Call for wider consultations on Indo-US nuclear deal

New Delhi: The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, 2006 passed by the two Houses of the US Congress, and which President George W. Bush will sign into law today has evoked strong criticism from some Indian quarters.

This is in contrast to the bipartisan support for the deal in the United States.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the main opposition party, and the Communist Party of India Marxist (CPM) and the Communist Party of India (CPI), which support the United Progressive Alliance government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, have been protesting loudly against the Bill as passed by the US legislature.

Meanwhile, the nuclear scientists too have expressed strong reservations against the Bill.

In an interview with Gulf News, former foreign secretary Shashank says that there is indeed a wide difference between the July 18, 2005 joint statement of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President in Washington and the March 1 joint statement of the two leaders in New Delhi. He says that the government will have to hold wider consultations than it has done so far in addressing the problems involved in the civilian nuclear deal.

Excerpts from the interview:

Gulf News: Are you surprised by the response of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and of the two Communist Parties to the US legislation on the US-India civilian nuclear deal?

Shashank: I am not surprised. While it is expected that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is in the opposition would be critical, what is of concern is that even the United Progressive Alliance's (UPA) allies, the Communist Parties, are opposing it.

It is true that there are wide differences between the joint statements of Manmohan Singh and President Bush on July 18, 2005 in Washington and on March 1, 2006 in New Delhi. What the government is saying that we should wait till the actual deal is negotiated by the two sides.

Do you think that the problems involved in the legislation can be tackled at the next stage of negotiations?

I don't think the problems can be dealt with straightaway. It will take a long time, and we must continue to negotiate.

Why are the Americans so enthusiastic in pushing the nuclear deal?

The Americans feel that they should do with India now what they had done with China earlier - enter into a strategic relationship.

Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, feel that the US should bring India on board as a strategic partner of the US. The Americans know that India is a highly respected country because of its leadership of the Non-Aligned Movement. Countries from Africa, and even from Latin and Central America want India to take a more active role in the world affairs. The Americans have sensed this, and they want India to work with the US. But at the same time, the US continues to deal with the military leadership of Pakistan, and the situation in Afghanistan is not improving.

Though India is widely involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, it does not seem to be enough because the Taliban are re-emerging with the support of Pakistan. So, problems remain on what the Americans want India to do.

It is surprising that in contrast, the Indian opinion about the nuclear deal is so divided and critical.

Do you think that India should pull out of the deal as suggested by the BJP and the communists?

India should not pull out of the negotiations. It has to continue to engage with the US in deliberations. It must be remembered that the attitude towards nuclear energy has undergone a great change. Even all the green, environment-friendly groups are not unanimous in their opposition to nuclear energy. There is a split right in the middle of the green groups. Some of them recognise that nuclear energy is a source of clean energy.

What do you think the government should be doing now?

I think there is need for wider consultations with different groups in parliament and with the think-tanks. It will not be helpful to be closed about it, and say that problems will be taken care of. There is need for more openness on the issue, and there should be greater debate.