Voting against Govt won't be voting with BJP: Yechury

The Left parties would do anything in their power to scuttle the Indo-US nuclear deal, even vote against the Government along with the BJP, CPI-M leader Sitaram Yechury has said. “When you are travelling in a train you can't chose you co-passengers, said Yechury. The Rajya Sabha MP admitted that after general elections next year, the Congress and the Left may have to patch up to keep the BJP out of power. The fight over the nuclear deal would “shadow” between them then but perhaps not an obstacle, he said on Devil’s Advocate.

Karan Thapar: Let us talk about the political situation confronting your party. The Government has decided to go ahead with the Indo-US Nuclear deal; the Samawadi Party has replaced the Left as the Government's principle ally. Isn't that a double whammy against you?

Sitaram Yechury: No, how is that? You see our opposition is posed to the nuclear deal. We still maintain what we have always maintained that it's not in our country's interest.

Karan Thapar: Let me tell you how is it a double whammy against you. Today, not only are you mariginalised domestically in terms of Indian politics in this country but more importantly your attempt to ensure that India and America don't form a strategic alliance has failed. On both counts you have lost out.

I don't think its failed, just wait and see. I think it's too early for you to come to such pronouncements.

Karan Thapar: You say let’s wait and see but let’s actually go back and focus a little bit more on the nuclear issue in detail. The truth is you have nothing against civil-nuclear relations between France and Russia but you have a huge problem accepting the Hyde Act. If you had played your cards properly you could have very effectively opened the door to Russia and to France and kept the door shut as far as the Hyde Act was concerned. But your animus against America has meant that you have lost out on both counts.

Sitaram Yechury: No, not us, it was the Government that shut the door on Russia and France. When the PM was there, there was the possibility, everything was ready, all he had to do was sign with Russia but he didn't want to hurt the Americans. That is why it didn't happen.

Karan Thapar: Let me correct you. The Russian ambassador has gone on record in the newspapers and so has the French ambassador saying that although they had arrangements in place—they had even worked out a negotiated treaty—they couldn't sign it till the NSG clearance came. Therefore the process the PM is pursuing is essential.

Sitaram Yechury: No, what I'm saying are facts. They couldn’t implement it unless the NSG clearance came but they could have signed it like the 123 Agreement was signed.

Karan Thapar: The ambassadors disagree with you and they have gone public about it.

Sitaram Yechury: I know for a fact and it’s the same Ambassadors who told me that it will not be operationalised till the NGS clearance comes through.

Karan Thapar: They have gone public in the newspaper saying what I am saying.

Sitaram Yechury: No, not what you are saying. They have gone public in the newspaper saying it cannot be operationalised unless the NGS gives clearance.

Karan Thapar: They have not used the word 'operationalised', they used the word 'signed'.

Sitaram Yechury: No, signed means the final signing. Try and understand that 123 Agreement has been only initialised, it’s not signed.

Karan Thapar: Let me put it like this, if you had accepted the proposal the Prime Minister put to you to allow India to complete the IAEA stage and the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) stage on the condition that the PM would come back to Parliament before operationalising the 123 Agreement, you could have effectively shut the door on Washington and opened the door to Paris and Moscow.

Sitaram Yechury: Once 45 countries agree to it then you come back and tell us that the whole world has agreed, everybody has agreed and it's only the CPI-M that is stopping it. You think what they have now gone back on their own word they won’t do it then.

Karan Thapar: You mean to say you couldn't have trusted the Prime Minister to come back to Parliament as he was saying it not just to you but also to the public.

PAGE_BREAK

Sitaram Yechury: It's not a question of trust. The moment you get the into international community and get all the countries on line with you and then you come back here and say that I'm not going to proceed ahead that would put India in a greater position of shame.

Karan Thapar: On the contrary, it would have put Indian in a commanding position, because after the NSG clearance India would have been in a position to carry our civil nuclear relations with Russia and France which would be entirely to our benefit. The one country that you are not interested in doing relations would have been America, you would have gained, the country would have gained and there would have been no problems with the UPA.

Sitaram Yechury: You think America would have allowed you to get this through in the NSG when you say that you go with France and Russia and not with USA. Which world are you living in, Mr Thapar? NSG functions on the basis of consensus and USA is part of NSG. When you are going to say that I won’t trade with you but I'm going to trade with France and Russia, you think USA is going to agree.

Karan Thapar: America would have hoped that the vote in Parliament after the NSG would have been in favour of signing the 123. But even if the vote would have gone against signing the 123 something that would have benefited India is that once you've opened the doors to Russia and France, the new administration in America, even if it’s a Democrat, would have been forced to allow the same terms to go through because otherwise America would be the loser. In every way you would have gained.

