Letters about India-US Nuclear deal

Letters to Editor on issues relating to India’s Civilian Nuclear deal with US
(26 June-9 Sept. 2008)

Venkaiah Naidu's analysis (IE, June 20) of the political situation is correct. But it does not answer why no party, including BJP, seems to be even remotely interested in what suits India's interest most. The crude oil prices have more than doubled to $ 138 a barrel and even a partial reduction of subsidy has led to 11% inflation. This should be enough of signal to the mainstream political parties that exclusive reliance on petro products shall be harmful for us considering that we import 75% of our requirement. The only viable option seems to be nuclear power and the time to grab the opportunity seems to be running out. But the Left parties are still caught in their ideological quagmire of not doing any business with US notwithstanding the fact that both its mentors, Russia and China are already doing so and the former has actually gone on record to say that the deal is in India's interest. The Hyde's Act does call upon US to call off cooperation with India in the event of latter conducting a nuclear test. However, it provides for a gradual US withdrawal and allows India to secure fuel from other NSG countries, which include Russia and China. Therefore the Left parties should either get us better terms from elsewhere or stop scuttling India's energy program. The BJP's stance is even more hypocritical. The party itself imposed a unilateral moratorium on further nuclear testing following the Pokhran blasts and now rues the fact that the proposed deal would put a cap on it. It needs to answer why it carried out the blasts especially since it only led to a nuclear race in the subcontinent and deprived us of access to the latest nuclear research and enriched fuel. The only plausible reason for its opposition to the deal seems to based on exploiting the Congress-Left differences for electoral advantage and its unwillingness to let the former take credit for it. There is nothing wrong in such tactics provided that it did not damage the national interest on energy front since the imminent change in White House is expected to put a seal on the deal. There is still some time and the political parties should rise to the occasion and unanimously support the deal in national interest.
26 June 2008

It is ridiculous even to suggest that PM should not go to a meeting of the G 8 group of countries in order to appease the Left. While most countries would give anything to become a member of the prestigious group, our own comrades spurn it. They are surely in a time warp and in order to protect their ever shrinking vote bank do not care a fig about national interest and prestige. The time has come when the ruling party should dump them unceremoniously rather than give them an opportunity to withdraw support. The Left has surely become a liability and have become obstructionist. They are pretending to be more radical than even the communist nations like China and Russia who have no qualms about doing business with US and embracing market economies in order to create wealth and improve the standard of life of their citizens. Local comrades would however like to see them in perpetual poverty and ignorance and cut off from the rest of the world. The Left has clearly been left behind and must be abandoned in order to race ahead.
2 July 2008.

CPM's claim that the govt is obsessed with fulfilling the promise given to Bush (The Hindu, July 2) is curious. It was not just a promise but an agreement signed by the two executive heads, which was meant to end India's nuclear isolation and open doors to nuclear commerce not juts with US but the entire nuclear supplier group. Therefore, India has been taking steady steps to gain entry into the group without signing the NPT, as most other member-nations have done or surrendering its military nuclear facilities to IAEA. The deal would allow India to segregate the two and exploit nuclear power for peaceful purposes. The opponents to the deal are correct to the extent that the domestic Hyde's Act, which was passed at the instance of non-proliferation lobby within US Congress and led by democrats, who are favored to win the next presidential elections in US, calls upon the US administration to halt nuclear cooperation with India in the event of latter carrying out further nuclear tests in violation of the unilateral moratorium declared by the NDA post-Pokhran blasts. But there shall be no immediate disruption of the supply of nuclear fuel and India shall be free to secure it from other sources. It is a deal the like of which has not been offered to any other nation and that is why India-specific safeguards are being insisted upon. It is also relevant to note that a request from Pakistan for a similar 123 agreement has been turned down by US and Russia has gone on record to say that the deal is good for India. Therefore it must be assumed so especially in the absence of any other nuclear power offering us a better route to nuclear power.
CPM intransigence over the deal seem to be ideological since it shall find it very difficult to explain to its cadre who have been raised on decades of anti-imperialist rhetoric. But it also has to reckon with fact that it needs to expand its base beyond West Bengal and Kerala. This would require a course correction, which in any case it has been attempting within W.Bengal by focusing on industrialization and convince the masses why it is fine to carry out joint military exercises with China but a blasphemy to do business with US. CPM seems to be out of sync with times and must learn from the experiences of leading communist states like China and Russia. Both have adopted flexible policies and are creating wealth in a globalised economy in order to raise the standard of living of their citizens. We in contrast are still bogged down in petty politics and ignoring growth. There is a genuine danger that CPM is getting marginalized, which will be setback to our polity and strengthen the communal forces.
**
Yechuri fails to make a convincing case (HT, July 3) for dropping the deal. The CMP denoted only the common "minimum" program and did not preclude anything uncommon or outside its ambit. India is still doing business with Iran and with communist nations like Russia and China. Therefore allegations of US-centric foreign policy do not hold good. The deal has been supported by the scientific community and planners who know better about the benefits and cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy in a scenario where crude oil is becoming scarcer and exorbitantly dearer. The Hyde's Act does not restrain other nations from supplying nuclear fuel in the event of US pulling out but it is naive for the world to keep helping us while we continue to explode nuclear weapons. As for the three I's he mentions in his charge-sheet against the NDA, they equally apply to UPA today. Let the deal be done on its intrinsic merits rather than on ideological or political grounds.
3 July 2008

