Solidarity with Burmese people's struggle

[Statement issued from the meeting of the politbureau of the CPI(M) in Kolkata]

The Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) extends its support to the people of Burma (Myanmar) who have been struggling for long for the restoration of democracy. The mass protests in the past ten days are an expression of the deep desire of the people for a democratic system and a better life.

The CPI(M) condemns the repression unleashed by the military government on the peaceful protest marches.

The CPI(M) appeals to all the democratic forces in India to stand by the people of Burma in their heroic struggle.

The Central government should utilize all political and diplomatic channels to impress upon the military government to cease repression and to initiate talks for a democratic transition.

Take Concrete Steps to Implement Sachar Committee Recommendations

[Press Release issued by Brinda Karat, member of the CPI(M) Politbureau and Md. Salim, convener of the CPI(M)'s committee on minorities]

The communal and divisive approach adopted by the BJP and the Sangh Parivar on the Sachar Committee recommendations is highly condemnable. The Sachar Report has blown the myth of minority appeasement by presenting scientifically collated evidence, which shows that minority communities, especially Muslims, face deprivation and discrimination in myriad forms. Despite this, the BJP continues to shamelessly level the minority appeasement charge and is seeking to destabilize social harmony by opposing the implementation of the Sachar Committee recommendations. CPI (M) strongly condemns this attempt to prevent social justice and affirmative action for the minorities. We call upon the UPA Government to initiate urgent and concrete steps to implement the Sachar Committee recommendations.

It is unfortunate that the "Follow-up Action on the Recommendations of the Sachar Committee" placed in Parliament on 31st August 2007 by the Minister of Minority Affairs, falls far short of the requirements. Neither have any time frame been set for the implementation of the programmes announced in the 'follow-up action' nor any indication of specific financial allocations to implement the programmes. Moreover, there are serious omissions in the 'follow-up action'. For instance, there is no mention of steps being taken to ensure justice to victims of communal violence. Important steps like land reforms and distribution of land and house sites to the landless and homeless within minorities and setting up of a special mechanism for monitoring the inclusion of OBC Muslims in the State wise OBC lists and OBC reserved quotas also find no mention. The Government has also not responded to the demand for extending reservation to dalit Muslims and dalit Christians made by the CPI (M) as well as other parties and organizations. The recommendations of the Ranganath Mishra Commission set up to examine the question of reservation for dalits within the Muslim and Christian communities have not been made public.

This approach belies the UPA Government's commitment to ensure justice for the minorities. Between the BJP's vicious anti-minority campaign and the UPA Government's tokenism, the Sachar Committee recommendations are getting jettisoned. A closer look at two crucial areas, namely education and access to credit, exposes the lack of political will displayed so far by the UPA Government in implementing the recommendations of the Sachar Committee.

Education

Why has the Government totally ignored the Action Plan prepared by the High-level Committee under MOS HRD Shri M.A.A. Fatmi on matters concerning education contained in the Sachar Committee recommendations?

• This high-level committee submitted its proposed action plan on 31st January 2007. The action plan included, among other things, launching a focussed literacy campaigns in the Minority Concentration Districts (MCDs), building Jana Shikshan Sansthans (adult education and vocational training institutes) in all MCDs, building one Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) in each of the Minority Concentrated Blocks and expanding the modernization scheme for Madarsas.
• Specific financial requirements for implementing the action plan during the Eleventh Five Year Plan was also suggested by the high-level committee, totaling Rs. 5434.40 crores (See Annex A). However, these recommendations made in January 2007 were ignored in Budget 2007-08, which was the first Budget of the Eleventh Plan.
• For example, whereas the financial requirement for Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas was stated as Rs. 230 crores for the Plan period, no allocations were made for KGBVs in Budget 2007-08. Similarly, the additional allocation of Rs. 1500 crores required for the focussed literacy campaign and Jana Shikshan Sansthans in MCDs for the Plan period was ignored. The total outlay for literacy and adult education was increased in Budget 2007-08 only by around Rs. 163 crore over last year, the allocation for MCDs being a fraction of the amount. Shockingly, as against the additional requirement of Rs. 625 crores for the Madarsa modernization programme cited by the high-level committee, the allocation in Budget 2007-08 was increased by only Rs. 4.50 crore over last year. These meagre allocations show that the Government has been unwilling to follow the action plan drawn up by its own high-level committee on education.

Why is the Government dragging its feet in giving scholarships to students from minority communities, even after announcing it in the Budget?

• In Budget 2006-07 the Finance Minister announced: "Merit-cum-means based scholarships encourage students to pursue higher studies. Government will finance 20,000 such scholarships to students belonging to the minority communities. Once the scheme is finalized in 2006-07, I intend to allocate the necessary funds." This promise was not implemented by the Government. In reply to Rajya Sabha question # 4197 dated 14th May 2007, the Minority Affairs Minister said that the budget announcement had not been implemented (See Annex B).
• It was further announced by the Finance Minister in Budget 2007-08: "Three scholarship programmes are being implemented for students belonging to minority communities. I propose to make the following allocations: Pre-matric scholarships Rs.72 crore, Post-matric scholarships Rs.90 crore, Merit-cum-Means scholarships at graduate and post-graduate levels Rs.48.60 crore." The 'follow-up action' of the Minority Affairs Minister, tabled six months after the Budget was placed, states that the 20,000 Merit-cum-Means "has been approved" and the pre-matric and post-matric scholarship scheme "will be introduced shortly". Once again, no financial allocation has been mentioned in this regard. It is clear that after reneging on the budget commitment of providing scholarships to students belonging to minority communities made last year, the Government is once again dragging its feet in implementing the promise made in this year's budget.

Access to Credit

Why is the commitment made by the Prime Minister to ensure 15% of priority sector lending for minority communities being ignored by other arms of the Government?

• Since a very large section of the Muslim community is self-employed, ensuring access to credit at low rates of interest is vital to improving their conditions of livelihood. Loans to minority communities as a percentage of total priority sector loans had decreased from 9.62 % in March 2002 to 9.35 % in March 2006. In keeping with the recommendation of the Sachar Committee, the Prime Minister's 15 point programme for the welfare of the minorities, which was approved by the Cabinet in June 2006, state: "It will be ensured that an appropriate percentage of the priority sector lending in all categories is targeted for the minority communities."
• There has been a lot of resistance to specifying the 'appropriate' percentage of priority sector loans to be targeted for the minority communities. Between July and December 2006, as many as eight letters were written to the Finance Minister from the PMO and the Minority Affairs Ministry, on the need to set a target of 15% of priority sector loans for minorities (See Annex C), but no instructions were issued by the Finance Ministry in this regard. It was only in January 2007, that the Finance Minister admitted that a 15 % target has indeed been set by the Government. The 'follow-up action' of the Minority Affairs Ministry, however, dilutes that commitment when it states: "Efforts will be made for stepping up priority sector lending to minorities from the present level to 15% over a period of three years."
• Whether the Government would meet even this diluted commitment is unclear. One day before the Minority Affairs Minister tabled the 'follow-up action' in Parliament, the Reserve Bank of India released its Annual Report, 2006-07. A relevant section of the report states: "With a view to according priority to the most needy, a special drive has been initiated by the Regional Offices of the Reserve Bank for 100 per cent financial inclusion in the districts with maximum concentration of SCs, STs and minorities. For this purpose, the Regional Offices have been advised to use a list of 121 minority concentrated districts forwarded by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India together with Census/other data on SCs/STs and minorities. The Reserve Bank has so far identified eight such districts (four in Maharashtra, three in Tamilnadu and one in Haryana) for 100 per cent financial inclusion." (See Annex D)
• The 'follow-up action' of the Minority Affairs Minister mentions 90 Minority Concentration Districts (MCDs). While the RBI Annual Report cites a list of 121 MCDs prepared by the Finance Ministry, the basis for its identifying only 8 districts out of that 121 is not at all clear. Nor is their any mention of the target of 15 % of priority sector loans to minority communities in the RBI Annual Report.

On the question of ensuring justice for the victims of communal riots, the record of the UPA Government is extremely disappointing. The Central Government did not accept the demand for a CBI inquiry into the major cases of killings during the Gujarat riots of 2002. The culprits of Babri Masjid demolition are yet to be punished. Moreover, the Congress led Government in Maharashtra continues to defy the nationwide demand for action on the Srikrishna Commission Report on the Bombay riots that named the political leaders and police officials who had led and connived in the killing of over 800 Muslims. The Sachar Committee had observed: "The lackadaisical attitude of the government and the political mileage sought whenever communal riots occur has been very painful for the Community.The governmental inaction in bringing to book the perpetrators of communal violence has been a sore point." The UPA Government has so far not been able to bring any improvement in the situation.

Following an All India Convention held in Delhi in March 2007, the CPI (M) had submitted a Charter for the Advancement of the Muslim Community to the Prime Minister. A key demand in the Charter was to make a sub-plan for the minorities on the lines of the tribal sub-plan and the special component plan for the SCs. The Left Front Government in West Bengal has already made such a sub-plan for minorities, which was announced in the State Budget 2007-08. Unfortunately, the UPA Government has not accepted this demand so far. The CPI (M) is of the view that without a dedicated sub-plan for minorities along with allocation of adequate resources, the recommendations of the Sachar Committee cannot be implemented in a holistic manner.

On The Sethusamudram Case

[Press statement issued by the politbureau of the CPI(M)]

The Government of India has taken an appropriate decision to withdraw certain paragraphs in the affidavit filed by the Archaeological Survey of India in the Supreme Court in the Sethusamudram case that were considered extraneous to the matter at hand.

That said, it must be reiterated that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that a manmade structure, the Adams bridge (or the Ram Setu) exists in the Palk Straits. What exists are natural formations.

As far as the project itself is concerned it is the BJP government under Shri Vajpayee's leadership which had sanctioned the project in the first place. To oppose it now on religious grounds is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the BJP. Its efforts to play up the "Ram Setu" issue is nothing but bankrupt communal politics which once again confirms that the BJP has no constructive agenda to offer.

Reject EGOM Recommendation on Gas Pricing

[Press statement issued by the politbureau of the CPI(M)]

Inspite of serious objections raised in and outside Parliament as well as the opposition from the Power and Fertilizer Ministries, the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGOM) has reportedly permitted RIL to fix a highly inflated Gas price of 4.2 dollar/unit from KG Basin, which is a token reduction from the original price of 4.33 dollar/unit claimed by the company. Such a high price would severely affect the viability of the consumer industries like power and fertilizer which in turn would hit the common man specially the farming community because of escalation in cost of power and fertilizer.

RIL formulation for gas price agreed by EGOM is based on the linkage with international price of crude oil and not with the actual cost of producing gas in the country. There is absolutely no justification for such linkage which is being made only to find a route to artificially inflate the price for windfall gain of the private company.

We reiterate that the gas price should be based on the actual cost of production and reasonable profit on the same. The pricing can not be left to the so called market forces based on import parity only to encourage super profit to the investors, who have been given contract under Production Sharing Contract (PSC). By virtue of Article 297 of the Constitution of India, Petroleum in its natural state is vested in the Union of India. Obviously, RIL is  just a contractor selling Gas, owned by Union of India. Article 39 (b) of the Constitution directs the State that the ownership and control of material resource of the community are so distributed as based to sub-serve the common good. The inflated gas price is not sub-serving the common good because of the arbitrary nature of pricing and its adverse impact on price of power and fertilizer.

Shockingly the Government has also weakened the genuine case of the Government-owned unit, NTPC, which is fighting a legal battle in the High Court of Mumbai against RIL, which was obligated to supply gas from KG Basin at rational price of 2.34 dollar/unit as per International Competitive Bidding in 2004.

The recommendation of the EGOM, should be rejected in public interest.

Non-notification of Forest Bill

[A copy of the letter written by the CPI(M) General Secretary, Prakash Karat, to the Prime Minister expressing concern over the delay in notification of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2006.]

Dr. Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister
Government of India
New Delhi

Dear Shri Manmohan Singhji,

This is to draw your urgent attention to the delay in notification of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights ) Bill 2006. The Bill was passed in both Houses of Parliament in December 2006. The Committee for Drafting Rules was formed in March 2007 and submitted the Draft Rules in May 2007. These were put up on the website for public comment on June 19th, 2007. The last date decided by the Ministry was July 31, 2007. It was expected that the Rules would be finalized and the Act notified. However more than 6 weeks later this has not been done.

The announcement of the Act without its notification has led to a serious situation for tribals in many areas. Forest officials who have been responsible for denial of tribal rights have taken advantage of the delay between the Act and its notification to evict tribals from many areas. Land cultivated by tribals for decades is being dug up for plantations by the forest department in some states in an obvious attempt to preempt the recognition of the tribal rights on that land. At the same time there are reports of connivance between land mafia and officials to take illegal possession of land. This is a most untenable situation.

The delay is inexplicable. I request you to urgently intervene on this issue so as to ensure that an important achievement of the UPA Government is not weakened or even subverted by the non-notification of the Act.

Yours sincerely
Sd/
(Prakash Karat)
General Secretary

An open letter to all MPs

[Issued by the Central Committee of the CPI(M) on 8th September, 2007]

Dear Member of Parliament,

The Indo-U.S. bilateral agreement on nuclear cooperation has raised a number of issues which are of vital importance to the nation. Through this open letter we wish to place before you the considered views of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

Ever since the Joint Statement issued in July 2005 during the Prime Minister's visit to Washington in which the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement was announced, there has been a debate in the country about the merits of such an agreement. Political parties, nuclear scientists, the media and concerned citizens have been expressing their views. Parliament has also discussed the agreement at various stages.  However, the current debate is crucial as the bilateral text has been finalised and the Government is planning to take the next steps to operationalise the agreement.

It is our contention that the nuclear cooperation agreement should not be seen in isolation from the overall context of India-US strategic relations, its impact on our foreign policy and our strategic autonomy. Further, the nuclear cooperation agreement must be seen in the context of our energy security, access to technology and the development of the three stage nuclear programme.

The bilateral "123" agreement has also to be seen also in the light of the assurances given by the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament on 17 August 2007.

The Left parties have asked the Government not to proceed with the next steps to be taken to operationalise the agreement.

Implications of the Hyde Act

Members of Parliament will recall that in August 2006, there was a debate on the draft law being discussed by the US Senate and the House of Representatives to amend the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to give exemption for the proposed  nuclear cooperation agreement  with India.  The two draft legislations before the House of Representatives and the Senate contain many provisions which were detrimental to India's interests.

The Prime Minister  had given certain categorical assurances on the points raised regarding this draft legislation.  The nine points which the Left parties had raised were covered by the Prime Minister's statement.   However, subsequent to that, the Hyde Act (Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act" was adopted by the US Congress in December 2006.

Many of the provisions of the Hyde Act go contrary to the assurances given by the Prime Minister in August 2006.  What are these?

• Under the terms set out by the Hyde Act, it is clear that the Indo-US nuclear cooperation would not cover the entire nuclear fuel cycle.   It denies cooperation or access in any form whatsoever to fuel enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production technologies.
• The denial extends to transfer of dual use technology and covers items which could be used in fuel enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities.  Thus, dual use restrictions remain on technology transfers to India.  Hyde Act section 102 (13) states, "The US should not seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of  nuclear exports to India by any other party if such exports are terminated under US law".
• Section 103 (a)(6) of the Hyde Act says US policy shall be "Seek to prevent the transfer to a country (India, in this case) nuclear equipment, materials or technology from other participating governments in the NSG or from any other source if nuclear transfers to that country (India, in this case) are suspended or terminated pursuant to this title (Hyde Act), the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or any other US law".

The Act concerns itself with areas outside nuclear cooperation and contains objectionable clauses to get India to accept the strategic goals of the United States.  These issues are:

• Annual certification and reporting to the US Congress by the President on a variety of foreign policy issues such as India's foreign policy being "congruent to that of the United States" and specifically India joining US efforts to isolate and put sanctions against Iran [Section 104g(2) E(i)]
• Indian participation and formal declaration of support for the US' highly controversial Proliferation Security Initiative including the illegal policy of interdiction of vessels in international waters [Section 104g(2) K]
• India conforming to various bilateral/multilateral agreements to which India is not currently a signatory such as the US' Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group etc  [Section 104c E,F,G]

It is on the basis of the Hyde Act that the United States has negotiated the bilateral "123" agreement with India.  Some of the harmful provisions of the Hyde Act are reflected in the bilateral agreement.

• The bilateral agreement, while superficially using the original wording of the joint statement of 2005, "full civilian nuclear cooperation" actually denies cooperation or access in any form whatsoever to fuel enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production technologies. The statement of intent in the agreement that a suitable amendment to enable this access may be considered in the future has little or no operative value.
• Further, this denial (made explicit in Art 5.2 of the agreement) also extends to transfers of dual-use items that could be used in enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities, again a stipulation of the Hyde Act. Under these terms, a wide range of sanctions on a host of technologies would continue, falling well short of "full civilian nuclear co-operation".
• It is also important to recognise that the fast breeder reactors under this agreement would be treated as a part of the fuel cycle and any technology required for this would also come under the dual use technology sanctions. This would be true even if future fast breeder reactors were put in the civilian sector and under safeguards. Thus, India's attempt to build a three-phase, self-reliant nuclear power program powered ultimately by thorium would have to be developed under conditions of isolation and existing technology sanctions.
• Another key assurance that had been given by the Prime Minister was that India would accept safeguards in perpetuity only in exchange for the guarantee of uninterrupted fuel supply. While the acceptance on India's part of safeguards in perpetuity has been spelt out, the linkage of such safeguards with fuel supply in perpetuity remains unclear.

The assurance that the United States would enable India to build a strategic fuel reserve to guard against disruption of supplies for a duration covering the lifetime of the nuclear reactors in operation appears to have been accepted in the agreement. However, whether the fuel supply will continue even after cessation or termination of the agreement depends solely on the US Congress. The Hyde Act explicitly states that the US will work with other Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) countries to stop all fuel and other supplies to India if the agreement is terminated under US laws. Since this agreement explicitly incorporates domestic laws, it appears that fuel supply from the US will not only cease in case the US decides to terminate the Agreement but they are also required under the Hyde Act to work with NSG to bar all future supplies. The clause 5.6 on disruption of supplies therefore seems to be limited to "market failures" and not to cover a disruption that takes place under the clauses of the Hyde Act. In such an eventuality, the US will have to pay compensation to India but all future fuel supplies would stop. Therefore, the 123 agreement represents the acceptance of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity for uncertain fuel supplies and continuing nuclear isolation with respect to a substantial amount of technological know-how.

The Hyde Act and Supremacy of National Law

The government has asserted that the Hyde Act is not binding on India.  The relevant issue is that it is binding on the United States and this has been repeatedly stressed by US spokespersons.

Article 2 (1) of the 123 Agreement states, "The parties shall cooperate in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this agreement. Each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".

If the argument is that the reference to national laws is simply the case of binding towards the law, that will have a bearing on the conduct of different transactions under the 123 agreement, then what do we make of the  reference to national laws in other places in the 123 agreement?

Thus, for instance, Article 5 (6) (a) in part states  that "As part of its implementation of the July 18, 2005, joint statement the United States is committed to seeking agreement from the US Congress to amend its domestic laws.to create the necessary conditions for India to obtain full access to the international fuel market...".  Article 5(6) (b) (i) states that "The United States is willing to incorporate assurances regarding fuel supply in the bilateral US-India agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear energy under Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act,  which would be submitted to the US Congress".  These clauses show that the need for conformity with "national laws" is not superfluous. If there is no direct reference to the Hyde Act in the 123 agreement, it is simply because and this is worth reiterating that the Hyde Act is the `Act to exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement for cooperation with India.

Nuclear Power and Energy Security

It is said that the Indo-US nuclear deal is central to our future electricity and energy requirements.  At present, nuclear power generation capacity in India stands at  4,120 MW which is a little less than 3 per cent of our installed capacity of all power plants.  One reason has been the nuclear isolation imposed on us resulted in the slow development of our civilian nuclear energy programme. However our scientists overcoming many hurdles did very well in indigenising the Pressurised Water Reactors, and then developing it further to 540 MW. The next stage is the fast breeder reactors, in which the Indian scientists are leading the world. The planned three stage nuclear programme would depend largely on technologies based on fast breeder reactors, and in the future, thorium as fuel. This programme requires far less uranium and lower dependence. Instead, the imported reactor route would focus much more on Light Water Reactors, which require much more uranium and are more expensive. Thus even the technology being offered will not necessarily be the best choice for India.  Significantly, the mainstay of our nuclear power program - the fast breeder reactors - will still be under technology sanctions, as they would be considered a part of the fuel cycle.

The other reason is the techno-economics of nuclear power and its relatively high cost.  Nuclear power plants are about 50% per cent more expensive, even when using domestic technology and equipment.  If imported reactors for nuclear power are considered, the situation becomes worse: it will cost about three times as much to set up nuclear plants with imported reactors than coal based ones. It will also cost twice as much per unit - Rs. 5.10-5.50 as against Rs. 2.50 from coal fired plants.

According to the Planning Commission's study, the most optimistic scenario of nuclear power is 15,000 MW by 2015 and 29,000 MW by 2021.  These targets includes 8,000 MW of imported reactors.   Even then, nuclear energy will only add up to about 7 per cent of our total installed capacity.

Going ahead with such an ambitious power programme dependant on imports will come at a high cost and will dry up investments in other sectors. Interestingly enough, nuclear power is not the energy of choice for most advanced countries. The US itself has commissioned its last reactor in 1996! Members of Parliament may recall the fiasco of Enron and its Dabhol power plants.

Implications for Foreign Policy and Strategic Autonomy

The United States does not see the nuclear cooperation agreement as a stand-alone. It is part of American design to try in India a wide ranging strategic alliance which will adversely affect the pursuit of an independent foreign policy and our strategic autonomy.  The facts speak for themselves.

• Two weeks prior to the joint statement which announced the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement, India signed a ten-year Defence Framework Agreement with the United States in June 2005.  This is being cited by the Bush administration as India's commitment to cooperate with the United States furthering its strategic interests in Asia.
• Two months after the nuclear cooperation agreement was announced in September 2005, India voted against Iran in the  International Atomic Energy Agency, contrary to its stance earlier that Iran, as an NPT signatory, has every right to develop its nuclear technology for civilian purposes.
• This was followed by a second vote against Iran in February on the eve of President Bush's visit to India.
• Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary of State, in his "On record briefing" after the finalisation of the 123 agreement said on July 27: "And I think now that we have consummated the civil nuclear trade between us, if we look down the road in the future, we're going to see far greater defence cooperation between the United State and India: training; exercises; we hope, defence sales of American military technology to the Indian armed forces."  The United States is exercising tremendous pressure on India to buy a whole range of weaponry including the 126 fighter planes, radar,  helicopters, artillery etc. worth multi-billion dollars.

Is the nuclear cooperation agreement going to bind India with the United States in a relationship which goes contrary to our cherished goals of national sovereignty and independent foreign policy and an economic development based on the priorities of our people?

The objections and the apprehensions raised by the Left parties and other parties, organisations and concerned scientists and citizens need to be examined before proceeding further.  All we are asking the government to do is not to rush through with the next steps which are necessary to operationalise the deal.

We hope that you, as a Member of Parliament, which is the sovereign representative institution of the Indian people, will seriously consider these issues on this vital matter affecting our country's future.

CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST)

CPI(M) condemns the import of wheat at high prices

[Press statement issued by the politbureau of the CPI(M) on 5th September, 2007]

The Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) condemns the decision of the UPA Government to import nearly 8 lakh tonnes of wheat at Rs. 1,600 per quintal.

When the production of wheat increased by 6 million tonnes to nearly 75 million tones this year, there was absolutely no justification for such an import. It will only benefit the MNCs in European countries who have got a lucrative price.

When the peasants' organizations demanded remunerative prices for wheat procurement, the UPA Government fixed only Rs. 850 per quintal though the market price was higher. As a result, the FCI failed to procure sufficient quantity of wheat while private traders could purchase huge quantity and store them in their godowns, creating an artificial scarcity in the country.

Instead of taking stringent actions against unscrupulous traders, the UPA Government resorted to the route of import, which only helped the private traders to make ill-gotten money by boosting the domestic price of wheat.

The Polit Bureau, therefore, while demanding an end to the policy of import of wheat, urges upon the Government to unearth the stock of wheat cornered by the traders and increase the supply of wheat through the PDS. This alone will give relief to the people in the country.

On Gas Pricing

[Press statement issued by the politbureau of the CPI(M)]

The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) calls upon the government not to allow an unfair price for the gas produced from the Krishna Godavari basin. The Reliance Industries Ltd., has proposed US $ 4.33 per MMBTU which is designed to ensure windfall profits for the private contractor for exploiting natural resources of the country.

The present price formulation made by RIL in 2007 is in no way consistent with the price of US$2.34 quoted by the same RIL in 2004 for supplying gas from the same KG Basin in 2004 to NTPC through a international competitive bidding. Even if the price quoted in 2004 through competitive bidding is indexed to the present, it can no way allow an 85% hike as the RIL has done while fixing the price at US$ 4.33 mmbtu. The RIL proposition on gas price is thus an artificially inflated one and should be rejected.

Moreover, the RIL formulation for gas price is based on the linkage with the international price of crude oil and not with the cost of producing gas that is wholly a domestic product. Our Party has been consistently taking a stand against such import-parity proposition in respect of indigenously produced  petroleum products.  There is absolutely no justification for such linkage which is being made only to find a route to artificially inflate the price.

Allowing the private contractor to fix the gas price at such a high level would severely affect the viability of the industries like power and fertilizers who want to switch over to gas as a cheaper and cleaner fuel and it will also affect the common people in a big way. Gas being a natural resource and a national property as well, It should not be left to market forces for determining prices.

The Polit Bureau strongly urges the Empowered Group of Ministers constituted to look into the pricing of domestically produced gas and the UPA government to decide on a price that is based on actual production costs plus reasonable profit.

No Strategic Partnership With America

The Nuclear Deal is a part of a much larger program in which India is to become a partner in the US's strategic vision. This is what Condoleezza Rice before the US Congress "India is a natural partner for the United States . The initiative, first and foremost, will deepen that strategic partnership. The United States and India are laying the foundation for cooperation on major issues in the region and beyond." Therefore this deal should be seen as a part of Manmohan Singh Government's attempt to integrate India more closely with the US.

In foreign policy, one of the major steps was signing of the 10-year defence pact "New Framework for India-US Defence Relationship" in Washington on June 28, 2005, just before the Manmohan Singh-Bush Agreement of July 18, 2005, thus extending the "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership" signed earlier in 2001 by the BJP-led NDA. This agreement states, "US-India defence relationship derives from a common belief in freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, and seeks to advance shared security interests". The US invaded illegally Iraq under the bogus claim of bringing democracy to West Asia; India's entering into this agreement, which talks about a shared belief in "democracy and rule of law" with the US, was a good indication of where India's foreign policy was going.

The Defence Framework Agreement is sweeping in its scope, and ties India closely to the US through joint military exercises, joint planning, joint operations in other countries and defence procurement. This defence pact specifically states that India and the US will "conclude defence transactions, not solely as ends in and of themselves, but as a means to. reinforce our strategic partnership."

The Manmohan Singh Bush agreement was followed immediately by India's volte-face on Iran in the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), on two occasions. These moves against Iran at the IAEA, to which India became a party, set the stage for imposing immediate sanctions and later, an armed attack on Iran. Bush officials have now made public that India succumbed to the US pressure in IAEA. US Senator Richard G. Lugar in his opening remarks in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had noted, approvingly, "We have already seen strategic benefits from our improving relationship with India. India's votes at the IAEA on the Iran issue last September and this past February demonstrate that New Delhi is able and willing to adjust its traditional foreign policies and play a constructive role on international issues." Manmohan Singh's claims that India's foreign policy would not change due to this Deal, is not borne out by his Governments' record.

The next step, and the most serious of all, is the Logistics and Service Agreement, which the Manmohan Singh Government is currently negotiating with the US. This is widely known as the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA), which the US already has with several countries, mostly the NATO nations. This initiative seeks to convert India into an Asian outpost of NATO. It essentially allows refuelling and complete access facilities to all US ships and aircraft. Put simply, the US navy can bomb Iraq and Iran and then come to India's ports for rest, recreation and refuelling, before going back for another round of hostilities. Step by step, from a vote against Iran, we are now to become hosts to the US navy in its military misadventures in West Asia and elsewhere. The Logistics and Service Agreement as well as the Defence Framework, has also requirements of "interoperability" between the Indian and US armed forces. This calls for both sides to have the same equipment so that military personnel of both sides can use each other's equipment and operate better together. This also means spares can be shared by the two sides. That is why such agreements invariably lead to buying of US arms, particularly expensive aircraft and missiles. Billions of dollars of US fighter aircrafts like F-16 and F/A-18A and missiles would be sold to India following this agreement.

If this were not enough, we have also become willing partners to the US in a de facto alliance in Asia. Nothing else can explain why Indian navy should join in the naval exercises of trilateral countries - the US, Japan and Australia in the Bay of Bengal. It seems that the plan is to gradually expand the trilateral countries to include India and become the quartet. It is known that the US strategic thinking calls for "full spectrum" dominance in all possible theatres. In Asia, the US has been handicapped because in the entire Eastern, South-Eastern and South Asian region, it has only one major military base - in Okinawa, Japan. The only other base it has in this region is in the Indian Ocean, in Diego Garcia. Getting India to join the US designs in Asia is therefore a major breakthrough for the US. The question is what benefit does India get in becoming a part of this US vision? Is this in the interest of India's independent foreign policy?

Indian Military Acquisitions from the US

While the India-US nuclear deal is yet to be clinched, the US has already managed to use the promised deal to secure several valuable defence contracts and to position itself well on future Indian orders. And for the first time since independence, a process of Americanization of the Indian military has begun.

According to defence ministry projections, India is expected to acquire about US $ 30 billion (Rs.135,000 crore) of military equipment during the 11th Plan period 2007-2012, making India the largest arms purchaser in the developing world. Since the 1960s, this huge market had been closed to US defence contractors, initially because of US antagonism to India's friendly ties with the Soviet Union and later due to formal sanctions imposed by the US in response to India's nuclear test of 1974 and the weapons test in 1998. These sanctions were lifted in 2001 when the Indo-US defence partnership was initiated. After decades, therefore, US defence firms are drooling at the prospect of multi-billion dollar contracts in India. And this at a time when the US military-industrial complex is concerned at a possible slowdown in US defence purchases.

The first major sale of US military hardware to India has been the refurbished warship, the USS Trenton renamed INS Jalashwa or "water horse," and is India's second largest naval combat vessel. The ship has been acquired for around $ 480  million ( Rs.2,160 crores). The other large transaction has been the acquisition of 6 US-made Hercules C-130 J military transport aircraft with an option for buying an additional 6. This $1 billion deal (Rs.4,500 crore) is India's largest with the US. Again, the transporters mark a shift from the traditional Soviet/Russian-origin transport fleet used by the Indian defence forces. The Hercules C-130J's are heavily armed, come with advanced avionics and electronic counter-measures and are to be used to air-lift special forces modelled after the US special forces used for offensive and usually covert operations far from home. This "convergence" is an integral part of the growing strategic partnership between India and the US who see the very real possibility of joint operations.

There have been other US arms sales as well although not of the same scale, such as 12 Weapon Locating Radars from US arms manufacturer Raytheon at a cost of $200 million. Discussions are underway by Lockheed Martin of the US to sell India 8 P3-C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft at a cost of US$ 650 million, with a sweetener of 16 multi-mission MH-60R Sikorsky helicopters costing about $400 million. And Raytheon is eagerly awaiting an order for its Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile systems.

The big one everyone is closely watching is the estimated $ 10 billion (Rs.45,000 crore) deal for 126 multi-role combat aircraft for which India is expected to float global tenders very soon. US manufacturers Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are lobbying very hard to sell their F/A-18 and F-16 fighters, even though these aircraft do not really fit the IAF's requirements, using the nuclear deal as bait. "123=126" is the slogan going around in the US.

The US is of course playing its cards carefully, holding back cutting-edge technologies and weapons systems until it has India firmly in its strategic bag. Thus, the US has not yet cleared the Patriot sales, or sale of the more advanced Arrow missile defence systems, and is offering only the P3-C Orions, which it has also sold to Pakistan rather than the more advanced E2 Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft.

On its part, India has also been approaching the American armaments industry through US ally Israel both directly and indirectly, since many Israeli systems have either been jointly developed along with US companies or depend on US components and technologies in different ways. In the past decade or so, coinciding with the opening up of India to the US in defence matters, Israel has emerged as a front-runner among India's arms suppliers. India is today Israel's biggest arms export market, having purchased $1.5 billion ( Rs.6,700 crore) worth or military hardware from Israel during 2002-06 out of worldwide Israeli arms sales of $2.76 billion! The Indian order in 2004 for 3 Phalcon Airborne Early-Warning (AEW) radars mounted on Russian Ilyushin Il-76 planes is Israel's biggest contract so far at $1.1 billion. India has also bought the Israeli Green Pine radar system but is awaiting a US green signal on the US-Israeli Arrow system. India has also acquired a variety of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) from Israel and the Barak anti-ship missiles (which notoriously figured in the Tehelka expose during the NDA regime).

Speaking of Baraks, it is not mere coincidence that recently appointed Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak (who shares the name meaning "lightning" with the missile!) is soon to visit Delhi. He is seeking to close a deal for co-development with India of unmanned helicopter gunships, a technology jointly researched by Israel and the US, the deal clearly having been cleared by Washington. The proposal follows quickly after $2.5billion long-range surface-to-air missile (LRSAM) joint venture project between Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and concerned Indian entities for use by the Indian Navy.

In all these developments, what is clear is that US and Israeli companies are beginning to exercise enormous influence on India currently massive defence purchases. Although the US entered the race very late, its companies are openly being spoken of by French and Russian rivals as front-runners for the huge fighter deal due to the pressures of the nuclear deal. India had almost finalized a long-delayed $600 million contract with the European consortium Eurocopter for supply of 197 light helicopters when the entire purchase appears to have been suddenly put on hold due to US pressure in favour of US manufacturer Bell.  In May this year, US administration officials and Bell executives are said to have met with India's Ambassador in Washington, Ronen Sen, to express their reservations about the deal going to Eurocopter and their voices seem to have been heard. It is no wonder that Russia, India's long-standing military hardware supplier, is upset at this increasingly visible trend of purchasing only from Israel and the US.

The point is not that India should not diversify its arms purchases or should not purchase from this or that source. But it is becoming painfully obvious that India is increasingly shifting its acquisitions towards the US and its Israeli proxy. Once it is tied into the US and Israeli arms, India will be continuously under pressure to behave or risk losing its military capability. The danger of importing all its arms purchase so narrowly is not only to lose self-reliance in manufacture but also to be open to blackmail and therefore its independence in foreign policy.

The obsession with a strategic partnership with the US is driven by a belief that the US will "help" India become a "superpower". This distorted 'great power' ambition of the Indian policy makers is based on an acceptance of US hegemony and an abandoning of the long cherished goals of Non-Alignment. While these may be the dreams of a small section benefiting from current neo-liberal globalisation, it does not reflect a foreign policy vision that is in the interests of the overwhelming majority of Indian people.

A Brief Overview of "123" Agreement

The Nuclear Deal started with the Bush-Manmohan Singh joint statement of July 18, 2005. For the US, the nuclear deal was the bait with which to get India into the US strategic net. For the Manmohan Singh Government, the nuclear deal was the cover under which India could enter a strategic partnership with the US. The 123 Agreement is the one, which makes the deal operational, the "123" name coming from the section 123 of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, which governs all civilian cooperation agreements with the US.

The premise of the Deal was that India would be allowed to break out of its nuclear isolation following the 1974 Pokhran I and 1998 Pokhran II tests. In order to allow the US to enter into nuclear trade with India as per the Deal, the US Congress had to adopt enabling legislation amending the sanctions earlier imposed. Putting together drafts of the two Houses, the US Congress finally passed the Hyde Act in December, 2006.

Question:  What were some of these key assurances that the Prime Minister gave in the statement to the Parliament?

The PM made two statements to the Indian Parliament, one soon after the Bush- Manmohan Singh joint statement and the other, in response to mounting criticism in India to US pressures and opacity in the negotiations, after the finalisation of the separation plan of civilian and military nuclear facilities prior to the above legislative process in the US Congress. The PM had assured Parliament that:

1. India would have access to full civilian nuclear technology and lifting of all technology sanctions
2. No annual certification of good conduct by the US President would be required as was being proposed in the draft Bills before the US Congress
3. Any linkage with India's independent foreign policy would be unacceptable
4. Life-time supply of nuclear fuel would be assured

Question: How does the Hyde Act go against these assurances and guarantees given in the Prime Minister's statement?

Once the Hyde Act was passed, it became clear that a number of these assurances were not going to be met or would be met only partially. The Hyde Act made nuclear trade with India conditional upon the US President ensuring, and annually certifying, that India's foreign policy was in line with US interests, that it would work closely with the US to isolate or even sanction Iran, that it would formally declare support to the controversial Proliferation Security Initiative including interdiction in international waters. It denied India access to technology for enrichment, reprocessing and for heavy water. It also made clear that if the Deal were terminated, not only would US fuel supplies stop, the US would also work with other suppliers to ensure full stoppage of supplies to India. India had bitter experience of such policies when the US had stopped fuel supplies to the Tarapur reactor after Pokhran-I and had not allowed India to either reprocess or send back the spent fuel. The Hyde Act provision therefore meant that India's nuclear power program would be hostage to the US continued goodwill.

Those supporting the deal have argued that these sections in the Act are non-binding and therefore India need not care about them. However, what is being deliberately overlooked is the annual certification clause, by which the US President will give a "good conduct certificate" to the US Congress India in living up to the Hyde Act. In case such a certificate is not forthcoming or if the Congress is not satisfied with the US President's certificate, the US can terminate the 123 Agreement. The deeper we are in a nuclear co-operation agreement with large investments made on imported nuclear reactors and fuel, more the potential for blackmail.

Question: Will the '123 agreement' help the Government to maintain the assurances given earlier and recover the ground lost with the passage of the Hyde Act?

The PM had earlier said that through this deal, we would secure full co-operation on civilian nuclear technology including the complete fuel cycle. It has now been conceded that fuel cycle technologies will remain under sanctions, as will other so-called "dual-use" technologies, meaning that India can be denied any advanced technology under the pretext that it can have military application as well. Therefore, a major portion of the technology sanctions regime in place for several decades now would remain even after this Deal. Incidentally, the Fast Breeder Reactors will also be regarded as engaging in reprocessing operations and therefore come under sanctions, even if we put them under safeguards.

According to the PM, India has secured a lifetime fuel security guarantee in the Agreement and claims that the relevant clause ensures that the US will intercede with other countries to help India get over any disruption in supplies. Several experts have pointed out that this clause is applicable only when disruption of supplies has been caused for other reasons than termination of the agreement by the US. Clearly, in case of termination, the Hyde Act provision that the US will work with others to deny India fuel supplies would become applicable.

The other serious problem in the agreement is the termination clause itself. The provision for consultation in case of termination is only cosmetic and has no force. The clause is wide-ranging and the US can terminate the contract under any number of pretexts such as an adverse report in the President's annual certification on India's foreign policy. Upon termination, the agreement calls for return of all materials and equipment supplied earlier. Some compensation payments are called for but India will face huge dislocation in power generation. The omnibus nature of the termination clause allows the US to use the Congress or the Presidential annual certification to threaten India's nuclear energy programme, the very raison d'etre for the Agreement! The more the investment in nuclear energy based on imported fuel and reactors, the bigger the threat.

The Government is now saying that that the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) would give India better terms and therefore we have no cause for worry either for technology or for future fuel requirements. If this indeed happens, US suppliers of reactors and equipment would find themselves at a disadvantage in the Indian market. It defies belief that the US would steer India's case at the NSG, which works by consensus, against its own commercial interests!

Question: Why have the Left parties asked the UPA Government not to go forward on further negotiations on the India-US nuclear deal?

A number of experts and commentators had pointed out the problems with the Hyde Act. The CPI(M) had asked the Government not to go ahead with 123 negotiations without first resolving these issues. Even though the Government does not have a majority in the Parliament on this issue, it decided to go ahead with its own agenda on the nuclear deal.

The negotiations for the 123 Agreement were held in great secrecy and the text released only a week after it had been finalised. In spite of a number of questions that have been raised on the relationship between the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement, the Government wants to go ahead with the deal. The Left Parties cannot accept that a minority government goes ahead with such a divisive agreement without resolving all contentious issues and taking Parliament into confidence.

The requisite next steps are discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for working out India-specific safeguards for civilian reactors and facilities, discussions with the NSG and finally the passing of the 123 Agreement by the US Congress only after which it would become "operational". However, if we need to review and take stock of the 123 Agreement, we need to do it now. Once we go into negotiations with multilateral bodies, it would be impossible for India to change those agreements. Therefore, any re-consideration of the 123 Agreement and the impact of the Hyde Act must be done here and now, before proceeding any further. This is why the Left has asked the Government not to go ahead with any further negotiations till all these issues are addressed.

Don't Proceed With the Nuclear Deal

The CPI(M) and the Left parties have strongly opposed the Indo-US nuclear deal and asked the UPA Government not to proceed further. The Prime Minister has stated that George Bush is the greatest friend of India and he has helped India in this deal. In his own country George Bush is regarded as the most unpopular President and has the lowest public ratings. So how come a man who is not friendly to his own people has suddenly become India's best friend?  The truth is quite the opposite.

This deal has little to do with the interests of India or the Indian people.

It is not a stand-alone agreement like a train compartment standing separately on a platform, but part of a wider strategic alliance to make India the outpost of American interests in Asia.

Other agreements with the US have also been reached by the Government on defence, on agriculture, on industry, which will have wide reaching negative implications on the lives of the Indian people. Already the foreign policy of the Government is under pressure because of the strategic alliance with America

The Common Minimum Programme

When the CPI(M) and the Left parties supported the UPA Government we made it clear that the support was on the basis of a common minimum programme. Nowhere does the Common Minimum Programme mention a strategic alliance with America in fact one of the important points in the programme was that of "an independent foreign policy." Now the UPA Government wants the Left to support it to implement the BJP Government's pro-American policy. This is a clear departure from the Common Minimum Programme and is unacceptable.

Parliamentary Majority

India  is the largest democracy in the world. Yet as far as the nuclear deal is concerned the view of an Indian Member of Parliament on a matter concerning India has less value than the vote of an American MP on the same issue. The majority of Indian parliament is against the deal but the Government refuses to accept this. On the other hand, the two Houses of the American Parliament have not only discussed the agreement but have also passed a new law called the Hyde Act to bind every US President in the US Governments relations with India. Thus by refusing to accept the majority view of the Indian parliament, the Government of India sends a message which is harmful for Indian democracy.

The Hyde Act

For the first time in Independent India's history the Government of India has signed a deal which is subordinate to the law of another country, that is the Hyde Act. In September 2006, the Prime Minister in response to the concerns expressed by the Left gave nine categorical assurances about the guarantees on the deal. But in December 2006 the US Parliament passed a new law governing its relations with India called the Hyde Act which is final and binding. Thus the Prime Minister's assurances have been bulldozed by the American law.

Like a teacher reports whether a student has failed or passed, India's foreign policy will be assessed every year by the American President and an annual report card will be given to the American Parliament whether India has passed the test of behaving as a good friend to their interests. If India for example opposes the war in Iraq or opposes America's threats to Iran or anywhere else in the world, it will get a black mark Can any sovereign country with a minimum of self respect ever accept such a condition?

The American law also specifies certain conditions for the nuclear deal itself which are against India's interests.

• America will not give India the technology it needs
• America will not guarantee permanent fuel supplies
• America can terminate the agreement whenever it wants and for whatever reason it wants
• America will take back all its reactors and fuel if it terminates the agreement
• America will ensure that other countries also  do not supply fuel to India just like it did earlier

Energy Needs

It is claimed by the Prime Minister that the deal will help bring electricity to every Indian household! If one third of India's villages are still in darkness it is because of the utter failure of Governments to spend money on the power sector and to go in for privatization of the power sector. Prices of electricity have been soaring and one of the reason for farmers debts leading to suicides are the high rates of electricity. Nuclear power will cost much much more. Today electricity produced by coal costs 2.50 per unit at the plant end. Nuclear power with imported reactors will cost more than double the amount between 5.10 and 5.50 rupees per unit at the plant end which will be much higher by the time it reaches the consumer. Can a farmer or a middle class employee afford to pay such high prices? Who will gain?  The nuclear reactor industry in America is in deep crisis. Very few countries are buying their plants. In America itself not a single nuclear plant has been set up since 1996! The Government says it has no money to expand the power sector. But it is prepared to pay lakhs of crores of rupees to the American nuclear industry to get their plants installed in India for electricity that ordinary people can never afford! Clearly the benefit from nuclear commerce will be the US companies. Everyone in India remembers the notorious Enron deal. The price of electricity this US company demanded was Rs. 7 or more per unit. The Maharashtra Electricity Board which was running with a profit till then became bankrupt because of Enron. It will be much worse with nuclear energy. At present nuclear energy meets only 3 per cent of India's needs, which is met largely by coal based or hydro plants. In the next twenty years even according to Government calculations of how much electricity will be generated if this deal comes through, it will still be only 7 per cent of India's needs. Is it in the national interest to spend so much for so little?

Alternative sources

While India should certainly develop its nuclear sector as one of the many sources to meet its energy requirements, it is equally important to ensure access to sources of oil and gas. More investment is required to explore India's own potential oil and gas reserves. At the same time countries in West and Central Asia are the major centres for oil and gas. It is essential for India to strengthen its traditional ties with these countries so as to have access to their oil and gas supplies but this is precisely what the US does not want.

America bombs Iraq, threatens Iran and wants us to support it.

Is this in the national interest?

Impact on Foreign Policy

Because of the nuclear deal American pressure on India was clearly seen in the shameful way that India changed its stand and voted with America against Iran in the IAEA, not once but twice unlike other third world countries of the non-aligned movement. Now if India spends lakhs of crores of rupees getting the reactors from America and becoming dependent on America for its nuclear fuel needs it will be much more vulnerable to US pressure and blackmail.

New Military Ally of the US

India is also being drawn into a military alliance with the US through a defence agreement which was signed in June 2005. This agreement means:

• The agreement for the first time accepts joint operations with India and US in third countries. Till now any Indian operations were under the UN.
• There will be regular joint exercises of the two armies, navies and air forces so that they can operate and work together.
• It ensures the purchase of US weapons and co-production in India to help the US armament industry which is set to make billions of dollars after this agreement.
• The new Logistics and Service Agreement which is being currently negotiated means Indian naval and air bases used by American armed ships and planes can come to India for refuelling and maintenance. Thus for example, US planes which bombed Iraq and killed thousands of innocents can under this agreement expect India's cooperation to refuel on India's soil and go right back to bombing.

From joint exercises with the US it has been extended to joint exercises with US allies. Thus we are becoming a close military ally of the US like Japan and Australia.  That is why there will be war games in the Bay of Bengal between the navies of these countries and India. The CPI(M) and the Left parties strongly oppose this military alliance with America.

Sacrificing Farmers Interests

The Prime Minister had signed an agreement in 2005 with America that will harm farmers interests. Once the nuclear deal is through America will push for the implementation of that agreement.

Under it a joint committee has already been set up which from the American side has representatives of the global looters Monsanto and Walmart.

These companies want to take over crucial markets like the seeds market and also agribusinesses in India.

Walmart is well known the world over for its rapacious trade practices which have destroyed crores and crores of small retail traders all over the world. In India over 5 crore families are dependant on retail trade. We have been opposing the entry of FDI in retail trade. But the Government has signed an agreement which has permitted a representative of the biggest destroyer of retail trade to come into India as a member of the board.

Monsanto a company which has made billions of dollars by snatching away the rights of farmers to seeds, has controlled the world market for highly expensive pesticides, wants the same rights in India.

This agreement will help the domination of multinational companies over Indian agriculture through patent and other rights on farm inputs as well as controlling the sale of products through the control of trade in agricultural commodities.

America has waged a war against Indian farmers in WTO and all international fora. For example cheap American cotton heavily subsidised by the American Government allowed into India has badly hit India's cotton farmers and is one reason for suicides of farmers.

There will be more suicides of this agreement is implemented.

Pushing anti people globalsation policies

A joint forum of representatives of Indian and US corporates has been set up with a mandate to "develop a strategic economic partnership" between the two countries. What is the partnership for? Certainly not to help the 77 per cent of India's working people who earn less than 20 rupees a day!

The forum has already come out with a first set of 30 recommendations of which 21 are demands of US industry to open up the Indian market. They want

• FDI in retail trade
• FDI in insurance
• FDI in education sector
• Opening up of financial sector

Shamefully, this forum has been given legal recognition by the Government of India

Once the nuclear deal is through, American companies will put pressure on Indian Government for their demands.

For the workers and employees of this country who have fought against inhuman neo-liberalism, the pushing through of the deal will lead to much harder times.

Stop Operationalisation of the deal

It is for all these reasons that the CPI(M) and the Left parties have demanded a halt to the next steps to operationalise the deal. The deal is more than just one nuclear deal. It is part of pushing through the US agenda in all fields of concern to our people, whether it is the sovereignty of India, the interests of common people, farmers, of workers and employees.

Because of our firm opposition to the deal there is a scurrilous campaign against the CPI(M) and the left. We know the US has powerful friends who are experts at spreading lies. The people of this country have a glorious tradition of defending the independence of the country and the rights of its common people. This time also on the 60th year of India's independence we have to unite to demand of this Government-Do Not Go Forward With A Deal Against Our Interests, Implement The Common Minimum Programme, Heed The Majority In Parliament.

No Mortgage of Indian Economy

The strategic alliance that the UPA Government is seeking to cement with the US has serious implications for the Indian economy and the well being of the Indian people. Since the NDA rule itself, economic relations with the US have moved far beyond normal economic ties in terms of trade and investment. There is an effort to closely integrate the Indian economy with that of the US, particularly in the financial sector, and allow US based MNCs to expand their sphere of influence in crucial sectors of the Indian economy like agriculture and retail trade. Indian big capital also seeks to attain its global ambitions in league with American big business. It is basically the interests of corporate India and not the aam admi, which lie at the heart of the Indo-US strategic alliance. The fact that the UPA Government has continued in the same direction as the BJP-led NDA in this regard is explained by the common pro-big business orientation shared by the BJP and the Congress.

Two significant steps in the economic sphere were announced in the Bush-Manmohan joint statement issued during the Bush visit to India in March 2006. A report of the US-India CEO Forum titled 'US-India Strategic Economic Partnership', which was released during the Bush visit, was welcomed in the joint statement 'agreeing to consider its recommendations'.  This Forum of CEOs of Indian and American companies, co-chaired by Ratan Tata and William Harrison of JP Morgan Chase, was formed during the visit of the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the US in July 2005 with "a mandate to develop a road map for increased partnership and cooperation between the two countries at a business level". Secondly, a US-India Agricultural Knowledge Initiative, which was announced during Manmohan Singh's US visit, was formally launched. The Board of the Agricultural Knowledge Initiative formed by the two countries, which included representatives of Monsanto and Wal-Mart from the US side and ITC from the Indian side besides bureaucrats and some academics, was to work towards supporting the 'Evergreen Revolution' based on 'market-oriented agriculture'. These two steps went much beyond partnership and cooperation between the Indian and the American businesses, and sought to rework entire policy frameworks governing almost all the major sectors of the Indian economy.

Among the major recommendations of the US-India CEO Forum was to initiate a dialogue on a US-India Free Trade Agreement, in order to further open up the Indian & US economies for freer trade in services and products. Which of the two sides would benefit more from such free trade can be easily understood from the other recommendations of the CEO Forum. Only 4 out of a total of 30 recommendations of the CEO Forum were meant to benefit the Indian side, including civilian nuclear cooperation with India, allowing access and transfer of dual-use technologies to India and liberalizing the US visa regime required for Indian service providers in IT (H1B/L1 visas) and healthcare (EB3 visa for nurses). The fine print of the Indo-US nuclear deal, which is an outcome of this strategic partnership between Indian and US big capital, has already made it clear that civilian nuclear cooperation with India can only happen under severely restrictive conditions and would be sustained only if Indian foreign policy is aligned to that of the US. As far as transfer of technology is concerned, full civilian nuclear cooperation has already been ruled out by the Hyde Act and the bar on transfer of dual-use technologies would remain. The promise of liberalizing visa restrictions in the US for Indian professionals, especially in the IT/ITES sector, has got caught up in the fierce debate over immigration in the US, with a substantial section of policymakers being of the opinion that workers in the US are losing out due to immigration of skilled workers from India. Therefore, the benefits supposed to accrue to Indians from the strategic partnership have remained by and large illusory.

The unequal nature of the strategic economic partnership between the American and Indian corporates can be gauged from the fact that 21 out of the 30 recommendations of the CEO Forum were exclusively meant for India, most of them in the form of demands for policy changes related to specific sectors of the Indian economy to the obvious benefits of the US corporates. This includes (i) liberalization of norms for Infrastructure investments, (ii) market-driven reforms in the Power and Oil & Gas sector, (iii) further liberalization of the Telecom sector and ensuring a 'level playing field' between the private and public sector telecom companies, (iv) raising the FDI cap in the Insurance sector, (iv) liberalization of norms for FDI in Banking, (v) liberalization of FDI norms in Retail Trade, (vi) removal of FDI caps in sectors such as print media, broadcasting, cable and satellite systems and e-commerce, (vi) liberalizing restrictions on FDI in the Real Estate and initiating urban reforms like removal of urban land ceiling, reducing stamp duty etc. (vii) liberalization of Defence Procurement norms (viii) liberalization of FDI in Higher Education and so on. These sets of recommendations, which almost read like a manifesto for the Americanization of the Indian economy, have since been earnestly pursued by the UPA Government. While the US side is constrained to oblige the Indian corporates' modest demands, the UPA Government has taken the demands made by the US big capital through the CEO Forum so seriously that it has often tended to override the NCMP in order to implement them.

The US-India CEO Forum had also called for a 'harmonization' of legislations related to Intellectual Property Protection (IPP) between India and the US, which in other words imply refashioning the patents regime in India to suit the monopoly interests of the US based MNCs. Due to the intervention of the CPI (M) and the Left Parties, the UPA Government was forced, while making the third amendment to the Patents Act in 2005 as per TRIPS, to introduce several safeguards to protect the interests of the people. One such provision, Section 3 (d)) - which prevents frivolous patents based on small tinkering on existing molecules - was challenged by Novartis, a Swiss MNC, in the Chennai High Court after its patent application for an anti-leukemia drug, Gleevec, was rejected under the Indian patents law. Novartis recently lost the case thus allowing Indian companies to continue producing less expensive generic drugs to the benefit of the people of India and other developing countries. However, such provisions in the Indian patents law, which protect the interests of the people vis-à-vis MNCs is now sought to be subverted by the Memorandum of Understanding on bilateral cooperation on intellectual property issues, signed between India and the US in December 2006. According to the MoU the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) "will help train Indian patent and trademark examiners, develop education material for the examiners and produce a manual on patent practice for use by Indian examiners and the public". By agreeing to allow the USPTO to teach the Indian Patent Office on how to look at patents and interpret patent legislation, the UPA Government is seeking to push the CEO Forum agenda through the backdoor. The important provisions in the Indian patent law which makes it different from the US patent legislation, and helps to protect the interests of the people like in the Novartis case, are thus sought to be subverted in order to 'harmonize' the IP regime in India and US, as mandated by the CEO Forum.

The same subservience to US corporates is visible in the case of the US-India Agricultural Knowledge Initiative (AKI). The four areas in which cooperation is envisaged between India and the US under AKI are Food Processing and Marketing, Biotechnology, Water Management and University Capacity Building. The Prime Minister's call for a 'second green revolution' in order to alleviate the crisis which has engulfed Indian agriculture, is based on his belief in the US backed AKI to deliver the goods. However, scientific advances in agricultural research and biotechnology today occur under the aegis of agribusiness corporations like Monsanto with their monopoly rights secured through stringent patent regimes. Far from transferring scientific know-how to the public domain in India and benefiting Indian farmers, the AKI, which has Monsanto as one of its board members, is more likely to refashion the agricultural research system as well as the patent regime in India and increase the stranglehold of MNCs in the seed market to the detriment of the farmers. The Seed Bill piloted by the UPA Government, which has been widely criticized for promoting the interests of private seed companies and infringing upon the seed rights of farmers, is a pointer towards such dangers.

The vision of 'market-oriented agriculture' underlying the AKI has other serious implications for Indian agriculture and the livelihood of farmers. The discussions in the AKI board, which includes a Wal-Mart representative, on food processing and marketing as revealed by its Work Plan, centres around 'Facilitating Agribusiness Investment in India'; 'Drawing on the US experience in Contract Farming'; visits to India by potential investors in cold chain development based in the US to meet counterparts, survey existing infrastructure, and identify weaknesses in cold chain practices; and capacity building related to market data collection, processing, analysis and timely distribution of market information to farmers, agribusiness, and policymakers. The model of foreign and domestic agribusiness driven agriculture underlying the AKI becomes clear from these discussions. The NCMP of the UPA Government, however, speaks about a different model of agriculture altogether when it states: "The UPA government will ensure that public investment in agricultural research and extension, rural infrastructure and irrigation is stepped up in a significant manner at the very earliest.The UPA government will ensure that government agencies entrusted with the responsibility for procurement and marketing will pay special attention to farmers in poor and backward states and districts. Farmers all over the country will receive fair and remunerative prices." The conflict between these two different visions regarding agriculture was most visible during the 53rd meeting of the National Development Council specially convened to discuss the problems of agriculture in the context of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan.  The official Resolution tabled in the NDC meeting talked about increased public investment and enhanced foodgrains production target on the one hand and reform of State level APMC Acts to facilitate contract farming by corporates on the other. While the references to contract farming were tempered following protests by the Left led Governments of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura, the conflicting objectives of the NCMP and the US backed AKI had already come out in the open.

This lopsided and perverse nature of Indo-US economic relations is most evident at the WTO. Despite the Doha Round supposedly being a 'Development' Round, India along with the other developing countries had to accept another round of tariff reduction in industry and agriculture and further opening up of services. However, the Doha Round has virtually collapsed now because of the stubborn refusal of the US to reduce its huge agricultural subsidies and allow market access for developing countries. So much for the 'shared commitment' of the US with India, 'to complete the WTO Doha Round before the end of 2006', which was reaffirmed in the Bush-Manmohan joint statement of March 2006. While subsidizing its farmers to the tune of $11 billion a year, the US preaches the virtues of free trade and free markets to the rest of the world. Can a strategic relationship with such a country ever be to the benefit of a developing nation like India?

Nuclear Energy and the Electricity Sector: False Promises

The Prime Minister says the Indo-US nuclear deal will help strengthen India's energy security. Government agencies are busy bringing out information bulletins that after the deal India will have electricity in every home! What is the reality?

It is true that India has huge shortages of electricity. There are extensive power cuts all over the country, with the rural areas suffering the most. The farmers have to go to the fields at 3 AM in the morning, as power is available only then for running their pump sets to water their fields. Industry is facing severe power cuts and has to make do with costly captive diesel generators. This crisis of the power sector has not happened by itself; it is the result of a systematic attempt by successive Governments to starve the sector of public funds hoping to make high-cost private power more acceptable to the people. Instead the Government has gone in for privatisation of the power sector with higher prices of electricity. The net result has been the increasing bankruptcy of State Electricity Boards and converting what was a shortage of the early 90's to a full-blown crisis today.

The immediate need for adding to our existing capacity is obvious. The question here is whether nuclear energy is the only way to add to our existing installed capacity?

At present, we have an installed capacity of about 143,000 MW, with a mixture of coal, hydro, gas and nuclear power. One MW of power can supply electricity equal to the needs of about 8,000-10,000 households. Out of the 143,000 MW that we have installed, electricity based on nuclear power plants is only 4,120 MW, which is less than 3% of our total installed capacity. The major share is coal, which has about 55% of installed capacity followed by Hydro, which is about 25%. By all accounts, we are short of power and this is acting as a brake on our development and causing enormous hardships to the people.

India has large reserves of coal, which will last us for at least 100 years. India has also large untapped hydroelectric power sources and can also co-operate with Nepal to develop hydroelectric power. Recent discoveries of gas in the Kaveri Godaveri Basin also will help in diversifying our energy sources. So using nuclear energy to generate electricity is only one of our options and not the only one. What option we choose and in what proportion depends on the money required for setting up these plants and the cost of electricity from these sources.

The Government claims that the recent India US Nuclear Deal will lead to a huge addition to our power generating capacity as it will add a large amount of nuclear power from nuclear reactors imported from the US, France and Russia. What the Government is not telling us is what is the cost at which this power is going to be made available and how much money we will have to put in for nuclear power plants? Our calculations show that the cost of power from imported reactors will cost at least twice that from coal based power stations. Coal-based power stations can produce power at about Rs. 2.50 per unit at the power plant end; nuclear energy will cost between Rs. 5.10 to Rs. 5.50 per unit.

Not only will it cost twice as much, it will cost three times as much money to build a plant with imported nuclear reactor, as it would to build a coal based power plant. If we want to add about 100,000 MW, which the Ministry of Power is saying that we are required to add, then we will be able to build all the 100,000 MW with the same amount of money that we would require building about 30,000 MW of nuclear power with imported reactors.

For those who might remember the Enron case, there is a sense of history of repeating itself. At that time India was pushed to accept expensive private power only to help Enron. Once Enron started to produce power, its cost of Rs.5-7 per unit sank the Maharashtra Electricity Board. Now also, a nuclear energy route based on imported reactors is being foisted on the country in the name of energy security.  If a 2,000 MW Enron plant sank the largest State Electricity Board in the country - the impact of pushing a high cost 40,000 MW of nuclear energy in the country may well be imagined.

We agree that India should invest some money in nuclear power plants. We have been under sanctions and have not received any technology for nuclear power plants from anywhere in the world. Our scientists and technologists have struggled very hard to develop every bit of our nuclear technology indigenously. It has taken us almost 20 years to do this, once nuclear isolation was imposed on India after the 1974 Pokhran I blast. Therefore, this technology needs to be nurtured and developed further. Even though nuclear power may not be economical today, it is possible that in the long-term, as coal and oil reserves run out, nuclear energy will become more and more important. But to argue that we should put in the major part of our available money in to nuclear energy right now, that too with imported reactors, seems to be very short sighted. It can only happen if we cut down our investments in either other forms of power such as coal and hydro, or if we decide to divert money from other areas such as roads, railways, education, health, etc.

Imported reactors have another problem. Unlike the Indian 3-phase program started under Homi Bhabha, which considered only indigenous fuel, imported reactors will require large imports of uranium. The 3-phase cycle envisages using Fast Breeder Reactors that can recycle the fuel and can produce 50 times more energy from the same amount of uranium. India is world leader in Fast Breeder technology and is very near to commercialising it.

Interestingly enough, nuclear power is not the energy of choice for most advanced countries. The US itself has commissioned its last reactor in 1996 and has not licensed a new reactor now for more than 27 years.

The question is even if we divert money from other sectors to nuclear energy, how much will it be in our total energy scenario? Even by the most optimistic of Government projections, it will not be more than 9% of our total installed capacity in electricity generation.

The Government of India for the last 15 years has not been able to find money to invest in the power sector. In the 7th Plan, we had added about 21,000 MW. The last three plans have seen capacity additions of below 20,000 MW on the plea that the Government has no money. Suddenly, it appears we now have money for not only the power sector, but the most expensive route for electricity generation. It appears that this newfound love for nuclear energy has little to do with electricity but only a justification for an India US nuclear deal.

Electricity is however only a part of our energy usage. We also need oil and gas for running our transport sector and making fertilisers, plastics and petrochemicals. Requirements for oil and gas are growing. If we consider not electricity alone but also all other forms of primary energy, we will find that oil and gas are about 40% of our total energy needs as against nuclear being only 3-5%. Obviously, getting oil and gas is much more important for India's security than buying imported reactors from General Electric and Westinghouse. Yet, what is our Government's priority? Is it seeing that we have a more stable situation in West Asia or is it becoming an ally the US, the key warmonger, who is busy planning more wars and de-stabilising West Asia? Is it ensuring our future energy supplies from Iran and other countries in West and Central Asia or helping a moribund US nuclear industry to sell us billions of dollars of reactors, which nobody is buying in the US?