Round The World

New Delhi, 19 December 2007

Build National Consensus

Whither Indo-US Nuclear DEAL?

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

The Government of India is not saying much now on the nuclear deal with the United States. The opposition parties are no longer vomiting much fire on this deal. It seems in the last parliamentary debate on this issue, a new unwritten understanding has been reached that majority of the members of parliament are not happy with the deal, but the CPM and its allies would not bring down the Government on this issue. The BJP will be too happy to see this government go, but cannot do much to affect this outcome.

The media is not able to get anything new on this issue to report. The op-ed page editors are not much interested on this topic any more. Some academic institutions still show some interest on this topic and seminars are in the pipeline in different parts of India. But the passionate debate for or against the deal seems to have run out of steam.

Frankly the entire episode on the hindsight appears to have been badly managed by the Government as well as the opposition political parties. The beginning of the mistake was in the very title of the issue—“Nuclear Deal”. The Americans use the term “deal” with certain amount of respect. But it is not a decent word to use in India. But every section of the debaters repeatedly used this term. A better term would have been “proposed Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation”.

Most of the opposition to civilian nuclear cooperation with the United States was political in nature. The merit of this issue was considered and taken note of by a microscopic group of experts. The majority who gave an opinion on this issue did not quite understand the technical details of this issue. But the majority cannot be faulted on this. The problem lied with the opinion makers, political leaders and even the media to some extent. Some of the TV channels began to take street opinions on this issue. Debate is not necessarily always good in a democracy. If the debate has to take place, it should be among those who understand the issue or prepared to take a deeper look into it.

The political leaders made this issue into a political football. The steps taken were not adequately planned or carefully timed. The concerns raised were half baked and not well thought out. For example, the Government should have recognized the fact an initiative that could have fundamentally altered the foreign policy and diplomatic orientation of the country should have been done with consultation of major political parties. In a democracy, different political parties come and go out of power.

An agreement that would bind the country with commitments for a long duration should not have been attempted without in-house deliberations. Indeed, the major coalition partners of the UPA Government felt isolated from a path breaking initiative and thus a crude debate on this theme unfolded. It is actually a lesson for the future government in India not to repeat this mistaken approach. Because of this error in keeping a major foreign policy and national security initiative in a veil secrecy, the best of intentions and benefits have been doubted. Under the US system of government, Presidents are allowed to spring surprises. Henry Kissinger’s secret trips abroad, particularly to China, George Bush’s secret visits to Iraq and many others are part of the American foreign policy processes. But in a multi-party democracy such as India secret initiatives and springing surprises are not very appropriate except in the cases of dire emergence or national security imperatives.

While the Government can truly be held responsible for the undue delay in implementing the 123 agreement, the points of concerns and objections raised by many opposition parties contains more politics and less merit. For instance, the issue of sovereignty was raised in an age of globalization. The time and environment in which “sovereignty” as a concept was defined and understood was vastly different from the world of today. If countries, including the US, accept and implement Austin’s definition of sovereignty, international relations will instantly come to an end.

Secondly, the point that the Americans will come to dictate India’s foreign policy in the wake of civilian nuclear cooperation is absolutely absurd. By giving selective instances when the Government of India happened to be supporting resolutions in international institutions along with the US came to be dubbed as US pressure. This is not to deny that Americans do not put pressure on other countries. But to suggest that India’s foreign policy behaviour was the outcome of US pressure would be certainly wrong. Even India puts pressure on others at times. When India’s position on Soviet military intervention in Hungary clearly appeared pro-Moscow, was it Soviet pressure that worked or India’s belief that it was the best course of action commensurate with national interest worked?

The Left parties are certainly right in pointing out that Indo-US civilian nuclear tie-ups are not confined to energy and economy-related issue. They are also right in suggesting that the US has geo-political interests to serve through this nuclear initiative. But what is wrong with that? Does India not have its own geo-political goals and ambitions? The answer that we should seek is not whether the US would benefit from this deal, but whether it would serve Indian national interests.

No political, economic, social or security issue can be compartmentalized. No bargaining can bring absolutely equal exchanges, particularly between unequal parties. But then no two countries are absolutely equal in the wealth, size, population or military capabilities. In this case also the US is a superpower and India is an aspirant global player. The nuclear cooperation initiative is a win-win situation and there is no dispute about it. If both the parties want fifty-fifty benefits from this initiative, this is never going to work. Asking for it would mean showing disinterest.

According to best of minds among the country’s experts and the present government, the proposed nuclear cooperation with the US will bring considerable benefits to the country. And this is what matters the most. Unfortunately, the Government has not been adequately able to do its job of convincing the people and political parties. Prime Ministerial statements are perhaps not enough. Simultaneously, the opposition concerns are not very convincing. Actually the quality of debate in the US on this issue is rich. Both the opposition and the ruling parties can learn from it. Debate is not always good. Whenever it is good, it should not be endless. It is time; we Indians develop a national consensus and not division on a crucial national security issue. ---INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)