Jagran Opinion: Party Interests Should Not Come In Way Of National Interests

Addressing a meeting in November 2014, on the occasion of the 125th birth anniversary of first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajnath Singh, then Minister of Home Affairs, had said, "Niti par matbhed the, par unki niyat par kabhi koi shak nahi tha. (We had differences with him on policies but never had any doubt about his intentions.)" These were words of great wisdom which need to be imbibed by India’s political class as a whole. However, in the current times, there is a need to go beyond not doubting the patriotism and nationalism of others if there are differences with them on policies and approaches to national and foreign policy issues or even ideologies. Indeed, there is a vital need to narrow differences in policies and approaches and develop a consensus on how to take the country forward. 

Why is all this necessary today? Why can’t the nation afford the ebb and flow of bitter politics which has gone on for almost two decades now?

This is because the country now faces the uncertainties on economic and commercial front caused by the upheaval in world order created by US President Donald Trump. It also faces extraordinary geo-political and geo-strategic challenges on account of the US-China rivalry. In addition, India’s neighbourhood is in disarray from the viewpoint of India’s interests. If India is to achieve a Viksit Bharat status by 2047 then all the people have to move together and not allow their narrow interests come in the way of attaining the goal of becoming an advanced country.

The idea of moving in the same direction does not mean giving up democracy or abandon following the constitution. Indeed, the political class has to offer choices to the people and move ahead on the basis of their decisions. These decisions can and should lead to the basic framework of forward-looking policies. This will be entirely within the spirit of India’s constitution. In fact, in many instances the Directives Principles of State Policy chapter in the constitution unequivocally provides the framework for national policies and work. No right-thinking Indian can disagree with them.

The Indian economy is doing well. It will become soon the world’s fourth largest economy and by the end of the decade it will reach the third largest status. This will be a great achievement. However, there is need to achieve a consensus in the political class on how to reduce disparities among the rich and poor. That will be in keeping with the Directive Principles of State Policy. It will also add to the strength of the economy and will impart greater social solidarity to the country. It is necessary for all sections of the people to feel that they are equal members of society and the country. Indeed, social solidarity is a strategic asset. Prime Minister Modi has been conscious of the need of Indian society moving ahead together right from the time he assumed office in 2014. That is why he gave the call for ‘sabka saath, sabka vishwas, sabka vishwas aur sabka prayaas’. What is now needed is ‘samvad’ in the political class on how to translate these ideas into policies and actions. There is no doubt in this writer’s mind that this can only be done if the leaders of all political parties give up personal attacks on each other and sit down together and decide on the path to combat the challenges which confront the country. The country is in the midst of elections to the Bihar Assembly. Naturally, the electoral process is competitive but the competition should be on the basis of policies so that people can make choices. And, through these choices that a national consensus can emerge.

In this context the turmoil created by Trump has to considered. The 50 per cent duty he has currently imposed on Indian exports to the US has created distress in labour intensive industries. In the previous decades there would have been quiet consultations between the leaders of political parties on how to manage the problems caused by high tariffs. Naturally, in the past also politics was played but when it came to matters of national concern the political class came together and arrived at an agreement on the way forward. In independent India’s history there have many occasions when there was ‘samvad’ between leaders and future courses of action were decided. This writer personally knows that this was done when India began to engage Pakistan in 1997. Before that there was period of about four years when Pakistan did not want to hold discussions with India. This was during the period of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. When Nawaz Sharif won the elections in 1997, he wanted the dialogue process to begin. The then government led by Prime Minister Dewe Gowda consulted all major political parties and they all felt that India should not be reluctant to talk to Pakistan. Later, governments ensured that leaders of political parties were kept in the loop in matters relating to diplomatic engagement with China and their views were taken on board by the government.

That constant exchange of views—samvad—is needed more than ever now because the world is transforming. It is not easy to navigate the country through these changes. Hence, national consensus which is developed through samvad would serve the country well because it will show the international community that India is fully behind the government’s views and positions.

The immediate neighbourhood is witnessing a period of great attempts by China to build multilateral diplomatic structures through mechanisms such as the China-Pakistan-Bangladesh and the China-Pakistan-Afghanistan dialogues. India has to be wary of these. It was good that India accepted the visit of the Taliban Foreign Minister Maulawi Muttaqi. Some of his actions led to controversies. These could have been avoided if the government had informed the leaders of the political parties in advance that it is essential for India’s strategic interests to enhance its presence in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that they would have agreed. This does not mean that India could not express reservations on the human rights policies of the Taliban.

(The writer is a former diplomat. The views expressed are his own.)