Scrap US-India Nuclear Deal!

Manmohan Singh Govt. Resign!

No Strategic Partnership with US Imperialism!

Daring ‘Left’ allies of his Govt for the first time since becoming Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh displayed his deep sensitivity to the India-US Nuclear Deal. None of the calamities befalling the Indian people, most of them the making of his Govt. and the policies associated with him, had elicited outburst of this kind. It appears to be at the prospect of not being able to cap his career with the “crowning success” of tying India to the chariot wheel of the US imperialism’s global strategy.

In relation to this deal, the two documents are much in discussion- one the Hyde Act and the other US-India Agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear energy under section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954. This section enables US to reach such cooperation with other countries. To enable reaching such an Agreement with India as India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),  US Congress passed United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, popularly known as Hyde Act. It was passed by the US House of Representatives on July 26, 2006 and by the US Senate on 16.11.2006 and was signed by US president Bush on December 18, 2006. It is this Act that enabled the US Govt. to reach the Agreement.

The other is the Agreement for Cooperation between the Govt. of India and the Govt. of the United States of America Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy whose agreed text was released on August 3, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement). The two documents make it abundantly clear that Manmohan Singh Govt. has mortgaged the interests of the country to the United States, has permitted interference of the US Govt. in Indian Nuclear Programme, and is a part of larger strategic cooperation with US imperialism for “Asia and beyond”. The Prime Minister, Foreign Minister have uttered half-truths, even plain falsehoods, to obfuscate the issues and mislead the people. Their spin masters in the media, the intellectuals sold out to imperialists, the comprador business houses sharing the loot and plunder of the country, are all exercising their lung power and pouring their ink to get the deal through.

Parliament only for gossip!

Before proceeding to analyze the provisions of the two documents it is worthwhile to note that Indian parliament is shown to be total powerless in giving an opinion over such an important deal (its importance is not denied even by its proponents.) They can only discuss but dare not give any opinion on the deal, proving to larger public that it indeed is a gossip house. Indian Constitution does empower the Govt. to implement agreements with other countries without seeking parliamentary approval. That is its undemocratic character like many others. But the presiding officers of the two houses have carried it further to mockery. Govt. not being obliged to take approval of the Parliament is one thing, and Parliament having no right at all to give an opinion on such an issue is quite another. Lok Sabha speaker Somenath Chatterjee (and his lead was followed by Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari) came up with this innovative interpretation which is significant in view of the fact that parties representing a majority in the Parliament are avowedly opposed to this deal. Is it a pointer to the fact that CPM (Party to which Mr. Chatterjee belongs) wants to keep the channels of compromise open or it is to enable the ruling class parties to making noises without having to walk their talk, to bark without biting, to indulge in posturing without hurting. BJP promptly and ‘obediently’ accepted the ruling, CPM and CPI any way wanted only discussion not the vote. However, with UPA accepting a mechanism to discuss the deal with ‘Left’ Front parties, BJP and other opposition parties blocked the Parliament with the demand for the formation of a JPC on the issue.

The ruling by the Speaker rejecting discussion on the issue under the rule providing vote, brings to fore a simple question: From whom does the Govt. derive its authority to strike deals and treaties? It is always propagated that it is from the people through the Parliament. It is constitutionally provided that Govt. is answerable to Parliament on all matters and there is no exception to the agreement and treaties with other countries. Now the very Parliament is debarred from even giving an opinion over the subject! The presiding officers have read an exception where none exists! It is pertinent to note that under the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution (Article 246) includes the issues on which Parliament alone is empowered to enact. Entry no. 6 in the List is Atomic Energy and mineral resources necessary for its production. On an issue which is exclusively under the domain of Parliament to legislate, it is debarred from giving an opinion! Further entry 13 and 14 in the Union List make it abundantly clear that it is the right of the Parliament to make law relating to “Entry into treaties and agreements with foreign countries and implementing treaties, agreements and conventions with foreign countries.” (Entry 14) Implementing an already existing treaty (referred to in Article 73) is one thing and entry into treaties, agreements and conventions is quite another.