Sitaram Yechury: Your basis is untenable. America would not allow you to go through with any other country if they were not in control.

Karan Thapar: The truth of the matter is that what I'm suggesting was recommended to the Government by the American side as one way of ensuring that the deal was in such a position that if it didn't pass under Bush it would pass under the new administration. You know that and I know that. And you know something else that when this was put to Prakash Karat in June he first indicated to the Government that he was willing to go along but 24 hours later inexplicably he changed his mind and became rigid, so this was something that was teetered on the brink of almost accepting.

Sitaram Yechury: I don't think it was put to our General Secretary.

Karan Thapar: Government sources say so.

Sitaram Yechury: Well, I don't know which sources are these because anything that was put we presume had come to us before.

Karan Thapar: The truth is that on in fact two occasions government sources say that suggestions were made to Prakash Karat which he initially found reasonable and was prepared to go with, then inexplicably 24 hours later he changed his mind and they say that the Left in the shape of the CPM has been flip flopping.

Sitaram Yechury: No, every decision that we have taken have been of our Politburo and our central community and all these decisions that we have taken we have stuck to them. We have been absolutely reasonable and completely transparent. So I have no idea about these proposals that were given because none of that has come before us.

Karan Thapar: You say that you have been completely reasonable and transparent let me put this to you, now that you have withdrawn support, publicly Prakash Karat has said that he would do everything in his power to ensure that the Indo-US Nuclear deal doesn't go through. What is he envisaging now?

PAGE_BREAK

Sitaram Yechury: The whole point is that if this Government does not survive then the deal doesn't go through.

Karan Thapar: But if the Government does survive then what is in his power to stop it?

Sitaram Yechury: Nothing, then we only go to the people saying that this is the reasons why we are opposed to it.

Karan Thapar: So the only thing he can do in his power is to make sure that the Government doesn't survive.

Sitaram Yechury: Whether the Government survives or not that is an issue which will be dependant on all the other parties (and) on what positions they will take. We are opposing it, whoever else wants to oppose they should take their decisions that will determine whether the Government stays or goes.

Karan Thapar: He says that he is determined to do everything in his power to stop the deal and as you say the only way to stop the deal is to bring the government down in the floor of the House. Will you be voting against the Government in a vote of confidence in Parliament?

Sitaram Yechury: Yes, we will, absolutely.

Karan Thapar: Even if that mean voting with the BJP on the same side?

Sitaram Yechury: It won’t be voting with the BJP. Like I always say that when you are travelling in a train you can't chose you co-passengers.

Karan Thapar: But you are happy to travel with the BJP?

Sitaram Yechury: No, but what can we do. I want to reach my destination and my destination is opposition to this Indo-US nuclear deal.

Karan Thapar: The point is that you can't reach your destination without the active help of BJP. Whether you solicit it or it comes voluntarily the point is that the help is contingent on your success.

Sitaram Yechury: If the BJP were ever keen on actually stopping this deal, they could have brought in the motion of 'no confidence’ in the last four and a half years but they did not. They want to curry favour with the USA on one hand and the other they want to be the Opposition. Let them decide what they want to do.

Karan Thapar: Will the Left therefore table its own vote of confidence?

Sitaram Yechury: There is no vote of confidence, the Government will table a trust motion and we will respond to that.

Karan Thapar: Let me put it like this, ‘The Indian Express’ claims that Jyoti Basu has asked the CPM leadership to stop withdrawing support and not bring the government down to the floor of the house.

Sitaram Yechury: I spoke to Jyoti Basu about an hour ago, and not a single suggestion of this nature was put to me.

Karan Thapar: Was there any such suggestion made to Nirupam Sen and Budhdhadeb Bhatacharya.

Sitaram Yechury: I think 'no'.

Karan Thapar: What you mean by 'I think, no'?

Sitaram Yechury: Because knowing Jyoti Basu, he will never talk to any one individually in the Politburo. If there is any suggestion that he has he will address it to the Politburo as a whole.

Karan Thapar: That sounds like a hope or an exclamation and when you re-emphasise that 'I think, no', what you are really saying that you don't know for sure. Why don't you call Budhdhadeb Bhattachrya and ask him?

Sitaram Yechury: I spoke to Jyoti Basu himself.

Karan Thapar: And did you ask him?

Sitaram Yechury: If he had to, he would have told me himself but he called me on some other matter.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: Alright, let me put this to you, the first sense in which you have lost is that you have ceased to be an important ally and you have not been able to influence the Government and stop them to establish a strategic relationship with America. And the second sense in which you have lost is the influence that you no longer have. You are a party that mattered and now you are a party of very little consequence.

