Free Download of Cheguvera biography (E-book)

Comandante Che: Guerrilla Soldier, Commander, and Strategist 1956-1967
Publisher: Pennsylvania State University | Pages:335 | 2004-07-30 | ISBN 0271022620 | PDF | 3 MB

Credits to original uploader



DOWNLOAD



MIRROR 1


mirror 2

Is the World Capitalist Crisis Over?

Prabhat Patnaik

AN impression has got around in this country that the world capitalist crisis is over. It is no longer front page news in newspapers. One scarcely hears a word about it on television. And now that the Sensex has crossed the 15,000 mark, up from 9000 to which it had plunged a few months ago, everything appears fine to the Indian elite, which has wasted no time in spreading the cheerful news around. To be sure, the Indian elite is not alone in having this perception. An air of cautious optimism pervades even the elites in advanced countries which have been the hardest-hit by the crisis. They are more cautious, but optimistic nonetheless.

Much of this optimism springs from the behaviour of some financial indicators, notably the stock markets, whose impact on the real economy, though existent, can be tenuous. On the real economy itself, the most optimistic position is that we may be nearing the bottom of the crisis, that things are unlikely to get worse, which is very different of course from saying that things are back to “normal”. Thus British prime minister Gordon Brown has taken solace from the fact that though unemployment in Britain is rising, the increase in unemployment across periods is coming down. Much the same was being said about the United States until the month of June; but the increase in unemployment in June was much higher than in May which put paid to even these hopes. Even on current figures therefore we cannot say we are at the end of the decline.

THREE NEGATIVE

FACTORS

There are three factors moreover, each relating to the United states (whose level of economic activity matters the most for the world economy), though similar phenomena may be occurring elsewhere as well, which militate against the downturn itself coming to an end, i.e. which prevent the bottom itself being reached. The first of these is wage deflation, i.e. the decline in the real earning per worker of the employed workers themselves. Now, the initial drop in the level of aggregate demand which triggered the crisis has been getting aggravated by the decline in employment anyway; but this is further accentuated by the decline in the real earning per head of the employed workers. This tertiary drop in demand, compounding the primary drop owing to the initial jolt, and the secondary drop owing to the decline in employment, will contribute to a further prolongation of the decline in the level of economic activity and employment.

The second factor is the decline in the level of expenditures of the state governments in the US. While the federal government in the US is allowed to run fiscal deficits, state governments are not: when their revenue drops, as it does in a recession, their expenditure too drops. Now, even though the federal government in the US has run a massive fiscal deficit, most of it has gone for shoring up the banks, adding to their coffers where the money lies quietly, but not generating demand in the economy. That part of the fiscal deficit, which constitutes federal government expenditure on goods and services and which therefore adds to the level of demand in the economy, is quite small, not much more than the currently-estimated decline in the expenditure of the state governments owing to their obligation to balance budgets; but if this decline persists, and exceeds anticipations, then this federal fiscal stimulus is likely to get swamped by the decline in state government expenditures.

The third factor consists in the fact that even this level of federal fiscal stimulus is unlikely to be sustained over time. Finance capital, as is well-known, is opposed to any direct State intervention in demand management: it prefers “sound finance”, i.e. the State balancing its revenue with expenditure, or, at the most, running a small, pre-determined magnitude of fiscal deficit relative to GDP. So, even the current level of the fiscal deficit, which the Obama administration is running, is anathema for finance capital, and the large number of conservative economists and commentators who articulate its positions. The very suspicion that the bottom has been reached, if it gets spuriously confirmed by, say, the unemployment figure not registering an increase for a couple of months, will increase pressure on the federal government to cut down its fiscal deficit, which will once more push the US economy back into a decline.

This is exactly what had happened in 1937, when, after the initial phase of the New deal appeared to have ended the decline started by the Great Depression, President Roosevelt was pressurised into cutting back the federal fiscal deficit, with the result that the US economy plunged once more into a depression, from which it recovered only through the resurgence in military spending that marked the onset of the second world war. At present, so strong is the pressure for cutting back on the fiscal deficit in the US that even if the bottom of the recession is not reached, president Obama will still find it hard to sustain the tempo of deficit spending; any suspicion that the bottom has been reached will make the pressure irresistible, pushing the economy back into a decline.

A WHOLE NEW

CONJUNCTURE

All this would suggest that the crisis in the US is far from over; and if so, then the crisis in the world economy too is far from over. But there is a deeper reason why the crisis is not over, and that is because the crisis is not just a recessionary crisis, as is commonly supposed. In fact the current world capitalist crisis is such that if it does not appear in one particular form, then it will appear in a different form. Recession is just one of the forms in which it appears. If the recession abates, then the crisis will appear in a different form, namely that of a sharp inflation affecting in particular energy and food prices, which incidentally is the form in which it had appeared before the recession.

The crisis therefore must not be identified with only one particular form; it represents a whole new conjuncture. When we look at this conjuncture in its totality, then it becomes clear that overcoming it within the parameters of the capitalism we have known till now, does not appear possible. To say this is not to say that capitalism will collapse, that never happens; nor is it to suggest that the crisis will necessarily persist in one particular form, e.g. that the recession will never be overcome. The point being made is that capitalism, as it has existed hitherto, has entered into a period of permanent crisis, from which the system may still emerge through substantial restructuring (if it does not get transcended altogether), but only after a considerable time, through much groping, and the creation, through such groping, of an appropriate political balance of class forces that will carry out such restructuring. In short, as in the inter-war period, we are entering into a phase of capitalism where a major qualitative transition, as distinct from the mere playing out of its immanent tendencies, has come on the agenda. Where that transition will lead, will be decided ultimately by the outcome of political struggle; but the conjuncture that has brought such a transition on to the agenda is the crisis.

CHARACTERISTICS

OF THIS CONJUNCTURE

What are the characteristics of this conjuncture and why has it come about? In a modern capitalist economy, as is well-known, if the level of economic activity is pushed beyond a point, then this gives rise to an inflationary upsurge. This happens for a variety of mutually-reinforcing reasons: as the relative size of the reserve army drops below some threshold, the workers’ bargaining strength improves, money wage claims begin to mount, and since capitalists price their products as a “mark-up” over their unit variable costs, inflation ensues. Likewise, when the level of activity increases beyond a point, raw material prices begin to climb, which again get “passed on” through higher prices, calling forth higher money wage claims (even to defend the prevailing real wages), and hence, once more, escalating inflation. This point beyond which an inflationary upsurge ensues, and which, following Joan Robinson’s terminology, one can call the “inflationary barrier”, sets a limit to the feasible level of economic activity in a modern capitalist economy. The actual level of economic activity can be less than this, but not above this, in any period, if capitalism is to remain viable. Now, the conjuncture constituting the current crisis is characterised by the fact that this “inflationary barrier” has got lowered, i.e. the level of economic activity at which an inflationary upsurge will arise has got reduced. The economy can perform below this level, as it is doing now in the capitalist world, but that constitutes recession. But as it gets out of the recession, precisely because the “inflationary barrier” has got lowered, it would soon get into an inflationary upsurge. Hence it is not the recession alone that constitutes the crisis, or inflation alone; it is the totality of the conjuncture where getting out of one form of the crisis entails getting into another form of the crisis.

This conjuncture has arisen because, on the one hand, there is an enormous concentration of finance capital, looking around for speculative gains, which can move into particular commodity markets whenever there is a whiff of possible scarcity, or of the possibility of creating a scarcity; and on the other hand, the scope for an easy augmentation of supplies has got exhausted in the case of a number of commodities. In a whole range of agricultural commodities where production is carried out by a mass of petty producers, the very fact of their impoverishment under a regime dominated by international finance capital, has made supply augmentation difficult; indeed even simple reproduction on their part has become difficult, as is evident from the vast numbers of peasant suicides in India. The withdrawal of State support, which they enjoyed under the post-independence dirigiste regime, but no longer do under neo-liberalism, has pushed large numbers of them into unviability, where they cannot cope with the needs of the capitalist world economy. In the case of other commodities, like oil, the end of the colonial arrangement has meant loss of control over this crucial resource by the capitalist metropolis. Production is now controlled to a significant extent by OPEC, which no doubt is amenable to pressure by imperialism but cannot just be dictated to by it. And imperialism’s large-scale bid for re-colonisation, entailing a reacquisition of control over this resource, though persistent and continuing, has run into rough weather. It is this conjuncture that constitutes the crisis, which must not therefore be identified only with its recessionary form.

