'It's tough to reconcile with the government'

Q&A/ Debabrat Biswas

Time should not be a problem for the UPA-Left panel on the nuclear deal, Debabrat Biswas, general secretary, All India Forward Block, tells Aditi Phadnis and Saubhadra Chatterji

The UPA-Left committee on nuclear deal will have its first meeting on Tuesday. What are you expecting from it?

I can't say. We will meet for the first time. I think we will sort out the modalities of how to proceed. One thing is clear "" we don't have a time-table for the talks. I don't know what the government is thinking but we want detailed discussions. Time should not be a problem.

The government has been talking to the four Left parties for a long time. Haven't you had enough time to sort out the differences?

Well, there still are issues to be resolved. The bilateral 123 agreement on civil nuclear energy has been signed between India and the US. The next three steps the government says will be: Getting India-specific safeguards from the IAEA; talks with the NSG; and ratification of the treaty by the US Congress. The government says it is in no hurry to get through these steps.

It seems you are not in a hurry to see the committee conclude its deliberations.

The 123 agreement is a vital one. If we had signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the US Congress wouldn't have passed the Hyde Act. We were champions of the anti-NPT movement. Many nations looked upon us to fight for this cause. Now, we are imposing conditions on ourselves. The government says these conditions of the Hyde Act are not binding on the US or us. But, as we see it, there are clear do's and don'ts. Moreover, the US president has to give annual certificates about India's foreign policy. What the US wants from India is clear from the Hyde Act, which mentions Iran by name. This government has already started to oblige the US. It voted against Iran twice. We could have abstained during the IAEA voting on Iran, but didn't. Thus, it's clear that the Hyde Act is applicable to India. Another area is the prime minister's assurance of uninterrupted fuel supply. But the Hyde Act makes it clear that in case of termination, not only will the US stop the supplies but also prevent other countries from giving fuel to India. These are the two main concerns for us.

But the Hyde Act was passed more than a year ago.

At the time it was passed, 123 had not been concluded. Now it impinges directly on India's interests.

The Hyde Act represents the concerns of a constituency that has certain political beliefs. But the American society is changing. The Hispanics are a powerful influence on lawmakers. Americans of Indian origin are a significant pressure group. And George Bush won't remain in power forever. So shouldn't India try to influence US' domestic politics, which shapes its foreign policy?

It doesn't matter if Democrats or Republicans are in power. There is a bipartisan agreement in the US on foreign policy issues. Look at the history of the last 30 years.

You took part in jathas against the Naval exercises. India and China will have their first joint Army exercise later this year. India has been holding joint military exercises with Russia. So your objection is to the US, not military exercises per se.

We have never approved of exercises of this type. What is the intention of these multilateral exercises? Who are we targeting? What can India, Australia, Japan and the US have in common in this Naval adventure? I fail to understand. The government is spending crores of rupees on futile war games. The US wants to set up their centre in this part of Asia. Their intention is to set up another Diego Garcia in the Andamans. Since they can't do it, they want to use India as their agent.

Russia wants to build four nuclear reactors in Kudankulam. They are also supporting India in the NSG so that the Indo-US nuclear agreement can be operationalised. What do you have to say about that?

Russia is encircled by NATO forces. The US is the US. You can't compare it with any other country. In 1971, if there had been no USSR, the Seventh Fleet wouldn't have returned from the Bay of Bengal.

So nuclear cooperation with Russia is fine, but not with the US?

The US is engaging our country in an arms race. The US wants us to serve its interest. Russia is not saying that. Do we need to be obligated to the US because it is giving us nuclear technology? We need good neighbours for our defence, security and economic prosperity. But this government's policy is threatening the neighbours, creating problems in South Asia. I visited Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and everywhere I saw a fear that India may swallow them. The US will sell arms to us. Then it sell another set of arms to Pakistan.

But some of these arms will be used to fight terror imported into India by many of the countries you've just mentioned.

Where are we going to use the bulk of it? In the sub-continent, obviously. Another thing I fail to understand is this craving for nuclear power. Yes, power is important. But this will only add up to 7 per cent of our total power requirement.

Hydro-electric power is cheaper and more eco-friendly. It serves multiple purposes. The government, in a mad rush for nuclear power, has neglected hydro-electricity as a source of power. I will give you an example. In my state of West Bengal, the Teesta Barrage project is awaiting full implementation since the 2nd Five-Year Plan.

But Russia is also giving us technology for nuclear power. No one has objected to that on grounds that it is not eco-friendly. Are you opposed to nuclear technology or to nuclear technology that comes from the US?

Yes. Your argument is correct. We are not against technology but we are averse to dumping of technology. Nowadays, most modern reactors are available with France and Germany. But the government wants to buy from the US

After a few months, India will conduct joint Naval exercise with Russia. Shall we see you on the streets again?

(Laughs) About the US, we have serious objections. It is not only nuclear power or Naval exercises. We are becoming subordinates to Washington.

So the difference is political and ideological.

There is a political difference. Two divergent perceptions exist. The government is talking about the Hyde Act. We are concerned about the larger US gameplan. We have formed this committee and will sit for talks, but it's difficult to reconcile with the government on all these issues.