CPM general secretary Prakash Karat said objections to the Indo-US nuclear deal were “no longer a party issue” and it was necessary for Parliament to express itself on the deal because the US had “resiled” on its part of the agreement and shifted the goalposts.

“The Indian government should be bound by what is decided by Parliament based on what the Prime Minister had said (on the issues of reciprocity and sequencing). We only want the Indian government to stick to the Prime Minister’s statement.”

A note to this effect (prepared by the CPM on the nuclear deal) would be submitted to political parties, including the Congress, Karat said, adding he believed that the issues raised by the CPM had wide political support.

He said it was not too late to pull out of the deal as the final agreement would happen only after the legislation was approved by the US Congress, India signed the additional protocol with the IAEA and the Indian Atomic Energy Act was amended.

Karat raised concerns on locking India’s foreign policy to US interests, and signing an agreement that far from giving India an advantage to develop nuclear technology actually put it in an “opposite” situation.

But a reality check of the issues raised by the CPI(M) shows there is no clash between the steps taken by the Government in continuing negotiations with the US to take the deal forward, and India being able to have an independent foreign policy. Given below is a list of concerns raised by the CPI(M) and a reality check on them:

• The two Bills in the US Congress have provisions that seek to lock India’s foreign policy to US requirements and subject its scientific and development capabilities to intrusive inspections by the IAEA and US inspectors.

Reality Check: What is happening in the US, is part of the Congress resolution that is not binding on the US Administration or the Indian government. Stiff conditions were placed before China while giving it MFN status on restoration of democracy, but it did not prevent China from becoming the US’s largest trading partner.

• The annual certification clause contained in the draft Bills to ensure compliance by India meant India could lose out on the cooperation if it displeased the US administration or the US Congress.

Reality Check: This is an internal legal requirement of the US and the US President gives various annual certifications and it is for him to determine the nature of the agreement. Such certifications are not binding on India.

• There is an added clause on the supply of nuclear fuel in perpetuity, which had earlier said India could tap others in the Nuclear Suppliers Group if the US did not supply fuel, that the US would influence others to stop fuel supply in case it did.

Reality Check: Apart from being a poor business call because such a step would actually hurt US firms, the Bush administration is also in negotiations with the Congress to have such speed-breakers removed.

• The Bills passed by the committees of the US Senate and House of Representatives say relaxation of non-proliferation barriers are only with respect to nuclear fuel and reactors but the sanctions on fuel reprocessing, enrichment and production of heavy water remain for equipment and technologies.

Reality Check: The US does not give reprocessing technology to any country, including nuclear powers as per law. However, the enrichment issue is of concern and one on which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had spoken to President Bush. The Indians want a clarification on the issue.

• Sequencing had been changed, and it was now being insisted that India sign the additional protocol on nuclear safeguards with the IAEA before the US Congress approves the legislation.

Reality Check: India has said it will not sign the protocol unless the Congress approves the legislation. But it does not mean India will not negotiate with the IAEA in the interim and reach an understanding on nuclear safeguards. This agreement need not be inked.

Indian government sources have said, India’s strategy is to conclude an agreement with the IAEA but make it conditional on the US Congress approving the legislation.