The Left parties' repeated ultimatums to the government threatening to withdraw support are meaningless. Since they have now publically stated that they were never prepared for any compromise over the Indo-US nuclear deal, therefore there was no justification for holding several meetings over the deal. If they were so sure of their stand, they should have parted ways when Bush visited India and inked a pact. The claim that they supported UPA to prevent a communal BJP from assuming power also does not wash. They themselves have used the communal card unabashedly by advising the SP to think about the Muslim votes before supporting the deal. Karat's regret that they never expected a break with UPA over foreign policy is curious. Their word view is so partisan and outdated that it appeals to now except their cadre. While they have never had any problems with India staging joint military exercises with China or entering into a strategic partnership with Russia, they suffer a nervous breakdown at the mere mention of US. Their total silence at the suppression of Tibetan people and support for military regime in Myanmar betrays their lack of commitment to democracy and human rights. They have held parleys with the Maoists of Nepal who have used violence to stage a comeback and are obstructing the formation of a representative government despite lacking a majority. They have not uttered a word against Islamic terrorism for fear of losing the support of local Muslims. They oppose MNCs around Delhi on ideological grounds but had no qualms about acquiring land in West Bengal for foreign business entities. The Left parties seem to suffer from an identity crisis today.
It is time the Left leadership should realize that the world is changing. Many countries including China and Russia have embraced market economies and are creating wealth in the globalized world to raise the standard of life of their citizens. Both the communist nations have signed the 123 agreements with US to ensure energy security. In contrast, we are embroiled in petty politics, which revolves either round outdated ideologies or individuals changing stance to capture or perpetuate power. Ironically it is the young Indians who are driving the engines of growth worldwide but feel frustrated by the events at home. Unless the Left parties carry out a course correction, they may be further marginalized.
5 July 2008-09-09

Will the deal help India? Yes, I think on merits the nuclear deal will help India on several counts. One, it would end India's nuclear isolation, which it suffered post-Pokhran blasts. Sanctions were imposed against us and our nuclear scientists associated with atomic and space organizations black-listed. Import of dual technology materials including nuclear/fissile fuel was stopped. Second, it should enhance power generation, which is essential for economic growth. Third, it leaves our strategic nuclear program in tact so only new nuclear facilities for civilian use come under IAEA safeguards. Hence the talk about negotiating India-specific safeguards.
Why this special treatment to India? This is due to two factors. One, our impeccable record of non-proliferation since, unlike Pakistan or North Korea, we did not share, sell or trade off the technology with other states. Two, the commencement of nuclear commerce would open the gates to India for scores of member nations of Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) bringing them economic benefits. Three, increased power generation In India, which has huge energy requirements due to galloping economic growth, will reduce dependence and consumption of traditional petroleum products and may even lower their prices.
Why then one sees opposition to the deal? Largely on political and ideological grounds. While the communist parties brought up and bred on decades of anti-imperialist propaganda find it difficult to take a U-turn and accept a collaboration with US, the Rightist BJP would rather not let the Congress, its arch-enemy, take credit for it. Therefore, it claims to favor a strategic alliance with US but would prefer to re-negotiate the deal after assuming power. If the present govt. falls under the pressure of the Left, that may happen sooner than later. Smaller and regional parties like INLD, BSP, TDP etc. believe that Muslims by and large are against US following the War on Terror and therefore they should guard their vote-bank rather than worry about the deal. Why is SP an exception? SP is viewing only UP. With BSP emerging as a powerful force and BJP already targeting the Hindu vote, further division of vote between Congress and Sp will do neither of them any good. So why not enter into an alliance?
Confusing? Well, politicians are strange bed-fellows and few of them care about the deal anyway!

