The pitch against the one-year old-Indo-US nuclear deal will undoubtedly rise manifold as Parliament began its monsoon session and the Left has put the UPA government on notice over emerging contours of the agreement. Perhaps the government will issue some fresh ‘clarifications’ and the Prime Minister will repeat that some of the fears in India are ‘exaggerated’. Be that as it may, it might be a good idea if political parties, at least temporarily, sink their differences and send out a united but unambiguous message from Parliament about the treaty: whether India wants it or not, or if it does, will the country agree to any of the changes in the original draft (of last July) suggested by a section of American lawmakers working in tandem with non-proliferation and other lobbies not favourably disposed towards India.
It only sounds fair that if the US Congress (American Parliament) can have a say in the matter why not the Indian Parliament. During the course of the hearing on the nuclear deal in US House panels a lot of what will be called anti-India rhetoric was heard. India was said to be on notice. It is time the Americans too got to know where the US administration stands in the eyes of Indian lawmakers.
It does not necessarily make the picture clear when the criticism of the deal is dismissed as exaggerated or the view of the supporters is endorsed without any questioning. The matter is perhaps so sensitive that the usual logic that when a topic is intensely debated, as this deal is, the truth can be discovered only somewhere between the contentions of the opposing parties. This much, however, is clear that in the United States efforts are on to bring some changes that would alter the essence, if you like, of the July 18, 2005 deal agreed to in Washington by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Critics at home here in India have been quite harsh almost from day one, using words to convey the feeling that the nuclear deal would amount to surrendering India’s sovereign right to take its own decisions and defend itself to the US and also tie India’s foreign policy to that of the US. An interesting thing is that though a lot of Indians are opposed to nuclear energy, terming it as unsafe, the nuclear deal is under attack mostly on political, strategic and ideological considerations.
And the criticism has become more stringent after the two Houses of American Parliament passed ‘add-ons’ legislations that will indeed be found unacceptable in India. After ignoring for months the barbs from critics, the government has now admitted that the ‘add-ons’ do cause some concern.
The fresh efforts in the US will mean, among other things: a) Indo-US deal will not automatically lead to India receiving enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production technologies; b) New Delhi will have to follow the general safeguard rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency instead of negotiating an India-specific agreement with the IAEA, as stated in the July deal; c) apart from IAEA inspectors, the US too will get the right of inspection; and d) without an annual certificate of ‘good conduct’ from Washington, India will not be getting supplies for its nuclear energy plants.
No surprise therefore, a much respected Indian nuclear scientist sees no merit to go through the deal. “It would be better for India”, he says, “to sign the NPT rather than accept the terms” (terms on offer for the nuclear deal).
Many American lawmakers have said India will have to support the wider strategic foreign policy interests of their country. In other words, their message is quite simple: India will not have the right to decide an independent policy towards countries like Iran and North Korea, as long as these countries are considered ‘evils’ by the US.
A country like India cannot accept this kind of interference by an outside power. The American and Indian interests cannot be identical, nor their assessments of various issues. If the US likes to choose its friends—and foes—on the basis of its own interests, so does India.
A year ago when the nuclear deal was unveiled in Washington during Bush-Manmohan summit, it was dubbed a turning point in Indo-US relations which were a casualty of the 50 years of cold war. The subsequent turn of events make it clear that bitterness and unpleasant memories of five decades do not disappear in a jiffy. A large section in this country, as perhaps also in the US, continues to be suspicious each other.
Irrespective of what it says, the US pursues a pernicious ‘balance of power’ policy in the sub-continent to bolster the fighting machine of Pakistan, which has generally shunned democracy, acted overtly or covertly to launch aggression against India and established a dubious reputation for proliferation. Given the Islamabad fixation, the US State Department has down the years, it can be said with certainty that should the Indo-US nuclear surmount all hurdles in due course, a similar offer will be made to Pakistan as well.
Take it from me the spin masters in Washington will hail the move as a calibrated effort to wean away Pakistan from the China’s embrace. They are certain to cite the fact that after American denial of parity with India on matters nuclear, Gen Musharraf is negotiating a nuclear deal with China.
Apparently, the AQ Khan factor does not alter the ‘balance of power’ policy of the US, which according to critics in India, is only keen to cap India’s nuclear programme.
Courtesy : Syndicate Features
Printer-Friendly Version
