The Indo-US civil nuclear accord will benefit India as long as Delhi keeps its eyes and options open. It also paves the way for a lasting relationship with the US
The Nuclear Discord?

Have you heard the tale of seven blind men dishing out their own profound insights over an elephant? Cut through the fog of jargon being dished out by pundits, propagandists and ideologues over the controversial nuclear deal between India and the United States and you can’t help recalling that story. Each pundit has his or her own take; each commentator claims complete mastery over the subject and each ideologue prefers to project his blinkered vision as the one that serves best the interests of India. Unfortunately, even the mainstream media seems to have succumbed to the temptation of pamphleteering and propaganda. Suddenly, television channels, newspapers and magazines are full of stories about how the nuclear deal is the greatest thing that has happened to India since Gautam Budha was born. Suddenly, the United States of America has become the best friend, ally and strategic partner that India has ever had in its long and chequered history. Suddenly, everybody seems to be suggesting that the nuclear deal will almost magically solve India’s intractable problem of energy security.

It doesn’t help matters when the opposition to the nuclear deal comes primarily from the Left , which stands badly discredited in eyes of urban middle class Indians because of its own double standards and more importantly, because of the intemperate manner in which the apparatchiks of the CPM and the CPI dictate terms to the UPA government. Besides, the CPM is perceived to be batting on behalf of the Chinese State; not the smartest thing to do at the moment. Even the opposition displayed by the BJP has no credibility because it was the BJP led NDA government that initiated the dialogue with Uncle Sam that has culminated in the nuclear deal.

What’s missing in all this is a sober, objective and unemotional assessment of the issues involved. After all, it is foreign policy and India’s strategic interests that one is talking about; not a Hindi soap where emotions, drama, tears and wails rule over facts. But then, India’s tragedy has been that its leaders have usually pursued foreign policy and strategic interests in an emotional and populist manner, unlike Great powers like America and China whose strategists think 30 years down the road.

So is the nuclear deal good for India? For sure, it is not a blessing. India has survived a hostile United States and a hostile China and done reasonably well as a nation state and a democracy (warts and all) since 1947. So it is not as if India will descend into chaos, poverty and destitution if the nuclear deal fails to materialize. Nor will India magically metamorphose into a developed nation state with poverty eradicated and per capita income touching that of European nations just because it signs the nuclear deal with Uncle Sam. India’s former foreign secretary, Salman Haidar, puts it succinctly when he says, “There can be no doubt that for US of A, the only interest that matters, is national interest. This deal is no different. As long as it’s long term strategic interests are served, it is going to be with India. India’s interests will be served best if it goes into the deal with its eyes open.”

The key words here are ‘national interest’ and ‘eyes open’. So if one wants to assess the value of the deal, the only way to do it is to examine with ‘eyes wide open’ if the deal is in the ‘national interest’ or not.

Lets dispel some myths first. The biggest one is about the future of India’s energy security. It is being projected that India will not be able to sustain high GDP growth rates and that the economy will be literally starved of power if the nuclear deal doesn’t happen. No doubt, nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting India’s hunger for power. But surely that’s not the only option. India has huge reserves of coal and coal continues to be the cheapest source of energy. Of course, coal pollutes and new coal based power plants will probably add to the problem of global warming. But surely India can refuse to be dictated by elitist western concerns over global warming. If China can merrily build coal plants at a breakneck pace completely ignoring the protests of green activists, so can India. Listening to an American activist hold forth on ‘responsibility’ towards environment is no different from listening to lectures on caste by the same set of Americans who segregated blacks till the 1960s as a matter of state policy! Besides, new technology has made coal based power plants far less polluting than before.

The same holds true for hydro power. India has enormous potential to harness its rivers to generate electricity. Once again, thanks to state apathy towards poor people displaced by dams and the noisy and media friendly ‘green’ brigade, the very mention of dams has become politically incorrect in the country. The funny thing is, all the major nations of the world, including China, the US, France, Germany and Russia have already built the dams and are now preaching environmentalism! Then again, there are non-conventional sources of energy that hold promise. If half the cars in Brazil can run on ethanol, surely India with its huge potential for sugarcane and molasses and corn can do something similar? And don’t forget the fact that nuclear plants can be terribly destructive of the environment!

