The gentle west wind hums/ As it blows in from the lake/ Over the fields and swaying palms/ The soul songs of the waves.
Memories, people, places, stories, articles, ideas, issues, views, health, sports, photos.
Copyright: Author.
A US Congressman makes public an internal note from his government relating to the Indo-American nuclear deal, and the tumult and the shouting starts in India.
What is the significance of this note? Does it infringe on India’s sovereignty? Was it part of what could be called Bushing (not to be mixed up with ‘phishing’ or ‘bushing’), which sometimes causes confusion. President Bush is said to have his own lexicon. Perhaps the President, though he didn’t sign the note, could have been misleading his own people.
What does the note say? The main point of objection in India appears to be the mention that the US would stop nuclear supplies if India conducts an atomic test. Now, how could such an eventuality come about?
The relevant points are:
1. India has a self-imposed moratorium on nuclear testing in force. To carry out a test in future, the ban has to be revoked. Is that likely?
2. The countries, India included, that are advanced in nuclear technology do not, it would appear, need to carry out more physical tests. The exercise is now done on computers.
3. If India does conduct a test on some future date, the nuclear supplies from the US do not stop automatically. The incumbent US President at that time would have to decide. The commercial benefits to the US would be a major factor in arriving at a conclusion.
4. The US is not the only supplier of India’s nuclear requirements.
5. We are looking at a short 4/5 decade time-span till our thorium-based technology is streamlined.
International agreements are confined to what is inked by the countries involved and do not include internal notes of one party. The Government of India certainly could not have presented the confidential domestic communication of another country for debate in the Parliament.
If the Americans had formally sent us a copy of the note concerned, we would have had to take cognizance of it. As of now it remains an opinion, rightly or wrongly worded, of an outgoing administration. The next administration in the White House may or may not endorse it.
Our sensitivity to what others say amounts to a lack of self confidence. The question should be whether we know what we want and are we getting it? Why waste time and energy on what is whispered behind our backs or the internal dialogue of another country?
On 6/23/08 I wrote (Nuclear Deal: The Left, and the Right) that China would be the gainer if the Indo-American Nuclear Deal did not materialize. Now it seems clear that China has reservations about it. Surely, internal notes (if China has that system) would have passed within that country’s government. There is no reason why we should bother about that.
What is intriguing is the timing and the reason for Congressman Howard Berman to make the note public. He reportedly said that he wanted the people of America to know. That revelation came to him after holding on to the communication for nearly nine months. If the NSG had approved the Indo-American Nuclear Deal at its earlier meeting, Berman would have missed the bus, whatever his reason was for wanting to board it.
Let us look at the matter objectively. If the final product is acceptable, we take it. Otherwise we dump it.
How many of the elected representatives of the people of India are really interested in the nuclear deal or the country for that matter? I feel the present political circus should be recorded in detail and preserved for the posterity. It could even be a textbook for political studies. A suggested title: ‘Who is for India?’
Or should it be ‘The value of Indian MPs?
The purpose of this short post is to draw the attention of those who want to evaluate the deal to the comments on my postNuclear Deal: The Left, and the right. They are rather lengthy but worth reading.
Last week India witnessed two ominous events. The first was yet another incursion into Indian territory by the Chinese. The other was the Left parties carrying the brinkmanship on India’s talks with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) almost to a point of no return.
What is the problem with IAEA negotiations? Accord with IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is a prerequisite for concluding India’s 123 Nuclear Agreement with the USA. The IAEA, which was originally formed as ‘Atoms for Peace’ under the UN umbrella, is the premier agency for promoting safe, secure and peaceful use of atomic energy. Without their approval, India may not be able to procure uranium, the critical material, even for the existing facilities.
China has been a member of IAEA from 1984. The statement made by China at the IAEA General Conference in 1997 says, "China always supports the safeguards activities of the Agency. China signed the voluntary-offer safeguards agreement with the Agency soon after joining it, and subsequently acceded to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the NPT, displaying China's consistent sincere wish for the maintenance of world peace and stability…” The full text can be read at http://www.nti.org/db/China/engdocs/chiaea97.htm [Accessed on 21/6/08]
Why do the Communists oppose India’s discussions with the IAEA? Their view seems to be that India should limit its atomic cooperation to Russia. But Russia has made it clear that India has to obtain clearance from the IAEA and the NSG before future collaboration in the nuclear field can be effective. Russia is reportedly supporting Indo-US Nuclear Pact.
It is generally considered that India’s nuclear technology is more advanced than China’s. Both countries accept the reality that atomic plants are essential to meet their energy needs. Ground realities do not sustain the Indian Communist’s claim that alternate sources like coal can provide the country’s power requirements. Therefore, it is not surprising that the major parties in the country do not oppose the idea of an Indo-US Nuclear Deal.
Is the Left unaware that China would be the gainer if India’s nuclear energy program is thwarted? China is rapidly expanding their atomic power capability with mostly Western technology. Even Westinghouse of USA had helped them build a facility. According to reports China’s plan is to expand their nuclear energy capacity six-fold by 2020.
If the Indo-US Nuclear Pact becomes a reality and India enters the world market, there would be escalation of the demand for and prices of uranium. Neither India nor China is self-sufficient in this metal. If India is out, China can procure uranium at low prices and outpace India’s development. By the time India stabilizes its thorium (indigenously available and cheaper) based technology in the next few decades, China would be too far ahead.
If the UPA, more specifically the Congress, genuinely believes that the Deal is good for the country, they should go ahead and conclude the talks with the IAEA and sign the 123 Agreement. That may lead to premature election and possible loss of power. The Left parties, in turn, would have the chance to face the people and vindicate their stand.
It would be a historic day for India if those in power decide to put the country before the self interest of hanging on to their seats.
To answer this question we must analyze who is against the 123 Nuclear Agreement between India and the US. Not the Congress, of course. It is fine with the other UPA constituents provided they don’t have to face an election right now. BJP mooted the idea first and want to renegotiate the agreement. This, in political lexicon, means changing a couple of words here, a few punctuations there. Their allies also are more or less toeing the same line.
Then who is against? The left parties. Their strength? About sixty MPs. Their reason for opposing the 123 Nuclear Agreement? It involves the imperialist, capitalist, colonialist, reactionary United States; every patriotic Indian should uphold the integrity and sovereignty of the nation. In other words, about 10% of the representatives of the people object to the pact altogether. That is enough to kill the 123 Nuclear Agreement because India is not a ‘People’s Democratic Republic’ but only an ordinary democracy.
How did the Left get into this position of strength? The Communists have been struggling for eighty years since the formation of the party in India for gaining a national presence. They have been organizing demonstrations and agitations to further the ‘people’s causes’ which of course didn’t include Quit India Movement and protests against China when that country attacked India. What did they achieve during the last eight decades? Three pockets in the country. Out of these, the party’s legislative representation from Kerala goes up and down with alternate elections. But through shrewd maneuvers and electoral alignments they have established the capability to dictate terms to the vast majority of the elected representatives of the people.
There is something much more important than the 123 Nuclear Agreement. No party, big or small, can be allowed to hold a democratically elected government to ransom. That is what the Left parties are doing right now. If they succeed, we can expect the same sort of interference in all major spheres.
Dr. Manmohan Singh is a gentleman, an honorable man and one of the best Prime Ministers India ever had. Would he like to continue in office as a puppet of a small group which is yet to learn from history?
Where is the 123 (India-US Nuclear) Agreement, or rather the politicians’ handling of it, taking us? I am a reasonably well-educated citizen, read a few newspapers daily and watch TV, but still the drama is confusing.
I understand that the present opposition mooted the idea of the nuclear treaty when they were in power. Now the agreement is anathema to them for whatever reason. They wanted a discussion in the Parliament, then a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) and again, a debate in the House followed by voting. The Speaker had already ruled that such procedure would be against precedent.
