Before I take up the India-US nuclear deal, I would like to say that there is a case for destroying all nuclear weapons, whether in the US, India or elsewhere. India which won independence through non-violence should have taken the lead and worked towards a nuclear weapon-free world. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru would have done that. They would not have even allowed the country to possess the bomb. But today’s India is diametrically opposed to their thinking.

The nuclear competition in South Asia is India’s doing. Had it not exploded the bomb, Pakistan would not have done so. True, New Delhi has sought America’s assistance only to augment civil energy. But it is nuclear, not conventional. And one should not be oblivious to the danger that nuclear plants have posed throughout the world. Still we wanted energy so badly that we compromised a lot. Whatever our stand, we gave the content in exchange of phraseology. After haggling for 15 months, India gained only a bit. Sanctions have been lifted and we can buy nuclear technology and fuel from anywhere. But in the process we conceded too much. It was humiliating at times. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rang up the US Senate majority leader to seek support. I do not know who advised him. I wish he had not done so because it was not Manmohan Singh who was phoning but India’s Prime Minister. Even then the result has been hardly satisfactory. What America has given with one hand, it has taken back with another. The act is not so bad. But the background note which is part of the act is the unkindest cut. It is restrictive or “extraneous” (the word used by New Delhi) and it impinges on India’s dignity, if not sovereignty. Maybe, the bilateral agreement which is to follow the act will lessen the damage. Manmohan Singh said in the very beginning that India would not settle for anything less than the resumption of “full civil energy cooperation.” The act comes nowhere near that. It does not open “full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India.” If the US really wanted to give full energy cooperation, its Congress could have enacted a simple, straight bill to assure that. Instead, there are too many vague points. Several cooks joined from the US Congress and the State Department to spoil the broth. The bill was expanded from three pages to 41, many harsh amendments finding place in the background note. New Delhi’s main objection was the three parts: end-use monitoring by the US of Indian nuclear imports, an annual presidential verification and the ban on reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water technology. All the three parts are there in the act in one shape or the other, although America has tried to cover them up through clever wording. Take the monitoring part. The act does not say anything on it. There is no assurance. The ban on reprocessing or enrichment is relaxed through the act. But the background note attached to the legislation makes it clear that no relaxation is going to take place. Section 105 directs the executive to “work with members of the Nuclear Suppliers’ group, individually and collectively to further restrict the transfers” of reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water technologies to India. It would become worse if America were to terminate its exports. As regards presidential verification, the word, certification has been replaced by assessment. The US President is still obliged to report every year his assessment whether India is complying with its non-proliferation or other commitments. It is obvious that New Delhi has accepted the nuclear deal, with all its limitations, because it has welcomed the “outcome” of joint Congress-Senate conference. It has thanked President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. India may argue that the act would be discussed with the State Department to ensure that it is within the contours of the statement made by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush in August last. The fact is that the act is a watered down version of what was stated again and again, even in parliament. We have compromised on our stand. Maybe, it was pragmatic to do so. Maybe, India had no alternative if it wanted to step out of nuclear isolation. If it is so, let the nation know about it. Transparency is important, particularly when there are serious doubts over the deal.

In any case, America should stop shouting about its “confidence” in the democratic India. Had that been the case New Delhi would not have been suspect in the eyes of the US Congressmen and Senators. They would not have dawdled over the bill for such a long time and passed such an act which does not attend to India’s main concerns. America always does things without grace. Within a few years of independence, we faced food shortage. America’s PL-480 brought wheat to India. But the debate in the US Congress was so belittling for India that the entire goodwill was lost. Moreover, the cost of freight which India had to pay was higher than the food price. What type of democracy America is when a country which is the largest democracy is treated nonchalantly? Still the anti-American feeling in India is very limited. The deal, as the details unfold themselves, may make people wonder how sincere America is towards them. Washington should have given the impression of a friend, not the one who wants to extract whatever advantage it could. The cold war is over. The distance between the two countries should have been spanned by this time. But America continues to pursue the Dulles’ policy of those who are not with it are against it. Take Iran. India too does not want another nuclear power in its neighbourhood. But it has its own foreign policy. It too would like to ensure that Iran did not develop nuclear device. New Delhi wants to do in its own way. Still the deal wants the US President to “assess” whether New Delhi was working with Washington to “contain or restrain” Iran. Now that the deal is through America should seriously attend to what it can do in the economic field. That alone will strengthen democracy in India. By insisting on opening every field to the US cartels or having for them special economic zones (SEZ) may get America the best of financial terms, but not people’s goodwill. Democracy is weakened when people see the system helping the rich and the haves and that too at the expense of the lower half. America would not like people in India to compare it with the erstwhile East India Company which left traces of exploitation and imperialist rule.