Nuclear deal — is it a Jekyll act?
S. Srinivasan
The Government swears that, every word, clause and phrase of the nuclear deal has been split at the atomic level to remedy infirmities. Equally, the opposition avers that the nuclear deal is unclear, the Hyde Act hides facts and self respect is surrendered. Shorn of complexity, just two questions beg answers to this entire issue, namely, is there an alternative to nuclear power and can there be an agreement at better terms with the International agencies?
The ability of any entity to strike an agreement with another is a function of its clout as much as on the merits of the issue at stake. This simplistic but controversial hypothesis can be put to the test in every walk of life. Check the world of the automotive industry. Annually over a hundred thousand crore rupees worth of goods are supplied by thousands of suppliers to hundreds of vehicle manufacturers through the most exhaustive contracts. How equitable are they?
Lay persons will be surprised to know that, normally, buyers load these with a battery of clauses to checkmate suppliers at every move, never mind that many of these are one-sided. Sample a few. Suppliers should buy raw material only from parties approved by the buyer. Every process should be approved and all process details must be submitted. No process or supplier can be changed without the buyer’s consent.
The maze of conditions encompasses every system and procedure in design, manufacture, testing, quality, costing, delivery, sales, service, timing, accounting and payment. Suppliers will be inspected or audited at any time. Delay in deliveries can attract penalties that can bankrupt suppliers.
The coup de grace
For surrendering every right and agreeing to every condition, there is no guarantee that the output will be purchased, accepted or paid on time. Buyers dealing with monolithic monopolies like steel plants have little leeway in price negotiations or terms and conditions. Regardless of purchase order and pricing terms, prices dictated by the mills on the date of delivery apply.
In sum, component suppliers have little option but to capitulate to all crucial terms at both ends. Yet commerce thrives. Move over to virtually any other aspect of life. Can parents dictate any term to schools where they admit their children? Can we get a two wheeler loan without a signed “surrender letter” agreeing to the confiscation of the vehicle if there is default of the EMI? If all the above are palatable and self respect is preserved, what do we lose in a nuclear deal? What is the special clout of India that it can extract better terms? The largest democracy?
In a channel interview, one member questioned the “tearing hurry” to move for energy security. Ask daily wage earners who are jobless due to the blackout. Check with patients in a hospital where emergency treatment is held up, children who are unable to study for examinations, elders in tenements where lifts are paralysed and businessmen who notch up losses. If sixty years after independence, we have no sense of urgency to remedy the situation, we do not need power at all. And in another channel, another member argued that there is enough coal as a source of energy. Such advice, delivered more by political compulsions, ignores the realities of today. Long ago coal lost its position as a viable source of energy. With coal a moribund industry, solar at experimental level, fossil fuels running out, limited wind, ocean energy and hydro electric possibilities, what should we do?
Finally, the acid test of our independence. Can we conduct a nuclear test and escape penal action? Yes, say the eminently qualified, led by Brajesh Mishra and Dr. Kalam. If so, we will have our cake and eat it. If not, we will return to our current position with no current.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
