The deal should not be seen in isolation

Interview with CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat.

PRAKASH KARAT, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), is viewed as the man standing in the way of the UPA governments strategic embrace of the United States. Karat has articulated the Left parties opposition to the 123 Agreement. With the Congress, particularly Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, not in a mood to reconsider or even delay the operationalising of the agreement, a serious political crisis that can even lead to midterm elections is unfolding. Karat says that the crisis can only be resolved satisfactorily if the UPA government desists from operationalising the deal. Excerpts from an interview:

Does the CPI(M) still insist that the government should not start talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency on the nuclear deal?

The Left parties have made it clear that the government should not proceed further with the nuclear agreement. The next step for the government is to go to the IAEA for the nuclear safeguards agreement. There are large-scale objections, and when Parliament debates the issue it will becomes clear that the majority is opposed to the agreement. The right thing for the government to do will be to keep the agreement on hold. We are asking them not to proceed with the safeguards agreement. Only after this will they be able to go to the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The issue is that the negotiations should not take place now.

Why is the Left so opposed to the nuclear deal? How convincing are the governments arguments that the deal will radically transform the energy scenario in the country?

The nuclear deal should not be seen in isolation. It should be viewed as part of the strategic alliance being forged with the U.S. There is the defence agreement. There are the shifts in foreign policy that have taken place since then. The nuclear agreement was announced in 2005 and there is the increasing adjustment of our economic policy to implement the blueprint for American capital in India. As for the argument that the nuclear deal is essential for our energy security, I feel that this view is exaggerated. The government has not come up with any techno-economic survey which can tell us about the cost-benefits of nuclear power. By 2020 we hope to produce 20,000 MW of nuclear power. This will be only 7 per cent of our total energy production. The nuclear agreement with the U.S. is too big a prize to pay. We will be under constant pressure to fall into line with U.S. strategic designs.

The Left had reacted strongly against the military exercises involving Indian, U.S., Australian and Japanese warships to be held in September.

Since they are being held in the Bay of Bengal, we are going to conduct two jathas, which will converge on Visakhapatnam, where we have our naval base. This is not just an Indo-U.S. naval exercise. This is part of the Quadrilateral exercises. The U.S. wants India to join this group.

The Japanese Prime Minister, during his recent visit to India, virtually called for the creation of an Asian NATO.

It is part of the American plan to induct India into the security and military pacts, which include Japan and Australia in the East and Israel in West Asia. More steps are being taken to strengthen the military collaboration. In the pipeline is the logistics support agreement which will allow the U.S. to use our bases.

There are accusations that the Left is trying to sabotage the deal at the behest of China.

Anyone who knows the history of the CPI(M) will know that we have carved out an independent policy. But our party maintains that it is important for India and China to have good relations and cooperation. On the nuclear issue, suppose China supports Indias nuclear deal in the NSG, we would still be opposed to Indias nuclear agreement with the U.S.

How serious is the BJP in its opposition to the nuclear deal?

It was during the six-year rule of the BJP-led NDA [National Democratic Alliance] government that the talks for the nuclear adjustment began. Ever since the Pokhran tests, the Vajpayee government was secretly seeking an accommodation with Washington in the unequal nuclear global order. From there began the descent to become a subordinate ally of the U.S. Our position on the nuclear agreement is not the same [as that of the BJP]. One of our important critiques is that through this agreement we are giving the go-by to our long-standing commitment to nuclear disarmament.

Is there any mechanism being set up to defuse the political crisis precipitated by the Indo-U.S. deal?

We are prepared to consider any mechanism to deal with the objections on the agreement, particularly on the implications of the Hyde Act and the Bilateral Agreement. Such a mechanism or a committee should be set up subject to the government not proceeding with the next step in operationalising the agreement. What is the point of having a committee to discuss matters if the government proceeds with the agreement and makes it a fait accompli.

What are you predicting? A long winter or an early spring?

It is up to the Congress leadership and the government. If the crisis is not resolved, they will have to explain to the people why there has been a breakdown because of the commitment to the United States. This is not acceptable to the majority in Parliament.

Will it be for the first time that a government has collapsed on a foreign policy issue?

I cant predict what is going to happen in the future. But we must all hope that reason will prevail.

The Congress is saying that the CPI(M) is trying to scuttle the nuclear deal at the eleventh hour.

It is true that the Prime Minster gave assurances to Parliament in August 2006 on the nine points raised by us. But that was before the Hyde Act was adopted in December 2006. Our stand has been that India should not proceed with bilateral negotiations on the 123 Agreement without their amending the provisions of the Hyde Act which adversely affect us.