Should the N-deal be seen as anti-Muslim?

IT'S A BIG DEAL: The Left and the UPA government are meeting to discuss the nuclear deal.

      

Featured Blog

Rajdeep Sardesai

Television, for politicians with a vision

Featured Slideshows

Related Headlines

powered by

• BJP at odds with Kalam over Indo-US nuclear deal
• LIve Webcast: Yashwant Sinha on Devil's Advocate
• What is the Indo-US nuclear deal?

Keywords: Face The Nation, Indo-us Nuclear Deal

A day ahead of the crucial meeting between the Left and the UPA Government, CPM politburo member and trade union leader M K Pandhe claimed Muslims are against the Indo-US nuclear deal. CPM leader Prakash Karat attended Shia rally in Uttar Pradesh to protest against India's vote against Iran at the IAEA as well as George Bush's visit to India. Analysts say the Left must not bring religious sentiments into foreign policy issues.

So should the Indo-US nuclear deal be seen as anti-Muslim? CNN-IBN raised that question on its show Face the Nation.

On the panel to discuss the issue were Senior Journalist Saeed Naqvi; Vice President, Delhi Science Forum, Prabir Purkayastha; and Former Diplomat G Parthasarathy.

Sagarika Ghose, who moderated the show, initiated the discussion by asking whether M K Pandhe’s statement was highly communal.

Prabir Purkayastha replied that no nationalist section in the country, which opposes US imperialism, is in favour of the nuclear deal. “I don’t think it should be perceived as a communist issue at all,” he said.

Saeed Naqvi agreed with Purkayastha and said that we shouldn’t make a mountain out of mole. “Media and our leadership is completely in out of touch with the people. It is a national and not a communal issue,” he asserted. “If one leader somewhere made a statement I would like it to be ratified by the politburo.”

Indo-US deal or American Imperialism?

We have seen CPM leaders share stage with Mulayam Singh Yadav in protesting India’s vote against Iran in the IAEA. We have seen them participate in anti-Bush rallies and have witnessed the manner in which they made out this foreign policy initiative into an issue of American imperialism against the Muslim world.

G Parthasarathy said that it is unfortunate when leaders of an avowedly atheist party attend congregations of Shiite clerics and talk Muslim vote bank. Talking about the Indo-US nuclear deal he underscored the implications of how it meant India being under sanctions from 45 countries.

“It doesn’t do India any good, he said and added, “We would have loved it if the Russians or the French could have moved the sanctions but both the countries wanted us to get the sanction from US. We went to US out of compulsion.”

“I hope the nuclear deal issue gets back to a level where we discuss whether it’s good for 45 countries to have sanctions on India?” he asked.

Purkayastha, however, said that most technical sanctions with Parthasarthy talked about would stay place. “Only the sanctions on the supply of nuclear fuel and reactors will be lifted. So what we are really talking about is technology sanctions, which will not be lifted through Indo-US nuclear deal,” he said.

He highlighted US imperialism is not necessarily anti-Americanism. “US imperialism is something their government does when it invades Iraq.”

Naqvi, however, differed in opinion saying that India shouldn’t be concerned about George Bush’s foreign policies. He said, “Our diplomacy should be expanded in talking to Obama or McCain because that is the future.

India and Iran

The Left often points out that India’s relation with Iran will be damaged if the India goes ahead with the nuclear deal. But is Iran even a friend of India?

‘Iranians are a practical people,” Parthasarthy responded. “They act according to their national interest. The recently signed $ 20 billion LNG contract with India and unilaterally cancelled it. And on Kashmir, whether it’s in the UN Human Rights Council or elsewhere, they have always supported the Hurriyat Conference and condemned India. They did not support India’s candidature for non-permanent seat against Japan in 1995. So they do what they think works out best for them. They cooperate with India only on issues beneficial for them.”

Parthasarthy reiterated that as far as the Indo-US nuclear deal is concerned, it is not in India’s interest have sanctions imposed on us by 45 countries with regard to nuclear energy.

He, however, added that the strongest opponents of the deal are China and Pakistan, so, certainly, the deal can’t be all that bad. “BJP says the deal’s affecting their nuclear weapons programme yet Pakistan’s Nuclear Command Authority says their programme gets strengthened by it. So you see the deal can not be all that bad.”

Parthasarthy added that the deal comes with a caveat: “The deal is in Indian’s national interests, but the implementation, especially with regards to purchases from US, should be exercised with care and caution.”

So why does the Left keep broaching the American imperialism in west Asia card when Iran is not necessarily even a friend of India?

“Issue is not India’s friendship with Iran,” Purkayastha defended. “Issue is simple that India gets its oil and gas west Asia. The crude oil price is $140 per barrel because of the Iraq war. The point is we need peace in west Asia,” he reasoned.

Parthasarthy, however, didn’t agree with that argument. “It does the Indo-US deal affect the peace in west Asia?” he said.

Naqvi said, “I have a feeling that the Indo-US deal has not been marketed properly. I don’t think many people know all the pros and cons of this deal. I feel it’s a good deal badly marketed not only by us but also by the Americans.”

Final SMS/Web poll results: Should the Indo-US nuclear deal be seen as anti-Muslim?

Yes: 18 per cent

No: 82 per cent