Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Against unilateralism, for a consensus

India celebrates the 60th year of its hard won and cherished Independence this year. As we look back, there are many events and milestones in this journey that either make us proud or compel us to hang our heads in shame. In the latter category, communal riots, be it the anti-Sikh violence of 1984 or the post-Godhra events, have made a dent on our secular credentials. And the mass suicides by farmers, poverty and illiteracy have put a question mark on our commitment to soc ialism and ensuring the well-being of all.

Our achievements in the fields of space, information technology, tourism and so on provide a silver lining amid the dark clouds. However, even more significant an achievement for us as a nation is our vibrant democracy and the resultant freedom enjoyed by citizens, and the Fourth Estate. Braving vicissitudes including the Emergency, our democracy has served to keep our multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-linguistic nation together. Issues that were earlier settled on the battlefield by various principalities are now hammered out through debates and discussions in Parliament. It is this freedom to express one’s views that has sustained and strengthened our democracy, in sharp contrast to the situation in our regional neighbourhood where dictatorships still reign.

However, ironically in this 60th anniversary year of our freedom, this very aspect of our polity is being sought to be muzzled and trampled upon. This year has witnessed strident opposition to even a mention of the contentious Cauvery issue in the Lok Sabha. Elected representatives of the people were restrained from speaking on an issue that concerned lives and livelihoods in their State. It was a mockery of democracy to watch even Ministers of the government joining the shouting brigade and preventing members from airing their grievances against the verdict of an inter-State tribunal. In a federal set-up, Parliament is not expected to discuss State subjects. But what about inter-State issues? If these cannot be raised in Parliament, should we be going to the United Nations? Even the Speaker of the Lok Sabha was unable to keep his word of allowing a debate on the issue — thanks to the Central government’s coalition compulsions.

Now comes the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal that is under discussion. I cannot recall in recent history any such bilateral agreement that has generated so much heat. The deal pertains not only to our relationship with a country that is not known for its respect for the sovereignty of other nations but also to our energy security, our hitherto consensual foreign policy, and above all, our right to make independent decisions.

I am no prolific writer. I was compelled to pen my thoughts here because I did not get an opportunity to express on the floor of Parliament my opinion on this crucial issue concerning our sovereignty and security. There are many others like me who are keen to have their say on this matter. More than a Joint Parliamentary Committee or any other mechanism, what we wanted was a threadbare discussion on the deal — its details, benefits, drawbacks, implications and so on. Unfortunately, Parliament, the highest representative body of the people of India, was deprived of the opportunity. What we are witnessing today is rigmarole, a circus, involving the ruling partners and the rest of the nation, including the opposition, helplessly watching it as spectators.

As a former Prime Minister, I am deeply disturbed and pained over the manner in which the nation stands divided on the issue. In post-Independent India, perhaps no other issue has divided the polity in such a manner. There are sharp differences within the government, so much so that the coalition appeared to be on the verge of collapse a few days ago. The opposition, too, is no exception: there are serious differences on the issue within different political parties and among alliances.

In India, we have had a decades-old convention and tradition of a consensual or unanimous approach on foreign policy issues. But today, we witness an unprecedented unilateralism that does not make our democracy proud or our international image glow. It is an all-pervasive unilateralism, whether it is on the part of the government, its allies or even the opposition. Each and every party appears to be nurturing its own constituency rather than thinking about the country at large. While some parties want to project the nuclear deal as a great achievement, others want to highlight it as a great betrayal. Now, it certainly cannot be both. The truth apparently lies somewhere in between.

All the parties appear to be confused over what exactly this nuclear deal is all about and what the opposition to it is all about. We see conflicting statements from different leaders belonging to the same political parties. Experts, scientists, defence strategists and even the media are divided: some fanatically support it and others vehemently denounce it.

The question is whether we can afford to seek to score brownie points on an issue of such vital importance involving the nation’s identity, independence, and sovereignty. Like the five blind men of Hindustan, we appear to be groping in the dark for truth, without realising that we are riding the elephant. We seem to be engrossed in trivia and superficialities, without bothering to address the larger questions.

In my opinion, whether we will be able to carry out nuclear tests is more of an emotional issue. The nuclear tests conducted by Pakistan in response to India’s tests and the subsequent conflict in Kargil showed how effective such tests can be. The nation is looking for answers to questions such as how much nuclear energy we require, and how safe and affordable it is. The Chernobyl disaster is before us. Are there not cheaper alternatives, including non-conventional energy sources, which can be tapped effectively at a fraction of the cost and can take care of our energy security needs? What about developing alternative fuel sources? What has happened to our efforts to develop fast breeder reactors? Can we not do something indigenously using our vast thorium reserves? Why are the Americans keen to provide us with reactors and not reprocessing technology? If we proceed with the agreement, how will it facilitate our getting access to other nuclear technologies and critical components?

Can the much-talked-about Hyde Act supersede international agreements? Will going ahead with the deal lead to the lifting of all embargoes, and help achieve full civil nuclear cooperation? Will the growing proximity to the U.S. and Israel impede our traditionally strong relationship with the Islamic countries? With the U.S. remaining unsure about Pakistan’s stability and concerned about China’s growing clout, is it trying to gain a strong foothold in South Asia through India? Have we conceded to the provisions of the discriminatory Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, albeit through the backdoor? We keep hearing about the option the U.S. has to pull out if India violates any of the conditions in the deal. Does India have such options too? What is the guarantee that all future U.S. governments will abide by the treaty, which today faces opposition in that country as well?

Having emerged as a major economic player in the world, has this agreement become so important for us that some political parties harden their positions to the extent where they even hold out the prospect of sacrificing the government? Is there more to the deal than meets the eye? Is there any ‘deal’ behind the deal? How do we stand to lose if there is no deal? And how do the Americans stand to lose? Is it a win-win situation only for India or is it so also for the U.S.? Why are the Americans exerting pressure on India to begin negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the earliest? Will India end up as a subject-state of the U.S.?

The United Progressive Alliance and its Left allies are behaving as if only they have to decide on an issue concerning the future of the nation, which has also elected to Parliament several members like us in order to safeguard national interest. The nuclear deal is no more an ego issue between the ruling allies. It is a matter concerning the entire nation and must be treated as such. The government should take the entire Parliament into confidence on it. I would go beyond the demand for the setting up of a Joint Parliamentary Committee. Parliament should set up a national committee with representatives from the different political parties, the scientific community, the defence forces, the energy sector, and the media, besides foreign affairs experts, strategic affairs experts, academics, eminent citizens and other stakeholders, who will seek answers to the questions posed here and other issues pertaining to our energy security and sovereignty. Such unilateralism on an important issue concerning the nation’s sovereignty by a minority government leaning on outside support does not augur well for our democracy and its federal and pluralistic character. Any decision on the nuclear deal should be taken within the parameters of the recommendations of such a national committee.

If even after that there is no consensus, let the people of India decide. Let there be the nation’s first ever referendum on this issue. India’s independence and sovereignty cannot be left to the mercy and the whims and fancies of fragile coalitions and a confused opposition. The people of India must have their say.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Hope for wild tigers
Fatah re-emerges in Gaza
Against unilateralism, for a consensus
On Iran, no news is good news for U.S.
Sachar Committee report and pending promises
Corrections and clarifications
Agrarian crisis
On challenges

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu