Trusting Congress bosses was a mistake: Karat
While stating that Chatterjee himself would take a decision on whether or not to step down, Karat said, "By holding the post of the Speaker, a person does not cease to have political affiliations."
By Akshaya Mukul, TNN |
NEW DELHI: For the first time since the controversy involving Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee erupted, CPM general secretary Prakash Karat has spoken out. He felt it was silly to look upon the Speaker as partyless. In an exclusive interview, he told TOI, "This talk of a Speaker without a party and politics is hypocritical."
While stating that Chatterjee himself would take a decision on whether or not to step down, Karat said, "By holding the post of the Speaker, a person does not cease to have political affiliations."
Karat touched on a number of crucial political issues in the interview. He revealed that the first indication of the UPA going ahead with the nuclear deal came in June.
He didn't regret letting the government go to the IAEA at that stage, but wondered aloud "if it was a mistake to believe in the word given by the Congress leadership, which included the PM".
He indicated that it would be tough for the Left to work with the Congress again. Referring to the moves to get jailed MPs to vote for the government, he referred to the JMM bribery case and said, "Let's hope history does not repeat itself."
Excerpts from an exclusive interview:
When did you get the first indication that government would go ahead and finalise IAEA safeguards agreement?
In June. The Congress leadership, in the run-up to the UPA-Left committee meeting, informed us that they were determined to go ahead to the IAEA.
Do you think letting government go to IAEA was a mistake?
We should ask ourselves whether it was a mistake to believe in the word given by the Congress leadership which included the PM. On November 10, 2007, there had been a meeting in the PM's house where an understanding was arrived at.
Karat touched on a number of crucial political issues in the interview. He revealed that the first indication of the UPA going ahead with the nuclear deal came in June.
He didn't regret letting the government go to the IAEA at that stage, but wondered aloud "if it was a mistake to believe in the word given by the Congress leadership, which included the PM".
He indicated that it would be tough for the Left to work with the Congress again. Referring to the moves to get jailed MPs to vote for the government, he referred to the JMM bribery case and said, "Let's hope history does not repeat itself."
Excerpts from an exclusive interview:
When did you get the first indication that government would go ahead and finalise IAEA safeguards agreement?
ADVERTISEMENT
In June. The Congress leadership, in the run-up to the UPA-Left committee meeting, informed us that they were determined to go ahead to the IAEA.
Do you think letting government go to IAEA was a mistake?
We should ask ourselves whether it was a mistake to believe in the word given by the Congress leadership which included the PM. On November 10, 2007, there had been a meeting in the PM's house where an understanding was arrived at.
| | Also Read |
| �� | |
| �� | |
| �� | |
| �� | |
| �� | |
| �� |
Why do you think there was a sudden rush to clinch the deal? Is it just that time was running out or something else?
I think time was running out for the US (Bush administration) to get the deal through the various stages, particularly in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The PM definitely is the main mover behind the deal. As far as Rahul Gandhi is concerned, I am told, he is in favour of the strategic alliance with US.
Will Left do business with Congress after the next general election?
The situation after the next election will be different. We will have to factor in the position of the parties regarding the nuclear deal and the strategic alliance with the US, apart from the consideration of having a secular government.
What will be Left's attitude to UPA allies in the future?
ADVERTISEMENT
We will have to see. We will have to consider what their relations will be with the Congress at the time of the elections. Why did SP to move away from Left? This is the third time SP has moved away from Left at a crucial juncture?
We had got some indications from the SP leadership. They were frank enough to discuss the developing situation vis-a-vis the Congress with us. I think the political situation in UP was uppermost in their mind.
Will you work with SP in future?
At present, there has been a parting of ways. I cannot predict what will happen in the future.
You have been talking of not letting the government finish the deal politically. How?
ADVERTISEMENT
We will carry on the fight against the nuclear deal right till the end, till the final step of India signing the safeguards agreement, if the US Congress adopts the 123 agreement. Before that, we would like to see this government go and a new government review our stand on the deal. For this, we will try to bring about a new political alignment of forces.
Is this the beginning of a new Left-Mayawati relationship?
We had decided that we should contact all the political parties who have taken a stand against the nuclear deal, or, could do so, leaving aside the BJP. It is in this connection that I met Ms Mayawati and discussed how we could work together against the nuclear deal and the trust vote in Parliament. We have not discussed anything beyond that.
Will a new political formation of Left-BSP-TDP take over the third front space?
ADVERTISEMENT
Our party's views on a third alternative have been clearly spelt out. At present, we are only looking at the cooperation between likeminded parties on the nuclear deal and the secular parties who are opposed to the UPA government.
Left is being criticised for voting with BJP against the deal? Is it being questioned within the CPM?
ADVERTISEMENT
This criticism will not deter us. We are voting against the UPA government on a basic issue, our opposition to the nuclear deal and the strategic alliance with the US. Our central committee had discussed the matter fully in September, 2007, including the question of voting against the UPA government in a confidence motion. Our central committee is meeting on July 19-20. If any views are there regarding this, we will hear them and discuss and take a decision. Upto now, our politburo and CC have been unanimous.
What is your stand on the Speaker wanting to continue in the post?
On the day we withdrew support from the UPA government, I had stated in a press conference that it is for the Speaker to take a decision on the matter. I have maintained this all through. As for the role of the Speaker, I wish to make our party's views clear. By holding the post of the Speaker, a person does not cease to have political affiliations.
But when someone becomes a Speaker, he/she should not indulge in party activities, or, adopt partisan political positions. We don't follow the British precedent in India. After someone ceases to be a Speaker, they resume political activities. We have a former Speaker as the home minister and another former Speaker is leader of one of the Opposition groups in the Lok Sabha. So all this talk of Speaker sans party and politics is hypocritical.
The countdown to the vote has seen corporate lobby groups in the corridors of power. Comment.
It would be a dangerous precedent if the PM complies with the demand that he should mediate in the conflict between the Ambani brothers. We have not said he has done so. We have warned against corporate interests getting mixed up in the issue of the government's survival.
Also, convicted or jailed MPs are being freed to help government secure majority. Is this doing our democracy proud?
There are MPs who have been convicted for serious criminal cases like kidnapping and murder. Political morality demands that they should not vote on such a vital question. But legally, there seems to be no bar. I am reminded of the 1993 situation. Our party had moved a no-confidence motion against the Narasimha Rao government. The main charge was the failure of the government to protect Babri masjid from demolition.
The Congress government was in a minority then, just as now. But they managed a majority in the vote. In those days, there were no 24-hour news channels, but the print media gave a blow by blow account of how some JMM and Lok Dal(A) MPs were bribed. This led to the well-known JMM bribery case. For the first time, a former PM and a former home minister were prosecuted. Let us hope, history does not repeat itself.
Courtesy: www.timesofinda.com
Download
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
Download
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
ADVERTISEMENT