The camouflage of “popular will” is thrown aside as soon as it is found to be inconvenient. It is comfortable for the Govt. to reach a deal and it is comfortable for the parliamentary opposition to shout against it even while the country is being sucked deeper and deeper into the morass of pro-imperialist policies. The stranglehold of imperialism is tightening over the country in all walks of life, with Govt. walking in front and loyal opposition following in tow, all happy in this loot and plunder of the country. After they had publicly and proudly acknowledged their impotence and irrelevance, no wonder they were called as “headless chickens”.

Hiding the Hyde Act

The drafters of the Agreement have undoubtedly taken recourse to camouflaging their intent and subterfuges. Clever tact and cunning is employed in full measure to mislead the people. And yet the truth comes out glaringly! Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and the apologists of US imperialism have without shame and accountability asserted that Hyde Act is not relevant and the Agreement is everything. Is that so? Let us read the Agreement. Point 2.1 provides: “Each Party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”

From the plain language itself it is clear that Hyde Act is very much in picture. It is precisely the national law which has enabled the US Govt. to negotiate the Agreement. Not only that, it is a law specifically dealing with cooperation with India for use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. By what canon of interpretation, except the one of sycophancy to the imperialist masters, can the Hyde Act be excluded from the discussion. No rule of interpretation of laws, treaties/ agreements substantiate the position of the Govt. and apologists of US imperialism.

With clear, rather cunning, sleight of tongue Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee and their cohorts are claiming that Hyde Act is not binding on India. They are right to an extent as they have not yet managed to take India so far that US laws will become automatically legally binding on India. But the real question is: Is it binding on United States or not? They avoid answering that as they know it is. If so i.e. if it is binding on United States, then does it impact the US-India Agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation or not? Or you could have that cooperation without US cooperating? Moreover, if it was so, why Bush had been promising that he would persuade the US Congress to make changes in US law to facilitate this cooperation? And, why Indian rulers have been expressing the hope of such a change? Hyde Act is precisely that change (amendment) in US AEA 1954. But when it is a question of deceiving the people, Indian rulers are past masters in the art.

Pro-imperialist ruling class politicians and intellectual circles have been adding another spin to their demagogy. They are proposing that India could likewise make amendment to its own Atomic Energy Act, 1962 to ‘annul’ the effect of Hyde Act. But like all their propaganda this is only to fool and mislead the people. How any amendment to an Indian Act can make Hyde Act inoperative or take anything away from it. The real point is that US Govt. will continue to be guided by its own law, and for cooperation both sides need to be willing. This operation is going to be mounted on a big scale in time to come, ineffectual in its effect on the deal but no obstacle in forging closer links with US imperialism. This exercise in futility will make the Govt. satisfied and parliamentary opposition happy at having secured their objectives, of fooling the people while seeing the deal through.

In fact careful perusal of the Agreement shows that it has followed, obviously with camouflage and cunning, the provisions of Hyde Act, or if to express more precisely, it nowhere contradicts it. Manmohan Singh may have faith galore in Bush, but it is the Act that will stand, with Bush and after Bush.

Non-Proliferation Treaty

Hyde Act and the pronouncements of the US Govt. and the provisions of the Agreement state that it is an effort to bring India into the ambit of NPT. This is included in the meaning of “respective applicable treaties” in the Agreement which Hyde Act makes explicitly clear. However, this is an effort by the US Govt. in a phased manner. Obviously there is some difference from outright acceptance. Even the Hyde Act admits it when it states in Section 102 “such commerce also represents a significant change in U.S. policy with countries not parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).” The attitude of the US Govt. is summed up by Nicolas Burns that the agreement would bring India under the ambit of NPT substantially for now and wholly in the long run. Section 109 of the Hyde Act makes it clear that the amendment “shall not be deemed to constitute authority for any action in violation of any U.S. obligation under the NPT.”

To achieve this, the US Admn. has embarked on a process of brining substantial part of the Indian nuclear programme under IAEA safeguards. A separation plan has been agreed upon whereby 14 of the total existing reactors (22) would be placed as reactors for civilian purposes under IAEA safeguards in perpetuity. All new nuclear reactors and the reactors utilizing imported machinery or material or material produced with their aid would be kept under IAEA safeguards. India would not have right to change the designation of reactors from civilian to military like nuclear weapon states have under NPT. The agreement aims at marginalizing the strategic programme of India through a number of the strategies.

