What does the US gain from the Indo-US nuclear deal ?

We all know what India stands to gain from the successful passage of the Indo-US nuclear deal— the ability to import uranium fuel, nuclear reactors, their financing and components, and a slew of the so-called dual use technology denied until now. But what does the US gain?

The answer lies in contemporary international politics. The US wants to befriend and strengthen India. As one unnamed official put it in 2005, the US wants “to help India become a major world power in the 21st century…we understand fully the implications, including military, of that statement.”

Geopolitics

Contrary to first impressions, there is nothing sinister about that statement. Global powers like the US are impelled to promote world order concerns, as much as they pursue their selfish national interests. Indeed a rule-based world order is seen as an essential component of national interests. By entering into a nuclear deal, the US is following this compulsion, as are the other powers like Russia, China and France who have signed on to the US-led process.
The rise of China has created a vortex in the Asian region and now the globe. The emergence of an economically and militarily strong India will help stabilize the region and benefit not just the US but the world, including China itself. Inviting New Delhi to attend G-8 outreach meetings is not quite the same as having India as a participant in meetings that decide global issues, be they economic policy, non-proliferation or international security.
Removing India from a list of countries which are under a major global embargo for nuclear and other high technologies is the first step in a process that could see us become a member of the G-8, the Nuclear Suppliers Group or even a permanent member of the UN Security Council in the years to come.
There is a great deal of innuendo about how the US will gain business from the process. Reference has been made to a letter of intent India has given to the US to have American companies set up 10 nuclear power reactors in India. But that is not the real prize. The business consequences of the reactors which could cost anywhere upto $30-40 billion cannot be sneezed at, even by the US. Nor can the exports arising from the lifting of the embargo on a number of dual use technologies.
But it is also a fact that the US has rarely used foreign policy to promote its economic interests in the manner, say, France or UK have done. Indeed, the Americans have gone out of their way to deny countries like India computers, weapons, equipment on various grounds. The embargo system that the US has created actually seeks to promote policy by denying commerce.

History

Now for the logical follow-up question: Is this good or bad for India? There is nothing ominous about the US helping India become a stronger power. This is what they did in the 1950s and 1960s as well. Between 1954 and 1966, the US helped set up some 14 engineering colleges and provided visiting professors to IITs in Khagragpur, the College of Engineering in Roorkee, Pune, Guindy and the Bengal Engineering College. The most significant US connection was in the establishment of the Kanpur IIT in 1960. Our first research reactor, our first nuclear power reactor, our first sounding rocket, all came with the help of the US.
Under the Technical Cooperation Mission, the US government as well as the Ford Foundation provided assistance for hundreds of Indian engineers to be trained. Indeed many of the nuclear scientists like R. Chidambaram and K. Santhanam who led the Pokhran II nuclear tests, were trained in the US or benefited from an exposure to US laboratories. American aid provided funds to enhance the quality of Indian labs like the National Physical Laboratory and the National Chemical Laboratory. US funds were also provided under the Development Loan Fund to enhance the technological capabilities of the Indian private sector.
Funds and technical assistance were also provided to a cross-section of engineering and medical colleges and specialized institutions like the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Perhaps the most significant aid the US provided was for the Green Revolution in the country, not to forget the food aid India received in the late 1960s that helped stave of starvation of millions.
Those who worry about India becoming a part of the US order of things and an American client state are patriotic Indians and are right to be concerned about the issue, but they are way off target. Indeed they reveal a tendency towards an ahistorical and linear analysis. For example, what the record actually shows is that despite the enormous help the US gave India in the 1960s, New Delhi did not support Washington’s war in Vietnam.
Indeed, there have been two occasions in the past when a weak India sought to become a client of the US, but was rebuffed. Just after Independence Pandit Nehru used Lt Gen B.M. Kaul, then military attaché in Washington, to seek out a US alliance. Pakistan, too, did the same, but both were turned down by the US. The second was in the wake of the disaster the Indian Army suffered in Bomdi La at the hands of the Chinese. A broken Nehru wrote to the US seeking outright military alliance. The embarrassed US was saved by the Chinese declaration of ceasefire, but at no stage does the record show that the US even contemplated anything but a limited arms transfer relationship with India.
In recent years, too, India has not hesitated to stand apart from the US on issues of vital concern to Washington. Despite terming the US as a “natural ally” Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee refused to support the US war in Iraq. Likewise, by walking out of the WTO deal earlier this year, India hardly behaved like a lackey of the US. Neither is it likely to do so whenever Indian interests clash with those of the US.

Strength

The opposition to the Iranian pipeline does not come from any alleged subservience to the Americans, but real issues that the critics are ignoring, primarily the security of the pipeline that must pass through regions where insurgency has taken root. In the past year, Balochi rebels disrupted gas supply to parts of Pakistan several times. There is also a problem with Iran’s nuclear activities. This has not been dreamed of by India, but is subject to four critical UN Security Council resolutions. India is not letting down Iran; Tehran is being ill-served by its own leadership.
Raising such issues and groundless fears do disservice to the country. Today’s India is a far stronger entity than it has ever been since independence. We have the ultimate doomsday weapon to ensure that no external force can overwhelm us. We are self-sufficient in food and have substantial foreign exchange reserves and a booming economy. More than that, we have the self-confidence of having survived 60 years in which we have overcome war, famine, near-bankruptcy and rebellions.
If geopolitics has brought the US to our door, we should welcome the event and see how our new relationship can benefit us, rather than trying to invoke the chimeras of the past. invoke the chimeras of the past.
This article was first published in Mail Today October 10, 2008