The second big myth is about Uncle Sam and how it is a great friend and ally of India. If you read newspapers now, you might be fooled into thinking that India can have no greater friend and ally than the United States of America. That’s where commentators seem to be exercising the option of ‘eyes closed’ instead of ‘eyes open’. For most part of India’s journey as an independent nation state since 1947, the United States has not been a friend. At the best of times, it has been an estranged democracy. At the worst of times, it has been downright hostile to India. A few historical facts need to be enumerated here to set the record straight. Since 1948, when Pakistan invaded Kashmir, the United States has consistently supported Pakistan in the dispute. Since 1947, it is the United States that has supplied Pakistan with the tanks, aircraft and guns that military dictators of Pakistan ave used to wage war against India. In 1971, when millions of East Pakistanis were being butchered by its own army, the United States not only openly supported Pakistan, but also militarily threatened India! Since 1974, when India conducted its first nuclear test, the United States has practiced a technology ‘apartheid’ regime against India. India has been battered, bloodied and bruised by terrorism since the 1980s-first for the cause of Khalistan and then in the garb of Islamic jehad in Kashmir. The whole world knows that the terrorists who strike India with impunity are financed, armed, aided, abetted and encouraged by Pakistan. Yet, till 19 hijackers changed the course of history and crashed two planes into the twin towers during what is now known as 9/11, American officials used to contemptuously ignore repeated complaints by India that Pakistan is behind cross border terrorism. During the 1990s, when the Soviet Union (A traditional ally of India) disintegrated, the United States forced Russia to cancel a cryogenic deal with India that would helped the country’s missile and space programs immensely. After 1998, when India went in for the second round of nuclear tests, the United States virtually blacklisted India. The funny thing is, recent disclosures of official documents in the United States reveal that Uncle Sam was well aware of the clandestine nuclear bonhomie between China and India and chose to close its eyes to such a flagrant case of nuclear proliferation. Even funnier, Uncle Sam was ready and willing to strike a deal with the Taliban regime of Afghanistan! Till 9/11 happened, that is! Though there is much more that can be told about America’s so called love for India since 1947, the few facts mentioned above should be enough to dispel the myth that America has always had the best interests of India.

That’s where the third myth comes in. And that is the one about how the nuclear deal-if signed-will be cast in stone forever, binding India till eternity. Nobody seems to be saying what should be obvious: that no deal, agreement or partnership has ever been permanent in the history of modern nation states. Again, a few examples will suffice to buttress the point. Before Germany launched the Second World War, Hitler signed a treaty of friendship with fellow dictator of Soviet Union Stalin. Just two years after the ‘historic’ agreement between the two countries, Germany invaded Russia. In 1948, when Mao and his fellow communists captured power in China, the United States refused to recognize the nation. It was the island ‘state’ of Taiwan that was the official China as far as America was concerned. Yet, in 1973, American President Richard Nixon and his advisor quietly struck a deal with China that triggered the rise and rise of the Middle Kingdom as a Great Power. When Pakistani dictator Zia ul Haq hanged the democratically elected Prime Minister Zulfikar Bhutto, America virtually snapped all ties with the country, demanding a return of democracy. It is Pakistan’s fortune (or misfortune!) that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and America declared that Pakistan is a front line ally in the war against the ‘Godless’ communist. Throughout the 1980s, Uncle Sam winked at Pakistan’s dangerous behaviour. And when the Soviet Union withdrew its troops from Afghanistan in 1989, America promptly declared that Pakistan was an ‘irresponsible’ state and stopped the supply of F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan; aircraft for which poor Pakistan had paid money in advance. America has repeatedly violated or terminated treaties and agreements, including the Geneva accord. So have other nations when it comes to a matter of their ‘national interest’. So what stops India from doing the same in the future with the nuclear deal if it is no longer concomitant with India’s strategic interests?

