India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics » 

Division in Indian polity on Iran nuclear issue

	February 20, 2006

The question of India’s stand on Iran’s nuclear programme and its alleged preparations for becoming a nuclear weapon power, continues to divide political parties across the spectrum. The Congress, the driving force in the Manmohan Singh Government claims that it has the support of most constituents of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), but the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party, which are supporting the government from outside, have a completely different view of the matter. The Prime Minister made a forceful statement in Parliament on Friday (Feb. 17), making it clear that security concerns arising from nuclear proliferation in the neighbourhood was the key factor that made India vote for a resolution reporting Iran’s nuclear issue to the UN Security Council. Dr. Manmohan Singh said the resolution had the support not only of all permanent members of the Security Council, but also several leading lights of the non-aligned movement and developing countries like Egypt, Ghana, Argentina, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Yemen.



The Prime Minister said India has always worked for resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue through dialogue. But he said, “security concerns arising from proliferation activities in our extended neighbourhood” naturally shaped India’s position at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He pointed out that the IAEA resolution calls for continued diplomatic efforts including thorough exploration of the options provided by Russia, which India has supported, for finding a settlement.



Without mentioning Pakistan and the role of its top nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan, Dr. Manmohan Singh said “source of such clandestine proliferation of sensitive technologies lies in our own neighbourhood, details of which have emerged from successive IAEA reports and was cause for concern.”



“India cannot afford to turn a blind eye to security implications of such proliferation activities,” Singh said, outlining the need for India to vote for the resolution to report Iran to the UN Security council.



“India’s vote does not in any way detract us from the traditionally close and friendly relations we are privileged to enjoy with Iran,” the Prime Minister said.





India remains committed to gas pipeline



Observers say the Prime Minister’s suo motu statement sought to strike a balance between India’s “traditionally close and friendly relations” with Iran and India’s concern over its nuclear proliferation.



At the same time, Dr. Manmohan Singh repeatedly stressed the importance he ascribed to cooperation with Iran, the importance of India’s fraternal ties, “respect and admiration” for Iranians that “go back several millennia,” adding that “we have every intention of ensuring that no shadow is cast on these bonds.”



In this context, the Prime Minister reiterated India’s commitment to the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline adding a cautionary note : “The economics of this project is currently under professional investigation by internationally reputed consultants.”





Left rejects Government’s stand, support from BJP



The Left parties, reacting to the Prime Minister’s statement said that he had said “nothing new.” They said that they would oppose the Government policy, both inside and outside Parliament. CPI’s Gurudas Dasgupta said that the Manmohan Singh Government was adopting a confrontationist approach towards its allies on several issues forgetting that it is a multi-party coalition. CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury said : “How will India’s interests be served if Iraq is repeated in Iran.”



The BJP, on the other hand, said earlier on Tuesday (Feb. 14) that a nuclear Iran would not be in India’s interest. But it criticised what it called the “gross mismanagement” of India’s vote against Iran at the IAEA meeting and what it called the “unacceptable unilateralism”, being pursued in the region by the United States.



The BJP said it did not oppose the July 18, 2005, India-US nuclear deal per se, but said the “flexibility” needed for “maintaining a minimum credible deterrent” must be retained to deal with “contingent situations” and the “changing threat scenario.” India should not accept any curb or cap on production of fissile material. But, it said, this could be “re-examined” when the Geneva-based conference on Disarmament came out with a fissile material cut off treaty and all nuclear weapon states agreed to adhere to it.



The signals from Washington indicated that the US wanted to cap India’s fissile material production, it said. Leader of the BJP in the Rajya Sabha Jaswant Singh issued separate statements clarifying the party’s views on the two issues. By saying that it did not favour Iran becoming a nuclear weapon state, the party indirectly supported India’s vote at the IAEA.



