'PM provoked Left by calling Atal Bhishm'

THE DEAL MAKER: The PM is the Government as far as the nuclear deal is concerned, says Bardhan.

          

Other stories in the section:

20 kids trapped inside school for over a week

The school principal fears the food shortage could trigger a food war.

• MNS can't hold people to ransom, court warns Raj

• CBI to SC: Assam MP Subba has fake birth certificate

Featured Blog

Rajdeep Sardesai

Bhiwani to Beijing: Lessons from a journey

Featured Slideshows

Related Headlines

powered by

• 'Honeymoon over, we're ready to seek divorce (with UPA)'
• No love left between Left, UPA: Bardhan
• UPA govt would not fall if Left withdraws support: CPI

Keywords: UPA, Left

How determined is the Left to oppose the Indo-US nuclear deal? Karan Thapar explores that key issue with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India, A B Bardhan.

Karan Thapar: Mr Bardhan, in your letter to the Prime Minister of India on Friday – ‘If the Government goes ahead with the nuclear deal, we will be left with no other option than to withdraw support to the Government’ – do you mean that or is it just bluster?

A B Bardhan: We mean it. We don’t indulge in bluff and bluster, you see. I don’t think that is good politics. And the Prime Minister knows it. In that letter I have said, ‘You are fully aware of our stand and even then you are going on.’

Karan Thapar: I’ll take up the question whether it is bluff or bluster in a moment’s time. But first of all, this is a marked shift in the Left’s position. In November, you gave the Government permission to go to the IAEA on condition that they consult you after the negotiations before even initialing them. But now, before they can even do that, you changed your mind and said, ‘Don’t go forward at all!’

A B Bardhan: They no longer talk about that. They’re going ahead. They call Atal Behari Vajpayee ‘Bhishm Pitamah’. You see, it is a deliberate attempt to get him on this side, to make it a bi-partisan issue. He is appealing to him, ‘you support the deal.’

Karan Thapar: You’re saying that the Prime Minister’s actions provoked you to change your mind?

A B Bardhan: Provoked, yes. Number one, his statements – I mentioned it – and secondly, a whole series of high US officials are coming here and everyone goes on pressurising, black-mailing – “you won’t get a better deal”, “this is the time”, “time is of the essence”, “hurry up!” and all that sort of things. What does this mean?

Karan Thapar: So now your decision is you no longer care about what sort of safeguards the Government has negotiated. You’re determined to stop the deal willy-nilly.

A B Bardhan: Anyway, that was our stand even earlier. But anyway, what the safeguards agreement is, what they have negotiated, they have just now informed us on the 17th that they will tell us about it. Whether they will show the text they have arrived at, or just give us a resumé of what talks took place, I do not know. So, let us see, on the 17th we will meet.

Karan Thapar: But the point is it is no longer “let us see”. You see, you are not now saying, “We’ll see the text”, or “We’ll find out about the negotiations and then judge and determine our next step”; you’ve already decided you don’t want this deal.

A B Bardhan: No, that we’ve decided long back because…

Karan Thapar: So then what was the point of going to the IAEA if you had already decided you’re not going to let the deal happen? Why embarrass India, why embarrass the Government by going to the IAEA?

A B Bardhan: There is no embarrassment. In fact, the Government said, “If you don’t even allow us to go to the IAEA, the world will think ‘what sort of a Government is this?’”

Karan Thapar: But now, after letting them go to the IAEA, the world will say that even more because now the Government has got an acceptable safeguard, backing out at this stage is embarrassing for India.

A B Bardhan: Tell me one thing, why did it take so much of time?

Karan Thapar: Because they wanted the best deal. Because negotiations take time.

A B Bardhan: Deal and the negotiation took place long back. I am talking of safeguards.

Karan Thapar: Absolutely. They wanted the best negotiations for the safeguards, it took them a little time. Now they’ve achieved the result they are happy with, you are embarrassing them.

A B Bardhan: No, no, the result is that they are trying to get in the IAEA safeguards certain things which they did not get in the deal. And I think it’s trying to do something by the wrong way. We had told them that IAEA is only a monitoring agency.

Karan Thapar: Let’s accept that what you’re saying is correct that they’re trying to get through the IAEA what they haven’t got through the deal. The Government will dispute that but let’s, for argument’s sake, accept it. If they’d succeeded, they should be applauded. Why are you, instead, using that as a ground for negating everything?

A B Bardhan: For three months they are talking to IAEA…

Karan Thapar: But so what? Time is not the factor.

A B Bardhan: To me it is not. Since we are not in favour of the deal, let the time flow.

Karan Thapar: But don’t you see? When you permitted them to go to the IAEA, it was clearly stated that you would judge the outcome of the meeting. Now, you’re no longer concerned because you’ve already announced they can’t go forward. So not only have you now changed your position, you have embarrassed the Government, the country.

A B Bardhan: You are forgetting that they were pushing ahead, they were declaring their intention to push ahead, regardless of what they are negotiating with the IAEA about which they told us.

Karan Thapar: You are coming back to the point you made that the Prime Minister’s statements in Parliament regarding Vajpayee, the Prime Minister’s talks with American officials and statements…

A B Bardhan: And their officials continued to –

Karan Thapar: In other words, you’re holding the Government hostage because of the Prime Minister’s rhetoric or because what American senators are telling. Is that wise?

A B Bardhan: The Prime Minister is the Government, if I may say so, as far as the deal is concerned.

Karan Thapar: So a stray statement of rhetoric on the floor of the House means you hold the whole country hostage to that?

A B Bardhan: You mean what the Prime Minister said in the House was a stray statement? I don’t think so. And I also don’t think that talking about Atal Behari Vajpayee as the Bhishm Pitamah of Indian politics is also not a stray statement.

Karan Thapar: Why is it such a terrible thing? Why should it have provoked you in this way?

A B Bardhan: Series of statements! In fact, I began the letter by saying “A series of statements made by you and by American officials…”

Karan Thapar: But you specifically referred in your letter to the Bhisham Pitamah comparison. Why is it such a terrible thing for the Prime Minister to do? Why has it provoked you?

A B Bardhan: Because he is trying to get the deal through with the help of the BJP.

Karan Thapar: But that is good politics.

A B Bardhan: No, but I told him, “If you are also talking about a consensus, you are forgetting that there was no consensus in Parliament.”

Karan Thapar: But if he can now achieve it by appealing to Vajpayee, why penalise him for that?

A B Bardhan: Oh, Vajpayee? You see, this Bhishm Pitamah in Mahabharat is a very venerable figure, a grandfather-like figure, he stood helpless when Draupadi was disrobed.

Karan Thapar: But many people believe it’s an apt comparison, many people believe that Atal Behari Vajpayee deserved the credit. In fact, they said the Government should have given it earlier. Now, why are you using this as an excuse to change your position and embarrass the Government, embarrass the country?

A B Bardhan: I only reminded him that the Bhishm Pitamah of the Mahabharat stood watching while the biggest insult to womanhood that can be there, a woman being disrobed…

Karan Thapar: You didn’t say that in your letter

A B Bardhan: I’ve not said it, but I said that this is what will happen.

Karan Thapar: Let’s come out of the Bhishm Pitamah, let’s come back to the core issue. Are you now saying that regardless of how good the safeguards the Government has negotiated with the IAEA may be, you are determined not to let the process go further?

A B Bardhan: You see, because our complaint was not about the IAEA – we have no problems with the IAEA. We have no problems with the safeguards. After all, if you go ahead with nuclear energy then there have got to be safeguards, there has got to be the IAEA. IAEA is very much in the picture.

Karan Thapar: You just don’t want the deal itself.

A B Bardhan: You have come to the core issue.

Karan Thapar: In which case you were simply fooling the Government when you let them go to the IAEA. You have raised false hopes knowing you were going to dash them anyway.

