UNCLEAR ARGUMENTS
The proposed Indo-US Agreement on nuclear cooperation has a long history behind it. For the past
three to four decades the imperialist club, headed by USA, has been pressurizing rest of the world, including
the socialist countries, to embrace neoliberal capitalism and become subservient to them. Towards the end of
eighties they succeeded in breaking up the socialist camp and halting the experiments to build socialism. The
attempt to force the third world countries to accept the policy of LPG (Liberalization-Privatization and
Globalization) was resisted, in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations for some time with India at it’s
leadership. In 1990 India succumbed or rather was betrayed. The leading role in the sell-out was played by
no other a person than Shri. Montek Singh Ahluwadia, the present Vice Chairman of Planning Commission.
The big bourgoisie in India felt that they have much to gain if India became part of an open global economy.
Since then the forces for globalization and against globalization have been engaged in a tug-of-war. The
globalization forces have been gaining ground inch by inch. The policy of non alignment ceased to have the
original relevance because there is no more any socialist camp. However it has acquired a new meaning: a
camp of imperialist nations (the G-7 countries) with USA at its head and a camp of third world countries
under neocolonial regimes. India actually belongs to the second camp, but the government had decided to
join the camp of the imperialists, by becoming a subordinate ally to the USA. For the past decade and half
India was being pushed step by step towards the US camp. Initially it was on the economic front. But our
stance towards the invasion of Iraq by the US and the part we played in it have been several steps, at one
stroke, towards the American Camp. The present leadership of the congress has no qualms about it. They
believe, perhaps honestly, tha it is good for India - or at least good for the big capital in India. The question
whether US is a peace loving, democratic nation is answered verbally in strong affirmative terms and in action
through equally strong denial. The entire history of US, right from its birth as a colony, till date is one of high
handedness. The genes of its civilization originate from the annihilation of millions and millions of local ‘Indians’,
enslavement of millions and millions of black Africans, and are carried across past centuries through
criminal invasions and machiavelliam machinizations, through Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Afganistan, Iraq.... The
legacy of American Civilization is one of violence. USA is the only country in history which used atomic bombs
to kill civilians, in spite of the fact that it was not necessary to win the war and against the advices of many.
And, then, it dosen’t want other nations to acquire the capacity to build nuclear weapons. Dr. P.K. Iyengar
former Director of BARC and Chairman of AEC and one of the chief architects of the first Pokhran experiment
writes in an article “The Indo-US Nuclear Deal”:
10
The history of attempts to restrain new nations from acquirring the capability to produce
nuclear weapons goes back to late 1940’s and early 1950’s, after the use of nuclear weapons on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The Americans felt that the science and technology were so
complicated that other nations would not be able to achieve a break through. However the Soviet
Union, UK, France and China successively detonated nuclear devices. This frightened the Americans.”
In fact they became panicky.They executed two scientists, the Rosenburgs, on the charge that they
leaked nuclear information to the soviets. The US became a nation possessed by paranoia. The irony is that
even before the dropping of atomic bombs in Nagasaki andHiroshima, scientists had warned, in what became
famous as Frank Report (Appendix-II), against use of nuclear weapons. They had warned that nuclear science
is not a secret one, that the basic principles of making bombs are known to a large number of physicists
in various nations and that they will be forced to make their own nuclear weapons, which many of them can
make, and soon an ‘arms race’ will be set in motion from which there will be no turning back. And that was
exactely what happened. The American politicians in their arrogance and foolishness thought that they can
prevent other nations from acquiring the technology of nuclear explosives. They propounded the Atoms for
Peace plan in mid ‘50s and took initiative to form the IAEA in 1958. Ostensively a program for cooperation
on peaceful uses, it was a ruse to control the spread of nuclear weapon technology. They came out with the
proposal to ban atmospheric nuclear explosions. India willingly joined then. But soon China exploded its
first nuclear bomb. China joined the nuclear club. There were five of them now: USA, UK, France, USSR
and China. Together they termed themselves as Nuclear Weapon States and all other countries as Non
Weapon States and came forward with the idea of NPT. Obviously, other states would not take it willingly.
