1. By the year X, India should meet all its fossil fuel needs from within the subcontinent or from our immediate neighborhood. Pipelines from Iran, Turkmenistan, Burma and Bangladesh help us not only to tap those resources but also improve relations with our neighbors. If we are not sourcing from them, then others especially the Chinese are going to. Its a waste, if you ask me.

2. By some year Y, India should meet significant portion of its energy needs from non-fossil fuels. This nuclear pact serves that purpose. But greater emphasis is needed on ethanol, wind and even on hydel projects.

3. The strategic concerns like the ‘neck at the supplier’s hand’ can be met when India becomes a major Petro hub. (we are already moving towards this). When we get raw fuel anyway for processing, it gives the cushion to starve any crisis that comes from disruption of pipeline supply/price bullying. i.e. Pipelines need not signal the rusting of our Petro ports. And ofcourse we shud have significant strategic reserves.

What you point out happened even without the deal; and the appropriate question is to ask ‘what’s to prevent that from happening even without the deal?’.

As for the Iran issue—I oppose the pipeline, but support buying gas from them. It is a collective failure of imagination to conflate the seller with the delivery person. See these posts. As for the Iran vote, I think it was a good idea to ‘pass the buck’ to the UN Security Council.

1. How is that US was able to stop Narasimha Rao from going ahead with a nuclear test? Didn’t India spend atleast 3 years in the doghouse for the nuclear tests of 1998? What has changed between then and now? Did you really fall for the ‘India Shining’ thing?

2. How is that even before signing the deal, we have screwed the Indo-Iran gas pipeline (energy security, anyone!), voted against Iran at IAEA and are going to conduct naval exercises with US and other banana states only as a show of strength against China?

3. As some people have claimed above, if India can ignore American fuel and go elsewhere in the event of a stand off in the future, why could it not get more Cryogenics from Russia, why it could not prevent the Tarapore fiasco and even now why are we first going to US for a deal and then to NSG, IAEA, France, Russia, whatever?

I feel Indians are the victims of their own “we have arrived” propaganda. India may one day pay a heavy price for this over-confidence. And please don’t make your opinions after reading the Indian English Media!

Having said all this, I do support the deal. But I feel Manmohan Singh has been naive not to get enough protection against the Hyde Act.

Can we be sure though that the hue and cry we are going thru right now, is not a staged “bad cop” routine?

regards,
Jai

We’ll try to retrieve those comments—from downloaded comments in the feedreader.

Apologies to Gujjubhai & others.

Update 1 :Traced the cause. It was one of the anti-spam plugins. I’ve found all the missing comments in my feedreader, so I’ll put them all back over the next couple of days.

Update 2 I’ve put back those missing comments that I managed to find. If I’ve missed out any please email them to me.

The headline (“A good deal but very bad politics”) can apply equally well
not just to the nuclear deal, but also to the manner in which the UPA
government has gone about negotiating it.

Surely it was up to the Foreign Secretary (Shivashankar Menon), the
External Affairs Ministry (Pranab Mukherjee) and the PM himself to have
made all of these comments during the various phases of the negotiations!
Instead the government has gone about its negotiations with the following
three salient features.

1. Their attitude has been: “The deal is done — if you don’t like it you
can lump it.” This has been their attitude not just to the public at
large, but also to opposition parties, and even the Indian nuclear
scientists.

2. They have planted stories and editorials in various newspapers, the
Indian Express being the most obvious prostitute and up for sale to the
highest bidder, essentially rubbishing the Indian nuclear scientific
establishment and its contributions to date.

3. They have encouraged the peddlers of the outdated, obsolete, and
dangerous American nuclear technology to fantasize about sales of up to $
100 BILLION (yes, you read that right) worth of nuclear “technology” to
meet India’s energy needs. This is of course consistent with Item 2
above.

My own reaction to the deal has been as follows.

A. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DEAL HAS BEEN NEGOTIATED

I have not wasted my brain cells reading every full stop and comma of the
deal. What is the point? Whether the deal is good or bad, this
government is determined to shove it down our throats. I would have spent
some time thinking about and analyzing the deal if the government had
shown any flexibility, but it has been determined not to give an inch.

Aside from the incongruity of this attitude in a democratic society, the
UPA government has also left itself open to being outmaneuvered a second
time on the 123 arrangement, just as happened earlier with the Hyde Act.
In the case of the original nuclear agreement announced with President
Bush visited here, the US establishment played its “good cop, bad cop”
role to perfection, with the Presidency stating that it is helpless and
that treaties are actually approved by the Congress, and then pushed
through the Hyde Act which differed very substantially from the original
announcement. In contrast, our own government was held hostage to the
*principle* of signing a deal with the USA, rather than to the *specifics*
of the deal. This is why, even as the goalposts kept shifting, the UPA
government was never in a position to say “Enough is enough — THIS is not
the deal to which we agreed!” Let us not forget that even the so-called
123 agreement is still not US law, and is subject to the very same “bait
and switch” tactics as were employed with the original Bush-Singh
“agreement.”

In India we do not have “separation of powers” in the American way, so the
“good cop, bad cop” routine is harder to pull off in India. The
Parliament can hardly renege on approving a deal that the government of
the day has negotiated, as is possible in the USA. If the UPA government
had any brains (which is of course like saying “If the Congressmen had any
backbone”), they could have had their own “bad cops” in the form of all
the entities in civil society that are beyond their control, such as the
opposition, “public opinion” etc. and said “Just as you (US President)
have been forced to deviate from what you promised, so have we!” But of
course, fantasizing about such things will never get us anywhere.
Remember the Shimla Agreement, when Indira Gandhi let slip the opportunity
to settle the Kashmir border issue once and for all. We are always more
considerate of the other side’s feelings than we are for our own
countrymen!

B. THE AFTERMATH

I myself am less exercised about the test ban than I am about the flow of
dangerous American nuclear technology into India. We can live with a cap
on our fissile material, unless this stupid government goes and negotiates
a cap on the delivery mechanisms (meaning missiles) — something that they
are capable of doing! But I get REALLY worried when I read that companies
such as GE etc. are licking their chops in anticipation of mega orders
from India for their nuclear reactors.

Let me remind you that there are only two countries in the world that use
ENRICHED uranium — the USA and Russia. It is not entirely a coincidence
that these are also the same two countries to have had serious nuclear
accidents. In contrast, practically every other country (France, Canada,
Germany, …) use NATURAL uranium. Our own technology, originally
imported from Canada but now thoroughly indigenized, uses natural uranium
too.

Ever since 1974, the Indian nuclear scientists have been evolving ever
more clever ways to get around the ban on the supply of nuclear fuel. The
development of fuel rods for the RAPP and TAPP based on Thorium, and the
developments in fast breeder technology at Kalpakkam, are two examples.
In contrast, the American companies have not supplied any nuclear power
after the Three Mile Island disaster in the 1970s, and of course have not
invested one penny in improving their nuclear technology. Is THIS the
technology on which we want to base our nuclear power plants?

In order to have a steady supply of nuclear power, two things are needed:
nuclear technology, and INVESTMENT in nuclear power plants. Successive
Indian governments have neglected the latter, but found it expedient to
blame the energy shortfall on the alleged inadequacies of the former.
Even now, whatever be the shortcomings of the treaty, if the government
uses the positive negotiations with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (something
that is by no means guaranteed, by the way) to invest in the upgradation
and enhancement of OUR own nuclear technology, some good can still can
come out of all this. But if the deal only opens the door for middlemen
and corrupt “power brokers” (pun intended) to dump obsolete and dangerous
American nuclear technology on a defenceless Indian public, then all of
our lives are at risk — and not just metaphorically but quite literally.

