The Hindu : National : Majority of MPs have opposed nuclear deal: Karat

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Dec 06, 2007
ePaper

National

National

Majority of MPs have opposed nuclear deal: Karat

Special Correspondent

Any move to take next steps will be showing disrespect to Parliament, he says

SP leader’s questions mischievously interpreted: Karat
“Rajya Sabha debate demolished all arguments
of government”

NEW DELHI: After the conclusion of the debate on the India-U.S. civilian nuclear deal in Parliament, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a key ally of the United Progressive Alliance government, has said that the debate went along expected lines and a majority of the members in both Houses have opposed the nuclear deal on various grounds.

“The opposition to the deal was expressed mainly in three forms. First, the demand that the deal be not proceeded with to the next stages for operationalisation, given the provenance of the Hyde Act and the failure to get the assurances made by the Prime Minister in August 2006 incorporated in the 123 agreement. Secondly, there was the demand for renegotiation of the deal. Thirdly, some of the parties took the stand that only by clearing all doubts and achieving a consensus should the deal go forward. In this connection some demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee,” CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat said in an article in the latest issue of the party organ, People’s Democracy.

Maintaining that the government had gone ahead at every stage despite the majority view being against the deal, Mr. Karat said any move to take the next steps to operationalise the agreement would be showing disrespect to Parliament and the essential tenets of Parliamentary democracy.

Timely warning

The debate on the 123 agreement should have taken place in the monsoon session itself and could have been a timely warning to the government not to proceed with the deal. Mr. Karat said that curiously, the debate in the Lok Sabha was sought to be portrayed as a “victory” for the government or a dilution of the opposition by some parties, in a section of the press.

“The spurious conclusion was based on the so-called dilution of the stand of the Samajwadi Party and the alleged failure of the Telugu Desam to participate in the debate. Samajwadi Party leader Ram Gopal Yadav made a comprehensive speech questioning the deal on all grounds — the Hyde Act, the cost of nuclear energy, the adverse impact on foreign policy and the damage it would do to our independent nuclear programme. The questions he posed and the clarifications and assurances he sought were mischievously interpreted,” the CPI(M) general secretary wrote.

Mr. Karat said the debate in the Lok Sabha established that a big majority of the House was against the deal. The parties which represent around 60 per cent of the total membership spoke out against the deal. They included the Left parties, the National Democratic Alliance, the United National Progressive Alliance and parties such as the Bahujan Samaj Party.

“Negative verdict”

“If the Lok Sabha debate gave a negative verdict on the nuclear deal, the discussion in the Rajya Sabha, which followed, made the isolation of the UPA government all the more evident. The Rajya Sabha debate comprehensively demolished all the arguments put up by the government with regard to the non-applicability of the Hyde Act, the ‘non-binding’ provisions of this Act; the role of nuclear energy in our energy security; the costs of nuclear power; and the effects on our indigenous three-state nuclear programme.”

“At the end of the debate in both Houses, after Pranab Mukherjee replied to the discussion, the leaders of the CPI(M) group in the two Houses, Basudev Acharia and Sitaram Yechury respectively, asked for a categorical assurance from the government that taking into account the views expressed by a majority of the House, the government would not proceed further with the nuclear deal. This is the sense of the House. Pranab Mukherjee replied that where is the question of taking the sense of the House until the process is completed. He answered that at every stage, the government would come to Parliament and hold discussions.”

“This is not good enough. Parliament has repeatedly discussed the deal at different stages beginning from the Joint Statement of July 2005, which announced the nuclear cooperation agreement. At every stage, despite the majority view against the deal, the government has proceeded ahead. The 123 agreement was negotiated and the agreement initialled and the text frozen. Then the Union Cabinet approved it. After this fait accompli, in the current Parliament session discussion has taken place,” he said.

“Clear verdict”

Mr. Karat said the argument that the sense of the House could be taken only after the process was completed would mean that Parliament had no say whatsoever except to have an academic debate on the issue. “Therefore, it is imperative that the government take into account the clear verdict of the Parliament against the 123 agreement. Any move to take the next steps to operationalise the agreement would be showing disrespect to Parliament and the essential tenets of parliamentary democracy,” Mr. Karat said in the article.

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

National