‘When did we say we are withdrawing support?’

Why did Manmohan Singh have to say 'you either take it, or leave it'? CPI General Secretary AB Bardhan in a candid interview says that the PM is brazenly toeing the American line, the Congress created the crisis, India can't operate as a US poodle and the Left does not want snap polls

Pranay Sharma Delhi

Is the crisis over?

We didn't create any crisis. We only said, like we have been saying on so many other issues — economic policy and others — not to go ahead with the nuclear deal. How has it become such an important issue for the government? We have only said don't operationalise the deal before taking our concerns into account.

So it is not the Left but the Congress that has created the crisis. It is the government that thinks this deal is a sheet anchor. They are free to say so but we don't agree.

Does that mean that the Congress government will have to take the initiative of resolving this crisis?

It goes without saying. There are mechanisms to resolve it. But I don't know exactly what they have in mind because they have not communicated anything to me.

What can be the mechanism or a way out of this?

We have made it clear that you cannot have a situation where you keep talking to us and yet go ahead with negotiations on the deal.

What exactly is your opposition to the deal? You think India could have got a better deal?

Before the Hyde Act there was a debate in Parliament on certain concerns that we had. To be fair, the prime minister had addressed those concerns. But there are several provisions in the Hyde Act which are derogatory to India's sovereignty on foreign policy and its autonomous right to take decisions on other matters. We have seen several senior American officials making all sorts of demands on India. This deal has the shadow of the Hyde Act on it and that is our major objection.

Several governments in India, at the central and state levels, have been accepting loans and projects according to conditions set up by the IMF and World Bank. How come the question of sovereignty was never raised then?

I don't see how there is any comparison between the two. We may or may not accept the conditions put up by the IMF and World Bank. These conditions differ. Harsher conditionalities imposed on some have not been put on others. Yes, I agree that if you want a loan then the creditor imposes conditions. You may not take that loan. You may have alternative sources. The only good thing that I see from this deal is that it was at least an attempt to break through the nuclear apartheid imposed on India ever since the Pokhran-I tests of 1974. But that does not mean that we should accommodate ourselves to the Hyde Act.

The Hyde Act is not binding on the Indian government. So what is the opposition?

We, as Indians, have nothing to do with laws passed by the US government. But there are two parties to the 123 agreement. Though the Hyde Act applies to the US, there is nothing in the agreement that liberates them from the provisions of the Hyde Act.

When the BJP-led NDA coalition was in power, it refused to send troops to Iraq. Why do you fear that the Congress-led coalition will succumb, if and when the US applies pressure on India?

The previous government was prepared to send a division of the Indian army (to Iraq). LK Advani had expressed such a desire and even senior army officials were asked to prepare for it. But Atal Behari Vajpayee relied on his intuition, he knew the people would not favour it. So he called me and CPI (M) leader Harkishen Singh Surjeet and asked what was going on in the opposition. He asked us to intensify our agitation and suggested that we get more people out on the streets so that he can use that as an excuse not to send troops to Iraq. The only way our sovereignty can be safeguarded is by the freedom loving people of India.

Checks and balances are there in India, so what is your worry?

I agree, and I say this again, there is nothing intrinsic in the deal that prevents India to take a decision like this. But how dare US officials and their leaders tell us not to talk to Iran or go ahead with the gas pipeline that we are planning with Iran and Pakistan? Many are comparing the deal we have with the one the US has with China. Maybe, we are having a more advantageous deal. But would they ever have asked China to do this or not to do that?

Do recent trends make you more apprehensive that India is weakening under US pressure?

There are definitely such trends. That is why we are examining the context of the deal along with its text. It is not a stand-alone agreement. The text cannot be without the context. Do such agreements come about unless they are part of certain policies? We have been watching a series of moves and that is why we have talked about a tilt towards the US. With this deal, the whole thing is getting completely out of hand. It is not an accident that such a massive naval exercise is being proposed in the Bay of Bengal with all the NATO members of Asia. And India is now willing to join that group. Why do we want to join this?

Do you see the tilt towards the US more pronounced than under the BJP-led government?

