Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is facing the threat of a mutiny from the left parties in his coalition government over the recently-finalized — but still not finally approved — U.S.-India nuclear deal, also known as the “123 Agreement.”
As he addressed Parliament today, some members of Left parties staged a walk-out, while others made so much noise that MPs who actually wanted to hear what was said had to use their translation headphones. On the right, the BJP has also been critical of the deal, though I tend to think it’s more because of political opportunism than anything else: one gets the feeling they wish they’d pulled this off.
Thus far, the Congress Party hasn’t seemed seriously concerned about a collapse of the government; no one is yet talking about votes of no-confidence, mid-term polls, or rejiggering the deal to make critics happy.
Are the Communists and others on the left bluffing when they say they’ll walk away from the Coalition government over this? I tend to think so, though I could be wrong. Indian politics — with the combination of regional and caste parties in addition to the left/right axis — is often so complicated, it makes the U.S. system seem laughably simple. Still the Times has a certain wry tone in its summary of where the opposition is coming from:
At one point in Mr, Singh’s speech, the Left parties, which provide crucial support to his Congress-led coalition government, walked out of the house. The Left has opposed the nuclear accord with the United States since it was announced, less over the specific provisions of the accord than over the general principle of closer ties to America.
“We do not share the optimism that India can become a great power with the help of the United States,†Prakash Karat, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), said on Saturday. (link)
(This is where I sniff in Prakash Karat’s general direction.)
For those who have kind of let the whole U.S.-India nuclear deal slip past them in recent months, Siddharth Varadarajan has a good point-by-point summary of the agreement here. And the full text of the agreement, released by the U.S. State Department, is here.
The deal, which is as good as done, does not require the Indian Prime Minister to seek permission from the Parliament. All this noise is just that, Noise. After all the Commies have to prove their worthiness to their voters.
OTOH, Once completed, I hope the deal seals Bush’s reputation as one of the most pro-India American President to date.
what is the US getting out of this deal? a bulwark against china?
OTOH, Once completed, I hope the deal seals Bush’s reputation as one of the most pro-India American President to date.
Since India’s 60th is approaching, I’ll bite: what about Franklin Roosevelt instead? As I recall, he tried hard to persuade Winston Churchill that granting India independence was in the Allies’ best interests. To my eye, that makes him pretty pro-India…
This is a very poor deal for India. All the clauses are useless with US, as US acts unilaterally. What happens when a different anti-India President comes in?? He just cuts off the supply. This is a deal where supplier (USA) continuously blackmails the buyer (India).
I’ll bite: what about Franklin Roosevelt instead? As I recall, he tried hard to persuade Winston Churchill that granting India independence was in the Allies’ best interests.
Yes, but that was mostly just a discussion and letter writing during all the WW-II conferences (Tehran, Potsdam, Yalta, etc.) which Winston Churchill did not like or relish.
For a brief period, Eisenhower was quite keen on India too, this is the height of red scare and Chinese emergence.
The communists have to make noise, for the sake of their core electoral base (the adda elites, the factory worker does not care about Indo-US nuclear deal), or they will loose relevance.
Puliogre in da USA – Bush, to his credit, has been pretty consistent when it comes to US policy vis a vis India. Indeed, even while campaigning for his first term, he stated that his major foreign policy agenda if elected would be closer cooperation with the world’s largest democracy.
Besides the tangential benefit of US business selling nuclear supplies worth billions, America seeks and will likely get deeper enegagement with India on all fronts, a regional [and future global] superpower, which may some day throw in her lot with Uncle Sam, either against China or even Radical Islam.
p.s. the Indian Ministry of External Affairs also has the deal details on their website – http://meaindia.nic.in/
This is a very poor deal for India. All the clauses are useless with US, as US acts unilaterally. What happens when a different anti-India President comes in?? He just cuts off the supply. This is a deal where supplier (USA) continuously blackmails the buyer (India).
On the other hand, some experts on the American side think that the U.S. is giving India exactly what it wanted: see Ivan Oelrich, at Strategic Security Blog. Oelrich interprets the agreement as saying, in essence, “the U.S., while it reserves the right to terminate the deal, doesn’t really care what India does with nuclear materials, as long as India doesn’t start doing full-scale nuclear tests.”
