No Free Parking, Turn Right

Is the Left bending over on the nuke deal because of the nation-wide outrage on the CPM's nasty role in Nandigram?

Pranay Sharma Delhi

Some blame it on Nandigram; others give credit to sound reasoning. But after months of tough posturing, the Left parties have blinked. They have now decided to allow the government to go ahead with its negotiations on the 'framework agreement' with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — something they had refused to grant till a few days back.

Critics of the proposed Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, who fear that because of it India was willing to put itself firmly within the American strategic orbit in Asia, are disappointed. They had hoped that the Left parties' stiff opposition to the deal that included its firm 'no' even on the beginning of talks with the IAEA would succeed in scuttling the proposed nuclear agreement. Now they see their hope for such a possibility waning.

For obvious reasons it has brought jubilations among supporters of the deal. Many of them now predict that the government would have a free-run to sign the agreement with the US.

So what has brought about this apparent change of heart among the Left leaders?

It could be a combination of factors, starting from the deteriorating political situation in West Bengal's Nandigram. The CPM-led Left Front has been in power in the state for the last 30 years - a unique feat, given the fact that few political parties have survived beyond two-terms in office in other states. But that has also contributed heavily towards their arrogance and rigidity and as a result, alienated large number of people, including many of their former sympathisers, friends and allies.

This year in particular has been bad for the state government. It has been besieged with a series of protests and agitations directed against many of its decisions and policies. Be it on Singur, where it proposes to set up an automobile factory with the Tatas, the rampant corruption in the public distribution system, or the handling of religious minorities or party-sponsored clashes in Nandigram backed by the state government. Chief Minister Buddhadev Bhattacharya, has been under severe criticism from different sections of the citizenry of Bengal, including some who have been comrades-in-arms of veteran CPM leader, Jyoti Basu.

It would perhaps be an understatement to say that the Left parties' image, particularly that of the CPM, has taken a serious beating in West Bengal and across the country. Not that everyone in the CPM is happy with the methods adopted by the chief minister to deal with the situation in Bengal. But the leadership refuses to acknowledge this in public. They might be worried that 'one-step-backward' in this case might not necessarily lead to 'two-steps-forward'.  They need time to recover and they would like to ensure that the Congress at the Centre does not add fuel to the Bengal fire.

Some see this is as a possible quid-pro-quo. But it could not be the only one that brought a change in the Left parties' stand. The Left still maintains that they have only allowed the government to start negotiations with the IAEA but they would want to see the final draft before it is signed with the agency. However, if one looks at the 'sequencing' agreed between India and the US to make the nuclear deal operational, the Left's stand seems more like an attempt to find an honourable exit from a tight spot.

India would have to start negotiations with the IAEA secretariat on the 'framework agreement'. Once both sides are satisfied with its outcome and the draft is ready, it would be put before the board of governors of the agency. Even after they approve it, India would only have to 'lock-in' its position — meaning agreeing to the wordings and provisions in the agreement — but it would not have to sign it. That would come much later.

The second stage is for the draft of the IAEA to be placed before the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG). Once the NSG is satisfied with the framework agreement between India and the IAEA, it would then bring about changes in its existing guidelines to allow commerce between its members and India in the field of civilian nuclear energy.

It is perhaps at the NSG where India might have to cross the biggest hurdle. Though majority in the 45-member group are in favour of India, there are still some who could oppose any attempt to accommodate it. The Scandinavian countries and others like New Zealand, Canada and Ireland do not see any merit in giving allowances to India that had defied signing the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Countries like Brazil, though a signatory to the NPT, do not get the right to enrich its own uranium, and therefore, have a problem in allowing India to get it. Some like Germany and Australia are likely to shift their stand because of changes in the political alignment within their respective countries.

Indian diplomats would have to start the process almost from square one and use all their expertise and skills to convince these possible 'Nay-Sayers'. Indeed, things can be made easier at the NSG if the Americans decide to nudge the reluctant members a little in India's favour. The changes in the NSG and the draft framework agreement would then be shown to the US Congress to allow its members to pass the 123 agreement with an 'up-down' vote.

This means that members of the two Houses in the American Parliament would get an opportunity to say either yes or no to the proposed bill aimed at bringing an amendment to the US Atomic Energy Act to enable cooperation between US and India on civilian nuclear energy. It is only at this stage that India and the US would have to sign a formal agreement to allow the proposed cooperation between the two sides to take place. India would then have to sign the framework agreement with the IAEA.

It is this agreed chain-of-events that has made supporters of the nuclear deal hopeful as many of them feel that by April or before the middle of next year, the entire exercise could be completed. So the million dollar question is whether the Left parties would intervene yet again to stop this process.

It could be argued that by refraining from making any critical statement on Nandigram the Congress might not add to the discomfiture of the Left, especially the CPM. But it, it can't afford to have a limited role. The intelligentsia in Bengal and other parts of the country might not let the CPM and its partners off the hook so easily. The Nandigram issue could spark off a debate both within the CPM and among the Left Front allies about the possible alienation that they could face in the days to come.

Perhaps, developments in Nandigram have added to what was already being debated within Left circles on the nuclear deal. The argument that the deal would only bring India closer to the US at the cost of the others seemed much weakened in the face of Sonia Gandhi's visit to China, the prime minister's trip to Moscow for the Indo-Russian Summit and the forthcoming summit in New Delhi between India and the European Union.

Despite support from some sections to their opposition to the nuclear deal, the Left parties were unable to take the debate beyond the urban centres of the country. It was not an issue that caught the imagination of the masses in India. There were other important issues like loss of land and mass displacement, joblessness, rising prices of food items and lack of security for the poor that affected larger number of people. But apart from expressing 'token criticism', the ruling Left parties have not launched a countrywide protest on any of these issues or made a significant political or social difference.

Even among the urban voters, the nuclear debate remained relevant in only limited sections. Many of them had even started to doubt the Left's argument that signing the nuclear deal would mean a loss of sovereignty. If the Left were to withdraw support and force a mid-term election, there are no convincing indicators to show that they would be making any electoral gains in the future. On the contrary, they can end up being bigger losers than the Congress.

Surely sceptics would still not like to believe that the Left has changed its stand. They fear that if the Left's position in Bengal improves, it can reassess its stand. The outcome of the Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh assembly elections are crucial. If Narendra Modi wins in Gujarat, it would definitely rejuvenate a moribund BJP. If the Congress also loses Himachal, it would start feeling the pressure. Many of the UPA allies might then start having serious doubts: going with the Congress, will it still be a winning combination? If they think otherwise, they could start looking for a combination beyond the Congress. The Left could then play one of the key roles in that initiative.

A victory for Modi might even bring the Left closer to the Congress and make the bond between the two stronger. Neither of the two parties would like to see the BJP coming back to power. But if Modi manages to scrape through in Gujarat and the Congress manages to improve its tally in the state significantly and also wins Himachal, then it could be a different scenario. The Left would then have to deal with a much more confident Congress and accept a position where the former calls the shots. The Left parties might then find it difficult to re-open their opposition to the nuclear deal.