A B Bardhan: No hopes were raised. Mr Pranab Mukherjee, for instance, is on record saying that, “We know what the Left’s position is”.

Karan Thapar: But whole country led by the Press and led by the Congress people speaking to the Press, but not perhaps in public, hoped, prayed, kept their fingers crossed, that one obstacle is over, the others would be overcome as well. You knew at that point that this was a fool’s paradise they were living in and you allowed them. Now I say to you that it’s embarrassed the Government, it’s embarrassed India, it’s going to make the country look foolish in the eyes of the world.

A B Bardhan: I don’t think it will look foolish. The country is very democratic that it has to listen to the voice of the people, that it has to take into account what the Parliamentary debate was, and that it has to also observe the coalition Government.

Karan Thapar: Tell me this, since you have already announced that you would withdraw support if the Government goes further, what’s the purpose of this meeting on Monday, the 17th? You know the outcome.

A B Bardhan: No, we will know exactly what took place in the IAEA.

Karan Thapar: Fine, but that is not going to change your opinion – you made that clear – so what’s the purpose of this meeting?

A B Bardhan: Anyway, we are a political party…

Karan Thapar: You got that much time to waste at all?

A B Bardhan: They’re in the business of governance, let us see what sort of a safeguard…

Karan Thapar: Let’s take that up – suppose they end up with a brilliant safeguards that are totally in India’s favour, you can never get them again, then what will you do?

A B Bardhan: You please remember that there is France, there is Russia, who are also negotiating with us, who have no high…

Karan Thapar: Please Mr Bardhan, none of them can actually do nuclear business with India without the IAEA safeguards, without the NSG waiver, those two are essential. But you are stopping that, you are stopping France, Russia, Britain, everyone!

A B Bardhan: You must have already noticed that the US senators have already declared that without us, there will be no waiver.

Karan Thapar: Can I put something to you? Since it is agreed and you accept it, that India can’t do nuclear business with France, Russia, China or Britain or anyone, without the IAEA safeguards and without the NSG clearance, why not let the process go all the way to the NSG clearance? Once the NSG clearance is done, the window to all these countries has been opened. And at that point, stop the Government from signing the 1-2-3 with America. It’s only American then that will be affected, the rest of NSG would have been opened. Why not do that? It would be more in India’s interests.

A B Bardhan: No, you are forgetting that the whole Government is moving on the basis of the Indo-US nuclear agreement. After all, they need not have moved on the basis of…

Karan Thapar: But once the NSG windows open, you secure the relationship with France and Russia and China, then you can say no to the deal with America.

A B Bardhan: You are suggesting a way which ab initio is wrong because the Government is going on the basis of the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Karan Thapar: Suppose the Government says to you what I am saying today that let this process carry on to the point of NSG waivers…

A B Bardhan: Okay, let the Government give a statement like that.

Karan Thapar: If it does, is there room in you to change that?

A B Bardhan: If it says that it is not going to accept the Hyde Act, that it is not going to accept the 1-2-3 agreement…

Karan Thapar: But let us go to the NSG.

A B Bardhan: Let us hear it. I will not answer your hypothetical question.

Karan Thapar: But you’re saying it clearly that there is room here for concession if they say this.

A B Bardhan: No, if they say that, what is our problem? If they say that we are not going ahead with the deal, we have no problem.

Karan Thapar: No, no, no, if they say let us go all the way to the NSG, at that point, you got the NSG clearance, you don’t have to sign with America, that’s what you’re prepared to consider, provided the Government says it – that’s the catch – provided the Government says it.

A B Bardhan: No, you’re forgetting that the Americans are insisting there will be a waiver only if you agree with the deal. That also has been made clear. And they have said that without the US.

Karan Thapar: The NSG clearance comes before India signs on the dotted line of the 1-2-3. Therefore I repeat, let it go all the way to the NSG, then throw the spanner in the works.

