What Ideology?
Many of us are glued to the television these days wondering whether the Manmohan Singh Government will survive or not! The Left Parties have been crying from the roof tops that they will bring down the Government for ideological reasons. I ask – what ideology?
Left supporters say their social ideology forbids improving relationships with imperialistic nations. Is it true? Today, the imperialist forces are defined by the G8. These are the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These eight nations decide the future of other nations. I have not come across any objections from the Left Parties in improving relations with Japan, or Canada, or capitalistic Russia, nations in the G8. Interestingly, India is trying to gain entry into this group, and it has had the support of the Left Parties in its efforts - another interesting angle to the ideological issue.
Obviously, if relationships with imperialistic nations were an ideology, there would have been many occasions when the Left would have walked out. Looked at logically, the difference between the Left Parties and the Congress Party is therefore not ideological. The Left Parties have a special dislike to the United States – just one of the imperialist forces. Therefore, it is an issue of prejudice not ideology.
Let me now look at the ideology of coalition politics. When two parties get together to support each other, their formal relationship is determined by the ‘Common Minimum Program (CMP)’. If either of the parties were to dishonor the CMP, the other party is free to break the relationship. This is the ideology of coalition governance. Have the Left Parties followed this ideology when they have broken the relationship with the government for an issue that does not figure in their CMP?
Perhaps, the same argument can be used by the Left Parties to justify their action. If the Congress Party felt that the Nuclear deal was so important, why did they not insist in including it in the CMP? This shows how a comedy of error works. Obviously, the Congress Party did not believe that there would be threefold increase in the price of crude oil in the last 18 months. They also did not anticipate that they would be able to conclude a sweetheart deal with the United States. When these developments took place they should have renogtiated the CMP. It shows a lack of foresight at the least and political expediency at the worst.
Just like the Left Parties and the Congress, other political parties are viewing the Indo-US nuclear deal as a political opportunity to embarrass the government.
The Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) wants a better deal with the United States. According to the Chief United States negotiator, the BJP was agreeable to a less favorable deal when it was in power.
Mayawati, a leader of the Dalits and heading the Bahujan Samaj Party, has suddenly become concerned about the interest of the Muslims, though the parties that represent the Muslims like the National Conference, All India Muslim League, and Progressive Democratic Party, etc. have all supported the Manmohan Singh government’s actions on the nuclear deal. What is anti-muslim about the deal?
Politicians have stopped thinking about the nation but are taking their positions based on short-term political or other gains. In the bargain, India is the loser.
Is the deal good for India? As a strategist, there can be many ways of looking at the various issues posed by this deal. Many of these issues have been raised by both the proponents and opponents of the deal. Much of it is complex and finally subjective.
Let me try to look at the deal as a layman. It is a known fact that Pakistan, at one time demanded that it be offered a similar deal to India, but U.S.A. refused to do so. Pakistan then begged for a similar deal, but it was denied again. One must remember that nuclear strategy been an important element in the competition between India and Pakistan.
Why was Pakistan so keen for a similar offer? The answer is very simple; Pakistan believes that India will be able to bring in fourth generation nuclear technology for its civilian uses. With this knowledge, India would have an edge over it as it finds ways to use this knowledge to develop superior nuclear weapons technology.
If this argument makes sense, we need to look no further. If it does not make sense, there is another simple way to look at the deal with the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC). According to the deal with the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) India’s reactors will be split into two categories, for civilian use and for non-civilian use. India is still free to use non-civilian nuclear material in a manner it deems fit in keeping with its obligations to the world community.
This deal is based on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) philosophy. The NPT philosophy stands on three pillars: non-proliferation, desire towards disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. The NTP recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Do we disagree with this?
The crux of the matter is about testing of nuclear devices. Is this crucial? The destructive force of advanced nuclear weapons is so great now that no nation tests such weapons. The last underground test by the United States was in 1992, the Soviet Union in 1990, the United Kingdom in 1991, and both France and China stopped testing in 1996.
Technology has reached levels that the results of technological changes are simulated by computers. According to experts, these simulations are expected to have similar accuracies compared to scaled down models. Inaccuracies in such scaled down models are created by upscaling. This seems plausible, otherwise United States and USSR would not have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. They had the largest stake in developing such weaponry.
The nuclear deal with the IAEC and the Nuclear Supplier’s Group (NSG) will allow for the transfer of civilian nuclear material to India from all international sources, and yet permit India not to sign the NPT Agreement. The US-India nuclear deal is a deal offered by the United States to transfer of civilian nuclear material to India, forbidden by its laws for non-NPT states. This is a special offer based on India’s clean proliferation record, and its emerging economic status.
Good strategy is about moving the nation towards a preferred future. This means providing the nation with greater options. We can do this by signing the nuclear deal or we can hope for a better sweetheart deal with the next President of the United States. That is the risk.
Is the risk worth taking? The risk relates to our energy security. Affordable energy is critical to development. France has shown that Nuclear Power can be produced at prices that are lower or competitive to conventional sources. The prices of coal and natural gas, conventional sources for generating power, are tied to the price of crude. Were we to lose the nuclear deal option, it should be the prayer of every Indian that the the Thorium based technology being developed by India is highly successful. Alternatively, we should pray that the price of crude oil does not shoot up to $500 per barrel in the next 5 years.