On Feb. 13, after the RSS made its position clear, it became obvious that the BJP would fall in line. The only problem the RSS and the BJP seem to have with the United Progressive Alliance are that they perceive India’s vote came under US pressure, and they fear that India’s fissile material production will be capped.





JD(U) differs with BJP



The BJP’s stand on Iran’s nuclear issue is, however, not acceptable to its major partner in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the Janata Dal (United). Striking a different note from the line taken by the BJP, the JD(U) said on February 18 that it would go along with the Samajwadi Party if it moved a no confidence motion against the Government on the Iran issue.



JD(U) general secretary Shambhu Srivastva told media persons: “Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement on the Iran issue in Parliament is nothing, but a jugglery of words and has no content. The logic given is hypocritical.”



“If we can live with China and Pakistan bombs what’s wrong with Iran. Moreover, India is not a signatory to the NPT. Why is India bothered about NPT violations and indirectly bring the provisions of NPT in the country,” he asked.





Parliament discussion on Thursday



Parliament is to discuss the Iran issue on Thursday, Feb. 23. This was decided at a meeting Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi had with BJP’s Jaswant Singh and other party leaders on Feb. 17. The Left parties had been in favour of early discussion on the Iranian nuclear issue, even as early as immediately after the Prime Minister’s statement in Parliament. But it was pointed out by the Government that on Monday, Feb. 20, the Prime Minister would be busy with French President Jacques Chirac’s visit. Also, Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee and party leaders did not want to break with the tradition of discussing the President’s Address through a Motion of Thanks before taking up any other substantive issue. All parties agreed that the completion of the debate on the Motion of Thanks would be advanced by a day to Feb. 22 with the Prime Minister giving his reply the same day in both Houses. The discussion on Iran will take place the next day, i.e, Feb. 23.





Tactics and strategy to be in tune with ever changing world



Earlier last week, the Prime Minister answered the critics of his Government’s foreign policy, saying that while there is no change in the policy of non-alignment, tactics and strategy have to remain in tune with “changing reality of an ever-changing world.” Speaking at the foundation stone laying of the External Affairs Ministry’s new building complex, Jawaharlal Nehru Bhavan, in New Delhi on Tuesday, Feb. 14, Dr. Manmohan Singh rejected the Left’s perception that New Delhi had given up the ideals of non-alignment.



Stressing that non-alignment was neither an “empty slogan nor a pretext to shirk the responsibility to define our own world view based on our national interest,” Dr. Singh said, “indeed, non-alignment was an expression of our enlightened national interest and continues to be so even today.” He also noted that “turbulence” characterises much of the Islamic world now, adding “it merits deeper analysis.”



Holding that a “much sharper consonance” between the country’s foreign and domestic politics has emerged in recent times in an “inter-dependent world,” the Prime Minister sought to provide a reality-check to his opponents, including the Left. He said the business of diplomacy has now increasingly merged with the diplomacy of business.



Referring to China’s rise as a major global power, Dr. Singh said “there is much that we can learn from China’s most impressive economic development.” He was clearly staunchly defending the Indo-US civilian nuclear pact for its implications on the country’s long-term energy interests.





Foreign policy guided by “enlightened” national interest : Kalam



The issue of the country’s foreign policy figured also in the President’s Address opening the Budget Session of Parliament on Feb. 16. Seeking to deflect criticism of UPA’s foreign policy, President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam said the foreign policy is guided by “enlightened” national interest. The 20-page address painted a bright future for the country in the wake of pro-people policies of the UPA Government on the economic, political and foreign fronts.



Dispelling fears about the Indo-US deal, Kalam said : “The Government expects the country may gain access to international cooperation for enlargement of our civilian nuclear energy sector.” Dwelling on relations with other nations, he said the Government expected Islamabad to end infiltration and cross-border terrorism.



The address - which outlines the government’s thinking - stated that the “country is destined to regain its due place in the 21st century.”



