Betraying History: Losing the Indo-US nuclear deal

This week on Devil's advocate, an incredulous Ambassador Mulford told Karan Thapar that he did not quite understand the rationale behind India's rejection of the nuclear deal. In doing so, he perhaps echoed the views of millions of Indians who feel they have been let down by the political establishment. It's not that simple, though. The ruling class in both India and the United States is elected by the people and therefore one must fix the blame firmly on the respective electorates. For one, there are many worthies in Washington who see India's nuclear programme as a greater threat to international security than that of Iran. What is even more regrettable is that there are several more who cannot distinguish the largest democracy in the world and the intentions of its legitimate political representatives from those of a rogue regime in the Middle East. The Indians haven't done much better either: We are ruled by a family servant of the Nehru Gandhi household and held to ransom by a Left wing organization that has never done so much as to publicly recognize the legitimacy of our constitution and democratic state.

The arranged marriage between India and the United States is facing its first severe test. A key to the success of an arranged marriage is the ability to let bygones be bygones and keep looking ahead. The democratic process is such that it sometimes leads to disappointments. As long as we stick to democratic principles, things will work out in the long run. For instance, had Manmohan Singh bypassed Parliament and approved the nuclear deal, it would have sent out the wrong message to the United States and to the world. One should not give the impression that our legislative process is subject to subversion. In some ways, the time for the nuclear deal was not ripe: as long as the US sees the deal as a generous giveaway rather than part of a natural process of history, it is somewhat beneath India's honour to accept it.

It so happened that Dept. of state spokesman Sean McCormick told a press gathering that the deal would be off the table were India to test a nuclear weapon, a statement that set the Indian press on fire. This shows just how much attitudes in India and in the US are yet to evolve. A State Dept spokesman should have known that such a statement could have serious repercussions. On the flip side, the Indian media should know when to overlook a callous, offhand remark from a middle ranked US official.

There is however a sense of doom in both administrations, a sense that this was a precious "one time opportunity" that might not come across again. I beg to differ: the nuclear deal was initiated in circumstances that made a military alliance between India and America a geopolitical necessity. As such, it would be naive to say that the deal is "dead". The nuclear accord is only part of a larger idea whose time has not passed. It is bound to resurface, only, in the future, it might be called the "ICBM deal" instead of the "nuclear deal"! A larger military agreement between the two countries will become imperative in a decade or so.

But does the deal have an immediate future? Perhaps. It is unlikely that the Left parties will have so much power after the 2009 elections. And the US will also have a new President in January next year. The Oracle takes a look at each of the three American frontrunners for this job and looks at the future.

John McCain (R-AZ): The 71 year old Republican Senator from Arizona is the face of “best case scenario”. Although he hails from a slightly older generation of politicians and is, therefore, capable of the occasional regressive remark such as “The next President of the Unites States must be a Christian”, he brings a level of commitment and sincerity to the table that is unmatched among his contenders. Think of the last summer, when McCain’s campaign, flayed incessantly by conservative Republicans over his plan to institute a ‘guest worker program’; a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, showed all the signs of sinking without a trace. And yet the old man persevered and declared proudly that he was the man who “liked to tackle the big issues”. McCain has criticized Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war, has taken the moral high ground on the torture of detainees and supported President Bush’s plan for a surge in Iraq (a move that turned the war torn country around and left nay-saying Democrats with egg on their faces). You can trust John McCain to do the right thing. On the pressing issue of immigration, he showed a readiness to walk right across the aisle and shake hands with his most bitter opponent (Democrat Ted Kennedy of Massachussetts), just so they could have a workable plan; the so-called “Grand Bargain”. McCain, with his firm grasp of state policy, will be the first to realize just how crucial an alliance with India really is.

Hillary Clinton (D-NY): The only thing that really matters in diplomacy is common interests. Fortunately, integrity does not figure in the equation, which is why the Oracle sees little harm to India in a second coming of the Clintons. We all know that Hillary voted against the nuclear deal in the US Senate, even when as many as 85 of the 100 Senators voted in favour of the motion! But then, Hillary also voted for the Iraq war, for the Patriot Act and for declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization! The Oracle opines, therefore, that there is no reason to take any of Hillary’s opinions to heart… each and every one of her statements is just a brief stopover on the way to the next… the New York Senator evidently does not take the distinction between truth and lies very seriously. If at all she were to become President, it would be a relatively simple matter to get some prominent business magnates, who have an obvious vested interest in a wider India-US alliance, to bring her over to our side. Fairly enough, the US media often describes Hillary as a robot; all we have to do is hack into her system and program her the way we want.

Barrack Hussein Obama (D-IL): We have to be prepared for the worst. He is still a whisker short of Hillary and a mile behind her in experience. But all that flattery about “being the shining city on the hill” and the marching up and down and waving of flags has gone to the head of millions of lower and lower middle class Americans, who through their incessant complaining over the little bumps of everyday life, have finally convinced themselves that they are “oppressed” by the corporate powers that be. Perhaps they should ask themselves if they are as much the slaves of their “corporate masters” as they are slaves to their petty cravings and comforts. Such are the crowds that are cheering to the schoolboy rhetoric of Barrack Hussein Obama. Call me a bitter cynic but I have always believed that politics is the game of scoundrels and that the baby-faced blokes are the most rotten of all. Obama has nothing but hot air to offer the people and it is quite likely that his policy will revolve around clichés. One such cliché is the bogey of Nuclear non-proliferation and one can expect Obama to evoke it in full measure against India. It is for eventualities like these that India should be careful not to become “dependent” on the US for weaponry and should try to establish itself as an independent economic superpower. For all we know, Obama could renege on any policy promise any day and hand the world to China on a platter. Should anyone ask why he refuses to take a stand for an international axis of democracies, a few quotes from Lincoln to Roosevelt to Reagan, a quick mention of the immigrants’ dream, complete with the imagery of Ellis Island; will make his supporters choke with emotion and comfort them to sleep.

At the end of the day what really matters is the turn of geopolitical events. The alliance will come into being only if both countries have a common interest. It perhaps makes little sense to talk about "missing an opportunity". If the US does not need to offer something of this description again, then chances are that India wont want it either. But yes, for the moment, both democracies have betrayed history and the dictators get to live another day. It is near certain that they are living on borrowed time.