The BJP-led government started it. The NDA government went on saying that the US is India's natural ally. Wasn't that statement a very unnatural statement? We are in Asia; we have neighbourly relations with several other countries. We have a long border with China. And across the Himalayas, if we shout, the Russians can listen. But then how is the US our natural ally?

Is it a zero-sum game? If you improve your relations with one country, does it mean that it has to be done at the expense of the other?

We are all for improving our relations with the US. In the Common Minimum Programme, we are a party to that provision. We want friendly relations with America. It is a mighty power, an economic power, a military power. We can't be hostile to them. But does that necessarily mean that we need to have a strategic partnership with the Americans? Whatever the US is doing — the clash of civilisations or their fight against global terrorism, we don't want to be a party to that. We are not natural allies in that sense. Our natural allies should be the developing countries in the world, and our neighbours.

The CPI has had past experience of working closely with the Congress. What has been your experience this time?

Initially it seemed that they were listening to us. For the past two years they were addressing our concerns. Certain acts got passed, in framing them, we played a good role. But when they decided to get closer to the Americans, they stopped doing all this. I am not saying that our relation with the Congress or UPA will be decided only by the nuclear deal. I don't think it is a deal that will be understood by all the people of this country. But for the past five months we have been saying that the time has come to review the performance of the UPA government on other key issues and areas that concerns people. And on the basis of that we will re-define our relations. We said it even before the 123 agreement was signed.

But, for instance, why have you not asked for a debate on issues like communalism, non-implementation of the Srikrishna Commission recommendations on the Bombay killings?

Certainly, there should be a debate. It is not we who have raised the level of the nuclear deal, it is the government that has done so. Manmohan Singh wants to go down in history as the architect of this deal. It is a distorted way of looking at things. The prime minister should have felt proud if he could solve poverty or illiteracy rather than signing a nuclear deal with the Americans.

Will you call this a mismanagement of coalition partners by the PM?

Yes, it is. What did he think that when we came out with our resolution on the nuclear deal, it was a challenge to his authority? Why did he have to say “you either take it, or leave it??”

Did he make a mistake by bringing it to the public domain — what he said in an interview with a newspaper?

The nuclear debate was in the public domain. But he took our opposition to it as a challenge when it was not meant to be a challenge. That is why I said, the crisis is not created by us, it is of their own making.

Do you see the possibility of snap polls?

I don't think that it is a possibility. In any case it is not what we want. I am quite clear on that.

What is likely to happen now? What happens if they go ahead with the deal?

We are telling the prime minister, please pause. Look at the concerns raised over the deal. You don't have a majority in this Parliament. And on such a major issue a democratic government like yours, that does not have a majority in the House, should come up with answers on questions raised on the deal. If he does so, it does not lead to a loss of face. The face that has been given to him is by the support of the Indian people and not by George Bush or the American administration. There will be a loss of face if he disregards the opinion of the Indian people and sense of the House.

What about voting along with the BJP on a resolution?

No, we have made it clear that we are not voting with the BJP.

If the Left withdraws support and the government becomes a minority the BJP will ask it to prove its majority?

When did we say that we are withdrawing support? We are opposed to the deal and if they go ahead with it we will re-define our support. Our support is taken for granted. They should understand that they cannot take it for granted.

Do you see a realignment of political forces on this nuclear issue?

I don't see the BJP in that. It is the party that started all this. But yes, I will tell the parties that only because of their anti-Congressism they should not fall into the trap of the BJP or join hands with it. I hope they won't because they are anti-communal as well.

Should there be a debate on issues like land acquisition by various governments for SEZs and on opening the retail sector to private and foreign companies?

Yes, we definitely think that there should be a proper debate on these issues. We have said it repeatedly that it was a mistake to pass the Act to acquire land for SEZs. We have demanded that either they do away with it or put a cap on the number of SEZs and also on the amount of land that could be allotted. What kind of a cap is this when this land can be up to 5,000 or 10,000 hectares? On the matter of retail trade, what is this government doing? What is its priority? We see international companies like Wal-Mart coming into retail by holding Bharti Mittal's hand. I am happy that Mayawati has at least said that she will not allow these retails in Lucknow and Varanasi since they are creating a law and order problem. It is not only that it involves the lives of millions of people and their livelihood. I only hope Mayawati will be consistent in her policy on retail.