Debating the deal

The nuclear debate has revealed that Indian democracy is of, by and for a powerful elite

Political debate on nuclear cooperation between India and the US, beginning with the joint statement between the US president and Indian prime minister on July 18, 2005, has revealed serious weaknesses in the functioning of Indian democracy. An impression has been created that every shade of public opinion has been expressed on the pros and cons of India-US nuclear cooperation. The reality is that this debate has been one-sided. A serious issue like the nuclearisation of India, has been hijacked by an elite which believes that India should be a powerful military and nuclear weapon state.

True, the issue has been discussed in Parliament and the prime minister has also made statements on it in both Houses. It is also the case that the Congress, the BJP and the Left parties have not only been actively engaged in the discourse, they have expressed strong differences of opinion. Third, the media have played a yeoman role in providing a platform for the expression of every shade of opinion in the country. A perusal of Indian newspapers beginning with July 18, 2005 to December 18, 2006, will show that generals, bureaucrats, atomic energy experts and managers have all discussed the pros and cons of the nuclear deal in the media.

All this may give the impression that the debate demonstrated the strengths of Indian democracy. But that is not the case. It must be clearly stated that the discourse not only been one-sided, it has clearly revealed that powerful sections of society can manipulate and manufacture public opinion in their favour by using every fora of democratic debate and decision-making. The whole debate has been an exercise in shadow boxing because the only major concern of the critics, or so-called opponents of the government, has been the issue of India8217;s 8216;nuclear sovereignty8217;. The terms of debate have been set by the government and the critics around only one issue: whether the country can conduct future nuclear tests to maintain its nuclear weapon capability in response to China and Pakistan.

The US government had to actively persuade its non-proliferators to support the India-US nuclear deal. The UPA government, in contrast, had the full backing of every influential group 8212; not only in signing the 8216;deal8217; but also in continuing to develop its nuclear weapon system.

It deserves to be clearly stated that the nuclearisation of the Indian war machine does not enjoy a popular mandate. When Indira Gandhi exploded a nuclear device in 1974, she was politically isolated from the mainstream. The BJP, in 1998, exploded the bomb on the basis of only 20 per cent of the national voters behind it. The Indian war machine has been 8216;nuclearised8217; without a democratic mandate because political leaders of 1974 or 1998 or 2004 did not enjoy public confidence, if we are to go by the percentage of votes they had polled.

The nuclear debate has revealed that Indian democracy is of, by and for the powerful elite who can successfully determine the terms of public discourse.