Indian Govt. is not a signatory to NPT. NPT was opened for signature from July 1, 1968 and came into effect from 1970. It is a discriminatory treaty designed to perpetuate and strengthen monopoly on nuclear weapons of select five i.e. US, Britain, France, Russia and China and prohibits all other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. India has been opposing NPT for its discriminatory provisions. Pakistan and Israel are other countries not having signed it. North Korea was a signatory but opted out of it subsequently. From the position of opposing the NPT and taking a position in favour of complete and universal nuclear disarmament, Indian Govt. has been moving to get into the exclusive club of nuclear weapon states substituting non-proliferation for nuclear disarmament.

However, the present agreement does not accord India status of a nuclear weapon state. To obfuscate the issue a new term of state possessing “advanced nuclear technology” has been coined. It is not the same thing as nuclear weapon state because countries like Japan, Germany and others are also possessing advanced nuclear technology. This term is symptomatic of general tenure of the Agreement where such crafty terms are used which are devoid of any concrete meaning.

Here it is pertinent to note the attitude of China towards NPT. China though a nuclear weapon state at the time of NPT coming into effect refused to join it for its being discriminatory. The then revolutionary China denounced the treaty as a conspiracy by the United States and the then Soviet Union to “maintain their nuclear monopoly" by limiting the military capabilities of other countries. China maintained that it stood for the complete abolition of nuclear weapons but that the superpowers had no right to prevent non-nuclear weapons states from acquiring nuclear weapons until the nuclear superpowers committed themselves to complete disarmament.

After restoration of capitalism in China, in 1980s China's position on nuclear proliferation changed. China indicated that it accepted in principle the norm of nuclear nonproliferation. From complete nuclear disarmament it gradually shifted its position in favour of non-proliferation i.e. monopoly of select states. In 1990, though still not a member of the NPT, China attended the fourth NPT review conference and acceded to the Treaty in March 1992 as a nuclear weapon State. From principled opposition to the NPT, it became an advocate of non-proliferation i.e. depriving other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is significant that despite obligation of advancing towards nuclear disarmament, nuclear weapon states have only increased their nuclear arsenal rather than taking any steps in that direction.

Detonation by India of Nuclear Explosive Device and its effect

The debate on the agreement in India, particularly by the parliamentary opposition parties has concentrated on India’s conduction of nuclear test and its effect on the civilian nuclear cooperation between US and India. Hyde Act clearly stipulates that this cooperation will come to an end if India detonates any nuclear explosive device. Section 110 deems “any determination under section 105 and any waiver under section 104 of this Act (which enable this cooperation) ineffective if the President determines that India has detonated a nuclear explosive device after the date of the enactment of the Act.” Language could not be more explicit and direct.

If we take the Agreement, its Clause 14 deals with the termination of the agreement during the duration of the agreement (40 years) by either party by giving one year’s notice giving the reasons for such termination. Though in the agreement termination on account of detonation of nuclear explosive device is not directly mentioned but the language makes it clear that it is very much in the Agreement. Clause 14.2 provides: “The parties agree to consider carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation of cooperation. They further agree to take into account whether the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation resulted from a Party’s serious concern about a changed security environment or similar actions by other states which could impact national security.” From this clause is it not clear that they are dealing with termination or cessation on account of detonation of nuclear explosive device. The provision of the Agreement is in accordance with the Hyde Act.

Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee and the like are asserting that it would be the ‘sovereign’ decision of India to conduct the nuclear test and that the termination or cessation of cooperation will not be automatic in that event. It may be Indian Govt.’s decision but at what cost? India would have spent a huge stockpile of money in the separation plan, what will become of it in case of cessation of cooperation. Like on other aspects, the pro-US spin masters are camouflaging the issue. The moot question is that it will the decision of the US Admn. to terminate the agreement in that event and Hyde Act is unambiguous in that respect. But the termination will not be immediate, it will take one year, the period for which notice is necessary under the Agreement. US law is very clear that in case of US terminating or ceasing the cooperation, it will not facilitate Indian case with other suppliers. Hyde Act is very clear on that. Its Section 102 (6) provides “the United States should not seek to facilitate the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any other party if such exports are terminated under U.S. law.” With US ceasing cooperation and not facilitating India’s case, will the whole exercise not amount to wasting huge amounts on Indian people’s money? Can India persuade other suppliers with US not cooperating? If that is the case, where is the need for such an agreement with US in the first place.

