By RAMESH RAMACHANDRAN
New Delhi, Aug. 18: CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat has taken the battle over the nuclear deal to the “ordinary people” and sought to explain his party’s opposition to the proposed India-United States civil nuclear cooperation agreement in a language that demystifies “complex issues” and “technical aspects and intricacies”.
In an article for the latest issue of the People’s Democracy, the mouthpiece of the CPI(M), Mr Karat asked: Does this agreement advance India’s interests? Does it protect our capacity for an independent foreign policy and sovereignty? Is this an agreement only on nuclear cooperation or is it part of a wider agreement?
His verdict: “The Left is clear that going ahead with the agreement will bind India to the US in a manner that will seriously impair an independent foreign policy and our strategic autonomy.” The article, titled “Left is Firm: No passage for nuclear deal”, was written on August 15.
He followed it up with a suggestion. “A wise and expedient step for the government would be to acknowledge that there is widespread opposition to the agreement. The question is not whether it should be put to vote in Parliament or not. It is clear that a majority in Parliament are opposed to the agreement.”
“The best course would be for the government not to proceed further with the operationalising of the agreement. Till all the doubts are clarified and the implications of the Hyde Act evaluated, the government should not take the next steps with regard to negotiating the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards, which are to be in perpetuity, and proceed to get the guidelines from the Nuclear Suppliers Group.”
He went on to challenge the government’s spin doctors, who have repeatedly pitched the India-US nuclear deal as an agreement that will help the country meet her energy needs.
“This,” he asserted, “ignores the very limited contribution that nuclear power makes to our overall energy generation which is just three per cent and which cannot exceed seven per cent even if the ambitious plans for expansion are implemented in the next 25 years.”
Mr Karat sought to suggest that the CPI(M)’s consistent opposition to the strategic alliance with the US, and by extension, the India-US nuclear deal, was made known to the UPA from the start. “When the UPA government was being installed in 2004, a Common Minimum Programme was drafted. When the Left was consulted, we had insisted on the deletion of a reference to ‘strategic relations with the United States’.
There is no mention of strategic ties with the US in the Common Minimum Programme. But soon after, the government proceeded with forging a wider strategic alliance with the United States.”
He listed chronologically all the issues that have contributed to the estrangement of the Left parties and the UPA, starting with the 10-year Defence Framework Agreement signed with the US. “It is evident that without the defence agreement, the Americans would not have agreed for the nuclear cooperation. This part of a quid pro quo,” he wrote.
Then came the July 18, 2005 joint statement. This was followed by India’s vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“The first serious conflict with the Left arose when the UPA government did a volte face on the Iran nuclear issue,” he recalled. Since then, Mr Karat said, the Left parties have been watching with disquiet the way the UPA government has gone about forging close strategic and military ties with the US.
He referred the Left’s vehement opposition to the joint military exercises that took place in the Kalaikunda air base in West Bengal, deepening collaboration with Israel in the military and security spheres, the correspondingly diminishing support to the Palestinian cause and friendship with the Arab countries, and the quadrilateral naval exercises with the US, Japan and Australia planned for September, 2007 in the Bay of Bengal, to buttress his argument. The last straw came after the Hyde Act was passed by the US Congress in December, 2006.
“The CPI(M) had stated that it contains provisions which are contrary to the assurances given by the Prime Minister to Parliament on August 17, 2006.
– DC (Aug.19,2007)
Heading changed
