One disadvantage of n-deal postponement will be India will not be able to import uranium. This will mean that we will have to be more self-reliant. A self-reliant man gets more respect than one who begs.
After the US became independent, the US President, Thomas Jefferson defining the US foreign policy stated, "The US should seek honest friendship with all nations, but entangling alliances with none." In the 19th century in Europe group alliances were being made and changed, but the US did not join any group and kept aloof. This was wise decision and proved very beneficial to the country. It kept a small army and low defense budget. This allowed rapid economic development. Before the end of the century, the US became the richest and most powerful nation in the world.
It is pertinent to recall this in India at present. Wise Nehru made similar policy after independence for India. It was called Non-alignment. Almost all countries of the world became members of non-aligned movement. This proved very beneficial to India. We were able to keep defence budget low and made economic advances at optimum rate possible under the circumstances. In contrast, Pakistan became an American satellite and joined US sponsored alliances. It had to spend a high percentage of GNP on defence, resulting in poor economic growth.
Both Soviet Union and the US did not like non-alignment. After some time, the Soviet Union got reconciled to non-alignment and saw some advantage in doing so. But, the US continued to oppose it till now and it tried to destroy non-alignment. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles called non-alignment immoral. In 2001, after 9/11, the US asked all nations - friend or foe - with secret threats for foes. This was a clever attempt to destroy non-alignment. Now, Condoleezza Rice asserted that non-alignment has no meaning after the demise of second super power. Thus the US has been a constant foe of non-alignment. This is typical of American foreign policy. Even some of our defence experts and diplomats have agreed with the US view in the context of discussion of nuclear deal.
Not only the US has been against non-alignment, but also against our nuclear weapons programme. It has opposed our nuclear weapons programme from the beginning. It really continues to do so even now. The US opposed not only India but all other countries (Soviet Union, China, France, England) also. The only exception has been its satellite, Israel. In the case of Israel, the US helped its development of nuclear weapons secretly. Hence, if people in India are opposed to nuclear deal as it emerged in final form, they have valid reasons for being skeptical.
The nuclear agreement for peaceful nuclear energy development made in July 2005 between George W Bush and Dr. Manmohan Singh was very good for all humanity including Indians and Americans. But, the US Congress and many American political leaders tried to change the goal post of this essentially beneficial deal. The changes were not liked by many Indians and the majority in Parliament is opposed to the new wording of nuclear deal. This has created an impasse - who is right - Indian Parliament or the US Congress? Who should prevail?
It is obvious that due to opposition of majority of political parties and members of Parliament, the nuclear deal cannot be operationalised in a hurry as desired by the US. What happens then? Will the deal die? The answer is a definite NO. The original deal of July 2005 is really going to become the demand of most of the world, which does not favour environmental pollution. Anyhow India could not have power from imported light water reactors for next ten years. The US will continue to be bogged down in wars in West Asia. After ten years, the US will realize that it cannot impose its interests especially on major powers. Then it will become more reasonable in considering the nuclear deal.
Those Indians who are very keen to operationalise the deal have to be reminded of one page in the history of atom bomb. During the World War II, in 1941, Churchill and Roosevelt agreed that complete interchange of information should take place between their countries. In August 1943, Churchill and Roosevelt signed an agreement regarding wartime full and effective nuclear cooperation between the two governments. But after the war, the British were soon disabused of their illusion in getting help from Americans for making atom bomb by the British. In March 1946, Acheson advised the British to go alone in atomic energy. Truman wrote to Atlee that the language "full and effective cooperation" was very general, ending British hopes. Atlee retaliated by embargoing the shipment of thorium from India to America in September 1946. Such was the relationship between two great democracies.
If the consideration of nuclear deal is postponed for ten years, our economic development will continue, as power will be generated from mostly non-nuclear sources and some from our own nuclear power plants. One disadvantage of postponement will be India will not be able to import uranium. This will mean that we will have to be more self-reliant. A self-reliant man gets more respect than one who begs. The shortage of uranium in India is a self-inflicted wound. In 1990s, not enough government funds were provided to keep uranium mining and many mines, which had been opened, were closed. This shows lack of foresight by powers that be. This position has to be rectified on war footing.
The nuclear scientists like Einstein, Oppenheimer, Niels Bohr etc. wanted the bomb before the Germans. In 1944, when Americans found out that the Germans neither had a bomb nor advance project for its manufacture. The same scientists then thought about the danger to human civilization from the bomb. Then they started to oppose the bomb and tried to convince Churchill and Roosevelt not to use the bomb due to threat to human civilization. But in vain. Truman and his advisors saw a royal flush with the possession of atom bomb to rule the world. Scientists wanted the great energy of atom for peaceful use, like power generation and not for war. Nehru also wanted atom to be used for peaceful purposes and not for war. Hence India's policy on atom was based on Nehru's ideas. The world community will have to persuade the U.S. to give up their nuclear arsenal so that others will follow the U.S. and energy will be used for benefit of mankind and not for annihilation.
PK Nigam
Print This Page
Terms
and Conditions