New Delhi (PTI): Claiming that India could face fuel supply blockade as experienced in the case of the Tarapur nuclear power plant, the CPI(M) on Wednesday asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to walk out of the Indo-US nuclear deal saying it had almost the same conventionalities.
Maintaining the 123 Agreement as being "almost identical" to Tarapur accord where India was "forced to run from pillar to post for fuel after the US unilaterally terminated the Tarapur 123 Agreement," the CPI(M) Polit Bureau said India was now seeking fuel supply assurances and other terms, including the right to reprocess spent fuel, based only on this experience.
But the documents accompanying the US Presidential Determination have made the American "intentions" clear -- this 123 Agreement is no different from the earlier Tarapur one, with all the Tarapur problems.
"And India can again land into the Tarapur mess, as the right of the US to terminate the agreement is an unfettered one," the Polit Bureau said in a statement here.
Maintaining that a "different interpretation" of the 123 Agreement by India would "in no way bind the US as a supplier", it demanded that the Prime Minister "fulfil his pledge to the nation that he will walk away from the nuclear deal if it does not meet India's expectations".
Asserting that all points raised by the Left parties have been confirmed by the documents accompanying the US Presidential Determination, it said these have "exposed the hollowness of the claims made by the Prime Minister in Parliament."
The CPI(M) Polit Bureau claimed that the Presidential documents submitted to the US Congress have made it amply clear that the terms of the 123 agreement are fully in conformity with the Hyde Act and "violate" the crucial commitments made by the Prime Minister in Parliament.
"The time has come for the Indian government to repudiate the 123 Agreement, which is not in India's national interest," it said, adding that the argument that India has a different interpretation for it was "meaningless".
"The US as a supplier of nuclear equipment and material will undertake such supply only under the terms of what it calls a 'framework agreement'," the party said.
While India would place its civilian nuclear facilities under the IAEA Safeguards permanently, President Bush has "made it clear that the fuel supply assurance in the 123 Agreement is not legally binding".
The documents also showed that India would never be able to withdraw is civilian nuclear facilities from IAEA Safeguards unilaterally, even its indigenously built reactors, in the event of a disruption in fuel supply or if the 123 Agreement itself was terminated, the CPI(M) said.
Quoting the Prime Minister's statement in Parliament and the US Presidential Determination, it said "clearly, India will not have access to the full fuel cycle and all sensitive technologies are also denied. ... thus India is being asked to place its civilian reactors under IAEA Safeguards in perpetuity without all restrictions being lifted."
Referring to the "extraneous issues tied with nuclear cooperation", the major Left party said the Prime Minister had categorically assured that India would not accept the tying of any issue with civil nuclear cooperation.
"It is clear from the documents accompanying the Presidential Determination that extraneous issues have been coupled with the nuclear deal, which have also been accepted by India," the CPI(M) claimed.
In this context, it said the report pursuant to Section 104(c) of the Hyde Act "approvingly talks" about New Delhi aligning with the US on the Iran question both in the IAEA and the United Nations.
The report, quoted by the party, said India "maintained a strong public line of support for P5+1 and US diplomatic efforts to resolve international concerns with Iran's nuclear program".
The CPI(M) said with the External Affairs Minister's statement, "India has formally changed its position and opposed Iran's fuel enrichment, a right which Iran has under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".
Maintaining the 123 Agreement as being "almost identical" to Tarapur accord where India was "forced to run from pillar to post for fuel after the US unilaterally terminated the Tarapur 123 Agreement," the CPI(M) Polit Bureau said India was now seeking fuel supply assurances and other terms, including the right to reprocess spent fuel, based only on this experience.
But the documents accompanying the US Presidential Determination have made the American "intentions" clear -- this 123 Agreement is no different from the earlier Tarapur one, with all the Tarapur problems.
"And India can again land into the Tarapur mess, as the right of the US to terminate the agreement is an unfettered one," the Polit Bureau said in a statement here.
Maintaining that a "different interpretation" of the 123 Agreement by India would "in no way bind the US as a supplier", it demanded that the Prime Minister "fulfil his pledge to the nation that he will walk away from the nuclear deal if it does not meet India's expectations".
Asserting that all points raised by the Left parties have been confirmed by the documents accompanying the US Presidential Determination, it said these have "exposed the hollowness of the claims made by the Prime Minister in Parliament."
The CPI(M) Polit Bureau claimed that the Presidential documents submitted to the US Congress have made it amply clear that the terms of the 123 agreement are fully in conformity with the Hyde Act and "violate" the crucial commitments made by the Prime Minister in Parliament.
"The time has come for the Indian government to repudiate the 123 Agreement, which is not in India's national interest," it said, adding that the argument that India has a different interpretation for it was "meaningless".
"The US as a supplier of nuclear equipment and material will undertake such supply only under the terms of what it calls a 'framework agreement'," the party said.
While India would place its civilian nuclear facilities under the IAEA Safeguards permanently, President Bush has "made it clear that the fuel supply assurance in the 123 Agreement is not legally binding".
The documents also showed that India would never be able to withdraw is civilian nuclear facilities from IAEA Safeguards unilaterally, even its indigenously built reactors, in the event of a disruption in fuel supply or if the 123 Agreement itself was terminated, the CPI(M) said.
Quoting the Prime Minister's statement in Parliament and the US Presidential Determination, it said "clearly, India will not have access to the full fuel cycle and all sensitive technologies are also denied. ... thus India is being asked to place its civilian reactors under IAEA Safeguards in perpetuity without all restrictions being lifted."
Referring to the "extraneous issues tied with nuclear cooperation", the major Left party said the Prime Minister had categorically assured that India would not accept the tying of any issue with civil nuclear cooperation.
"It is clear from the documents accompanying the Presidential Determination that extraneous issues have been coupled with the nuclear deal, which have also been accepted by India," the CPI(M) claimed.
In this context, it said the report pursuant to Section 104(c) of the Hyde Act "approvingly talks" about New Delhi aligning with the US on the Iran question both in the IAEA and the United Nations.
The report, quoted by the party, said India "maintained a strong public line of support for P5+1 and US diplomatic efforts to resolve international concerns with Iran's nuclear program".
The CPI(M) said with the External Affairs Minister's statement, "India has formally changed its position and opposed Iran's fuel enrichment, a right which Iran has under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".
