Last week, I was re-reading a booklet authored by Karat some months ago on the nuclear deal and Indo-US strategic cooperation. What struck me was the remarkable consistency in his stance. It seems to me much of the problem is also that such consistency is extraordinary in Indian politics. But, seriously, what has attracted me to his position is that it is highly principled and, secondly, it is distilled from a staunchly national perspective.

A second aspect that struck me is the willingness of the Left to be open to discussion.

The developments last November brought this to light. I would have thought that the Left said a firm no to the UPA's entreaties that the government be allowed to approach the IAEA. But the Left was willing to be engaged, it took a considered stance in November that if the UPA government indeed needed a face-saving 'exit strategy', so be it.

I think two factors were at work here. One, the Left estimated that a mutual understanding between coalition partners -- whether publicised or not, whether verbal or written -- would always remain sacrosanct. In the present case, the Left concluded that the Congress leadership, under whatever exigencies of politics, would still keep its assurances and any other course would be tantamount to a betrayal of trust.

Two, I think the Left adhered to its belief that the UPA government must somehow complete its term in office and that it was a priority. Indeed, the Left has been keen to underscore that a stable, non-BJP government in Delhi can complete its 5-year term on the basis of the fulfillment of a common minimum programme, which, in turn, could form the basis of approaching the electorate for a renewed mandate.

Don't you think allowing the government to go to the IAEA was a fatal error on the part of the Left leadership?

I think the fatal error lies in the Congress deciding today that it could simply retract from the assurance that it held out to the Left last November.

We are not seeing the end of the coalition era in Indian politics. It is crystal clear that the Congress party can never hope to form a government in India except as a constituent of a coalition. That being the case, the fatal error would actually be on the part of the Congress leadership in behaving as if Indian politics is still rooted in the culture of single-party rule.

If the Left had objections to the deal, why raise them now, and not in 2005 itself?

I think there is no great mystery here. The Left took the prime minister at his word. Do not forget that the prime minister admitted to shortfalls in the deal and assured Parliament that the government remained concerned. We do not know if those flaws have been duly addressed. The lack of transparency on the government's part in placing the IAEA draft agreement for public scrutiny leads one to believe that grey areas remain.

It is sheer sophistry on the part of the government to keep dodging from allowing the document to be discussed publicly. The IAEA is a world body and India is a full-fledged member. There is nothing sacrosanct about this draft. Why is the government hiding behind lame excuses?

Image: CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat at a press conference in New Delhi. Photograph: Manpreet Romana/AFP/Getty Images

Also read: 'The people of India are for the nuclear deal'

Back

|

Next