UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi'svirtual declaration that New Delhi would go ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal despite objections from Left parties, voiced while on American soil, proves that she illegitimately continues to call the shots in the government despite her forced resignation from the cabinet-rank post of chairperson of the National Advisory Council (NAC) in July 2006.
The foreign-born Ms. Gandhi showed scant respect for either Prime Minister Manmohan Singh or for national security and sovereignty while pushing her agenda for subordinating India to a US-dominated world order. Enough has been revealed about the nuclear deal in the public domain for India to be wary of becoming a pawn in Washington'sbattles with China and Iran.
Yet Ms. Gandhi, probably acting under some unknown pressure, enthusiastically took potshots at the Left parties and told a New York audience of Indian-Americans that: ?Sometimes a great deal is made in public domain of the opinions expressed by our friends who support our coalition but this should not alarm you. We believe that it is important to listen to all points of view because we believe that this only strengthens the democratic process and the process to arrive at a consensus.?
Since the Congress president has no status or authority to make such a momentous declaration about a foreign treaty being bitterly opposed by all major political parties in India, that too on foreign soil, there has understandably been an adverse reaction at home. The Communist parties have rightly accused Ms. Gandhi of belittling the Left before an international audience, a situation she could have avoided unless it was intentional, because last month she had already articulated her stand on the nuclear deal in the Congress mouthpiece Sandesh, where she claimed the Left was consulted at every stage while the deal was being negotiated. The Communists promptly denied this, saying they learnt the details only after it was finalised.
CPM politburo member M.K. Pandhe said the New York speech demonstrated the ruling coalition'sintention of going ahead with the deal. The CPM Central Committee again asked the government not to engage with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on India-specific safeguards. CPI leader Gurudas Dasgupta insisted the Left concerns over the deal were in the national interest. The RSP was agitated enough to demand instant withdrawal of support to the government.
Political analysts interpret Ms. Gandhi'sspeech as evidence of disrespect for the third UPA-Left meeting over the nuclear deal on October 5, and her determination to operationalise the nuclear deal without regard for the punishing price this will impose on the Indian economy and indigenous nuclear programme. The most deceptive argument is it will augment our energy resources. The truth is that India'scurrent power generation is 127 gigawatts (GW), which needs to rise to 337 GW by 2016-17 to sustain the current GDP growth rate. If the deal is signed, nuclear energy, which was only 3.9 GW in 2006, can rise to a maximum of only 20 GW by 2016.
This not only leaves a huge power deficit, but comes at a cost of thousands of crores of rupees of investment in America'sobsolete uranium-based reactors. Worse, while the deal would adversely hit our indigenous thorium-based nuclear programme, it does not guarantee complete access to civilian nuclear technology; the 123 agreement forbids transfer of dual-use technologies; and assurances of uninterrupted fuel supplies end if it is terminated.
Further, former Atomic Energy Research Board chief A. Gopalakrishnan has warned that Section 106 of the Hyde Act enjoins US to end nuclear cooperation if India conducts a nuclear test; Section 104(a)(3)(B) denies the US President power to waive Section 129 of the US Atomic Energy Act which envisages similar termination. On testing a devise, therefore, India will have to return all materials including reprocessed material covered by the agreement. Dr Gopalakrishnan warns that both the 123 agreement and the Hyde Act deny India assured nuclear fuel if Washington terminates or suspends the deal. Australia'slinking uranium sales to India'slegal commitment to abandon nuclear testing reinforces this view.
Should a nationalist government need further tests, all reactors, materials, fuel stockpiles, reprocessed fuel, spares and technology will have to be returned to America (which is unlikely to offer a refund!). In monetary terms, a direct investment of Rs. 250,000 crore in imported power reactors and Rs 800,000 crore in downstream industries relying on this power will be compromised. No government could withstand such an economic shock.
America could blackmail us in other areas impinging on our sovereignty and national dignity; this is why Iran'snuclear programme has been smuggled into the deal. Former BARC director A.N. Prasad believes the 123 agreement was a bogey to ?fix? the language of the deal. The controversial issue of testing was not directly mentioned, and the Indian government concealed the fact that such areas of silence are governed by the Hyde and US Atomic Energy Acts.
The Hyde Act compels the American President to ensure that India has provided America and the IAEA with a credible plan to separate civil and military nuclear facilities, and that India and IAEA have completed all legal steps necessary prior to signature of an agreement needing application of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity. The US President has to give Congress India'sadherence to a strict non-proliferation regime; copies of the separation plan and agreements with IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group; and specific measures taken by India to actively participate in US and international efforts to dissuade, isolate and if necessary sanction and contain Iran.
If Ms. Sonia Gandhi had to speak about the Indo-US nuclear deal on American soil, she should have stood up for the Indian nationalist concerns over the ?slave charter.? That she has done the precise opposite proves her lack of commitment to India and her determination to bat for the US side.
Comments