India and the world will be reshaped by the nuclear deal

AT every stage opponents of the nuclear deal said it would not make it, be amended beyond recognition, or simply fail to pass muster. But two people — Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W Bush — insisted on pushing the deal based on a joint statement they had made on July 18, 2005. With the passage of the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver, the Indo-US nuclear deal is through and it is set to shake not just the world, but Indian politics as well.
First, no matter what critics say, the agreement confers on India a de facto status of a nuclear weapons state. We can never be de jure because the NPT condition is that we should have tested our nuclear weapons before 1967. There is a special irony here, because the NSG was set up, as its own document states, “following the explosion in 1974 of a nuclear device by a non-nuclear-weapon State….”
The second, and perhaps the most important outcome, is that this represents India's entry into the world order as a significant power (Let’s not use the loaded “Great Power”). As long as India remained in an “outsider” category we were not quite the same as the others, no matter what they said, or we did. We could boast of our bomb, our BPO prowess, economic growth, invites to the G-8 meetings and candidacy for the UN Security Council seat and so on. But we were firmly at a different level from, say, China. They could import powerful computers, uranium, sensitive machine tools, software and components for satellites that were denied to us. The NSG waiver now lifts the embargo on India acquiring nuclear technology and, in some ways more important, the so-called dual use technologies.
Third, the deal finally buries the policy of equating India and Pakistan. For decades India has chafed at the world's tendency to lock India into a bipolar South Asian framework with Pakistan. Now, decisively, the rules have been changed for India, and pointedly not for Pakistan.
Fourth, while one aspect of this entry — our nuclear tests of 1998 — is tantamount to a gate-crash, it is by and large a friendly entry into the nuclear club. The opposition of Austria, Ireland, New Zealand — countries with no nuclear materials or technology but powerful anti-nuclear electorates — is history. Of greater significance is that countries as diverse as Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, South Africa, Germany, France, Turkey joined the US in welcoming India into the club.
Fifth, the deal represents politics as being quintessentially the art of the possible. Both India and its interlocutors would have liked much more from each other, but chose pragmatically to be satisfied with a mutually beneficial compromise.

United States

The United States has played a key role. No other country, or a group of them, could have done what it did — get the 45-member NSG to stand its rules on its head. There is no conspiracy here. Geopolitically and economically, India is a good bet on which the US has invested in for decades, even when its main stakes were on Pakistan. US assistance in the 1960s enabled India's educational base which paid off in the 1990s in the form of the BPO business that has helped India to emerge as an IT powerhouse. For their part, Indians have voted for good relations with the US with their feet — migrating there in unprecedented numbers. In the process, the two countries have developed cross-stakes in each other.
But the US commitment is also driven by the rise of China. While the US and China have far deeper economic links with each other than the US and India have, the Americans remain deeply suspicious of Beijing, if only because of China’s opaque and authoritarian political system. But this should not be seen in old-fashioned balance of power terms where the combine is aimed at weakening China. The aim of America’s India policy is to hedge against things going wrong there, and in the process sending a signal to Beijing that the US is not entirely without options in the Asian region.

Left

How do I argue that this deal also marks a major shift in India's domestic politics? The Congress has had a historical love affair with the Left. In the 1930s the socialists and communists functioned as a ginger group known as the Congress Socialist Party. Later the CPI officially supported Indira Gandhi’s Left-leaning government. Though the CPI(M)’s politics was marked by anti-Congressism between 1970 and 1990, the party began to reluctantly see the Congress as the only bulwark against the BJP.
As the Third Front failed to jell and the Congress strength ebbed, the party became more domineering with the help of Left-leaning Congressmen like Arjun Singh within the Congress. As of 2004, they became positively obstreperous on a number of issues. For a while the Congress played on, mainly because Sonia Gandhi felt a special obligation to the Communists for backing her in the “foreign origin” controversy raised by the BJP.
But in the end, Sonia had to look after her party and government which was being undermined by the Left’s unrelenting hostility to the goals of her Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Finally, however, the issue was settled by Prakash Karat and Co overreaching themselves and forcing the Congress Party to break with the Left. A major role was played in this by Rahul Gandhi who has emerged as one of the strongest backers of the deal within the party and who is seeking to redefine the party’s post-Indira ideology. This process was begun by Rajiv Gandhi, but was short-circuited by his assassination.
The thralldom of the Left has acted as a brake on India’s march towards economic reform and growth. With an uncompromising leader like Karat in control, the chances of a rapprochement between the Left and the Congress is dim. This is all for the good for it compels the latter to swim in the deep end of the pool by itself and to build up a party that does not rely on the problematic support of the Left.

Politics

For a variety of reasons, none of them honourable, our Left and the BJP remain determined to oppose the nuclear deal. They have taken recourse to scare-mongering to persuade the public of their point of view. The BJP claims we will not have the right to test, as though such a right could have been incorporated in a civil nuclear agreement, leave alone be granted by the NSG.
The Left claims that India has sold out to the American camp; well, they have been saying this since Independence. Recollect, when India became free in 1947, B.T. Ranadive, one of Karat’s heroes, claimed that freedom was a sham and Jawaharlal and the Congress were just lackeys of the imperialists. They were wrong then, they are wrong now.
The set of agreements that comprise the Indo-US nuclear deal are not static documents tantamount to the Scripture. They are living products of international politics and, in this sense, will mutate and reshape themselves in the future, depending on the use or misuse they are put to. As documents, they are in themselves worth only their weight of the paper they are written on, unless there is a congruence of interests, and mutuality of benefit, among the signatories — India, US, the IAEA, and the constituents of the NSG.
This appeared in Mail Today September 10, 08

Victory at NSG

At every stage opponents of the nuclear deal said it would not make it, be amended beyond recognition or simply fail to pass muster. But two people-- Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush-- insisted that a deal based on a joint statement they had made on July 18, 2005 would emerge.

It has, and it is set to shake not just the world, but Indian politics as well. Let me make one thing clear-- the agreement now confers on India a de facto status of a nuclear weapons state. We can never be de jure because the NPT condition is that we should have tested before 1967. Amending this, which seems to be what the BJP claims it wants to do, would require the strong support of over 120 countries in the world, a task that can be well deemed impossible. The point is, is it worth it ?

The second thing the deal does is to finally bury the policy of equating India and Pakistan in the South Asian region. For decades India has chafed at the world's tendency to adopt an equidistant approach towards the two South Asian neighbours. Now, decisively, the game has changed.

The third, and perhaps the most important outcome, is that this represents India's entry into the world order as a significant power. (I won't use loaded terms like "Great Power" .) As long as the nuclear embargoes remained on us, we were not quite the same as the others. We could boast of our bomb, our BPO prowess, our economic growth, our invites to the G-8 meetings and so on. But we were still at a level different from, let us say, China. They could import powerful computers, uranium, sensitive machine tools and components for satellites that were denied to us. Now, all these possibilities will open up.

The fourth point is that while some aspects of this entry (India's nuclear tests of 1998) are tantamount to a gate-crash, it is a friendly welcome. The opposition of Austria, Ireland, New Zealand is history. What is more significant is that countries ranging from Russia, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, Germany, France, joined the US in welcoming India into the nuclear club. They have not done this because they love India, but because they recognise the role India has played in global politics till now, and the one it will play in the future is benign and will be beneficial to them individually.

