Hey KXB,

Im not India-based, from my perspective as an Indian-American, I think you've hit it dead on. There were great risks taken by American administration in reaching out to India in this manner. This deal irked major non-NATO ally Pakistan and major trading partner China very much and was a recognition of India's greater stance in the world community. I understand Indian sentiment against the Iraq invasion among the Left, but did they not see how this made India strategically stronger? If anything there was a ruckus in the American Congress in the leeway given to India in this deal which will now likely never come to fruition.

I'm just throwing this out there, but after reading about a celebration that the Indian communist party had for china celebrating its annexation of Tibet either this year or last year , does anyone think that the party or elements of the party have become tools of the Chinese state?

Indian journalist Manoj Joshi speculates.

KXB, I'm not India-based either, and I also hope India based readers and bloggers will chime in.

I agree with the way you have laid out the issues and their implications. The nuclear deal is about much more than just India's energy needs.

It really does appear now that the nuclear deal has been set aside because the Congress party, and Sonia Gandhi in particular, does not feel ready for elections right now. I wish I could say that by waiting a year, they could take this 'to the people' when they are in a stronger political position. The only trouble is, even if elections are held in 2009 - both the overall parliamentary result, and the status of the deal might not change much.

Any new coalition, even if it is led by the BJP and its allies, will also result in attempts to renegotiate the deal. They too have expressed 'nationalist' objections. Even more, the nuclear deal and all its implications is not something that can be 'taken to' India's huge 600 million + strong electorate. So the whole thing is very very depressing.

While I would also have been disappointed if the deal were rammed through without scrutiny, I note that the CPI-M has only 43 seats in the Lok Sabha of 545 members. There are as many as 81 members who are neither with the ruling coalition nor with the BJP. I am absolutely stunned that the government would not seek, or would be unable to muster the support of even half these 'undecideds', on a deal as big as this.

Among other things, the present imbroglio also highlights the fact that India's present system of democratic governance is becoming increasingly unworkable, though reforming it to ensure increased represenativeness as well as workability is currently on nobody's agenda.

True, the American administration took risks in reaching out to India in such a manner, but for what purpose?
If some leaders in India are suspicious of that purpose can we blame them?

Just see the covert and overt ways in which the American administration either starts or supports conflict in various regions around the globe. I would be suspicious too, and I'm an American!

True, the American administration took risks in reaching out to India in such a manner, but for what purpose? If some leaders in India are suspicious of that purpose can we blame them?

To answer your first question - no one, not even the Indian proponents of the deal, believed the Americans were behaving out of altruism. The purposes were many, but one is easy to guess - the U.S. does not want to see Asia dominated by China.

As for the second question - that is why the Communists did not like it. In a choice between advancing India's interests or protecting China's, the CPI and CPI-M have always chosen the latter.

KXB,

It is possible, that (as Ruchira's link to Manoj Joshi's article implies) that this is a face saving formula (farce) between the Congress and the Left.

To give the left a room to back off. But this symbolic backing off might backfire on Congress's face, as BJP will capitalize Congress as a weak government.

Maybe, the Indo-US nuclear deal will go through quietly.

Technically, Congress never needed the support of the Left on the deal, and but it came to that they had threatened to pull their support.

Kush,

I just read the link, and I hope what Joshi writes pans out. But I am concerned that this may be yet another one of India's false dawns.

While there may be better analysts than me about the intricacies about forming a coalition in government, one which seems to be a no-brainer is to end the practice of "we will support, but not be an official part of, this coalition". That allows a minority party to have veto power, but no responsibility. Because, if one of the Communists were given a portfolio, such as Agriculture or Transport, then they would have to demonstrate some ability to run a department, and thus leave a record which voters can judge them on. But, this way, they are unaccountable. As chachaji pointed out, allowing 41 members of Parliament to hold up the rest is no way to run a government.

I am sure US is aware of such bottlenecks. Thats what you expect when you are dealing with a truly democratic nation.

Does anybody remember Deve Gowda's Govt. being pulled down because of support withdrawl of Congress? I always wonder about the seeming sense of decorum in India, inspite of blackmail coalition politics.

To clarify, when I say there is sense of decorum, its only on surface. I dont think that there is any cohesion in aspects of governance.

Its only that common people who find ways to get their lives on - if things are like that in any other society, there would be a huge revolution.

It was a big screw up by Dr Singh and co. The deal definitely seemed to have greater implications than energy. But the Govt handled the whole thing badly, it seemed like the details were not disclosed till the last minute and then pressure was put to get it passed. This irked the opposition which in the grand scheme may not be important but played its part in the drama.

that is why the Communists did not like it. In a choice between advancing India's interests or protecting China's

Also, a lot of noise has been made that the communists were creating all the fuss because they are Chinese puppets. But if there are valid concerns, I think it was immaterial why the communists were protesting as long as there were valid concerns. Here is an old article and a new one.

Nitin Pai at The Acorn is calling for his resignation.

For once the guys at National Interest may have a point, since the respectable Dr Singh has disappointed a bit recently. But then the question would be, if not him then who, pray not Rahul Gandhi and pray not some BJP goon.

BJP will capitalize Congress as a weak government.

The congress is a weak government, what with absurd populist policies and as KXB pointed out, they are failing in so many areas. Sadly the options are nothing to write much about.

KXB, with some googling, I learnt that the PM spoke at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit yesterday and had a very candid exchange with the attendees, including journalists, foreign instutional investors, even some politicians. A very small part of the exchange was reported in the print media, and the quote at the beginning of your post is from that exchange. The MC exclaimed that the exchange was one of the most candid the PM has ever been involved in. I would agree.

The video of the speech as well as the exchange is available here. The speech can be skipped - partly because he reads it somewhat dryly, but also, the audio is bad during most of the speech, though the video is clear. But both are clear during the exchange, which begins around 30 minutes into the clip and lasts for about 15 minutes. I thought it a well spent 15 minutes, and you can see the body language, and get the full context in which he makes the remarks quoted above.

After having seen that exchange, and read Manoj Joshi, I am not feeling as low as I did earlier! Nitin Pai may be over-reacting.

So what happens to the mangos?

KXB - All great points.
Manmohan's term is an unmitigated failure. Besides the emergency period during Mata Indira's reign, observers will rightfully consider his tenure as disastrous for the Republic.
As for his honesty canard, that is just that...a canard. While I cannot prove it, will go down in History as the worst Prime Minister in Indian history.
Also, I never bought into the whole honest Manmohan canard. I know of several businessmen and journalist who will tell you otherwise.
And, lest we forget - he was knowingly serving a very corrupt regime, which makes him equally corrupt.

ps - it is high time indians started placing their nation ahead of their leaders, however "honest" or non violent.

KXB - The fourth and fifth line in my comment, from "As" to "history" is a typo. please delete, if you can.

KXB, good analysis. Just one thing: Manmohan may not be incompetent as much as he is powerless. It's a pity that one should have to say that about a prime minister, but there we are...

KXB,
Here is another take....We already know that even after India-specific safeguards are passed by NSG there is going to be great deal of opposition to the approval of the deal by US congress ( primarily by NPT friendly Democrats led by Senator Markey and influential non-proliferation/arms control ayatollahs ). There is also a slim chance that one of the most vocal supporters of the deal, Bush and his Republican flock ( including Singh and UPA montage ) will not survive the 2009 elections. So it makes sense to delay the deal so that it doesn't get stuck in the muddle of elections and/or new govts ( primaries begin in Jan 08 )

KXB, I find a certain lack of precision in your post, which is somewhat disturbing. I am not sure whether that stems from the exigencies of blog-writing, or whether your post has an anti-Manmohan agenda that has been provoked by Manmohan's peculiar leftiness (for the want of a better political term). I honestly don't mean this as a criticism of the motivation behind of your post -- I am frankly curious to know the angle from which you are approaching this.

Moving on to what I am criticising: first consider your assertion, "On the economic front, reforms have stalled." If the primary evidence for that assertion is the link off of that statement, I think it is uninstructive and imprecise. Based on the point of the Reuters story, it would be more valid to deduce that reforms never truly happened in India! What your one-line assertion ignores is how the present government has quietly been working to reduce the size of the Central Government bureaucracy (mostly through attrition, and through veeeery graaaadual amendments to the Central Govt. Service Rules) -- a venture that, in India, must necessarily stay below the horizon of the news radar. I use the qualifiers "in India" and "necessarily" because making waves would have such an impact on the Central Govt. Employee Unions -- which in India are all a part of this or that political party -- that the whole venture would be politically tainted for at least an entire decade. On this one issue, people on the ground feel that the total absence of posturing, and a certain gradualism, that Manmohan brings to his cabinet has been more effective in bringing about (slow) bureaucratic load-shedding than any other previous attempt.

The roots of this particular malaise lie not in the wimpiness of the Manmohan administration, but in the fact that administration is split between the Central and the State bureaucracies. The State Government bureaucracies are truly f@#ked up, and how those Augean stables can be cleaned is a whole another story.

I completely agree with your analysis on the state of primary and secondary education.

As for this statement: "Under his watch, there have been no major arrests in high profile terrorist attacks . . ." -- I'm afraid that to use that criticism against this or that particular government, as opposed to governments in general, puts you squarely in what I call the Feelings Faction or the Moods Majority. All recent Indian administrations -- and several non-Indian administrations too (most notably the Tony Blair administration) -- have failed at revamping those organs of Law Enforcement that would lead to a qualitative improvement in the acquisition and processing of human intelligence (most recent anti-terror arrests by more "proactive" governments elsewhere have been either low-value or dubious). Manmohan Singh's cardinal sin seems to be that not only does he dislike the bellicose, priapic, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach to terrorism that results Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo, or in the surprising number of terror detainees that were put behind bars solely on the basis of their religion (by both BJP and non-BJP administrations BTW), but that he (i.e. Manmohan) publicly voices his discomfort with that approach.