Taking a dig at the former NDA Government, the President said : “Confidence in India, in our democracy and in our economy has never been higher. “We have been able to restore pluralism, tolerance and compassion. “We have been able to replace debates that sought to divide the nation with debates that matter to everyday living of the people, debates on issues of concern to the aam aadmi (common man).”



Coming ahead of the presentation of the Railway and Central Budgets, the address unveiled a reforms agenda. It said the 7.5 per cent growth rate in 2004-05 and the projected 8 per cent in 2005-06 in the face of a global oil price hike spelt “better times to come.”



The President said to build on the coalition’s achievements, the Government was working out policies for various segments. Pro-farmer moves include revival of cooperative credit institutions and establishment of National Rainfed Area Authority and a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority.



Observers say that the address was significant in its unapologetic stance on FDI policy. The President used the formulation of “enlightened national interest” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh used to defend the conduct of his foreign policy, to justify the policy premium on FDI.



The address, however, brought out the pragmatic streak of the government, with the President skipping any reference to the need to target subsidies - a political taboo so close to a crucial round of state polls.



Both are seen as indicating Government’s keenness to persevere through the reforms package in the face of Left resistance.





Left unhappy, but not to support No Confidence Motion



The UPA-Left Coordination Committee met in a tense atmosphere on Monday, Feb. 13, in the midst of widening cracks in the relationship between the Government and the Communist parties. The Left parties conveyed their deep concerns over the course of action adopted by the Government on the Iran nuclear programme and economic issues. But they assured the Manmohan Singh Government that they would not support any No Confidence Motion in the Lok Sabha notwithstanding opposition to India’s anti-Iran vote and its drive for attracting FDI in retail and for airport modernisation. CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat said later, there was no question of moving or supporting a no- confidence motion against the Government which the Samajwadi Party had threatened to table.



The Left top leaders, however, made it clear to the Prime Minister and Congress president Sonia Gandhi that they reserve the right of working out a joint strategy along with other non-BJP like-minded parties on issues like Iran and FDI in retail to raise them within and outside Parliament.



Indicating a new low in their ties, the government spokesperson and the Left representative did not hold the customary joint post-meeting briefing at the conclave venue.



Flanked by other Left leaders, Karat expressed his displeasure with the way the government had chosen not to take the Left’s counsel in a number of matters. On behalf of the government, Finance Minister P Chidamabaram said, “we made an honest attempt to arrive at a consensus on a number of issues.”



Karat said the Left parties had submitted 19 written notes to the Coordination Committee. “Our assessment is that the exercise had not been as productive as it should have been,” he said.



On the voting on Iran , the Marxist leader pointed out that the government had been repeatedly siding with the US and the EU-3 at the IAEA meets, “preparing the ground for Iran’s referral to the UN Security Council”. “The Left parties told the government that a discussion on Iran should take place in Parliament,” Karat said, adding: “So, the people know about Parliament’s stand.”



Opposing the government’s decision to privatise Mumbai and Delhi airports for modernising them, Karat said there were indications that the bidding process could have been compromised. He added that the government’s decision to allow 51 per cent FDI in single-brand retail category had been taken despite the Left’s stiff opposition to it.



Chidamabaram said the Centre was ready for a discussion on Iran in Parliament. Maintaining that the government was committed to pursuing an independent foreign policy, he said: “Iran is a difficult issue but we have to tread carefully.” The Finance Minister asserted that the government faced no threat from any quarter - whether Right or Left, adding that the UPA and the Left share the larger concern for the country’s development, commitment to secularism as well as growth and social justice. “We are determined to run the Government for the full term of five years.”





Left critical of Congress handling of political issues



The Left parties utilised the coordination committee framework to convey their dissatisfaction over the Congress handling of political issues, specifically the Congress inability to prevent communal forces from coming to power in Jharkhand, Bihar and Karnataka.



