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