The Left has its own reasons for opposing the agreement. The old ‘imperialism, colonialism and capitalism’ jargon is still there, but added to it are ‘integrity, sovereignty and security’ of the country.The protest follows a well-trodden path – the Left has a history of campaigns against tractors, computers, mechanization in industry, and so on.
Currently the Left is also busy leading jathas from Chennai and Kolkota to ward off any danger from the foreign warships that are temporarily in the Bay of Bengal for a combined exercise with the Indian Navy. The vessels of Pakistan and China, the only two countries to have attacked India are not involved in the war games.
The scientists seem divided on the deal. Whether they have assessed the agreement in its totality or merely looked at some technical point or the other is not clear. And somewizards have suddenly realized that energy produced under the deal would be costlier than power generated through other methods.
The media too is split on the deal. One saw the sad instance of an esteemed Chennai-based daily doing a flip-flop on the issue and then coming out with an unconvincing explanation for its volteface. That paper also claimed (others too did) that the majority of MPs were against the 123 deal.
The Government appears to be adamant on proceeding with the nuclear agreement. What should be done in the given situation? Repeatedly stating that the Government has been reduced to a minority on this issue is not enough. The Constitution of India was written by wise men. It has the provision for handling such situations.
If the NDA and the Left genuinely believe that the 123 Agreement compromises India’s interests, I feel that they are duty bound to bring a no confidence motion against the Government.
Why is the hesitation to test the strength on the floor of the House? Is it fear of failure or the possibility of losing some seats should there be a fresh General Election?
For now, they are merely messing up the functioning of the Parliament with a lot of sound and fury.
Ends.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons – Public Domain. Shows the Preamble to the Constitution of India.
A spokesman of the US State Department, not the President or Secretary of State of that country, makes or is reported to have made a statement about the Indo-US nuclear deal. No body knows what exactly was said, if at all any comment on the agreement was made by the official. And on the basis of that the Prime Minister of India, never mind which party he belongs to, is virtually called a liar. Strange indeed are the ways of the politicians!
Let us have a look at what this is all about. The Government of India presided over by the then Prime Minister moots the idea of the nuclear deal with US. The succeeding government negotiates a treaty after considerable debate at home and claims that the agreement which has been reached is the best in the nation’s interest.
Undoubtedly, such a treaty should be judged dispassionately and objectively, taking into account the country’s sovereignty, energy requirements, technological development India has reportedly achieved so far and those like thorium based operations that are in the pipeline, and economic factors.
The ballyhoo would make one think that we have a nuclear test or two slated for the next few months. Nothing of the sort. The previous government had announced a moratorium on such tests. Only if that self-imposed constraint proves to be ill-advised or intrinsically wrong or irrelevant, the question of further tests arises. In any case, we seem to have reached a stage, like the US, where more tests are not really needed
Now, what happens if we do conduct a test? Will the American Marines storm the beaches of India, pack up all the fuel and equipment they supplied and leave? Or will the US do another Iraq? Not at all. The American Administration at that point of time would handle the situation according to what is best for them. It may be commercially beneficial for them to make some motions of protest and continue business with India as usual.
What if India decides to call off the treaty? We have done that once with Russia. Do the Americans have any recourse? Well, why should we bother? It is their problem.
It would appear that the protesters have no faith in their own country, in its inherent strength, in its people and what its scientists are capable of. India will always be there bright and shining, no matter what an American official is supposed to have said (possibly for home consumption). The US slapped an embargo on us in the past. We carried on nevertheless.
The whole episode reminds me of a story told by Sriman Narayan, a former General Secretary of the Congress Party, decades back. In a once famous EastEuropeanUniversity, the new generation biology professor was teaching the anatomy of grasshoppers. He had a trained insect in his right palm. When he held up his left palm and ordered, ‘jump’, the grasshopper obeyed.
Now, the next part of the demonstration – The teacher pulled off the legs the insect and repeated the order. The insect didn’t jump. The conclusion given by the professor was that grasshoppers hear through their legs.
Protests and criticisms are fine; that is part of democracy. But warped logic is not.