Obviously the aim of Manmohan Singh and his cohorts is to first tie India’s nuclear programme to US and then to continue it showing the huge cost of its cessation. The moot point is not that India should conduct nuclear explosions, but in making US the master of such decision. It will the US that will influence India’s perception of its security needs.

In the event of termination of the Agreement US will have the right to seek return of the material, equipments and the like supplied under the Agreement. The Agreement itself provides for this. Clause 14.4 if the Agreement provides “Following the cessation of cooperation under this Agreement, either Party shall have the right to require the return by the other Party of any nuclear material, equipment, non-nuclear material or components transferred under this Agreement and any special fissionable material produced through their use.” This Clause of the Agreement makes it clear that US would have the right to seek return of not only materials and equipments supplied by it but also the materials produced through their use at “fair market price”. This may also include the material not supplied by them so long as their equipment has been used in producing it. This again is a right to US as per the Agreement and it will be their decision to exercise it subject only to the proviso “A notice by a Party that is invoking the right of return shall be delivered to the other Party on or before the termination of this Agreement.” No law made by India in this respect can bind the US Govt. from exercising their right under the Agreement.

‘Spectre’ of American Inspectors

Manmohan Singh and his cohorts have accused the opponents of the deal that they are raising the spectre of the American inspectors strolling in Indian nuclear plants, and that they are totally wrong in doing so. Let us see the truth of the matter. The Agreement provides for bringing Indian civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards in perpetuity. What if the IAEA is not able to apply safeguards? Clause 10.4 of the Agreement provides: “If the IAEA decides that the application of the IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, the supplier and recipient should consult and agree on appropriate verification measures.” Hyde Act makes the matter even clearer. Section 107 (3) the Act direct the President to ensure “alternate safeguards that conform the IAEA standards and practices in the event the IAEA is unable to implement safeguards required by a U.S.-India agreement.” Is it not abundantly clear that both Agreement and Hyde Act envisage deploying American inspectors? Or, will the U.S. leave the task to Indian inspectors. Indian Govt. has knowingly signed it and then pretends that it is not there!

Arguments of the Govt. and the Apologists of the Agreement

Energy Security: In order to thrust this agreement onto the Indian people, the Govt. is weaving the yarn of energy security through this agreement. They are propagating that to sustain the high ‘economic growth’ India needs to accelerate its power generation and that could be done only through nuclear power generation and that is not possible without this agreement. But the facts make it clear that it is just an excuse. India produces only 2.5% of its power needs producing only 3,300 MW though nuclear power generation. Even with the cooperation Agreement with US and all material and equipment supplies coming as envisaged, only 6-7% of the power needs (Approx. 10,000 MW) would be supplied through nuclear power generation. 93-94% of the power needs would continue to be satisfied through other methods of power generation. India has a vast potential for hydro-electric power generation which lies untapped, particularly small projects which can go a long way without causing adverse effects on the people. But small projects mean small money in which the Indian corporates and the Govt. is not interested.

Moreover, nuclear power generation is costlier than power generation through other sources. It is estimated to be twice as costly as generation of power from gas and nearly one and a half a time as costly as from the coal. India produces nearly half of its power requirements from the coal at present. Is it not surprising that Indian Govt. is turning against middle-east countries, particularly Iran which are suppliers of gas choosing to dance to the tune of US rulers? Why Indian Govt. is dragging its feet on Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipe line? It could not be in the interest of securing energy security for the country.

Govt. of India and the comprador ruling classes, are displaying particular lack of faith in Indian scientists. They do not trust that Indian scientists could make progress to this moderate tone also as planned in the growth of nuclear power generation. In fact the comprador ruling classes are instrumental in ensuring that benefits of their work do not accrue to India and have been blocking independent scientific development in the country, like other spheres of life.

Loss of Face for India: The apologists of US imperialism are arguing that if the Agreement signed by Manmohan Singh Govt. is voted down, it will result in loss of face to the Govt. of India, and India in general. Peculiarly this argument is also advanced by certain NRI organizations in United States where so many agreements made by their Govts. are voted down by their Congress. Would anybody have thought of it in US or would think of it in this way if their Congress is reject even this Agreement. Rather it is routinely discussed there that if delayed this Agreement may not go through, there is no talk of loss of face for the country. In any case where is the loss of face to India if the agreement signed by Manmohan Singh Govt. is voted down by the Parliament! Is the Parliament above the Govt. or vice versa! But then in a semi-colonial country like India, it is the wish of the imperialist master and not the people of this country that runs supreme. It is out of bounds for the Parliament composed of the parties of the ruling classes subservient to imperialism.

India would indeed lose face before the world people, particularly people of third world countries, if this vast country and ancient society allows itself to be tied to the United States’ hegemonist strategy. India would redeem its face in case it strikes down so demeaning a deal. The spin-masters have added another spin that the opponents of the deal do not have confidence in the new strength of the country. But the strength demands that India does not bow down to the unjust demands of the arrogant imperialist superpower. Where is the strength in crawling before the imperialists, but precisely that is the strength comprador rulers have been displaying over the decades.

It may be some loss of face for Manmohan Singh Govt. but even for that, Manmohan Singh Govt. is solely responsible. Being a coalition Govt. and that too a minority Govt. should it not have taken into confidence other parties and sentiments of the people, rather than proceed in such a unilateral way. Or may be there is no loss of face, as it may well turn out to be an orchestrated campaign with Parliamentary parties not represented in the Govt. be happy about it without sharing its responsibility. The case of WTO is noteworthy. It was signed by the minority P.V. Narasimha Rao Govt. BJP which was then in opposition, formally opposed it almost in the similar vein, but when in power, implemented its provisions with greater zeal. CPM, CPI too with formal opposition, dropped the demand against WTO and now base their entire policy framework on the neo-liberal agenda of WTO.

Strategic Partnership with US Imperialism

Ever since transfer of power in 1947, Indian ruling classes and their political representatives have been following imperialist dependent economic policies and pro-imperialist foreign policy. While India’s granting of fueling facilities to the imperialist warplanes against Vietnam and participation in US led war in Korea by sending a medical mission are just to remind the conduct of the ‘newly independent’ Indian Govt. Indian Govt. has followed the pro-imperialist policies but when there was conflict among imperialist powers, Indian Govt. made much show of its independence. When the socialist Soviet Union degenerated into Social-imperialist superpower, Indian rulers forged close links with it. When there was conflict among imperialist powers, Indian Govt. took sides. In particular, when the contention between the superpowers, the US imperialists and the then Soviet Social-imperialists developed, Indian Govt. sided with Social-imperialists. It even forged a strategic relationship with the then Soviet Union signing a Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation with its military clause. This treaty forged by the then Congress Govt. of Mrs. Gandhi was supported by the parties supporting Soviet social-imperialists, CPI and CPM.

After the disintegration of the camp of Social-imperialism and break-up of the Soviet Union, US imperialism became the sole superpower. Indian rulers too started drawing closer to America after 1991. India recognized Israel in 1992 and reached an agreement on Defense relations. Relations with US imperialism in defense and military fields started flourishing including joint exercises. The then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao justified this tilt saying that what could be done when the mighty Soviet Union had fallen.

With coming to power, BJP led NDA started deepening relations with US imperialists. However, the decisive change came about after US imperialists launched their “global war against terrorism” after 9/11 attacks. US imperialists wanted India on board of their war. Sanctions imposed against India after Pokharan-II were waived in October 2001. Indian Govt. supported US led invasion of Afghanistan. In November 2001. US ships were accorded port facilities and joint military exercises between US and India grew in frequency and extent. Bush-Vajpayee joint statement affirmed the current campaign against Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and started talks on developing high technology commerce, transfer of dual-use technology and civil space co-operation. Bush and Vajpayee vowed “to complete the process of qualitatively transforming US-India relations in pursuit of their many common goals in Asia and beyond.” Thus was born the commerce in high technology areas, nuclear co-operation came later, and strategic partnership with US imperialism. In November 2002 high technology co-operation group was set up.

On January 12, 2004 Bush after talks with Vajpayee announced the next steps in strategic partnership (NSSP). Bush statement said: “US and India agree to expand cooperation in three specific areas- civilian nuclear activities, civilian space programme and high technology trade” and “to create the appropriate environment for successful high technology commerce.” Bush also stated “we agree to expand our dialogue on missile defence thus bringing India into this offensive strategy of US imperialism. January, 2004 marked the start of India-US cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear activities. BJP led Govt. bent over backwards to develop strategic partnership with US imperialism at a time when US imperialists were launching wars of aggression against third world countries. BJP leaders wanted to send troops to Iraq as part of the US led “coalition of the willing”. BJP led Govt. invited to India and hosted murderer of Palestinians, Ariel Sharon. Defense Minister of the NDA Govt. on an official visit to USA, allowed himself to be stripped at a US airport to further strategic partnership with US imperialism. This perennial chameleon is now posing himself to be an ardent opponent of the current deal.

After the defeat of NDA in May, 2004 elections, the minority UPA Govt. propped up by CPM and CPI assumed power. But this Govt. too continued development of strategic partnership and took next steps in this direction. On May 31, 2005 India-US Energy Dialogue was held. UPA Govt. with Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister and propped up by ‘Left’ Front speeded up the process of developing strategic partnership.

On June 28, 2005 India signed with US “New Framework for the US-India Defence Relations for next ten years.” This agreement signed by then Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee on behalf of Indian Govt. was a far reaching document committing India further to US led offensive moves. According to this new framework, shared security interests include “defeating violent religious extremism” which in current parlance means sharing US drive against Muslim countries, “preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and associated materials, data and technologies” which means acting against Iran and other countries targeted by US imperialists and “protecting the free flow of commerce via land, air and sea lanes” which means joining American military maneuvers in Indian Ocean to control the trade routes. For this “shared vision” ‘Left’ supported UPA Govt. of India and Bush Admn. resolved to “collaborate in multinational operations when it is in their common interest” a euphemism for the US led “coalition of the willing”, to “enhance capabilities to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” again another name of US led moves against other countries alleged by US imperialists of engaging in production of such weapons and interdiction principles related to combat proliferation including interception of vessels of these countries on suspicion that they be carrying weapons of mass destruction and associated materials, data and technologies and to “expand collaboration relating to missile defence.” It is clear that this agreement reached between ‘Left’ supported UPA Govt. and Bush Admn. has far reaching implications.

The process was carried even further through a meeting between Bush and Manmohan Singh in July 2005. In a statement issued on July 18, 2005 the duo declared “their resolve to transform the relationship between their countries and establish a global partnership” and felt that their relationship “will enhance our ability to work together to provide global leadership”. It was noted that Manmohan Singh’s “visit coincides with the completion of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) initiative, launched in January 2004.” The two leaders agreed “that this provides the basis for expanding bilateral activities and commerce in space, civil nuclear energy and dual-use technology.” Amidst wide ranging agreement, Bush stated that “he will work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India” and Manmohan Singh taking among others the responsibility of “continuing India's unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing”. They further “reiterated their commitment that their countries would play a leading role in international efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological weapons.”

This joint statement marks that civil nuclear cooperation is part of the strategic cooperation between US and India and that India would play a leading role along with US in preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is this joint statement with reference to which leaders of ‘left’ parties have been leveling the allegation of shifting the goal-posts. From the June 28, 2005 agreement and July 18, 2005 joint statement it is clear that Indian vote in IAEA against Iran is part of the strategic partnership being forged between United States and India.

In the civil nuclear co-operation the next steps were taken in March 2006 during Bush’s visit to India when an agreement was reached for separation between civilian and military nuclear facilities, the former to be placed under IAEA safeguards in perpetuity. After this, the process of amending US laws was taken up, with Hyde Act being passed by both Houses and signed by Bush on December 18, 2006. And then came the Agreement referred to above.

From here it is envisaged that India will approach IAEA for adoption of IAEA safeguards and 45-member Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) for agreement to supply nuclear materials, equipment and other things envisaged in the Agreement. After the completion of these two steps, the Agreement will go to US Congress for approval and will be implemented only after this approval. The Parliament was very much in picture at the start of the process and will again be playing its role at the conclusion of this very process in United States where power is divided between President and the Congress. And here in India avowedly a Parliamentary democracy, Parliament is even debarred from giving an opinion at any stage. Four cheers for Indian democracy!

The strategic partnership between India and United States is fraught with danger to Indian people and the people of the region. US drive for this strategic partnership has increased after US launched its global war after 9/11. The US led invasion of Afghanistan and making of military bases in Central Asian countries aimed against Russia, China and Middle-east is meeting serious challenge from the national war in Afghanistan and formation of Shanghai Cooperation Group including Russia, China and Central Asian countries north of Afghanistan. Pakistan military rulers, key allies of US imperialism in its drive to occupy Afghanistan and dominate Central Asia including oil rich Caspian Sea, are facing tough situation due to deep and wide opposition of the people of Pakistan. US imperialism is trying to secure Musharraf’s rule by forging a compromise between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto, but conscious of the opposition of the people of Pakistan, US rulers do not treat Pakistan as a reliable ally in the region. It has further increased need of befriending Indian rulers. Further US imperialist rulers want to prevent rise of China’s power in Asia. To this end, they are trying to forge a military alliance with Japan, Australia and India along with other pro-US regimes in the region. The use of naval power to “secure sea lanes for free trade” is to dominate the trade routes in the Indian ocean. So Indian rulers have emerged as important allies for US imperialism in its drive for securing its world hegemony.

US imperialism is getting increasingly isolated in the world including Asia. It is openly supporting subservient military regimes crushing the democratic rights of the people. National wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine and people’s struggles in other third world countries as well as rising contradictions with other imperialist powers are seriously threatening its drive to secure its world hegemony. It is courting Indian rulers to provide it with mercenaries to do the dirty work of US imperialism. Comprador Indian rulers are priding at becoming a new superpower riding at the shoulders of US imperialism. But this alliance threatens the Indian people. It entails increasing economic exploitation of the people through strengthening the imperialist stranglehold over the country in all walks and economic life and making Indians as cannon-fodders for the aggressive wars of US imperialism. Indian rulers are forging this strategic partnership at a time when the whole region is seething with anger against US imperialism’s exploitation and aggressive wars. It is vital to oppose the Indian rulers’ drive to forge this strategic partnership and forge unity of the people of the world, Asia and particularly South Asia against aggressive designs of US imperialism.

BJP’s Opposition

Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has been vocal in opposing this Nuclear Deal but its opposition is confined to “incompetence” and “incapacity” of the present Govt. in not negotiating a better deal. They have no quarrel with the pro-US foreign policy, rather they fully support it. They are probably trying to convey to US imperialists that they are better in subordinating India to the US interests than the present Govt. In fact they were the initiators of what has resulted in the present deal.

In Bush-Vajpayee joint statement on November 9, 2001, Indian Govt. supported the attack on Afghanistan affirming :the current campaign against Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan conducted a series of joint military exercises with US including giving port facilities to US warships. NDA Govt. deepened military ties with US and its protégé Israel going to the extent of inviting and hosting the murderer of Palestinians Ariel Sharon to India. It is well known that BJP led Govt. had offered to send troops to Iraq as a part of the US led “coalition of the willing”. Bush and Vajpayee affirmed “to complete the process of qualitatively transforming US –India relations in pursuit of their many common goals in Asia and beyond.” It was in this statement that the two Govts. had marked out the three areas “high technology commerce, transfer of dual-use items and civil space cooperation”.

Taking their cooperation further even after the US attack against Iraq in utter violation of international law and United Nations besides being an open aggression against a third world country on false pretexts and real drive to monopolize the middle-east oil, in January 2004 the leaders of the two govts. Bush and Vajpayee agreed “to expand cooperation in three special areas: civil nuclear activities, civilian space programmes and high technology trade. In addition, we agree to expand our dialogue on missile defense”. Manmohan Singh started where from BJP led NDA Govt. had left. So the BJP’s opposition is neither basic nor principled. BJP and its earlier incarnation Jan Sangh had since long been advocating policies supporting US imperialism and its protégés like Israel.

                        (Incomplete)