Indian Politics since 1947

The quality of Indian politics has reached an all-time low as India celebrates its 60th anniversary of independence. The parliament has rarely witnessed a debate of quality that is expected of the world's largest democracy. In a major breakthrough for Indian energy security and recognition of India as a global player, the politicians could only find trivial faults with the 123 agreement. The bigger picture was not appreciated by our political parties in opposition and the ones supporting the UPA from outside. This is deplorable as they are just being populist at the cost of people's ignorance about how much India needs energy. The best politicians are those that act in the nation's interest regardless of the ignorance of the median voter. Here was an example of how people are being made unnecessarily sceptical about India's relationship with the United States. There are three questions that should be answered when India debates the pros and cons of the nuclear deal:

1. What would happen if there was no deal?
2. How does the deal impact national security?
3. Why the deal is being criticized in parliament by opposition parties?

The first question is the most relevant. If there was no deal - India would remain energy deficient, relying on potentially unstable countries such as Iran and the Middle-East for oil and gas. The loss of bargaining power would mean that we would have to pay more for the imports. The lack of uranium deposits in India would lead to closing of nuclear reactors. What this deal has accomplished cannot be quantified, for it has given India the freedom to sign similar deals with other countries such as UK, Australia and France, which are allied with the US.

The second question that the BJP and Left parties are raising a hue-and-cry about is the deal's impact on national security. The deal has an unambiguous positive impact on out national security for the following reasons:
a. The saving of extra costs of importing expensive gas can now be diverted to military expenditure.
b. The nuclear material being used in civilian reactors can now be used for making and testing better and more 'efficient' nuclear bombs atleast until there is an end to global proliferation.
c. The deal clearly signals that the US is no longer allied with Pakistan in the event of a war between India and Pakistan which means that India's national security can remain independent without relying on Russia.
d. The spent fuel from civilian nuclear reactors can also be used for military purposes.
e. The safeguards that have been put in place are necessary not only for formality of agreement, but they are required to give a signal that India's self-committed stand of preparing adequate nuclear safeguards is credible. The safeguards are also necessary to prevent leaks that may cause far greater damage than the Bhopal gas tragedy.

The third issue is pertinent because the opposition parties along with the Left are preying on the minds of people who have certain inhibitions about dealing with the United States especially after what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. The anti-US sentiment of the Muslims is being exploited. The deal however, is in national interest, both energy-wise and militarily. The bigger picture of India's real tryst with destiny 60 years after her independence has been bogged down by populist mentality and finding faults with the 123 agreement when the United States has been graceful enough (even if in self-interest) to accept all the changes that India proposed. India needs politicians who are interested in making India secure rather than securing their own votes. These two aims may often conflict with each other, especially where the median voter is ignorant about the sustained benefits of energy security.

Intelligent debate will however show that the parties opposing the deal are just doing it out of self-interest and self-importance rather than in tune with reality.