The Indo - US Nuclear Civilian Deal: Dictate Or Deal?

The United States of America hailed the Nuclearweapons program but also the country's foreign
Civilian Deal Agreement terming it historic.policy. The goalposts which the Indian Prime
President Bush said "I am pleased that our twoMinister had spoken off in the Indian Parliament
countries will soon have increased opportunities tohave shifted and the nuclear bill barters away
work together to meet our energy needs in aIndia's right to explode a nuclear bomb. Another
manner that does not increase air-pollution andmajor concern which the Indian scientists have is
greenhouse gas emissions, promotes cleanthat inspectors from the US will have access to
development, supports non-proliferation, andIndia's nuclear facilities. This could be very
advances our trade interests."dangerous for your strategic concerns as there is
The Indian Prime Minister said in parliament onevery chance of our nuclear secrets getting out
similar lines on march 7th 2006, "The resumptionand falling into the hands of the American
of civilian nuclear energy cooperation wouldestablishment and this can be very dangerous for
demonstrate that we have entered a new andus in the long run. The very existence of our
more positive phase of our ties, so that we canindependent nuclear program would come under
finally put behind us years of troubled relations inquestion. India cannot afford to have its nuclear
the nuclear field".program controlled by the Americans like that of
The country's top nuclear scientists havePakistan's
expressed concern over the passing of theAnother major concern is the fear that highly
recent nuclear civilian deal by the Americanradioactive spent fuel will pile up if India is not
Congress .The concerns are quite legitimate. Theallowed to recycle. On this issue the CPI (M) had
scientists have pointed out the provision of theto say this. "A major issue is that the civilian
deal seeks to cap India's right to conduct atomicnuclear cooperation entails the right of India to
tests. The former Atomic Energy Commissionsale of enriched fuel and reprocessing technique.
(AEC) Chairman M R Srinivasan now a Member ofThe law provides for imposing restrictions and
the AEC, expressed concern over the provision intrade regimes, barring access to dual use nuclear
the "Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peacefultechnology. Thus India will be denied its full nuclear
Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 whichcycle." The BJP held the opinion that "the Act
states that the US would terminate civilian nuclearmilitated against full civil nuclear cooperation with
cooperation if India were to conduct a nuclearIndia, the certification and reporting requirements
test". This is something which no government ofcontinued to be rigorous and there was no
a sovereign nation can take as it clearly dictates inassurance of uninterrupted fuel supplies for the
which a country's foreign policy should move.civilian reactors. In fact, India could not reprocess
"It is impossible to have a minimum crediblethe used fuel nor could it ship it back to the U.S.
deterrent without conducting nuclear tests. Butunless its Congress approved the reshipment".
the bill indicates that the cooperation will beThis clause of the act is a major irritant for total
terminated if this is done," former Atomic Energycooperation in the nuclear field between the two
Commission Chairman P K Iyengar said. For thecountries as it negates the issue of equal parity. If
Indian nuclear program to continue in a peacefulaccepted by India our nuclear program would get
manner future test for having a minimumdependant of the supply of nuclear fuel by the
deterrent would be required. On top of thatUnited States .As the supply of nuclear fuel would
United States should not dictate us as to whatdepend on the whims and fancies of the US
we should do with our peaceful nuclear program.administration. The CPI (M) pointed this out in
The Indian External Affairs minister says, "Indiavery clear terms when it said, "on the annual
need not worry about the legislation passed bygood conduct certification by the U.S. President
the US Congress as it is meant for the USthe agreement would be in perpetuity, there was
lawmakers. India is obliged only to the bilaterala possibility of the screws being tightened, if a
agreement (123 Agreement),"He further stated inDemocrat, having different views on nuclear
the parliament, "I would like to inform the Housenon-proliferation, came to power"
that the US Administration has categoricallyOn a similar note the BJP pointed out "the
assured us that this legislation enables the Unitedcertification and reporting requirements continued
States to fulfill all of the commitments it made toto be rigorous and there was no assurance of
India in the July 18 and March 2 Joint Statementsuninterrupted fuel supplies for the civilian reactors.
and that this legislation explicitly authorizes civilIndia was forbidden from nuclear testing, even of
nuclear cooperation with India in a manner fullythe kind permitted by the CTBT, and the
consistent with those two Statements. We fullyweapons program would be subjected to intrusive
expect the July 18 Statement and the March 2U.S. scrutiny. "The deal is more unequal than ever
Separation Plan to be reflected in the text of thebefore. The principle of parity, on which the Prime
123 Agreement".Minister had placed so much emphasis, stands
However question arises which both the CPI (M)abandoned". The nuclear scientists of India have
and the BJP has pointed out rightly that therealso pointed out that India will only get a limited
cannot be sea changes in the 123 agreementsupply of nuclear fuel and not a lifetime supply.
from what has been passed by the AmericanWith objections being raised from all quarters the
Congress.government of India should do a serious rethink
The Bharatiya Janata Party has demanded thaton the whole deal itself. It should make the stand
the Government reject the "Henry J. Hyde Unitedof India very clear to President Bush. The
States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperationgovernment of India argues that the agreement
Act of 2006," passed by the U.S. Congressbetween India and the USA would be based on
instead of "accepting the humiliating conditionalitiesthe "123 agreement" as such we should not be
contained in it." The former Union Minister,bothered about their internal legislation. The other
Yashwant Sinha said, "final product is now beforefour more agreements to follow were the Indian
us and it does not look good. The Act passed bySafeguard Agreement with the International
the U.S. legislature leaves us in no doubt that theAtomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the "123
purpose of the deal is to bilaterally impose onAgreement" for bilateral cooperation with the U.S.,
India conditionalities which are worse than those inthe new guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group
the NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty] and theand the Additional Protocol, also with the IAEA. As
CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty]. This isthe BJP and the CPI (M) have rightly pointed out
why a slim four-page bill is now a 41-pagethe other four agreements will flow from this Act.
document,"The clause in relation to Iran is also a direct
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has saidinterference in our foreign policy. The CPI (M) has
that the United States' legislation on the nuclearrightly pointed out "The agreement is between
deal was "not acceptable," and asked theIndia and the United States and not for Iran. Even
Manmohan Singh Government to discontinue talksthe preamble goes beyond nuclear cooperation
with the George Bush administration, as the lawand there is an attempt to bind India to U.S.
contradicted most significant assurances given bystrategic interests in the name of partnership."
the Prime Minister to Parliament. The statementThe looking into the overall pact as of now it
of the Polit Bureau said, "Obviously, the U.S.seems to be highly insulting for India to accept it
administration is bound by the provisions of itsin its present form. It would be prudent enough
Act while negotiating this agreement. This cannotfor the Indian Government to tell the Bush
be accepted by India, as it negates the mostadministration a point or two. To accept the deal
significant, if not all, assurances given by the Primein its present form would be suicidal for India She
Minister to Parliament. Thus, further negotiationscannot afford to do this, as this would be at the
on this score must not proceed.''expense of our age-old independent foreign policy.
The agreement will place a cap on India's nuclearWe cannot accept such dictation from Uncle Sam
program and will compromise not just India'sand company .Let us be clear on this once for all.