Sitaram Yechury: Don't jump the gun Mr Thapar, neither of this has happened.

Karan Thapar: It has happened, you don't matter to the Government anymore.

Sitaram Yechury: Lets see the trust vote, let’s see what happens.

Karan Thapar: If you were to bring the Government down it would be the BJP that would take the credit not you as the larger number is there’s not yours.

Sitaram Yechury: Why didn't they move the motion of no confidence earlier?

Karan Thapar: They didn't choose to.

Sitaram Yechury: Well, that is obvious.

Karan Thapar: But you are not moving a vote of no confidence either?

Sitaram Yechury: It's because of our withdrawal of support that this trust motion has come.

Karan Thapar: You used to claim credit for the fact that there certain important decisions in the national interest that you stopped the Government from taking. You stopped disinvestments, banking reforms, pension reforms and insurance caps being raised, now that you have withdrawn support those decisions you stopped the government is free to take. What will happen to the national interest? It has been forsaken.

Sitaram Yechury: We will still oppose it.

Karan Thapar: You may oppose it but the Government could pass it saying it has a new majority.

Sitaram Yechury: Well, there are other parties in the Government, let me see if they will support it.

Karan Thapar: I put it to you that from the standpoint of the principle that you support and from the standpoint of the people that you represent. You would have been better off sticking with the Government and checking and restraining their actions rather than withdrawing support and giving them a free hand to do what they want.

Sitaram Yechury: And in the bargain make India a subordinate ally of US imperialism. I am sorry but that is not acceptable.

Karan Thapar: Do you really believe that; are you sure you haven't become a prisoner of your own ideology?

Sitaram Yechury: No, not at all. I mean why the Hyde Act—Russia doesn't have one and France doesn't have one then why does the US want (India) to have one.

Karan Thapar: Because America has an Atomic Energy Act, which Russia and France don't have, that is why they need a way around it. You know the answer yourself.

Sitaram Yechury: I know that they have their own domestic laws.

Karan Thapar: But none which actually prohibits in the way of which the American Atomic Energy Act of 1949 does.

Sitaram Yechury: Then have a one-line act which says that we are giving a waiver on this issue for India. Why this huge Hyde Act?

Karan Thapar: Because they have a domestic legislation condition.

Sitaram Yechury: Come on, there is no condition.

Karan Thapar: Do you know what you are doing? You are cutting your own nose and ending up spiking up your own face, you are the big losers.

Sitaram Yechury: No way, see we have taken a principle position saying that this is not in the interest of the country. And we have stuck to it and we have sincerely following what we have said.

Karan Thapar: It is widely believed that you are striving to achieve a middle ground, a compromise between the UPA and the Left. How sorry are you that you didn't succeed?

PAGE_BREAK

Sitaram Yechury: Well there was no compromise if the Government was determined to go ahead (with the nuclear deal). The point is that two years ago we told the Government if you proceed with the IAEA then the deal is on autopilot (and) we can't permit you to do that.

Karan Thapar: Government sources say that Sitaram Yechury was accommodating, reasonable and understanding. The problem was that the adamant, inflexible and rigid attitude of Prakash Karat.

Sitaram Yechury: Well that is the type of propaganda that continues. I was away on an official tour at the invitation of the UK Government for four days and there was speculation that because I was not for the course the party had adopted that is why I went away. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

Karan Thapar: The invitation you responded to from the UK Government has been pending for a year. At a moment when your relationship with the Government was in crisis, you had such excellent reason to postpone it one more time. If you didn't, surely you were distancing yourself from your party.

Sitaram Yechury: Not at all. There were no more any decisions to be taken; all decisions were taken. Two years ago this decision was taken—endorsed by our party congress—that the moment the Government goes to the IAEA we would withdraw support. That is what happened.

Karan Thapar: At a press conference before you went to the UK, you gave the country an assurance that the Left would not withdraw support when the Prime Minister was outside the country. That is exactly what the Left did and they embarrassed India.

Sitaram Yechury: The Prime Minister had no business, I think, at that moment to make that announcement while he was flying to Japan.

Karan Thapar: He was still on Indian soil; he was on Air India. Did he not get a deadline from Prakash Karat to respond by July 7 to say whether he was going to the IAEA and he replied? He said very soon.

Sitaram Yechury: Two hours before the Prime Minister said that a letter from Pranab Mukherjee comes to us, saying that we will met on July 10 and then we will take a decision.