And Manoj Joshi agrees with that reading (thanks, Ruchira, for the link!).
Amardeep, FDR did notice Britain’s hypocrisy, who while seeking American help to safeguard itself and liberate Europe from the clutches of Hitler, was denying the same liberation to India.
Alas, whilst noble, it remained only a thought. FDR, as Kush has pointed out, never put anything on the table to back his [very soft] entreatments to that uber racist and India hater, Churchill.
This is what The USA gets out of this deal. India will become less dependent on fossil fuels for power plants, meeting her energy needs with nuclear reactors thus keeping the global demand for oil down.
India does not sacrifice its independence to build nuclear weapons.
This is not designed as a counter to China as India already has nukes pointed towards China.
Once this deal becomes written into US law another administration cannot rescind it. In the same way Ronald Reagan could not take back the Panama Canal after Jimmmy Carter gave it away to Gen. Torijlos.
This is a win win deal for both India and The United States.
Indian American political organisations joined with American Jewish lobby groups to get bipartisan support for this deal.
The USA will not be the lone supplier of enriched uranium, as this deal opens the way for other countries to participate.
I beleieve that as hisotory between the two giants evolves and trust grows, there will be some wink, wink between the two. I.E., US will turn the other way while India tests advanced weapons using dual use technology. After all a stronger India is in American interest.
p.s. Amardeep, my wife and i put great faith in your movie critiques. so, if and when convenient, do consider reviewing chak de india for sepia.
I think its just some noise making by the communist and the opposition parties. The opposition wants credit for the nuclear deal and they would ideally like to scuttle it now but sign the deal when they are in power. The communists oppose everything that involves working together with the US.
As far as benefits from the Nuclear deal are concerned, Its pretty simple. As long as you are getting something out of it … keep it alive. When your strategic interests start being compromised, Re-debate, pass a resolution in the parliament and chuck it out. Something is better than nothing. I feel trade and economic gains is the biggest motivation for signing such a deal. Uncle Sam is not exactly benevolent and India obviously has its great power aspirations. Once the two countries get further entwined with trade and commerce, The relationship can only get better until either feels threatened (economically or security). I think once this deal is done the relationship will flourish for the next couple of decades atleast.
I don’t know about you guys but in India, they don’t consider US as a friend who can be trusted in matters of our security. US always acts on its own interests, everything else is discard able. It maybe a destination for students & professionals but we do go in different directions in terms of policy.
123..4(disarm) 5(Iran)..6
Please please please, can everyone promise not to use the phrase “Non-proliferation ayatollahs”?
A message from the Foundation of Sepia Mutineers to Keep Threads Cliche-Free.
The Left parties have always been very anti-American ever since the Soviets (mostly) and Chinese (not so much) bankrolled them way back in the 60s. That financial support which came with the HateAmerica tag has all dried up, communism is dead and reduced to handbags and tshirts everywhere except in the largest democracy in the world. Its good to see that these comrades who gave up their communist ways long back atleast retain something from their original ideology.
CPM can go f@#k itself, but how is a U.S.-India-Japan or U.S.-India-Israel alliance in anyone’s favor? Meaning those who stand to actually get blown up.
Mohamed ElBaradei (iaea) is behind it i believe.
The deal is a stroke of genius for Americans. They won everything at the negotiating table while India lost everything. Two very respected Indian analysts, Brahma Chellaney and Bharat Karnad, have been stridently opposed to the deal.
Chellaney’s clause-by-clause analysis of the deal:
http://chellaney.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!4913C7C8A2EA4A30!387.entry
Karnad wrote this in the Asian Age today: http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/opinion/op-ed/n-deal-relies-on-god,-not-common-sense.aspx
The context for Karnad’s arguments is this interview of the NSA published in The Hindu last week: http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2007072855121300.htm&date=2007/07/28/&prd=th& Bhagwan help India if such naive suckers are their leading negotiators! The consultations that the US has “conceded to” will not amount to a whole hill of beans when the US decides to arm-twist India.
I have to agree with Confusious and Gujjubhai — there is too much unbridled enthusiasm going on for a very lopsided deal. What’s with Congress getting to review what the Indian Parliament can’t? Fifty years is a very long time for India ot be on tenterhooks about the U.S. pulling out any time on a year’s notice with a right of return of all the fiddly bits. And then if the U.S. starts into Pakistan. how will all this change? Not confident in all of PM’s approach as in his speech at Oxford, esp this bit:”…even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule, we did not entirely reject the British claim to good governance. We merely asserted our natural right to self-governance.” Too much forgiveness, wrong generation.
Yes, the right of repossession is the true leverage the US created for itself. Here’s how: the US never wanted to explicitly bar India from testing nukes as, politically, that would be a non-starter in India. Instead, they just wanted to make it extremely expensive for India to test – and slowly tighten the noose around India’s strategic program by creating dependency upon US-controlled fuel and subjecting India to non-NWS intrusive IAEA inspecitons that would allow the entry of CIA agents just as they did in Iraq.
This is implicit imposition of CTBT and NPT on India as non-NWS state. Add in the increasing pressure on toeing the FMCT line as laid out in the Hyde Act, the trap becomes very clear to see.
But wait, that’s not the end of it. The real genius of the Americans is in how they’ve deployed the brilliant Sun Tzu strategy of turning the very growth of an adversary’s strength into their weakness. Again, this is through the usage of repo rights. How? Fast forward 20 years from now and imagine that India is generating 25000-50000 MW of nuclear energy. Which Indian government will ever have the audacity to go against the wishes of the US by risking an energy blackout and hurting the economy? Think about this : the more nuclear power India generates, the more US exerts its influence on India’s power grid. Electricity is the life-blood of an economy.
This is a strategically brilliant trap : US lured India by visions of generating cheap electricity, even as it positioned itself to gain more and more influence as Indian nuclear industry grows. In that process, US also gets to generate huge business for its nuclear energy suppliers in India. And that installed base of US equipment turns into an increasingly growing sword of Damoclese through the growing power of the threat of repossession by the US! This is deal is indeed much worse than Indira Gandhi losing the 1971 war in Simla. The US managed to slip a Trojen Horse into the Indian nuclear establishment.
This deal represents a beggar’s bargain for India. Especially when there was no particular hurry to even pick up this deal at this point in time for India. The Congress government has even given away one of India’s few strategic advantages by throwing open the Thorium Nuclear technology to international inspection and sharing. There has been a lot of indigenous research carried out in this field by Indian scientists for a technology that seeks to de-couple India’s dependency on Uranium based nuclear economy (think of OPEC like cartel of Australia and the US) to Thorium based, which India has plenty of.
I used to think that India has not had a worse prime minister than Chacha Nehru who single handedly created some of the most vexing problems for independent India by giving away, as a matter of principle, the Security Council seat to China being offered to India, and insisting on taking J&K issue to the UN when Indian Army was seeking permission to complete the mission of flushing out Pakistani army regulars and tribals out of western Kashmir (PoK). The V.P. Singhs, Gujrals et. el. were just aberrations. Even the naïve and futile magnanimous gesturing of Indira Gandhi, of pulling defeat out of jaws of victory after 1971 war, is nowhere close to the damage this deal has the potential to inflict on India’s sovereignty. MM Singh has outdone them all and will be judged by history as the worst PM of India (then again, he really didn’t want to be the PM, did he?)
Wonder when the so called leaders of India will learn to lead with interests of the nation at the forefront. Or maybe India is doomed to carry out reliving the experience of Jaichands and Shikhandis in all ages. As other commentators have pointed out, this deal gives US all it wanted from India but could never get directly (in the form of CTBT) in the last 40 years, on a silver platter, in return of empty promises of mere consultations.
Gujjubhai, you’re spinning paranoid fantasies, and you’re trying to turn what is clearly a major strategic victory into a defeat.
It’s in the U.S. interest to keep selling enriched uranium to India indefinitely. Also, you haven’t read the agreement very carefully. Read article 14.5:
5. The two Parties recognize that exercising the right of return would have profound implications for their relations. If either Party seeks to exercise its right pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article, it shall, prior to the removal from the territory or from the control of the other Party of any nuclear items mentioned in paragraph 4, undertake consultations with the other Party. Such consultations shall give special consideration to the importance of uninterrupted operation of nuclear reactors of the Party concerned with respect to the availability of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as a means of achieving energy security. Both Parties shall take into account the potential negative consequences of such termination on the on-going contracts and projects initiated under this Agreement of significance for the respective nuclear programmes of either Party.
