By IANS
New Delhi : The Indian government Wednesday defended the nuclear deal with the US, saying it preserved vital strategic and national interests, but a defiant opposition charged that it sacrificed the country’s sovereignty and may reduce India to a junior partner of Washington.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rejected chief opposition Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) criticism of the nuclear deal, saying there was nothing in the 123 agreement with the US that barred New Delhi’s right to test a nuclear device.
“If a necessity for carrying out a nuclear test arises in future, there is nothing in the agreement which prohibits India from exercising its right to test,” Manmohan Singh assured the Lok Sabha, the lower House of parliament.
In a pointed intervention during the debate on the nuclear deal, Manmohan Singh was reacting to Leader of Opposition L.K. Advani’s remarks that the 123 agreement with the US prohibited India from testing nuclear devices.
Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) MP Rupchand Pal opened the debate in Lok Sabha by outlining his party’s anxiety about the impact of the nuclear deal on the country’s foreign policy and its strategic autonomy.
“Please take the sense of the house, don’t proceed further, because a majority of this sovereign house is against this,” Pal said while pressing for a ‘sense of the house’ resolution on the contentious nuclear deal.
After a marathon over-six-hour debate, an overwhelming majority of MPs remained unconvinced about implementing the deal, with the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) walking out in protest against the prime minister’s refusal to make a final statement in response to their apprehensions.
Instead, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee batted for the deal and assured the house that the government will come to parliament after completing India’s safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – a key step required to operationalise the nuclear deal. The government started negotiations with the IAEA after a green signal from its Left allies, who continue to oppose the nuclear agreement.
“The process is not yet complete. Whenever there is a major step, we will come back to parliament,” Mukherjee said.
“Let the process be completed. I will come back to parliament,” he said.
Addressing the opposition’s chief anxieties, Mukherjee said the 123 agreement left India’s strategic programme outside international inspections and sought to allay fears about the Hyde Act. The enabling US legislation that provides a waiver for nuclear commerce with India is not binding on New Delhi, Mukherjee said.
“The Hyde Act is not binding on us. A legislation passed in the US Congress is not binding on us. The only agreement that is binding is the 123 agreement,” he said while rebutting the opposition’s contention that the Hyde Act will be the overarching framework for implementing the 123 agreement.
“Our strategic programme is unsafeguarded. The NDA agreed to put two out of existing reactors under international safeguards but agreed to put all future reactors under safeguards,” the minister said in response to Advani’s assertion that the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government conceded much less to the US in a proposed nuclear deal than the Manmohan Singh government.
“In future, what reactors to put under safeguards, it’s for us to decide. India is a non-NPT country, but the terms for nuclear supply to us must be non-discriminatory and verifiable,” Mukherjee said.
“Nothing short of it will be acceptable to us,” he stressed while slamming the NPT as “a fraud, discriminatory treaty” that sought to create the divide between the nuclear haves and have-nots.
“The nine points given by the prime minister have been preserved in the text of the 123 agreement,” Mukherjee said while alluding to the prime minister’s assurances to parliament in response to nine objections raised by the Left.
The minister stressed that the deal was essential for the country’s energy security as oil imports are turning out to be increasingly expensive – a painful fact which is not appreciated by people because subsidies are not passed to the consumer.
Mukherjee also rejected criticism by the opposition that India chose not to sign a bilateral inter-governmental pact with Russia on civilian nuclear cooperation because of fears of antagonising the US.
The minister argued that since any bilateral deal will have to be operationalised only after IAEA negotiations and the change in guidelines by the NSG, the government thought it prudent to complete these steps before signing the agreement with Russia.
“Once I have an international passport, I can go and visit the country I like,” he said.
Allaying apprehensions expressed by the opposition that the deal will compromise India’s independent foreign policy, the minister alluded to the government’s advocacy of diplomacy, and not sanctions, to resolve the Iranian nuclear imbroglio.
He underlined that India not only has strategic relationship with the US, but also has forged strategic ties with 10 countries, including China, Russia and the European Union.
“Let us not be carried away be emotions. Let us try to find out how the issue is going to be resolved,” he said.
The BJP was, however, unrelenting in its opposition to the nuclear deal that aims at breaking India’s decades-long international nuclear isolation.
“We are a nation of one billion people and India can’t be subservient or a junior partner of any country,” Advani said.
“The deal will last 40 years. We are going to sign a deal which will make us dependent for 40 years.
“We are being pushed into this non-proliferation regime because we need nuclear energy,” said Advani. “They are taking advantage of this. This is deeply detrimental to India’s vital and long-term interests,” he said.
“This deal is unacceptable to the nation. If the NDA gets the mandate, we will renegotiate the deal,” he stressed.
Advani also contended that the Hyde Act will guide the operation of the 123 agreement and hence the deal threatened to undermine India’s sovereignty and its strategic programme.
He debunked the government’s claims that the nuclear deal was primarily aimed at energy security. To support his argument, Advani quoted a report by a panel that included Atomic Energy Commission chief Anil Kakodkar which said that by 2021 nuclear energy will not contribute more than 6.5 percent of India’s total energy needs.
“We are opposed to this infringement on India’s sovereignty. Why do I have to justify a nuclear test by India?” said Advani while alluding to a clause in the 123 pact that allows a consideration of the circumstances by the US before terminating nuclear cooperation with India in case the latter goes for testing a nuclear device.
“The whole thing is so apparent that no self-respecting country should accept it. Vajpayee would never have accepted it,” Advani said to applause from the opposition benches.
Under the landmark July 18, 2005 nuclear deal with the US, the Indian government agreed to put 14 of India’s civilian nuclear reactors under international safeguards in return for resumption of global civil nuclear deal after a gap of three decades.
“We are now being pushed into the international nuclear non-proliferation regime,” Advani alleged.
Advani also took pot-shots at the government’s communist allies, saying they have allowed negotiations with the IAEA with an eye to elections and not out of convictions.
Saying that the BJP’s stand was distinct from that of the communist parties, Advani said that his party was not opposed to the strategic partnership with America.
Young Congress MPs Jyotiraditya Scindia and Sachin Pilot were among those from the ruling Congress party who defended the nuclear deal. “The deal has raised the global stature of India. There are only gains, no losses,” Scindia said.
The government’s allies, including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and DMK, defended the deal, but urged the prime minister to allay any misgivings about it.
Ram Gopal Yadav of the Samajwadi Party questioned the rationale behind the nuclear deal, saying that the prime minister owed it to the nation to remove all misgivings and apprehensions. “It’s not just a question of the credibility of the prime minister but also about the credibility of the country,” he said.