Nuclear Thread - 4

[acharya]

<b>
The said, and the unsaid
</b>
Manvendra Singh

The entire thrust of the 123 deal is to secure for India technology from global civilian nuclear vendors. All of it depends on import.

No foreign policy initiative has created as much bitterness in the polity as the Indo-U.S. 123 agreement

The logic of destabilising a government for the sake of an international pact defies all political wisdom

In the run-up to the most predictable political divorce of recent times a significant parliamentary development got submerged in all the din that invariably surrounds a split. Given that the parting of ways between the Left Front and the UPA government was over an agreement that is claimed to bring cleaner energy, the parliamentary initiative is momentous. And that it was a proposal from a couple of first-time members but keenly implemented by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha adds greater irony to all the drama that has unfolded since before and after the debate.

For the first time in its history the Parliament of India is to have an official forum on Global Warming and Climate Change. One of the highlights of the much-maligned 14th Lok Sabha has been the debate on climate change on May 8, 2007. What with members from across the political spectrum participating in gusto, free from the restrictions imposed by whips and guillotines. Since then there has been a clamour amongst members to set up a formal, official forum. After doing the rounds of parliamentary party offices, the announcement appeared on July 14 that there would now be a Parliamentary Forum on Global Warming and Climate Change.
Subtle, yet substantial

The much-under fire Speaker put it into place in the days before the country debated its political fortunes, and future, hinging on a foreign policy initiative that has caused divisions as sharp and bitter as those when India sent troops to Sri Lanka in 1987. No foreign policy initiative has created as much bitterness and difference of opinion in the polity as the Indo-U.S. 123 Agreement. The co-relation between the parliamentary forum and the 123 agreement are subtle, yet substantial. The ideas that propelled the forum into formation were largely around clean energy so as to save humankind. And the stated logic behind the 123 agreement has been India’s need for nuclear energy as a route to sustainable development using cleaner fuels.

In this case, what is stated, and what remains unstated is of such a vast gulf that the entire logic behind the Indo-U.S. 123 can be questioned. As it is the logic of destabilising ones own government for the sake of an international agreement defies all political wisdom, is bad foreign policy, and cannot generate energy security.

Encouraging domestic politics to split along such sharp lines, all for the sake of a largely esoteric international agreement does not reflect a good sense of leadership, or direction for the country. India’s society, and its political parties, must never be surgically divided for the purpose of fulfilling an international commitment, of whatever worth. That the country today stands divided over this deal is a matter of fact, and of great concern too. For foreign policy has not divided the country in two decades, but now it has, and this is the single biggest drawback for any leadership and a stigma that is unlikely to ever leave the Indo-U.S. 123 Agreement.

Political parties have their stated objections to the deal. Then there are the unstated aspects too. With its energetic staff, and contributors, The Hindu has been at the forefront of analysing the deal threadbare. With the largest technical readership, and specifically nuclear at that, there is little point in repeating critiques, and agendas. It is the unsaid aspects that need to be stated.

The Indo-U.S. nuclear deal is driven by global politics with a view to co-opting New Delhi into an arrangement that seeks a greater worldly role for a country that is largely panchayat in its thinking and practice. It is not, yet, a role India seeks for itself, but which others seek for it. There is undoubtedly a greater confidence in the country, and to be fair to him, Rahul Gandhi did elaborate on that during his intervention in support of the confidence motion. But this sense of confidence is not an outcome of greater creativity or thinking in this country. It has come from an access to markets, from an acquired sense of belonging, and not from earning the seat or the role. For that the country needs greater intellectual resourcefulness.

Had that intellectual ingenuity already existed in ample amounts then the parameters around which this agreement came to be made would have been very different. For, in our rush to embrace we have tossed out some fairly simple and laudable foreign policy intransigents. From its stated position of a multi-polar world, India is now a practitioner of uni-polar politics. A visa to purchase a South African civilian nuclear reactor, even French, Russian, or Japanese, et al, will now have to be routed via Washington. By going ahead with this deal, and in this manner, we have underlined the U.S. as the sole repository of our global interests. That is patently unfair on India, and singularly unhealthy for our dynamic relationship with the world, as also the U.S. in particular.

Given that we seek the intervention of Washington in getting for us reactors that are currently restricted it becomes imperative to understand how they look at our efforts, policies. We may spin out any mantra to suit our domestic consumption but ultimately it also depends on how others interpret us. The first time it was mentioned this way in a parliamentary debate, the Speaker interjected to say, “You trust the Americans more than your own Prime Minister.” Prickliness not being unique to Indians, this retort completely missed the point. And which is “to advance India’s non-proliferation commitments… in a manner that enhances and reinforces the global non-proliferation regime.”

This is the Chair’s Summary from the recent G8 summit. And the Summit Leaders Declaration stated a “full commitment to… the NPT and pledge ourselves to redouble our efforts to uphold and strengthen the Treaty.” So now we have it as clearly enunciated as can be. These are words of those from whom we seek our nuclear solace. When all the while there is nobody in the entire domestic political spectrum that would claim India seeks to enhance and reinforce the global non-proliferation regime, or the NPT. That interpretation of India’s actions comes from the conviction of those who set the parameters of our entry into the regime. They set the goal posts into which we seek to strike. And for what, energy?

In the 40-odd years that it would take to fully implement the 123 Agreement, India may end up with an enhanced nuclear power generation capacity of 40,000 MW. Even at that point of time it would not total more than a single digit’s worth of the total energy basket. Coupled with the fact that almost 25 per cent of domestic power production gets lost due to theft or distribution faults, does it not make greater sense to aim for energy efficiency? By doing that only the corrupt and thieving would be isolated. Not then the divisiveness within the polity and society. And not, also, the subterfuge that the Indo-U.S. 123 Agreement is about our energy future, and security.

The entire thrust of the deal is to secure for India technology from global civilian nuclear vendors. All of it depends on import. And how imports could make the country more secure is an oxymoron of the most perplexing kind. The only route India has to greater energy security is by implementing efficiency standards and building up on its abundant renewable resources. The only democracy endowed with the resources, and a market, India’s renewable energy potential is currently estimated at more than its total production of today.
Plan India, implement village

What it needs is a re-working of the development vision for the country. Mega-projects and other big-ticket items are politics of the 20th century. India is a country that still refuses to urbanise at the global pace. All that it requires is to implement the panchayat level of thinking. Encourage, and allow, the development of renewable energy projects that are community-based, and sustained. Plan India, and implement village. This is the future, and there are ample examples of its success around the world. But it requires a change of mindset, shifting of gears, from Delhi to the districts. It is there that politics is played out, and there that energy security is available aplenty.

(The author represents Barmer in the Lok Sabha for the BJP. The views are his own.)