Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Selling India Better Than Signing Nuclear Deal

Selling India Better Than Signing Nuclear Deal

Author: Saurav Basu
Publication: Blogs.ivarta.com
Date: July 8, 2008
URL: http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/india-usa-blog-column130.htm

So, Manmohan Singh has finally cast the die which has stumped both the NDA and the left. The Samajwadi party which in 1998 refused to support the congress coalition has proved the old adage that in politics there are no permanent friends and enemies. Dwindling electoral returns in UP has forced it to commit compromise and retain its identity in Indian politics. The BJP which was expecting fresh polls will now have to go back to the drawing board and concentrate on assembly elections. Its gambit for forcing early elections has collapsed.

Manmohan Singh without exaggeration has been the most effeminate prime minister of India, every decision of his being dictated by Sonia Gandhi and son, who represents herself as the unconstitutional head of the UPA coalition. Sonia Gandhi"s play on renunciation was lapped up by the melodrama seeking junta - her inner voice had supposedly contradicted her greedy outer voice which was itching to grab power from the NDA by orchestrating the grand conspiracy in which the Vajpayee government fell by a single vote in 1998 - the Congress supremo also committed the ideological fraud in allowing Gomango, who had even been sworn in as CM of Orissa to vote in the house on the flimsy excuse that he had not yet resigned from his Lok Sabha membership. But her desire to capture power then had been terminated ironically by the very man who has chosen to keep the Congress boat rocking now - Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav

For over four years, Manmohan Singh has been found wanting in every department - from security to economics. New records have been set in inflation, cross border infiltration, Muslim minoritysim, Hindu defamation and the reservation rhapsody. Each time Singh chose to keep mum when the nation was grappling with key issues. His tongue only wagged when Sonia Gandhi expressly sanctioned so - like the babble in which events in Gujarat were described as a holocaust. Farmers committing suicide in Andhra and Vidarbha, or terrorists blowing up Hindus does not cause him to lose sleep - but when a Muslim with suspect terror links is detained in Australia Singh admitted to having sleepless nights. He apologized to the Sikhs for the pogrom without explaining what are the compelling reasons which necessitate protection of the Congresswalas who performed them and constituted the vanguard of the movement. Where was he hiding in 1984 when Sikhs were burning? Even Khushwant Singh, who declared India for Indira, rebelled against his profound sycophantic tendencies in the aftermath of the Sikh pogrom but not Manmohan Singh.

There are Indians who deify Singh since he won a gold medal in his economics exam. (Admittedly, it does not help in controlling inflation) They speak of his liberalizing tendencies in 1991 forgotten to add as a catchnote that it was the iron whip of the World Bank which compelled India to gallop towards globalization. Ironically, the very party which had debased India into license raj submission was the Congress and Manmohan Singh had been party to the same policies for over two decades. His actions have to been seen as actions under duress because in 1991 the nation was gasping on its last forex reserves - in effect India faced bankruptcy and Manmohan and the congress political extinction.

Those who vouch for Manmohan"s meritocracy seem to be living in a different planet for sure. Have they forgotten that it was Manmohan Singh in 2004, who just after assuming power declared his noblest intentions in enforcing caste based reservation in the private sector by quoting Victor Hugo "it was an idea whose time had come." [1] Now, it doesn"t need one to be a rocket scientist to deduce that who was the inspiration behind Arjun Singh"s scheme of grand reservation!

So when Manmohan Singh clinched the nuclear deal, there was no need to go gaga over the affair. But hagiographic Congress manipulated media, were quick to pounce on the so called success and spread the myths of India"s grand success in registering the deal. But the saner scholars had already smelt a conspiracy.

Neither has the PM"s conduct been inspirational. It is very surprisingly that a PM has suddenly rediscovered his manliness in case of the deal when it was all but nonexistent when the left was persistently obstructing UPA"s economic and foreign policy? Even two days back, Manmohan Singh continued his banter on the nuclear deal not being detrimental to India"s national interests and yet dogmatically refused to competently and expertly allay the apprehensions of those against the deal. He also keeps harping on the deal being essential for rescuing India from an impending energy crisis. And what a surprise that most major media houses internalized his suggestions right from the start without any critical questioning on a deal of such strategic implications. But what is most disappointing is the attitude of some loudmouthed Manmohan mongers who have surrendered their intellectual faculties to their US centric boardroom bosses. I distinctly remember that in the last US elections, Indian BPO employees were rooting for Bush because he was pro outsourcing. How much more parochial can you get?

At least in this debate which involves major technical details the efforts should have been to arrive at a consensus amongst experts in science, technology and economics. But every tom-dick and harry seems to be opinionated to his own understanding of the deal. Have they even questioned themselves that how nuclear energy can solve India"s growing energy needs when they have failed in the very country which is marketing the deal and which has chosen to migrate to solar energy instead. They should have the humility to appreciate that it is only for professionals in hard sciences and economics to judge the deal, and not laymen some of whom don"t even possess a +2 degree in the same.

