Time for PM to deal with Left on N-deal?

Video

Click to play video

The Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal is the big dividing factor between the United Progressive Alliance Government and its key ally - the Left. The UPA on Wednesday said it would proceed going to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) despite Left's objections.

It even deferred its crucial meeting on the nuclear deal with the Left till June 25. So is the Government about to fall because of the deal and are elections to be held early?

CNN-IBN’s show Face the Nation raised the question whether it is time for Manmohan Singh to confront the Left on the nuclear deal.

On the panel to discuss the issue were Minister of Science and Technology and Minister of Earth Sciences, Kapil Sibal; Senior Leader, Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), Nilotpal Basu; and Senior Editor, Hindustan Times, Pramit Pal Chaudhuri.

Sagarika Ghose moderated the discussion and she began by asking Kapil Sibal whether the Government really intends to go to the IAEA or has it just bought time by deferring the meeting with the Left?

Sibal replied that they were still in the process of negotiation with the Left. "Our position is that we would like to go the IAEA, but consistent with our commitment to the Left, we are seeking their consent for doing that and that’s what we’ll try to do on June 25," he says.

Underscoring the importance of the importance of the IAEA agreement, Sibal said that it is an India safeguards specific agreement, which no other country in the world has at the moment.

"A technical committee has decided this and we have to go the board of governor, and in the event India wants to be a part of the mainstream we have to make sure we have an India-specific safeguards agreements so that we can approach the NSG," he adds.

Left with no option?

Considering that the Government is pushing for the deal, why doesn’t Left withdraw support, citing ideological objections to the deal?

Nilotpal Basu answered that when the UPA-Left nuclear panel was formed, it was decided that the Government will examine all issues related to the deal and subsequently it was decided that Government can go and hold initial talks with the IAEA.

There was a clear-cut understanding that the Government will come back to the panel with a report on its discussion, on the basis of which further decisions would be taken.

"But one of the difficulties," he says, "we are not yet in the receipt of the exact text that the Government has worked out in the IAEA initial discussions. So it’s very difficult for us to form an opinion."

Addressing Basu’s allegation, Sibal says that they can’t share the text of the agreement with the Left because a technical committee had negotiated it.

"Text is yet to go to the board of governors of IAEA, before which we can’t reveal it to the public. But at the same time we have answered all Left’s questions based on the substance of the text."

Deal-ing with the issue

Strobe Talbott calls this a "sweetheart deal." India has not signed the NPT or the CTBT, yet India is not getting nuclear fuel just from America but from the entire 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group. He says the political opposition baffles him.

Pramit Pal Chaudhuri said Talbott was opposed to the deal because he thought India was getting far too much from the deal, but there’s no doubt that the nuclear deal that is remarkable because every Indian demand that has been made has been accepted in the negotiations by the United States.

"Ultimately," he says, "we‘re virtually getting every right that every NPT member has today."

Sibal adds that the deal means they will have access to technology and uranium. "At the same time, we will be accepted in the mainstream of the global nuclear regime."

Basu, however, objects saying that even though the American government has highlighted India’s commercial interest in the deal, which is true, but for them it merely a strategic consideration as the agreement actually impinges on India’s foreign policy independence.

But does the Left ever consider that is making a big fuss about something that is an electoral non-issue. Can they tell the voters that they brought the Government down because of an independent foreign policy? Is that going to cut any ice with the voter?

"We have pointed out nuclear energy is not going to form the question of our power requirement," Basu defends. "It is so expensive that even if go through all this, it will be unviable and expensive for us. We should not forget that it is totally on imported sources. No sane nation plans their energy security on imported sources."

So will India’s future be held hostage by using imported fuel?

Chaudhuri answers, "We import our oil, gas and soon will be importing coal. So what exactly is so special about importing fuel? The question is that you need the fuel because you the need the power. Ultimately you need energy to drive the economy forward."

The blame game

Can the blame of why the deal has been stumbling be put on Congress’ door because it did not adequately manage the politics of it all and didn’t anticipate the kind of problems they’ve had.

And it seems now that it can’t face Left and take an aggressive step. Prime Minister seems to be very helpless and hostage to destiny.

Disagreeing with the comment Sibal says no other international agreement in India’s history had gone through the round of negotiation as this agreement has.

"No other international agreement has been placed before parliament at every stage as this agreement has. Before the Hyde Act was passed, there was no objection by the Left on anything," he says.

But wasn’t it political innocence on Congress’ part to expect the treaty to be ratified by parliament and not the cabinet, seeing that an international treaty doesn’t necessarily have to be ratified by Parliament.

"For the simple reason," Sibal answers, "that we are running this Government with the support of the Left and we recognise that fact is very crucial. We did not know these kinds of objections that would be raised after the 123 agreement was signed. Lets assume that we don’t sign the 123 agreement, the fact of the matter is that we still need an IAEA India-specific safeguards agreement, NSG clearance in order to be able to do business with Russia, France and other countries."

"Our own nuclear reactors are running at less than 50 per cent capacity. We need Uranium and we can only import it as long as there’s NSSG clearance. So it’s not just a India-US deal. It’s a global deal required to be a part of the mainstream," he adds.

Will it be a historical lost opportunity if the deal dies?

"Absolutely," Chaudhuri replies. He explains, "because it’s not just a question of nuclear power or global prestige, it’s also a question about technology. There are literally several thousand technologies that are denied to India. If technologies and services are going to be the future of our economy, we need to be able to get out of the Nuclear-NPG technology denial regime. Number of technologies is increasing and to get access to this technology we need the deal."

SMS/Web Poll: Is time for Manmohan Singh to confront the Left on the nuclear deal?

Yes: 98 per cent

No: 2 per cent