Unlike the emotional garbage that we are witnessing in India, policy makers and strategists in other major powers are actually praying that India becomes another big player in a multi polar world where the United States can no longer dictate terms to all and sundry and behave like a school bully as and when its wants to. “Russia and France are countries who are very keen to ensure that the world is multipolar and not dominated by the US. They are keen on India completing this process and becoming a part of the wider nonproliferation regime and play the role of a balancer of power in Asia and the world. If these moves were only about India and the US, why should Russia and France be so interested in India concluding IAEA safeguards agreement and obtaining the NSG waiver,” says well known strategic affairs writer and commentator K. Subrahmanyam. Without any doubt, the events of the past few years (particularly the insane invasion and destruction of Iraq by the United States) have compelled major nations like Russia, France and Germany to think of ways and means of stopping America from behaving like a bull in a China shop. For them, China is as much of a strategic menace that the United States currently is. For them, India is a natural player that can act as a‘balancing power’.

Much has also been reported and written about the role of China in the whole controversy. Apart from the CPM and some other wooly headed pacifists, there is little doubt that China will spare no opportunity to thwart the rise of India as a major power in Asia. That doesn’t necessarily make China an ‘evil’ country or an enemy. The fact, it is simply pursuing its own strategic national interests. And that is where India can learn a lesson or two from China. The dragon is ruthlessly implementing the tale of banks and borrowers that says: if you owe a thousand dollars to the bank, you are in trouble. But if you owe a million dollars to the bank, the bank is in trouble. So much of American capital and so many American multinationals have a stake in China now that the country actually bulldozes Uncle Sam into agreement. In the 1990s, when American raised concerns about human rights violations in China, the dragon announced that it will give a multi-billion dollar aircraft order to European Airbus instead of American Boeing. Lo and behold, American forgot its own rhetoric about democracy and human rights. If the nuclear deal does go through, there will be an avalanche of American capital and multinationals fl owing into India. That is where Indian policy makers need to keep their ‘eyes open’.

Great powers have always ruthlessly pursued ‘national interests’, leaving issues like morals, ethics, emotions et al for the chattering classes to talk about. That’s the opportunity that the nuclear deal offers India.

“It is a unique deal for india”

What do you make of this ongoing fracas over the nuclear deal?
It does not make any sense to me. For close to 50 years, India has sought this global level playing field and freedom from a global nuclear apartheid regime. Now that we finally have it, it seems a real pity to blow it away. And that too at the calling of a hostile foreign power. Didn’t the Left know before they stuck an alliance with the Congress that a nuclear deal with the US was in the offing?

Would you say that it’s a good deal?
I would say that the deal that India is being offered is a unique one. India has been made an exception to the kind of similar deals that a lot of countries want with the US. Certainly countries like Pakistan & China have sought similar accords with the Americans, and they have not got it.

Why is the Left doing what it is?
I cannot answer for them, but all that I can say that foreign policy is not the Left’s business. My own assessment is that their position is the same as that of China. Beijing is not that afraid of encirclement by nuclear states, as it is of India and American coming together. What about the opposition by BJP? Equally difficult to determine, considering that they were the originators of the deal.

The Non-Binding Henry Hyde Act

Section 102: Clause 6D which specifies that nuclear cooperation should be given to those countries if it “will induce the country to give greater material and political support to the achievements of the US.” ------ Non-binding
Clause b4 will force India to toe US line on Iran -------- Non-binding
Section 103: Clause a5 states that US policy on equipment & technologies relating to enrichment, reprocessing & heavy water production should be to further restrict the transfer of such technology to any country, including India ------- US does not give these technologies to anyone & India doesn’t need them.
Clause b10 states that “any nuclear power reactor provided to the government of India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements.” -------- Non-binding

Indo-US 123 Agreement. It solves the enriched uranium shortage that has hampered India’s nuclear programme for decades, pushing India down to 27 among the 30 countries using nuclear power.
123 also preserves India’s right to reprocess the spent fuel from civilian reactors producing commercial power.
While the agreement claims not to impinge upon India’s military strategic programme, it has been accorded the status of non-nuclear weapons state and if India chooses to conduct tests that are found to violate IAEA norms, the US has a right to terminate the agreement. But even this termination will have to be followed by a year’s notice.
If the US goes ahead with the termination, it has a right of return over materials transferred under the 123 Agreement. The right to return is not automatic. Instead, the US will first consider the circumstances in which India has conducted the test.
Even after the numerous barriers before the right to return are crossed, India can continue to source its fuel supplies from countries such as France, Russia & the United Kingdom.
India has got a better deal than China under the same 123. Unlike India, China has also accepted bilateral international inspection. Unlike China, India has right to return clause for material.