The Congress had forged a coalition in 2004 by emphasising the need for secular parties to come together to oust the BJP-NDA from power at the Centre. After the coordination panel meeting, Karat said : “We gave our views on the current political situation....We strived to point out that in the people’s perception, the Government’s image is being affected.” But he ruled out a “third alternative” in the immediate future.



The Congress - which dismissed a third front as unrealistic - has a different take on the issues, including the CPI’s move to set up a parallel secular front in Bihar.



Though Karat ruled out a “no-confidence motion” against the Government on the Iran issue, he made it clear that the Left will “decide what to do next” if India supports the US-EU moves against Tehran at the March 6 IAEA meet. Privately, Left leaders said they would bring a censure motion or seek a debate under Rule 184 (which entails a vote) in Parliament if the Government once again decides to vote against Iran.





UPA partners demand greater transparency



At a dinner meeting hosted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Feb. 13, partners of the Congress in the UPA called for greater transparency in foreign policy matters like Iran. Concerned over continuous sparring with the Left, the allies asked for better coordination to reduce the damage caused to the Government’s image. They, however, decided to project a “united face” among themselves at a time when several uncomfortable issues are creating tensions with the Left. The dinner meeting was attended by top leaders including Congress president and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Nationalist Congress Party Chief Sharad Pawar and Rashtriya Janata Dal President Lalu Prasad Yadav. Other senior leaders Pranab Mukherjee, Ahmed Patel, Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, Vaiko and Shibu Soren were also present. Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee said after the meeting, “It was resolved by all leaders that we must project a “united image” of the UPA Government. Replying to a question, he downplayed the absence of the Left leaders saying they had a meeting with the UPA leaders earlier, and they told us it was not possible to attend today.” Left leaders said the meeting was for the UPA allies and there was no need for them to be present.





Left working on UPA allies to check Congress



The Left parties have started making the first moves towards a Third Front in a bid to keep the Congress in check. In a significant statement, CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat said on February 12 that his party was trying its best to build a third alternative to the Congress and the BJP. Speaking at a public rally in Guwahati, a day after his meeting with Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, Karat said proposals in this regard have already been sent to what he called democratic and secular forces in the UPA. But he did not name any political party. He said, “Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s dream after the Hyderabad convention of the Congress ruling the country on its own would not be fulfilled.”



Observers say that the Left parties and the Congress, pitted against each other in the coming Assembly elections in Kerala and West Bengal, are presently engaged in a cat and mouse game with each other.



If the Congress is baiting the Marxists by going out of its way to negotiate with their bete noire Trinamul Congress leader Mamata Bannerjee, the CPI(M) has hit back by wooing two strong UPA allies, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) by giving them four seats from its quota in the West Bengal election.



The CPI(M) and the NCP have also tied up against the Congress in Assam where the two are trying to build a Third Front with the help of smaller groups, including the Prafulla Mahanta-led Asom Gana Parishad (AGP).



As soon as the CPI(M) put out its list of candidates, upset West Bengal Congress leaders got in touch with Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who is also the WBPCC President. Mukherjee, it is learnt, called up NCP chief Sharad Pawar to dissuade him from joining hands with the CPI(M) in West Bengal.



While the Congress is hoping to win over Pawar, it may be more difficult to convince RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav who publicly stated that he will be campaigning for the Left Front in the West Bengal Assembly elections.



The CPI(M)’s attempts to befriend the UPA allies is meant to keep the Congress in check by constantly reminding it about the possibility of the formation of a Third Front.





Political rivals join hands to oppose FDI in retail



A traders’ convention held in New Delhi on February 17 saw both the Left leaders and the Right wing sharing a platform to demand a review of the decision to allow FDI in retail. BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi said the Government’s move is a conspiracy to break the country’s economic march. JD(U) leader George Fernandes said this was not a question of party politics, but of the country’s integrity. CPI leader A.B. Bardhan regretted that all their pleas had fallen on deaf ears. He said it is a blow to Indian retailers and multi-national companies are eying the country’s economy.