IndiaPost.com - Community feels let down on Nuclear deal

India Post News Service

NEW YORK: Two years and almost six months since the US and India signed the civil nuclear cooperation deal, the two countries have reached nowhere close to seeing the deal being implemented. Frozen as the deal is, in the face of one of the stiffest standoffs from the major Opposition party in India — the Bharatiya Janata Party – and the ruling Congress government’s alliance partner — the Communist Party – disappointment is writ large across the board in both governments.

But perhaps the most disheartened by the political mishandling of the deal in India are members of the Indian American community who had worked hard behind the scenes to convince US lawmakers to support the deal. While one leader waxed philosophy quoting the Bhagwad Gita that "one has to take things as they come" and not expect results for their karma, another felt there was no cause for disappointment because disagreements were part of the democratic process.

However, expressing deep dissatisfaction is Dr Piyush Agrawal, National Coordinator for GOPIO and a key leader in the lobbying effort. "We are extremely disappointed with the way the whole thing was managed in India," he said. "I use the word ‘manage’ because the government of India, with the Congress Party at the helm, has done a bad job of selling the deal to its alliance partners and even to the Opposition parties."

While castigating the Congress-led government’s failure to take the Opposition into confidence over a historic deal such as this, as a "major mistake", Dr Agrawal said, "I am equally disappointed with the BJP because it claims to be a national party but is opposing a deal which is in national interest. The BJP should not hold Congress Party responsible for not taking them into confidence, they should move forward and show their magnanimity and patriotism to the country."

Dr Agrawal points out that "the US Senate and House too had initially complained that the White House had not taken them into confidence before signing the deal. But eventually they came around in the interests of both countries and as a salute to the contribution of the Indian Diaspora here."

Terming the BJP’s stand on the issue as "opportunism of the worst type" another lobbyist who has been consistently working for US-India friendship, said, "Even in the US, Congress and Senate differ with the administration on various issues, but on certain foreign policy matters, they come together, which is what they did in the case of the nuclear deal issue." Vehemently denying that the BJP was playing "politics of opportunism" is Dr Rajesh Shukla, advisor and executive committee member of the Overseas Friends of BJP (OFBJP). Giving the BJP perspective, Shukla points out that it was a fact "on record" that the BJP had tried hard to improve Indo-US relations, when it was in power.

The nuclear cooperation was also initiated by the BJP, he points out, adding that, "In the current scenario, there is some discomfort in the BJP over the Hyde Amendment in the Bill. It is not politics of opportunism. It is an accusation to simplify the issue." Whatever their opinion of the BJP, none of these lobbyists is surprised at the Indian Communists’ demand to scrap the deal. "Communists have historically professed an anti-US ideology.

Their opposition is understandable because they have always been against Indo-US relations. At least they are consistent," said one lobbyist who prefers to work behind the scenes and not be named. Dr Agrawal, however, was more lucid: "Unfortunately for India, the Left parties have never been in India’s favor.

The Communists in India did not support Quit India movement in 1942, they sided with China in 1962 (the Sino-India war) and they are doing the same thing now. So their loyalty is questionable, whether it is to India or to themselves. If the same deal was offered by China to India they’d jump on it." Bringing out the contrast in BJP’s opposition to the deal from that of the Communists, Shukla says, "They (the communists) don’t want anything to do with the US, that’s why they are opposing. The BJP, on the other hand, wants close relations with the US, but we only want this issue to be addressed properly."

For Dr Agrawal, the subject is somewhat touchy. For, he is privy to the humungous efforts that went into lobbying the US lawmakers to pass appropriate bills to ratify the deal. "We cashed all our chips in this process," he said. "The Indian community was so active and gung-ho on this because we really believed it was in the interest of both countries… and if this does not go through, next time around at least I will not put my neck out for my country of origin, because it has let me down.

They are practically crucifying our efforts." Dr Agrawal is of the firm opinion that the deal is very balanced. "It has to be mutually beneficial to both countries. You cannot keep on raising points, it doesn’t work that way." Certain Indian American political activists do strongly feel that if the deal does not go through, the community would definitely be wary of taking up such issues on behalf of the Indian Government in future.

"They spent a lot of their time, effort and personal money on this. It was a totally unselfish effort towards the strengthening of Indo-US relations. We all want India to prosper so we made an absolutely unselfish attempt," said one activist. The Hyde Act, engineered by the late Congressman Henry Hyde, states that in the event that India conducts a nuclear test in future, the US would recall whatever fuel and equipment that it may have supplied to India.

"India has already taken a unilateral moratorium that it will not conduct a nuclear test in future, but you never know what will happen in 10 or 20 years — the geo-political situation may change wherein India is forced to do that – and at that point if the US withdraws supplies under the Hyde law, what will happen to India which may have already invested thousands of crores of rupees into the process? We will end up nowhere," says Shukla. Stating that this was the major concern for the BJP’s demand for re-negotiation of the deal, Shukla said all those who are criticizing the BJP for its stand, have not understood the scenario. "Nobody will deny that there is a clause which requires the US President to ratify the deal every year; and the clause that if India conducts a nuclear test, the US may recall all the equipments or whatever," he said.

"It happened in Tarapur, that time we could not get fuel supply from anywhere. We cannot rely on our close relations with the US and hope that it will not react against a future nuke test by India. So, if the BJP raises concerns over this issue, how can that be politics of opportunism?" Shukla believes there is no cause for Indian Americans to feel disheartened by the political stand-off on the deal. "Whosoever in the Indian American community has put effort into this, has worked for their mother country and for better Indo-US relations, will continue to work for it." Ultimately, he says, it is a question of India’s national interests.

"That is paramount," he adds, "Just because some NRIs invest time and money to lobby for a deal, that doesn’t mean every deal should go through; it doesn’t mean that the governments should sign on the dotted line." Every country has its own national interests at heart and works accordingly, Shukla further pointed out. "Even the US has not signed the Kyoto Protocol or ratified the CTBT because they are not comfortable with it. So why the community should feel that just because it has invested time or money, India should finalize the deal?" There are mixed feelings, however, on whether the delay in finalizing the deal would have far reaching implications on Indo-US relations. Dr Agrawal thinks it is now an issue of credibility for the government of India.

"The Indian American community may not lose its face with the US lawmakers or the US administration where local issues are concerned. But what will happen is the Government of India will lose its trust and credibility. You give your power of negotiation away by back-tracking on a deal," he says. Shukla, however, does not agree.

"This is just one issue. There are a number of issues on which both governments are cooperating with each other, including Iran and the War on Terror." Sanjay Puri, of US-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC), echoes Shukla’s views on this. "We need to look at the intention of the Indian Americans behind doing something like this," he explains.

"The idea is to bring the two countries closer, economically, culturally and politically. I think every one of them thought this deal would bridge the gaps in the already strong economic and cultural ties." Puri is clear in his opinion that there’s nothing wrong in the Indian parliament taking its course in deciding on the issue. "Democracy has to play out. Here it is easy for us to say India should do this or do that. India should do what is right for it; it is a democracy of its own.

They will decide things based on what is right for them. In the US too, there is a lot of opposition to what the government wants to do." Puri said the community need not be too disheartened if this deal does not go through. "There will always be other things that will make relations stronger between the two countries. There will always be other issues and opportunities for the community to take up." On a more succinct note, he adds, "The community, of course worked very hard on this, but if you ask someone in the community the difference between Uranium or Thorium, they probably would not know." Whether they agree on the merits of delaying the deal further or not, Indian American lobbyists are now concerned about the time factor in having a logical end to the debate.

"Rather than do a post mortem, it is crucial that there is some forward movement on this," said Puri. "because the opportunities in the US are closing down, not just in terms of time, but with the Presidential primaries coming up, and the debates, war in Iraq, global warming, and so on, it will be difficult to sustain Congress’ interest in something like the Indo-US nuclear deal." Adds Shukla: "With Presidential elections coming up in the US, the deal might go on the back burner; and one does not know how interested a new administration might be on this.

But it is a crucial agreement and we need not rush." Puri, meanwhile, is absolutely optimistic that this will come through. "India is a democracy, they need to examine it, debate it and make sure that it’s in their interest; it’s important that the whole country is behind it, not just one party." Hoping that Indians eventually see it as a deal that will balance out in favor of India and its future generations, Puri concludes, "I don’t think Indian Americans will be totally disheartened if it doesn’t come through, because they do have India’s interest at heart."