By 1965 India had mastered the technology for spent fuel processing and extracting plutonium, but did
not go for nuclear weapons because of a number of reasons. Its attempts to obtain umbrella protection from
advanced countries, however, failed. In the mean time the NPT was formulated, in 1968. It was blatantly
discriminatory. It required non weapon states to abstain from attempting to make nuclear weapons. In return
they were promised help in nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The nuclear weapon states will, however,
retain their arsenal which went on multiplying due to cold war. India decided not to sign this discriminatory
NPT and upheld it’s sovereign right to acquire nuclear weapons when need arose. And soon the ‘need’
arose. It saw in Pakistan and China two permanent enemies. The political and defense experts saw in nuclear
weapons a strong deterrent. This led to the first Pokhran test of 1974. This gave another shock to the
Americans. Already their policy of ‘containment’ against China had met with failure. In Vietnam they were
on the verge of defeat. Now, India too has exploded its bomb that too without their CIA getting any inkling of
it. Even though they new that India will never be a military threat to them, India’s success in detonating the
nuclear device, which was still not a deliverable weapon, unsettled them. It was like a black man intruding into an exclusive white club. They decided to ‘punish’ India and ordered ‘sanctions’ against it. The Indian government,
the scientists and the engineers accepted the challenge and struggled on to complete and push forward the programmes that had been started with foreign collaboration - from the initial Heavy Water Reactor in Rajasthan, to the totally Indian 540 MW advanced reactors in Tharapur and to the 500 MW Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor in Kalpakkam. In the meantime countries like South Africa, Brazil and Argentina developed their own cpabilities for nuclear explosives. It became clear to America that no nation could be stopped from pursuing research and development and innovate technology for becoming a nuclear power. They started the
game of reward and punizhment. A caucus called Nuclear Supply Group - a united front of imperialist interests
- came into existence to black mail those nations which did not sign NPT by denying supply of equipment and
materials for development of nuclear power reactors and even in other areas.
India resisted all threats and inducements and held its position to keep its sovereign rights and went on
to further successful test explosions in 1998 and declared itself as a nuclear weapon country. Whether this was
a politically correct thing to do is a different question. Possession of nuclear arsenals by India, Pakistan and
China would in no way ease tensions existing between them. The ‘cold and hot war’ with Pakistan continues.
India has to go on increasing the defence budget every year, starving resources for development and social
security. There is no military solution to India’s long standing disputes with either Pakistan or China. But, this
has nothing to do with the stance of America or NSG. They were trying to behave as ‘over lords’. India raised
the issue of total disarmament and of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -CTBT. Majority of the nations who
were party to NPT accepted and ratified CTBT. But the US Congress refused to ratify it. America never
accept what others say; others have to obey what America orders. That is how they feel. America declared
itself to be the ‘World Police Man’.
Thus it went on. India went on developing not only its weapon capacity but also its delivery capacity
through a series of missiles testing. Indian scientists and engineers proved their mettle. US gradually began to
recognise the strategic importance of India and that the harder it hits India, the stronger the latter will become
both in science and technology and the slower will be the rate at which Indian markets will be opened up for
American goods. They began to hide the stick by making it look like large carrots and initiated a process for
establishing ‘strategic partnership’ including cooperation on civil nuclear power. On the Indian side, the
political leaders, the bureaucrats and the business community were all gradually recognizing the rich dividends
they can obtain by becoming a ‘Friend of America’ albeit a subordinate one. So, as the old sanskrit saying
goes: “What the patient desired, the physician prescribed.” A sugar coated agreement was signed on 18th
July 2005. The main points with respect to the nuclear policy were the following:
(i) The US will, for the present, recognize that India is a de-facto nuclear weapon country. But it will
not be ready to admit India into the exclusive nuclear club formally. It will not immediately object India’s right
for developing nuclear weapons.
(ii) The US and it’s allies in the NSG will cooperate with India in the area of civil nuclear energy
through commercial channels and participation in international efforts.
(iii) India will accept the discriminatory NPT, accept the Club of Five as superior nations and their right
to impose conditions and police activities, it will put its civil nuclear programme under IAEA safe
guards.
Matters moved very quickly, especially during and after the visit of President Bush to India. This has
resulted in the following understanding:
(i) India will separate its civil and military programmes and put the civil programmes under IAEA
safeguards
(2) Which all facilities are to be placed under civilian category and which under military category can be
decided by India.