A B Bardhan: India has to sign nothing on the dotted line. After you see their NSG…

Karan Thapar: Don’t unravel what you said! You open the window, suddenly you realise what you’ve done, and then you’re trying to close the window.

A B Bardhan: I’m saying nothing. I’m saying that our problem is about the deal. Our problem is not about the safeguards.

Karan Thapar: And not about the NSG either.

A B Bardhan: And not about the NSG either, provided the NSG is not conditional, as it is today.

Karan Thapar: It is not, at the moment. NSG will be giving India, we hope, an unconditional waiver.

A B Bardhan: You are forgetting that no unconditional waiver will come unless the Americans support it.

Karan Thapar: Absolutely. And so you don’t have to reveal to America what you intend to do at the final stage at this stage.

A B Bardhan: Americans have made it clear, because it is they who will get the NSG waiver for us, not us, we are not in the NSG.

Karan Thapar: Wait a moment. Go all the way to the NSG clearance and then at that stage, not sign with America. At least, let us go that far! Don’t throw the spanner before you need to.

A B Bardhan: You are saying which as I said is ab initio absurd. After all, they will go to the NSG only on the basis of the deal.

Karan Thapar: Yes, but there is no reason why the Americans have to know the ultimate thinking of the Government this much in advance. Get the NSG window opened with the American team. Once you’re through to the NSG, you don’t have to go all the way with Congress in America.

A B Bardhan: It is a new lesson in politics.

Karan Thapar: It is a lesson in how you help yourself by being clever.

A B Bardhan: It is a new lesson in politics in diplomacy that you are suggesting.

Karan Thapar: Let us now take up your threat to withdraw support. The problem is that at least four times in the last four years, you personally have made such threats but not lived up to them. So how can you convince me that this time around it’s more serious?

A B Bardhan: No but you are forgetting one thing – what we said, the Government did not proceed ahead. We said if you proceed, we will have to withdraw support. They have not proceeded.

Karan Thapar: Let me quote some of the threats that you bandied at the Government and which you then forgot about very conveniently. In Chandigarh, in March 2005, “We support you only on the basis of the Common Minimum Programme. If you deviate, a situation will arise when we will say goodbye”. You accused them of deviating at least 20 times since 2005, but no bye-byes have been said.

A B Bardhan: That was not about the nuclear deal alone. That was about the Common Minimum Programme and the violation of the programme.

Karan Thapar: And you keep saying that they violate it everyday, you say, in fact, that they haven’t fulfilled it at all.

A B Bardhan: No, that will be one-sided. After all, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the right of tribals to the forest…

Karan Thapar: So you’ve suddenly found reasons for changing your position.

A B Bardhan: No, the Right to Information Act…

Karan Thapar: Can I quote to you what you said in April 2007? You said, “I feel a time will come very soon when the Left would introspect and review their support and part company.” The time will come very soon? We’re a year away! You haven’t parted company, you’re constantly making threats.

A B Bardhan: Nothing has happened.

Karan Thapar: Because you backed off every time!

A B Bardhan: They have not gone ahead.

Karan Thapar: Well, actually…

A B Bardhan: Even today I think that they are not going ahead.

Karan Thapar: Well, that’s another matter.

A B Bardhan: They may not go ahead.

Karan Thapar: ‘May not’, ‘will not’, let’s leave that for time to tell.

A B Bardhan: If they go, we will be there.

Karan Thapar: This is it – will you be there? Let’s take up specifically how the Left has behaved over the nuclear deal. When Hyde Act was passed by US Congress, you said immediately in December 2006, ‘don’t negotiate the 1-2-3!’ The Government did, you kept quiet, you accepted it. Then, when the 1-2-3 was negotiated, you immediately said, don’t go to the IAEA. They twisted your arm, you agreed, they went to the IAEA. Now they’ve come back from the IAEA, you’re saying don’t pursue the deal. I bet they’ll twist your arm again and I know you will find a way of letting them go.

