As has been widely reported, the Communists and other left parties in the Indian Parliament are withdrawing support for the coalition UPA government. They are doing it in protest of PM Manmohan Singh’s decision to go forward with the July 2007 deal known as the 123 Agreement, which for now means going to the IAEA to neogotiate approval with that body (India also has to get approval from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group and the U.S. Congress before the deal can be put into effect).
The Communists have 59 seats in the Indian Parliament, but luckily the Congress Party has been able to get the agreement of the regional Samajwadi Party, which holds 39 seats, to support the government in the event of a vote of no confidence. They only need the support of 44 MPs total to keep the government together, so things are looking good for both the Nuclear Deal and the UPA government. (Regular elections are scheduled to be held in May 2009; who knows what will happen then…)
Since this controversy first came up last year, I’ve been struggling to understand what the CPI is on about. Going to the CPI(M) website, the most detailed statement I can find at present is this one, which is itself more an enumeration of recent events than it is a substantive critique. The CPI claims to be greatly troubled that Manmohan Singh hasn’t released the details of the agreement it has submitted to the IAEA, but it seems hard to take this seriously, since the text of the 123 Agreement has been published, and is pretty clear on the mechanics of the deal. Every other objection falls along the lines of, “you aren’t listening to me!” To which one is tempted to respond, “Yes, and I’m the better for it.”
From DNA/Asian Age, I was able to find more coherent objections here. But most of those 9 points are arguable too, or based on a misreading of the actual text of the 123 Agreement. (See this blogger’s refutation of the 9 objections.)
I can’t help but think that the only meaningful objection, which trumps all of the Left’s other reasons, is the fact that the deal “required India to pursue a foreign policy congruent to that of the US.” In fact, that is not at all true. It is true that the deal marks a new level of cooperation (and strategic alignment) between the U.S. and India, but I don’t see why that would be a bad thing as long as India is free to work out its own position on issues like Iran.
I wrote a post in support the Nuclear Deal last summer, and I stand by it. India stands to benefit from the access to more nuclear fuel and technology, and the limitation the deal places on nuclear weapons testing is not onerous (as I understand it, India doesn’t really need to test any weapons anytime soon). Some valid objections were raised to the deal in the comments to that post, along the lines of environmental cost and general safety issues related to the use of nuclear power:
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? (link)
But as far as I’ve seen — and I admit I am not really an expert on the utterances of Indian Communists — those are not the issues being talked about by Prakash Karat and company.
[Update: See Prakash Karat talking about the deal on YouTube here… I’ve only watched a few minutes of it thus far]
f**king LOL. kommuists = u r on the wrong side of history komrade! ah, the ironic sweetness. unlike gilgamesh they shall not attain everlasting fame, aside from the glories of the holodomor.
I’ve been struggling to understand what the CPI is on about
On a previous visit to India I remember hearing opposition MPs chanting (what I think was) “One-two-three wapas jao, wapas jao one-two-three!” and then being asked by a reporter to explain what their objections to “1-2-3” were to – which they gave evasive answers or returned blank looks. I’m sorry to say that, power politics aside, it seems that plain ignorance has had much to do with all of this.
Amardeep,
I am in India right now.
Right now, incredibly complex politics is played out that involves……hindu-muslim dynamics (US being seen as anti-muslim), resurrection of Abdus Salam as a power broker, control for heartland vote bank (in UP, SP vs. BSP), BJP being sidelined, Communists relevance in national politics, can Manmohan Singh be a master politican for once……all rolled in one for Indo-US nuclear deal.
Till the support vote is on the floor, nobody knows for sure, MPs are changing their position like under garments.
The biggest question here is: Is Indo-US nuclear deal a Hindu deal or National deal? Former President of India, Abdus Salam thinks “No”. Samajawadi Party (SP) wants to dislodge Bahujan Samajwadi Party (BSP) in UP, and they need Congress’s help. They might be a mini rebillion in SP in a few days. BJP is suddenly on sidelines.
It is quite a drama, and quite an exciting one. Follow Indian newspapers, and TV
The whole pivot is: Abdus Salam provided SP Party Leaders a dictum that Indo-US deal is truly an Indian deal, and SP did a volte face, and Communists found themselves totally lost and even irrelevant but still anything can happen, it changes by the hour.
Both SP, and BSP depend on Muslim vote bank support in Indian heartland (UP) so drama thickens.
I’ve been struggling to understand what the CPI is on about
Very simple, Communists in West Bengal and Kerala depend on working class vote, and therefore, you can be seen as anti-imperial power party, and it can appealing to working class.
Both Kerala, and West Bengal have significant Muslim vote, and therefore, Communists make themselves champions of their interest in global arena as US is seen as anti-Muslim with lot of suspect because of Iraq, and all.
But what is happening is that, a number of Muslim intellectuals and power brokers are speaking in support of Indo-US Nuclear deal in last few days, and it has lelt Communists confused.
when you break down the argument the communists have, it basically has to do with the deal being with the US, nothing more. This deal is fundamentally good for India in terms of future energy sources and military defense. I can see Pakistan and China being against the deal, but I see no reason for Indians to be against it. If the CPI wants to be real honest, the all important leaders who throw a yearly party in honor of the Chinese take over of Tibet, can tell its voters about its wet dreams of a communist china ruling swathes of India.
Can someone please tell me why this deal is good for the US, or point me to a link that does?
7 · ptr_vivek said
The three that I think of in decreasing order of importance.
Abdus Salam ? bhaisaab.. its Abdul Kalam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Kalam and he is a non entity in the Indian political scene. ‘Power broker’ ?? he’s India’s Von Braun for sure, but he wont be able to win a ward member election on his own steam.
BSP doesnt really depend on the muslim ‘vote bank’.. Its a Dalit party, SP is an OBC party and yeah they do depend on muslim support. BSP and SP dont really get along well because caste dalit oppression in UP is almost completely done by OBCs. To counter this, the BSP has in the past few years aligned with ‘higher castes’ like Brahmins. This has paid of richly with Mayawati becoming the Chief Minister of UP on her own.
he is a non entity in the Indian political scene. ‘Power broker’ ?? he’s India’s Von Braun for sure, but he wont be able to win a ward member election on his own steam.
Yes, he was (is) non-entity politically, but they have used his opinion as a pivot for their (SP party) position
Why don’t you turn Indian TV/ newspaper, and hear what Amar Singh has to say about this. Listen to all the hazaar channels and newspapers, and you will get the picture. Amar Singh has not opened his mouth in last 48 hours without invoking Abdus Salam’s name all time.
Why don’t you listen to what Mayawati has to say about all this in last 48 hours. Do listen carefully to her statements.
Also, why don’t you check that it is rumored that some of the Muslim MPs from SP have threatened to defy the party whip.
In UP, Muslim population is above national average (14%), close to 25% in western UP, neither SP, and BSP can win elections without their support. UP carries maximum number of MPs in Indian Parliament.
Holy cow! That’s the first time in my life I’ve seen “CPI(M)” and “website” next to each other. The CPI(M) has a website? It’s like “Senator Ted Stevens, Perl Hacker” or “William Howard Taft, Paintball Player”. I’m astonished that someone at the CPI(M) managed to get a newfangled website up and running without getting their tongue trapped in the head of a dot matrix printer – there is no better illustration of the word “decrepit” than the CPI(M). The CPI(M) makes the average 1981 Soviet Politburo member look like a 17-year old.
Just for clarification, it is Abdul Kalam who has been mentioned as a key link in spreading support for the deal in recent days: NDTV.
Abdus Salam, the physicist, is an important figure, but I don’t think his name has come up regarding the N-Deal. (At least, it doesn’t show up on News.google.com…)
Amardeep,
I always meant Abdul Salam, and never Abdus Salam, a NP prize winner who died few years ago.
Sorry.
It must be eating too many mangoes, sorry.
Yes, its Abdul Kalam, former President, who has thrown his weight behind the deal. The Samajwadi Party calls him the “best scientist” in India. There are a number of “rebel” Samajwadi MPs posturing at the moment, including a notorious Muslim thug who is accused of murdering a BJP MLA, and, as the papers tell, Raj Babbar, a has-been Bollywood B-lister. But I suspect they will vote with the party when all is said and done and support the government.
Now how will this get through the US Congress before January? And meanwhile, Manmohan is loving Bush – and America– like a woman over at the G-8. How the world has changed.
His name and support is just a fig leaf. He’s not even a nuclear scientist, he is a missile engineer. Basically SP needs money to fight the coming election in UP and being shut out of the patronage networks in both the UP govt and the central govt leaves them at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the BSP. This is a way they can get their beaks wet again.
I have’nt listened to her recent statements, but she came to power on a Brahmin and dalit alliance, didnt alienate the muslims, but didnt depend on them either. She’ll be a stupid politician to not try to fan the flames of anti US sentiment in UP muslims so she can benefit from this SP volte face.
Not sure what your point is.. BJP has carried UP not too long ago and there werent a lot of muslims rooting for it either.. Its all caste permutations and combinations. Its so fragmented, that no one community can ‘deliver’ on its own.
FWIW, With SP going for the deal with the congress, BSP + BJP in UP will be a formidable force.
Objections to N-deal? Brahma chellaney (prof of strategic studies at a Delhi based think tank) has written about it in depth in various newspapers. The articles are also available in his blog here.
