Click to play videoNew Delhi: "It is my honour to sign the Henry J Hyde US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006," President Bush managed to say that without a stumble as he signed the India-US nuclear Bill on Monday.
The deal now enables the US to engage in nuclear trade with India. The Indo-US nuclear Bill is now the Henry J Hyde Act—passed through the US Congress with huge by-partisan support, regardless of the opposition from a strong non-proliferation lobby.
In an unprecedented move, President Bush issued a statement that now seeks to resolve major Indian objections.
A special panel on CNN-IBN show Face the Nation aimed to bring the voices that matter across the nuclear divide—both in India and in US. P K Iyengar; Former Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, D Raja, National Secretary of CPI-(M), Anupam Srivastava Director, Asia Program at the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia and Michael Krepon, Co-Founder of the Henry L Stimson Center in Washington—joined the panel on the show.
Bush ends India’s nuclear isolation: Is India ready for the challenge?
President Bush may have ended India’s nuclear isolation, but are we ready for the challenge?
The two-day long debate in Parliament reached a most logical conclusion—the statement issued by President Bush after signing the bill into an Act, clarified that the objections that had been posed earlier were all advisory notes and not binding on India at all. Why are we then agonizing so much over the nuclear deal?
Former Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission P K Iyengar says that the deal and the Hyde Act is a back-door entry into the Non-Proliferation Treaty—something that India had refused to sign.
“The promises that were made in the July 18 agreement—that India will be considered a nation at par with technologically advanced nuclear countries—have not been fulfilled. The Hyde Act clearly specifies that they are treating India as one of the non-weapon states agreeing to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conditions. That’s where the problem starts,” says Iyengar.
However, Anupam Srivastava did not quite agree with the view. “No its not so,” said Srivastava who has been working at the back channels on the India-US Nuclear deal since its inception.
“For many of us who have worked on the backend of this deal since a long time, the deal is a paradigm shifting agreement. That’s why it’s difficult for the two sides to understand each other,” adds Srivastava.
The obvious question is that who is happy with a deal that creates objections by the US Congress, and in India by the politician and scientists.
“The deal is in no way an infringement of the sovereignty of the two nations. The deal was difficult in itself because India as a member outside of the NPT, to be accorded a status where it is separated out the weapons complex, to create an internationally safeguarded civilian complex was a big challenge,” said Srivastava.
He however acknowledged the fact that top scientists in India have expressed concern over the deal.
“The Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) of India is now reflecting a concern that it now has to share custody of its civil nuclear reactors with the US,” said Srivastava.
Key Objections to the Hyde Act:
D Raja who has been a part of the tem with the UPA Government to ensure foreign policy independence says, “The present deal will have an adverse impact on our independent foreign policy. The political intent of the deal is very clear US has been desperately trying to trap India into its global strategy, which India is going to succumb.”
The CPI-(M) national secretary said that India a year after will have to depend upon the nuclear fuel and technology supplied by the US. India, he adds has been losing its self-reliance as far as the nuclear policy is concerned.
So do we expect the CPI-(M) now to urge the Government back-off from this deal?
“I am not questioning the integrity of the PM or the commitments made by him at the floor of the house. But I must say that Government needs to be careful that India cannot succumb to US pressure,” said Raja.
What options does India really have?
India has an Act now in its hand and there is an opportunity steering in front of it. Are we willing to take that opportunity and pay the price for it? Can nuclear energy prove a viable alternative to bail India out of the energy deficit?
Here are some facts:
- In India today 16 nuclear reactors produce 3,310 Mega Watt of electrical nuclear energy.
- This constitutes just 3.1% of the installed electricity capacity in the country.
- Compare this to coal, which generates 55% of the country's electricity.
- Hydroelectric power generates 26% of the country’s electricity.
- India believes the nuclear deal will help install 40,000 Mega Watt of electricity capacity by 2015.
- 16 per cent of the world's electricity is produced by nuclear energy.
Do we really have an alternative other than not going in for an Act that enables India get crucial technology and cooperation that it needs?