6 July 2008 (Metronews, 6th July)

The text of the safeguards agreement makes a lot of sense and addresses India's concerns to the hilt. One wonders what else India can ask for? If the critics of the deal think that we can go on exploding nuclear weapons merrily and still ask for uranium from abroad to set up and run our nuclear plants, they are being naive. While other nations had to sign NPT to become eligible for it, India has been treated exceptionally in the light of its non-proliferation record. If the Left and BJP think we can do without nuclear power, it is a different matter. If we do, this is the best bargain we could have got. It is ironical that while the G8 is pushing us forward, the domestic politics is applying the brakes.
11 July 2008-09-09

The Left parties have gone berserk when they claim that Congress has chosen George Bush over the nation (TOI, July 14). The India-specific safeguards agreement has to be vetted first by the 144-strong IAEA and later by 45 member Nuclear Supplier Group before the US Congress debates and ratifies it. The Left also seems to be unaware of the statement of Democrat presidential hopeful, Obama, who has stated in an interview to an Indian weekly that he would be 'reluctant to seek changes in the agreement". Once the deal becomes final, India shall be free to do nuclear business with any member of the NSG, which include the Left's favorites, Russia and China. Therefore they should drop the misinformation campaign and support the deal in national interest. Alternatively, they should get India a better deal.
15 July 2008
**
Yechuri's charge against the PM (Left hand drive), July 17) is unconvincing. It was the Left, which publically stated that PM's going to G8 will be taken as proceeding to IAEA and they would withdraw support without even waiting for his return. Since the tactics of the Left were dilatory from the start, therefore it is hypocritical to put the onus on PM. Having realized that there is a lot of support for the deal, he is now focusing on foreign policy fallout. While the UPA has at least expressed concern on the reported threat of attack on Iran, the Left had no comments to offer on repression in Tibet. Its democratic credentials are also suspect since it supports the military regime in Myanmar, which usurped power nullifying the results of elections and has been keeping the elected leader under detention indefinitely. Yechuri's meeting with Maoists of Nepal is also significant considering their spread across eastern India and fatalities being inflicted by them on our policemen. He never uttered a word against China for making claims on Arunachal Pradesh; nor against North Korea for trading missiles for nuclear knowhow with Pakistan. It is ironical that Yechuri can simultaneously enjoy the hospitality of the British imperialists and deride the govt. of toeing US imperialism at the same time. The Left needs to correct its world vision since one cannot drive both in the left and right lane at the same time.
17 July 2008

Your edit, "Inclusion principles" (IE, July 21) has faulted the Congress for leaning only towards the Left rather than follow inclusive politics. But the allergy displayed in the past by the Left towards its newly-found friends on the Right may have inhibited the ruling party. The Westminster style of democracy does much more than treat backbenchers reverentially. It also promotes an intense debate across party lines whenever an issue of national importance, especially affecting the foreign policy surfaces. It was evident when members of Tony Blair's own party stood up to criticize his Iraq policy while several voices from Opposition benches backed him. Unfortunately, such conduct eludes our parliament the members of which are bound by whips and ideologies to toe their party line. Hence, the charge that we only borrowed the Westminster model without imbibing its spirit holds good.
**
Karan Thapar's expose of BJP's flip-flop on the nuclear issue (HT, July 20) was interesting. More than the veracity of these claims, the party needs to explain why it rejected the opinion of Dr. Kalam, eminent scientist and former President and Brajesh Mishra, former NSA in favor of the deal. Since both were chosen by the NDA regime, therefore it raises the suspicion that opposition to the deal is not on its intrinsic merits but on political grounds
21 July 2008