Speaking as someone whose course of life has been irretrievably warped by an act of terrorism, but who is extremely uncomfortable at what gets enacted in the name of survivors' rights, I don't buy your contention that the Manmohan administration's anti-terrorism record is inferior to that of previous administrations. If, however, you are merely suggesting that the Manmohan administration has shown no improvement, then you are perhaps correct.

You asked whether you are overreacting. Either that, or yours is a case of seeing the (very teeny-tiny-sized) cup as half empty as opposed to half full.

"Rather than deal with this, Singh offers to expand quotas at university level, and increase the acceptance rate – which is likely to lower standards."
- there are many people who get into these universities by paying money( paid seats ). I know a few. These people lower the standards then quotas since they just want a degree thats all!

While my sentiments are largely with KXB--Desh cert. needs improved electricity supplies, & it's difficult to think of a better partner for Desh than the US (maybe Japan...), it may be worth pointing out that the actual "agreement" seems, on a first read by me, to be awfully vague, and not really commiting anyone to do anything--also, India & US can do any of this stuff without the formal agreement, on a case-by-case basis--so, keep hope alive!

A couple of things have been bothering me about the nuke deal-- it seemed like another sale of technology that s soon to become obsolete, like old warplanes. With Al Gore on a streak, how far behind can solar energy be? And prospects for the petro-situation seemed precarious too. Ramchandra Guha says Travancore had enough monazite to try to set up as an independent state-- what of that? Monazite for literally semi-antique technology(semi-antique meaning over half a century old)?
I think a more pressing question is what is to become of the mangoes for Harleys deal? --which really would increase enjoyment for the few on both sides.

I'm quite surprised that no Mutineers have noted above that 2009 also means there will be a new administration in the White House. I thought Sonia was all ready to go with Rahul in the hot spot (although Jyotiraditya Scindia could give him a run for his money) so something must have come in the way. Fascinating. Enquiring minds want to know.

there are many people who get into these universities by paying money( paid seats ). I know a few. These people lower the standards then quotas since they just want a degree thats all!

That was last summer over here if I recall correctly. That same practice was more formalized here-- legacies may have lost some footing in admissions policies lately, but the custom of preferred admission for the offsprung is old, assuming the alum parents fork out when the hat is passed, and a string is very much pulled here and there, right here in these United States, to get one's non-performing brat in where one wants.

and a string is very much pulled here and there, right here in these United States, to get one's non-performing brat in where one wants.

And "Amen!!" to that--$30 billion in the bank at Harvard & Yale can't be wrong (Heh--I am partially tongue-in-cheek on this--but still, something is going right there--US univ's still set the global gold-standard--let's not be too quick to kill the "golden goose," just because we don't fully "get it").

Overreacting would be putting it mildly. It is understandable that as an Indian American you might be a little sad or mad about this near miss on the "strategic" alliance between Indian and the US. But when you look at the deal solely from an Indian perspective, it is a scary thought that the Indian nuclear establishment could be put under hostage by a later American government if there comes a time when the US and Indian governments do not agree on something. On India missing out and "demonstrating again that India is not ready for the world stage", i think you are being a little naive their. India does not follow the American way of making its presence felt on the world stage, instead India needs to develope its own method of foreign engagement which has to take into consideration domestic sentiments.

On your perceived role of Communists in India, you should understand that the communists are the third largest party in India and represent the sentiments of a sizable population. They have legit arguments made by very Indian people about very real concerns for India. They may seem anti-American to you but they are very pro-Indian.

First a disclaimer. I am not based in India per se, but am an FOB in the US.

Regarding the 123 Agreement:
Although in principle, I would like India to attain a de-facto P5 status in the nuclear club of the world, and do beleive that it is in both India's and US's interest to co-operate in the Nuclear arena, I do not see the 123 agreement (as it stands) as a good way for India to proceed. I base my view on reading the exchange of views between Bramha Chellaney (a defense analyst critical of the deal as it currently stands) and Kapil Sibal (a government minister and former spokesman of the Congress Party). I could find one part of the above at

http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/19/stories/2007091955491300.htm

interested readers can dig out the previous two parts.

Regarding Manmohan Singh (indian political rant - tnagential to the main topic, feel free to ignore):

It sometimes hurts to be so right and on the money. When he became PM, almost all of my grad school buddies were very happy that we now had such an "educated" PM. My take on it was "I fear to have such a coward as the PM". And why did I think of Manmohan Singh as a coward? Because I rmember when he was given the power to implement the free-market reforms of 91, he took the right decisions. So he knew very well what should be done. Yet all through the 80s, he had advised "Indira-ji" and "Rajiv-ji" on economic policy, and presumably told them what he beleived they wanted to hear (as evidenced by the socialistic policies that we kept following). He either did not care enough for those impacted by policies (the "aam junta") and/or was too much of a weakling to "push through" any policy that he knew was right - but which went against the worldview/interests of his "mai-baap" (the people on whom he depended to draw his power and perks). And in the kaledioscope of interwoven special interests that is India, it would be disastrous. And lo and behold: our "educated" PM has not dared to challenge in any way shape or form the assault on the educational institutions in the name of "reservations" and "social justice" by politicians who draw their votes from castiest sentiment - and hence viscerally dislike the caste-conciousness free atmosphere of meritocratic educational institutions. I rmember the colum i read (in TOI perhaps) - but could not find the original link. He're a reproduction though

http://social-equality.blogspot.com/2006/06/letter-from-obc-iitian.html

And yet, to this day, Manmohan Singh almost universally respected - especially among the more educated classes. Frankly, we get the government we desrve.

What's the relationship between the India-US nuclear deal and 'reservations' ?. I see commenter after commenter railing against 'reservations'. If reservations are treated as an assault on academic institutions, I welcome that assault.

But then the question would be, if not him then who, pray not Rahul Gandhi and pray not some BJP goon.

The last BJP government was a good manager of the economy and strategic issues. They privatised a lot of inefficient public sector enterprise, carried out the nuclear test, defended India and showed leadership in the Kargil War, put great emphasis in building the relation with USA and Israel. You cannot use a single event, the 3000 or so dead muslims in the post godhra riots to judge the six years of good economic management. It was a good government after a long interval filled with disasters such as VP Singh, Chandrashekar, HD Deve Gowda and I K Gujral.

The communist party in India have their historical reasons for not supporting this deal. But who can blame anyone in the world right now for taking a position as simple as let's not touch anything US foreign policy related with a ten foot pole right now. While in India one can feel the bitterness towards the US. Can you blame some people for not wanting to partake in a watershed deal with a US regime that will be remembered by history as the biggest thuggery that ever was after WW2? I just never ever want to see our Prime Minster shaking hands with George Bush in a picture that would look like he was grateful to him.

I recollect that serveral ammendments were made to the 123 agreement that were against Indian interests (I am not reffering to the Hyde act here). Can Anyone provide more information on what these were when the bill passed?

# 26 · Samir:

But then the question would be, if not him then who, pray not Rahul Gandhi and pray not some BJP goon.

3000 or so dead muslims

you want to hear it from an "india based" someone?ask someone who is sticking to the 'base' like glue for ages now,much as s/he would have it otherwise,about what they think of the deal.i have a feeling they don't think much of it.
forget china,i am just glad america isn't getting to be the puppeteer this time.for now.
you are right about the reforms and education bit,of course.but"keeping parties in line"?certainly doesn't smack of democracy.
as for the private sector,wonder if it's more threatened than threatening.
@sandeep:bang on target!

Another thing, KXB, and this time I must be less polite than in my observations @ comment #18. It is a bit offensive when an SM post carries statements like this (emphasis mine):

. . . India's Communists have blocked India from having access to Western technology that their paymasters in China already enjoy. Someone is popping champagne in Beijing, seeing their Indian puppets carry out their bidding with such effectiveness.

This is offensive at two levels. Unless filed under "Humor", a post on SM is not expected to be a purveyor of unverified innuendo like the statement emphasised above. The CPI, for a long time, had senior members in the party leadership who were in the pay of the KGB. However, there is no history of similar links with China. Whatever be your or my issues with the CPI and the CPI-M, they must not manifest themselves in an SM post (SM is not the DrudgeReport or a blog collective of that ilk) that alleges -- without any links to credible sources -- that members of a mainstream political party are in the pay of a foreign power. Granted that SM is not a news outlet, but it has not chosen to go into innuendo either.

But what offends me more than the above is the "having access to the Western technology" bit. Firstly, in the last 15 years, it has been the uppitiness of the U.S. that has prevented India from having access to Western technology, rather than political sabotage at home. Secondly, Indian science is not such a basket-case that it desperately needs infusion of Western technology, as your statement seems to suggest. The Indian science establishment, like that of any other country except the U.S. (whose science establishment is remarkable), is made up of equal numbers of bright and earnest scientists, smart and world-weary slackers, and out-and-out scoundrels. The amazing failure of the Indian atomic-energy establishment stems from the fact that it largely comprises scientists from the latter two categories. Similarly, the success of the Indian space programme stems from the fact that most ot its members are drawn from the former two categories. Both case-studies can be well understood without invoking either "superior western technology" or Communist subversion.

BTW, I strongly suspect that the reason behind the Indian atomic-energy establishment's opposition to the 123-Agreement (before the sudden and timid volte face by Anil Kakodkar) had everything to do with the fact that specific provisions of the agreement would have revealed the extent to which it had, through the years, parasitised unaccounted amounts of public funds.

PS in #25 - That was a rant to highlight this Governments weakness to bring about a radical change for the better, please ignore. And I am actually quite pro affirmative action, but not the kind we are practicing in India at the moment. That needs to be changed and improved. I digress so let's drop this.

The last BJP government

The last few years they seem to have lost direction, they seem to be trying to rely even more on the saffron card and their up coming leadership leaves a lot to be desired. They seem to be very different from the BJP government which ruled a few years back.

demonstrating again that India is not ready for the world stage.