Nitin cleverly turns one point made by “Gujjubhai” on him back by saying that if he figured out how to deal with them, why not the rest of the Indians? On the surface, it is a fair point.

the reality seems to be that such people seem to be relatively rare amongst those who actually do the negotiating on behalf of the Indian government and second, even if they are there, they seem to be subject to other non-transparent considerations of the political establishment such that their voices are muted.

It is one thing to say that yes, let the Americans have their laws and if they to invoke them against us at a later date, we would find a way out but it is entirely another thing to try and figure out how one could have gotten a better deal without having to go through the stress and uncertainty that would surely arise if the provisions of the Hyde Act are invoked.

When the other side appeared desperate for a deal (April – June 2007) with press statements every day, I think there was ample opportunity to have deployed brinkmanship and wait for other guy to blink. We did not, it appears and of course, one can always hope that we would learn, for the next round. But that does not make it wrong for some one to criticise the outcome and the quality of the current negotiations.

On one thing “Gujjubhai” seems to be correct is that the provisions of the Hyde Act as applicable to India do actively seek to prevent the US government from trying to help India secure alternative supplies.

The 123 agreement says otherwise but it is finally subject to the overriding provisions of the Hyde Act. The letter of the 123 Agreement is clear on that.

In the final analysis, a lot is left to the continued goodwill and benevolence of successive American administrations towards India.

At the same time, it is hard, personally for me at least, to dismiss the arguments of those who say that other governments do not leave things to such variables and get them in B&W in writing for it is the written word that survives and also the contention that this was an opportunity to extract more out of the Americans in terms of Indo-Pak. dynamics, arm sales, cross-border terrorism, etc.

Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, if that is a strategic bet/calculation that Dr. Singh has taken, he is entitled to do so. That is what is leadership is all about. Equally, the nation is entitled to ask him the benefits that India would get by doing so, the potential costs of doing so and how, in his judgement, the former outweighs the latter.

(Nitin: you might wish to write to Dr. Sagar and seek his permission to post his email that I had circulated to my mailing list on this as a comment. He says that the issue is not one of testing at all. He says that he believes that India has the capability to do a successful computer simulation. He says it is about the availability of sufficient fissile material, intrusive annual inspections, classification of old reactors as military and all new ones as civilian, the economics of using Uranium when its cost has shot up already through the sky and the safety of using enriched uranium when all other technologies are available, etc. I think all these points too are relevant besides the issue of American strategic interest (or otherwise) towards India).

It turns out that the among the most strident opponents of India extracting uranium reserves at home are, well, the Leftists. Here’s a post from Dec 2005 on the subject. And I’d like to know the sources of funding of the various NGOs raising storm over uranium mining.

Saying that NSG *will* put restrictions is not an argument, it is speculation. This has not yet happened. Negotiations are still going on.

I will say one more thing that might comfort you. We all know that Russia is already helping us with a couple of our civilian reactors. How? Well, because Russia argued that it made those commitments to India before joining NSG and hence they have to be fulfilled.

If NSG gives India a clean waiver (and I agree that it is going to be a big challenge) and India signs deals with supplier countries.. and lets say 5 years later India tests (for whatever reasons).. then supplier countries would have a legal fig leaf to hide behind while continuing cooperation with us. Yes, countries like Australia and Japan would follow the US lead blindly.. but countries like Russia and France are highly unlikely to be submissive. What incentive does Russia have to follow USA’s domestic laws? None.

Gujjubhai’s argument is that USA has domestic laws. Well, so what? USA might as well have a law that says “Screw India”, that does not mean that it will be able to.. or that it will even try. And if it tries, would we just lie down and wait for it to screw us? (Shayam Saran’s words, not mine, from his interview with Karan Thapar)

Another arguments is that US will somehow prevent Indian fuel from being used in our weapons programme. This is the funniest thing ever. How? No answer.. except saying that they are devious and cunning and blah. Ask yourself, how is it possible *to* stop Indian fuel from reaching *un-safeguarded* Indian reactors on Indian soil? It is not.