NATURAL GAS FROM KRISHNA GODAVARI (KG) BASIN

Who is the Owner?

Dipankar Mukherjee

IN normal circumstances in the pre-reform or pre-globalisation era, such a question would not have arisen at all in India. By virtue of Article 297 of the Constitution of India, all petroleum reserves, including gas reserves in their natural state in the territorial waters or the continental shelf or the exclusive economic zone of India vest in the Union of India and are held for the purposes of the Union. The government is therefore the sovereign owner of KG basin gas for distribution of gas for public good viz fertilizer production, power generation, transport, industry, domestic use etc. That being the case, why does the government of India – after 59 years of the adoption of our Constitution – need to reassert its ownership of KG gas today in July 2009? Has its sovereign ownership been challenged by any foreign country? No. In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on July 18, 2009, the sovereign Bharat sarkar pleads that by a privately negotiated settlement vide an MoU dated June 18, 2005 between CMD, Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and CMD, Reliance Natural Resources Limited (RNRL), KG basin gas, whose ownership vests with Union of India, has been used as private property. Bharat sarkar now pleads the court to annul the MoU.

So, four years after the MoU, the government of India wakes up from its ‘kumbhakarna’ slumber to complain that its property worth thousands of crores of rupees has been usurped by the two brothers –– a property which is a major energy source for electricity and fertilizer to a gas-starved country. What was it doing all this time? The whole nation was agitated when Pakistani intruders sneaked into Kargil without the knowledge of the Vajpayee government ten years back. The intruders stealthily captured about 150 sq km of Indian land in the inhospitable hilly terrain and they were subsequently thrown out by the Indian armed forces. Here, in this case, in broad daylight in the name of a production sharing contract, an Indian industrial house openly treats 339 sq km in KG basin like its family property for four years and yet the sovereign government of India is helpless! Instead of asserting its rights years back, it is now moving from one court to another pleading for its right to intervene. And why is it playing the role of a mediator rather than an owner? To find out the reason for such abject surrender to the corporate might, one has to look at the background.

THE

BACKGROUND

Before economic reforms were initiated in the early nineties, ONGC and Oil India Ltd were the only gas exploration and production companies, owned by the government of India. The distribution and marketing of gas was being carried out by the Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL), another PSU formed in 1984 with the specific task of forming a national gas grid for gas distribution in the country to ensure regional balance. As a part of reform process, the government decided to invite private investment for exploration and production of oil and gas. New Exploration and Licensing Policy (NELP) was notified in 1999 to award oil/gas blocks to private companies as contractors. In this process a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) was executed in April 2000 between the government of India and undivided RIL and its minor (10 per cent) partner NIKO Resources Limited for production of gas in an area of 339.41 square kilometer in KG basin (D6 field). After the dispute between the two siblings, Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) was demerged into two companies viz RIL and Reliance Natural Resources Ltd (RNRL), which went to the younger sibling. The MoU of June 2005, which the government of India is now asking to be nullified, stipulated that the gas produced from KG basin as per PSC will be utilised as follows:

· Quantity of 12 million metric standard cubic metres of gas per day (mmscmd) will be given to NTPC

· The next 28 mmscmd would go to RNRL

· The rest will be supplied in 60:40 ratio with 60 per cent to RIL and 40 per cent to RNRL

· The pricing of the gas was stipulated at 2.34 dollar/mmbtu (million British thermal unit)

The above MoU inter alia ignored the sovereign ownership of the government over KG gas on two major parameters viz allocation of gas and the pricing of the same. The government now admits in its Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court in its affidavit in July 2009 that rights of Union of India have been infringed for the following reasons:

· That RIL and RNRL cannot settle between themselves as to how the gas, which is a national asset and a natural resource that vests in the government of India and which is to be utilized for the wider and larger interest of the nation, is to be distributed. It is not the private property of RIL and RNRL and any understanding arrived at between them is not binding upon the government of India.

· The gas has to be distributed in terms of the government-approved Gas Utilisation Policy and at a price approved by the government.

But then why, after four years?

HIDE & SEEK GAME

BY THE UPA GOVT

The government now says that it became aware of the MoU only after the relevant portion of the MoU was placed before the Mumbai High Court in October 2008 in course of the litigation between the brothers.

It is absolutely untrue. On April 14, 2006 RIL approached the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (MOPNG) seeking the approval of the sale of gas to RNRL at 2.34 dollar/mmbtu and RNRL sent a letter on the same subject to the government on May 09, 2006. In between, on May 04, 2006 the then CPI(M) MP, late Chittabrata Majumdar sought the intervention of the minister of petroleum and natural gas in the matter. The relevant extract of the letter is quoted here:

“I understand RIL has recently signed a Gas Sale Purchase Agreement (GSPA) with Reliance Natural Resources Ltd (RNRL) without any bidding or competitive arms length process, to supply gas at a contracted price of 2.34 dollar per mmbtu whereas currently India imports gas from Qatar at an estimated price of 6 dollar/mmbtu. RIL by this agreement with RNRL is going to supply gas cheaply, that too as large a quantity as 40 mmscmd (current total domestic gas availably for customers in the country is 72 mmscmd). RIL is, therefore, seeking to transfer the benefit of gas find to a related private company at a cheaper price…..This benefit should actually flow to the people by virtue of Article 297 of the Constitution of India as per which petroleum in its natural state is vested in the Union of India. The government grants the exploration license in overall interest of the country.”

“I, therefore, request you to kindly intervene so that natural gas from KG basin explored by RIL, is auctioned through competitive bidding and the government can utilise the gas-find through GAIL which can set up its own pipeline for transportation and consumption of gas in power and industrial sector as a part of overall energy security and regional balance.”

The letter was acknowledged on May 25, 2006.

The government was therefore never in dark when the KG basin gas became all of a sudden a family affair. In fact, the government has both overtly and covertly encouraged a settlement between the squabbling siblings at the cost of surrendering its ownership right on the natural gas. Otherwise, it would have intervened on behalf of NTPC, the government-owned power generation company whose 2700 MW gas based thermal projects (Kawas and Gandhar) are kept on hold because of RIL’s refusal to supply them the required gas. That is another part of the hide and seek game being indulged by the UPA government.

NTPC-RIL CASE:

GOVT’S DECEIT

The government of India so far has been more concerned about the pricing of gas than about asserting its ownership rights on the same. Why? Because, gas pricing of 2.32 dollar/mmbtu in the June 2005 MoU, signed between the two siblings, was based on the gas price offered by RIL and accepted by NTPC in June 2004. In a written reply to a question dated February 20, 2009 in Lok Sabha the then minister of state for power, Jairam Ramesh stated:

“NTPC invited bids under international competitive bidding for procurement of natural gas amounting to 132 trillion British thermal units per annum for Kawas-II and Gandhar-II power projects for a period of 17 years. Reliance Industries was evaluated as the lowest techno commercially acceptable bidder and NTPC accepted its offer. Accordingly a Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued to RIL on June 16, 2004 which was duly acknowledged and confirmed by RIL.”

RIL’s bid was for supply of 12 mmscmd of gas from KG basin at 2.34 dollar/mmbtu to NTPC for 17 years. What happened thereafter? This is what Jairam Ramesh explained in the aforesaid reply in parliament:

“After the issuance of LOI, RIL did not come forward to sign the Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement (GSPA) and sought major changes in the agreed draft of GSPA. NTPC pursued with RIL at various levels and various meetings to sign the GSPA, as per the draft accepted by RIL during the bidding process. However inspite of all the efforts by NTPC, RIL did not sign the GSPA agreed during the bidding process.”

At various levels? Which level? Did the MOPNG, as a nodal ministry of the government that now asserts its ownership on KG basin, intervene and ask the contractor i.e. RIL to supply gas to the government-owned company as per the agreed terms so that 2700 MW of power is made available by NTPC to the people of this country? No. Instead, an aggrieved NTPC filed a suit in the Bombay High Court on December 20, 2005 against RIL’s refusal to sign the GSPA. The case is still sub judice and 2700 MW power – much cheaper than the much tom-tommed nuclear power – remains elusive.

In the litigation between RIL and RNRL, earlier in Bombay High Court and now in the Supreme Court, the government of India rushes to act as a mediator. This alacrity is glaringly absent on the part of the government in the litigation between its own company NTPC and RIL, which involves providing power to the aam admi. The UPA government was eloquently silent and did not support the NTPC even for once during the last four years. On the contrary, in one of the rarest case of deceit and deception, it weakened the case of NTPC by forming an Empowered Group of Ministers on September 12, 2007, which fixed the gas price at 4.2. dollar/mmbtu –- an arbitrarily determined high price that RIL had been bargaining for all along.

If this is the price of gas approved by the government, where does NTPC’s case stand? By indirectly sabotaging the NTPC’s case, the government has at one stroke hiked the price of power and fertiliser – both key inputs in the grim agrarian sector. The public sector company, ONGC, presently supplies gas to NTPC, another PSU, at 1.8 dollar/mmbtu. The neo-Congress leaders of UPA government, who relentlessly chant the mantra of “people’s ownership” to justify their disinvestment, want the same gas owned by the people of this country to be contracted to a private family by the government who would then extract 2¹/₂ times more price at people’s expense!

REAL PEOPLE’S

OWNERSHIP

Clearly, it is high time the government must come clean on this issue. Now it has belatedly but rightly asserted that KG basin gas is government’s property. Better late than never. Let them act on what they have asserted i.e. people’s ownership of KG basin gas which does not belong to a family – divided or undivided. The first follow up step to act on people’s ownership is to take over the distribution and marketing rights of gas at the delivery end from RIL which has violated the PSC by unilaterally assigning to itself the power of an owner. The next step is to entrust Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) with the responsibility of transportation, distribution and marketing of KG basin gas. This will be in line with para 2.4 of the union cabinet note for formation of GAIL in January 1984 which stated “In the course of time, it is visualised that national grid of gas pipeline will have to be developed, having regard to gas availability, utilisation pattern and the capital investment involved.” The idea was clear – ONGC, OIL and GAIL, owned by people of India, will produce and distribute natural gas, a major energy source to ensure regional balance and allocation to priority sectors. The UPA government has abandoned that path. “People’s ownership” does not mean selling of PSU shares in share market. It means assertion of State control of vital natural resources like gas, owned by the people of this country and not by one corporate or other, in the interest of aam admi.

India-More Steps towards Being US Ally

Prakash Karat

IN the two months of the second edition of the UPA government, the signs are clear -- the strategic alliance with the United States will be widened and deepened. This has been confirmed by the outcome of the visit of US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to India.

The crux of this strategic alliance is military collaboration. Four years are complete of the ten-year Defence Cooperation Agreement with the United States. In June 2005, the UPA government had entered into an agreement titled New Framework for the US India Defence Relationship. The United States accords priority to the defence collaboration which is the key to making India its strategic ally.

Military

Collaboration

The Indo-US nuclear deal was a quid pro quo for this defence agreement. This was confirmed on the eve of the Clinton visit by the US assistant secretary of state, Philip J Crowley who stated that the End Use Monitoring is "part of the fulfillment of an important initiative that India and the US have signed in the area of nuclear cooperation". The End Use Monitoring Agreement was the key issue for the US side during the Clinton visit. It marks an important step in the plans of the United States to sell large scale defence equipment to India.

The Congress-led government has always been shy of spelling out the implications of the framework agreement. The then Defence minister, Pranab Mukherjee, had stated in parliament that "The framework contains only enabling provisions. It does not contain any commitments or obligations." What was not spelt out was that a series of agreements would flow out of this framework agreement. The Pentagon was more forthcoming about the scope of the military collaboration. In March 2006 during the Bush visit to India, the Pentagon had issued a statement explaining the benefits of the new relationship. It stated:

"These will serve key objectives of our strategic partnership by helping to build ties among our defence establishments and industries and to develop interoperability among our armed forces. Defence technology cooperation will contribute to strengthened military capabilities and will also result in economic benefits through expanded trade."

In 2006, the Maritime Security Cooperation Agreement to have joint operations between the two navies was arrived at. Next to follow was the Logistics Support Agreement. This would have facilitated the use of Indian ports and air bases by US armed forces for refuelling, maintenance, servicing, communications etc. This agreement could not go forward due to the strong opposition put up by the Left when it was supporting the government.

Earlier during the BJP-led government's tenure, a "General Security and Military Information Agreement" (GSOMIA) was signed between the two countries. This agreement was a prerequisite for closer military ties and transfer of military technology and equipment to India. The agreement provides for confidentiality for supplies from the United States. The US had been insisting on such an agreement from the time of the Narasimha Rao government.

EUMA

Stranglehold

The United States insists on End Use Monitoring Arrangements (EUMA) for supplying high-level military equipment. It has such arrangements with all its NATO and other allies. The intrusive inspections will enable the United States to monitor not only the equipment it supplies but also collect data on related Indian equipment and its technological capabilities. The United States will not allow modification of its equipment nor permit India to indigenously make spare parts for such equipment. The end use condition would also mean India will not be able to use the defence equipment in any manner other than what the United States provides for.

Foreign minister S M Krishna was wrong in stating in parliament that such agreements have been signed with other countries. Russia and earlier the Soviet Union, which has been the biggest supplier of weaponry to India has not ever asked for any end use agreement. Neither have the French or the other countries. The UPA government is already in the process of buying US defence equipment. Since the framework agreement, India has bought naval reconnaissance planes, military transport planes and the ship USS Trenton. The intrusive terms of the End Use agreement for the Trenton include the condition that it cannot be used for offensive operations.

The EUMA will pave the way for largescale buying of US weapons which is one of the main factors for the US wanting this defence relationship. Along with the 50 and odd joint exercises between the two armed forces already conducted, this will be the key step for ensuring "interoperability" between the two armed forces. The United States wants to ensure that there is compatibility between the equipment and technology used by the two armed forces which is essential for joint operations.

Under the Defence Framework Agreement, the growing coordination between the two armed forces is evident. The US Pacific Command Chief visits India every six months. India falls under the Pacific Command jurisdiction. The collaboration is institutionalised through the Defence Policy Group which meets every year and by the various sub-groups set up.

The next stage in the implementation of the framework agreement will require the signing of the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and the Logistics Support Agreement. This would signify the graduation of India as a full fledged military ally of the United States.

Nuclear Deal :

Technology Denied

The Indo-US nuclear deal is also part of this unequal alliance. The decision by the G8 countries to ban the transfer of Enrichment and Reprocessing (ENR) technologies to countries which have not signed the NPT is going to affect India. The stand taken by Finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee, that this decision has no relevance for India as it has got a clean exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) will not wash. The NSG is currently engaged in formulating the guidelines on transfer of ENR technology. India while getting the exemption from the NSG had committed to accepting all the guidelines of the NSG. When the G8 decision is translated into an NSG guideline, India will be shut out of accessing ENR technology.

The deception practiced by the Manmohan Singh government that it has got full civilian nuclear cooperation which includes access to technology for the full fuel cycle is about to be exposed. For those in the know, this is not a surprise. The Hyde Act had specifically prohibited transfer of such technology to India. The 123 agreement also states that the United States will have to make a new law for providing such technology. When the NSG puts in place its new guidelines, then the government's claim that it can access such technology from other countries will also be negated.

Subordinate

Relations

The subordinate relationship to the United States which has been established by the Congress-led government has wide repercussions. During the BJP-led government India had signed on to the US ideological enterprise called the "Community of Democracies". India became part of the convening group of the Community of Democracies. The then Clinton administration promoted this forum with the ideological plank that free markets and democracy go together. The founding ministerial conference was held in Warsaw, Poland in June 2000. The COD is backed by the US government's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which has funded a number of "democracy movements" and "colour revolutions" in Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, Nicaragua and a host of other places. In a little noticed event, the 5th ministerial conference of the COD in Lisbon on July 11 and 12 was attended by Shashi Tharoor, minister of state for External Affairs. The Congress-led government has climbed on to the US sponsored free markets and democracy bandwagon.

The visit of Commerce minister, Anand Sharma to Washington in June resulted in the Indian commitment to get the Doha round of negotiations of the WTO revived. It is widely feared that India will resile from its firm stand on issues like agriculture and Nama (non agricultural market access).

The India-Pakistan joint statement during the NAM summit at Sharm-el-Sheikh has caused a lot of controversy. The issue is not the need for dialogue with Pakistan, but the suspicion that the UPA government takes positions which are a result of "advice" from Washington. What is required is an independent approach both to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Indo-US strategic alliance is influencing not only our foreign policy but all other spheres in our domestic policy making. The joint statement of the Clinton visit promises more such interventions in the economic and political spheres.

The prime minister and the UPA government seem to have drawn the wrong lessons from the Lok Sabha verdict. It does not give them the licence to compromise national sovereignty and to convert India into America's ally.