Seriously? If anything, the dumping of this deal by the commies shows how robust the Indian democracy is, compared to the presidential thugocracy in the US. Instead of meekly appeasing the executive that does not even need legislative ratification to ram this treaty down, the CPI is, for once, doing the right thing and protecting India's national interest. I understand that this is an American blog, and therefore your loyalties probably lie in protecting America's national interest which lies in subjugating India's nuclear capabilities of which this deal is an instrument. However, from Indian perspective, this is deal is an unmitigated disaster.

Here's a few statements from the CPI(M)'s website on the nuclear deal where they articulate their opposition to the deal:
AN OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
On the Indo-US Bilateral Nuclear Cooperation Agreement

Guess what - these are the same concerns expressed by BJP and other nationalists at the other end of the political spectrum. Here's the three part series exchange between Brahma Chellaney - a nationalist defense analyst - and Kapil Sibal, a Congress minister (DB pointed to part 3 in #24, I found all three on Brahma's blog):

Questions raised by the 123 Agreement
123 Agreement: A Response to Brahma Chellaney
123 Questions Won’t Go Away – A Rejoinder

Brahma's blog has many other excellent analytical articles, some of which are:
Put Nuclear Deal On Hold
In A Nuclear Bind
Wool Pulled Over India's Eyes

As the CPI has rightly pointed out, if the deal had to be ratified in the Indian parliament, it would be resoundingly defeated. Unfortunately, it's a shortcoming of the Indian Constitution that gives the executive the privilege to sign a foreign treaty without legislative ratification. What CPI has done is to use its power to prevent the executive from ramming a bad deal in the absence of a parliamentary power to block it even though it is not supported by a majority of the MPs.

If the left and right coming across the party line to prevent abuse of executive privilege is not true democracy in action, then I don't know what is. Compare this with the lying Colin Powell and his dog and pony show at the UN, or the Democrats including Hillary Clinton meekly surrendering to the thug-in-chief to wage an illegal war and kill half a million innocent civilians. Compare this with the US Congress destroying the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans in the name of a phony and endless war on terror instead of standing up to a corrupt, incompetent and dishonest executive. Compare the Indian media's strong expression of dissent over the deal with the lying propaganda machine of the US media that created a freak show out of playing the war on TV.

But I guess poor Indians are so not ready for the world stage until they learn lessons in democracy from the great US of A. NOT.

BTW, I am completely in agreement with those who think that Man-moron Singh has been a complete failure as a prime minister of India and that communist parties are, in general, thugs and louts with nothing positive to contribute to the future of India. So, by and large, I agree with the main premise of the post. However, the nuclear deal is the wrong stick to beat the commies with as they are, surprisingly enough, doing the right thing. I am speculating that it is more or less an accidental by-product of their anti-Americanism and pro-Iranism stemming out of muslim vote bank politics. Still, fair is fair, and it must be acknowledged that what they have done is actually good for India's national interest.

Most people knew that the Manmohan Singh (Congress) led government was weak coming in. To it's credit it has been able to keep economic reforms going. The fact that they overreached their ability in trying to get an Indo-US Nuclear deal was based on getting support from the BJP as well. That the deal is stalled at the moment is not an indication of a meltdown, but an inherent reflection of the flaws in the deal that it's benefits are not very convincing to a lot of parties and people. I would be happy if it dies prematurely, but have a feeling that it would be revived and the deal would go through to India's long-term detriment.

The Nuclear Deal has nothing to do with India's standing on the world stage. If anything, it would have weakened India's independent standing and would make India a client state of the US.

As for caste based reservations in the private sector and pandering to muslim sentiments, it is the worst face of the Congress in line with it's vote-bank politics and has nothing to do with foreign policy or nuclear deals!

In summary if you looking to give a report to Manmohan Singh's administration it would not be a 'meltdown' but 'par for the course' of what was expected.

In su

KXB, I am not sure on what your credentials are, but a lot of what you have written here, shows your lack of understanding on how India works.

To start off, the past decade, Indian voters have been split when it comes to electing people to power. The growth of regional parties and lack of voters have been major contributors. Another ill timed election will have serious consequences for India.

The. U.S. invested a lot into the deal, being criticized by the non-proliferation community as being reckless, by some paleo-cons as being too indulgent with India, etc. But it was, in a sense, a bet by the U.S. that India was going to take a bigger role on the world stage. America bet on the wrong horse.

One of the important reasons the US pursued this deal was to balance the power in Asia. In fact very recently there were joint military exercises between India and the US that irked China. To say that the US invested a lot is the half truth. India did too.

If you look at India's stance towards the US, they have never been too comfortable. In fact when the Tsunami hit South Asia, India refused US help.

Given such a stance (and it has been the same way throughout history) it was amazing that we opened our doors and we engaged in dialog. You cannot expect us to jump into bed when you are ready, there is also the part where you want to dictate terms.

Also, I think India earned this. Out of all the developing counties if one can be trusted with technology, it is India. Sure we have our flaws, at least we are not secretly selling ammunition.

By failing to get the Communists in line, PM Manmohan Singh has shown he is an incompetent who cannot get things done. Under his watch, there have been no major arrests in high profile terrorist attacks, such as the Bombay train blasts of 2006 or the recent blasts in Hyderabad. Naxalites have free reign over parts of rural India. In the immediate neighborhood the Maoists are close to seizing control in Nepal, Bangladesh is under military rule, and Sri Lanka is looking to Pakistan for weapons to deal with the Tamil Tigers.

Like you quote else where, Singh is not a career politician, but no matter who was in power, this deal was never going to go take off as easily as people assumed. Most issues you have pointed out here have always existed. Given that Nepal, Bangladesh and Burma are all having trouble at the same time has focussed a lot of international attention to the region. The Sri Lanka problem has existed for over a decade, none of which, Singh is responsible for.

On the economic front, reforms have stalled. With millions of young workers entering the labor force every year, Singh has failed to enact labor market reforms that can make those jobs available. Instead, all Singh managed to do was threaten the private sector with caste quotas. All that will do is ensure that the private sector will be as wasteful and unproductive as public sector.

I would appreciate links. What economic reforms have been stalled? (The link you have now updated the post with red tape, not economic reforms) The growth that India was experiencing was never sustainable for a long time, talk to economists they will tell you. Although we produce a gazillion educated people, who enter the workforce every year, you will find that unless they come from a top ranking school, they skills in the world stage are lacking. A lot of it has to do with the lack of infrastructure and syllabus that is outdated. Again, problems that have been plaguing India for a long time, nothing that Singh could change in a few years at the helm.

On the education front, primary and secondary education are still woefully underfunded, with absentee teachers collecting money for classes that are not taught. Rather than deal with this, Singh offers to expand quotas at university level, and increase the acceptance rate which is likely to lower standards.

India never depended on the public educations system. When you see news that a kid from a low-income family made it big, it is news, because it really is a wonder.

By being adamant in their opposition to the deal, Indias Communists have blocked India from having access to Western technology that their paymasters in China already enjoy. Someone is popping champagne in Beijing, seeing their Indian puppets carry out their bidding with such effectiveness.

This is the only part of your post I agree with. But then again, India has been getting technology from Europe, particularly France. This deal failing is not good news for India that has to look else where to fix its energy deficit, more importantly, the ties between the two countries will be bitter for a while. Blame this on the Indian voter bank and the democratic system in India, some of it on Singh, not all.

Overall, this post shows that you are out of touch with reality, at least when it comes to India. I am thankful that none of the SM regular's work on such sweeping and ill researched assumptions. To say that I am very very disappointed is an understatement.

Man-moron Singh

Absolutely uncalled for.

Gujjubhai at #34, in re

. . . a complete failure as a prime minister of India and that communist parties are, in general, thugs and louts with nothing positive to contribute to the future of India.

Reasons please ? Just because Manmohan Singh does not talk the cowboy-capitalist talk that warms the hearts of the Indian business class, and he expresses sympathy for the parents of young men who have, owing to life's circumstances, been presumed guilty of heinous crimes until proven innocent, does not make him a failure. At least he has not (so far, hallelujah!) ordered the release of convicted terrorists from prison. Or like one other Gujjubhai, given his blessings to a systematic pogrom (okay, that was a bit uncalled for; I'm sorry).

The test of an Indian PM lies not in whether he can maintain 9% GDP growth, or privatise everything in sight a la Boris Yeltsin, or whether the Indian Armed Services can stick it up a neighbour's ar$e whenever it wants to. His mettle lies in whether he can do anything to alleviate the ugly, soul-sapping poverty of those Indians that have never had any experience of trade or enterpreneurship, and who will therefore not benefit from the (very) gradual exit of the state from the mercantile sphere. In this regard, Manmohan's report-book is a mixed one. Manmohan's record on improving access to quality schooling, which would probably have a far more lasting impact on poverty than government largesse, is dismal. On the positve side, his administration's policies on rural credit* and on halting the diversion of power away from the farm sector for non-industrial uses have been first-class. Hardly reason to call him "Man-moron".

* although I am still holding my breath on the durability of this one

GB, the reasons for MM Singh's political failure are well articulated in Nitin Pai's blog post that KXB linked to in the main entry. And, speaking of releasing convicted terrorists from prison, MM Singh actually did one better : he made the Congress's chief architect of 1984 pogrom - the man whose armed mobs terrorized and brutalized Sikh population of New Delhi - his cabinet minister. MM Sing is a disgrace - how can he get the likes of Tytler to sit on the same cabinet table as him?

Amitabh, apologies for using the monicker - but seriously, MM Singh is an utter failure. He has lowered the dignity and prestige of the office of the PM of India and set a dangerous precedent of creating an extra-constitutional, unaccountable center of power outside that office, which dictates how the country is run without any democratic oversight.

