A course correction in Indian historical and political discourse is long overdue. To begin with, if all we achieved on 15 August 1947 was Dominion Status, it is time to stop berating the Left for not participating in the questionable freedom movement led by the Indian National Congress. Secondly, even if Left objection to the Indo-US nuclear deal is driven by animus towards Washington, this country owes it a word of thanks for stalling – if not yet scrapping – a pact certain to impose a punishing price on our economy and indigenous nuclear programme.
One of the most specious arguments proffered by proponents of the deal is that it will vastly augment our energy resources. The truth, as CPM MP Sitaram Yechury has argued, is that India’s current power generation is 127 gigawatts (GW), which needs to rise to 337 GW by 2016-17 to sustain the current GDP growth rate. Nuclear energy, which was only 3.9 GW in 2006, cannot fill this gap. Even if the deal takes off, nuclear energy can grow to a maximum of 20 GW by 2016, and that too, at a cost of thousands of crores of rupees in external investment.
This will leave a huge power deficit; our resources would be better utilized on indigenous thermal, hydro, gas, wind or solar energy generation. Disproportionate investment in America’s obsolete uranium-based reactors would certainly revitalize the US economy, but it could adversely impact our indigenous thorium-based nuclear programme. India cannot reasonably surrender its futuristic technology and long-term energy security simply to keep Western corporate czars afloat on the French Riviera. It is pertinent that the proposed deal does not guarantee complete access to civilian nuclear technology; the 123 Agreement forbids transfer of dual-use technologies, and assurances of uninterrupted fuel supplies end if it is terminated.
Opponents of the deal have a better case in claiming that it draws India into the American orbit and seeks drastic changes in her foreign policy, without commensurate benefit in the phantom war on terror. Washington remains closely in touch with its old protégé, the Taliban, as evidenced in the safe release of South Korean missionaries captured in Ghazni, and has no intention of abandoning faithful Pakistan. If the Vajpayee regime was forced to keep full-alert troops idle on the border for a year after the attack on Parliament, the Manmohan Singh government was compelled to respond to growing terrorist transgressions with a Joint Terror Mechanism!
Unfortunately Dr. Singh obliged America by voting against Iran in the IAEA, though Teheran has never sponsored terrorist activity against India and in fact plays a major role in her energy security. Astonishingly, BJP ex-president L.K. Advani projected his support for India’s vote against Iran as a major achievement and displayed unseemly anxiety to distance himself from the Left’s anti-American bias!
Major political parties including Congress, however, are clearly rethinking the anti-Iran issue in the nuclear pact, and it would be churlish to dismiss this as minority appeasement. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukerjee’s admission to Parliament that Washington sought New Delhi’s support to isolate Iran over its nuclear programme, only to be told that national interests will guide our foreign policy, indicates a necessary course correction. India would do well to abstain from further voting on this issue and revert to the tradition of friendly relations with West Asian nations, including Iran.
The benefits of the forthcoming joint military exercises with the US, Japan, Australia and Singapore are questionable, but they cannot now be called off. Still, we would do well to refrain from mindlessly teasing China by embracing America too closely. Strategic experts warn the deal could worsen our regional situation by hardening attitudes in the immediate neighbourhood. In fact, the Left should reconsider its attitude towards Nepal Maoists to stabilize the region.
Meanwhile, the UPA’s decision to accommodate Left concerns by setting up a political committee to scrutinize the nuclear deal in detail and defer negotiating safeguards at the IAEA has brought considerable relief to nationalist sentiment in the country. But this is not enough. The nuclear deal is between two nations, not between their ruling parties. In America, it requires ratification by both chambers of Congress. India must consider a Constitutional Amendment to ensure Parliamentary ratification of international treaties as the era of one-party dominance is over and coalition (even minority) governments are the current norm.
The ruling coalition cannot insist Parliament be excluded from a say in a treaty governed by a US law which stipulates several conditions binding upon India. The White House built up bipartisan support for the deal and its enabling legislation, the Hyde Act. The US Congress reserves the right to attach conditions to nuclear deals, and the exercise of this right in 1985 delayed implementation of a nuclear agreement with China for 13 years.
The BJP-NDA and UNPA are rightly insisting that the treaty is not a Congress-Left bilateral affair, but concerns national security and sovereignty. They must persist with their legitimate demand for a Joint Parliamentary Committee to analyze the treaty, and stall Parliament till the demand is met. Else, BJP should revive the idea of a no-confidence motion. Suggestions to re-negotiate the deal or amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 should be deferred till the JPC meets. Political parties may like to consider alternatives if America is unwilling to amend or re-negotiate the deal. Can India, for instance, make such a pact with another more reasonable P-5 country? And how many years will it take to operationalise our thorium reactors so that we eventually don’t need the Nuclear Suppliers Group?
Finally, former Tamil Nadu chief minister Ms. Jayalalithaa recently lashed out at the foreign citizenship of close kin of the Prime Minister while lambasting the deal. In contrast, some BJP admirers feel the “middle class constituency” comprising families that want their children to migrate to America will be upset if the deal falls through. Actually, the deal is being peddled by those who have accepted foreign jobs and citizenship, and regard their original motherland as an economic stomping ground to exploit for personal and corporate enrichment. Such persons cannot be equated with citizens who sweat and struggle in this country; nor can those lining up for foreign visas dictate public discourse in India.
The Pioneer, 4 September 2007