Front Page

Do a rethink on deal: CPI(M)

NEW DELHI: The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Tuesday cautioned the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government that it would be committing a “dangerous folly” if it went ahead with the India-U.S. civilian nuclear deal. The CPI(M), a key supporter of the government, asked it to do a “rethink” on the deal.

Initiating a short duration discussion in the Rajya Sabha on the nuclear deal, CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury said the party had extended support to the UPA government to keep the communal forces at bay, and on the basis of an agreed Common Minimum Programme (CMP).

The CMP, he recalled, favoured a completely independent foreign policy and made no mention of entering into a strategic alliance with the U.S. Pointing out that the nuclear agreement was faulty in its “pretext, text and context,” Mr. Yechury said it was anchored on the Hyde Act, which would give any new U.S. President the prerogative to over-ride the deal any time.

Reiterating his party’s opposition to the deal, he said it wanted the government to stay in power by not going ahead with the agreement, which, in its text, had violated at least three assurances given to Parliament by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Mr. Yechury, who was speaking on the nuclear agreement for the third time in the House, said: “We are against American imperialism.” He argued that a majority of Americans were against the Bush administration and so was the Left.

Arguing that the deal was against India’s national interests, he dismissed accusations that the Left’s opposition was based on extra-territorial considerations.

He dwelt at length on several aspects pertaining to energy security, ending India’s nuclear apartheid, facilitating American nuclear commerce and trade and pushing India into a non-proliferation regime through the back door. “This deal will suck India into the vortex of subordinate ally of the U.S.”

The CPI(M) leader said the Left parties allowed the government to hold negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency on a safeguards agreement to clear apprehensions over uninterrupted nuclear fuel supply and also on the condition that it would come back to Parliament after the IAEA negotiations. He asked if the deal provided for giving India full civilian nuclear cooperation.

Mr. Yechury was apprehensive that the U.S. may not allow India reach a stage where it could use thorium as nuclear fuel for the fast breeder reactors.

He also accused the U.S. of trying to put pressure on India not to go ahead with the gas pipeline deal with Iran and Pakistan.

Mr. Yechury said Washington had threatened an Indian multinational company from securing deals worth billions of dollars in Iran, saying its investments in the U.S. would be at risk.

He wanted to know from the government whether State Bank of India had denied credit to the firm, which wanted to import gas from Iran.

Maintaining that the Hyde Act gave the U.S. powers to take back nuclear reactors and fuel supply in case India went ahead with fresh nuclear tests, he asked why the U.S. had not installed a new nuclear reactor in the past two decades on its soil.

“Obviously, the U.S. wants India to buy reactors from it and generate resources. It will be a folly on the part of the government. I would urge the government to rethink about the deal.”

Mr. Yechury described as “illusory claim” that the deal would help India sit on the high nuclear table and break the nuclear apartheid against it.

On energy security, he said that statistics from the Planning Commission showed that nuclear energy was the costliest option, and sought to know if the government had done a cost-benefit analysis.

Mr. Yechury said:

“Why are you preferring nuclear option? There are hydel, thermal, wind and solar energy options as well. Why are we going for such an expensive option? We could have spent that money on crucial sectors such as health and education.

“The nuclear energy option will be denying ‘aam aadmi’ [common man] benefits, which could have otherwise reached him.”

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu