NDA partners pitch for minus-Modi formula to bait new allies

Hyderabad

17 March 2012

Making it to the cover of Time magazine may prompt two-time Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi's followers to believe that he has it in him to lead India, but BJP's allies seem to think otherwise.

These parties seem to be making up their mind that the NDA's electoral prospects in the next parliamentary election, whenever it is called, would be better served without Modi in the lead. Some of them have suggested sotto-voce that the NDA could hope to become more acceptable to voters and allies -- present and potential -- alike, if the likes of a Narendra Modi or even an LK Advani are not projected as shadow premiers. They are calling it a minus formula, similar to the minus-one or minus-two formulae seen in the politics of neighbouring Bangladesh and Pakistan.

For one, the JD(U), which is the second largest constituent of the NDA, sees Modi as a liability and it does not fancy the idea of going to polls with him at the helm. More so, when JD(U) leader and Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar himself is seen as a potential choice for prime minister. What goes in Nitish's favour, as compared to Modi, is the degree of acceptability towards him among non-BJP, non-Congress political parties, some of whom are coming together to constitute what is loosely being called a third or federal front comprising regional parties such as the Trinamul in West Bengal, BJD in Odisha, AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, and, now, SP in Uttar Pradesh, where Mulayam Singh Yadav's party has emerged the winner of the recently concluded Assembly election.

The third front is not without problems or internal contradictions, though. Complicating matters for this motley group is that there are many potential contenders for prime minister, including, but not limited to, Mamata Banerjee and Mulayam Singh Yadav. Already, Samajwadi Party sources have indicated that their next goal after getting a brute majority in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly is to make "Netaji", as Mulayam is called in his party, the prime minister. The SP has indicated its support to the UPA in the event of the Trinamul pulling out of the alliance and there it is speculated that the Congress could offer Mulayam a Cabinet berth to return the favour.

For its part, the Trinamul would not mind an early election because it is better placed than its rivals after winning the last Assembly election. However, if Congress veteran and finance minister Pranab Mukherjee is to be believed, Mamata has a huge challenge ahead of her simply because she is not fluent in Hindi. "If you don't know Hindi, you cannot be a prime minister. There are certain skills that are required for certain work. That is why Narasimha Rao became a good prime minister", Mr Mukherjee had famously remarked in 2009 when asked whether he was in contention for the top job. The language handicap notwithstanding, Mamata's Trinamul could emerge as the pivot of this front and a potential kingmaker in the event of a hung Parliament, where no party or alliance has absolute majority in the Lok Sabha.

Incidentally, the question asked about Modi has been used for Rahul Gandhi, too. A section of the Congress party is in favour of seeing the Gandhi scion succeed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh before the next parliamentary election, if only to enthuse party cadres and voters alike, but Congress President Sonia Gandhi has dismissed the possibility for now. Like cricketer Sachin Tendulkar, Dr Singh is faced with a career dilemma: they would want to know when is a good time to retire. Dr Singh's anxiety is compounded by the fact that for one who invested a large quantum of political capital in the UPA-1 on seeing the India-US nuclear deal through, even at the cost of risking his own government, he is today having to explain why nuclear projects in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and West Bengal have not taken off. Also, big-ticket reform measures such as entry of FDI of up to 51 per cent in multi-brand retail, or in insurance sector, has
been put on hold for want of consensus among the UPA allies.

BJP rejects N-deal, demands parliamentary review

New Delhi

4 August 2007

The civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States

may not be a done deal just yet. A combative BJP on Saturday said that the 123

Agreement compromised India's nuclear weapons programme and demanded that the

government put the next steps of the nuclear pact on hold. It sought to remind Prime

Minister Manmohan Singh of the dictum "trust but verify" and suggested that a vital

issue of national concern could not be acceptable until due diligence is conducted by a

joint parliamentary committee.

"The BJP is of the clear view that this agreement is an assault on our nuclear

sovereignty and our foreign policy options. We are, therefore, unable to accept this

agreement as finalised," senior BJP leader and former minister of finance and external

affairs Yashwant Sinha said, reading from the text of the "preliminary comments"

released by the party on Saturday.

The statement read: "We demand that a Joint Parliamentary Committee be set up to

examine the text in detail; that, after it has submitted its report, parliamentary approval

be secured before this deal is signed; and that all further action on it should be

suspended until this sequence is completed."

Mr Sinha, who was joined by former Union minister Arun Shourie for the news conference

at the party headquarters, said that no effort was made by the UPA to evolve a national

consensus on this vital issue of national concern before making commitments to the US.

The BJP has therefore demanded that appropriate amendments be made in the

Constitution and laws to ensure that all agreements which affect the country's

sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security are ratified by Parliament.

The formal response came after the BJP top brass met on Friday evening at former

prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's residence. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha

LK Advani, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Jaswant Singh and Mr Yashwant

Sinha attended that meeting, besides Mr Vajpayee.

Mr Sinha reiterated his party's "serious reservation" that the nuclear pact with the US

would adversely affect India's nuclear weapons programme. He said: "In the separation

plan prepared under the surveillance of the US, two-thirds of our reactors will be put in

the civilian category under safeguards. The recently refurbished CIRUS reactor will be

shut down. In course of time, 90 per cent of our reactors will be in the civilian category.

In the ongoing negotiations in the Committee of Disarmament in Geneva, we have

agreed to work together with the US for the early conclusion of the FMCT (Fissile Material

Cut-off Treaty). We appear to have given up our insistence on international verification

and all countries complying. All these, along with the intrusive provisions of the Hyde Act

are bound to have a stultifying effect on our strategic nuclear programme."

Can't India overcome some of those concerns by setting up more military reactors? a

reporter wanted to know. To which he said that India can set up more military nuclear

facilities if she wants to but the BJP has "serious differences" with the UPA over

adequacy of fissile material, especially after the Manmohan Singh Government's

decision to shut down the CIRUS reactor, which in his estimation produced about half of

the fissile material. He was not particularly happy with Article 10 (6), which suggested

that the "status of all inventories of material subject to this agreement" will be reported

to the US. "Even the uranium mined in India will be accounted for," he feared.

Mr Sinha asserted that the size of India's nuclear deterrent will change from time to time

on the basis of threat perception and that judgment could not be surrendered to anyone

else. Also, the credible minimum deterrent depended on what India's neighbours were

doing. "You give me the threat perception in 2020 and I will give you the number of

bombs needed," a combative Mr Sinha told the reporter who wanted to know how many

bombs would satisfy the BJP. "[The 123 Agreement would suggest that] threat perception

is dependent on the determination by the US President whereas it is the government of

the day, here in India, that must make that determination," he said.

He reminded the UPA that the 123 Agreement is bound by the Hyde Act and there is no

escaping it. "The fact remains that the US retains the right to recall all the supplies that it

has made to India under this agreement. What is worse is that under Article 16 (3)

despite the termination of this agreement, the safeguards in perpetuity will continue to

apply so long as any material or equipment or any of the byproducts thereof remain on

Indian soil," he pointed out. "Are the safeguards coterminus with the agreement? Where

is it defined?" he wondered aloud.

Mr Sinha chided the Manmohan Singh Government for believing that no reference to

testing in the text of the 123 Agreement is a matter of great comfort for India. "Does the

UPA expect the country to adopt an ostrich-like attitude in the face of gathering storm in

our neighbourhood?" he wanted to know. "This view is entirely untenable," he continued

in the same vein. "When national laws apply, which includes the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Hyde Act of

2006 which specifically forbid nuclear tests, where is the question of India having the

freedom to test once we enter into this agreement? In other words, we are being forced to

accept a bilateral CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) with more stringent provisions

than the multilateral CTBT." He said that the government has been "spreading canards"

that the deal recognises India as a de-facto nuclear power. "Nothing," he said, "could be

further from the truth."

Mr Arun Shourie, in turn, said: "The inspections that India would be subject to would be

equivalent to that applicable to the non-nuclear weapons states." He also said that the

commitments of the US on fuel supplies were vague and futuristic. "The agreement is

supposed to lead to full civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries yet Article 2

(2) (d) talks of cooperation relating to aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle.

Aspects mean parts and hence all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle are not covered

under this agreement," he said. He sought to dismiss the argument that insofar as

energy security is concerned, nuclear energy is better than oil supplies. "Nuclear

supplies are controlled by an even tighter cartel than the oil supplies," Shourie

countered. He felt that the harnessing of thorium as part of India's three-stage

programme offered real promise of energy security. "That would make the country

completely self-sufficient in nuclear fuel and there will be no need to look for even an

ounce of uranium," he said.

Both Shourie and Sinha added that the American assurances on transfer of sensitive

nuclear technology were prospective in nature and they cautioned that the US will retain

the right of end-use verification of all its supplies. Mr Sinha said: "This will ensure that

American inspectors will roam around our nuclear installations, a fear which was

completely discounted by the Prime Minister while replying to the Rajya Sabha debate

on August 17 last year."

Mr Sinha went on to suggest that the agreement did not refer to the spent fuel from the

Tarapur reactor which has been accumulated over the last 33 years. Asked whether the

BJP would join hands with the Left in opposing the deal, he said: "We have made valid

demands. If the Left and the UNPA back us we have no problems." He took a dig at the

Left parties saying "we would like a partner that would back us the whole hog and not

leave midway". "We had demanded a sense of Parliament on the nuclear deal

but the Left backed out," he elaborated.