Said CPM general secretary Prakash Karat: “The Left parties have consistently held that the nuclear cooperation agreement should not be seen in isolation from the overall strategic tie-up with the United States.” So the Left’s five-page statement largely revolves around the broader Indo-US relationship — what it calls the “US quest to make India its reliable ally in Asia.”

This is a clear departure from the Left’s earlier criticism that the United States is shifting the goalposts as far as the July 18, 2005 statement of the Prime Minister is concerned. The Prime Minister had assured the Left that all assurances he made to the House would be honoured in the 123 agreement. In fact, CPM leader Sitaram Yechury, after the PM’s speech in Parliament on August 17, 2006, had said: “The Prime Minister has accepted what we had said on the Indo-US nuclear deal. On each of our concerns, there were categorical assurances.”

Congress leaders said that on August 13, the PM will go back to Parliament to recollect the dozen points he had made last year and match them with the draft 123 agreement to show that it was in sync with the assurances he had given the House. The message to the Left would be: “Do you trust your PM or your ideology to protect the country’s interest?” The ruling combine would then leave it to the Left to answer this question with the nation as an audience, said a highly placed government source.

“Total rejection of the deal was unexpected,” said a senior Congress leader. “Don’t tell me the Left failed to see in those documents what many nuclear scientists, who were with the Left until recently, have now praised.”

On the text of the 123 agreement, the main objections of the Left are:

• It denies “cooperation or access in any form whatsoever” to fuel enrichment, reprocessing and heavy-water production technologies.

• “Whether fuel supply will continue even after the cessation or termination of the agreement solely depends on the US Congress”.

However, the 123 agreement clearly gives India prior consent to reprocess. And the question of reprocessing will come up only when India sets up a “national facility” for reprocessing. Regarding technology for reprocessing and enrichment, the US doesn’t give such technology to any country as part of its policy.

But the Left parties, harping on their fundamental opposition to the Indo-US relationship called upon the Government not to “proceed further with the operationalising of the agreement” and demanded a review of the “strategic aspects of Indo-US relations.”

Asked if they vote against the Government if a discussion was held under Article 184, both Karat and CPI’s A B Bardhan said: “We will discuss what needs to be done in Parliament as well as outside later”.

The issue is likely to come up at UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s dinner for UPA constituents and Left allies on Wednesday evening. According to Congress estimates, even as the Left parties continue to criticize the draft 123 agreement, the UPA allies wouldn’t like to be seen with the BJP on this issue.

Meanwhile, protesting against exercises featuring the US, Japan, Australia India and Singapore, the Left parties said they would hold rallies along the entire east coast to mark their opposition. Two major ‘jathas’ (processions), led by Karat and Bardhan will set off from Chennai and Kolkata on Sept 4 to culminate in Vizag five days later to coincide with the naval exercise. “We will mobilise people on a mass scale. Rallies and meeting will be held at various places,” Karat said. India proposes to host its first-ever multi-nation exercise, involving 25 warships, in the Bay of Bengal from September 4-9.

Why the Left sees red

Rejecting the 123 agreement, the Left said:

• The July 2005 statement is also closely linked to the June 2005 military framework agreement signed with the United States.

• Steadily escalating joint exercises and the inevitable demand that India purchase expensive weaponry from the United States.

• Briefing by US spokesperson emphasizes the cooperation India extended in efforts to isolate Iran by voting twice against it in the IAEA and clear expectation that it will continue to extend its cooperation.