Turn your favourite TV-news channel on, or flip a page of a popular daily… The gossip that seems to be selling like hot cakes for the past few days is the Indo-US nuke deal. The deal has propelled all kinds of suspense and “masala” in our ever-dramatic political scene, second only to Bollywood, when it comes to twists and turns.
Much has been said about the Nuclear Deal, the 1-2-3 agreement, and the Hyde Act, and the Left’s apprehensions. But the discussions on the print/TV media have been politically oriented. No media has tried to put a clear picture of the whole “Nuke-deal” episode, what the Nuke-Deal actually is, and what are the concerns raised by the critics. All this chaos has boosted my curiosity over the issue, and made me go a stretch ahead and know more about this. This blog, is an unbiased effort to present, all the nitty-gritty’s of the whole issue, the Whats, Hows and the Whys involved.
Why the deal?
The first question that comes to a lay man’s mind is why do we need this deal? In what way is it going to benefit the common man? And most importantly, why is the United States is all happy to offer India with all the aids, the very country that wanted to bind India from going nuclear, by making it sign the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty)?
India is today admittedly one of the fastest growing economies of the world. With the FDIs flowing in surplus, India has to meet the challenges of growing power needs by the year 2020. India’s total uranium reserve is 78,000 tonnes (courtesy official estimates) which supports 10,000 MW of installed capacity. The Planning commission projects that in order to meet the demands of growing industry, and also for civilian demands, India should produce 20,000 MW of energy by the year 2020. Achieving this target is always a difficult proposition, given India’s uranium resources. The current state is, 17 reactors, being operated by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) are short of fuel, and running at 50-60% of their capacity. Moreover, two 220 MW capacity reactors will be operational by this year end, and eight 770 MW reactors have been approved by the government. This clearly states the mismatch of demand and supply that will eventually take place in the near future. Hence, there is a need for a foreign fuel supply, in order to marginalize this increasing demand-supply gap.
The Indo-US nuke deal has been the proposed solution to meet these demands. Thus, on 2nd March, the two nations, India and USA reached an agreement, giving the energy-starved India access to the long denied civilian nuclear technology.
The agreement would allow the US along with the 42 – country NSG (Nuclear Supply Group), to supply the resources needed to help India power its fast growing economy, which will in turn help the US and other countries to invest in this ever-promising economy, which will open markets in vital areas such as information technology, telecommunications and pharmaceuticals. The interests are purely mutual.
But, in order to go ahead with the deal, India had to separate its military and civilian nuclear programs, and open its civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection. India also had to negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN monitoring agency, and subject its civilian programs to the guidelines and safeguards proposed by the same. Hence, according to the treaty, India will have to agree to subject 14 out of 22 reactors under the IAEA safeguards.
At the same time, New Delhi has chosen not to put its military nuclear program and fast breeder reactors (FBRs) to similar verification. India has been reluctant from the beginning to place some of its civilian reactors, such as the plutonium-based fast breeder system, under international scrutiny amid fears it could interfere with its nuclear weapons program.
The Left Concern
The Indo-US nuclear deal was met with serious opposition and criticism, primarily, from the Left, and opportunistically, from the BJP. The major apprehensions raised by the critics are about the controversial and by now, very popular American law, the Hyde Act.
The Hyde act in simple words, says that The American President, under the US Atomic Energy Act, has the right to ask for the return of nuclear fuel and nuclear technologies if there is a nuclear test by India.
This American law raises concerns, whether it will bind India to the US laws, and handicap our Military nuclear program. The CPI (M) General Secretary says, “If fuel supply is stopped, under the Act, the US cannot help India to get fuel from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG). The national law of the US will reign supreme,” The left argument is that with this clause in the deal, India is selling its sovereignty to the US.
Is Left Right or the Right left?
Are the issues raised by the Left really genuine? Is the nuclear deal really not in the favour of the country’s interest? Before we jump to any conclusion, we should also understand the other side of the controversy involved with this deal… And that’s the criticism within the US and from the UN.
The nuke deal has also been facing a lot of criticism within the US of A. Many argue that it will endanger the US and the world security.
Former top UN inspector Hans Blix, has expressed concerns, saying that the nuke deal will enable India to make bomb-grade material, and may increase tension within the neighbouring rivals Pakistan, and China. Daryll Kimball, Executive Director of Arms Control Association thinks that the deal will implicitly endorse further growth of India’s nuclear arsenal.
Joseph Cirincione, director for nonproliferation at the Washington based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, reckons that the deal would mean that India can divert the use of all its domestic uranium reserves to make nuclear weapons. That it would enable India to increase its production from the estimated six to ten additional nuclear bombs per year.
Some even argue that the US is pushing for the deal, in order to contain the other potential power, China.
Hence there have been concerns from the “other” side of the world as well. These concerns if we observe closely, are contradicting to the concerns raised by our local critics, that our military program will be harmed.
The Science and Technology Minister, Mr. Kapil Sibal argues that the treaty nowhere prohibits India from doing nuclear tests. He further points out that in any deal; any of the party has the right to terminate the deal at its will, anyways. And practically speaking, the treaty would mean a lot of money invested in India over the nuclear reactors by US and the NSG countries. Hence discontinuing the supply implies waste of enormous amount of capital.
Thumbs up or down?
Looking in an un-biased perspective, with an eye for India’s interest, this deal looks to be a very thoughtful approach of meeting our ever-increasing power demands. The deal will also boost our economy and will bring in more investments. As far as India’s sovereignty is concerned, India is not bound by US laws, because through this treaty, India has separated out their military and civil programs. Hence military nuclear programs will stand safe and sound within the confidentiality of our defense. India has firmly stated that it shall not subject its FBRs for the IAEA safeguards. This clearly states that India has not sold its sovereignty. The IAEA safeguards will be applicable purely to our civilian nuclear reactors, and the Hyde act may be (solely a personal opinion) a strategic weapon used by the USA to persuade the UN to give a green signal for the deal, because in the long run, both parties involved, and the countries of the NSGs are to be benefited leaps and bounds, if the deal materializes.
