One question about the continuing drama and deepening political crisis over the Indo-US nuclear deal fills me with agony: Americans know what they want out of this agreement, but do we? The UPA government is fooling the nation by presenting the deal as a panacea for India’s chronic power scarcity. “Opponents of the deal are enemies of India’s development,” thundered Sonia Gandhi at a rally in Haryana. True, her party did a quick U-turn by putting out a rather creative interpretation on her combative remark — saying it was “Haryana-specific”! But rest assured that it will revive the “enemies of development” theme, now that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, with the apparent backing of the only person who wields real authority in the UPA coalition, has done yet another U-turn. But will the deal really answer the ‘B’ part of the BSP (bijlee, sadak, paani) needs of our people? For an answer, turn to the ‘Integrated Energy Policy’ report of the Planning Commission’s expert committee in August 2006. It projects 11 different fuel-mix scenarios up to 2031-32 for achieving eight per cent annual GDP growth rate. In none of these scenarios do we see the slightest hint of the “nuclear renaissance” that the prime minister has been so grandiloquently promising. The report says: “Even if a 20-fold increase takes place in India’s nuclear power capacity by 2031-32, the contribution of nuclear energy to India’s energy mix is, at best, expected to be 4-6.4 per cent.” This, even in the most “optimistic scenario” of supply of imported nuclear fuel, made possible through the deal. Remember that Dr Anil Kakodkar, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, was a member of this expert committee. A person closely associated with the report who wishes to remain unnamed said to me: “There is no way in hell or heaven that India’s nuclear power capacity can go up from 4,000 MW at present to anywhere near the best-case projection of 63,000 MW by 2030. With or without the deal with the U.S., nuclear energy is not going to be the solution to India’s energy needs. The proponents of the deal know this. They are essentially selling a strategic alliance with the US in the name of energy security, since the common man understands daily bijlee shortages better than the intricacies of the 123 agreement.” Isn’t this deception, pure and simple? And for this illusory promise of energy security, look what the UPA government is giving up in its bargain with America: India’s sovereign right to decide the future development of our nuclear weapons programme as per our own independent assessment of our national security needs. This compromise could well lead to a subservient strategic partnership, one requiring India to take shelter under America’s nuclear and missile-defence umbrella. Washington has never been coy about indicating that this is it wants.On July 27, after the 123 agreement was concluded, Nicholas Burns, its chief American negotiator, was at his candid best: “This deal brings India back into the non-proliferation mainstream in a way it was never before.” In other words, it brings India into the NPT regime through the backdoor. Last week, Burns said something equally alarming. Explaining why India is becoming more important for America in the 21st century, he predicted: “Twenty or 30 years from now, many Americans would say India is one of the two or three most important global partners — the way Japan and the European Union are today.” Read it carefully, from India’s security perspective. After World War II, the US imposed a pacifist constitution on Japan that prevented it from having a standing army of its own, leave alone its own nuclear weapons. As far as Europe is concerned, NATO is a US-led security alliance and there is no doubt about who will call the shots in a time of crisis. So, should India become America’s junior partner in its global security architecture tomorrow, as Japan and EU are today? It is a question that the BJP leadership, in particular, must ponder over. It is the party that made India a nuclear weapon power and made Indians, both here and abroad, proud. Now a concerted attempt is being made to bail out a beleaguered Manmohan Singh by playing on the BJP’s deep-rooted anti-Left sentiments. “How can you make common cause with the Communists in opposing the deal?” BJP leaders are being asked. “You will lose your middle-class base, which wants India to be on the right side of the US,” they are being cautioned. The party, sadly, has made no effort to educate its own cadres, or the public at large, about the myth of energy security and the reality of the perils to India’s national security. Nevertheless, if the proud legacy of Pokharan II means anything to the BJP, and if it thinks, as it has consistently done since 1964, when it first raised the demand for an Indian nuclear deterrent, that India’s national security must always be foolproof and self-reliant, now is the time for the party’s leadership to remain firm on its well- and oft-stated stand. And if Prakash Karat has to be made an ally in letting the whole world know that a majority of MPs in Indian Parliament are opposed to the deal, so be it.
