Contrarian views on the nuclear deal

The debate on the Indo-US nuclear deal has been reduced to a test of patriotism. Those who who favour the deal want India to be a great economic power with the help of the US and are patriots. Those opposed to it have hang-ups about the US and are not averse to India falling behind China; their patriotism is questionable.

I have found this characterisation utterly puerile given the many nuances to this issue. Remember three top nuclear scientists in the country have come out with a statement expressing their reservations even now.

How refereshing, then, to come across two contrarian views on the deal on the same day. In an interview to Rediff, former diplomat M K Bhadrakumar makes a number of points:

• The UPA government is guilty of breach of trust in pursuing the matter of IAEA safeguards without the concurrence of the Left. When the Left gave the go-ahead to the UPA government to negotiate safeguards with the IAEA last November, it was on the understanding that the agreement itself would later be discussed and approved by the joint UPA-Left committee on the subject. The Congress has gone back on this assurance.
• There is lack of transparency on the safeguards agreed with IAEA- the government has not disclosed what these are.
• The IAEA agreement, once signed, will be 'in perpetuity'; once this agreement is signed, the further course of the nuclear deal is out of India's hands. Even if the form of the NSG waiver is unpalatable to India, it is out of our hands.

In another article, Brahma Chellaney questions the current line that the deal is about reducing dependence on oil and opening up prospects for nuclear power. He points out that India's dependence on oil for electricity purposes is negligible- just 4% of all our needs. Oil is primarily required for transportation purposes whereas nuclear power plants are all about generating electricity! He goes on to blast the case for nuclear energy as a substitute for oil:

If global oil demand is threatening to outstrip supply, so is the case with uranium. Current concerns associated with oil’s price volatility, supply security and geopolitical risks are no different than uranium’s. And if global oil reserves are finite, so are uranium resources, with proven uranium reserves likely to last barely 85 years, according to the Red Book published jointly by the OECD and IAEA.

In fact, in the past five years, the international spot price of uranium has risen faster than that of crude oil, with uranium today trading six times above its $10 a pound historical average. Oil and uranium prices are likely to stay volatile, but the long-term trend for both is surely up. Just as cheap oil now seems fanciful, cheap nuclear power for long has been a mirage.

Chellaney is right. This deal is about a strategic alliance with the US to counter the rise of China, it is merely being presented as an energy proposition for political and diplomatic reasons. The real worth of the strategic alliance lies in the transfer of a whole range of advanced dual-use technologies- these technologies cannot be transferred unless India's status as a nuclear power changes.

The key question is: do we want the strategic alliance at the cost of surrendering some of our freedom of action in foreign policy and in the nuclear field? I do think there is a case for an open national debate and that there is no compulsion to be bound by some artificial time-table.