operated after the Congress ceased to be a natural winner — it has operated by handshakes between many apparently disparate parties. Marxist proscriptions on policy have also made us forget that these handshakes, frequently followed by unrepentant palm-greasing, have delivered the following immensely important political/policy paradigm shifts: the Congress was made to pay for political arrogance and then rewarded for humility, the BJP was shown as fit for governance and then made to pay for political overconfidence, the third front was made to pay for political fantasising, economic reforms happened, and foreign policy became rational.
Post-Rajiv Gandhi, Marxists and the BJP together at one point as well as other players kept the Congress out for long enough for the party to understand that its patent on governing India had expired. Atal Bihari Vajpayee built a tactical alliance that’s still the model of coalition governance. Then, post-Vajpayee, the Congress’s newly minted friends and the Marxists showed the BJP that even being a few seats behind its national rival could mean five years in the opposition. The Congress twice ruthlessly established that trying to run a national government by having a national party hold up a third front variation doesn’t work — the logic of national politics is against it.
Through all this making and unmaking of friendships, haggling and sometimes ghastly personal profit maximising, India started and never reversed its dissociation from socialism. Narasimha Rao, who politically broke the back of the economic ancien regime, did not even have a full-term parliamentary majority. Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral weren’t passionate reformers. As prime ministers with little hold on real levers of power, they were content when the then ex-Congressman P. Chidambaram, who had a communist as a cabinet colleague, took up the job of reforming the economy.
Vajpayee was apparently forced by the RSS to pick Yashwant Sinha as finance minister because Sinha better understood swadeshi. But Sinha, as many astute observers of the Indian economy point out, proved to be a doughty and clever reformer. Foreign policy changed, too, in part because of another nuclear test, for which Rao, who allegedly had to buy votes to secure a House majority, had prepared brilliantly and which Vajpayee, leading the BJP’s first coalition that lasted barely a year, executed equally astutely.
So when the UPA took power in May 2004, Delhi since 1989 had been witness to plenty of bazaar politics and a few great, positive changes. The hope was that the UPA would be no different in essence. The common minimum programme was on the face of it a silly document. Actually, it contained a serious promise — that this would be the template on which policy bargaining will happen and the fig leaf that would cover policy “departures”. But then something changed. Karat’s CPM abandoned the rules of the bazaar. Bar putting some of the party’s fellow travellers in decorative public offices, Karat’s CPM wasn’t interested in give and take.
Had Karat been interested in give and take, as every member of the ruling alliance has been since 1989, the UPA could have done a number of things without the CPM having to change its rhetoric. It could have sold small stakes in PSUs without privatising any of them. It could have worked on passing a banking bill that calls for upping the quantum of minority private shareholding in public sector banks and still kept the banks in the government fold. It could have increased FDI limits in some sectors. It could have passed the pension bill at the Centre, taking advantage of the fact that many states were already undertaking pension reform. It could have easily parsed nuclear-deal politics to make the deal look less “American”.
Karat’s CPM didn’t want to trade, though, and the astonishing thing is that the Congress chose to be blind to it for so long. It suits the prime minister’s spin doctors now to put out stories that the PM always knew the Left wasn’t a good partner and the thought of looking elsewhere had always been in his mind. The fact is that the Congress’s pusillanimity allowed the Left to suspend politics as usual.
But never mind. Late in its term but finally the Congress is back in the political marketplace.
Mulayam Singh Yadav has been a socialist, a caste leader, an eager pursuer of corporate friendships, an occasional agrarian reformer (sugarcane in western UP), a spoiler when the Congress wanted to topple the BJP, a helper when the BJP wanted to make sure its presidential candidate defeated the Left’s, a friend of the Left and now a friend of the Congress. He knows the bazaar. With him or the likes of him on its side, the Congress or the BJP can rule by having room for policy manoeuvres.
How else can this complex country be run? With national politics not in a stable bipolar mode but with the country requiring that a few key policies be delivered, change-makers have to tactically use the attractions of political power.
It is satisfying to note therefore that Karat’s CPM may pay for subverting the rules of political business. Minus the whip hand over a government, with the next elections most likely delivering fewer seats in Kerala and perhaps even in Bengal, with the Congress surely having learnt a lesson and the BJP declared a pariah by the Marxists, the CPM may be reduced to being a witness to many deals being made, who knows, may be even the nuclear deal.
