Break in the logjam?

Former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra8217;s recent statement on the Indo-US nuclear deal deserves more careful perusal, writes Arundhati Ghose

One cannot over-emphasise the significance of the interview given by India8217;s former National Security Adviser, Brajesh Mishra, to a TV channel, in which he categorically stated that he was convinced, after discussions with government officials and scientists, that the Indo-US 8216;deal8217; would not affect India8217;s strategic programme. Read together with his earlier qualified support to the deal, that if he were to get credible guarantees from the government 8220;about the integrity of what we had left behind three and a half years ago8221; he would advise the government to go ahead with the deal, his recent statement gets added meaning.

Mishra has always been particular in clarifying that he was not a member of, and that his views did not necessarily reflect those of any political party. In other words, his views were offered as independent assessment. However, it appears that his considered opinions on the Indo-US deal have been dismissed by the BJP as 8216;only8217; those of an individual. That is, of course, undeniable, but what needs to be kept in mind is that he is not just any individual off the street. Not only is he recognised as one of our most perspicacious security analysts coming as he does from an impeccable political and diplomatic background, but he has dealt with India8217;s national security for five eventful years. His views, therefore, would keep in mind not only India8217;s external security interests, but her economic security and domestic interests as well. Such views cannot be dismissed and indeed, they should not.

There is more to this than respect for the considered views of one of the cognoscenti. Mishra8217;s views are similar to those of the current National Security Adviser, who has been part of the team negotiating the deal. Of the three NSAs India has had so far, with one tragically absent, two are of the view that the Indo-US nuclear agreement, opens up India8217;s choices for energy and high technology, even while it preserves her sovereignty over her strategic programme. Should this be dismissed lightly?

In any case, it needs to be constantly borne in mind that the agreement is not about India8217;s weapons programme, it is about her freedom of choice in determining her energy security, it is about the opening up of international cooperation in high technology, in a sense it is a key to the door of a knowledge-based society, an objective ardently supported by some of the bitter critics of the deal.

This bilateral agreement between two countries has perhaps faced more opposition from more quarters than most, and for diametrically opposing reasons. In fact, in an apocryphal reportage, one of the main Indian opponents of the agreement has been voted Man of the Year or some such similar honour by a US-based non-proliferation organisation, for doing so much to stymie what it believes to be 8216;an ill-conceived arrangement8217;! This organisation believes that the deal will permit India to suddenly rush into feverishly building up her nuclear arsenal, leading Pakistan to do the same, resulting in major nuclear tensions in the sub-continent. The deal, it is felt, would only compromise the global non-proliferation system, as 8220;India has violated past agreements on peaceful nuclear cooperation8230;8221;

By emphasising India8217;s strategic programme in the context of the 123 Agreement, an impression is given that India would use a civilian cooperation deal to further, rather than protect, her weapons programme. Would we accept foreign involvement, however indirect, in our strategic programme? Having fought off pressures in this area for decades, why should we, as a nuclear weapon state, seek such intervention? Once again, Mishra8217;s words need careful perusal; as a former representative of India to the UN, both in New York and Geneva, he is clearly conscious of the importance of the nuances in words.

The objections of the Left are unashamedly ideological. Why the government, particularly the external affairs minister who has been quoted as recognising this reality, feels that they can be convinced to change an ideological stance is beyond comprehension. In fact, they have been reported as saying that they would not permit the deal to go forward, and would delay and draw out the discussions with the UPA so that the hard fought agreement withers away.

Story continues below this ad

For the NDA, and the BJP in particular, who maintain that national security is at the core of their approach to international relations, the views of two National Security Advisers should surely count for something. Even those in the US who oppose the deal recognise what Mishra said, that the Indian negotiators were able to extract concessions from the US side that would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. It is these concessions that arouse their ire. Surely it is time to set aside any petulance that might exist, and adopt an approach which would be in the national security interests of the country. As one of the Democratic senators who had serious reservations about the deal himself said 8220;I do not like the agreement but will support it in the interests of better Indo-US relations.8221; That8217;s statesmanship. It should not be beyond the abilities of our politicians too to find a political solution out of the present logjam.

The writer is former ambassador of India to the United Nations in Geneva