The Hindu : National : Nuclear deal the brainchild of BJP: Rupchand Pal

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Nov 30, 2007
ePaper

National

National

Nuclear deal the brainchild of BJP: Rupchand Pal

Special Correspondent

We are in favour of complete disarmament: Tarit Baran Topdar
Nuclear energy will not help common man: C.K. Chandrappan

Rupchand Pal

NEW DELHI: Describing the India-U.S. civil nuclear deal as the “brainchild” of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Rupchand Pal of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) said it would have a serious bearing on India’s future.

Participating in a debate in the Lok Sabha, he said the Left parties had raised objections to the joint statement of July 18, 2005, expressing serious reservations in respect of various provisions in the 123 agreement.

“Assurances not kept”

Last December, he pointed out, the Left clearly mentioned nine areas of objections and sought reassurance from the government. “The Prime Minister came out with reassurances on all those points. But to our dismay, we found that in the Hyde Act most of the important assurances given by him on the floor of the House were trampled upon.”

Mr. Pal said the transfer of sensitive technology and dual use technology were denied. In the case of fuel supply, the assurance given was very vague.

Another area of the Left’s objection pertained to the termination of the agreement. If India went for a nuclear test, the deal could be terminated. And if that happened, the fuel, the reactor equipment and everything else would have to be returned.

Foreign policy

“So, this deal is not in our interest. In Asia, America wants a new regional architecture, new friends, so that China is contained. It is in their benefit for creating a new regional architecture in Asia. For a new Asian NATO, they need India. So they want us to ignore our independent foreign policy. They want us to ignore Iran and unfortunately we have been doing it. This is not simply a vision of an independent foreign policy,” Mr. Pal said.

He was dismissive of the government argument that more energy was needed for clocking nine per cent annual growth. “The Left is not denying it. Have they any policy? Have they got any national policy on the energy mix? Nothing has been done.”

Maintaining that the Left was not against nuclear energy as such, Mr. Pal said an “appropriate, judicious, nuclear energy mix” should be evolved.

Dwelling on the Hyde Act, he said the 123 agreement was in conformity with it. He contended that in case of any dispute, American law would prevail. He wanted a concrete assurance about uninterrupted fuel supply.

Referring to nuclear waste management, Mr. Pal said it had assumed large proportions in the West. He cautioned against the Western designs of wanting India to open up sectors such as banking, insurance and foreign retail. He warned that the nuclear deal would have a serious bearing on the future of India, on its economy, on the nuclear programme, on self-reliance and on India’s relations with other countries in an emerging multi-polar world.

Objecting to the government rushing through the deal, his party colleague, Tarit Baran Topdar, said the 123 agreement was not between President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, but between the two countries. “So where is the need to rush through things,” he asked.

“Junior partner”

Mr. Topdar said India had been treated as a “junior partner” in the agreement as “we are not members of the nuclear club.”

Questioning the transfer of sensitive technology, he said it could not be termed security when it was dependent on foreign supplies. Security and dependence on foreign countries were two contradictory terms, which could not go together.

Mr. Topdar wanted to know to what extent thorium technology had been developed by the Atomic Energy department. The agreement with the U.S. would deter the advancement of thorium technology.

Referring to the Hyde Act, he said it was an enabling Act, which was India-specific, and along with the deal was aimed at making India Non-Proliferation Treaty compliant.

“We are in favour of complete and total disarmament, not partial disarmament,” Mr. Topdar said.

“An unequal treaty”

C.K. Chandrappan of the Communist Party of India said the Left parties had made their position clear right at the beginning, asserting their opposition to the agreement as it was an “unequal treaty.”

Referring to the country’s energy needs, he said that according to the Prime Minister, the nuclear share in India’s energy generation was three per cent, which would become seven per cent in 2020. “It is not going to make a very substantial difference by jumping from three to seven per cent. At that time, our requirement will be much more.”

Mr. Chandrappan wanted to know the price which the country would be paying for nuclear energy and plants. In his view, nuclear energy would neither help the common people nor the industries.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National