36 · Karthik KXB, I am not sure on what your credentials are, but a lot of what you have written here, shows your lack of understanding on how India works.

To say that I am very very disappointed is an understatement.

Karthik,

People with IQ's in the triple digits (I'm just sayin') don't need "credentials" to talk about India. Take your "license raj" inclinations, and your massively unwarranted condescension & stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

MM Singh's political failure are well articulated in Nitin Pai's blog post

Dude Gujjubhai, you call that well-articulated!?! Nitin Pai characterises Manmohan's record as miserable, and the evidence he cites are his own blog posts, the views/conclusions of which are definitely open to debate. At my day job, we have a rather rude word for that!!!! But I shall refrain from lowering the tone. Let's just say that Nitin Pai's argument is rather unscientific.

GB,

Fine then..perhaps you'd find the rest of KXB's post and many other comments on this thread enlightening enough to figure out why MMS is a failure. For me, his inclusion of Jagdish Tytler as a union minister was enough evidence of his moral bankruptcy that set the tone of his tenure right from the beginning of his tenure as a toady of the Nehru dynasty.

From what I understand, India's bullish market is not impeded in the least bit.

Seriously, the chances of any Indian PM resigning is zero. And even if the experienced Manmohan Singh can't deal with these problems, imagine what it will be like when Congress's wet dream comes true, and Rahul, a man with no talents or attributes other than being considered as a King with a divine right to rule, is somehow leveraged into the place of power.

First of all, it does seem a bit premature to write off the deal just yet. Some headlines had to come out of the Hindustan Times Summit, the MC acknowledged as much - and these were the ones they chose, nuance being the last thing that headlines lend themselves to. As Sonia Gandhi actually observed (and I never thought I would ever be quoting her on anything) - if they didn't come up with sensationalist headlines, nobody would read their paper. At which everybody on stage and in the audience had a big laugh. But it's true, so let's not get too worked up about it all, just yet.

BTW, for those who have time and are so inclined, the link I posted above has videos of remarks by, and detailed exchanges with, a number of major players, including an hour with Finance Minister Chidambaram, an hour with Sonia Gandhi, an hour with Shah Rukh Khan (the most impressive of the lot, and it really changed my mind about him, and the Indian film industry in general - it was also, understandably, the most well-attended session. Someone actually asked him about the Nobel Prize for IPCC and Raj Pachauri, and what the fact that he didn't mention it in his remarks means for how India markets itself and its products in the global market. Very interesting). Shorter segments with Dr. El Baradei (who, it turns out, is a lawyer, not a nuclear physicist or engineer, a revelation that really made me sit up), and Imran Khan - whose segment gets cut off just as things get interesting. I hope they put that up in full.

For those asking what reforms are stalled, check out the Chidambaram segment from the videos.

To come to the deal itself - the point Amrita makes about choosing the most appropriate technology is absolutely bang-on. Solar and wind is proceeding ahead, but is not yet at the stage where large scale generating plants can be hooked into the grid. Wind is a little farther ahead, but both suffer from intermittency problems. Not every day is windy or sunny, even in India. :) But as to thorium, yes, that's a very good point, and India is already using thorium in its indigenous PHWRs. However, until the effective embargo is lifted, India cannot get access to the full spectrum of advanced technologies. Only after it has access can it can pick and choose - whether it is pure thorium reactors (currently it uses U and Th) or continue with natural uranium reactors (with Australian uranium), it doesn't necessarily have to get light water enriched uranium reactors. That it needs to get anything from abroad is not a statement about Indian technology - it is a statement about Indian industrial capacity. India is ahead in fast breeder technology, but if so, when the embargo is lifted, it can offer this to the world on commercial terms. The deal is not one-way!

But the fundamental issue I see among people debating so many sides of this issue - is the conviction somehow that India is an entity completely independent of the world system, and all its decisions, whether internal or external, can be completely autonomous, that it can economically engage the rest of the world without also becoming an active strategic player and sharing in the world strategic consensus. Well, that's flat out wrong. There is no such thing as absolute sovereignty, and any strategic space that is carved out for any nation, including the hegemon, is a complicated negotiation with the world system, and the nuclear deal is a way of developing such a strategic room for maneuver. Alliances can both create strategic space for you, and restrict those of others who wish you harm. Intelligent choices in such matters is what statecraft is about. An alliance with the US should not be seen merely as constraining India, but also as a way of influencing, even encouraging US policy, especially in those areas where the impact on India is geratest, such as the immediate neighborhood.

The fact that there is opposition to the deal from both the left and the right in India illustrates not some advanced strategic mindset but rather that both sides are still seeing the world through outdated ideological lenses. One of the CPIM bigwigs actually said that they 'do not want India to become another Japan', a statement that almost made me puke. Sure, Japan is under the US umbrella and has explicitly hosted US bases and does not have a completely independent foreign policy. But it is arguably the technologically most advanced country in the world, the second largest economy, and a very prosperous country that has also managed to preserve many aspects of its unique culture. I suggest these two things are not independent of each other, the second, in fact, largely follows the first. So if there is something India should very much want to become more like, it is Japan! So I simply don't buy the CPIM silliness on this issue.

And just look at China - for the last 30 years, they have played ball with the US. For the first half of that period, they were actually on the team against the former Soviet Union! This de facto alliance enabled them to attract Western investment, and develop an economy that in PPP terms is already almost as large as the US. Today, in nuclear matters, they cooperate with the rest of the world across the board. Barely 40 years ago they were the nuclear pariah, after their A-bomb in 1964 and H-bomb in 1966.

And India cannot play this kind of ball with the world system? Why?

For me, his inclusion of Jagdish Tytler as a union minister was enough evidence of his moral bankruptcy that set the tone of his tenure right from the beginning of his tenure as a toady of the Nehru dynasty.

First, Jagdish Tytler resigned after the Nanavati Commission report. Let the law take its course. In a parliamentary democracy - be it India, Japan - they are pockets of zone of influence, even with your own party - and they have to be included to survive. That is why you see Arjun Singh, Sharad Pawar, Pranab Mukherjee all in the cabinet, even though they all are rivals, and have in past openly sabotaged each other. At one point, Sharad Pawar even broke away from Sonia Gandhi. In Japan, politicians who openly hate each other share cabinet to keep every zonal influence equally represented within the ruling party.

I think people are missing two most important points:

a) MM Singh is not a failure. In fact, he is perceived as pro-growth*, and has taken some important initiatives. This comes to core of the present situation - coalition politics. You can do so much within the confines of very varying support groups, and yet survive your government to full term. Most of the aggressive growth policies are shuttled by communist partners**. Coalition politics, like Italy is here to stay in India. It has its pluses and minuses.

* Somebody raised a point that why did MM Singh did not recommend opening prior to 1991 when he was Deputy Chairman Planning Commission, and Chairman, Reserve Bank of India. In fact, during last phases of Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi Indian economy was showing signs of opening, albeit incredibly slow. The 1991 forex crisis was a watershed event, and he (MM Singh) had the gumption to go with IMF recommendations in a much bolder manner. At that time, it was seen as a very risky venture, and Rao-Singh were opposed from all quarters, citing Mexico, Argentina as examples of free falling due to IMF recommendations. It is true that now Argentina is turning around.

** This comes to someone raised that communist are never close to Chinese - in fact, they are very close, especially CPI (ML), and history tells you in Tibet crisis, 1962 Indo-China War, Naxalite movement. In past, some of the communist group openly derived support from USSR - Read Guha's India After Gandhi. This all said, they (communist) have very strong grass root support in West Bengal, and Kerala, and cannot be written off.

2) Now to Indo-US Nuclear deal - Indo-US Nuclear deal is a natural progression of global politics, and would come to fruition be it BJP or Congress. LK Advani did a 180 a month ago, he came out and supported the deal with minor modifications (Hyde Act), and also 123 agreement. I think BJP wants Congress to fall/ fail, snap polls being called, they hope they (BJP) comes to power, get the deal, and show that they are the only government that get controversial things seen through. Personally, I am not too much freaked out on MM Singh's statement - He is playing politics (good for him), and is letting communist partners have an honorable stance or back off without loss of face.

The proof is that right now (few days ago) - IAEA chief was in India. His visit did not get delayed.

Kush, very good points.

@28

the first about rahul gandhi statement was a quoted from #11

IMF policies

The medicine IMF recommended to India in 1991 failed in Mexico, Argentina***, and Turkey.

They all went belly up.

*** Now Argentina is doing quite well but had some real crisis prior.

Why did it succeed in India?

It was combination of many events - nascent software outsourcing business (like TCS that had been doing contract work all over the world for ages) just mushroomed, Ireland had moved to tier I country so cheaper outsourcing like call centers were not viable there anymore, and India was a natural destination (english speaking), large number of software engineers, IBM thrown out of India (way before 1991) forced local computer industry to develop, and Y2K.

People with IQ's in the triple digits (I'm just sayin') don't need "credentials" to talk about India. Take your "license raj" inclinations, and your massively unwarranted condescension & stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

Condescension? You of all people is accusing someone of that? You are the only commenter here who feels the need to consistently remind everyone that you are a Yale Alum, nevermind the fact that half the bloggers and a solid portion of the regulars here ALSO attended an Ivy...and yet, they don't feel the need to reference it constantly, which says a lot. Triple-digit IQs aren't as infallible as you seem to think and anyone who relies on such a pointless contention to refute anything is essentially admitting defeat in a debate.

I humbly suggest you take your obvious insecurity and do similar with it. I'm sorry to mirror incivility with more, but enough is enough. I'm just sayin'. Perhaps next time you can draw on your Yale credentials to craft a better comeback.

Kush, you left out some very important reasons why India did not go "belly up" like Argentina, for instance. I think one of the most important reasons was that unlike the south american countries, there were significant capital controls in effect in india. for instance the rupee was never fully convertible (still isn't) in contrast to many of the south american currencies.

Chachaji,
You have made some pretty good points. Man, are there a lot of downright US haters in here - its not just the CPM politicians who view the world through idealogical lenses alone but some people on this message board too.

"While in India one can feel the bitterness towards the US. Can you blame some people for not wanting to partake in a watershed deal with a US regime that will be remembered by history as the biggest thuggery that ever was after WW2? I just never ever want to see our Prime Minster shaking hands with George Bush in a picture that would look like he was grateful to him."

It seems one can "feel the bitterness" towards the US - ahh yes, indeed. And the inferiortiy complex that many Indians have reveals itself in statements like Singh looking like he was "grateful to Bush". Really ? Is ManMohan Singh going for the deal so that he can make Bush happy ?

I can only shake my head with disappointment when i read comments like this - there are people here who have given reasons as to why there should be some questions about the deal. But this outright hatred for the US by people like Sandeep who some how have a pulse on how the entire Indian nation feels about the US is revealing of people who would prefer to live in a time warp with no consideration of what is going on in the world today.

And yes, the communists are nothing more than Chinese agents - I will say that they are the biggest traitors of this country - they have held up all prospects of reform in retail, banking, financial sectors with no consideration of how badly Indian agriculture and Indian consumers need these reforms. Why?? Because these reforms are harmful to their thuggish trade unions and Indian business interests who have entrenched themselves in this sham socialist claptrap of a system.

The communists do not want India and the US to get strategically closer as they can sense that this is trying to contain China. Can any one in this message board tell me as to why the commies are opposed to India contributing to the democracy initiative ?? Their hatred for the US is supposed to stop us from co-operating with them even when we have common interests.

I hope that this Government falls - i want to see the Communists pull down this Government solely due to the US-India deal even though they have had their way with every major aspect of reforming the Indian economy.

This will awaken people to how much important anti-US hatred is for the survival of communism in India - the idealogy has been so throughly debunked that these commie thugs have nothing more than blind anti Americanism to hang on to.

It seems one can "feel the bitterness" towards the US - ahh yes, indeed. And the inferiortiy complex that many Indians have reveals itself in statements like Singh looking like he was "grateful to Bush". Really ? Is ManMohan Singh going for the deal so that he can make Bush happy ?

I can only shake my head with disappointment when i read comments like this - there are people here who have given reasons as to why there should be some questions about the deal. But this outright hatred for the US by people like Sandeep who some how have a pulse on how the entire Indian nation feels about the US is revealing of people who would prefer to live in a time warp with no consideration of what is going on in the world today.

while i do agree that reflexive hatred of any idea is probably unwise, it is also erroneous to equate the leader of a particular state with its people, like you do above. hatred for bush or the u.s. government (while possibly wrong) cannot and should not be equated with disapproval of "the u.s.", unless the term is defined more precisely. same with terms such as "anti-americanism". pardon me, but what in heaven's name is that supposed to connote? does is meant dislike of basketball or baseball or football? does it mean criticism of the apple pie, or sinclair lewis? does it mean disapproval of mark twain or william faulkner or orson welles's movies? does it mean criticism of certain grammatical rules or spellings of american english? please clarify your terms.

Man, are there a lot of downright US haters in here

I love the US but her politics and corporate war machine is something questioned and criticised by even the most patriotic of citizens. For everything else though like it's women's rights culture and overall societal vibe, the live and let live attitude, I love it.

Man, are there a lot of downright US haters in here - its not just the CPM politicians who view the world through idealogical lenses alone but some people on this message board too.

What Tara said. I don't hate the US, but I am critical of certain foreign policies and the nationalistic rhetoric that goes in the name of patriotism. But I also appreciate and like many other aspects of the US.

Kush, you left out some very important reasons why India did not go "belly up" like Argentina, for instance.

That is true, also, I must also partially correct myself, that as of today, Mexico, Argentina, and Turkey are doing very well.

Turkey is considered a first world economy, and parts of Mexico too.

"same with terms such as "anti-americanism". pardon me, but what in heaven's name is that supposed to connotedoes is meant dislike of basketball or baseball or football? does it mean criticism of the apple pie, or sinclair lewis? does it mean disapproval of mark twain or william faulkner or orson welles's movies? does it mean criticism of certain grammatical rules or spellings of american english? please clarify your terms"

Sigh, thanks for asking the question !! I dont know if you are from India or the United States (or any where else) but i will try to explain anti Americanism from an Indian context.

It is equating the country to a capitalist nation state that is inherently, how do i put it... suspect in its motives and in many cases out right evil. Just take the Vietnam war for example. Any time you hear an anti US rant, it will be never complete with out a recall of this war. In fact it was only after coming here I realized how deeply conflicting this war was and is to American civil society. Or the fact that it was first started under JFK's Presidency - you would nt know the context in which the war was started or how America lost its nerve in trying to combat communism. All that any one outside of here or even many people here think of is that the war is nothing more than an excuse for the military industrial complex which had to keep itself busy. Of course aided and abetted by American civilians who had a role in voting in these Governments.

Here are some other aspects:

1.Baseball is a stupid game where people simply hack at the ball - Football is nothing more than a sport that glorifies violence. Dont even remind people that basketball was invented by an American - you are better off not doing so. And yes, lets not even talk to Indian commies about American music/literature/arts etc - they are all nothing more than American "cultural imperialism" unless of course these very same works of art, music, literature reveal how bad America/American capitalism/corporate "war machine" is. It is no surprise that Bob Dylan , Paul Robeson Michael Moore are more recognized of being the authentic voices of America than any of their counterparts who may not hold the same views as them.

How do people make such sweeping assertions about a sport or sports of which they have very little idea of the rules of the game, let alone its strategies/rivalries/traditions ? Very simple. They are all American in nature and there fore they cannot be anything more than representative of the mad and violent nature of the Yanks.

All Americans are driven by greed and are after nothing more than getting themselves richer. Right. Unlike all other people who live in this world, who are driven by such altruism that they gave us such wonderful systems like communism, socialism and ever other ism which brought more human suffering than what the worst excesses of capitalism gave us ??

2.They follow a capitalist system that fleeces the blood of poor workers while the rich industrialists get richer at their expense.
As ridiculously one sided this comment is, i have come to realize that many people here in America believe pretty much the same thing !! And it is shared pretty widely in any country that has suffered from European imperialism.

I have lived in this "capitalist system" for the last 7 years and i can honestly put my hand on my heart and say that this economic system for all its imperfections is more fair and more respectful of people what ever their professions may be and more free as compared to ANY OTHER socialist/communist/economic system. If i try making this argument to a communist in India now, i will be branded grossly naive of the "ways of America" at best and an American lackey at worst.

Trust me on this one - the very fact that this deal will bring the US and India closer to each other than ever before is such a troubling aspect to communists and socialists and a few right wingers in India that they will pull out all stops to make sure that this deal is sabotaged in the end.

...if you dig deep enough into nitin pai and his cohorts blogs, you will find various degrees of support and defense of the RSS, BJP, and especially the prima-fascist Narendra Modi...these guys are just a better articulated version of VHP thugs who were ripping off fetuses and burning pregnant women during the Gujarat riots....your referencing him is like quoting white supremacist blogs to criticize Howard Dean's policies within the US, the idiotic Indian communists notwithstanding......KXB, pls be careful....those unfamilair with the Indian political scene should be wary of quoting these ppl, as there is a certain segment of upper class/caste India, who have a superficial familiarity with western ideas, just enough to be articulate in english but not enough to be liberal....and it is mostly this kind that populates the Indian blogosphere...they all have the telltale vocabulary: Islamofascism/minority appeasement/nationalism/historical revisionism, etcetera....just because they happen to be pro-US does not mean they share the essential liberal US values....to that extent, the Indian left is probably closer to mainstream US liberalism than these fascists, although they too have their own issues, not the least helped by the historical vagaries and hypocrisies of US foreign policy.....

uuh, Check,
Let me throw out a word to counter every thing you said about Nitin Pai and his "cohorts" - ad hominem. I have read the National Interest blog and it is not throwing out words like Islamofascism/minority appeasement meaninglessly. Nitin expresses views that he tries to back up with facts. If you dont agree with him show us how and where Nitin is wrong while he writes about murderous islamist fundamentalist terrorists, the minority appeasement which indeed happens in India every day due to Congress vote bank politics. If you can't do that all you are doing is indulging in character assasination.

You definitely sound like a leftist and your description of VHP/RSS seems to back it up. It is very easy to hide under a cloak that blames right wing Hindu groups for every thing that is wrong with India when you gladly overlook the atrocities that were commited with impunity on innocent Hindu civilians in Godhra or just about any where else where communal flare ups are frequent. Old Hyderabad would be a good example of this.

No one seems to be bothered that we have a mountain range called "HinduKush" or how it came to have that name but show examples of minority appeasement and immediately you are labelled as an Aryan supremacist.

Your view that Indian left is probably closer to mainstream US liberalism almost made me laugh, before it made me think. The Indian commies/leftists and people of their line of thinking are the biggest impediment to national economic progress and have no appreciation for the concept of individual freedom, liberty and personal responsibility or how free markets are the best way to prosperity.

Todays mainstream US liberals who favor a ginormous Federal Government are pretty close to the Indian leftists now more than any time before.

The vote bank politics, the regional parties, the religious and ethnic divide etc etc...all lead to a status quo quagmire in India. There will be no reform in India, labor or otherwise unless India is on verge of bankruptcy or is faced with any other critical national crisis.