Karan Thapar: Absolutely, so all that the Prime Minister did was to answer by saying I am going very soon. He is not saying when he is going.

Sitaram Yechury: The Prime Minister was not to answer. The letter was written to Pranab Mukherjee. Pranab Mukherjee answered to meet on July 10 and then the Prime Minister broke the script.

Karan Thapar: What script did he break?

Sitaram Yechury: This is the script. We sent the letter to Pranab Mukherjee saying by July 7 tell us are you going ahead or not. Pranab Mukherjee replies he will met on July 10 and then from there further decision will be taken. The Prime Minister then leaves two hours after we get this letter and then chooses to go ahead, so he is the one who broke (the script).

Karan Thapar: When Pranab Mukherjee said he would meet you on July 10 and a decision would be taken, everyone knew—you included—this decision was in favour of going. When Prime Minister two hours later said we are going soon he didn't set a date, he simply said what everyone knew. Where was the contradiction?

Sitaram Yechury: Not everyone knew. The contradiction lies in this: that was the first statement by the Government saying that definitely they are going ahead. The Prime Minister made this statement on his way to the G8 summit—which was not to be made I think. I am pretty sure he jumped the gun; I don't know why he did it.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: Even if you think you are right in saying that the Prime Minister erred, does it necessarily require to embarrass the country when the Prime Minister is abroad and to make India look small in the eyes of the world?

Sitaram Yechury:For two years we have said the moment you say are going ahead we will withdraw support. Could he have not said it here in India before going? Could he not have waited till he came back?

Karan Thapar: I accept for argument sake that the Prime Minister made a mistake as you allege. Do you have to compound it by making a mistake of your own? Can't you for once actually say that in the national interest we will keep quiet, we will respond when the Prime Minister returns?

Sitaram Yechury: The Prime Minister knew, the country knew, everybody knew that the moment they take the step towards going to the IAEA we would withdraw support. This was a known fact.

Karan Thapar: Today the relationship you have with the UPA, which lasted for just over four years, has collapsed in bitterness and in acrimony.

Sitaram Yechury: Not really. You have seen all the UPA allies; you have seen how they have spoken; you have seen what they have said.

Karan Thapar: You have accused the Prime Minister of deceit, Prakash Karat has said so. He accuses the Prime Minister of betrayal. Is that not acrimony, bitterness?

Sitaram Yechury: We were told in November last year that before they proceed to the IAEA they will take the findings of the (Left-UPA) committee into account. This committee's findings were to be taken into account on the July 10…

Karan Thapar: Just because they made a mistake, do you have to compound it with another which embarrasses India. Not the PM, it is India which you have embarrassed.

Sitaram Yechury: It is not as simple as making a mistake. It is a very clear deliberate thing. I don't know if the Prime Minister did it himself, whether the Congress party itself did it.

Karan Thapar: Are you suggesting when you say the Prime Minister did it deliberately he was actually sabotaging the UPA-Left committee?

Sitaram Yechury: I don't know what was his intention. I don't want to venture into that, but the fact what he said ought not to have been said when he was going to G-8.

Karan Thapar: Do you regret the bitterness and in acrimony that exists between the two sides today?

Sitaram Yechury: I don't think this acrimony exists to the extent you are trying to portray.

Karan Thapar: The Press thinks, every politician thinks so.

Sitaram Yechury: The Press has its role to pay unfortunately which is not always...

Karan Thapar: If you believe the acrimony is not as strong and great as the Press is saying, then if after the next elections the only way of keeping out what you consider communal forces is another alliance between the UPA and the Left is that still possible?

Sitaram Yechury: Depends on the policies they will follow. Please remember we were supporting this Government on the common minimum programme. The common minimum programme doesn't contain the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Karan Thapar: But the next time if they offer you policies or a common minimum programme that is acceptable, the bitterness and acrimony of today won't start in the way. In other words this experience won't be a problem; it all depends on the common minimum programme and the policies.

Sitaram Yechury: And the assurances they give us that they will follow that programme without betraying like now.

Karan Thapar: What you are saying is that this experience won't be a hurdle. In other words you won't say to them once bitten twice shy.

Sitaram Yechury: That I cannot assure right now, it depends on circumstances then but this experience will definitely be a shadow.

Karan Thapar: A shadow but not an obstacle.

Sitaram Yechury: Yes, but it depends on circumstances then.

Karan Thapar: Absolutely, but not an obstacle.

Sitaram Yechury: Shadow definitely. Let us see the conditions then—it can turn into an obstacle.

Karan Thapar: Sitaram Yechury, thank you very much indeed.