(3) Indian government will be free to augment its military part.
(4) America will persuade NSG to exempt India from the restrictions presently placed on it.
(5) US will, also, persuade IAEA for an India - specific safeguard agreement.
On the face of it US appeared to be sincere. However it was a very complex situation, negotiating
simultaneously with US, NSG and IAEA. The separation of civilian and military establishments proved to be
tough. The Indian nuclear programme was built with emphasis on nuclear power generation. The bomb plans
were added on to it. The first and second Pokhran tests were carried out almost entirely through civilian
establishments. It was almost impossible to separate civilian and military laboratories, scientists, equipments
etc. Further, the US began to dictate as to what facilities must become civilian and therefore subject to IAEA
safeguards. Non-proliferation Ayatollahs in US were, in fact, deciding terms. Even our oldest reactors like
CIRUS as well as 65% of nuclear power stations in operation or under construction will have to be placed
under safeguards, whether there has been any contribution from abroad or not. What the NSG can demand
justly is that the materials and equipment they supply should not go into the making of nuclear weapons. But
they want all future power stations including fast breeder reactors producing power to be put under IAEA
inspection. After imposing such conditions, to say that ‘we are not questioning your rights to make bombs’ is
sheer mockery. Not even a gram of plutonium generated in our power stations can be diverted for weapons.
The author is not a protagonist of nuclear weapons, but do believe that neither USA or other NSG countries
have any right to interfere with the sovereignty of our country.
The nature of IAEA safeguards are both tight and loose at the same time - tight in binding us, loose in
interpretation by them. Even our R and D will be under the control and inspection of the IAEA. This will
infringe upon the sovereign right of the country to innovate technologies even in civilian power sector. Sub- stantial R and D is necessary to establish and consolidate new processes and improve efficiencies and this
cannot be done with the IAEA constantly looking over the shoulders of our scientists and engineers. For
example Brazil has developed a new and more efficient centrifuge process and is having trouble asserting its
intellectual property rights in the face of mandated IAEA inspections. It may be noted, once again, that the
author is not arguing for large scale development of nuclear power or for Intellectual Property Rights. IPR is
an ethically unacceptable concept. The humanity cannot survive this century without uninhibited sharing of
knowledge and caring for each other. The author is against the appropriation of all ‘Intellectual Properties’ by
the US and its allies.
India has also agreed to negotiate an additional protocol with the IAEA whose terms and conditions are
not defined. But one thing the citizens can be sure of: they will never know it in full and their voice will not be
heard. This additional protocol invented in mid nineties are based on the suspicion that certain states are
producting Weapons of Mass Destruction. USA and NSG countries have stocks of WMD which can
destroy the entire world several times. They are extraordinarily intolerant of the idea of progressive disarmament.
The new protocol is highly intrusive and infringes on the right of a nation to independently pursue R and
D not only in nuclear science and technology, but also in all areas of S and T. We have seen this in the case of
Iraq - the barbarian attitude of US and NSG countries. It is being repeated in Iran and North Korea. We have
also seen the attitude of our own government in this matter. Can and should India subject its scientists to
intrusive instructions by an outside body when vital interests are involved?
The benefits of Indo-US deal are trumpeted as a panacea for the expansion of nuclear power in our
energy sector, offering energy security for the future. This essentially means buying nuclear power stations
and virtually saying good-bye to our well established nuclear power programme based on the PHWR. There
is no economic analysis of imported nuclear power stations nor a comparison with other sources such as
coal, oil etc.
The testimonies before the US Congress, the additions to Bush proposal which have been recommended
by the Congressional Committees have all come as a shock to those who follow the intricacies of the
nuclear deal. It is so obvious that in spite of the exemptions to be approved by the Congress, the President of
the US will have to certify every year, in detail, that he is satisfied with the behaviour and programmes of India
in the nuclear field. He has to certify that no benefit is derived by the Indian strategic programme from the
external assistance derived through this deal. This is a very dangerous proposition, for in such a complicated
interaction it is very difficult to provide clear evidence required for such a certification. This will result in (a)
restrictions on our strategic programmes (b) free US access to all information created by our scientists and
technologists.