A B Bardhan: Karan, are you devil’s advocate of the Government? I do not know exactly what you are, but let me tell you one thing. The Government has not gone ahead up till now. If it does, they will have to face the consequences. And Mr Pranab Mukherjee knows it well and therefore has said that a minority government may not be able to sign it.

Karan Thapar: Mr Mukherjee is only saying that to appease you and to reduce the temperature.

A B Bardhan: Whatever it is.

Karan Thapar: You know and I know that the Americans have made clear that leave aside the minority government, a caretaker government…

A B Bardhan: Exactly, and that is why I got provoked and I told the Prime Minister that these were suggestive statements he made.

Karan Thapar: It may be, but come back to what I am saying. You will call their bluff, but in the end, they’ll call yours because you threaten to withdraw support and then when you’ve done it three times…

A B Bardhan: Let us see, only time will tell who’s calling whose bluff.

Karan Thapar: Am saying to you that your behaviour on the deal is a bit like the big bad wolf’s in the children’s fairy story. You huff and you puff but you know you can’t blow the house down.

A B Bardhan: See, they are so afraid of the house falling that they are not going ahead.

Karan Thapar: Then tell me this, you are going to stick to your threat of withdrawing support, the critical question is this: Is withdrawal of support the same as bringing the Government down?

A B Bardhan: We withdraw our support, whether the Government is reduced to minority and continues or not, it is up to Parliament to see. Whether at that time the Government itself decides to dissolve Parliament and become a caretaker is also there. Actually, Richard Boucher has suggested to the Government…

Karan Thapar: Let’s first clarify the situation. You’re saying to me that if the Government goes ahead with the deal, you’ll withdraw support but you’re also saying that the Government could continue as a minority.

A B Bardhan: No, no, I’m not saying it could continue, I’m saying it would become a minority. If this minority government wants to sign a deal, let us see.

Karan Thapar: Will you, after you withdraw support, pass a vote of no-confidence against the Government?

A B Bardhan: That we will think of at that time.

Karan Thapar: That’s a clear of saying you’re not going to do it.

A B Bardhan: This is not conditional.

Karan Thapar: One more quick question – if after you withdraw support, the BJP moves a vote of no-confidence against the Government, will you vote against the Government or will you abstain?

A B Bardhan: I don’t think any such situation will arise if the Government becomes a minority, it will have to dissolve Parliament.

Karan Thapar: Not at all. Minority governments have continued – Narsimha Rao ruled for five years as a minority government, signed in the WTO as a minority government.

A B Bardhan: Minority governments have not gone ahead.

Karan Thapar: He signed in the WTO as a minority, that was even more important than what we are talking about.

A B Bardhan: WTO was signed by Pranab Mukherjee

Karan Thapar: Yes, but Narsimha Rao was the Prime Minister.

A B Bardhan: No, that time he wasn’t the…

Karan Thapar: Yes, he definitely was.

A B Bardhan: He started as a minority government, he wasn’t a minority.

Karan Thapar: He was in the minority all the way through.

A B Bardhan: He had managed but he…

Karan Thapar: Let me put something to you. You are making it very clear that there is a big difference between withdrawing support and bringing the Government down. You can make it a minority but the minority can continue for a whole year

A B Bardhan: There is a big difference as far as the Government, its conscience and its policy is concerned. And its willingness to sign a deal, even if it is a minority.

Karan Thapar: Conscience is a matter of morality…

A B Bardhan: The senior-most minister concerned directly with the deal has himself said that, “I do not think that a minority government can sign it.”

Karan Thapar: That was only for your ears, that was only for public appeasement.

A B Bardhan: What do you mean? The minister makes a statement only for my sake?

Karan Thapar: The bottomline I am taking away from this interview is that A B Bardhan will reduce this government to a minority but a minority can continue for a full year and that minority could sign the deal if it wants to. That’s the bottomline.

A B Bardhan: No sir, that will mean that this government has lost ethos, lost confidence, lost everything.

Karan Thapar: Yes, maybe, lost its morality but stays in power.