The current stand by the Left leaders to put an indefinite hold on the Indo-US nuclear deal while awaiting its ratification by the Indian Parliament, is a good opportunity to go over the grievances and assertions of both sides regarding this two year long attempt by the US to share its technology and nuclear fuel with India for civil purposes.
Both sides of the Indian government and the nation’s scientists have reservations regarding the conditions attached to this proposal, chiefly the ability to carry out nuclear testing and limiting India’s right to process depleted uranium fuel, a key step in plutonium processing; which they perceive as an undermining of India’s national security concerns as well as its sovereignty.
India, US and the NPT:
Since 1974, when India conducted its first nuclear weapons test, it has been effectively isolated in the international nuclear community, with consequent barring of any civilian use of nuclear technology and materials. This followed India’s refusal to be a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (enacted in 1970 and extended indefinitely in 1995) and comprehensive test ban treaty, on the basis of their unequal and discriminatory nature.
The United States itself rejected ratification of the test ban treaty and renounced the obligations made to non-nuclear parties at the 1995 and 2000 conferences. Moreover, the US Senate has voted to keep alive the bunker buster program in the face of demands that it be dropped.
Broken Promises:
After a promise of long term nuclear support to India in 1963 and following the provision of India’s first two nuclear power reactors, the United States unilaterally changed its policy in the 1970s and stopped supplying fuel. Huge pools of spent nuclear waste accumulated in India, with Washington neither taking it back nor giving India the requisite permission to process it.
Conditional Treaty:
Apart from restrictions on processing depleted uranium or conducting nuclear tests, the Indo-US nuclear deal is further contingent on certain conditions expected to be met by India.
1. Cutting down emission of greenhouse gases, which imposes restrictions on industry and technology, as well as development of infrastructure.
2. US opposition to the $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project; a necessity in a multi-pronged approach to energy considering India’s growing requirements. India would also have to cut off all energy and military agreements with Iran, a long standing and historical ally.
3. Joint operations with US military for non-proliferation and security, which essentially put India in the disturbing position of playing watch dog for the US at a time when the US sponsored War on Terror has destabilized world peace and security.
So, why should India consider the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal?
Political Gains:
Firstly, it would not only improve India’s standing as a regional superpower, but also in the next decade, provide it with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (albeit without a veto), with the opportunity to have its voice heard in world forums like the UN and WTO as well as the IMF.
Technological Growth:
The treaty would provide an instant spur to India’s technological growth, through import of nuclear technology; high tech manufacturing investments would increasingly find their way to India, with its low labor costs and strong base of science and engineering graduates.
Economic gains:
The US and Europe presently send the bulk of their capital to China for consumer goods. The import of technology (avoided by the US and Europe for China), would make India a competitive contender in the fields of high technology capital goods, such as auto parts, pharmaceuticals, computer hardware, commercial aircraft manufacture, ship building, steel plants, mining and drilling hardware and petrochemical facilities.
As apparent from the weighing of pros and cons above, India stands to gain a lot from this nuclear deal, although it would be wise not to give up too much of our sovereignty and to keep a firm eye on what is in our best strategic and domestic interests.
As Defence Minister AK Antony said, in reference to the Indo-US nuclear deal, “The challenge is to keep pace with these technological changes is more pronounced than ever before. The choice before us is clear – either let events shape us, or enhance our ability to shape events.�
A very informative post. I agree that what appears to be is that the other strategic and technological gains to India are more than the direct energy need. As what appears through some published data even after having the nuclear deal the energy reliance of India on nuclear energy will still comprise less than 10% in the next 15 years.
The strategic gains are important, but we should not underestimate the energy-related issues either. Our main constraints are fuel and technology and this deal will open up sources for both these needs. Not necessarily from the US itself, but from other more willing suppliers like Russia and France, who are currently constrained by the NSG regulations.
Fuel is already in a precarious position. We have adequate uranium to support a program of only 10000MW using pressurized heavy water reactors. Even that requires that all available sources, including the ones in Meghalaya and Andhra Pradesh are tapped. However, these are bogged down in disputes, with local people unwilling to allow any mining activity. In Meghalaya in particular, where the Constitution gives a special legal status to the tribal councils, there seems to be no way to break the impasse. Even our existing plants are running out of fuel already (in this case because of good performance in recent years, where they have been running close to capacity and hence depleting our stocks of fuel). Thus, we desperately need fuel to power our existing reactors – leave alone expansion. As to the fast-breeders and Thorium-based reactors, any large scale commercial expansion of these routes is still at least a couple of decades away.
Regarding technology, it is not necessarily reactors that we need to buy. But the current restrictive regime makes it hard for our atomic sector to even buy simple things due to dual-use issues. If the Atomic Energy Commission wants to buy an advanced computer even for civilian use, they have difficulty doing so. With the deal, there will be an easing of some of these technological restraints and that will help improve the efficiency of the program.
Finally, with the deal, there can be entry of foreign firms into the nuclear sector, both in terms of building atomic power stations and also in financing them. Also, we will have access to the world’s market. Due to the technological restraints until now, we have developed some unique technologies that may be useful to other countries of the world. For instance, we have one of the most energy-efficient processes for large-scale extraction of heavy water. We are also furthest ahead in the development of thorium-based power stations and are already building a prototype of a sodium-cooled fast-breeder reactor. By joining the ITER project, we would also be not just gaining expertise and experience in the frontier nuclear technologies, particularly in the area of cold fusion, but also offering some of our own expertise, gained through decades of research.
Thus, the strategic reasons are important for becoming integrated into the world system. In fact, some might argue that the strategic disadvantages are comparable to, if not greater than, the strategic advantages. But the energy-related advantages are important factors favouring the operationalization of this deal.
If you look at the steps China has taken in ensuring a stable supply of energy for the next 20 years, through its efforts and long term contracts with Sudan, Russia, Iran and Brazil, we are still slow off the mark. Energy will be the deciding factor for progress in the next 20 years and we are lacking even the infrastructure to deal with this crisis.
I’m waiting for the first post here, under this topic, about the American-Zionist-Hindu triangle that this deal would “really” be about. Thankfully those who have posted thus far are rational people, and not conspiracy theorists with a permanent, carefully cultivated sense of victimization. But those abound in huge numbers, so let’s wait for the first blogger that postulates this conspiracy (if they are Pakistani, they will include the “hindu” part; if they are Indian Muslim, they will exclude that portion of the triangle). Someday, I’d like to shake some sense into these folks and explain to them that only American interest controls American policy;the “zionists” control it no more than Pervez Musharraf does.
The left is holding up the deal because it does not like America. It does not like America because the U.S. dealt a blow to its ideology, communism. They are not doing this for India’s interest.
A debate is legitimate, but it really should be about whether or not there are more benefits or losses for India in this deal. Does it benefit India, or hurt it, overall? Manmohan Singh is a weak Prime Minister, but a smart man, and I’d follow his lead on this.
An extremely well written and an influential post……..In my opinion India will not need any nuke treaty as long as people like u are the nucleus of our country…….but anyways the initiated nuke deal should be completed………it will greatly help the CHANDRAYAAN project of the ISRO……this project is going to help further in succeeding in providing a base for completing the project on MARS as moon is an intermediatory platform betwen earth and mars……moreover, nuclear fuel is a far superior fuel than our orthodox fuels……….