Whats left? Reference to context

Thanks to Mudit in Bus Yun Hi blog for giving me a link to that other master misguider Prakash Karat making some points on the Nuclear deal. As usual what he quotes and how he quotes are not the same things. Let us try and analyze the workings of this great patriot.
"Prior to the joint statement of July 2005, the UPA government signed a 10-year Defence Framework Agreement with the Untied States. It is evident that without the defence agreement, the Americans would not have agreed for the nuclear cooperation. This is part of a quid pro quo."
No references here as to how the 10-year Defence Framework Agreement is a bad thing? the "quid pro quo" that makes it out as some sell out of national interest may/may not be so. For all that is not said, it may have meant USA guarantying India that they will always be on sides of India in case of an armed conflict with any 3rd party. Since Mr Karat conveniently does not spell out the issue with it, merely hinting that its evil are we to take him on face value?

"The first serious conflict with the Left arose when the UPA government did a volte-face on the Iran nuclear issue. The government voted along with the US and the Western countries in September 2005 and was not even prepared to go along with the position adopted by the bloc of Non-Aligned Movement countries."

Again we go into unfamiliar territory. It again implicitly assumes that Iran issue had only 1 moral choice and that was to vote for Iran. While I can agree that US often does not play by fair, we have to remember that this is an NPT signing nation that went against some of the commitments made in that treaty. In short an explicit violation of an accepted treaty. India voted against it.
While I can see the logic of having nuclear power plants and Iran wanting that. In this specific case though it seems that there was something more than mere power plants happening. Mr Karat may say India should not have nukes but he wants Iran to have it. I and any rational Indian without any vested political agenda would say it is bad. For one India maintains that nukes are bad and the only reason we want to have them is because Pakistan and China, both nations claiming Indian territory for its own have nukes and probably directed at India.
Also India does have a lot of terrorism problems often from Muslim fundamentalist organizations mostly outside India. Iran for all its other good points will probably claim the bomb to be an Islamic bomb. India should get alarmed especially since Iran belongs to a rather volatile area with often such considerations coming into force. For all our support to Palestinians on their struggles (often just) I find that those nations do not criticize the fundamentalist groups when they strike against India. Iran for all our support still went back on some of the agreements on the gas pipeline. Given their fickle stand on issues pertaining India why should India not take the sensible decision and stick its neck out to support Iran on this issue given that we do not want a nuke armed Iran. let me rephrase, given that rational Indians do not want nuke armed Iran, Mr karat though probably has a different opinion.

"The Left parties have been watching with diOk squiet the way the UPA government has gone about forging close strategic and military ties with the United States. The Left came out in strong opposition to the Defence Framework Agreement."

All said and done, we are proudly the world's biggest democracy while USA is often held as the world's most functioning democracy, certainly the most powerful one. USA is often held to be the national which brought the idea of individual liberty as supreme, codified the right to free speech and is called the land of the free. On the other hand communist China treated unarmed students clamoring for democracy to tank fire in Tienanmen's Square, still controls access to media and generally has less freedom than any democracy for common citizens. same for other communist countries. Left does not protest against our alliance with any communist country but an alliance with a democracy is bad? Funny that the same democracy that allows Left to protest in India (and would get them killed in most communist countries) is what the Left hates the most.
As discussed earlier in a blog post of mine, the strategic tie-up with US and consequently Europe/Japan/Israel is the need of hour. We probably already have enough nukes for deterrent. What we lack is the multi lateral delivery capacity. This is where we need technology help and this is where the real importance of Strategic tie-up with US help. It allows us not only access to US technology, it also allows us to get France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Japan, Australia, Israel to also share technology. Lets face it, we currently only have Russia as somewhat of an important ally that can give us technology and as the cryogenic engine fiasco proves, its not good to place all eggs in 1 basket. Do we expect China to help us develop such military projection capacity? Give me a break!

"The Left has been vehemently opposed to the joint military exercises as the one that took place in the Kalaikunda air base in West Bengal. These exercises were held despite the strong protests of the Left parties and the Left Front government of West Bengal."

So Indian government must do everything as per Left's sensibilities? Why only left? Should then logically they not also take opposition BJP's all sensibilities in mind? No not opposition merely allies? then how about Laloo's RJD also which is pro deal? Apparently not allies either, merely Left.
Or will he now say anytime there is a street protest? I remember In West Bengal which as correctly claimed by Mr Karat is under the Left front government, there is a huge protest against some land acquisition which the Left wants. Paradoxically in this case I think the the Chief Minister is right. Relying merely on agriculture for a living will ensure people at starvation level. Our land holdings are too small for farmers to survive. the way out is to industrialize. But in this case the principled Left did not merely handle the protest in government way. Its cadre (and lot of media has given very strong proofs of this) murdered protesting men and boys raped and murder the protesting women and girls, in all over 300 people dead! And still Mr Karat expects the government to stop alliances because left does not like democracies!

"UPA government has been deepening collaboration with Israel in the military and security spheres which violates our long-held policy of support to the Palestinian cause and friendship with the Arab countries."

Its ok for Egypt - an Arab country to have normal relations with Israel? Its ok for Pakistan to start normalizing its relationships with Israel but not India! if you draw an arch across Asia, Israel at its beginning, India at its middle and Japan at its end are probably the 3 most (and maybe the only real) democracies in Asia. By definition that same democracy that allows Left to function well in India and have a voice makes these nations pariah? Agreed Israel's policies may not always have been more benign but as Nandigram proves nor are the Left's? And how has friendship with Israel bad. I remember Arafat of PLO agreeing that India needs to improve relations with Israel. We get great military hardware and technologies from them. Their counter terrorism skills are the best in the world, we need those badly, And as mentioned before, Arab countries by and large have not helped India against state sponsored terrorism in the name of Islam. Have not seen any Arab country coming out strongly in support of our Permanent seat in UN security council, have not seen them sending cheap oil to India (rates of oil sold to the evil empire USA are paradoxically lot lower for USA than for Asian countries). I'd say Arab world needs to give more to India for the support we have shown them than they do. Statecraft is about getting the best deal for your nation, not some dumb ideals that enslave your nation.
"The Hyde Act expects India to have a foreign policy 'congruent' to the United States."
True its a loaded statement. But the language of diplomacy is not straight. making it non binding is the nearest USA can do to say - dude don't worry about it. You can say what if another administration decides its binding? I'd say all the more reason to close the deal while the current administration is there! then once the deal with NSG is signed where does it say all our reactors will come only from USA? I do remember the deal making it clear that the USA will help create a strategic reserve of fuel. even if fresh supplies stop this reserve can be used. Further the same defense co-operation that so threats Mr Karat makes unilateral action by US so tough on them. We can simply say sorry, you pinch us there and we don't give you that billion dollar aircraft order. Our airlines too will only get Airbus from now on and so on.
Lets face it, USA and India are natural allies. And given the Chinese presence of listening posts in Pakistan, Tibet, Myanmar, Bangladesh and their intent in Sri Lanka, India will be fool of highest degree not to try alliance with other important Asian nations. Negotiations happen between equals, not between a lame beggar and a King. If India is to have good relations with China based on mutual respect, India has to show that it is equal to meet Chinese challenge should the need ever arise. The same reason why Left wants a multi-polar world, we need a multi-polar Asia. Its not some power trip, its the best chance for a healthy peaceful co-existence.
It a lay person like me can understand this but an erudite leader like Mr Karat pretends not to, do I take it for incompetence or do I look for designs. I refuse to believe that he is incompetent hence the conclusion is obvious.

Updated: Apr 21, 2008
If proof of the "design" is needed, read this and draw your own conclusions.