As I read it, any “right of return” is conditional on the “uninterrupted operation of nuclear reactors,” and only after mututal consultations. This cannot be used as blackmail. Incidentally, the 123 agreement with Japan also has a similar right of return clause. (according to Siddharth Varadarajan)
There are also lots of things advantageous to India that you and other commenters haven’t noticed. For instance, article 5.6:
The United States has conveyed its commitment to the reliable supply of fuel to India. Consistent with the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement, the United States has also reaffirmed its assurance to create the necessary conditions for India to have assured and full access to fuel for its reactors. As part of its implementation of the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement the United States is committed to seeking agreement from the U.S. Congress to amend its domestic laws and to work with friends and allies to adjust the practices of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to create the necessary conditions for India to obtain full access to the international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continual access to fuel supplies from firms in several nations.
In effect, this is saying that the U.S. is committed not only to selling India nuclear fuel, but to ensuring that India has access to fuel from other suppliers in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The bill that the lower house of Congress passed (the Henry Hyde version of the bill) said the opposite — India has clearly negotiated an advantage back into the final version of the bill.
One other point: Article 5 states that the U.S. will transfer not only material, but the technology to use them. Once India has this technology, it can use it if and when it purchases uranium from other suppliers.
As for the IAEA and CIA agents, again, you’re being paranoid. The IAEA is an independent agency — in Iraq, they produced a clear statement that the Bush administration ignored: “no nukes here.” According to the agreement, they will only be called in if there is a concern about “inventories” (article 10.7). It doesn’t specify that IAEA will have the right to survey all of India’s nuclear program.
In general, if you read the agreement carefully, you’ll see that the language is really oriented to opening as many avenues as possible for India and the U.S. to do business on nuclear fuel. And that’s about it.
Well said, Amardeep. The right of return is also exercisible by both the US and India. In general, when people in the US think India got the upper hand and people in India think the US got the upper hand, that’s an indication that this is a fair agreement.
Also, it’s worth noting that the deal almost stalled last year. Then the Indians offered up the creation of a reprocessing facility. I think credit goes to the negotiators on both sides for being creative on this.
I have a “layman understanding” of the deal. ( I believe like that of Bush. 🙂 )
Right now there are pretty much five countries that can do whatever they want with their “nuclear” stuff and that includes China and Russia, one future competitor and the other past competitor.. And if they can do whatever they want why can’t India, after all India is not going to go after US interests in the next million years (irrespective of what the communists in India want).
For me, if I can get continuous power supply in the cities and villages of India, I’d say go for it..
Whither “mutineers,” pray? All I see in discussions like this one is a discussion or “debate” between gung-ho-nationalists and skeptical-nationalists…. What “mutiny” is this blog supposed to be about? Why not just drop that desire to appear radical-chic?
The issue is not that this deal is completely a goner but that India could have got a much better bargain. Also, We cant test, even though as a nation which has (presumably) not proliferated , is under voluntary moratorium & is bordered by china & pakistan. US hasn’t given any special consideration.
Somehow we are still not convinced..lets see how this plays in the parliament.
The Tellis interview : http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/14arvind.htm
correction : the links should be http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/19inter1.htm
Gujjubhai, you’re spinning paranoid fantasies, and you’re trying to turn what is clearly a major strategic victory into a defeat.
Come on, now…I expect better from you : just because you think they are paranoid fantasies doesn’t make them so. Granted that it’s hard to disprove a negative, but the concerns I have expressed are well justified based on the American track record. The US has used international treaties and even multilateral institutions to arm-twist others or walk away unilaterally breaking its binding obligations in the past. Surely, you know about the Tarapur imbroglio and the recent unilateral breaking of the arms treaty with Russians.
It’s in the U.S. interest to keep selling enriched uranium to India indefinitely. It is in the commercial interest of the US to sell uranium as long as it serves its political interests. The US’s nuclear establishment as always followed the policy of squashing nuclear competition even from the closest allies like the UK and Japan : when push comes to shove, the US will be ruthless in using all leverage it has over India.
As I read it, any “right of return” is conditional on the “uninterrupted operation of nuclear reactors,” and only after mututal consultations.
For a professor of English, you amaze me by reading conditionality into a clause that says “…if either Party seeks to exercise its right pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article, it shall, prior to the removal from the territory or from the control of the other Party of any nuclear items mentioned in paragraph 4, undertake consultations with the other Party. Such consultations shall give special consideration to the importance of uninterrupted operation of nuclear reactors of the Party concerned with respect to the availability of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as a means of achieving energy security.” You think that such “consultations” or “special considerations” amount to “conditional”?? Where you read guarantee, I read a clever face-saving phrase without any teeth. Real guarantees are backed by binding arbitrations, punitive damages, replacement supplies and so on. Here you have a monopoly supplier who is also a market maker holding all power over India’s head – any lawyer or i-banker who has ever negotiated anything commercial will laugh at promises of “consultations” or “special considerations”. The are not worth the paper they are printed on in case of a dispute.
Read the clause-by-clause analysis of the deal by Brahma Chellaney. It’s quite an eye-opener. India got taken to the cleaners.
Could it be that the gain the US is also hoping to receive from this deal is to build a stronger relationship with Bharatavarsha as a result of the friendship that Bharatavarsha shares with Cuba and Venezuela? Hoping to become a “better friend” than Castro and Chavez to snatch Bharatavarsha away from them? Is this obvious or does it sound Ludakrishna?
I’m with leftyprof up there on the implicit statism in the comments. Alas, I just didn’t figure it was worth saying anything… But now that it’s been said, I add “here, here.”
Whither “mutineers,” pray? All I see in discussions like this one is a discussion or “debate” between gung-ho-nationalists and skeptical-nationalists…. What “mutiny” is this blog supposed to be about? Why not just drop that desire to appear radical-chic?
LeftyProf, you’re raising two different issues. One is the hawkishness of the commenters, which I really can’t help; it’s a matter of who shows up on any given day. If you want to make a defense of the CP’s position, please do so.
The question of whether we as bloggers are Mutinous or not is separate. For one thing, I don’t think a certain ideology makes one mutinous anymore — after all, it’s the communists of West Bengal that ban Taslima Nasreen’s books. (And there are many other failures that could be mentioned.) Secondly, in this case, adding something useful to the general conversation (which would be the goal of blogging) might simply be a matter of carefully reading and understanding the agreement, which 99% of the mainstream media and associated talking heads haven’t done.
Amardeep: I agree with you when you say that
I like the way you use the phrase “a certain ideology.” I take it your comment is directed against Marxism. But surely we’ve come a long way since the postmodernist reductionism of equating Marxism and Stalinism….? You assume here that the communists of West Bengal, and their actions, somehow speak for Marxism itself; that they have a monopoly on the meaning of Marxism.
So what does make one mutinous these days? Do enlighten me.
If it is no longer a question of “a certain ideology,” then what is it? Several different ideologies? No ideology? Pretending to not have an ideology? Pragmatic picking and choosing? Mutinous flavor of the day?
Seriously.
You assume here that the communists of West Bengal, and their actions, somehow speak for Marxism itself; that they have a monopoly on the meaning of Marxism.
You’re absolutely right. I forgot about the Maoists, who are doing wonderful things for the ‘people’ all across eastern India. Seriously. Then of course there are the Chinese Marxist-Maoists, who are surely on the right track to liberating the masses of oppressed laborers from their chains. There’s also the Hugo Chavez variety, which doesn’t need term limits, apparently. Last of all are the academic Marxists in western universities, who alone know the true meaning of Marxism, which is of course contained in Sri Das Kapital.
If it is no longer a question of “a certain ideology,” then what is it?
I’m writing a comment in response to your recent post.
Sorry–I hit “Post” too soon, and my last comment was truncated.
