Why are they shouting?

The brouhaha over the nuclear deal has created a great more noise than light. Most people don't really know what is happening, and it does not help that our esteemed MPs are choosing to exaggerate and shout rather than debate the merits or demerits of the deal. In a few short paragraphs, here are the bare bones of the deal:

What is India's nuclear position?
India's nuclear energy program began in the 1950s with a great deal of involvement of the United States through the Atoms for Peace program, including helping build and providing nuclear fuel for the nuclear reactor in Tarapur, as well as through scientific cooperation. Differences arose in 1968 with India's opposition to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT recognises five states (US, USSR/Russia, UK, France and China) as Nuclear Weapons States on the basis that they tested nuclear weapons before 1967. India considers this discriminatory. [i] Signatories to the NPT are allowed access to each other's civilian nuclear facilities. After 1974, when India tested its first nuclear device, the US formed the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), to oversee sales of nuclear material. In 1978 the US Congress passed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act but the US continued to provide some nuclear fuel to India under a 1963 treaty with India until 1980, when it passed on those responsibilities to France.
In 1992 the NSG limited sales of nuclear technology and materials to non-Nuclear Weapons States only if their nuclear reactors were under full scale safeguards implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). France continued to provide nuclear fuel to India until it too adhered to this provision in 1996. China and Russia have supplied India with nuclear fuel after this period. Nuclear energy in 2006 accounted for 3 GigaWatts of electricity, or 2.6 per cent of India's electricity generation. [ii]
India plans on expanding the amount of electricity generated by nuclear energy to 20 GWe by 2020 (this is from nuclear plants already under construction). Except that we have a lack of Uranium. Most of our Uranium is low quality, except some newly discovered deposits that have as yet to be mined. Our plants are running at under 40% capacity when they could be running at above 90%. In another words we are paying more than twice the costs of electricity generated by nuclear energy because we are stopped from buying nuclear fuel because of NPT and NSG guidelines.

What does the nuclear deal do?
The nuclear deal will allow us to buy some (though not all) nuclear fuel and technology from the US, and it commits the US (which is the most important member of the NSG) to convince other members of the NSG to change their guidelines so that India can also buy fuel from them.

What do we pay for this deal?
Money. The deal allows them to sell us nuclear fuel and technology and it allows us to buy it from them. That is the bare bones. The complications are that we will have to put 14 out of our 22 nuclear plants under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and promise to use those reactors only for civilian purposes. This will apply to most of the new reactors that will be built.

Does this mean we cannot build, or test, nuclear weapons?
We can build as many nuclear weapons as we want, as long as the fuel is from the military nuclear facilities. If we test nuclear weapons we have a problem, with the US at the least. The US is bound by its Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Hyde Act, 2006, that will mean it cannot sell us fuel if we test nuclear weapons. The Agreed Text of the nuclear deal does not talk about nuclear testing, but simply says that national laws will apply. This is what happened in the earlier Tarapur case. The US had to stop supplying fuel under its own laws, and passed the responsibilities on to others. In reality we don't know when, or if, we will have to test nuclear weapons, and if and when it happens, we can try and negotiate a position then. As things stand now, if we test, the US will have to stop supplying us with nuclear fuel & equipment. The only way to beat that is to convince the US to change its laws.

Why do people dislike the deal?
Critics of the deal feel that we are losing the independence of our policy options by signing up to this deal. We will have to put a large part of our nuclear infrastructure under international supervision, and if things go wrong we will have bought large expensive nuclear energy plants and not be able to buy fuel for them. They insist that we should concentrate on clean coal and other alternative sources of energy. The reality is that we don't have clean coal technology and the coal we use for electricity production is immensely polluting. Solar, and hydrothermal power is unreliable, expensive and just not enough.

The other main reason that people dislike the deal is that they feel it is an excuse by which the US will try and control India. In reality the deal is just a civilian nuclear deal, not a military compact. India is bound by its own laws, nobody else's, this does not change that. the deal also allows us to buy nuclear fuel and technology from anybody and also to buy enough fuel for the lifetime of the nuclear reactors. If the US, for any reason, terminates the deal, it has to pay compensation.

