When the BJP dismissed Brajesh Mishra’s views on the Indo-US nuclear deal as his “personal opinion” it was hardly being objective. Every opinion except one dictated by a party or an organisation or an authoritarian government or an ideology is “personal.”

Mishra’s conclusions that the deal is in the national interest and that “there is without doubt no ban on India undertaking nuclear tests” are those of an apolitical expert, the former National Security Adviser to the NDA, and a leading architect of the policy of nuclear co-operation with the United States.

Those who do not agree, including the BJP and the Left, are under an obligation to quote chapter and verse to uphold their dissent. If Mishra’s position when he was associated with the NDA was acceptable how and why has his credibility become suddenly questionable?

Advani, BJP ‘N’ jugglery

L K Advani is anxious to dissociate himself and the BJP from the Left. Yet he persists as the Left has done, in juggling the Hyde Act and the 123 agreement in a way that enable him to quote one or the other according to the needs of the moment. New Delhi has negotiated 123 which defines a bilateral arrangement with the United States while the Hyde Act defines the Bush administration understanding with Congress on this subject.

Those parts of the Hyde Act that can’t be reconciled with 123 reflect the unease of Congress which it is the responsibility of the US administration to over-come. They belong exclusively to America’s political domestic domain and references to it by the Indian side are wholly irrelevant. They, moreover, are subject to the US Presidential authority for waivers and exemptions, a privilege which Bush has not hesitated to use in the past. In contrast 123’s bilateralism leaves India’s sovereign rights untouched. So Advani’s insistence that New Delhi has voluntarily surrendered the right to conduct nuclear tests is incorrect.

Amateurish opposition

The five nuclear powers, whether or not they have signed and ratified CTBT no-test ban, are committed, under the pressure of intense international opinion, to support it.

India is no exception to this commitment barring circumstances that have been clearly spelled out in 123 if Advani cares to read it. Article 14(2) runs as follows: “They further agree to take into account whether the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation resulted from a party’s serious concern about a changed security environment or as a response to a similar action by other states which could impact national security.”

Shorn of 123 jargon, this means that any threat or potential threat to India’s security will be taken into account as justifying the sovereign right to conduct a test. It underlines the point that the discretion to carry out a test rests exclusively with New Delhi under a 123 Article that ensures the co-operation of the United States. If this is not forthcoming there is nothing in 123 that prevents its repudiation. Given this background New Delhi’s case in support of 123 is stronger than either the Opposition or the government has made it out to be.

This failure is due to a seeming inability or reluctance to present the nation with a lucid, well-argued defence of 123 which also exposes the amateurish flows in the Opposition’s position. In turn this reflects unacknowledged resistance within Congress itself, not to speak of its allies. This again, in turn, can be attributed to either ignorance or political opportunism.

Many layers of strategic ties

The Opposition has taken advantage of this by pushing the theme of “strategic relationship” with the US which allegedly denied India an “independent” foreign policy.

A strategic relationship is a multi-layered relationship at various levels which, short of an alliance, allows either party to exploit it to its own advantage. That allows America to pressurise India on the Iran issue but also allows India to resist it.

There is, additionally, the point that no foreign policy is “independent”. Inter-dependency is a built-in factor in globalisation and any shirking of this issue implies a dangerous lack of self-confidences with the US as also with other nations. But hasn’t New Delhi the confidence and the skill to steer clear of these difficulties?

Querulous complaints about US pressure suggest that it hasn’t. As a foot-note to all this isn’t some attention due to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the executive is free to go ahead with 123 without prior legislative approval?

As also to the point that if 123 had been available to the NDA the BJP would have gone along with it?

Sixers: Too much is too bad

A sufficient number of IPL matches has been played to enable most of us to at least do a temporary summing up of our impressions. An immediate one is that anything more than three sixes within the space of 10 deliveries is an invitation to boredom, and as the series has confirmed several batsmen, hitherto unknown six-hitters, have established their reputations as competent slam-bangers. Much the same applies to an excess of boundaries.

In this format neither the batsman nor the bowler has a reputation to lose if he respectively gets a duck or fails to get a wicket. The only attention gripping moment is when a very close finish is achieved. For that alone is it worth sacrificing the nuances of classical cricket?