Dude its Abdul Kalam. Ignore that stubborn noise inside your head and listen to us 🙂
Re: The Samajwadi’s party’s motivation. They have 39 seats in the current Lok Sabha. The Bahujan Samaj Party. their UP rival, has, I believe, 19. With the BSPs recent state victory in UP – and the lustre hasnt come off them just yet–the momentum would carry over into a snap poll in the Lok Sabha. They would get their asses blown out of the water by the BSP, and might be reduced to 10 seats. They know this is no time for an election. So why not haggle for lucre, get some criminal cases dismissed, and pray that another eleven months improves their prospects?
Many of you will recall what major dufuses university faculty Marxists are. Imagine one of them with actual power and you have all the explanation you need to explain CPI idiocy.
SP’s calculation in going for the deal is, they will be able to tap into the central govt. to get some money for the UP election. With BSP forming a govt. on its own in UP, and spreading its wings outside UP to other states, and SP limited to UP, this really is the fight of their lives.
They are also calculating (and in fact, it may be a precondition of their support) that they will get Congress support against BSP. Not worth much in political terms, but being in the Central govt, they can give Mayawati a nasty migraine with anti corruption cases and such. To get around this, BSP will align itself with BJP and that will help SP keep its muslim votebank.
Communists are getting money from China, so they are dead set against the deal. And that is all there is to it folks.
17 · lol said
Besides which, Arabic-inspired names are actually made up according to certain rules – so ‘Abdul Salam’ is never a name – ‘abd’ = slave/servant, and ‘salam’ = peace, so with the conjunction rules, it would always be abd-us-salaam, or in English, split it to Abdus Salam. Similarly, it can only be Abd-ul-Kalam, or Abdul Kalam in English, never Abdus Kalam.
It is sad that eventually the nuclear deal was saved by UP state-level politics. Many good points have been made above, but it bears mention that Amar Singh and the Congress have a long history of not getting along, in fact, they have gone out of their way to spite each other. The SP is said to be driving a strong bargain, and so are the additional ‘independent’ MPs – 1-member parties. According to the arithmetic, the Congress may survive a confidence motion by just a vote or two.
Sagarika Ghose of IBN Live has a very good write up in her blog today. The Left has really been ‘left behind’ by history. They are now utterly isolated on the Indian scene, with the latest machinations having split the ‘Third Front’ they were hoping to spearhead.
This piece of info may be of interest to some: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1342/israel-wants-same-treatment-as-india
Very simple, Communists in West Bengal and Kerala depend on working class vote, and therefore, you can be seen as anti-imperial power party, and it can appealing to working class.
Working class vote my arse! Leftists have survived on their election rigging and terror tactics a la nandigram! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandigram_violence
🙂 Looks like the case of a drinks too many..
Abdul Kalam is not a power broker by any chance. He has built up an image of a “nationalist Muslim”, strong on national security / atomic bombs / missile technology etc.. and is a favorite of “communal” BJP as well as the “secular” folks like Samajwadi Party. He is a Tamil Muslim who doesn’t speak (or I doubt even understand) Urdu and was a popular president. Some claim he could be the candidate for the PM job if the next election throws up a fractured mandate. He has built a nice image and Mulayam Singh in order to show the “secular” aspect of the nuclear deal is touting Abdul Kalam’s support.
I wonder even with Mulayam’s support, the government looks shaky. Unless they buy off some MPs it looks tough. I don’t know what the going rate is . The current market rate for even a MLA in Karnataka assembly, I read is 50 crores. It must be several times higher for a MP.
I see that CPI and CPI(M) are used interchangeably. They are two different parties and I think they split reflecting the split in the Soviet and Chinese communists in 1960s.
Yep the CPI and CPI(M) are two different parties. The older but less popular CPI holds less than 10 seats in the Lok Sabha.
CPI(M) started off as a splinter group of the CPI which supported China during the Indo-China war, viewing it as a conflict between Capitalists (India) and Communists (China).
So part of the opposition to the nuclear deal undoubtedly has to do with the CPI(M)’s ideological positions against capitalism, and America’s status as being the epitome thereof.
He is a Tamil Muslim who doesn’t speak (or I doubt even understand) Urdu and was a popular president.
I was talking to a Muslim dude from Chennai yesterday and he spoke fluent unaccented Urdu. I asked him about his Urdu prowess and he told me that he was raised in Chennai as well. A couple of years back, I met a Muslim from somewhere in Tamil Nadu who did not speak a word of Urdu. As my sample is of 2 people, can someone more knowledgeable englighten us on the Urdu proficiency of Tamil Muslims? Is it an Urban-rural thing? Transplants v. native for generations?
CPI needs to be told that the only nations who have a higher corporate tax rate than America are Suriname, Pakistan, Togo, Benin, Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Chad, Libya, and Vietnam. Maybe that will convince them to vote for the nuclear deal!
M. Nam
On a couple of things and I am generally picking statements made up here.
Abdul Kalam could not win a Ward seat (or something similar) – Dude! He was like THE most popular president ever. Besides the fact that when he was in office, he had 80% + approval ratings across teh spectrum. A wonderful exposition of Indian composite culture. A true gentleman who stood above all for the country. As for his winning a seat, all he had to do was stand. I pity anyone who stood against him. All those quoting Brahma Chellany adn Bharat Karnad – These are plodding scholars who are looking at the text really closely. My only thought is – are we really so unsure of ourselves that we think we will be damaged by relations with US? All our independant lives, we have charted our own path adn we did that when we had far more to lose. We are so much stronger now and to think that we can be armtwisted is quite hilarious. The deal will be only so good for India as we make it out to be. Make no mistake, in this clash of ideologies, we are firmly aligned with the US.
Simple: The left is against the deal because they have no got a go ahead to support it from their masters in Beijing
Agreed – if China approached India with the same exact deal as the U.S., Karat would be doing cartwheels and arguing that such a deal would bring China and India closer together.
24 · Ponniyin Selvan said
Correct that to Nationalist. Which is why Praful Bidwai went berserk when he was nominated by the BJP/Congress/SP 6 years ago. Because by the definition of these bigoted fossils, composite culture is one way, it is a Mani Shankar Aiyar eating beef, not an Abdul Kalam playing the veena. Nationalism itself is tainted by majoritarianism.
Kalam is extremely shrewed, stubborn, and puts in extra time to get to the bottom of things, and an uncompromising votary of national interest in the classical Chanakyan mould. He knew Vikram Sarabhai personally. So if Kalam determines that a deal is good for India’s nuclear capabilities, you better believe him. Kalam’tsunami like among s rockstar-like appeal cuts across all lines, and is like a tidal wave among the youth. It hasn’t been tried yet, but I am certain he can draw more crowds than a gaggle of India’s most popular movie and cricket stars, anywhere in India, any day. He is most fluent in Tamizh and English, and can get by fairly well in Hindi, and has a morphemic familiarity with Sanskrit, having read commentaries on several Hindu sutras. He is reputed to know almost the entire Tirukkural, Venkatesa Suprabhatam, Vishnu Sahasranamam, Sermon on the Mount, and >50% of the Quran by heart.
Amar Singh is a Chartered Accountant, an qualification that must be earned through examinations that can be passed only thru sweat and toil (maybe not bloodshed). The only possible reason why he consulted Kalam is because he really wants to know what the deal is about, so that he can spin it to his base. Other calculations include the possibility of drawing BJP’s own BC constituency in UP, and for now abandon its Muslim constituency in W.UP. Amar Singh is Rajput, and must be banking on making a comeback through his own clan. And has everyone forgotten the recent confabulations between Lalloo and Mulayam – Yadavs both? And not to forget Baba Ramdev (again a Yadav) who brought them together over this deal. Public memory is so short. Do you remember when the CPI(M) went after Baba Ramdev (no doubt advised by some Meera Nanda wannabe, wanting to usher in the “Enlightenment” in India) how Mulayam and Lalloo sprang to his defence? Baba Ramdev’s other advisee is a certain politician in another part of India. So the calculated abandonment of the Musim votebank has more to it than meets the eye. Meanwhile in Tamizh Nadu the first family business aka Karunanidhi’s puppet show the DMK rebuffed Prakash Karat. Despite strong pleas from Karat’s fellow China stooge and flunky N.Ram (whose fawning over Karunanidhi is next only to his fealty for the Beijin Commissars) Karunanidhi seems to have let family interests prevail over “secular” or “pro-people” interests. In IN as the polity has been breaking up on caste lines, Karunanidhi has been aggressively been pandering to the grossest communal interests.
As if on cue …
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/CBI_to_chargesheet_Mayawati_this_week/articleshow/3216034.cms
CBI to chargesheet Mayawati this week
NEW DELHI: The Central Bureau of Investigation is set to chargesheet UP chief minister Mayawati this week in the disproportionate assets case, in what is set to further muddy the political waters of the state.
In an affidavit to be filed in the Supreme Court in the next couple of days, the agency will tell the court that it has robust evidence against the BSP chief to seek her prosecution in the case which the Uttar Pradesh chief minister has slammed as a “frame-up”.
CBI has not agreed with Mayawati’s contention that the DA case should be closed. The UP chief minister argued that the issue of her allegedly having acquired assets disproporionate to legal sources of income was part of the Taj Heritage Corridor scam case, which was closed after UP governor, T V Rajeshwar, refused to sanction her prosecution.
There are a lot of things to criticize when it comes to CPI(M) and CPI, but don’t diminish their perspectives out of this fetish of hating communists because they are communists. You cannot neglect their opposition by simply suggesting that these parties and anyone who subscribes to their ideologies are outdated or obsolete. These political parties as well as other students, activists, scholars have every right to oppose the deal, and their concerns were never given serious consideration contrary to the notion of a democratic process/engagement.
When trying to understand the debate, please think beyond the mainstream left parties. Just because the popular discourse around the issue is so limited does not mean we too have to constrain ourselves. There are many progressive people who don’t identify with/or disavow the mainstream Left and at the same time vehemently oppose the deal for a number of reasons outside the “India won’t be able to pursue an independent foreign policy� framework (which essentially means India’s attempts to further militarize will be hindered).
Some examples: -According to Kanak Dixit of Himal Southasia, going for the nuclear deal and subsequently submitting to the realm of US security interests, prevents India from the long-term energy and regional security benefits of the proposed pipeline deal with Iran and Pakistan -There are still a number of problems with disposing radioactive waste and the easiest thing to do is to use it for weapons purposes -I know for many of you that sounds great, but further weaponization is irresponsible and dangerous in terms of domestic budgetary considerations as well as regional stability and security -Praful Bidwai warns that imported fuel frees up India’s domestic uranium supply for expansion of weapons arsenal -Abdul Hameed Nayyar, a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, claims that India will be able to produce much greater amount of weapons grade plutonium and increase annual production of nuclear weapons. Such an increase could result in similar actions by Pakistan, thus feeding into the idiocy of “escalatory nuclear deterrence� -Rather than thinking of only nuclear possibilities when it comes to energy and security, the examples of South Africa and Germany should be considered. South Africa is the only country to disarm after developing nuclear weapons capability independently. Currently, Germany is in the process of phasing out its civil nuclear energy program, and will likely pursue renewable energy sources -Sudha Mahalingam said that when accounting for the costs of reactors, construction, and fuel, the actual costs of nuclear power are much higher than what proponents claim -MV Ramana states that in India there is a lack of adequate safety measures to prevent nuclear accidents. He went on to cite recent examples of near disasters at nuclear sites -Furthermore, there are serious health risks and livelihood issues with regard to the workers involved in uranium mining, and those residing near projects. Also, in the past, land has been set aside for without an environmental impact assessment Source: Summary of the International Conference on the Indo-US nuclear deal published in Economic and Political Weekly (I summarized parts of the summary)
How is it that the Congress Party manages to evade critical assessment? Somehow in the discussion, Manmohan Singh and his party are viewed as having only good intentions, concerned with providing energy to meet the country’s growing demand and improving a so-called strategic relationship with the US.
Maybe this is because so many Indian elites at home and abroad are unabashed free market fundamentalists and/or ardent nationalists who believe Congress is taking the necessary steps to make India a superpower. However, this desire is so disconnected from the reality faced by a majority of Indian citizens on a daily basis. Nuclear power may have the potential to improve energy supply in India, but it is socially unsustainable when considering the safety, the environment, health, and other negative externalities.
Congress, opportunists like the Samajwadi party, and other advocates of the deal really should be interrogated at a level equal to that of the opposition.
Amardeep,
http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071055611100.htm
34 · Rajeev said
On the contrary. The majority of Indian citizens suffer due to a lack of basic infrastructure such as a steady supply of electricity. Nuclear power allows India to increase electrical road, improving the lives of their citizens. In addition, nuclear energy is the least pollutive of all the energy sources. The alternatibe for India is coal plants which are much pollutive and dangerous. The safety issues are a serious concern, but I believe India has the ability to safely run nuclear plants.
Jyotsana look up chellaney, plutonium, cirrus, tarapore. bush and kissinger are suddenly angels. hahaha
Thank you so much, Rajeev. Bad contracts and internal meddling are not just a British colonial specialty. Pranab Mukherjee went back on his assurances to the CPI(M) which entirely entitles them to ditch UPA. What members of the Samajwadi Party have understood at this point of the points Rajeev makes is not clear.
Amardeep, I’ve addressed Rajeev’s points here, and it is somewhat (very) long. I hope you will be forebearing. I thought of putting it on my own blog, but it really deserves a fuller airing.
34 · Rajeev said
Just because some thoughtful ‘progressive people’ who have disavowed the ‘mainstream Left’ come to one set of conclusions doesn’t mean that an even deeper analysis by people who disavow all labels cannot reveal advantages to the deal. Everybody is analyzing the deal based on some paradigm – and I argue those are now changing – the nation-state system is slowly dissolving, the NPT and even CTBT are slowly becoming irrelevant, autarky is no longer fashionable, globalization is in, whether elite-led or mass-driven.
In this context, an ‘independent foreign policy’ itself loses most of its meaning, because the very notion evolved at a time when the nation-state concept (from Metternich and Bismarck and on down to NATO and the fall of the Berlin Wall) was compellingly relevant. It makes no sense whatever to argue that the deal compromises an independent foreign policy, when a suitably internationalized domestic-and-foreign policy is precisely what you need. A truly independent foreign policy wasn’t possible even in the Cold War, and today the very concept of domestic versus foreign, and independent versus ‘dependent’ is changing; the old labels are losing meaning and relevance.
An independent foreign policy could perhaps be attempted by some autarkic continental power. India, and Indians of all classes and persuasions have decided, on the other hand, that they should join the world, as equals, or at least as equal as they can reasonably hope to be. Having said that, by any reasonable reading of the deal documents, without dwelling too much on minutiae, India is recognized as a de facto nuclear weapons power, even more when the NSG ratifies it.
And don’t forget this is at a time when the US is itself moving away from nuclear deterrence and the threat of nuclear retaliation as the centerpiece of its military strategy. That the deal agrees to a ‘separation’ of facilities is a nod to what I call the jingoistic Right and the pseudo-nationalistic Left, a bow to Indian domestic politics, and the inevitable lagged nature of geostrategic and nationalist thinking among the chattering classes. Some people just do not want to, or cannot, move with the times, give up old ghosts, and grasp the opportunities of the future. The opposition to the deal comes precisely from these people.
This is being addressed in a number of ways, both through institutional arrangements and through new types of fuels and fuel cycles, and the information is out there. The future of nuclear technology is not going to be like the past. Radioactive waste is ‘waste’ only if we don’t yet know, or haven’t yet developed the technology to use it as fuel. Similarly, it may be ‘easiest’ to use it for weapons (and I don’t buy that) only if we haven’t yet technologically made that impossible, and institutionally have not yet fully delegitimized such use. Both things will not be true in the future. And this is another example of trying to oppose something on the basis of the past, without realizing the paradigm shift in both technology and in institutional arrangements (including the slow dissolution of the nation-state) that is happening even as we speak.
Of course. So why does the fact that the deal constrains India’s militarization (which you say above) seem like a bad thing to you? You can’t have it both ways. Actually, the deal constrains India’s weaponization very little, if at all, in the short term. In the longer term, nuclear weapons might well become irrelevant, even if the deal constrains weaponization (which I don’t believe).
Again, the deal can’t both be constraining India and also making more uranium available for weapons. And actually, it does neither in the short term. Domestic uranium production is significantly behind demand, and additional capacity may not come on line for a few years yet. By then, there will also be more reactors under the deal, and the international system will have moved even further toward delegitimization of weapons. As for what Pakistan might do, again, that is for both bilateral and multilateral arrangements to address, and here, being on the same side as the US may actually help India.
However, this is a short-term view. The deal and its implications will unravel over the next several decades, if not the rest of the century and beyond. By then, a federated South Asia may well come into being, and Pakistan may well have transformed itself, or have been transformed through suitable multilateral engagement. AH Nayyar is a very honorable and respected physicist, and I do not mean to discount what he says, only pointing out that perspective and paradigm shifts are happening, and it is unwise to base views of the future solely on what happened in the past, or more properly, on what we thought happened in the past.
Both Germany and South Africa have strong nuclear programs, and both are in the NSG. Germany is considering ‘phasing out the phase-out’ of nuclear, and the timetable for the phase out has been significantly extended, pending a political decision to fully rescind the phase-out. South Africa is moving ahead with a very strong nuclear program.
A nuclear energy policy for South Africa confirmed in June 2008 addressed growing electricity demand and the country’s 87% reliance on coal for this. Building upon 24 years of experience with nuclear power it outlines an extensive program to develop all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, drawing on private investment. Link
Actually, if you want India to be like South Africa and Germany, the deal is exactly what you want, especially if you also believe that the deal constrains weaponization (which I don’t). Both South Africa and Germany are NPT signatories. Germany has a very strong renewable energy program, and so will India even with the nuclear deal. It is actually possible to argue that the deal will free up significant human resources to work on renewable and clean energy options in India. As well, the relaxation of the technology-denial regime, might make it easier to develop renewable energy options. There are no either/ors here, the deal is not going to make 100% of India’s energy nuclear, any time. Even in 2050, nuclear is not going to be more than 20% of India’s power capacity. Compare with France at more than 80% today.
What something costs depends on how long you amortize it over. And the more you make of something, the less each additional one costs. So the first 10 reactors a country makes, under a technology-denial regime (the very thing the deal addresses) could cost as much or more than the next 100 reactors, but the average cost (including construction costs) is now down by a whole order of magnitude. Similarly, if each reactor has a useful life of only 20 years as opposed to the 60 years likely for future reactors, the cost would come out higher. So these are significant issues, and again, the paradigms are changing, but people cling to old ways of calculating and thinking.
These things must be addressed. No question. But the answer is not in saying a blanket ‘no’, it is in using appropriate technology, and institutional mechanisms, with a sound ethical basis for policy and planning, including transparency and inclusiveness, which this deal actually promotes.
Or maybe you just haven’t thought things through deeply enough, and in spite of your protestations, you actually do have an ideological bias.
I don’t disagree with this.
As a final word, a little knowledge is truly dangerous, something your ‘points’ well illustrate. Thank God someone in the country has more knowledge than self-described ‘progressives’.
