BJP trashes nuke deal

JYOTI MALHOTRA

New Delhi, August 4, 2007 : The Left parties preferred a studied silence, while senior BJP leaders went into a huddle this evening at the residence of former Prime Minsiter Atal Behari Vajpayee to discuss the strategy they would undertake on the 123 nuclear agreement between India and the US.

Left party sources said they would carefully go over every clause of the 22-page agreement, but one leader eloquently pointed to the ``dharma sankat’’ or dilemma of the Left. That is, if their friends the UNPA had decided to oppose the nuclear deal in parliament, what was the Left going to do?

Still, early reactions by the BJP as well as by key nuclear experts focused on the relationship of the 123 agreement with other US domestic laws, such as the Hyde Act, 2006 and the Atomic Act, 1954.

``It is the height of naivete for people to think that the 123 agreement can be read separately from the Hyde act. In fact the 123 text itself says it must be seen in that context,’’ said former foreign minister Yashwant Sinha.

According to the 123 text, if India conducts a nuclear test in the future and domestic laws kick in, then the US will ensure that other friendly countries step in and provide uninterrupted fuel supplies to India’s civilian programme.

Sinha pointed out that the Hyde Act clearly pointed to all termination of cooperation if India went ahead and conducted a test. He stressed that the Hyde act would supercede the 123 agreement and therefore the BJP ``retained all its reservations’’ on the UPA negotiations.

``You cannot expect a toddler to overrule his mother,’’ Sinha said, referring to the 123 agreement and the Hyde act.

Nuclear expert Bharat Karnad of the Centre for Policy Research, meanwhile, emphasized that even if countries like Russia and France were persuaded to supply fuel in place of the US, they would like at guidelines put out by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The NSG, would in turn, look at the provisions of the Hyde Act, and naturally, would not resume cooperation with India.

Asked how Kakodkar had agreed to such a deal, Karnad said, ``He is a very weak man. He has always avoided the hard option, that is to resign. That means he is pliable. The nuclear establishment is unhappy with the agreement.’’

However, pro-nuclear deal experts like C. Raja Mohan of Nanyang university, Singapore, pointed out that if the US had to go by the Hyde Act, why would it take the trouble to go through another six months of negotiations with India and formulate the 123 agreement.

``This is a political deal between India and the US, the Bush administration wanted it. That is how it must be seen,’’ Raja Mohan said.

ENDS