‘Left says Govt is drifting and they are the anchor. Hope the anchor lets the ship sail’

D. RAJA: To answer your question, the Left is not making the nuclear deal alone the issue. We consider this nuclear deal is the culmination of the drift of the UPA government from the stated positions of the common minimum programme. And when I say this, I say this especially from the position of our foreign policy. Before the July 18 statement, the Government of India entered into another treaty, in June 2005. That is the defence treaty. That is the new framework for India-US defence relations. Mr Pranab Mukherjee was a signatory to that. And it was questioned by the Left. We disapproved, criticised, questioned. We were told it is not a treaty, it is not a pact, it is just a framework. We didn’t buy that argument even at that point of time. We said ‘No’ because it is going to pave the way for many more things. They have also agreed to a democracy initiative fund set up by George W. Bush and our government has contributed some 10 million dollars. What is the democracy initiative? Waging war in Iraq and destroying the whole country? Or waging war in Afghanistan? The deal is leading to India becoming a military ally of the U.S. As somebody said, it is a move to build up India as an Israel in South Asia. There’s one Israel in west Asia, and India can become another Israel. India can be part of Asian NATO. Otherwise, why should India agree to this giant naval exercise with Japan, Australia, America, and Singapore?

• PAMELA PHILIPOSE: But the question is how does this play before the Indian people?

D. RAJA: The people of India understand our position. When we organised two protests against the joint naval exercise, we could see the response from the people. And if you think people do not understand, their ignorance cannot be taken as justification for the deal.

• AMITABH SINHA: Mr Raja, does your party recognise the fact that there is shortage of uranium in the country? If yes, what is your alternative? How and where is uranium going to be procured from?

D. RAJA: We have uranium in some parts of the country. Whether we can conclude it is scarce, I’m not competent to say. We have uranium, we have thorium. We need to take expert opinion. We are not blind. We are reasonable.

• AMITABH SINHA: What do your experts tell you? How many years is the uranium that is available going to last?

D. RAJA: How many years you are going to depend on the U.S. or other countries even if you get into such a deal? The point is why can’t India think of alternative sources of energy, such as thermal or hydel plants. The government may bring several arguments against thes options — about relying excessively on coal or water. If you go by arguments one after another, you reach nowhere. Why not solar or wind energy? Experts say the initial investment may be huge but you need not invest further. We should not get bogged down with one issue like an obsession, a uranium obsession.

• AMITABH SINHA: I’m sure other sources of energy are also being exploited. We may be looking to getting 10 per cent of our energy needs from nuclear plants by 2030, but I think it can at best be six per cent.

D. RAJA: No. In the U.S., since the mid-1970s, they are not using their own nuclear reactors — the reactors are all in the private sector, I understand. And they are looking for a market. And India becomes their business market. If India agrees to the deal and commits itself, they are very happy.

• AMITABH SINHA: But if we don’t have fuel in the next 12-18 years, we won’t have fuel for our nuclear reactors.

D. RAJA: No, you are not asking for fuel for existing reactors. Go through it (the deal). We already have reactors and can develop our own programme, on the basis of self-reliance. Have some confidence in our own scientists and experts.

• D.K. SINGH: Mr Raja, why are you supporting the government? Who is your bigger enemy? The BJP or the U.S.? And one question to Mr Sibal. The Congress has made out this entire nuclear deal as something very central to its developmental agenda. Why are you hanging on with the Left then? Are you just trying to stick to power?

D. RAJA: As far as we are concerned, imperialism and communalism are both our enemies. And we have been fighting both imperialism and communalism. And we have no compromise. And we fight sincerely. Also, while we have differences with the UPA government, we also have co-operation with it. We have never used the word ‘withdraw’ (as in withdraw support) so far. In our statements and public speeches, we have said, ‘Put this deal on hold. If you go ahead, you cannot have us with you to finalise this deal.’ The Left has been playing a very positive, constructive role since Day 1. There are many commitments in the common minimum programme: it’s not only the nuclear-deal issue that we have raised; we have also spoken about price rise, inflation, farmers’ distress, the conditions of Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and women.

KAPIL SIBAL: As far as we are concerned, we are in a coalition era. We have to run a coalition government. Your position (the Left’s) is the following: If you can’t run a government through a coalition, you should not run it. Period.

D. RAJA: We can engage in dialogue too.

KAPIL SIBAL: We can engage in dialogue. What’s the problem? The point is that if you are committed to coalition politics, you must be committed to accepting the fact that there will be differences of opinion. And the prime minister has said that this is not a one-issue government. Energy is important for the people, so it is important for us. And that’s why we have this mechanism (the UPA-Left co-ordination committee). And that’s why we are meeting on October 22. And that’s why we are trying to reach a middle ground so we can actually move forward. In a coalition era, we need to resolve differences rather than say, ‘This is one issue of policy that we have, and if we don’t agree, we’ll go to the polls.’ I think that would be a very immature way of moving forward in politics.