“The electricity production in India is based on hydro power and coal mainly. These are our internal resources. At present we are making use of natural uranium for generating nuclear energy. We didn’t have to borrow technology at all,” claims P K Iyengar.
But the fact file shows a dismal story. India will not be able to sustain this production of electricity if it doesn’t go in for nuclear energy.
Iyengar though accepts the gap between ground reality and unrealistic targets set in terms of energy consumption in India, however maintains that the country need not be dependent on US for fulfilling its energy requirements.
“We have to go in for nuclear energy, but that by using our own resources,” said Iyengar.
Sadly, the tall claim still remains a pipedream. All the targets set so far by India in terms of nuclear energy has not been met and our contribution in terms of nuclear energy is remains a measly three per cent.
If that figure has to go up substantially, we need to be a part of the nuclear mainstream in the world.
“All imported reactors use the enriched uranium. Which means that for the rest pf our lives we will be importing nuclear fuel and paying heavily for it. We need such technology as we can sustain with our own resources. That is what the Indian three-stage programme is aimed at. By going into this deal, you have cut-through the three-stage programme only to become dependent on US for the rest of your life,” said Iyengar.
Meanwhile Michael Krepon, Co-Founder of The Henry L Stimson Center in Washington—someone who has been critical of the Indo-US nuclear deal right from its very inception expressed he is not happy with the deal.
“I am not happy with it at all. I think it will hit the global non-proliferation efforts majorly,” Michael told CNN-IBN.
“The President in his signing statement yesterday in effect waved all of the provision of the NPT that the Congress had sought to enact. These provisions could have protected non-proliferation,” he added.
Clearly if the Hyde Act is through, the bi-lateral agreement is not far off. On being asked as to what would be next step for the US administration and India, Michael said, “There are additional hurdles. India has to present its case before the nuclear suppliers group, which is the only organization in the world that has been designed to prevent profit-taking when non-proliferation was resolved.”
Michael added, “Since proliferation is likely to result from this deal”, it is likely that “there are to going to be qualms among the nuclear suppliers groups”.
Responding to the deal getting a by-partisan support from the US Congress, Michael said, “There was overwhelming by-partisan support for the war in Iraq as well. Second thoughts come later. The deal is politically popular. The Indian-American community is a justifiable half in the US. It’s not surprising that this act got by-partisan support. But that doesn’t makes it sound.”
Top scientists concerned over nuclear act
Demands of the Indian Nuclear Scientists were that India should not to adhere to non-proliferation efforts congruent with US interests. They demanded full-scale civilian nuclear co-operation from the US and an assurance of constant fuel supply besides the freedom to carry out more nuclear weapons test.
Top scientists in India want the deal re-negotiated. Here’s why:
- Scientists fear India will lose freedom to decide on strategic choices.
- Weapon tests will invite actions that could make imported reactors non functional.
- India’s stand on N-disarmament will get compromised and subservient to US goals.
- India should not adhere to non-proliferation efforts congruent with US interest.
- Bill, by proxy, makes India party to the NPT, FMCT and CTBT.
Demands of Indian Nuclear scientists:
- Scientists looking for further negotiations on the 123 Agreement.
- They demand ensuring India’s interest while signing 123 pact.
- Full scale civilian nuclear cooperation from the US.
- An assurance of constant fuel supply.
- Freedom to carry out more nuclear weapon tests.
“The scientists are divided on this issue. They doubt how much are we going to get from this agreement, so far as the nuclear energy is concerned. But having said this I want to point out that a year-after the Government of India should not agree to anything unilaterally. The follow up agreement—Agreement 123—must be ratified by the Indian Parliament,” said Iyenger.
Final Verdict: Is India ready for the challenge?
To the question posed on CNN-IBN Face the Nation, if India ready for the challenge now that we are no longer isolated in the nuclear mainstream, 86 per cent of the viewers said ‘yes’ and 14 per cent said ‘no.’
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)
More on IBNLive Right Now
TOP NEWS
MOST SHARED
PHOTOGALLERY
