Opinion
National Interest Demands UPA, NDA
Forge Common Stand on N-deal
by K. Subrahmanyam
Former National Security
Adviser (NSA) Brajesh Mishra has risen above parochial considerations
and come out strongly in favor of the India-US nuclear deal. Initially
he was opposed to the deal on two considerations. The first is whether
India's strategic programme would be capped short of its assessed
requirement. Secondly will India be able to conduct a nuclear test if it
became necessary.
In the `Devil's Advocate' programme of Karan Thapar on April 27 he has
now asserted that he is satisfied on both grounds on the basis of
assurances given to him at the highest level and it would be against our
national interest if the Indo-US deal were not to be signed during the
presidency of George W. Bush.
Brajesh Mishra may not today be high in the hierarchy of the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP). But during the National Democratic Alliance (NDA)
period he was the main repository of Indian nuclear strategic policy.
The size of the Indian strategic arsenal and pace of its buildup were
secrets kept solely by the prime minister, the national security adviser
(NSA), the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the chief
of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO). They were
not shared with cabinet ministers.
This was so during the NDA regime and also during the present United
Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime. Therefore when Mishra says in the
interview "After the talks I have had with various representatives of
the government of India at a fairly high level and some scientists, I am
convinced that there is not going to be any major impact on the
strategic programme through the deal -- this deal does not stop us from
continuing our strategic programme," this cannot be challenged by any
other more knowledgeable member of the NDA. Therefore there is no
substance in the allegations, from people who have no access to facts,
that the 123 agreement with the United States was a conspiracy to cap
the Indian nuclear arsenal short of our requirements.
Brajesh Mishra is equally clear about India's right to conduct tests, if
it considered these essential in future. While he considers that it is
highly probable that a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) will be
revived by the next US administration, he highlights that the CTBT is
equal for all and there is no discriminatory treatment in it. If under
those circumstances India wants to conduct a test, Mishra points out,
there is no bar to India undertaking the tests. He adds, "Of course,
exercising that option means a lot of hardships.... economic and
otherwise -- because sanctions will inevitably follow .... but we are
not barred from undertaking tests if we are ready to pay the costs of
sanctions etc."
Mishra has also said that the three-stage programme India has in nuclear
energy (including fast breeder and thorium conversion to uranium-233)
will suffer a setback if India did not sign the 123 agreement. Recently
AEC chairman Anil Kakodkar said that our indigenous uranium supply would
be adequate to support only 10,000 MW of nuclear energy generation. Dr.
M. R. Srinivasan, a former chairman of the AEC, has pointed out that at
least 50,000 MW power generation is needed to sustain a fast breeder
programme and to use thorium. Therefore it is obvious that there can be
no three-phased programme unless India is liberated from the present
international technology denial regime.
The clear stand of Brajesh Mishra confronts the NDA leadership,
particularly prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani, with a dilemma.
Advani cannot brush aside and ignore the arguments of the former NSA who
is the best informed person on nuclear matters among the NDA people. Nor
can he ignore the warnings of the foremost nuclear scientists of the
country about the dim future of development of nuclear energy in the
country in the absence of international cooperation. Will the party
which prides itself of having made India a nuclear weapon power will
now, through its opposition to 123 agreement on political partisan
grounds, allow the Indian nuclear energy programme to wind down in the
absence of international cooperation? While the nitpickers - opponents
of the 123 agreement - write learned theses on the impact of the Hyde
Act on Indian sovereignty, US Assistant Secretary of State Richard
Boucher has clearly asserted that India is bound only by the 123
agreement and not by the Hyde Act which is meant to give the US
president the power to issue the one-time waiver for civil nuclear
cooperation with India, though India is not a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT).
It is now for the NDA leadership to make a choice whether it would
listen to their own former NSA (who also says that he had never been
consulted by the party) or they will side with the partisan stands of
people who do not have full information and who are not in touch with
ground realities in respect of our civil nuclear development. Advani has
a legitimate grievance. The UPA leadership did not take him into
confidence but dealt with Brajesh Mishra. That was because on strategic
nuclear issues prime ministers have always chosen to restrict the
information to the very limited few and Brajesh Mishra was the point of
continuity in respect of nuclear strategic information.
Unfortunately it would appear there has not been adequate interaction
between the NDA leadership and its former NSA. While this consideration
applies to the issue of safeguarding India's strategic programme, on the
future of the Indian civil nuclear energy programme and on the
application of the Hyde Act and the ground realities about our reactor
performance (today they are running at 50 percent capacity) the UPA
leadership should have taken the NDA leadership into full confidence.
There is no reason why, even at this stage, the UPA leadership should
not invite the NDA leadership for a free and frank discussion on such a
vital issue. In politics there are no permanent enemies and permanent
friends. The Congress may be beholden to the Left today for support as
it was to the BJP in 1991-92. There were times the Communists called
Jawaharlal Nehru as the lackey of imperialists and CPI-M cadres were
imprisoned along with Jana Sangh leaders during the emergency regime of
Indira Gandhi. Today statesmanship and commitment to national interests
call for the leaderships of the UPA and the NDA to get together to forge
a common stand on this issue.
(K. Subrahmanyam is India's pre-eminent analyst on foreign policy and
security issues. He can be contacted at ksubrahmanyam51@gmail.com)
Boloji.com is owned and managed by
Boloji Media Inc Privacy Policy |
Disclaimer No part of this Internet site may
be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