The key role in this has been played by the United States. We need to understand why. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. India is good bet. In its own way the US has invested in us for decades, even when its main bets were on Pakistan. It was US assistance of the 1960s that enabled India's educational base which paid off in the 1990s. Why it is so important for the deal to go through now is that President George W Bush has invested as much political capital on this deal as he has on Iraq. That is a losing investment, but India will pay of.

Let us be very clear. No other country could have delivered the NSG to India other than the US. At the end of the day it was the US which had to kick the collective butts of the Irish, Austrians and the Norweigians. These rich, white, countries have zero dependence on nuclear power and are not nuclear exporters, and were yet trying to play spoiler. In some ways this is an object lesson in power politics. These countries were trying to punch far above their weight and they were clobbered.

In India, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh deserves the credit for single-handedly steering the complex agreement. For long stretches he was alone and had to face the lonliness of the long-distance runner. But his frail frame hides an iron will which has been manifest not just on this deal, but in India's efforts to restructure its economy in the 1990s. But Manmohan Singh's policies were not sui generis. He didn't dream them up. They represent the culmination of a strategic direction that was set by Indira Gandhi in 1980. She, if you recollect, is the one who put us on the path of making nuclear weapons as well.

We should also not forget the role played by Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the IAEA. His positive attitude towards the deal and his personal credibility as the chief of the anti-proliferation watch-dog, went a long way in shoring up support for India.

The last point I would like to make for now is that this deal also marks a major shift in India's domestic politics. Since the mid-1950s, the Congress party has had a left wing. This has comprised of crypto communists and real communists. It has been based on the party's belief that socialism is somehow the solution to India's ills.
By forcing the Congress to take a call on the deal, Prakash Karat and co have actually forced the Congress party to take a look at itself. The clarity with which Sonia, and more important, Rahul Gandhi have supported the deal indicates that the Congress is at last in the process of defining its post-Indiria ideology. This process was begun by Rajiv Gandhi, but was short-circuited by his assassination.

FAQ on Nuclear Deal

The Indo-US nuclear deal comprises of two segments—the technical and the political. Linking the two is a complex web of agreements with implicit and explicit conditions and statements. It is politics that has enabled the technical—because the US wants to befriend India, it has taken the decision to take the lead to lift the embargo on civil nuclear trade that has been imposed on India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Technical:
Contrary to some views, the technical is not unimportant. Government figures show that the demand for electricity would increase ten-fold by 2050. After taking into account all available generation options, the country would still be left with a power shortage of 400 giga watts (one giga watt is equal to one billion watts). Importing uranium fuel and reactors will help ease this shortage.

Q. Is there a shortage of natural uranium in the country ?

A. According to a news report, speaking in Hyderabad on June 8, Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission observed that there was a huge shortage in the supply of uranium, although the country was on the road to increasing production. Owing to this shortage, the National Power Corporation of India Limited operated at only 50 per cent capacity utilisation. The government agreed to sanction four more units of 700 MW each to NPCIL but they would be constructed only after fuel linkages were established.

Political:

Q. What is this latest revelation in the US ?

A. The State Department has, in a letter to a US Congressman said that under Article XIV of the Indo-US 123 Agreement, the US “has the right to cease all nuclear cooperation with India immediately.” And that the fuel supply assurances demanded by New Delhi "are not, however, meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of nonproliferation commitments."

Q. Didn’t the PM say last August in Parliament that “ The agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary."

A. Yes, he did. But note the wording of the US letter, it says that the US has the right to cease cooperation, it does not say that India does not have the right to test.

Q. Are Indian officials right when they claim that the July 18, 2005 statement, the 123 Agreement or the IAEA safeguards agreement do not explicitly ban further nuclear tests by India ?

A. Yes they are. But there is a very clear implicit condition-- should India resume nuclear testing again, it will have to pay the price.

Q. How are these conditions implicit ?

A. The Hyde Act has waived the US ban on civil nuclear trade between the US and countries like India which have not signed the NPT, and yet conducted nuclear tests. But this waiver is retroactive going back from July 18, 2005 and covers our tests of 1998 and 1974. Any new test will lead to a termination of the waiver and compel the US to terminate the 123 Agreement.

Q. What is India’s view of the Hyde Act?

A. India says this is a legislation that binds the US Administration, not India. India is bound by the bilateral 123 Agreement that was worked out last year.In international law, an international agreement trumps domestic legislation. Were it not so, countries would undermine international commitments by passing domestic legislation. Actually the US did this to India in the case of Tarapur, and that is why India has gone out of its way to seek assurances of fuel supply from the US.

Q. So was the PM bluffing us when he said we had the right to test ?

A. Not quite, he was correct in the statement, but he did not lay it all out by saying “ My fellow countrymen, we have the right to conduct further nuclear tests, but the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement could be jeopardized in case we did so.”

Q. Why do you say only “jeopardized”, and not that it would be terminated ?

A. Because there is some clever drafting that provides a loophole of sorts which says that before the agreement is terminated, both sides will consider the circumstances and consult on why the party is seeking a termination. Though either of the parties may still terminate the agreement if they are not satisfied, they have agreed “to consider carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination… [and] take into account whether the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation resulted from a party’s serious concern about a changed security environment or as a response to similar actions by other States which could impact national security.”

Q. Is the BJP making too much of the testing issue ?

A. It is, because Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee told the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September 1998 “after concluding this limited testing program, India announced a voluntary moratorium on further underground nuclear test explosions. We conveyed our willingness to move towards a de jure formalization of this obligation. In announcing a moratorium, India has already accepted the basic obligation of the CTBT.”
In other words, India was ready to forgo any further nuclear tests.

Q. Does the US have an agenda in pushing the nuclear deal?

A. Of course it does. As they say, there is no free lunch. But that’s not quite the same thing as accepting that India will slavishly serve that agenda. What it will do is to utilize the opportunity to move its own agenda forward.
India has its own agenda and sees in the present global conjuncture an opportunity to strengthen its own position relative to the major powers.
In fact, being stronger than it has ever been, both economically and militarily (India is a nuke power, remember ?) it is in a far better position to resist unseemly pressure on issues. On the other hand, there is no reason why we should not cooperate with the US and other world powers, if there is a mutuality of interests. Sitting out the dance as a wall-flower is certainly not a good option for India.

