The prospective Indo-US nuclear deal of civil nuclear energy cooperation is one such pivotal issue. Recently, the US House of Representatives approved the US and India Nuclear Cooperation and Promotion Act 2006 by an overwhelming margin (359 to 68). It now awaits the US Senate's consideration in September.
In India, a high-pitched opposition to this deal has been expectedly led by the sanctimonious leftists, an insecure SP and a shrill BJP. While the left's opposition stems from their ideological aversion to the wealth creating philosophy of the US and the SP's from a fear of alienating their core constituency in UP, the BJP's misgivings are the most curious of them all. After all, the BJP did much to advance closer diplomatic and strategic cooperation between India and the US during the NDA era. Thus, the party's opposition to the nuclear deal owes partly to its selective amnesia and party to the indignation of witnessing the crystallisation of a strategic relationship with the US under a Congress led government.
In this shrill domestic political atmosphere where half-baked opinions are passed off as incontrovertible facts, hyperbole is obscuring a level headed analysis. The genesis of the deal lies in the joint statement of July 18 2005 between the two countries where, among other things, in exchange for nuclear fuel from the US for its civilian reactor's, India agreed to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities, continue with its unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests and place its civilian nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.
Contrary to perception, the broad text of the bill passed by the House of Representatives adheres to the July 18 joint statement. The goal posts have not shifted. In reality, President Bush has aggressively championed the deal in the face of some Democrat criticism that it is tilted in favour of India and also thwarted efforts to link the deal to India's stance on containing Iran's nuclear ambition. The bill does not require India to commit to a moratorium on future tests which is the misguided view floating among "nationalist" leaders. Neither does it compromise India's nuclear military programme which falls outside IAEA's purview.
Rather, in a non-binding expression of US policy, the bill states that the US shall "aim to achieve a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear explosive purposes by India, Pakistan and the Peoples Republic of China". This is a mere expression of wish which is far from trapping India into an unknown charter of compromise. Of course, there are a few aspects of the bill - such as an annual report to the Congress by the US President of India's fissile material stockpile - that require fine tuning. However, sensible negotiation is an aspect of any arrangement between sovereigns. It should not become a foundation for undue suspicion and paranoia.
There are many significant areas of convergence between the US and India. Both countries share common democratic values. Migration, trade and economic interests also bind the two countries. Combating the scourge of Islamic extremism and an unstable Pakistan poses a challenge to both nations too. The growing military and diplomatic clout of China is also another shared concern. As Ashton B. Carter, Professor of Science and International Affairs at Harvard notes in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs, "the real benefits of the India deal...lie in the significant gains in terms of security that the broader strategic relationship could deliver down the road... and in dealing with a range of dangerous contingencies....."
The Indo-US nuclear compact is in India's interests. It is to Manmohan Singh's credit that he has assiduously pushed for this. Far from being an unequal bargain that will somehow curtail India, it acknowledges the reality of a multi-polar world and places valuable importance on India's participation in maintaining a geo-political equilibrium in this complex age. Instead of hiding behind a static and antiquated mantra of non-alignment which has failed to deliver any tangibles for India, the deal could signal the beginning of a dynamic Indian foreign policy, fit for the demands of the 21st century and the crucial role India will play in it. It will be a shame if petty politics derails its consummation.
(Rishabh Bhandari is a lawyer at a global law firm in London. These are his personal views.)first published:August 14, 2006, 10:25 ISTlast updated:August 14, 2006, 10:25 IST
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-mid-article',container: 'taboola-mid-article-thumbnails',placement: 'Mid Article Thumbnails',target_type: 'mix'});
let eventFire = false;
window.addEventListener('scroll', () => {
if (window.taboolaInt && !eventFire) {
setTimeout(() => {
ga('send', 'event', 'Mid Article Thumbnails', 'PV');
ga('set', 'dimension22', "Taboola Yes");
}, 4000);
eventFire = true;
}
});
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News
The monsoon session of the current parliament has been brimming with a torrent of farcical activity. As MP's groggily recover from their current obsession of excessively pouring over a raft of 'manufactured' issues such as, the comical treasure-hunt for a mole and fretting over what a breach of privilege means, some urgent domestic and foreign policy issues that deserve parliament's attention are waiting on the anvil.
The prospective Indo-US nuclear deal of civil nuclear energy cooperation is one such pivotal issue. Recently, the US House of Representatives approved the US and India Nuclear Cooperation and Promotion Act 2006 by an overwhelming margin (359 to 68). It now awaits the US Senate's consideration in September.
In India, a high-pitched opposition to this deal has been expectedly led by the sanctimonious leftists, an insecure SP and a shrill BJP. While the left's opposition stems from their ideological aversion to the wealth creating philosophy of the US and the SP's from a fear of alienating their core constituency in UP, the BJP's misgivings are the most curious of them all. After all, the BJP did much to advance closer diplomatic and strategic cooperation between India and the US during the NDA era. Thus, the party's opposition to the nuclear deal owes partly to its selective amnesia and party to the indignation of witnessing the crystallisation of a strategic relationship with the US under a Congress led government.
In this shrill domestic political atmosphere where half-baked opinions are passed off as incontrovertible facts, hyperbole is obscuring a level headed analysis. The genesis of the deal lies in the joint statement of July 18 2005 between the two countries where, among other things, in exchange for nuclear fuel from the US for its civilian reactor's, India agreed to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities, continue with its unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests and place its civilian nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.
Contrary to perception, the broad text of the bill passed by the House of Representatives adheres to the July 18 joint statement. The goal posts have not shifted. In reality, President Bush has aggressively championed the deal in the face of some Democrat criticism that it is tilted in favour of India and also thwarted efforts to link the deal to India's stance on containing Iran's nuclear ambition. The bill does not require India to commit to a moratorium on future tests which is the misguided view floating among "nationalist" leaders. Neither does it compromise India's nuclear military programme which falls outside IAEA's purview.
Rather, in a non-binding expression of US policy, the bill states that the US shall "aim to achieve a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear explosive purposes by India, Pakistan and the Peoples Republic of China". This is a mere expression of wish which is far from trapping India into an unknown charter of compromise. Of course, there are a few aspects of the bill - such as an annual report to the Congress by the US President of India's fissile material stockpile - that require fine tuning. However, sensible negotiation is an aspect of any arrangement between sovereigns. It should not become a foundation for undue suspicion and paranoia.
There are many significant areas of convergence between the US and India. Both countries share common democratic values. Migration, trade and economic interests also bind the two countries. Combating the scourge of Islamic extremism and an unstable Pakistan poses a challenge to both nations too. The growing military and diplomatic clout of China is also another shared concern. As Ashton B. Carter, Professor of Science and International Affairs at Harvard notes in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs, "the real benefits of the India deal...lie in the significant gains in terms of security that the broader strategic relationship could deliver down the road... and in dealing with a range of dangerous contingencies....."
The Indo-US nuclear compact is in India's interests. It is to Manmohan Singh's credit that he has assiduously pushed for this. Far from being an unequal bargain that will somehow curtail India, it acknowledges the reality of a multi-polar world and places valuable importance on India's participation in maintaining a geo-political equilibrium in this complex age. Instead of hiding behind a static and antiquated mantra of non-alignment which has failed to deliver any tangibles for India, the deal could signal the beginning of a dynamic Indian foreign policy, fit for the demands of the 21st century and the crucial role India will play in it. It will be a shame if petty politics derails its consummation.
(Rishabh Bhandari is a lawyer at a global law firm in London. These are his personal views.)
Comments
0 comment