Bottom line
We are a growing power, with a hungry economy. We need energy, and we also need to make new relationships. This is part of that process. It could be a better deal, but you don't negotiate with a superpower and get everything we want. In the real world life is about compromises, to quote a former US Ambassador who I know well, "What people need to remember is that both sides were negotiating as much by what they left out as by what they put in. Their objectives were largely, but not entirely, compatible. India can demonstrate that it is not bound by unilateral US requirements. The US can demonstrate, albeit with a little more difficulty, that it can fully abide by US law under the 123 agreement. Neither side can get the comfort involved in having its maximum desires spelled out."

[i]. Indian government position on NPT and other treaties dealing with non-proliferation: http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/embassy_non_proliferation.htm .
[ii]. "Nuclear Power in India" Briefing Paper 45, Uranium Information Centre, http://www.uic.com.au/nip45.htm.

From the Blog: The Indian Shitizen
______________________________________________________________

How much democracy do we have?

As someone with good appetite for entertainment, the buildup to the 60^th anniversary of my nation’s freedom has been quite extraordinary. I have always felt that we Indians do not have a healthy positive attitude, a feeling of happiness of what we have achieved even though there are some failures. One of the main culprits, in my view, is the Indian media. With most of the country’s news media in the hands of political parties, an unbiased joyful celebration from all quarters never seemed possible. But for this glorious Wednesday, most of the news media came around from their usual doldrums to bring forth the various achievements India has made. Especially CNNibn has provided one of the best tribute and analysis package for the Indian history. From ‘the 10 most defining moments’ to ‘special state of the nation’ from “sportsperson of the country’ to ‘path to future’, the news channel has certainly topped my expectations.

One question that has been put in the fore, in all the forums, is ‘whether India is free?’ or ‘Does democracy in India actually exists?’. Most of the political experts and historians seem to agree that India has achieved laudable democracy and freedom but there is lot of grounds yet to be covered. And for once I take their word. But to my disappointment, and great surprise, a majority of the participants (mostly young audience) do not seem to agree. They all seem to converge that India is not free, not even for a coupon.

As I spend the next few hours in reading all their statements and definitions on democracy, freedom, free will and free society, the only emotion I can sense is depression and to an extent anger and nothing remotely close to happy. There were titles like ‘…democracy-the great farce or … freedom, are you joking?’. I furiously wrote some comments but still I cannot assuage myself. Even my brother sitting in his own bedroom chatting through his pc claims he does not have freedom (the one word answer he gave was “NO”, both caps). They all seem to have found the social ills that they think have somehow slipped everybody else’s radars. In their haste to stand unique, they have all bought the same shirt.

The issues that our society faces today are more visible than what any of these i-see-bad-things citizens think. Problems such as gaping rich-poor division, struggling rural development and of course the ever-present religious conflicts, to name a few, are pretty visible for a casual eye. Most of the population understands these problems and they acknowledge it too. But whining about the symptoms never helped a doctor.

Very rarely did someone take time to actually see the complexities and uniqueness in the issues facing our nation. It is pointless to compare our country with another for hardly few nations have so much diversity in just about everything as ours. Linguistic divisions with deep roots, religious conflicts fueled by often misdirected but strong sentiments and of course the mostly crippling minority appeasements. These issues did not just come out of the blues, but have strong hold in our history and they just cannot be expected to wither way in a wink. With 3 times the population as the United States and only a third of its land size, it requires more than our old, rusty and semi-working government mill.

But look at the brighter side, the side these educated citizens will only acknowledge and not appreciate. Although it is our democratic responsibility to point the wrongs in the system, we also owe to the nation to appreciate her accomplishments. The success record of ISRO, global gallop of IT industries, steadfast progress in nuclear sector and few more are certainly something we should be proud of. In everyday aspects, the improved life style and associated luxuries of the general public is very much visible and that is something that even someone like me who came from a simple township can attest to.
I surfed through the internet and found some interesting predictions.

John Strachey had said "there was no Indian nation or country in the past: nor would there be one in the future".

Winston Churchill had decried India's ability for self-governance and Robert Dahl among the doomsayers had said "that India can sustain democratic institutions seems on the face of it highly improbable".

Writing in the 1970's, journalist and old-India hand James Cameron had claimed "prominent women in Indian public life all came from the upper class, English-speaking backgrounds... there was not and never will be a working-class woman with a function in Indian politics".

Sixty years into self-governance, seems like Mother India prevailed after all.

Yes there are many problems that leech our nation, but they all fade away to nothing when she basks in her glorious 6oth birthday and everyone is invited.

And yes, She is free, whether you appreciate it or not.