India-US Nuclear Deal

The Nuclear Deal is a hot topic of discussion everywhere in India now-a-days, thanks to Left Parties’ withdrawal of support to the coalition Central government. Like many Indians I have been thinking about the Nuclear Deal between USA and India, especially when it became a big issue, till the point of toppling the government.

But unfortunately there is no proper information about it especially in India. Neither the opposition parties (including the communists who withdrew support) explained why they withdrew the support, nor did the ruling Congress government give the convincing explanation about it. As far as I know, even media didn’t concentrate on the detailed analysis of it. I thought there would be a detailed discussion about it at least during trust vote in the Parliament but it didn’t happen. If we search in the web, there are many news and blogs (many biased views) about it but hardly could I find any ‘authentic’ information.

Based on the information found in official press release from US Department of State, I have summarized the nuclear deal between USA and India, pros and cons of it with respect to India’s interests. (I could not get the same kind of information in Indian government NIC sites. )

US President George W. Bush shakes hands with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after a joint press conference at Hyderabad House in New Delhi on 2nd March 2006.

As per my understanding from the agreement placed in the official US Dept. of State press release site:

The Agreement:

• The nuclear deal between India and US is for the civilian nuclear energy for meeting the global energy demands.
• It is for peaceful purpose of civil nuclear energy only, in the fields of research, power generation, medicine, and NOT for nuclear explosives or any other military purposes.
• India has to allow inspections from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), and they will be under IAEA safeguards.
• US will help India to access civilian nuclear technology, supply of fuel and cooperation in nuclear research and trade.
• The agreement is for 40 long years and can be extended for another 10 years and so on.
• Possible amendments can be done between two countries by consultations.
• Any dispute concerning interpretation or implementation can be settled by negotiations. (It seems there will be no involvement of UN or IAEA etc. regarding such disputes.)
• It can be terminated by either party by providing one year notice and proper reasons.
  

Pros (w.r.to India):

1. India will get access to US advanced nuclear technology, including materials and equipment that could be used to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium for the nuclear reactors.
2. It enables reliable supply of fuel to India’s nuclear reactors. In case of any disruption of fuel supply for India’s nuclear reactors, US will help to include Russia, France and U.K. (group of friendly supplier countries) to restore fuel supply to India.
3. With this deal, US is reversing the sanctions it had imposed on India for the nuclear tests carried out by India in 1974 and 1998. Thus it enables unceasing fuel supply, cooperation and even trade.
4. It helps for India’s economic growth and to meet the growing demand for energy, especially nuclear power generation. (India is not able to accommodate the growing demand of power now and even the hi-tech cities like Bangalore and Hyderabad are the prominent power-cut cities now.)
5. More employment opportunities also in various fields (research, power generation, medicine, IT etc.) because of it.
6. India can emerge as one of the leading counties in the nuclear technology. The agreement is for 40 long years and can be extended for another 10 years and so on. It may change the economic and political equations in favor of India especially in Asia.

Cons (w.r. to India):

1. As of now, many civilian and military facilities are combined in India. They have to be segregated for IAEA’s (International Atomic Energy Association) inspection.
2. The Indian civilian nuclear facilities will be under IAEA safeguards, of course with ‘India-specific’ safeguard program (not sure what is ‘India specific’..it was not defined in the agreement).
   (I don’t have idea about the operations and administration of IAEA, but it may be controlled or influenced by US. This may be a prejudice and as per my limited knowledge too.)

Win-Win:

The overall benefits are both for US and India, by exchanging information, technology, collaborative research by the scientists of both the countries and transfer of nuclear material, components etc.

Why is it opposed in India by almost half of the Members of Parliament?

It seems the reasons are mainly political and because of prejudice about US because of earlier examples. But as per the agreement, both the parties, US and India, have equal rights and responisbilites. It is mentioned that the agreement is on the basis of ‘mutual respect for sovereignity, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality, mutual benefit, reciprocity and with due respect for each other's nuclear programs’. I think the communists would have supported the same deal if it happened with Russia which was main communist country of erstwhile USSR; and the intellectual politicians like Chandra Babu Naidu would have supported the same deal if NDA were in power.

And if….

If the same deal happened when National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was in power, UPA (United Progressive Alliance)/Congress would have opposed it. In India, whether it is good or bad, the ‘duty’ of opposition parties is to oppose the actions of ruling government (whichever party may be in opposition).

Source:

Official press releases from the US Dept. of State:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/aug/90050.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/49969.htm