The Nuclear Deal: An ideal opportunity to study Indian politics and politicians

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 post Nuclear Deal: The Left, and the right. They are rather lengthy but worth reading.

Ends.

123 Go - BY THE BOOK

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 some wizards 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 volte face. 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.

Click on it for enlarged view.

Also see: Indo-US nuclear agreement

Indo-US nuclear agreement

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 East European University, 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.

Ends.

Also see: India - national symbols