India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics » 

Govt. firm on nuclear deal, BJP, Left walk out

	December 10, 2007

The long-awaited debate on the nuclear deal in the Rajya Sabha ended on Dec.5 with the Government expressing its resolve to operationalise the Indo-US civil nuclear deal. Replying to the debate, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said that the deal was essential for the country’s economic growth. Re¬sponding to the Left and BJP pleas that the Government should act in accordance with the “sense of the House”, he said that it was premature to talk about the “sense of the House” on the deal which was still in the process of being operationalised.



The Left joined the BJP-led opposition and United National Progressive Alliance members in walking out of the House, saying that they were not convinced by the Minister’s reply. They said that the majority of the House was against the agreement with the United States.



Mukherjee said the Government would take the “sense of Parliament” on the nuclear agreement after the process of imple¬menting the deal was completed. He said the deal would not impact India’s right to conduct nuclear tests or its foreign policy.



“We have never said we won’t take the sense of the House. Let the process be completed. There are several steps to be taken for operationalising the deal including approaching the Interna¬tional Atomic Energy Agency for India-specific safeguards, going to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and approval by the U.S. Congress.

“Once the 123 Agreement is completed we will take the sense of the House,” Mukherjee told the Rajya Sabha replying to a marathon discussion on the deal.



CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury, who initiated the debate, said he was not convinced by the Minister’s reply. “In an honour¬able way we [the government] can tell the world that the majority is not with us,” he said.



Leader of the Opposition Jaswant Singh questioned the haste with which the government was proceeding on the deal.



“A very large part of the House is not with you. If you are seeking bipartisan support of the U.S. Congress, why not work for bipartisan support here,” he asked.



Earlier, Mukherjee said India believed in comprehensive universal disarmament and did not want to be a nuclear weapon power. “India needs a credible minimum nuclear deterrent from its security and threat perception. If a test is necessary on the basis of the geo-political situation, we’ll do it. The 123 Agree¬ment does not ban or prevent it. We can do it as we did in 1974 and 1998 and consequences will follow.”



Emphasising that India’s foreign policy was independent, he reiterated that India would be bound only by the 123 Agreement and not the Hyde Act which had certain “prescriptive and extrane¬ous” elements.



Appealing to the House to “please let us give it a try,” he said that when India overcame nuclear sanction barriers, it would be like getting a passport. It would open the international market.



During the discussion in the Rajya Sabha on Dec. 4, the Left Parties, the National Democratic Alliance and the United National Progressive Alliance assailed the nuclear agreement, with the BJP declaring that it would renegotiate the deal if it came to power.



Speaking during the discussion, ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) members along with a few independents and nominat¬ed members argued that the agreement would ensure access to an alternative source of energy and high-end technology.



Initiating the discussion, Sitaram Yechury (CPI-M) said the UPA government would be committing a “dangerous folly” if it went ahead with the deal. Yechury said the text violated at least three assurances given to Parliament by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.



Former Union Minister Yashwant Sinha (BJP) charged the government with “misleading” the nation on all major issues relating to the deal, including the right to reprocess fuel, assured fuel supply and energy security. Several members, in¬cluding D. Raja (CPI) and others, said there was a linkage between the government backing away from signing an agreement for more reactors with Russia and U.S. displeasure if it had done so.



Raja said the 123 agreement was aimed at dragging India into US global strategy for Asia so that it played the same role as Israel does in the Middle East. Amar Singh (Samajwadi Party) made known his opposition to the deal and refuted reports that his party had “softened” its stand.



Maitreyan of the AIADMK assailed the “open market lobbying” by the U.S. and felt he would not have been surprised if its officials had even ventured to address Parliament in support of the deal. Making her maiden speech, Kanimozhi (DMK) said nuclear-based power plants had an enviable safety record and felt that a pact with the U.S. in this sector would not mean endorsing its policies in other spheres. K. Kasturirangan, Supriya Sule (NCP) and Abhishek Singhvi (Congress) spoke in favour of the deal.





War of words



Prime Minister Manmohan Singh dismissed as “false” charges levelled by the Opposition BJP that his government was acting under American pressure in not signing agreements with Russia on the Koodankulam reactors in Tamil Nadu.



In a brief intervention in the Rajya Sabha during the dis¬cussion on the India-United States civilian nuclear agreement, he firmly rejected all charges levelled by senior BJP leader Yashw¬ant Sinha, labelling them as “falsehood” being propagated by the main Opposition party.



The war of words began when the BJP leader alleged that there was pressure on the Prime Minister not to join the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement meeting. Denying that there was any pres¬sure on him to join or not to join the Shanghai meeting, Dr. Singh asserted: “All that I was interested in was to see that if the Indian Prime Minister goes to such meetings, he should not sit on the side table in the coffee lounge and not be involved in an active manner.”



The Prime Minister reminded Sinha that as the Finance Minister, when he [Sinha] had gone to Japan he was not allowed to meet his counterpart in that country. “He thinks all people are like him,” Dr. Singh countered, prompting ruling party benches to applaud.







Furore over praise for US



There was a furore in the Rajya Sabha during the debate over nominated member Ram Jethmalani’s praise of the United States. Jethmalani’s pro-US remarks angered the non-BJP opposition and the CPI(M). Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh trooped into the well of the House and staged a sit-in. The proceedings were disrupted for almost half-an-hour as members of the Samajwadi Party, the All India Anna DMK and the CPI(M) protested against giving Ram Jethmalani more time to air his pro-US views. Rail¬ways Minister Minister and RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav said he was giving Jethmalani the time allocated to his party.





Privilege notice against PM



On Thursday, Dec. 6, BJP leader Yashwant Sinha moved a breach of privilege notice against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Sinha alleged that the Prime Minister had misled the House during the debate on the nuclear issue on Dec. 4. Sinha was told that the chairman was examining the notice.



The Prime Minister had remarked that Sinha could not meet the Japanese Finance Minister when he paid an official visit to that country as the Finance Minister in 1991. The BJP leader said the Prime Minister’s statement on his visit was “untrue.”





Respect Parliament view : Prakash Karat



CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat has said that any attempt by the Manmohan Singh government to take the next steps to operationalise the nuclear deal with the United States would be disrespect to Parliament. In an article in the party organ People’s Democracy, he rejected External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s argument that the “sense of the House” can be taken after the process is completed. Karat said this will amount to Parliament having no say except to have an academic debate. The CPI(M) leader was dismissive of Mukherjee’s proposal that Parlia¬ment be taken into confidence at every stage on the nuclear deal. He said this is not good enough.



The write up by Prakash Karat says if the Lok Sabha debate gave a “negative verdict” on the deal, the Rajya Sabha debate made the “isolation” of the UPA Government “more evident. Curiously, Karat notes that some English dailies had portrayed the Lok Sabha debate as a “victory” for the Government whereas the truth was, he adds, that 60 per cent of the Lower House members had spoken “against” the deal. These members belonged to the Left Parties, the NDA, the UNPA and parties like the BSP.



The Rajya Sabha debate, Karat holds, “comprehensively demolished all the arguments put up by the government with regard to the non-applicability of the Hyde Act (on the 123 deal)”, and other issues. Asking the government to take into account the views expressed by the “majority of the House”, Karat claimed that “sense of the House” was opposed to the deal.