Grave crisis over the nuclear deal

The tussle between the United Progressive Alliance and the Left over the India-US nuclear deal has ballooned into a crisis, which could potentially dislodge the government. Its roots lie in the way the "123 agreement" was negotiated, without any political leaders being consulted.
Opposition to the deal is widespread. But it was only when the Left published its critique of the "123" text on August 7 that matters came to a head.
An ugly confrontation might yet have been avoided, but for two events. First, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh challenged the Left to withdraw support to the UPA in an interview with the Kolkata-based Telegraph.
Second, a US State Department spokesperson reportedly said that "all nuclear cooperation (would be) terminated" if India conducted nuclear tests. This was one day after Dr. Singh said that testing wouldn't cause sudden termination.
The second event created confusion; the first provoked the Left. Dr. Singh insulted it, and said: "It is an honourable deal …if (the Left parties) want to withdraw support, so be it…"
Dr. Singh's self-styled advisers had calculated that this would help him play off CPM West Bengal "moderates" against central "hardliners." This betrayed a serious misunderstanding of how the Left parties make policies. It also underrated the unanimity among them on foreign policy. The Left's reaction was ballistic. Within three days, Dr. Singh was suing for peace.
Thus began the worst-ever crisis in UPA-Left relations. The Left now says there'll be "serious consequences" if the government doesn't suspend talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Suppliers' Group.
Without the Left's support, the UPA will fall short of a parliamentary majority by 30 to 50 seats.
Instead of negotiating a via-media, the UPA deviously resorted to accusing the Left of acting at China's and Pakistan's behest. This tendentious charge was articulated through pro-US China-Pakistan-baiters masquerading as "experts."
In reality, there's no live contact between the Left and the Chinese communists, about some of whose policies the Left has serious misgivings.
India is now witnessing the most vicious attack on the Left since the 1962 China War. Every semi-literate television anchor, former intelligence spook, and third-edit writer is spouting vitriolic anti-communism. This new McCarthyism betrays malignant intolerance.
Such intolerance is dangerous. If every dissenting opinion is attributed to a "foreign hand," and if every difference on principle is reduced to an "ego clash," there can be no rational policy discourse. That does not bode well for democracy.
It's undeniable that the Left represents India's most important ideology-driven current, which perhaps concentrates more brainpower per capita than any other. Despite the Left's conduct in Singur and Nandigram -- which this writer has strongly criticised -- its strategic objections to the deal cannot be dismissed.
The nuclear deal is inseparable from the US game plan to recruit India into a junior partnership, not least to counter China, and broadly, to create another anchor for a Washington-dominated Asian security architecture.
The deal cannot be divorced from the June 2005 Defence Framework agreement, from India's two votes against Iran at the IAEA, nor from the 27 recent high-level military exercises with the US.
The Left's critique of the deal is foundational, and centred on the US's destabilising world role and attempt to ignite a second Cold War by encircling Russia and targeting China and Iran through "Son-of-Star-Wars" ballistic missile defence. The US remains the globe's most belligerent power. It has made the world more insecure through its Empire project.
True, the Left didn't consistently emphasise the deal's strategic dimensions, and often concentrated on its text rather than context. It was, until recently, more concerned about highlighting differences between the Hyde Act and Singh's assurances to Parliament. It also didn't publicly agitate the issue.
Any genuine, principled, opposition to the deal should logically focus on its harmful consequences for nuclear disarmament, and its promotion of an inappropriate, costly, hazardous, and environmentally unsound energy trajectory through nuclear power -- besides loss of India's strategic and foreign policy autonomy via a strategic embrace of the US. These are errors of omission.
However, the government's errors of commission are graver. Singh acted like a typical bureaucrat, and left the deal's negotiation to bureaucrats alone. He fomented the illusion that the deal would offer a magic bullet for India's energy problems.
He capitulated to US pressure on Iran. Former US assistant secretary of state Stephen Rademaker says India's anti-Iran votes were obtained through "coercion."
Dr. Singh still pays lip-service to disarmament, but knows fully well that the deal will enable India to stockpile 1,600 kg of plutonium every year -- enough for more than 300 bombs, in addition to the existing estimated inventory of 100-150 warheads. This will trigger a nuclear arms race with Pakistan, and worse, China, reducing the security of all.
It would be foolish of the UPA it to brazen out of its present crisis of survival. It can still rescue the situation by doing four things. The first is to distance itself strategically from Washington -- minimally, by cancelling future military exercises with the US and its allies.
Second, it should initiate what might be called a "domestic Hyde Act" to prevent the transfer of any imported nuclear material/equipment out of India, which would jeopardise the continuous operation of Indian reactors.
Third, the UPA must update the 1988 Rajiv Gandhi plan for global nuclear disarmament and place it before the United Nations. That would concretely fulfil the National Common Minimum Programme's pledge that India would seize "leadership" in fighting for a nuclear weapons-free world.
Finally, the UPA must launch a national debate on nuclear power, reviewing India's (unhappy) experience with it, analysing its international performance, and focusing on its hazards, costs and (un)sustainability.
Meanwhile, the UPA must suspend all negotiations on the deal. Similarly, the Left must categorically state that it won't vote against the government and in no other way help the BJP. That could promote a honourable solution.

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.