Q. So why have the two countries taken such a round-about way of dealing with the issue ?

A. We come back to politics. For four years, the Congress formed a coalition with the Left and so did not want to spell out the price India would have to pay for violating the agreement. At the same time, it had to deal with the BJP which muscularly asserted India’s right to test.
At the same time, in the US, the Administration had to walk the fine line of satisfying existing US law in relation to countries like India, Pakistan and Israel, who are outlaws of the world nuclear system because they have not signed the NPT and possess nuclear weapons.

They had, in the words of Nick Burns, the former US official who negotiated the 123 Agreement, to “square the circle.” As you know squaring the circle is not really possible, you have to create an illusion of sorts to achieve that feat.

Another nuclear deal ambush

A member of the US House of Representatives Howard L. Berman, a Democrat, has thrown yet another grenade aimed at blowing up the Indo-US nuclear agreement. On the eve of the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in Vienna on Thursday, the Congressman, who is Chairman of the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee, has released confidential correspondence wherein the Bush Administration has given assurances that the US will not sell sensitive technologies relating to enrichment and reprocessing to India, and that it will terminate nuclear trade in the event of another Indian nuclear test. However, Indian officials who did not want to be quoted because of the upcoming NSG meeting said that the there was nothing new in Berman’s points. It appears that Berman is trying to influence the NSG meeting and hoping that it will insist on adding a clause to the draft waiver agreement that will be in line with the assurance that the Congress has got from the Administration. But if you look at the entire record-- the July 18, 2005 agreement, the Indo-US 123 Agreement, the India-specific IAEA safeguards, the position is much more nuanced.

The correspondence related to 45 highly technical questions that members of Congress posed about the deal before voting on the Hyde Act in 2006. The Administration has responded to the questions through a confidential letter on January 16, 2008 to Berman’s predecessor, Rep Tom Lantos who has since passed away. Berman, who has publicly opposed the Indo-US nuclear deal and declared that he will vote against it when it comes up again for an up or down vote if all the conditions set by the Congress at the time of passing the Hyde Act in 2006 are met.

A senior Indian official familiar with the deal said that the issues raised by Berman are a matter of interpretation. By the application of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954, all cooperation between India and the US will come to an end should India test again because “the Hyde Act has provided a waiver for the tests conducted till May 13, 1998.” Actually the key operational clause of the Hyde Act was Section 104 which provided the US Administration the ability to overlook actions like the nuclear tests that had occurred before the July 18, 2005, the date in which the Indo-US nuclear agreement was signed by President George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Washington DC.

However, the 123 Agreement worked out by India and the US detailing the conditions for the nuclear trade, made it clear through its Article XIV that that the parties would consult with each other before terminating their cooperation and in the process they would “take into account” whether the reasons for seeking the termination were related to “a party’s serious concern about a changed security environment or as a response to a similar action by other states which could impact national security.” The wording very clearly relates to the eventuality that India is compelled to begin testing again in the wake of tests by other parties like China or Pakistan.

India has also repeatedly emphasized that it is bound by the 123 Agreement and not the Hyde Act and officials have been at pains to point out that by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international agreements always take precedence over domestic legislation. In other words, the Indo-US 123 Agreement will trump the Hyde Act.

The second issue raised by Berman—that of the issue of the US export of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies—is actually bogus. Actually the 123 Agreement’s Article V Section 2 makes it clear that the US will not provide India with enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production technology. To acquire them India would have to seek an amendment of the 123 Agreement.

According to Indian officials, the reason why India agreed to this is that India already possesses all these technologies and is not seeking them. However, it is seeking components of these “sensitive” technologies, but this is a matter that has been left for further negotiation. Considering that the US does not give such technology to anyone, their decision to leave the matter for future negotiation was itself a gain for India.

New Delhi has taken the stand that the it is entering a civil nuclear agreement with the US and the NSG members. The key to the agreement is the acceptance by these countries of India’s military nuclear programme. The Indian policy in this is contained in a statement made by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in September 1998 at the United Nations General Assembly where he noted that “after concluding this limited testing program, India announced a voluntary moratorium on further underground nuclear test explosions. We conveyed our willingness to move towards a de jure formalization of this obligation. In announcing a moratorium, India has already accepted the basic obligation of the CTBT.”

In an official statement released on Wednesday, the government says it will be bound only "by the terms of the bilateral agreement between India and the United States, the India-specific safeguards agreement (with the IAEA) and the clean waiver from the NSG, which we hope will be forthcoming ...."

The statement goes on to add that insofar as testing is concerned, " We have a unilateral moratorium on testing...."

Grab this deal

This article appeared in Mail Today November 28, 2007

Today, the Lok Sabha will begin the long-anticipated debate on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Expect more sound than light, and a lot of smoke. The debate will be strictly partisan, and you will be none the wiser. This is a pity considering the vital national importance of the subject. Fortunately, from the outset, there has been nothing hidden about the deal. Officials on both sides have leaked details to the media, the legislative processes have been quite open, and the outcome— India’s separation plan, the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement are available for anyone to read and interpret. Perhaps because of the information overload, and some of it is technical-- both in the legislative and scientific sense—there is a lot of confusion surrounding the deal.
The deal is not exclusively about energy, neither is it about India and the United States.
But it is about India’s relationship with the entire developed world, shaped as they are to a considerable extent by the embargoes placed on India’s nuclear and space programmes because we are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. All the action till now in New Delhi, Washington and Vienna will not operationalise the deal. Only the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group’s clean exemption on its rule barring trade with countries that have not signed the NPT will do so. In that sense the US is merely the chowkidar to the gates of the NSG, the cartel of nations with significant nuclear technology and materials.
You may ask why US ? The reason can be answered by another question: Why is US hosting the Annapolis Conference on Palestine, or why is the US concerned about North Korea’s nuclear reactor? The US is seen by its contemporaries-- and they are that since it has no real rivals-- as the world’s foremost power on whom rests a disproportionate responsibility to maintain the world order. George Bush may have single-handedly diminished US capital by his wanton ways, but the US still remains the default power on the world’s problem issues. Dealing with India’s nuclear status is one such issue and all NSG countries have decided that the US will be the nodal country on the subject.
With its moribund nuclear industry and plethora of rules, the US is unlikely to be the main commercial gainer from the nuclear deal. The first four reactors after the NSG go-ahead are likely to be Russian because the Koodankulam site has the necessary clearances for them and the reactor type has been certified by Indian regulators. The next would probably be a French reactor. As the chowkidar, the US may be entitled to a tip, 10 to 15 per cent, which could be the trade in components, computers and control systems it may export.
American gains will be political, and they are not inconsiderable. The deal is vital for the US goal of incorporating India in a global security architecture in the coming decades.
“Aha !” you may say, if you believe in conspiracy theories. “We told you so.” But that aim is less sinister than it sounds. First, there is nothing the US can do today to compel us to do anything against our own interests. Second, while India and the US both have national interests that may, on occasion, clash, on the whole they are much more congruent today than ever. To reject a policy option because we have matching interests would be perverse.
India and the US share common interests with China, Japan, EU and Russia and almost everyone, for a secure and stable environment. Given its global presence, the US must have a special place in our calculations. It is the only power that has the capability of intervening, militarily or diplomatically in countries of vital importance for us—Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and, to an extent, even China. Good relations with the US also have a dividend in the form of better relations with its close allies, principally Japan and the European Union.