Arguing on the above indicated vein Dr. Iyengar concluded his paper thus:
“As a scientist I feel that the non-proliferation agenda of the US, trying to restrain acquisition
of even simple technologies, like that of enrichment, is bound to fail. If one looks at the growth of
electronics and the innovations that have been brought about by a deeper understanding of semiconductor
physics and innovations in making devices including computers, imaging devices etc. it is
clear that the sovereign right to be able to develop science and technology is important and necessary
for any country. Surrendering these basic rights is dangerous and will be doing injustice to the
future generation in India.”
This was in August 26, 2006 when the Prime Minister met with seven senior nuclear scientists for a
discussion on the Indo-US Nuclear Cooperation Deal. Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan a former Chairman of Atomic
Energy Regulatory Board too was there, besides two other former Chairmen of AEC, a former Director of
BARC, a former CMD of NPC and a former director of IGCAR.
A few months later, on 18th December 2006 the US amended its Atomic Energy Act 1956, and the
amendments were incorporated in the Henry S. Hyde - India Peaceful Nuclear Energy Act 2006 that has
become the law of the Land (US) on the same day. On this occasion Dr. P.K.Iyengar and Justice V.R.Krishna
Iyer wrote the following letter to all the Hon’ble Members of the Parliament.
“India is negotiating with the US a bilateral agreement for transfer of nuclear materials and technologies
from the US and other Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Countries, which was so far denied to India for more
than three decades following the Indian Peaceful Nuclear Experiment (PNE) at Pokran in 1974.
The lifting of the US sanctions against India and resumption of supply of nuclear materials and technology
to India is subject to India’s compliance with the provisions of the said Hyde Act 2006 in the bilateral
agreement. Any non-compliance (real or alleged) shall put back India where it is now.
The following are the implictions of the Hyde Act 2006 on India’s sovereignty and nuclear activities:
i The US assurance on supply of uranium fuel to India is deceptive and illusory; Section (102); Section
103 (a) (5) & (6);
ii The US certification of India’s nuclear activities is totally uncalled for; Section 104(g)(2); Section
(g) (2) (H);
iii India’s nuclear installations shall be perpetually under the US scanner; Section 104(d) (5) (B) (iii)
iv The US authorities shall be peeping on India’s all nuclear activities; Section 104(g)(1);
v The US intends to have right to discipline India; Section 104(g)(2)-D;
vi The US will scuttle India’s defence strategies; Section 106;
vii The US will be interfering with India’s overall nuclear policy; Section 103(b)(2);
viii India’s sovereignty will be compromised and foreign policy dictated by the US; Section 103(b)(4);Section 104(c)(2) (G); Section 104(g) (2) (E);
ix Extraneous issues not related to nuclear sciences are being forced upon India; Section 103(b) (3);
Section 104(g) (2) (K).
Question No.1: Before we accept such humiliating conditions, we must ask:
(a) Do we need the US support for our nuclear programme?
NO. Because
We have achieved enough success in spite of 33 years of world sanctions.We are a recognised
country in all branches of nuclear sciences and technology.
(b) Do we need uranium from the US?
NO. Because
(i) India is producing 3900 MWe today and has enough uranium for 10,000 MWe for next 50 years.
(ii) India is also developing fast-breeder technology and uranium-thorium-uranium reactor cycle and
has 50 years to perfect this technology.
QUESTION No.2: Is India keen to sign the Bilateral Agreement nonetheless?
YES. Because,
The Honourable Prime Minister of India has stated: “India follows a Parliamentary model, as specified
in our Constitution, wherein treaty making powers rest with the Executive.”
QUESTION No.3: Whether under our Constitution, Executive has unfettered powers to enter into
any treaty/bilateral/multilateral agreement with any other country or countries without taking into confidence
the Parliament inter alia the people of India? If not, what should be the course of action?
“NO” is the answer. Parliament must discuss the matter before the Agreement is signed.
This is the conclusion of the report dated 8th January 2001 submitted by the National Law Commission
set up to review the working of the Constitution with respect to Treaty Making Powers of the
Executive under the Constitution of India, as also the manner in which they shall be implemented. Hence
under our Constitution, the Treaty Makiing power is not vested in the Executive or President. It is squarely
placed within the domain of the Parliament. Theoretically speaking, Parliament can by making a law prohibit
the Executive to enter into a particular Treaty or a particular kind of Treaties; similarly it can also direct the
Executive to enter into a particular Treaty or may disapprove or reject a treaty signed and/or ratified by the
Executive. It is a different matter that Parliament has not chosen to make a law in that behalf....”
Several other scientists and public men began to come out with similar opinions. The left political
parties opposed the deal. The currently employed scientists of DAE, of course, have only two options - either
to support the deal or to resign. But that was not sufficient for the Prime Minister, who now considers this as a personal issue, an issue of pride, and perhaps, more. He recruited an army of ‘scientists’ to convince the
public that (a) there is an energy crisis, which is the reason for poverty in India, (b) this crisis can be resolved
only by nuclear energy (c) this requires immediate signing of the agreement with US and that (d) this will not,
in anyway, affect our sovereignty.
The arguments put forth by the government and its speakers to convince us that the agreement will in no
way affect our freedom are not the least convincing. The pronouncements of the spokes persons of US
government, besides Bush himself clearly declare: India should behave properly, that is the way we want, and
if not they would go back on the agreement. The proposition that Hyde Law is not applicabe to India is silly.
Of course it is a law of the US and is applicable to US government only. No country can, in principle, enact
laws which are applicable to other countries. But this law enjoins US government to act in a particular way
with regard to India: withdraw from the agreement if India does not ‘behave’ properly. If that does not affect
us, then why in the first place we sign such a degrading agreement? The situation is not different even when we
decide to withdraw from the agreement. It is always the leaf that gets pierced and not the thorn. The US
President and his spokes persons have made it clear, what they expect from India: to stand by the US in its
fight against terrorism, meaning thereby supporting its own terrorist- like activitities in Iran, N.Korea or
anywhere in the world; to support US in all its acts of self-aggrandisement, even at the expense of the poor
people of India. But why US is eager to have the 123 Agreement with India? India’s policy initiatives are
certainly a cause for concern for the US. An analysis-India’s Energy Security Challenge - by the Institute for
the Analysis of Global Security, Washington January 21, 2004 gives the US perspective.
• India - Pakistan - Iran gas pipeline (Iran has 27.5 trillion cubic meters of gas reserves
making Iran the second major gas rich country and fourth major gas producer in the world)
• India is making investment in overseas oilfields, for example in Africa, especially in
Sudan, where India has invested $ 750 million in oil, and Nigeria, with which India reached a deal
last November enabling it to purchase about 44 million barrels of crude oil per year on a long term
basis. India recently finalized a contract in Syria for the exploration, development and production of
petroleum with a Syrian company. Sakhalin, in Russia, and Vietnam and Myanmar in Sourtheast
Asia - the investments are projected to reach $ 3 billion within a few years.
• To support energy security interests in Central Asia, India has already stationed troops
in Tajikistan, provided it with $ 40 million aid package and undertook to refurbish an air base near
the Tajik capital Dushanbe. India is also pursuing relations with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan.
• But the most attractive oil domain outside the Persian Gulf is the Caspian Basin where
India is trying to gain a foothold.
India’s policy of source diversification has problematic implications. First, many of the coun-tries with which India is dealing are known for severe violations of human rights, sponsorship of
terrorist activities, and general misuse of oil revenues. Further enrichment of oil suipplying countries
like Sudan, Syria and Iran is not in the interests of India, a country which itself is a prime target of
Islamist terrorism. Second, the exploration of overseas oilfields, especially in the area of the South
China sea, could bring India in direct competition with fellow Asian countries like China and Malaysia.
Most importantly, this policy contributes to accelerating global depletion of non-Middle East oil
reserves, and will lead India and the rest of the world to a point in which dependence on the region
woul be far stronger.”
This perception also could be the basis for the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act. In a prepared text
presented to the House International Relations Committee, (April 5, 2006) taking testimonies on the India
specific Hyde Act, the US Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice gave the following reasons for the Indo
US Nuclear deal:
First, the Initiative will deepen our strategic partnership.
Second, the Initiative will enhance energy security.
Third, the Initiative will benefit the environment.
Fourth, the Initiative will create opportunities for U.S. business.
Finally, the Initiative will enhance the international nuclear nonproliferation regime.
In a written statement she stated:
• Civil nuclear cooperation with India will help it meet its rising energy needs without
increasing its reliance on unstable foreign sources of oil and gas, such as nearby Iran.
• Diversifying India’s energy sector will help to alleviate the competition between
India, the United States, and other rapidly expanding economies for scarce carbon based
energy resources, thereby lessening pressure on global energy prices.
• To meet its mounting power demands, the Indian government plans to double its
capacity to produce electricity within the next eight years. With Congressional endorsement of the
U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative, a large proportion of that growth would be in clean
nuclear technology.
• Currently, only two percent of India’s total power generation comes from nuclear
energy. Given the opportunity, India plans to invest quickly in additional civil nuclear reactors so that,
by 2020, its capacity to produce electricity from clean nuclear technology would reach 20,000
megawatts - a six-fold increase. Since the historic March 2 announcement, senior officials in India’s
atomic energy establishment have indicated their desire to exceed the 20,000 megawatts target through the accelerated import of high-unit capacity foreign reactors to further reduce their dependence
on dirty coal and fossil fuels.
• Under this plan and further long-term objectives, approximately 20 percent of India’s
total energy production would eventually be met by nuclear technology.
• In 2005, India’s net imports of oil totaled approximately 1.7 million barrels per day.
Even with conservative estimates, these imports are predicted to grow to 2 million barrels per day
within only the next four years. Much of that oil is imported from unstable sources. As part of the
newly launched, U.S.- India energy Dialogue, the United States has committed to help India secure
other stable sources of energy.
• Specifically, India has agreed to place all future civil reactors - both breeder and
thermal - under permanent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and to continue
its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. India will also place a majority (14 out of 22) of its
existing and planned power reactors under safeguards by 2014. Under this initiative, 65 percent of
India’s thermal reactors will be brought under safeguards, a figure that the Indian government has
said could rise as high as 90 percent as India procures more civil reactors in the next 15 years.
During oral deposition Rice stated:
“The initiative will also create opportunities for American jobs, as many as 3,000-5,000 new direct jobs,
and about 10 to 15,000 indirect jobs as we engage in nuclear commerce with India. Nuclear cooperation will
provide a new market for American nuclear firms, as well as assist India’s economic development. By helping
India’s economy to grow, we would help our own.”:
The government has not, so far, succeeded in convincing anybody that the Indo-US deal is not onesided,
that it is not restrictive on India and that it makes India a ‘subordinate ally’. It is , therefore, trying to road-roller
the Indian mind by the propoganda that without nuclear energy India’s progress will come to a halt and that
the poor will remain poor and that for nuclear energy we have to sign this agreement. All these arguments are
absurd and wrong. Prakash Karat, Gen. Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) says why the
Party opposes the deal in the following words.
“Without going into the complex and technical issues concerning civilian nuclear cooperation, it
is necessary to take a wider look at the implications of the agreement. Is this only a nuclear cooperation
deal or is it part of a wider agreement? If so, does it protect our capacity for an independent
foreign policy and how will it affect our sovereignty? One can legitimately question if India should
partner the United States in the global democracy enterprise. “Regime change” and implanting of
democracy have yielded horrific results in Iraq.
The nuclear cooperation deal is only one part of the wide ranging alliance that the UPA govern-ment has forged with the United States. This was spelt out by the Indian Prime Minister and the
American President in the joint statement in July 2005 in Washington. This agreement covers political,
economic, military and nuclear cooperation. This alliance entails not just nuclear cooperation
but talks of the two countries promoting global democracy, revamping the Indian economy to facilitate
large scale investment by the United States and a strategic military collaboration.”
After all, behind the apparent lack of coherency and clarity in the arguments of the Prime Minister and
his cohorts, there is a clear purpose: to tie India with theUS as a subordinate ally. The big bourgoise in India
expects to gain from this. The poor will suffer. The left cannot accept it. However, without support from the
masses, especially the middle class the left may not be able to stop this. The masses are confused. For taking
an informed stand they should know the historical development of nuclear power, its present status and future
perspectives.
Continued
