The Left is not right on nuclear deal

Karat concludes, unfortunately, that “it is evident that without the Defence Agreement, the Americans would not have agreed for the Nuclear Cooperation, this seems part of the quid-pro-quo”. The Defence Agreement in fact owes its genesis to the agreed minutes on the relations between US and India signed in January, 1995. Then came Pokhran II in 1998 and the consequent imposition of sanctions. In 2001, the Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership with the United States of America was forged by Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, wherein India and the US agreed to expand cooperation in three specific areas: Civilian Nuclear Activities, Civilian Space Programmes and High Technology Trade. In addition to this was the agreement to expand a dialogue on missile defence and cooperation in the area of commerce. The strategic partnership between India and the US is not the brainchild of one political party. It is the recognition of the confluence of interests in an ever changing world, interests which seek to address common cherished values like rule of law, mutual desire to maintain stability and security, defeating terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction & associated material, data and technology. For Karat to opine that the civil nuclear energy cooperation was a “quid-pro-quo”, contingent upon India agreeing to a Defence Arrangement betrays lack of understanding of contemporary politics and the dynamics of change.

Karat further states that the decision of the UPA government to vote along with the US and western countries in September, 2005 on the Iran nuclear issue reflected the subservience of Indian foreign policy to US’s interests. He goes on to state that India was not even prepared to go along with the position adopted by the block of ‘non-alignment’ movement countries. Non-alignment historically was a response to Cold War politics, but in the contemporary world, it means independence of decision-making. I don’t know why Karat assumes India’s vote with the US on the Iran nuclear issue a mortgage of our foreign policy interests. Karat is surely aware of the fact that only one Muslim country namely Syria voted against the resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors on September 24, 2005. Of the 35 countries, 22 voted in favour, 1 against with 12 abstentions. Karat also knows that some of the main collaborators in Iran’s nuclear programme, despite the fact that Iran was a signatory to the NPT, are those who are opposed to us. On February 4, 2006, the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution requesting the IAEA Director General to report to the UN Security Council all IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted, relating to the implementation of safeguards in Iran. Here too, 27 countries voted in favour, 3 against and 5 abstentions. Egypt and Yemen, which have significant Shia population voted in favour and Indonesia, Libya and Algeria abstained. A majority of non-aligned nations voted for the resolution. China and the Russian Federation supported the resolution. Going by the majority rule, a large majority, both on September 24, 2005 and on February 4, 2006 voted against Iran. Karat gives great credence to majorities especially a cobbled opportunistic majority in Parliament. On that logic he must support the majority verdict when it comes to Iran. Conclusions based on selective facts are no substitute to an informed decision.

Karat emphasizes the limited contribution that nuclear power will make to our overall power generation, which is just 3% and it cannot exceed 7% even if its ambitious plans for expansion are implemented by 2020.

The argument defies logic. With exponential growth in demand and on the assumption that the economy will continue to grow at 8 to 9%, the demand for electricity in 2020 will be around 4,48,000 megawatts. By 2030, it is expected to be anything between 8,00,000 to 10,00,000 megawatts. 7% of a million megawatts is 70,000, from the present mere 2,700 megawatts. This cannot be regarded as a limited contribution. These are conservative estimates. By opening up the civil nuclear energy sector to investments and by allowing private players a significant role, we can enhance our estimated levels of generation at least two-fold. In the process, with the scientific expertise in civil nuclear energy available in India, we can in fact hope to export some of these technologies and build nuclear reactors for other countries to meet global demand.

The 21st century will require us to source clean energy from all available options. It will be necessary to expand our basket of options by looking at alternative sources of energy. Bio-fuels, Solar Energy, Wind Power are possible options. As far as Thermal Power is concerned, with open cast mining, the potential for polluting the environment is frightening. In order to modernize the coal sector, we need again the Left to collaborate, in order to use clean coal technologies for generation of power. Our coal reserves are estimated to be 247 billion tonnes with proven reserves of about 93 billion tones. Our reliance on coal will continue though present coal production capacity is already strained. We need huge investments in the coal sector, which again are not forthcoming because of our antiquated policies and legislation. The Left resists any attempt to change this also. The argument that Thermal Power is cheaper is also somewhat misconceived. If coal sequestration is to take place and carbon dioxide captured or coal were to be liquefied, input costs in technology up-gradation would also make coal a relatively expensive proposition. Hydro Electric Power generation must also be augmented to meet increasing demand. All sources of energy therefore, need be accessed to meet the potentially large gap between demand and supply. The drawback of both Thermal and Hydro Electric Power is that power plants must be close to the pithead and along the run of the river, respectively, far away from consumers, making transmission losses, an impediment to full utilization. To consider Nuclear Energy as a limited source of energy is to ignore, at your own peril, a vital source of energy necessary to meet our developmental needs.

Karat then states that the Hyde Act and its provisions run contrary to the assurance given by the Prime Minister in August, 2006. The 123 Agreement, after it is accorded the approval of Congress, will be the “last expression of the sovereign will” and the Hyde Act being prior in any point of time cannot possibly override the provisions of the 123 Agreement. He has also not indicated as to how any assurance of the Prime Minister runs contrary to the Hyde Act. Indeed the assurances given by the Prime Minister on the floor of the House in August, 2006 have all been met. The nuclear fuel supply cycle as enunciated by the Prime Minister in August, has nothing to do with access to dual-use technologies. The Prime Minister never gave any assurance about access to dual-use technologies. The assurance of the Prime Minister related to sourcing nuclear fuel, its assured supply, import of nuclear reactors and the right to reprocess spent fuel. All these assurances have been fulfilled. In the context of the 123 Agreement, India is only bound by the terms there-of and not by any extraneous domestic legislation of the United States, which seeks to influence the President of the United States. Any prescriptions in the Hyde Act with reference to India’s foreign policy are neither binding on India nor will our foreign policy decisions be influenced directly or indirectly by the domestic law of any country.

We accord great importance to the fact that we have been able to work together as a secular entity along with the Left and put in place policies and programmes, which are historic. The 123 Agreement, instead of impacting negatively on our sovereignty will allow us to be global players in a competitive world, Karats’ arguments to the contrary, not-withstanding.