Pagal – Muslims from the Ambur / Vaniyambadi parts of Tamil Nadu tend to speak Urdu. Also the ones who have moved down from Hyderbad / Lucknow do speak Urdu. Muslims from the southern parts of Tamil Nadu dont speak Urdu. Kalam is from the deep south of Tamil Nadu. Most Muslims / Karnataka from Kerala cant speak Urdu. Also, in Madras I have observed that Urdu speaking Muslims tend to be more conservative in that women from such families wear the black burqa while the non-Urdu speaking often wear a casual head covering.
I don’t know the population split. There are Tamil speaking “labbai” Muslims and Urdu speaking Muslims. Abdul Kalam belongs to the former category. I’d guess that Tamil Muslims are more numerous than the Urdu speaking ones. Urdu probably came with the army camps of Mughal soldiers or from other Deccan sultanates.
40 · melbourne desi said
Interesting you should say that. In the leather town I have been to, the Tamizh Muslims and the Deccani Muslims (that’s what the Urdu speakers call themselves) inhabit different parts of the town, have different mosques, and never intermarry. They do meet at the local Muslim run college, where almost all Muslims in the NCC are Tamizh speakers. That early morning when I was leaving town my Deccani host had come to see me off at the railway station. I saw a salwar kameez clad girl in animated conversation with her father – in Tamizh. My host informed me that the man was a Tamizh teacher at the college, and this was his daughter. “You see they don’t dress like we do and their daughters study and travel on their own.”
Hopefully the fellow travelers can provide better reasoning besides kowtowing to their masters in China. A visceral dislike of the US in not enough justification for a policy formulation that matters to the whole country. No politician in India has clearly enunciated a rational logical argument against this deal. Prakash and Brinda Karat are prime examples of the coffee house psuedo intellectuals who oppose any policy because it has the US attached to it.
Frankly when did the left leaning parties morph into nationalists who are engaged from a India centric perspective. Their history is replete with political shenanigans and policies favoring their erstwhile masters in Moscow and now Beijing and not always favorable to India.
While it is OK to oppose a policy the arguments against it should be more cogent and rational. Unfortunately the left parties have consistently fallen short on that score.
This argument seems to be quite pervasive. But let us consider the facts first:
1) Crude oil, however it may be distributed, is still sold as an open market commodity, so it is unlikely that we will receive special prices from the Iranians. Sure, our distribution costs come down, but can we afford $200 a barrel for Brent light sweet? That’s the end-of-year projection that people are tossing about in the energy markets.
2) Moreover, this pipeline has to go through Pakistan, so I will leave it to the proponents of this theory to discuss the geopolitical feasibility of this plan. Moreover, even if this project went through during some peaceful interlude of our decades-long bickering with our neighbour, it is going to be the weakest link when tensions flare up.
3) The project, if sanctioned, and if it crosses the gigantic political hurdles before it, will probably be financed by the Ambanis. I have not kept in touch with the way Indian leftism works, but from what I gather, the Ambanis are definitely not ushering the new Red Era where comrade will stand arm in arm with comrade and watch the glorious red flag unfurl etc.
4) Iran has been, and will remain, on the other side of the ‘nice countries the US trades with’ fence for some time yet. Given this, it is unlikely that increasing trade relations with Iran will be looked upon with indulgence by either the US, or even Europe. Considering that India depends upon the West for so much of its trade (I don’t have the figures for Iran, but I assume our trade with Iran is quite limited), it is unlikely that deepened economic relations with Iran are to India’s advantage.
chachaji@39,
The deal maybe good for personal interests of India and US and the NSG group which will have a market to sell but I don’t buy the argument that the deal is good per se from the global non-proliferation perspective. That doesn’t mean that the deal shouldn’t go through but the deal in a broader non-proliferation context is not accompanied by anything tangible and effective actions/policies to get rid of nuclear weapons from the big five weapons state ( US, France, China, Britain ) or for formulating a uniform policy of supplying civilian nuclear energy technology to all aspiring countries. In this sense it looks like US is trying to curry favour to India for its own motive of trying to invigorate the US nuclear industry and bring it at par with France ( hear McCains nuclear energy policy speeches ) by legitimising the two tier system (weapons+energy) in India as it has in US. In a way it is like slowing the ultimate goal of actually getting rid of the nuclear weapons by focusing the goals and resources on the energy. The nuclear industry is going to be the next big oil industry for the Republicans and thats why they are pushing for it. Many democrats and non-proliferaton experts oppose the deal by looking at the broader context. Whether is technically feasible or not the US wants to recycle all its unmanageable and expensive plutonium waste that it has accumulated over the years from its weapons program and sell it as fuel for the US and world nuclear industry. This is another reason why US is pushing for the deal much to the chagrin of the arms control/non-proliferation/environmental activists. Another reason why many US experts oppose the deal is similar to their oil versus renewable/conservation argument. By trying to find more avenues of exploiting and using conventional fuels leads to diversion of resources/money from higher ideals and goals.
Chachaji, Nice detailed response, thanks for using the “I’m going to put you in your place” tone. I can’t respond fully, but I think you misunderstood some things I said/I didn’t explain some things very clearly so I’ll clarify.
The reason I said that there are progressive people outside the mainstream left who oppose the deal is because I’ve noticed in discussions and also in the previous posts that opposition outside the mainstream Left parties is not really considered. There are plenty of people who are opposed to nuclear energy based on principle who really aren’t given much consideration. It’s great that you reject labels, but they still retain relevance and carry significant meaning. You can imagine they don’t exist but you still have to deal with them at some level.
As I initially stated, these neglected perspectives were OUTSIDE the prevalent framework used to oppose the deal that says “India won’t be able to pursue an independent foreign policy framework.” So you’re entire section teaching me about the changing nature of the state was irrelevant because I wanted to present various views that are not couched in the rhetoric of maintaining an “independent foreign policy.”
I understand that the state is changing in the context of globalization, but states have reconceptualized in many ways to accommodate globalization. Power of the state and the elites who run the state isn’t really waning. Consider the notion of the neoliberal state promoted by Reagan and Thatcher. Obviously the dynamics are radically different when comparing developed to developing countries. This is a different discussion so I’ll cut it short.
I strongly disagree with your assertion that “Indians of all classes and persuasions have decided…that they should join the world, as equals.” Hundreds of millions of Indians within the country of different classes, castes, and persuasions don’t even have the ability to stand as equals with their fellow citizens so how are Indians of all classes able to decide they want to be equal, global citizens? There are legitimate people’s struggles in India and around the world against some of the forces unleashed by globalization and to not recognize this would be problematic.
A couple more things and I really have to go study. I never said I didn’t have an ideological bias. I think everybody does and it is disingenuous to claim some false objectivity or even apathy for that matter. I am a leftist, but as I tried to make clear in the previous post, a leftist that disavows the mainstream Left parties and the so-called Communist Party of China. I would like militarization and weaponization to be constrained and limited to the greatest extent possible and I am opposed to nuclear energy for the reasons I previously stated.
Thanks for belittling my knowledge at the end of your post, it must be fulfilling to do that and thereby establish your superiority. The point of my post was just to introduce some different perspectives which are often overlooked. This is a subject about which I’m still reading and learning.
Rajeev, sorry if I came across as too overly superior. Perhaps I got a little carried away. And there was nothing directed specifically at you in the last comment. It was more generally directed.
Dialogue is important, before, during and after this deal, and we need that, mixed with a huge dose of humility, here as much as anywhere. So again, my apologies for how I came out sounding.
Rajeev, I am not Chachaji, and I will therefore refrain from the avuncular tone that you find objectionable. heh.
However, I don’t see a logical error in both having (a) having hundreds of millions of Indians being able to decide that they WANT to be equal global citizens and (b) having hundreds and millions of Indians BEING currently unable to stand as equals.
I’d like to highlight the distinction that (a) refers to aspiration, whereas (b) refers to the current status. In fact, arguably, the aspiration in (a) may empower the poor and the marginalized to move beyong their current status (a).
Moreover, implicit in your statement, Rajeev, is the understanding that somehow there is benefit if we constrain the wealthy and the able to wait till some sort of domestic wage equality is reached before trying to be equal global citizens. In fact, it is the very opposite: to be truly progressive (and be world citizens), India needs to implement widespead infrastructure and policy (legal, economic) reforms.
Also, on a scientific note:
… is not quite true. I read somewhere that it takes about 9000 years for nuclear reactor waste to become weapons grade. Wikipedia is not the best source for this sort of thing, but here goes.
Finally, Germany may be phasing out its nuclear reactors, but France is doing the exact opposite. Truth be told, no one quite knows what to make of the current energy prices, and at what levels the capital expenditure on a nuclear power plant is feasible.
In any case I don’t understand why US is in such a hurry. A deal passed by a democrat president next year would be more resilent to political vagaries considering that democrats are more pro-non-proliferation/environmental activism and also a “historic” democratic US president signing a “historic” deal would be great too.
Well said, Priya. Lord knows what else on its way will be second hand.
Agree again with Rajeev, esp since chachaji’s frame of reference was Europe, where the nation state by any other name may indeed dissolve sooner rather thsn any later, because they are such very tiny nation states (which ought finally to be called provinces as they are in reality) and because they are totally out of proportion to the mega nations of today that some of them helped create while maintaining their separate identities past the expiration date. Also, it id highly unlikely that Indians of all classes and persuasions are even thinking about joining the world, as equals or otherwise. The huge problem is that so many of the Indian and NRI elite think that by signing on to this agreement they are “joining the world as equals.”
There is s Warner Bros. cartoon aspect to blaming all resistance to the deal on “Communists” though it may be helpful for some media consumers to grasp news stories couched in those terms.