These are the same people who would trust national energy needs through a pipeline from Iran via Pakistan...rather than sign a nuclear deal. Its apparent to anyone with an IQ over 70 that any infrastructure dependent on that pipeline would be subject to economic blackmail by Iran and Pakistan. Just like a drug dealer, Iran and Pakistan will let India get dependent on the pipeline, build its economical engine around it, and then hold the nation hostage. Getting nuclear technology is a step towards self reliance in energy needs. Iraq and Afghanistan war for all its rhetoric would never have happened if there was no need to secure the future of the oil routes from these region (Afghanistan is needed to get Khazak route going). World is already fighting for oil, and rather than go towards self sufficiency, the future energy policy is rudderless....if there is a policy.

check, how's the FOSA and FOIL kool-aid taste?

Well I for one am disappointed. Being a greenie, I personally think that nuclear energy
is the only effective large scale solution we have for dealing with global warming.
There is enough science to back this up. Given India's current and future energy demands,
nuclear would have been a near-perfect solution. Unfortunately not anymore, and now
we'll have to resort to opening more gas plants and pumping out more CO in the atmosphere.
~sigh~

# 52,

I do not hate the US, I live here. I hate the current regime. I never claimed to have a "pulse on the entire Indian nation", you misquoted me. My exact words (#27) were, "Can you blame some people for not wanting to partake in a watershed deal with a US regime that will be remembered by history as the biggest thuggery that ever was after WW2?" Please be responsible and try not to lash out at people.

I maintain, that if you visit India right now and spend some time in offices, bars and neighbourhood get-together's in any major metropolis you will find most people saying that while they appreciate America as a nation (people like Al Gore exist here) they cannot stand Bush Jr and the current neo-cons. I suspect that you will hear this in many parts of the world - I hear this sentiment a lot when I travel.

My point is simple -- the image of the current regime in intertwined with the N-deal. Nuclear deal = thank you George Bush. That, a lot of people just cannot stomach. Unfortunately there were merits to this technology, merits of a very different sort than what the Manhattan Project created with it. The world is still smarting, wounded and horrified with the term 'nuclear'. People cannot still separate this term from the destruction it indexes. Try to understand that these things need to happen in an atmosphere of trust which is just not there. Yet.

, Singh is not a career politician,

A real politician/statesman would know when to make a deal with the opposition and when to cut losses. This is a real life skill which is not what academicians are known for.

I would rather have a tough politician lead a COMPLEX country like India (complex is understatement for India) than an academician. All those things aside Prime minister Singh has been OK for India so far.

India's installed power generation capacity is about 123,000MW (123GW) of which nuclear power's share is only 3%. World-wide nuclear power's share is about 16%. The 11th five-year plan envisages a capacity addition of 68,503MW of which nuclear power is only 3160MW. Check this link for more info. It doesn't make strategic sense to barter our strategic autonomy for uranium and technology dependence on a few countries like US(Light Water Nuclear reactor supplier) and Australia (Uranium supplier) for a small share of our future installed electric generation capacity.

The case being made here is not that India should not sign a nuclear deal with the US. Rather that India should sign on to the right deal that would preserve its strategic autonomy while giving it access to global nuclear trade.

So says Raghotham in his article 'What are these strategic compromises for, after all? Part II'
This guy's and makes much sense to me.

Sandeep,
You are making sweeping statements about India - i dont know how you can make a decision that is of strategic importance based on the personal liking/disliking of the US President. I can go to any number of bars where people dont care a hoot about what Bush has done. I hope no one makes decisions of national interests based on personal opinons of a politician.

In fact i would go so far as to say that there hasnt been a bigger friend of India than GW Bush. No, thats not a misprint. This started way before 9/11 or anything else - his appointment of Robert Blackwill as ambassador to India was the starting point. There is an entire community here that vehemently opposes the nuclear deal on principles of non proliferation. But Bush has proceeded to go to the extra distance that no US President would have dared to go to - give a country specific deal when the country is not a NPT signatory. Of course this coincides with US strategic interests in the region but this deal would have been NOWHERE but for Bush putting his personal stamp on this issue.

India will have more access to civilian nuclear technology than before and as some one pointed out it would be way better than trying to get gas flowing through Iran and Pakistan, two fundamentally unstable states.

This issue is NOT about Bush - he is gone in 2008 - what after that ? What exactly should the US do to gain the "trust" of India ?? Do you trust your own Prime Minister, first off ? Do you think he is not concerned about India as much as you or any other citizen does? Dont you think he has access to more facts about India's energy situation than what we do ??

"The world is still smarting, wounded and horrified with the term 'nuclear'. People cannot still separate this term from the destruction it indexes."

If Indians were confused between peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the nuclear bomb ,they dont seem to be showing it.No body wants to shut down our reactors in Kalpakkam or anywhere else, do they ?

There's no point talking more about this - i think the deal is doomed for now. But KXB is right - India is not ready for the world stage and Bush did bet on the wrong horse.

I maintain, that if you visit India right now and spend some time in offices, bars and neighbourhood get-together's in any major metropolis you will find most people saying that while they appreciate America as a nation (people like Al Gore exist here) they cannot stand Bush Jr and the current neo-cons.

Sandeep, this might depend on where these offices and bars are located. I don't think Bangalore or Mumbai would have too many such places, though Kolkata might! :) But the deal in any case is far too important to be decided by opinion polling addas, whether in Kolkata, Mumbai or Bangalore.

I think it is extremely important that people, especially opinion leaders - in India (and elsewhere) conceptually separate the actions of the current US administration from the US as a country. Also, they ought to revise their view of India itself. It is no longer a weak postcolonial state, it is an emerging global player, and the whole world is emerging as its neighborhood, just like for the US. Without an appropriate self-conception, no deal, whatever its details can pass muster, because India will always see itself as inferior. This must stop anyway, but now, with the deal squarely in focus, is as good a time to goad the realization as any.

Some version of a nuclear deal has been in discussion since Clinton was President, and certainly was being discussed when the BJP was in power in India. The realization that the US and India can be partners pre-dates 9/11. So opposing the deal because of the actions of the current administration neocons, however reprehensible those might be, is something much worse than cutting your nose to spite your face. It is foolish beyond appropriate descriptive metaphor.

This deal is easily one of the biggest gambles the US has taken on the global stage in its entire history, and it is certainly one of the longest-term strategic initiatives that the Indian techno-econo-strategic-diplomatic elite has attempted. That governments of both parties in both countries could see it in their interest to proceed with it, both before and after 9/11 - which otherwise forced a lot of rethinking in the US, especially about its European allies - gives a sense of its perceived importance and potential, and its stress-worthiness. I would still argue that, even among the elite, its true import is nevertheless still underappreciated, especially in India, but even in the US.

None of this means it should pass without critical examination, both on its strategic import and on its minutiae, but the debate does need to occur on the correct plane, and not through glasses ground in the last century.

Sandeep,

Chachaji is correct.

Bush Jr is very appreciated (popular) in India - most Indians see him as pro-outsourcing, and that is very close to their economic well being. An average Indian does not care about neo-con, paleo-con, etc.

Nuclear in India = bomb that Indians see as strategic weapon against their neighbors, so Indo-US deal is seen as interference to India's national security, rather than other way around.

It is foolish beyond appropriate descriptive metaphor.

Awesome line.

Chachaji and Kush, thanks for your very edifying perspectives on this topic. Chachaji, tussin tan Siddhartha Mitter di yaad davaa ditti (not saying he would agree or disagree with you, but similar excellent and clear writing style).

50 · Pot, Kettle Condescension? You of all people is accusing someone of that?

Point taken--no hard feelings.

I am based in India, and here is my perception of the ground situation:

- A majority of the middle class is in favour of the nuclear deal - evidenced by newspaper opinion polls and popular sentiment on television
- The communist parties' opposition to the deal was perceived negatively
- Popular opinion was with the government up till the point Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh decided to cave in to the left's pressure
- The about face is being seen as a huge sign of weakness; the media is now asking the question, "if you can't govern, why are you in office?"

LikeThatOnly, interesting input, thanks. Hope to hear more from you, like that only! :)

Amitabh, thanks for the high praise - Siddhartha, however, is a professional, while I'm barely an amateur!

Being an Indian FOB (?!!) from one of the states that return the leftists to power every other election, I am compelled to state (my first time ever on this blog and second time ever in blogosphere, I am that miffed :-) that the CPI-M leaders are not as evil or as stupid as many of you seem to think. See below the observation made by Shashi Tharoor in his Times of India Column.

"I hold no truck with those who have been accusing the Left leaders of peddling China's interests in the name of anti-imperialism. I do not for a moment believe that the likes of Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury are agents of a foreign power. But reading of their crusade against the naval exercises with the Seventh Fleet this week leads me to think that their real problem is that they are prisoners of the past."

Being an Indian FOB (?!!) from one of the states that return the leftists to power every other election, I am compelled to state (my first time ever on this blog and second time ever in blogosphere, I am that miffed :-) that the CPI-M leaders are not as evil or as stupid as many of you seem to think. See below the observation made by Shashi Tharoor in his Times of India Column.

"I hold no truck with those who have been accusing the Left leaders of peddling China's interests in the name of anti-imperialism. I do not for a moment believe that the likes of Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury are agents of a foreign power. But reading of their crusade against the naval exercises with the Seventh Fleet this week leads me to think that their real problem is that they are prisoners of the past."

For the full article http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Columnists/Shashi_Tharoor/123_deal_A_diplomatic_triumph_for_India/articleshow/2372932.cms

India is blessed with plenty of sunshine. It makes sense for India to pursue solar energy in which it can be entirely self-sufficient, rather than make itself dependent or subservient to other nations. An indian-american professor is at the cutting edge of this technology:

http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=14932

"Sept. 10, 2007 -- Colorado State University's method for manufacturing low-cost, high-efficiency solar panels is nearing mass production. AVA Solar Inc. will start production by the end of next year on the technology developed by mechanical engineering Professor W.S. Sampath at Colorado State.

Produced at less than $1 per watt, the panels will dramatically reduce the cost of generating solar electricity and could power homes and businesses around the globe with clean energy for roughly the same cost as traditionally generated electricity.

Sampath has developed a continuous, automated manufacturing process for solar panels using glass coating with a cadmium telluride thin film instead of the standard high-cost crystalline silicon. Because the process produces high efficiency devices (ranging from 11% to 13%) at a very high rate and yield, it can be done much more cheaply than with existing technologies. The cost to the consumer could be as low as $2 per watt, about half the current cost of solar panels. In addition, this solar technology need not be tied to a grid, so it can be affordably installed and operated in nearly any location."

The cost should be even lower than that if the solar panels are mass-produced in India with its vastly lower wages.

It should come as no surprise that a blog which has historically held strong US nationalist positions should go in for alarmist statements like:

By failing to get the Communists in line, PM Manmohan Singh has shown he is an incompetent who cannot get things done. Under his watch, there have been no major arrests in high profile terrorist attacks, such as the Bombay train blasts of 2006 or the recent blasts in Hyderabad. Naxalites have free reign over parts of rural India. In the immediate neighborhood – the Maoists are close to seizing control in Nepal, Bangladesh is under military rule, and Sri Lanka is looking to Pakistan for weapons to deal with the Tamil Tigers. Pakistan has been a better neighbor lately, but that may have to do with its preoccupation with internal matters than any new thinking on their part.

Anyone who "dissapoints" the US is a loser and no-good piece of trash !!!!

Giving the vagaries of US foreign policy and its dealings with client states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel, I think the indians did well to go slow. Instead, the indians have been focussing on energy security and outreach to China and Russia, both excellent moves.

Manmohan Singh has doubled spending on primary education, the landmark Right-to-Information act was passed during his tenure and a massive rural employment scheme has been setup. The latter has many flaws, yet it is one of the biggest boosts to the rural economy. Slowly but surely the entire country is starting to have some minimal economic security, maybe for the first time in 400 or more years.

But who cares for all this, right? The important thing is that the annoying indians have done it again (Henry Kissinger once said that swedes and indians were the two most annoying people in the world) - dissapointed the US military-industrial complex. How dare they! - this is the substance of this vapid blog posting.

Anyone who "dissapoints" the US is a loser and no-good piece of trash !!!!

No, but anyone who caves into a party that holds only 7% of parliamentary seats, when that party is not even an "official" part of the coalition may qualify.

Instead, the indians have been focussing on energy security and outreach to China and Russia, both excellent moves.

Right, cause China will soon abandon all its military aid to Pakistan just to get trade with India, and China will cease outbidding Indian companies for energy contracts in Africa and SE Asia out of a sense of hindi-chini bhai bhai.

As for Russia, considering that they are pressuring New Delhi to buy more Russian aircraft, otherwise they will lean hard on Tajikistan to eject India from the one base India has outside its borders, they may not be the warm and fuzzy Russian bear of the Cold War. Which was an exagerrated repuation - in 1965, at the Treaty of Tashkent, the Russians pressured the Indians to give back some of the territory they seized during the '65 war.

Manmohan Singh has doubled spending on primary education, - thankfully, no auditing will be required. More absentee teachers.

a massive rural employment scheme has been setup. - interestingly, its been most effective in states not run by the Congress or its allies. India Job Scheme Disappointing

There is an interesting political sidelight to the scheme - early data is showing that three of the top performing states - Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh - in terms of generating employment are ruled by the opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

dissapointed the US military-industrial complex

Hardly - India will still be in the market of Boeing jets, UAVs - but yes, nuclear-related businesses will be hampered. But as some opponents of the deal pointed out, nuclear energy would still not exceed 10% of India's energies needs if the deal went through. Besides, the US military-industrial complex can already sell the same technology to China. The world's largest communist state will continue to enjoy the benefits of this business while the world's largest democracy will not. I'm sure the Politburo meeting this week in China will lament this sad state of affairs.

BTW - I think Gujjubhai makes excellent points about the effects of the nuclear deal on India's strategic independence. But I don't think this is what the Communists had in mind in their opposition - for them, it was pure anti-Americanism.

Al Beruni Giving the vagaries of US foreign policy and its dealings with client states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel, I think the indians did well to go slow. Instead, the indians have been focussing on energy security and outreach to China and Russia, both excellent moves.

While the past should not be completely irrelevant for India in considering a deal, especially a nuclear deal, with the US (given all the the misunderstandings over Tarapur, and the sanctions following both the 1974 and the 1998 tests, among other things) - I think it is worth emphasizing again, that this deal is not merely a commercial deal involving nuclear reactors, as Tarapur was.

This time, the commercial aspect of the deal is underpinned by a deeper strategic partnership based on shared threat perceptions, and a broader convergence in political, social and economic value systems. I would argue that the nuclear deal has ramifications for everything India wants across the board - from H-1B visas to changes in WTO rules to permanent membership in the Security Council. But at the most basic level, by providing a basis for non-fossil based electric power - it positively impacts the socio-economic well-being and life possibilities of the ordinary Indian. In its spillover impacts, I would suggest, there are implications also for such things as the status of Indians (South Asians more generally) abroad, including in North America.

Jeopardizing it by taking only a short-term, backward-looking, or fragmented perspective is not just crazy, it is crazier than anything I can imagine. I think if the deal fell through at the present juncture, not only will it be difficult to restart with whichever government(s) return in both India and the US in 2009 - but a number of these other things will also be adversely impacted, some of them more immediately.

Solar and Wind are being suggested as alternatives to nuclear, and research on them should continue, both in the US and in India. Indeed it will continue, even if the nuclear deal goes forward. But not only do they suffer from efficiency and intermittency problems already, and so, not only are they unsuitable for widespread deployment even as things stand, their usefulness will also be impacted further by climate change induced variability - areas that are currently windy or sunny could become less so in the future (more cloudy, less windy). That is why counting on solar or wind exclusive of nuclear is not a good bet.

But again, since the deal is about much more than just India's energy needs, even if solar and wind were today comparable to nuclear (and they aren't, not by a long shot) - I would argue, it would still be in India's interest to go in for the deal, because it formalizes the creation of a more secure strategic space in which India can pursue its development goals, apart from beneficially impacting a number of other things that India wants from the world economic and strategic system.

>> I do not dismiss those concerns out of hand, but the deal was something more – it was an acknowledgement of changing global realities. The. U.S. invested a lot into the deal, being criticized by the non-proliferation community as being reckless, by some paleo-cons as being too indulgent with India, etc. But it was, in a sense, a bet by the U.S. that India was going to take a bigger role on the world stage. America bet on the wrong horse.

Why the assumption that this was the US administration alone that was 'reaching out' to India and taking significant risks ? The Indian govt. took many risks too, and just as the Indian govt. backed out of the agreement since it was apparent that there was just not enough support in the Indian parliament for this agreement, the American govt. would back out too, if there was no support for the agreement in the US congress.

Lastly, get over your high moral(?) horse of insinuating that somehow the US was doing this for altruistic purposes. There were significant American interests involved in this agreement. By rejecting this, India has declared the following:~

1) We are a nuclear weapons state, and aspire for the high place in strategic affairs that has so far been occupied by the P-5. No halfway homes for us.
2) This deal you put forward was not good enough. We'll talk 5-10 years later when our economy is bigger, our domestic industrial base much larger and our science much more capable.

KXB,
Do you really think the Communists in India are controlled by China? I mean, as opposed to messed up, anti-American, etc., so acting here in a fashion such that they might as well be controlled by China? And, if they are so controlled, is it ideological loyalty (hard to see how any kind of "real" communist could be loyal ideologically to the Chi-Coms, who are letting entrepreneurs rip in China), or are they on the take financially? I love your "Someone is popping champagne in Beijing" point (that is just so correct!), but I have a bit of a hard time really believing that the Chi-Coms are the "paymasters." I guess it's possible though, as someone pointed out above, there were politicians on the KGB payroll back in the Cold War.

@74, the real surprise in the article is that shashi tharoor, for once, makes sense :) i agree that their problem is that they are stuck in an antiquated mode of operation, but it is not unique to them. you can see this kind of thinking even in the columns of the hindu, which is a prominent english newspaper in the south.

also, why is nobody talking about gobar gas as the salvation of india? will nobody think of the cows?

KXB,

It is not as simple as holding 7% of the seats, their outside support is solely for the purpose of such tactics and no one can afford an election this year. I agree with others who have pointed out that the delay may help work the deal out. I am not sure I agree with the assertion of Left bowing down to their Chinese masters

Lastly, get over your high moral(?) horse of insinuating that somehow the US was doing this for altruistic purposes.

Uh, read my earlier comment #5

To answer your first question - no one, not even the Indian proponents of the deal, believed the Americans were behaving out of altruism.

there were politicians on the KGB payroll back in the Cold War

Funny how you all ignore the indian politicians who have been on the CIA payroll, including Prime Minister Morarji Desai the urine drinker who commited acts of treachery for which he was awarded Pakistan's highest civilian award.

Rob,

I do not know whether Karat is on Chinese payroll. Probably not, and Shashi Tharoor is more accurate.

However, communist parties in India at times (not always and definitely not all of them) have had real murky past, notwithstanding they do have very strong base in parts of India.

Here are some example:

A serious rift within the party surfaced in 1962. One reason was the Sino-Indian War, where a faction of the Indian communists backed the position of the Indian government, while other sections of the party claimed that it was a conflict between a socialist and a capitalist state, and thus took a pro-Chinese position. There were three factions in the party - internationalists, centrists, and nationalists. Internationalists supported the Chinese stand where as the Nationalists backed India. Centrists took a neutral view. Prominent leaders including S.A. Dange, A. K. Gopalan, and E. M. S. Namboodiripad were in the nationalist faction. B. T. Ranadive, Sundarayya, P. C. Joshi, Basavapunniah, Jyoti Basu, and Harkishan Singh Surjeet are among those supported China. Ajoy Ghosh was the prominent person in the centrist faction. In general, most of Bangal communist leaders supported China and most others supported India [1]. Hundreds of CPI leaders, accused of being pro-Chinese were imprisoned. Some of the nationalists were also imprisoned, as they used to express their opinion only in party forums, and CPI's official stand was pro-China.