• COOMI KAPOOR: When the government has put its prestige on the line and gone ahead with the negotiation, why could the Left not have made its position, that seemed so final, known earlier?

D. RAJA: I said this 123 agreement is the culmination of the drift of the UPA government. I went on to explain how these initiatives were tackled. And how we opposed, disapproved, and protested. This was the background I gave. We have been raising these issues, to be honest. And you know we have been raising these concerns.

• COOMI KAPOOR: But the government has put its prestige on the line in the negotiation. Surely you should have realised that the honour of the government was at stake?

D. RAJA: We have been making our position clear. In fact during our jatha, we explained to people at large and I quoted our official statements. The agreement was approved by the Cabinet on July 27. In fact the Left was the last to come out with a statement on the agreement. We reacted in the end. Only then did the government agree to a dialogue and set up a joint panel. We said we are reasonable, we’ll sit and discuss.

KAPIL SIBAL: If you really look back at the chronology, you will find that when the joint statement was signed on July 18, 2005, immediately after that there was a discussion in Parliament. In March 2006, we placed the separation plan on the floor of the House, in which we said 14 reactors would be placed within safeguards and eight outside safeguards. I will quote from my good friend Comrade Sitaram Yechury’s speech in Rajya Sabha. He said the only thing we have to make sure of is that the assurances given by the prime minister should be met. So assurances were put forth. Never in the history of India has a deal been discussed so often in Parliament and in public like this. There was no opposition that you should not have any deal with the U.S. The opposition was only on assurances. Then came the Hyde Act in December 2006. Then we had the deal and we placed it on the floor of the House saying we can have an immediate debate. But at that point, the slogan was ‘Nuclear deal wapas lo!’ Nobody let us explain or debate. We indicated how all assurances had been met. Then came the real opposition — that the Hyde Act overrides the 123 agreement. That’s when things came to a head. Now we are trying to reconcile with them and say, ‘No, that’s not correct.’ Now the larger thing is the other issue, which is the context issue. There’s going to be a discussion on the context now in the October 22 meeting.

D. RAJA: Only one small clarification. It was discussed in Parliament. The prime minister gave assurances in August 2006. After that came the Hyde Act, an India specific legislation. It is the enabling legislation for this 123 agreement. And there are views, even among very eminent jurists, and even the agreement speaks about this, that the U.S. will seek an amendment in the Hyde Act. This is what we have been asking the government. All these things are before us, so why should we go ahead with the deal?

KAPIL SIBAL: No, no. Incidentally, there is no amendment to be made in the Hyde Act at all. And the Left is now agreed to the position that where there is a conflict between the Hyde Act and the 123, the 123 prevails. That position has been agreed to.

D. RAJA: No, no, this is a contentious issue. We are discussing it.

KAPIL SIBAL: No, “agreed to” means this is part of the acceptance of the position. But they have other concerns about the Hyde Act, which we have to deal with.

D. RAJA: No, we have problems with 123 also. We are discussing.

• AMITABH SINHA: Mr Raja, you say we need faith in India’s scientists and Indian technology. You have so much faith in one section of India. Why is it you don’t have the same faith in another section — policy makers and politicians?

D. RAJA: That’s a good question. I want them to have faith in us.

• D.K SINGH: How long will you talk? If the Left does not agree to the nuclear deal, will you junk it?

KAPIL SIBAL: We’ll talk as long as the issue does not get resolved. We’ll resolve it. Why should I answer a hypothetical question?

• AMITABH SINHA: Mr Raja, you said that the deal is the culmination of the drift. If this coalition has drifted towards imperialist powers, what’s the point of sticking it out?

D. RAJA: We think we can ask the government to reconsider its position. That is what dialogue and democracy mean. We are talking, discussing, trying to convince . . . give us some time. After all, it is linked to the destiny of the nation. We are not just parties. We think in terms of the nation, its people, its future.

• PAMELA PHILIPOSE: What’s the agenda for October 22?

D. RAJA: Already we have started discussion on the implications for foreign policy and security concerns. We’ll continue the discussions.

KAPIL SIBAL: You see, we are in the drift and the Communist parties are anchors. They want to make sure the drift is not that fast, and hopefully the anchor will let the ship sail!

D. RAJA: We want them also to be anchored.

• AMITABH SINHA: How will you go back to the public and explain what the nuclear deal means to the common man? Do you think it really matters?

D. RAJA: What is wrong in explaining to people? We love to confront these issues, to explain to our people. I love to explain my own understanding of these issues. We love to engage people. After all, we are a big democracy. On the one side, we are proud of our democracy, on the other side we don’t want to engage our people. On October 1-10, we organised protests against price rise in different parts of the country. I’m sitting in Delhi; I’m speaking on the nuclear issue. My people were on the streets. Whatever we can do, we are trying to do.