The Hindu Business Line : Way out of the nuclear deal

I had ended my previous column pointing out that, judged purely on technical and financial terms, without the need of arguments concerning encroachment on India’s sovereignty or independent foreign policy, the nuclear deal will not make much of a difference to the nation’s power scenario.

In specific terms, the deal would be good at the most for adding 5000 MW, in my estimate, of nuclear power, to the existing 3300 MW, in the next 20 years, by which time the total quantum, taking account of all categories, would have reached around 200,000 MW.

This will take the share of nuclear energy to a little more than four per cent, and even if the deal works to perfection, its percentage may not exceed 10.

Should India, just for this minuscule benefit, go through all the trouble of complying with the intrusive provisions of the Hyde Act, and stomach the ambiguities of the so-called 123 Agreement?

Should it, swallowing its national pride, throw open to inspections and surveillance in perpetuity by foreign governments and agencies all the activities in the atomic energy field which had been kept secret from even its own citizens, especially when Indian scientists are on the verge of mastering the three-stage thorium-based technology?

Should India be tied to the chariot wheels of a temperamental superpower just when success is within its reach?

Is the deal so very vital to national interest as to justify risking the gains made on the economic front by tumbling the country into the tumult of a mid-term poll?

It may well be that the Prime Minister and the Chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance do not want the country to incur the odium of going back on a commitment entered into at the highest level which they feel honour bound to keep, regardless of costs or consequences. If that be so, they can relax, because the possibility of governments not having their way is inherent in open societies and vibrant democracies, and the US will be the first to appreciate it.

The experience of President Woodrow Wilson is a classic instance of a solemn undertaking of a head of state encountering determined opposition from legislators and the public at large leading to its rejection by the US Congress.

Covenant rejected

Wilson was an idealist who was passionately convinced of the necessity of establishing a League of Nations after the First World War. He personally took part in the Peace Conference held in Paris and worked hard to have a Covenant signed by the victorious allies to that effect.

In doing so, he did not reckon with the strong current of isolationist sentiment running in his own country.

That apart, the US Congress at that time was dominated by Republicans, who were bitter political foes of Wilson. All his efforts to win their support and to mobilise public opinion in favour of the Covenant failed, and it was voted out.

Then, in recent times, there was the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) behind which the US Administration put all its weight, but it could not secure the Senate’s approval.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the unchallenged idol of the Indian masses, also went through a similar experience.

While looking for all the support he could muster in the aftermath of Chinese invasion in 1962, he approved a deal with the US State Department enabling the Voice of America to broadcast from the Indian soil. It met with such furious resistance that he had to drop it.

The Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, also can, therefore, count on the ready understanding of the US, if only he explains the situation with the help of these examples.

B. S. RAGHAVAN

More Stories on : Power | Offhand | Politics

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Compensating those displaced

The importance of being BRICS

Race for the pole position

Way out of the nuclear deal

CA certification vs AO authorisation

Taxability of services rendered abroad

Elusive clarity

Will the lottery agent fall into service tax net?

The coin cycle