All major powers seek strategic autonomy, but India seems to be stuck with its 1970s obsession with autarky. While in the field of economic relations the idea has been thrown overboard, its its strategic avatar still holds some fascination for the Left and the RSS. In today’s globalised world, we must understand the difference between autarky and autonomy. The latter is desirable, the former self-defeating. One puts you in the league of North Korea and Cuba, the other with China and the European Union.
The striking aspect of the Left raising fears about New Delhi being subservient to Washington is that they are doing so at a time when India is the strongest it has been in 60 years—bulging foreign exchange reserves, sizzling economic growth, a vast nuclear armed military and a sophisticated industrial and intellectual infrastructure. India’s relations with its smaller neighbours are the best ever, as are those with old adversaries like China and Pakistan. The only answer for this deliberate fear-mongering is that the Left is not happy with this picture.
Coming to technical issues: There are some who claim that India will lose the right to test. Not true. In fact the US has been remarkably accommodating on this score. But by the same measure with which we have retained the right to test, the US, too, has the right to react. But this is a hypothetical proposition since the eventuality is not around the corner. There are some facile arguments about India placing its reactors under safeguards “in perpetuity” and not getting perpetual fuel guarantees. In fact the fuel guarantees are perhaps the most extensive one can find anywhere.

India tested on May 11 and 13 1998. The government’s statement after the May 13 test said we had "completed the planned series." India’s chief scientist, Dr. R. Chidambaram and the DRDO specialist K. Santhanam assured the government that there was no need for further tests. Having invited the world’s opprobrium, we could have gone on testing, but we didn’t. Most of the scientists who today claim we need more tests were not involved in the weapons programme, or had retired long before India’s nuclear weapons programme really got underway in the mid-1990s.
It is difficult to see what the BJP now wants by way of renegotiating the 123 Agreement. A document on the “evolution of India’s nuclear policy” was tabled in Parliament on May 27, 1998 noted “Subsequent to the tests Government has already stated that India will, now observe a voluntary moratorium and refrain from conducting underground nuclear test explosions. The basic obligation of the CTBT are thus met.” In the same statement it also indicated willingness to move towards “a de-jure formalization” of this declaration. The statement also expressed India’s desire to participate in the Fissile Material Cut off Treaty (FMCT). These commitments were reiterated by Prime Minister Vajpayee to the UN General Assembly on September 24, 1998:

Accordingly, after concluding this limited testing program, India announced a voluntary moratorium on further underground nuclear test explosions. We conveyed our willingness to move towards a de jure formalization of this obligation. In announcing a moratorium, India has already accepted the basic obligation of the CTBT.

The Indo-US nuclear deal has the power to change India’s relationship with the US and the rest of the developed world. The agreements that shape it are not static documents, they are subject to change and modification. As it is, an international agreement is worth the piece of paper it is written on, unless there is a commitment and interest of both or all parties to uphold it. The process of meeting reciprocal obligations will build up trust, which generate higher levels of commitment. In other words, the minor flaws gaps that remain will also be addressed. But as is the way with life-- in the fullness of time and fitness of things.

One step forward, two steps back

In contrast to Lenin's dictum, "Two steps forward, one step back," the Left has succeeded in inflicting a wound on itself by its maneuvering on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Its concession allowing the government to begin negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency means it has abandoned its stand demanding that the government do nothing to "operationalise" the deal. In fact, all that is left to operationalise the deal from the Indian side is to work out an India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Thereafter, the US will take the agreement to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and seek an exemption from its rule barring trade with countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only the US can do that,India is not an NSG member (as yet). But India can, and has been talking to individual NSG members for the past year or so, though there is no public record of the discussions. Formally, it is the US that will have to approach the NSG and seek, as India has demanded, a "clean exemption" ie, an unconditional one. This is not likely to be easy because the non-proliferationists in the US and Europe are mobilising their efforts to ensure that an NSG exemption is conditional on India's agreeing to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and commit itself to the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty, if and when the latter is negotiated.Conditions are likely to be political dynamite in India and will be unacceptable to New Delhi.

The IAEA agreement is not likely to be too complicated because it will be based, as we have noted before, on the basic IAEA safeguards document relevant, INFCIRC/66. The Left has demanded, and the government has conceded, that the safeguards agreement will placed before the Left-UPA committee for approval. Just how this highly technical document be judged on by a political committee is not clear.The Left could insist on demanding provisions that are available for the de jure nuclear weapons states (under the NPT provision of having conducted a nuclear test before January 1, 1967). However, this would be a deal-breaker. Because while the US is willing to give India a de facto nuclear weapons state status, it simply does not have the power to turn the clock back and give India a de jure one. Seeking parity for the sake of parity will be a counter-productive move.
Whatever it is, Comrade Prakash Karat has given special interviews to indicate that there is no change in the Left's policy. That is hard to accept considering that he had declared that any step to operationalise the deal would lead to a withdrawal of the Left's support.
My guess is that the government is readying for an election by March-April and at the appropriate moment, it will move to clinch the deal and precipitate an election.

The worm is turning

To go by what the media says, the nuclear deal is still showing some signs of life. This is what The Hindu reported on a press conference held during German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to New Delhi:

Maintaining that the government remained committed to the civil nuclear deal with the United States, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday said, “We have not reached the end of the road” even if there was some delay in operationalising it.

I am not surprised. I never believed it was dead. It did suffer a terrible blow when the Left suddenly pulled the rug under it in August, and a worse one when party members and UPA allies stabbed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the back.The reason why I remain optimistic is not some special information, but my analysis of what underpins its robustness.

In my view, the Indo-US nuclear deal, occasioned perhaps, by US worries about China, is actually a a larger geopolitical shift that is taking place as a result of the end of the Cold War. This is about the new world order that Bush 41 spoke of in 1990. India's nuclear status has been a pill stuck in the collective throats of the international community for quite a while. Bush 41 tried first to handle this by pinning down India and Pakistan in a regional arrangement, but this did not work. After India’s nuclear tests, and especially after 9-11 the situation was such that the idea of equating India and Pakistan became laughable. Pakistan was on the verge of economic collapse, the A Q Khan network had been exposed, and was now seen as a “rogue” state that had to be controlled. So, the US emphasis shifted to co-opting India.

The nuclear deal is a means of doing that, and there is nothing dishonourable about this. India is getting an opportunity to join the world community, whose leading lights also constitute the Nuclear Suppliers Group. There is an unwritten consensus among them that the US will work out the terms of engagement, and the Indo-American 123 Agreement is precisely that.

American benevolence has nothing to do with a sudden love for India and Indians, it is again, systemic. Indian economic weight is growing in handsome measure, its military power, though dissipated in internal policing, is not insubstantial. India is one of the most open societies in the world, fiercely democratic, naturally capitalistic, indeed a natural ally of the US, once the latter gets off its high horse and begins to understand the consequences of its misadventure in Iraq.

As for the nuclear deal politics, what we are seeing currently is intense effort to knock sense into the BJP’s head. Everyone, but everyone knows that the party is taking a completely opportunistic position on the deal—in other words, opposing it for the sake of doing so, rather than any principle. Brajesh Mishra’s comment is kind of non sequitur:

“If I were to get credible guarantees from the government about the integrity of what we (the NDA) had left behind three and a half years ago, what has been done in these three and a half years for them to prove that there are also enthusiastic about the nuclear weapons programme, then I would say, personally, to go forward with the deal because I am not so critical of the US for following this particular policy. I am critical of the government bending to the wishes of the US.”

The real pressure is coming from the BJP’s “natural allies”—its supporters and well-wishers in the corporate and business world who are unable to comprehend the party’s stand. No one knows what has driven that stand which reflects the views of the xenophobic right of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch. Apparently Mr. Arun Shourie is its key mentor within the party’s core committee that decides policy. Why he, or for that matter Mr. Yashwant Sinha are there is a bit of a mystery since neither have any political base.

The BJP now has the option of simply backtracking and supporting the deal “in the national interest” or negotiating an arrangement with the Congress that could see the Parliament pass a “sense of Parliament” resolution underlining India’s belief in an “independent” foreign policy. The problem, however, is that the Congress and BJP are not on talking terms—the PM literally does not talk to the leader of the opposition. It is in such circumstances, of course, that the extremes of the Left flourish.

Confronted with the possibility that it may be left holding the can, the Left has changed tune. CPI(M) Party chief Prakash Karat who virtually accused Manmohan Singh of being an American stooge says in The Telegraph that he respects his integrity.

New Delhi, Oct. 30: In his first public overture to Manmohan Singh since the bitter stand-off began in early August over the Indo-US nuclear deal, CPM general secretary Prakash Karat today underlined the Left’s “respect” for the Prime Minister and appreciated his “unquestioned integrity”.

Is that a climb-down? Or an effort to get on to the "statesmanship" horse, after unhorsing the PM? You decide.

Bitter October

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, say reports, is a bitter man. He feels particularly let down by allies, since he expected that the opposition would be unsparing towards the Indo-US nuclear deal anyway. There are two things he can do—swallow his bitterness like a kaliyug Shiva and stay in office, or spit it out and quit. Either way, there are implications for the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance. He may not be much of a political heavy-weight, but he is clearly indispensible for the Congress president who does not trust a Pranab Mukherji and is not likely to hand the government over to the lightweight and incompetent Shivraj Patil.

But the fact is that there is an irretrievable breakdown in the relations between the Prime Minister and the Left on one hand, and between the PM and his coalition allies who finally slipped the knife into his back earlier this month. There is, no doubt, an element of unhappiness with Ms Sonia Gandhi as well who went along with Lalu, Karunanidhi, Pawar and Co in the process, resulting in the current impasse. Worse, a day or so later on October 12, during the Hindustan Times conference, when asked as to who she depends on for political advice, named her son, daughter and son-in-law and did not even make a passing reference to her prime minister.

The Left played dirty by going along with the deal through 2005, 2006 and most of 2007 and pulled the rug under his feet after the enormous achievement of the Indian “123 Agreement” which is extremely favourable to us. His allies—Lalu, Karunanidhi and Pawar—not only went along with him, but were represented or actually part of the Union Cabinet that approved every step of the negotiations, and finally endorsed the “123 Agreement.” On July 25, a combined meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security and the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs okayed the 123. Incidentally, that very evening, Prakash Karat, Sitaram Yechury and CPI leader D. Raja were given a special presentation on the deal by officials at the Prime Minister’s residence. There are no reports of the Left having declared themselves dead-set against the deal at this stage. On August 19, according to The Hindu:

The key constituents of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) on Sunday night threw in their lot with coalition chairperson Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and expressed full confidence in their ability to address “all legitimate concerns” voiced by the Left parties.

The goings on of October 9/10 therefore were a surprise to Singh, though they should not have been. The allies may claim that it was one thing to give the endorsement above, quite another to have the cold water of an election thrown on their face. But the fact is that if they had held their nerve, they could have emerged winners, instead of the dispirited and confused bunch they appear now.

Now there are straws in the wind to suggest that the UPA is recovering some of the coherence it lost at that time. This is apparent from the outcome of the latest meeting of the UPA-Left committee on October 22. Prior to the meeting there were a lot of bombastic declarations demanding that the government announce the termination of the Indo-US nuclear deal, or leave it to the next US administration-- statements tantamount to a Congress party surrender. But the outcome of the meeting was anodyne, suggesting that it was the Left that backed off. The conclusion of Monday meeting declared that:

Issues currently before it [the committee] would be addressed in an appropriate manner and the operationalisation of the deal will take into account the Committee’s findings.

This is actually a restatement of the positions the committee has taken from the very outset and its reiteration indicates that the Congress is not budging and the Left could be up the creek without a paddle.

Reports in several papers now claim that the time frame of the nuclear deal will not be adhered to as regards India-specific safeguards negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) scheduled for October, negotiations with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) slated for November and taking the deal to the U.S. Congress in January 2008.

Nicholas Burns seems to have repeated this view to a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Tuesday. According to Reuters, Burns is reported to have said that the US was approaching election time and that it was tough to pass legislation at such times. Adding,

We don't have an unlimited amount of time...We'd like to get this agreement to the United States Congress by the end of the year.

He is right, but the technical timeline—which means the time required to get the technicalities of the deal worked out—actually extends all the way to the end of 2008. However, as the months pass, there is an inevitable loss of momentum and the chances of it being taken up by the Congress recede. The steps needed now are for the approval of an India-specific safeguards agreement by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. Between you and me, this agreement is more-or-less ready and could be approved within a week of India’s request. While there is a formal 45-day process to summon the Board of Governors meeting, the IAEA chief Mohammed El Baradei is backing the deal and will provide a short cut.

There is an NSG meeting scheduled in November and it is possible that the US will get pre-approval from their colleagues based on the prospective IAEA safeguards agreement. The NSG approval will not be simple because the members want to connect it to the Fissile Material Cut Off and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But a measure sandwiching the INFCIRC/ 66, the IAEA's basic standard agreement with some language on the FMCT and CTBT could pass.So the whole process can be telescoped into about a month. As for the US Congress, mid-2008 can be seen as the outside limit of prudent planning.

There has been some talk about how the Democratic party would look at the deal. The Hyde Act, that enabled the 123 Agreement to be arrived at was passed by an overwhelming vote of the US Congress. Observers expect that the non-proliferationists in the new putative Clinton Administration would make life difficult for India and Hillary has already signaled her views through an article in Foreign Affairs, saying she would push for the CTBT in 2009. However these observers do not realize that countries like the US do not make policy moves out of whim but considerable cogitation and analysis. What Bush II did was based on what Bush I had initiated. In addition, he built on the goodwill generated by Bill Clinton’s overtures to India. The Indo-US nuclear deal is part of Washington’s strategic grand design. India may be a cog in this, but an it is an increasingly important one.

So now we need to look at the political timeline here in India. Given the public postures, there is no chance that the Left will approve of the deal. So at some point the UPA must say they are going ahead, and when they do so, the Left will announce a withdrawal of support. The government need not fall immediately, but it will begin the clock ticking for the next elections. My guess would be that it could well be after the Gujarat elections whose results should be known by December 23. This times well with the end of the winter session of Parliament. So the technical and political timelines can be made to intersect in early January, leading to elections in May.

Almost every election in India is a paradigm shift and so will the next one be. The best the Indian people can hope for is the emergence of one, two or three fronts that have some ideological coherence and are coalitions with some dharma, not just opportunistic alliances that are used as stepping stones to political power.

Mysterious goings on in New Delhi

What is happening with the Indo-US nuclear deal ? The prime minister and Sonia Gandhi’s statements on Friday have set the cat among the pigeons. Speaking at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit , the PM said: “If the deal does not come through, it will be a disappointment. But sometimes in life you have to live with them. It is not the end of life.” Sonia Gandhi, too said that the Congress would try to address the concerns of its allies and the party “The dharma of coalition is to work together, try and understand and accommodate each other’s view.”
In our view, this seeming flip-flop of the Congress party and the government can be understood if you believe, as I do, that there is now a deal within a deal. In other words, the Congress and the Left have struck a deal to back off from their confrontation and arrive at a workable compromise that will see the deal move on to its logical culmination, perhaps on a slightly delayed time line. This is no doubt the achievement of Pranab Mukherji, Lalu Yadav, Sitaram Yechury and Sharad Pawar. So the process will involve formal agreement in the Left-UPA committee that is supposed to look into the deal. You need to read between the lines to get the Left's true reaction. Note, Mr. Karat has not said anything.

There are several straws in the wind to suggest that. First, a CPI(M) politburo meeting scheduled for October 18 has been postponed. Second, speaking at an Indian Express function, Kapil Sibal says that the Left has accepted the primacy of the 123 Agreement over the Hyde Act. “The Left has now agreed to the position that where there is a conflict between the Hyde Act and the 123 agreement, the 123 agreement prevails. That position has been agreed to.”

Till now the Left has been arguing that they are not against the deal per se, but the Hyde Act that allegedly commits India to follow the US foreign policy agenda. That this was factually untrue mattered little because most of us believed that the Left’s positions were motivated by blind anti-Americanism rather than reason. Once reason comes into play, and there are grounds to believe that it has, the Left’s loses its sharp edge.

My guess-- and this is a guess-- is that we will now have a compromise formula, where the Left will endorse this point, and in return the government may go along with a Parliament statement or resolution that purports to defang the toothless Hyde Act.

In the meantime, behind the scenes negotiations are going on with the International Atomic Energy Agency for the India-specific safeguards which Dr. Mohammed El Baradei keeps on saying are not that much of a problem."We are ready. I don't think we would take very long. It would be weeks, not more than weeks." My own belief is that some behind-the-scenes negotiations have already taken place based on what diplomats cutely term "non-papers"-- working drafts which are not attributable to any government or institutions. So, there would be a show of formal consultation, but the agreement would be done in a matter of a week or so after India gives its go-ahead. As for the NSG, that as per agreement, is America’s baby, though we will have to put in effort as well, but behind the scenes.

It is too early to say that all's well that ends well. But there should be no doubts that relations between Prakash Karat, the CPI(M) General Secretary who forced the confrontation and the Prime Minister are irreparably damaged because of the note of bitterness that they brought into the issue. Usually in politics these things don't matter, but both are ideologues in their own way, and it does tend to matter.

Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi

The reason why Latin, a now extinct language, is still used in some form or the other, is because it has a remarkable facility for stating an issue in the most direct and coherent manner. That is why it is a favourite of lawyers and judges. The title of my previous blog, too, was a Latin phrase. Perhaps this is an effort to try and be as clear as possible on the vexed matter of the Indo-US nuclear deal.
Because the deal involves an American statute (the Hyde Act), a technical agreement, the Indo-US 123 Agreement, safeguards and an additional protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines, it is easy to mislead the man-on-the-street. A number of politicians and commentators have taken recourse to selective reading of the text or giving an unconscionable spin to phrases and clauses. In some cases it is a case of suggestion of a falsehood leading to the suppression of truth (the meaning of the phrase we have cited).
To my mind two articles on the deal in The Hindu bring this out. The first was one by Brahma Chellaney, a commentator on strategic affairs and author of a study on the earlier Tarapur agreement. The second is a rejoinder by Kapil Sibal, a minister in the UPA government and a noted lawyer. Read both for yourself to understand what I am trying to get at.

