On August 11, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh dared the Left to withdraw its support to his Government on the issue of the civil nuclear deal with the United States. On October 12, a chastened Mr Singh ate crow publicly and mused that life should go on beyond the deal. The Prime Minister, an economist by education and prior profession, knew by then that his Communist allies had cooked his goose. Reports revealed that he even proposed cancelling his visit to South Africa for the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) summit but was advised against it.

A day earlier, Congress president Sonia Gandhi had told him that there was no point losing the Government for the deal. His dream of being hailed as the hero of the deal shattered, his challenge to the Left punctured by his own party and let down by its allies, Mr Manmohan Singh then started being described as a "lonely man". For the Prime Minister, it was the end of the road.

It does not require great political intelligence to see that Mr Singh is now like a shell without substance. His authority has been dwarfed before his ministerial colleagues as the final decision was that of Ms Gandhi. His allies had gone to her to stunt the deal. His partymen told her that they did not want a snap election. Right from the beginning, insiders knew that the Prime Minister did not carry his colleagues with him on the deal - for most part, he wanted to take all the credit himself and emerge a historic figure. But his bluff held mainly because the party president was not willing to pull the carpet from beneath him until recently.

Significantly, the courtiers of 10 Janpath told select reporters that in challenging the Left Mr Singh had crossed the Lakshman Rekha that Ms Gandhi had drawn for him. The meaning was clear: The Prime Minister had not consulted her before throwing a challenge to the Left. This was a hint to him that she would not tolerate this breaking of a possible understanding between them when he was made the Prime Minister.

Already reports are out that Mr Singh's ill-calculated challenge to the Left has given CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat a victory of sorts and Congress could now expect nothing more than being the dog whose tail wags it. As Karat raises his stake in one issue after another and stalls all economic reforms (already many critical ones on banking, insurance, power, etc are pending), Congress Ministers and MPs would find their party powerless increasingly. In such circumstances, it is easy to make Mr Singh the scapegoat. After the virtual death of the deal on which he staked so much and after the collapse of his challenge to the Left, Mr Singh has lost his moral authority - if at all there ever was such a force.

The allies of the UPA Government who took their apprehensions to Sonia Gandhi and raised the draw bridge for the Prime Minister would mock at him even more. Already DMK chief M Karunanidhi has demanded a new constitution to reflect what he calls the new federal reality. Similar personal agendas would knock the Prime Minister's door from the other allies even as he finds himself less and less powerful to resist them. The Congress's leaders would be sharpening their axes; many of them never accepted his elevation to the pinnacle of the Government, ignoring their own claims and seniority in the party.

The subsequent part of this sorry state of affairs in the Government is of greater concern to the country irrespective of what happens to the Congress and its nominated Prime Minister. The danger comes from the power over the Government that the Communists are now going to exercise with greater verve. The world, especially the major powers, now knows that the CPI(M) is India's de facto Government.

The danger is not just for the Communists' vicarious power. It is because they are exercising power without responsibility. There is valid apprehension of their tacit alliance with China's rulers. So many decades after the 1962 India-China war, the CPI(M) refuses to accept Chinese incursion into India; refuse to oppose Chinese claims on Arunachal Pradesh as they travel to Beijing regularly to confabulate with their comrades in that country.

Significantly, CPI(M) is using its influence over the UPA Government to stop critical economic reforms which Mr Singh says is vital to raise the GDP growth to double digits. At the same time, the Chinese leaders are pushing ahead with similar reforms, making their economy more competitive. Only the other day China's supreme leader Hu Jintao told his party plenum that "to stop or reverse reform and opening up would only lead to a blind allay".

Nevertheless, the Chinese leaders' virtual protégés in India are straining every nerve to prevent economic reforms. The CPI(M)'s opposition to the nuclear deal was prompted more by the Chinese opposition to it and its anti-Americanism than by any genuine concern for India. Much more was the CPI(M)'s bid to ally with Muslim irredentism and pan-Islamic movement both within the country and outside of it that has been at the heart of this opposition.

Ultimately, the power that the CPI(M) has exercised and would continue to exercise with greater strength over the present Government would simply boil down to keeping this Government hostage to Islamic extremism on the one hand and subservient to Chinese imperial interests on the other. Knowing very well that it is Israeli high technology that illumines many of our defence equipment, the CPI(M) is pressurising the Government to break relations with Israel.

There is a method in the Marxists' madness. They want to pander to jihadi extremism that has made Israel an enemy of Islam even though many Muslim countries like Egypt and Jordan have already recognised that country. Should we allow a situation when the Government is manipulated by a small number of MPs of a party that refuses to endorse our own national interests and is tied up with China and jihadi extremists?

This is more critical than what happens to Mr Singh and his N-deal, the Congress and the Government led by it.

Courtesy: www.dailypioneer.com, October 19, 2007