After Vienna victory, it's time to face the nation

It was a historic Saturday with decades of India's nuclear isolation ending and the world’s biggest democracy finally making its tryst with nuclear destiny.

With the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group giving a waiver on the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal in Vienna, India is now allowed to trade in civil nuclear energy.

The approval from the NSG came after almost three days of meeting in Vienna on Saturday. The NSG meet was called to minimise any damage to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India has not joined.

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, whose statement on Friday proved the key that convinced the critics at the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) of India's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, claimed that the waiver was a major landmark in India's quest for energy needs.

Austria, one of the major critics, has also come around though it has some concerns over the phrasing of the waiver. The other country that was holding out, China, skipped the meet. But the Opposition, including the BJP and the Left, have called the deal a sellout.

So what does this deal mean for India and who will benefit from it – the US, the Indian polity or the common man? To explore and debate the various questions related to the deal, Weekend Edition with Rajdeep Sardesai invited a panel comprising Minister of Science and Technology, Kapil Sibal, former diplomat G Parthasarathy, Rajya Sabha MP Chandan Mitra, ex-IAEA Governor T P Sreenivasan and CPI National Secretary D Raja.

Is this India’s biggest policy initiative since 1971 War?

Kapil Sibal agreed vehemently and added it was a breakthrough that would have a global impact. “This will impact not just Indo-US but also Indo-global ties. It will impact the life of the common man too by not just allowing him access to nuclear energy but also new technology which wasn’t available to us earlier,” he said.

But D Raja of the Left disagreed and played down the move. Instead, he said it was a grand design by the Americans to take India under its “imperialistic” umbrella. He also alleged India – by signing the deal – had become a military partner of the US. “I don’t think it’s a significant foreign policy initiative. If you call it that, say it about the US. It was US imperialism that was trying to drag India into it’s global strategy. They have succeeded,” he said.

Ex-diplomat G Parthasarthy added a new perspective to the argument. He said the diplomacy adopted by India after the second nuclear test (Pokharan) and what followed now (the waiver) were the two most important foreign policy initiatives. “This seals our acceptance by the global community as a nuclear weapons power. It allows us to have N-trade,” he said.

PAGE_BREAK

Parthasarthy also took on Raja’s argument of India succumbing to US’ imperialism. He suggested it was intelligent of India to go to the US as it meant the global community embracing us. “We signed a deal with Russia and France as well. It was (Jacques) Chirac and (Vladimir) Putin who suggested to us to get it cleared by the US because only the US had the political influence to turn tables at the NSG,” he said.

Parthasarthy said he felt proud as an Indian for the country having negotiated in tough circumstances. “I did not think that I would see the end to these sanctions ever in my life,” he said.

Ex-IAEA Governor TP Sreenivasan joined in the debate at this point and agreed with Parthasarthy. “It’s a dream come true for people like me who’ve worked in the disarmament area for about 30 years. This was a mission we had undertaken,” he said. He recalled how during Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to the US and 2000, he and George Bush had agreed to keep the nuclear issue aside and concentrate on other things instead. Clearly, between then and now, things hav changed drastically.

Walter Anderson, senior scholar at the John Hopkins University, pitched in with the American perspective on the deal. “The initial reaction has been very positive. When I woke up at 7 this morning, I immediately got several calls from local journalists and radio and TV stations. So there’s high interest in this,” he said. He also pointed out the Hyde Act was passed by a large bi-partisan majority at the Congress. “So there’s was a general consensus in US that good ties with India were important,” he said.

Anderson took on from Sreenivasan’s point about a major change coming through between 2000 and 2005. He said it was largely because Bush thought it important to put the nuclear issue “behind us”.

But the skepticism about George Bush’s overt interest in the deal doesn’t go. Just what made him pursue it so vigorously as to call up Chinese President Hu Jintao to ensure China did not block the passage?

“This was part of Bush admin’s views that it was good for the US to have good relations with a rising India. If you look at Indian Ocean area, India juts down right in the middle, which is a strategic place. The only stable area in that belt is India,” he explained. Anderson spoke for the Bush admin saying the US understood India’s need for power. “ A strong India is in good interests of the US,” he said, taking on BJP and Left’s allegation of India becoming US’ “military partner”.

Why is Opposition still not convinced?

To take the debate forward on this question, Rajya Sabha MP Chandan Mitra joined in the debate and he began straight by defending BJP’s “nitpicking”. “We have bartered away our rights and have sold out for nothing,” he said.

PAGE_BREAK

When asked to cite an example of India having sold out, Mitra said India had gone beyond 123 Agreement - which the PM promised would be a cornerstone for any agreement with the US. “Quietly, India has agreed that uninterrupted fuel supply will not be ensured by the US. It won’t help us with Russia, France and the US as was promised in the Agreement,” he alleged.

Sibal said Mitra did not know the process involved and hence was making the baseless charges. “Now after it goes to US Congress, the final deal with IAEA will be sealed. Then a processing facility has to be built in India for all fuel that comes to India. Then, we start entering into contracts that supply uranium. We are also entitled to build reserves for a lifetime of these fuels. No one has a say in that. And it’s not as if India will test tomorrow,” Sibal explained.

The point on testing led to an argument between Sibal and Mitra who maintained India had compromised on its sovereignty. Sibal maintained Mitra had got it wrong and most of what he was alleging was agreed upon in the 123 Agreement. “He is completely wrong. The US will help us with an assured fuel supply. Testing is apart from that. They haven’t gone back on assuring fuel supply. The right to return is part of 123 Agreement,” he said.

Rajdeep asked Mitra to respond to Sibal and also to an SMS sent by a viewer through ibnlive.com who said, “The only places of mourning today are Islamabad, Beijing, Left Headquarters and the BJP headquarters,” he said.

Mitra said Sibal and the Government were misleading the nation as India will now have to deal with not just the US but also the “jhing-bang” of 45 NSG nations.

Parthasarthy agreed Mitra had a point when he said fuel supplies will be cut. “But there’s also a provision that US will help us in strategic reserve to guard against any disruption. Government needs to negotiate that before making any purchases from the US. What we negotiate with US is not binding on Russia or France because it’s a clean waiver,” he said.

The three politicians got have their say to end the segment. While Mitra maintained the Berman letter spoke enough on the Government, Sibal said Congress did not expect any maturity from the BJP which was looking only at winning elections and not national interest.

Raja took off from Anderson’s point and said the US was looking at India as a big market for nuclear trade. “India should stand up on its legs and not on crutches provided by America,” he alleged. Anderson disagreed with the allegation and said it was a clean waiver.

PAGE_BREAK

Has Manmohan Singh’s dedication paid off?

Chandan Mitra said there was nothing the PM had done to change the view that he was the “weakest PM ever”. “The manner in which his red lines kept shifting and how he misled the nation shows he’s desperate to get into history and had no compunctions about putting national interest at stake,” he said.

Raja, too, maintained Manmohan Singh and Congress should not weaken the country. “What’s happening today is the betrayal of national interest,” he said.

Sibal defended the PM and said he stood the tallest leader, having won the trust vote and finally, the waiver. He said BJP and Left’s brand of national interest kept India away from technology access, knowledge and world market and Congress was reintroducing India to the global platform by giving its engineers access to the market and technology.

Mitra said the window of opportunity to interact with the US was opened by Vajpayee. When asked, then, why wasn’t the party claiming credit for it, he said BJP cannot take credit for a sell-out.

Speaking of which, shouldn’t the Congress have reached out to the BJP to ensure a domestic consensus? Sibal said the party had tried that enough. “At one stage, even Advani said in an interview with Karan Thapar that he was okay with the deal but went back when he realised his party didn’t agree,” he said. But Mitra maintained India should have got a much better deal after so much negotiation and that BJP would re-negotiate it if voted to power.

Parthasarthy said the deal could have been sold better and that Congress made a mistake by calling it Indo-US nuclear deal. “They should have called it a beginning of the process of ending sanctions. Government failed and did not explain it to people of India,” he said, concluding Manmohan Singh was like the MD of a corporation but not quite the MD and the CEO.

Final comments: Has India arrived on global stage?

Walter Anderson: Yes, the US went out of the way because India was important. This is an India-US deal hence IAEA and NSG have acted unanimously on it. This represents a major change in international policy of non-proliferation, a change in favour of India. This shows the high regard India has as a democracy.

D Raja: Left is part of India and India cannot be isolated. National interest is not Congress’ monopoly. They are not worried about common man.

Chandan Mitra: BJP believes in strong relations with America and those will be pursued. We will re-negotiate the deal.

G Parthasarthy: This is a step to make us an emerging power to be reckoned with. That power is based on our economic strength and $300 bn of foreign reserve, growing trade and a young generation which can deliver the goods.

It’s clear the world’s shifted from geo-politics to geo-economics and may be India will benefit from it.