Finally, the right to test is always a theoretical right. In practice, when it becomes imperative to test, then a country will just go ahead and test regardless of what international commitments it has made to the contrary. India hasn’t even made such a commitments.

Also, under the international law, sub-critical tests are not included in the definition of “nuclear test”. Now there’s a hint for those who can understand it.

Chandra,

I accept that one of my comments was personal and directed against Gujjubhai. It was entirely intentional. He started with calling Nitin a traitor and whatnot (see his very first comment at No. 21) and calling Manmohan Singh the same (Mir Jaffer reborn, Moron Singh). That comment had nothing substantive except pointing to a couple of articles. If that comment does not invite censure from you, while my comment does.. then I am just amazed.

Regardless of this, if Gujjubhai is willing to withdraw his comment and apologize to Nitin then I would request Nitin to remove my comment as well.

Last point.. merely leaving a link to some article and asking others to refute it is not debate. It is an escape tactic. I can also post links to several articles by non-political people that support the deal.. and say “I rest my case”. But it would be bullshit. And I called Gujjubhai out on that.

All his arguments have one basic premise.. *they* are smart, cunning, devious etc.. while we are not. I reject this basic premise completely.

Now, I rest my case.

Nitin,

Apologies for dragging this on even after your previous comment.

Actually, on second thoughts, I am confused about why you are talking about my fear-mongering about Americans’ potentially cheating India. Where’s the question of any cheating? The Americans have been absolutely up-front about their intentions : it’s spelt out right there in the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement. All I am saying is that Americans are going to be true to their stated policies, enacted laws and clearly enunciated intentions. Are you suggesting that Americans are making laws that, you have somehow divined, will not be applied to India? Is the US Congress just doing timepass and making laws that it is not going to hold the executive branch accountable to?

Tell us more about these mysterious “Americans” of yours. How do they look? What do they eat? What do they wear? What language do they speak? I have never even seen one, leave alone negotiate with such mysterious creatures.

Ah, the good old ad hominem attack on me personally with a childlike attempt at indulging in personal ridicule instead of my point-by-point rebuttal of everything that you had said: well done, BOK. Now please do grow up and debate it like an adult, willya? I wonder what it was that set you off, my friend. Was it my quoting of the literal text of the Hyde Act contradicting your ideas? Was it the analysis I presented of the OPEC vs NSG? Was is the demolition of your argument about interdependence by calculating the potential financial impact as an approximation of the degree of dependence?

Seriously, I am here to engage in an intelligent debate because I deeply care about the future of India. Unlike you, I am not reducing this to taking cheap potshots. Now if only you could rise above personal attacks on me and Shourie etc and present some analysis backed by facts then I would love to hear it. I do believe that you are a patriot just as I am. But real debate must be on the basis of ideas, facts and analysis : all I have done is let the facts speak for themselves.

I have nothing against you personally, I am sure you are nice intelligent person. All I have done is point out that your arguments are not supported by facts, as written in the 123 agreement or the Hyde Act. If you are serious about debating this issue, then show me where I am wrong.

1.You said that India could develop alternate sources of uranium like Russia and France. I showed you that US policy, as defined in the Hyde Act, is to further restrict India’s trade with the NSG members. I further showed you by applying lessons from the world oil market why it is unlikely that India can do it on economic grounds.

2.You claim that India has a right to test. I agreed with the theoretical right to test, but showed you that, in practice, the power to exercise that right is severely limited by the 123 agreement if the US threatens to jeopardize a significant part of India’s electricity generation.

3.You claim that India can free up its domestic production of uranium for the nuclear program. I showed you that the US policy, as clearly spelt out in the Hyde Act, is to prevent that. The Congress has put annual certification mechanisms in place to ensure this. It will require a full material balance and accounting of not only imported uranium but also uranium mined in India. So that is unlikely to happen.

So, please do tell, where the flaws in my facts or logic are. If you just want to stoop down to personal attacks or paint me as the kind of person who’d subject you to socialism, all I can do is treat that with amusement at a childlike tantrum. I can assure you that I am a fearless participant in the international jungle of business and I am only applying the lessons I’ve learnt in my career. Rather than speculating on what kind of a person I am why don’t you figure out rationally what is likely to happen? Even your idea of my arguments being self-fulfilling prophesies are silly : I am not an American and my thinking is not likely to affect how they act one way or the other. All I am trying to do is rationally figure out where the incentives for their future behaviors are. Sure, I may be wrong and they may all be as nice as Mahatma Gandhi, and everything will be well – India will get its fuel, grow its economy, build a nuclear arsenal and have independence in pursuing policy as well. Or may be the incentives Americans are trying to put in place are designed to enable them to exercise power to control what India can do in future. What will a rational actor do? You decide.

The passion shows, whatever you might believe. That’s fine. But your arguments would be far more credible if you justified them with arguments other than impressing us with your experience and reading, and asking us to accept these as bases for accepting your conclusions. So let’s not have any more of this “act like an adult”, “educate yourself” type of statements thrown about.

(The rules of business and the rules of international relations are different. So the lessons from the world of business don’t directly translate to the ‘rules’ of international relations. The international system is an anarchy, and might is right. The corporate world operates under several layers of national and international laws and regulations. It’s a profound difference.)

This blog is of a Realist persuasion. So I agreed with the content (not the tone) of your injunction:

Stop being naive. Stop being foolish. Stop seeing things through the lens of friendship, enmity etc : understand interests and motivations.

But then you go and say this:

They have zero moral compunction in the naked pursuit of their national interest. Don’t think for a moment that they will shy away from exerting power over India when needed.

Can’t agree with you more. I’ll just say that two can play this game. Indeed, that’s the entire point of all this—only small powers argue about “rights” and “sovereignty”. Great powers don’t bother about these niceties.

So when I see you paranoid (as you admit yourself) due to awe, I think you miss the point. Perhaps you find it hard to believe that India can actually negotiate with the greatest power on earth today. Yet, as you say yourself, in the context of your business experience, you’ve figured out their ways and can now pay them in their own coin. Unless you think that no one else can be as smart or smarter than you (a statistical impossibility) then what makes you think that the Indian foreign policy establishment hasn’t figured this out?

Another Gujjubhai once said that “be the change you wish to see”. While the growth of Indian power is palpable to others, the final frontier is in our minds. If we don’t believe we are a major power, strong enough to look after our interests, then we will never be one.

In the Realist interpretation, there are no rules binding nations. There is only power. The weak spend a lot of time arguing for a ‘rules-bound’ international community. The powerful do what they want, whatever they can get away with.

It’s nice to see you have so much confidence in Manmohan. If he was such an ace diplomat and a chalaki, he would have tackled his communists minions long time ago.

The only thing Gujjubhai is probably overlooking is the state of India a decade or two decades from now. I think India will have a lot more strategic leverage, bigger economy, and more involved in the world, say, when compared to now or was in 1975, to break down any US road blocks. The old post-parliament attack operation parakram-linked sanctions weapon will not work on India for too long. And India and US will be lot more intertwined in the future. US clearly could not give a better deal to India than China because, for historic reason, mostly due to India’s making, China is a recognized as nuclear power (built primarily by US) and we are not. But still there is good but brief article in IE (on Friday, I think) about how India’s deal is in someways better than China’s nuclear deal with US.

It’s not about colonial phobia – I think by and large the country is over it, except may be the communists – who actually liked colonialism and opposed freedom. You should seriously consider reading the “confessions of a hit man” book that Gujjubhai recommends – it gives the differences between rhetoric that US and it’s media feeds the world about itself – that fair-playing, enlightened country that everyone seems to lap it up easily, and the policies and coercions of the US establishment to get it’s way. Gujjubhai’s business example is right on target – but should one expect anything less?