The expulsion of Somnath Chatterjee from CPM is curious. The party never publically asked him to resign and actually left the decision to him whether to continue as the Speaker or not. It also regretted including his name in the list of MPs submitted to the President and denied exerting any pressure on him to quit. As Speaker, he neither cast his vote nor violated any whip issued by the party. He was neither issued any show cause notice preceding the expulsion, nor given a charge sheet or a chance to defend himself. The meeting of the politburo in which the extreme step was taken was reportedly attended only by half of its members. Therefore the action taken against him seems dictatorial and lacking intra-party democracy. It is strange that a party, which demanded access to safeguards agreement in the name of transparency itself functions in such secrecy and behind closed doors. The CPM should explain why a senior parliamentarian belonging to it and elected to hold the exalted office of Speaker unanimously was treated with such disdain.
23 July 2008

The reasoning put out by the CPM for the expulsion of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee is curious. If the Speaker who is a veteran parliamentarian continues to be bound by the party discipline and is expected to relinquish office the moment the latter withdrew outside support to the govt., he should have been consulted when the strategy to pull down the govt. was being formulated. The manner in which his name was included in the list submitted to the President without his consent, it is clear that the party took his consent for granted and undermined the office of the Speaker since, once elected, the Speaker is constitutionally above party politics . While publically maintaining that it was up to the Speaker to decide whether to resign or not, the younger members of the politburo continued to exert pressure on him indirectly. Elevation of Mr. Chatterjee by a unanimous vote brought honor to CPM and not vice versa. But little else can be expected from a party, which denied the prime minister ship to Mr. Jyoti Basu at the insistence of the same politburo, which was described as a "historic blunder" later. What is more interesting is that only half of the members ("available politburo") were present to take the historic decision and the procedure adopted was totally undemocratic since no show cause notice was given nor an opportunity given to Speaker to defend himself. CPM can legitimately claim that it was an internal matter of the party. However, a party, which claims to be democratic and demanded access to the text of an international agreement before its finalization in the name of transparency, should seriously examine its own record of functioning. Charity after all, begins at home.
24 July 2008