The Left's Chimera

We have maintained from the very outset, that the Left alone has opposed the nuclear deal based on a coherent principle, though wrong-headed. However their opposition is so wrong-headed and blinkered that they are seriously endangering our national interest. The Left sees US as a major negative force in global politics and have hence opposed the nuclear deal because it will help bring India and the US closer together. The politburo statement of August 18 and the Left parties statement of August 7 make that clear.

Serving Chinese interests

This does not mean that the statement and the positions are well reasoned, they are not. They are a mishmash of blinkered ideological rants and cynically argued half-baked positions, some are not even based on fact. One lamentable conclusion does come through—the CPI(M) is not really concerned by India’s national interest, its idea of national interest is so distorted that it usually ends up serving China’s national interest. This is the Chinese take on the nuclear deal:

“Judging from the (Indo-US 123 Agreement) text, however, the US has made big concessions and met almost all Indian requests, including full supply of nuclear fuel to India and allowing it to dispose nuclear waste. India's right to continue conducting nuclear testing will depend on "circumstances". According to the text, if India can satisfactorily justify its nuclear testing, the US would acquiesce. That is, Washington has actually acknowledged India's right to retain nuclear testing......

....It is quite obvious that the US generosity in helping India develop nuclear energy is partly due to its hegemony idea, which made it regardless of others' opinions, and partly due to the intention of drawing India in as a tool for its global strategic pattern.” (“Prospects of Indian-US nuclear cooperation misty,” People’s Daily Online August 14, 2007)

So even the Chinese concede we have a good deal, even though they are clear that they don't like it.

Hyde Act Red Herring

Critics in the Left and the right are making a deliberate attempt to insinuate the Hyde Act into the deal. This act is US domestic legislation and binds the US Administration. The Bush team believes that the 123 Agreement it negotiated with India meets all the requirements of the act. There is a simple principle of international law, enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, that an international agreement always trumps domestic legislation. Article 16 (4) of the Indo-US 123 Agreement notes, “This Agreement shall be implemented in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law.” While the US and India have not ratified that convention, both have operationally abided by it because it codifies customary international law. International diplomacy would become infructous if states began to cite domestic law to overwhelm their international commitments. Article 27 of the treaty notes, " A party may not invoke an internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. "

Misreading the documents

August 7 statement: “Serious concern had been expressed by the Left Parties about various conditions inserted into the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress. A number of them pertain to areas outside nuclear co-operation and are attempts to coerce India to accept the strategic goals of the United States. These issues are:

· Annual certification and reporting to the US Congress by the President on a variety of foreign policy issues such as India’s foreign policy being “congruent to that of the United States” and more specifically India joining US efforts in isolating and even sanctioning Iran [Section 104g(2) E(i)]

· Indian participation and formal declaration of support for the US’ highly controversial Proliferation Security Initiative including the illegal policy of interdiction of vessels in international waters [Section 104g(2) K]

· India conforming to various bilateral/multilateral agreements to which India is not currently a signatory such as the US’ Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group etc [Section 104c E,F,G]”

Are the US strategic goals towards India merely those ? All that one can see here is an effort to serve the Iranian and North Korean national interest, as well as that of any country that wishes to make missiles, chemical and nuclear weapons.

August 7 statement: “The termination clause is wide ranging and does not limit itself to only violation of the agreement as a basis for cessation or termination of the contract. Therefore, these extraneous provisions of the Hyde Act could be used in the future to terminate the 123 Agreement. In such an eventuality, India would be back to complete nuclear isolation, while accepting IAEA safeguards in perpetuity. Therefore, the argument that provisions of the Hyde Act do not matter and only 123 clauses do, are misplaced.”

My reading is that the termination issues are just two 1. a unilateral resumption of Indian nuclear tests (which incidentally is only implied and not mentioned in the Indo-US 123) and 2. As per the 123 Agreement’s Article XIV Section 3 which says the agreement will be at an end if India materially breaches the IAEA safeguards agreement. The article goes on to note that what constitutes the material breach will not be decided by the US, but the IAEA Board of Governors. What could be fairer and more reasonable ?

What it is all about

Why beat about the bush (pun unintended) and deconstruct a confused and confusing argument. Let’s ask the straightforward question : Does the US have an agenda in pushing the nuclear deal? Of course it does.

But that’s not quite the same thing as accepting that India will slavishly serve that agenda. What it will do, is what it has always done-- utilize the opportunity to move its own agenda forward. India has its own agenda and sees in the present global conjuncture an opportunity to strengthen its own position relative to the major powers.

What is remarkable about the Left’s self-view of India is as to how weak they think the country is. India with its nuclear-tipped armed forces, 8 per cent plus growth rate and burgeoning foreign exchange reserves has never been stronger than before. It has beaten back the challenge of US-led containment, as well as its most dangerous internal insurgencies. India may have been amenable to US tuition thrice in its history—when we became free and were reeling from the effects of partition, in 1962 when our forces were defeated by the Chinese and in 1991 when our economy crashed. But a glance back at all the instances will show that the Americans did not display and particular interest in “taking over” India. An India run from Washington is a chimera of the Left’s creation.

The only loophole I can see for the continuation of the Left's support for the United Progressive Alliance government is the paragraph four of the August 18 statement which notes,

“Till all the objections are considered and the implications of the Hyde Act evaluated, the government should not take the next step with regard to negotiating a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

If the CPI(M) is willing to go through the motions of having these considered, it could raise its objections. The government has no doubt considered the implications of the Hyde Act. To suggest otherwise is to believe that the Manmohan Singh government, its negotiators and top nuclear scientists like Anil Kakodkar are working as agents of the US. But given the Left’s demonology anything is possible.

Incidentally, whose game is the CPI(M) playing by insisting that the deal be stopped before going to its logical stage? That is the point we will get an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Once that happens, India will be able to make deals with countries like France and Russia who will not insist on the kind of conditionalities that are there in the Indo-US 123 Agreement. Again, incidentally, the US will give us in writing that it will not insist on a Right of Return clause in any NSG agreement.