Amardeep:
Of course, I wouldn’t hold you responsible for the comments that others make. But I find it curious that the only two permissible positions here seem to be that of the UPA or of the CPs. I said “nationalist” in my original comment, but I think Buster (#29) is more accurate–“statist” is the word I should have used. The problem is that BOTH of them share the understanding that what’s good for the Indian state (i.e., what strengthens the Indian state) is good for Indians.
Why must one’s rejection of the deal have to imply an acceptance of the CP’s nationalist “we are undermining our sovereignty” position? Whatever happened to standing up against further nuclearization of the subcontinent? The way I see it, this is an agreement between the world’s sole superpower and an aspiring regional hegemon, between an imperialist power and a sub-imperialist power, if you will. It is fundamentally an agreement between the elites of the two nations, designed to bolster and enrich their own interests in the geopolitical arena. In an agreement like this, the rest of us have nothing to gain, one way or another. There are various ways of looking at this: the nuclearization angle, the environmental angle, the energy-needs angle, etc.
Yes, this is a “strategic victory” for India’s rulers. But it also sets the stage for India’s incorporation into the broader geopolitical framework that the U.S. is trying to craft for the region.
What do ordinary Indians gain from this? One comment above (#23) says: “For me, if I can get continuous power supply in the cities and villages of India, I’d say go for it.” But this is a big “if”, isn’t it? Such facile notions fail to address some crucial questions: Why IS there a power shortage in Indian cities and villages? IS nuclear power the solution? What about the environmental costs? What about the economic costs of nuclear power? What about the political costs–won’t this escalate the arms race between India and Pakistan?
So, once again, I ask: whither “mutineers”?
LeftyProf, if I’d known you were going to do a more substantial, less sarcastic follow-up, I myself wouldn’t have resorted to sarcasm in my previous comment above. (I’m now feeling a bit remorseful)
Anyway, to my mind, these are valid questions, which do need to be addressed:
Why IS there a power shortage in Indian cities and villages? IS nuclear power the solution? What about the environmental costs? What about the economic costs of nuclear power? What about the political costs–won’t this escalate the arms race between India and Pakistan?
I might have more on this a bit later.
Thank you.
I started my comment with this. “I have a layman understanding of the nuclear deal”. So please excuse me for having “facile notions”.. I know that Tamilnadu (my state) is a power surplus state and it is in big part due to the Kalpakkam nuclear plant (plus the Neyveli Thermal plant). There are a couple of nuclear reactors coming up in Koodangulam in southern Tamilnadu. and people are generally happy if they can get enough “electric power”.
If you have other solutions that are “cost effective” in mind you can come out with those.. I don’t think anyone would refuse a “clean energy” alternative.
Ponniyin (#36):
My point here was simply that this discussion had showed little critical distance from the discourse of the Indian elites, and basically accepted the parameters established by that discourse (i.e., is this a “victory” for “India” or not), without raising what to my mind were some critical questions. This led me to ask: “whither mutineers”? So I wasn’t faulting you for having a layman’s understanding of the nuclear deal–believe me, I don’t claim to be an expert either.
LeftyProf:
Asking questions is always good. But without providing alternative solutions to the problem and just questioning the “proposal” on vague terms like “enivornment factors” / “relations with Pak” etc.. is as good as keeping quiet. People would just think of the questioners as “rabble rousers” who are out to sabotage any work and not give much importance..
One more thing to add.
“Manmohan Singh” is a proven economist. His model worked atleast for people like me. To tell you the truth, my dad used to get us down at a bus stop 100 metres before another bus stop which is actually closer to my grandma’s place because the ticket was 5 paise cheaper.. ( yes 5 paise that is 0.05% of 1 Indian rupee) and that period coincided with the late 80s / early 90s…
I do not know how much of the money I earn now directly corresponds to the so called “Manmohan Singh / Rao” reforms. But I’d beleive Manmohan Singh rather than some rabble rousers who oppose all kinds of things without providing any alternative..
the above is mathematically incorrect, should be 5% of 1 indian rupee. well, anyhow i think i made my point..
Funny, how LeftyProf’s question is alluded to as a ‘rabble rouser’s’ question on a site that I personally think is fueled by comments (and some posts) that
.
But then again, most of us always think that the world ends at the tip of our nose (including me).