The public display of wads of currency notes in the closing hours of debate in parliament was surely disturbing and requires an impartial investigation. Since the accusing MPs chose the dramatically reveal the goings on in Lok Sabha, the onus of finding the truth has fallen on an all-party committee constituted by the Speaker. We must wait for its findings. The run up to the event was indeed shocking. Most Indians thought that they were to witness a lively and enlightening debate on the merits and demerits of the nuclear deal. It eluded them. What they got were claims and counterclaims of govt. being in a minority or otherwise; of MPs changing sides overnight from the ruling alliance as well as most opposition parties. The Chief Ministers of States were summoned to Delhi. MPs were being guarded like bullion. New fronts came up; the prospective PM was also named. Neither side spared any effort to dislodge the other. It wasn't just cash-ministerial offers and seats in the next election were freely on offer. Kulkarnee may feign ignorance but most leaders wore soiled shirts. A parting thought! Why didn't the accusing MPs call in the police when they were being bribed? Probably the answer to the question lies in the infamous JMM trial. The court acquitted the accused ruling that it had no jurisdiction over events within parliament. So bringing in wads of money (thank God it was just paper money!) or displaying it in front of cameras was a safe act. It could derail the vote without inviting any risk. The PM must come clean whether he was aware of the goings on or not. The leader of BJP MPs too must explain his mysterious absence from house preceding the high voltage drama. The nation does feel betrayed.
27 July 2008
Your edit about Internal Security (IE, Aug. 2) raises serious concerns. When the Lt. Governor of Delhi announced that everyone in Delhi should carry some kind of identification and produce it on demand, there was a hue and cry from all political parties. It was claimed that the step would target those flowing into the city in thousands every day. Several years back, the then Home minister, had similarly ignored the suggestion that instead of spending crores on just election cards, the country should go for a Social Security Card on US pattern, which would have had biometric data and served several purposes. The list of VIPs who demand exemption from security checks at airports has been growing steadily though they don't mind frisking at foreign airports. Even the common man is seen arguing with security personnel at DMRC stations why he is being checked despite being a regular user of Metro rail. It is not just about appeasing one community or the other. We, as a nation, do not take security seriously. Hindus defend Godhra riots as retaliatory and even the local judiciary falls for the divisive sentiment. Muslims give in to the vicious propaganda about their community being targeted and willingly play into the hands of religious leaders and foreign agents. Even Sikhs inflicted senseless violence in Punjab for over a decade harbouring secessionist ideas about Khalistan. Naxal violence is condoned even today as arising out of socio-economic factors. When did we last see a politician adopting a national stance? If Afzal is guilty, the State should have the courage to hang him but those who demand his hanging should similarly decry violence in thought and action among their own followers. The problem is that we only indulge in blame game. We want to teach a lesson to other communities; other faiths; other parties; other nations in order to acquire and then perpetuate political power. When we learn to think and act as a nation and respect the rule of law, internal security shall improve. Obama, when asked in an interview whether he would change the Indo-US Nuclear Deal in the event of becoming the president of United States, stated on record that he would be "reluctant to seek changes". If Bush's opponent can recognize American interest and accord it primacy, why can't we do likewise? If US can protect it post 9/11, why can't we do so likewise? The reason is that we have yet to understand that security is serious business
2 August 2008
The contents of the commentary in People's daily of China(TOI, Sept. 2) are curious. One is surprised by the timing and aggressiveness of contents. As soon as the Olympics get over, China drops the friendly airs and targets India whose record of non-proliferation is impeccable while China colluded both with Pakistan and North Korea. One wonders whether there is any connection between the Indian communists, who kept up their dilatory tactics by first opposing the deal and then withdrawing support ensuring leeway to the Chinese government. This congruence of interest between the government in Beijing and the CPM politburo in Delhi raises serious apprehensions. One hopes the two parties are not working in tandem but the Indian government better watch out.
2 September 2008

Sudheendra Kulkarni"s article about the nuclear deal (IE, Sept. 7) is along predictable lines. He evades the point that the present government only reiterated what Mr. Vajpayee declared at UN ; namely that we shall continue to observe a unilateral moratorium on further testing. India still sticks to the "no first use" position but will have to face the consequences the same way as it did in the past if it chooses to carry out further testing. However, several experts have declared that it will not be necessary since adequate data has been obtained from the first two tests. If BJP, like the Left parties, is so obsessed with the Hyde's Act, it can similarly pass a legislation in parliament that in the event of any of our neighbours carrying out a nuclear test, India shall reserve the right to do the same. Our nuclear plants have been working at only 40% of their capacity for want of adequate fuel. Therefore it is hypocritical to oppose civilian nuclear cooperation and simultaneously argue that our reactors meet only 3% of the total power generation. It is illogical to assume that the world at large could end our nuclear isolation and supply us the latest knowhow and fuel along with enrichment rights while we merrily go on exploding nuclear weapons in its face. The deal opens a window of opportunity and only future shall tell how we use it to our advantage.
7 September 2008


With reference to the report Nuclear dawn (September 7), the BJP’s opposition to the deal is inexplicable. Since the present government has committed itself to the same unilateral moratorium on further testing announced during the NDA regime, the charge of sacrificing nuclear sovereignty does not stick. The statement that India has still the right to test while the world has the right to react, sums up the situation aptly. However, it is hypocritical to assume that the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) members shall continue to supply us the latest nuclear knowhow and fuel while we explode weapons in their face. The waiver opens up a window of opportunity to do nuclear commerce and we must use it to our benefit.

9 Sept. 2008 (Hindustan Times)

Apropos Karan Thapar’s article, Thank you, Mr Bush (Sunday Sentiments, September 14), it is ironic that the NSG, which was created in the wake of India’s nuclear blasts, gave us a waiver to engage in civilian nuclear cooperation. This shows the inherent deficiencies of the non-proliferation regime. The US surely did not do this as an act of penance, and has an eye on India’s huge requirement for equipment and fuel.
Hindustan Times, Sept. 21