This article was published in the Indian Express on Monday, July 07, 2008. Please read the original article here.
http://indefenceofliberty.org/story.aspx?id=1600&pubid=1379
Coalition politics is not opportunism, says Chidambaram
By Our Special Correspondent
COIMBATORE, JAN. 23. The Congress Jananayaga Peravai (CJP) leader, P. Chidambaram, today appealed to the people not to ignore alliances and coalition politics as ``opportunism'' as otherwise ``complete instability'' will prevail in the country. Coalition politics should be ``welcomed and encouraged'' as ``India's political system is maturing.''
Responding to queries on the confusing political scenario, Mr. Chidambaram, citing Western Europe, told newsmen that the formation of alliances now was ``natural and practical politics.''
India should be prepared for and reconcile itself to coalition politics. He termed the contradictory views ``reactionary.'' ``In a coalition, no party has given up its principles. But in a pluralistic country, which has given rise to so many parties and where voters are divided, such a situation is inevitable.'' After all, an alliance was formed to face the elections.
To a question, Mr. Chidambaram said it would be possible for the Congress and the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to co-exist. ``Apart from combating communalism, they could have a common programme on promoting job-oriented growth, instead of the current jobless growth.''
There was nothing wrong in these parties joining hands in some States, while they might have to contest against each other in three others.
If two alliances were formed — one with the Congress and the other with the Bharatiya Janata Party at the helm at the national level and one with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the other with the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu, ``I welcome it because it is healthy for the democracy. And whoever forms the Government at the Centre will definitely have a full term.''
All that the people should look for (when alliances are formed) was whether the coalition Government would be stable and whether it could provide some programmes. ``Was it possible to provide a stable government in the divided polity?''
Mr. Chidambaram pointed out that it took virtually two centuries for England to have a two-party system. ``In India, it would definitely take some more time.''
http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/24/stories/2004012407340400.htm
India, China and Russia to create new alliance to challenge USA's supremacy
Front page / World
12.04.2005 Source:
Pages:
Originally, Beijing and Delhi were not inspired with the perspective of the trilateral strategic partnership
The dispute regarding the first priority in the foreign policy of Russia – whether it should have the Western or the Eastern orientation – has been going on for quite a long time already. The discussion was not surfacing much only during the Soviet era, perhaps. However, it would not be correct to compare the foreign policy of the USSR with the one of present-day Russia.
BREAKING NEWS
Former Soviet republics ignore Putin's Russia
Someone in the Kremlin wants to take Lenin's mummy out of the Tomb
Can government decide if women can do abortions?
Hollywood's hottest raven-heads
More...
The issue of the Russian foreign political priority has been gathering pace for the recent six or seven years. The then Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who currently chairs the Chamber of Industry and Commerce, became the person, who spurred the issue up again. Mr. Primakov set forth the idea to establish a special relationship between Russia, India and China. The idea was later referred to as “Primakov's Triangle” in Russian journalism.
It goes without saying that the idea of creating such a triangle is based on the wish to challenge the supremacy of the USA. This desire can be seen rather clearly, although it differs a lot with the real state of things. The idea seems to be quite nice, although Primakov's triangle is not likely to take the shape of something real. Yevgeny Primakov's idea was impromptu, for the politician did not put forward any certain suggestions on the matter.
Beijing and Delhi were not inspired with the perspective of the trilateral strategic partnership because of the above-mentioned reason. The two countries are not ready to challenge Washington just because of the fact that they are happy with their cooperation with the USA in comparison with Primakov's idea to come into a certain political alliance with Russia. In addition, the US administration has recently lifted restrictions for arms deliveries to India, which might cause very big problems to the Russian defense export to this country. The USA does not have an intention to make such a concession to China, though. On the other hand, Washington has recently removed its objections regarding lifting the embargo for arms deliveries from the European Union.
In addition, the USA is an extremely important trade partner for India and China. Russia will not be able to make a competition at this point, at least in the nearest perspective. Needless to mention that neither Delhi nor Beijing will agree to sacrifice the profit for the sake of a rather obscure goal.
To crown it all, both India and China used to experience keen rivalries in the struggle for their influence in the Asian region. Pakistan was supporting China in that struggle, whereas India was having traditional problems with it.
Russian experts are being rather skeptical about the idea to establish an alliance with India and China too. Yevgeny Primakov stated last week at the Diplomatic Academy of the Foreign Ministry of China that such an opportunity seemed to be possible for him. “The triangle will be very helpful in maintaining the regional security,” Primakov said. Sergei Karagonov, the chairman of the presidium of the Russian Council for foreign defense policy, is certain, though, that Primakov's idea is nonviable. The specialist believes that none of the three states want to crea