An urgent digression is required at this point. Some obscure economist has concurred that India would not get a better deal [but what if it ain"t any worth at all!] Some have pointed to the victory of Indian diplomacy which ratified the deal in the US Senate with such overwhelming majority. Instead as Arun Shourie pointed out when the overwhelming margin simply reflected the fact that, so many new conditions having been added to the Bill, the overwhelming proportion of legislators felt it would now overwhelmingly advance US" objectives, and sink our autonomy. America is a nation which will never surrender its self interest at the cost of any other, leave alone India which does not count high in its agenda. Our American friends were the first to impose sanctions on India when India conducted its nuclear tests in 1998. Previously, it had also scuttled the Congress government"s attempt to perform nuclear tests twice. This was despite it being aware that the rogue state in Pakistan was in possession of Chinese based nuclear technology which they emphatically demonstrated just two weeks after India"s tests. Apart from that it constantly pressurized successive Indian governments to sign the unfair CTBT. Have we forgotten that in the not so distant past, the Dabhol ENRON power treaty was projected as being vital to India"s energy and investment - and its consequent signing by the 13 day Vajpayee government caused the Maharashtra Electricity board to slip into bankruptcy? In the past, America exhibited its generosity to India by selling it wheat contaminated with the deadly Parthenium weed. [2] At that time we had surrendered opportunities for an agricultural surplus in the future and perhaps now we may be surrendering chances in reinvigorating both our energy and security.

The text of the 123 agreement is available online [3].

WHAT THE DEAL DEMANDS

1. The Security concerns:

A. Put more reactions under IAEA safeguards, close down the vital CIRUS reactor: currently only four Indian nuclear reactors are under IAEA safeguard. Signing the deal would mean India shall put 14 reactors under safeguards by 2014. Closing down the recently renovated CIRUS reactor by 2010 would imply that India will lose out on one of the two nuclear reactors available to it which supplies weapon grade plutonium. Arun Shourie reminds us that it has hitherto been supplying 1/3rd of the fissile material available to our nuclear program which proves its pivotal importance. The economist Dipak Bose argues that about 90 percent of all nuclear facilities, including the Fast Breeder Reactors which can produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, will be included in the civilian sector and there will be regular inspection by the IAEA and the US authority to make sure that these facilities will not be used to produce nuclear weapons. On the contrary Pakistan and China can keep pursuing their evil designs against India.

Well known nuclear scientist Homi Sethna has opined that India would be better off signing the NPT, which permitted the exit of any signatory nation, rather than the nuclear deal with the US that would bind the country. Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, has exposed the very enormous financial price that India will have to pay as well, between Rs 300,000 to Rs 400,000 crores in nuclear reactors that will be totally dependent for their existence on a yearly audit of our policies by the US Congress for perpetuity. [4]

2. The sovereignty concerns:

The bill passed its house bill in 2006 which clearly mentioned that its aim was to "Seek to halt the increase of nuclear weapon arsenals in South Asia, and to promote their reduction and eventual elimination." Contrary to the PM"s claims, the 123 agreement solved nothing.
The 123 act denies India the right to conduct future nuclear tests since the very Section of the 1954 Act under which the "123 Agreement" is entered into - Section 123 - states that, should any nuclear device be detonated for any reason whatsoever, not only shall all nuclear commerce be halted with the country, the US shall have the right to demand the return of "any nuclear materials and equipment transferred pursuant" to the agreement for cooperation as well as any "special nuclear material produced through the use thereof if the cooperating party detonates a nuclear explosive device [5]

The 123 act allows America to shutdown the deal citing its internal laws: Shourie informs us that the US immediately stopped nuclear supply to Tarapur when India conducted a solitary nuclear test in 1974 despite the fact that the Americans themselves to this day are unsure whether India offended any part of its 1963 agreement in consequence of that test. How can you rely on such a party? Shourie also completes exposes the double standards of the Americans who when signing a similar deal with China in 1985 had included the one necessary provision missing from its Indian counterpart - The parties recognize, with respect to the observance of this Agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may NOT invoke the provisions of its internal law (like 1954 act and Hyde act) as justification for its failure to perform a treaty."

What Happened to the draconian Hyde Act?

As mentioned previously, the 123 agreement automatically binds the American government to its internal laws regarding nuclear energy transfer namely the 1954 act and the Hyde Act. According to Section 102 (13) of the Hyde Act "The United States should NOT seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any other party if such exports are terminated under United States law" According to Section 103 of the Hyde Act the US would oppose development of a capability to produce nuclear weapons by any non-nuclear weapon state within or outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. The PM claims that the Hyde act has been diluted in the 123 agreement since the act contains a clause which considers that in case nuclear fuel supply by US is stopped or delayed, America shall help seek fuel from India from other friendly countries like Britain, France and Russia. Shourie exposes it to be hogwash since none other than Richard Burns who negotiated the deal declared in no hesitant terms that "if India conducted any nuclear test future the American president will have the right to ask for the return of the nuclear fuel or nuclear technologies that have been transferred by American firms. That right is preserved wholly in the agreement" [6]

What is worse is that even if the 123 act expires or is terminated by India, the IAEA shall continue to maintain the right to keep a tab on India"s nuclear reactors and the US shall insist on its right to act on any concerns raised over such safeguards. [See article 16(3) of the act; "Notwithstanding the termination or expiration of this Agreement or withdrawal of a Party from this Agreement.."]

2. The Energy Concerns:

Nuclear Energy no solution to the looming energy crisis

India must increase its primary energy supply by three to four times and its electricity generation capacity by five to six times of its 2003-2004 levels. By the year 2030, power generation capacity must increase to nearly 800,000 MW from the current capacity of 160,000 MW. This translates, in simple arithmetic, to an annual addition of about 29,000 MW.
In the event Manmohan Singh succeeds in pushing through the nuclear deal with the USA before President George Bush demits office in January 2009, India will be able to add at the most 30,000 MW by the year 2030 using imported power generation machinery, which works out to less than five per cent of the projected 800,000 MW. Can this provide energy security by any stretch of imagination? [7]

Nuclear energy is not the energy panacea

A 2007 report by an Oxford University Research Group concludes "nuclear power must be able to achieve energy security and a reduction in global C02 emissions more effectively, efficiently, economically and quickly than any other energy source. There is little evidence to support the claim that it can, whereas the evidence for doubting nuclear power"s efficacy is clear."

Renewable energy resources: Answers to our growing energy needs

India is well endowed with renewable sources of energy. Latest estimates give the potential for wind power at 45,000 MW; small hydro-power at 15,000 MW; biomasspower/co-generation at 19,500 MW and waste-to-energy at 4,200 MW, making a total of 83,700 MW. Of these, only 13 per cent has been exploited so far. India has unlimited solar power and ocean energy, but is unable to exploit these due to lack of sufficient R & D. With estimated reserves of 360,000 tonnes of thorim, India could develop the thorium fuel cycle instead of relying on imported uranium. [cited by Sam Rajappa]

3. The Economic concerns

The reference to "aspects of the associated nuclear cycle" implies that the agreement does not cover the full nuclear cycle; provisions for transfer of sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, and major critical components should have been covered by the agreement but have not been covered [8]

A group of top scientists have asserted that "The real issue facing India , therefore , is whether or not we want this mythical extra "energy security " through this deal , paying almost thrice the unit capital cost of conventional power plants , with the additional burden of subjugating the freedom to pursue a foreign policy and indigenous nuclear R&D programme of our own." [9]

The cost of energy derived from nuclear sources will be as much as 5 times higher than normal fossil fuel based plants. The problem of nuclear waste disposal adds another dimension to the problem. And who will rule out any environmental catastrophes? The fact of the matter is in India, you can get away with murder. The Bhopal gas tragedy is ample testimony to the fact as to how some Congress leaders conspired with the American syndicate and left the victims in the lurch; and yet very inexplicably went on to win successive elections

CONCLUSION

The intention of the Manmohan Singh government is to clearly deflect attention from its all round failures in every sector and share a false sense of security with the nation. Unfortunately, elements of our naïve junta consider the deal to be panacea to all the evils plaguing our nation. The Left"s opposition to the deal is being viewed as a communist conspiracy ignoring the fact that the BJP is also opposing the deal although the reasons are entirely different. The Left is opposing the deal because it is opposed to any dealing with America which can hurt Chinese interests or even sentiments [although the fact is the Chinese would want the Indians to sign the deal!] The BJP on the contrary has consistently maintained omission of the Hyde act provisions for signing the deal. On a sidenote, the left and BSP have declared the deal to be Anti-Muslim. The ludicrous notion apart, even if it was so, one cannot appreciate how a minority of 12% could hold the national interest of an entire country to ransom. Another instance of what I would call the perverted anti-national face of Indian (pseudo)secularism. What is most disappointing is President Kalam allaying the fears of Mulayam Singh Yadav by giving the deal a clean chit on the illogical basis that India could walk out of the deal later if its national interests become jeopardized. In effect, he fails to rule out the possibility of the deal being sabotaged later by American laws but yet consents to the deal which is absolutely antithetical to the position adopted by other eminent scientists. Walking into the quagmire, you are expected to get sucked it, not march back!

- Author is a doctor by profession and an amateur historian based in New Delhi, India


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements