18 JULY: THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF INDO- US NUCLEAR DEAL

18 JULY: THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF INDO- US NUCLEAR DEAL

As the third anniversary of the Indo United States (US) Nuclear Deal approaches near on 18 July, and the determined leaders – Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush , want it in ‘haste’ to prove their legacy before they depart from the throne, a larger issue of feasibility of nuclear deal and the National Interest comes up.

The issue of transparency, accountability, rises up in our democratic polity as information for common people is grossly lacking pointing to uniformed debate prevailing via media management.

Firstly the political-strategic aspect of this deal needs to be seen to be understood in terms of its embedded context. It is part of a strategic framework which would be used to bring ‘Pax Americana’. This goes back to the readings of National Security Document 2002 which spells out Russia and China as enemies but mentions India as possible ally.

In terms of technology and energy, it is not that ‘big deal’ too. If the Prime Minister laments that the nation has inadequate uranium funding, then the blame for this morass goes to him, when he as the finance minister slashed the expenditure on uranium in prodigal terms. Both thermal and hydro electricity are much cheaper and safe alternative sources have been hitherto left unexplored. Further, the question of Nuclear Weapons free South Asia, which India enshrines, by its foreign policy ethos, cannot be dictated by United States.

In terms what the deal has to offer, the picture is not rosy. The reprocessing and enrichment technology is not being given. The nation’s stands that the deal would make India as a responsible nuclear power displays political irresponsibility as the very nuclear proliferation would have knock-on effects with neighbors and other nations.

The other issue of strengthening Indo-US ties via the deal seems superficial. With the rise of multilateralism as a force in World Politics, Indo-US ties have been marked by ‘closer engagement’. This growing warmth will not be reversed even if the deal is not enforced. Thus to base the entire paraphernalia of relations with United States seems to put bilateral ties on hollow terms.

The very process involved in executing the deal is complex. It seems irksome to comprehend that then why the government is ready to put government future at stake just for the deal. What the leaders in both nations fail to perceive that they cannot fashion legacy by such symbolism.

The very issue of National Interest is grossly misunderstood and understated. To dub it in sole military or nuclear arsenal terms is flawed. National Security has a much wider dimension with rise of terrorism, narcotics, natural disasters where the threats are cutting across borders. Then there are issues which seek the merit of government like Women Reservation, plight of unorganized sector in globalization, foreign investment in retail. It is high time that the present gives up its blinkered vision with sole attention on the Nuclear Deal for the integrity and sustainability of the nation.