The timeline for Ms. Sonia Gandhi'ssudden energetic interventions in public life is now clear: She has to redeem secret pledges made abroad to make India a client state of the western world. After supporting the Indo-US nuclear deal to the Congress Parliamentary Party some time ago, and writing an article in the party organ, Sandesh, Ms. Gandhi dramatically surfaced in New York with son, Rahul Gandhi, conveniently elevated as party general secretary, ostensibly to address a special UN session on non-violence.
The true reason, as evident from her speech to an Indian-American gathering (i.e. American citizens of Indian origin), was to assure the US administration that she would deliver the ?slave charter? in her capacity as UPA chairperson. As stated in a previous column, the Congress president had no qualms about discussing a sensitive national issue on foreign soil, to a wholly foreign audience. Both she and her heir and would-be ?PM-in-waiting? would also have been wined and dined by the shadowy gentlemen who actually run the western world, far from media glare.
That, this is not far-fetched speculation, is supported by the fact that on her return, Ms. Gandhi tackled the nuclear deal with astonishing alacrity and venom, telling a rural audience in Jhajjar, Haryana, that those opposing the nuclear deal (principally the Left parties, but also the BJP and others) are ?enemies of progress and development.? Shocked party managers had to rush in for damage control (as in the case of Rahul Gandhi'sfamous Tehelka non-interview) and claim she had been misunderstood. They could not allege media misquotes because the rally was widely televised!
Political observers are unanimous that though the Left-Congress panel has deferred the inevitable, the arrival of International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Mohammad Elbaradei in India signals a determination to continue with the deal. Thus, the government will go ahead with finalising the text of the agreement with IAEA and try to take things to a stage that subsequent regimes may find difficult to retreat from, even in the event of an electoral debacle for Congress. Since the White House has made its own timeline regarding the handling of the Nuclear Suppliers Group widely known, there can be little doubt that Ms. Gandhi is personally racing to honour what appears to be a personal commitment to the American President. That she lacks the official status to do so is being ignored even by the Left, which claims hostility to the deal, and this duplicity calls for an explanation from them.
Clearly Ms. Gandhi and her close confidants feel Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and party stalwarts would rather sacrifice the deal than the government; hence her decision to risk public exposure on a matter impinging India'snuclear security and independent foreign policy. Since even the most loyal sycophants agree that Mr. Rahul Gandhi has failed to inspire the party rank and file, Ms. Gandhi obviously does not expect to improve the party tally at the hustings. So her compulsions and accountability obviously lie elsewhere, and she owes the nation an explanation in this regard.
Enough has been written by eminent experts to show that the nuclear deal is of little consequence in meeting India 'sgrowing energy needs. Worse, it derails Dr. Homi Bhabha'sthree-stage plan resting on natural uranium reactors, plutonium breeders, and thorium reactors that will take care of both energy security and political independence. The Indo-US deal undermines India'sweapons R&D capabilities by diverting funds from technology development to purchasing costly and obsolete enriched uranium fuelled-reactors from abroad. And as Mr. Sitaram Yechury has pointed out, since the fuel supply for these reactors is purely conditional, India could well be left high and dry with reactors and no fuel!
Powerful Indian corporates are supporting the deal only because they expect to benefit from contracts for downstream industries and services, though they have not been honest enough to make their interests public. But despite the virtually one-sided lobbying done by Congress, friendly media and friendly security experts (who reportedly double up as ?consultants? of the western arms industry), the Indian public distrusts the deal and the motives behind it.
Hence, after initially hectoring India with ambassador Mulford'sgratuitous advice that ?time is of the essence,? the United States has made a measured retreat, saying India is free to decide the timing of the remaining steps in the civil nuclear deal. But the fact remains that there is an invisible end-October deadline for getting clearances from the IAEA and the 45-member NSG so that the deal can be finalised before America goes into election mode early 2008.
CPI leader A.B. Bardhan has made a public commitment to withdraw support from the UPA once the government formally proceeds with negotiations with the IAEA. It would be in the fitness of things if the Left parties also refuse to meet the delegation of the United States India Political Action Committee (USINPAC), a body of Americans of Indian Origin, who are coming to India in late October to lobby for the deal with leaders across the political spectrum. It would be appropriate for these activists to declare their interests in the deal, specifically their allegiance, if any, to MNCs that stand to benefit from it.
This would also be an appropriate occasion for Indian political parties and the Indian people to ponder the propriety of naturalised citizens exercising power at the top echelons of government, either directly or indirectly, and of self-ejected economic evacuees from India masquerading as friends of India while working towards a new imperialism over their former homeland.
