|
Round The World
Build National Consensus
WHITHER INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL?
By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra
(School of International Studies, JNU)
New Delhi, December 24, 2007
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 & Feature Alliance)
E-Mail :
newseditor@sarkaritel.com |