I should clarify: some comments, not all
Actually the phrase “as good as keeping quiet” was used in this sentence.
Check out Praful Bidwai’s useful article that raises some of the questions that I’ve been asking here. Apparently, it is from the Times of India, but I couldn’t locate the original.
Thanks I’d look into it later. Do you think he offers “viable cost effective solutions”??
Ponniyin:
Well, good for you. I’m not here to trade stories of personal tribulations–I don’t think such anecdotal evidence proves anything. For every such story, I can find dozens, if not hundreds, of cases to the contrary.
And this economic model is not Manmohan Singh’s at all. It is a set of policies, known variously as neoliberalism or globalization or the “Washington Consensus,” that were pioneered by the U.S. starting in the early 1970s, and then exported across the world, through institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. The effects of these policies have been disastrous in country after country. It is true that, given the Indian economy’s current phase of expansion, there is a sense of optimism among the urban middle classes. How long this expansion will last is a different matter entirely. Not to mention the impact of these policies on the rest of the population.
Awash with money, and upbeat about their global competitiveness, India’s rulers are now hoping to acquire an equal status within the elite club of nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered states. Should we support this uncritically? And should opposition to it be automatically identified with the nationalistic opposition of the Communist Parties? These are the questions I’m trying to raise here.
If you don’t think it is okay to raise such questions on a blog whose very title invokes a spirit of rebellion, then I wonder what brings you to this blog in the first place.
Very interesting comments LeftyProf. To help understand the discussion you are trying to bring up here if I may ask whose interests are you speaking for? Your? The poor? India? US? The World? Humanity? Mother Earth? The fish in the ocean? all of them? none of them?
And this economic model is not Manmohan Singh’s at all. It is a set of policies, known variously as neoliberalism or globalization or the “Washington Consensus,” that were pioneered by the U.S. starting in the early 1970s
Sure, it was not Manmohan Singh-Narishma Rao’s original idea. Yes, it was part of IMF recommendation when India came a hair’s breath of defaulting their loan payment. The country’s foreign reserves were abysmally low, circa 1991. You very easily ignored the key pillar in 1991 reforms in your discourse. India was on the verge of bankcrupty.
However,
It took a lot of courage by Manmohan Singh to start a chain reaction which was against the grain of Indian economic mindset at that time. In fact, there was so much internal bickering over loosening of economy, currency devaluation, that Manmohan Singh was dropped from the cabinet reshuffle that happened immediately after.
Yes, such policies have failed in Mexico, etc. but have succeeded too – in addition to India, Argentina is seeing a come around. It is not the policy per se, it the ingenuity of the people and the opportunities. In India’s case, it was software engineering, Y2K, business friendly policies of AP, and Karnataka.
Now let us come to nuclear power, currently India’s energy budget includes 3% from nuclear power. The Indo-US deal envisions that will increase to 8-10 %. Sure, it does not measure to France which has 75% of its energy needs met by nuclear power. Nuclear power is perhaps the cleanest (sans solar power) energy source. The only downside is leakage (Chernobyl, Six Mile Island), and for India, to be at world standards in their nuclear reactors, had to do such a deal. For India to have such safe, newest, state-of-the-art reactors, it has to have GE (General Electric), Toshibha and all doing business there.
India cannot maintain its growth rate unless it finds new source of energy. Conventional energy is all staked out by US, Europe, and China. China has taken up areas out of US interests – billions of dollars are invested by China in Iran, and Africa.
Mutiny or no mutiny….please let be comprehensive.
KarmaByte:
Are you serious?!
I’ll assume you are, and say that I see things in terms of the interests of ordinary working people, regardless of nationality. I believe I have an interest in a healthy environment, as should all of us. And yes, I speak for the health of fish in the ocean too (less mercury in my sushi would be nice).
But then, you weren’t being serious, were you? If you were, you would have said something a bit more substantial about my argument than the bland statement: “very interesting comments.” So you turn around and mock the commenter instead. How predictable.
If you want to take issue with the substance of my argument, do so. If you can’t wrap your head around it, then say so. But if you want to trade personal barbs and flamebait, then stuff it.
I was being serious, I did find your comments interesting and asked about the only part I did not understand.
Alright prof take it a little easy there!