Honest Arguments about the Nucelar Deal

I am not sure about the nuclear deal. Well, as per most polls, more than 70% Indians are giving me company. I am BJP's middle class vote-bank and I not ditching them anytime soon (not after I stuck with them even through Gujarat riots).

While there are substantial reasons for my ambivalence, one is sheer loyalty - not to BJP but to Arun Shourie. Arun Shourie, for me, is the leading conservative thinker in India, and one with unquetionable integrity (when was the last time a Ministry was involved in deals worth billions of dollars, and even opposition acknowledged that Minister is clean?). He differs with BJP's public stand on reservations and I agree with him; he differs with BJP's public stand on Ambedkar and I agree with him. So I agree with him more than I agree with BJP. In the case of nuclear deal I was willing to listen to BJP, because he has articulated BJP's line of thought (though Yashwant Sinha's active advocacy of the same line pushes me the other way) - unfortunate but when I don't understand a issue much, I look at the people on either side!

So much for my ambivalence, but I want this deal to happen. I wish those in favour of the deal had more honest arguments. For me an honest argument in favour of the deal is 'Yes, US will not act against their own law - the Hyde Act; while as a sovereign nation we can conduct a nuclear test, all that is gained through this deal will go down the drains if we do so; yes, the agreement does not consider us a Nuclear Weapons State' BUT ' deal or no-deal, we will have to suffer isolation if we conduct a nuclear test; deal or no deal, there is no international agreement now or possible in near future which will acknowledge us to be a nuclear weapons state; and while USA views the 123 Agreement in the light of Hyde Act, we are not bound by it and we will act accordingly, and have accounted for US acting according to Hyde Act'. In a nutshell, this is the best we could have got, and tell us if NDA could have done better? Tell us if these benefits are not worth the costs?

Nick Burns, one of the key architects of the deal, has spoken about many of these issues and he almost endorses every objection that NDA has to the deal . It is difficult for the government, even through legal luminaries like Manu Singhvi, to argue that opposition's objections are against national interest because the person who negotiated the deal on US' behalf has publicly stated that "When this agreement was negotiated, it was fully consistent with the provisions of the Hyde Act. So we have the right to terminate it if India tests." He further adds that," "No aspect of this deal recognises India as a nuclear weapons state." What would the Government have to say about it?

In this context I would reiterate the need for a more honest argument in favour of the deal, which while acknowledging all that Nick Burns says (the 'Cost'), talks about the 'benefits. Currently the government is busy denying that there are any costs - a debate that they are not going to win other than in the Indian Express editorials.