Another example:

1. CPI(M) heavyweight HK Surjeet influenced by Russia to setup an underground organization
2. CPI(M) did proceed to recruit a secret organization within the Indian Army.
3. The Peoples Republic of China and Soviet Russia both insisted that the CPI(M) must develop a standby apparatus capable of armed resistance, while intensifying penetration of Indian Military forces.
4. With the PLA now present along the Indian Border the Indian Party had a channel of support for Armed Operations and a potential liberator in the event of mass uprisings - 13 Sept 1959
5. 4 powerful radio sets had been installed in the office of the China Review in Calcutta to listen to broadcasts from Peking
6. Chinese Financial Subsidies to sections of the CPI particularly the left faction strongholds in West Bengal
7. A foreign supply base was now available for the underground organizations with Chinese occupation of Tibet and other frontier areas.
8. Letter asking for collaboration in Indian underground organization work aimed at an eventual revolution, because China has a border with India and can provide arms and supplies
9. Also Jaipal Singh, head of the illegal organization within the Indian Army decided to reactivate his organization in May 1961 following the hard left faction gaining control of the party.

Also,

Another heavy blow to the movement was the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971 when China more or less asked the Indian naxalites to support the side of Pakistan (which was a political suicide in India at the time). On this issue Majumdar's line had some differentiation from that of the CPC. He gave emphasis to supporting the armed struggle of the East Pakistan Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), which fought against both Pakistan and the Bangladeshi national liberation movement. Majumdar's line and the Chinese line caused conflict in CPI(ML) and produced splits, such as that of Ashim Chatterjee.

PS: I must admit some of these charges are probably baloney but openly speaking for China during 1962 is either stupidity or too much drunk on ideology.

There is definitely an aura of spinelessness around Manmohan Singh.

Its also hard to respect someone who still praises the brits for their "good governance" of India. Like a true servile macaulayite he thanks the british for bestowing the english language, english medium schools and cricket to India!

Its a shame that India hasnt had a decent leader much less a great leader in all the 60 years since "independence".

Chachaji wrote:

Among other things, the present imbroglio also highlights the fact that India's present system of democratic governance is becoming increasingly unworkable,

Y'know, I know a guy, Pervez, who might be out of a job soon and really knows how to fix "unworkable" democratic governments. He's just the 'turn-around' expert you need, and he's even a Delhi-born Person-of-Indian-Origin. Should I ask him to send over a C.V.?

2) This deal you put forward was not good enough. We'll talk 5-10 years later when our economy is bigger, our domestic industrial base much larger and our science much more capable.

No half-way homes for us? Like the outhouse better? Because that is where India is right now. If this 'rejection' is actually the finger-in-the-eye you are implying (and I don't think it is, not yet), why assume the rest of the world, the US in particular, will take it lying down?

Why take for a given that the economy will grow for the next decade? If in fact the deal gets shot down because of what the 'left parties' thought, I can easily see how foreign direct investment could slow or dry up for other ventures, because of the veto that they appear to exercise. Energy is in any case a critical requirement for growth, and without it again investment could dry up. And what if H-1B visas were curtailed as a tit-for-tat? What if, in the interim, Eastern Europe developed as an alternative destination, for 'outsourcing'? What about the opportunity cost of not getting in on the global nuclear renaissance when it is getting going, as it is right now? Waiting for ten years, for example, could mean global nuclear building capacity is all tied up, because all others will grab it with both hands, and will be much more expensive to boot.

Jingoistic ultranationalism and a false sense of injured pride is one more thing, along with a 20th century ideological mindset that we do not need. Really. Taking a 'good-enough-for-now' deal and, using the economic and strategic space that it opens up, to develop the economy and become stronger, like both China and Japan did, makes much better sense than hoping for a tomorrow that might never come.

BTW, Optional pointed out upthread how small a contribution nuclear currently makes to India's energy mix, and how small it will still remain for the next decade or so, even if the deal goes through. While the short term gain from the deal is modest, it is huge for the medium term. By 2050 India plans to have 300 GWe worth of nuclear capacity in a total of 1400 GWe. (Currently the numbers are 140 GWe (total) and 4 GWe nuclear.) Wind, solar, hydro, clean coal, will contribute the rest of the 1100 GWe.

The additional nuclear capacity of 296 GWe must be compared to the total worldwide nuclear capacity right now of 372 GWe. There is no hope of adding this without significant and ongoing external investment, for which the deal is the first step. Even if the FDI and technology comes in at breakneck speed, it will be a phenomenal challenge to get to that goal.

And when you think about renegotiating 5-10 years later, remember that the deal has been in negotiation for about 8 years already. India's negotiating power probably did increase, but very marginally, however the opportunity cost of not having had a deal in place years ago is certainly much larger. This cost can only rise if the issue is revisited later, given the larger Indian economy and the greater criticality of energy in sustaining growth, and that is if anyone cares to negotiate ten years later at all.

Re: solar energy, I wish I worked in the field and had first-hand knowledge, but from all I've read, I do think that if the government in India and other organizations/businesses actually spend more money + willpower on it, solar could be one major solution to India's energy needs. Hey, if it works in Maine, it can probably work in India - most of which gets more sunlight than Maine. In Europe, they harvest solar energy using panels along the highway and Oregon is testing the same.

Its also hard to respect someone who still praises the brits for their "good governance" of India. Like a true servile macaulayite he thanks the british for bestowing the english language, english medium schools and cricket to India!

Anyways, I almost forgive MMS for giving India the "right to Information act". "Right to information" act is one of the most important acts creating environment of accountability from government. It is huge step in the direction of maturity of Indian democracy.
Thats why, I almost (not quite completely) forgive him for making that stupid statement in London.

Among other things, the present imbroglio also highlights the fact that India's present system of democratic governance is becoming increasingly unworkable,

Y'know, I know a guy, Pervez, who might be out of a job soon and really knows how to fix "unworkable" democratic governments. He's just the 'turn-around' expert you need, and he's even a Delhi-born Person-of-Indian-Origin.

Kush,
Thanks for that info.--all I can say, is "wow!"

Among other things, the present imbroglio also highlights the fact that India's present system of democratic governance is becoming increasingly unworkable,

Y'know, I know a guy, Pervez, who might be out of a job soon and really knows how to fix "unworkable" democratic governments. He's just the 'turn-around' expert you need, and he's even a Delhi-born Person-of-Indian-Origin.

But can he win "election"s ??

Ikram, come on. I see the humor in excising it, but still, the rest of what I wrote in the same sentence was:

though reforming it to ensure increased represenativeness as well as workability is currently on nobody's agenda.

The Westminster system was a poor fit for a country like India, and that's even when the Congress was winning huge majorities. But for the last 40 years, its deficiencies in the Indian context have been obvious - and for the last 18, they have been glaring. When the Mother of all Parliaments has seriously considered electoral reform, and has also devolved so many of its powers, and when, for example, another of its daughters, the New Zealand parliament, is now voted on a mixed member proportional representation basis, and when there is much other movement toward reform elsewhere, for example, in Canada, of both electoral and governance structures, there is a real need for India as well, to say nothing of Pakistan, to consider such reform seriously. But as far as I can see, it is on nobody's agenda.

RC, if you're implying that Manmohan Singh is winning elections while Musharraf is rigging them - I would point out that in his latest election, PM Manmohan Singh was (i) elected unopposed (ii) from an indirect constituency (iii) in Assam, - so you have at least three violations of the spirit of Westminster right there. At least Musharraf had two other serious challengers. (And BTW, Justice Wajihuddin, the only other candidate who actually got some votes in that election, is also Delhi-born.)

in his latest election, PM Manmohan Singh was (i) elected unopposed (ii) from an indirect constituency

Chachaji,
I put my "win election" comment EXACTLY because MMS has not really won election the regular way and in that he shares a little something with Musharraf.
That is why I also wrote comment # 78 where I raise my concern about MMS not being a "politician" and holding a political office. Since MMS is a academician, he made that statement in London which is completely unfit for a political leader.

I also agree somewhat with your original argument, but I think the way for India is to organically strengthen states rights. I think that might even be happening now already as the big national parties no longer have leaders that resonate with people across India, which requires the national parties to align with local parties. As local parties (regional) play more significan role in elections, regions will start demanding and getting more real power, thus resulting in stronger states.

RC, I am with you in all your points! Thanks for clarifying. I agree especially that greater decentralization is necessary, and that it may also happen organically, just from having strong Chief Ministers, for example, and weak central governments because of electoral and structural weaknesses in the system. I will not use the 'f-word' I have used in other threads to describe a pro-active version of the process :)

Sudeep (#80) vs Chachaji (#89) is really the crux of the argument. Should India go for a half-assed deal (Brahma Chellaney explains in detail the many ways this deal is constricting India's strategic options in becoming a full-fledged NWS) today or take a bet on waiting for a better deal later?

The whole energy issue is a smokescreen - really, this is about the future of India's nuclear weapons program through access to foreign uranium vs a sort of indirect imposition of NPT and FMCT backed by the threat of US fuel controlling the production of 50,000 MW or so of India's power grid in a couple of decades. For one, India's electricity sector problems are not fuel source or technology, it's economics, regulatory regime, investment in transmission infrastructure and so on. Well-administered states such as Gujarat are, in fact, doing very well on the energy front through privatization etc. For another, India has plenty of fuel choices such as the enormous reserves of natural gas discovered recently. It's no secret that the KG Basin is one of the least explored region that has ginornmous natural gas reserves. World market for liquefied natural gas (LNG) too is exploding and India can easily put in another couple of hundred GWs of gas fired power plants. Nor is India hurting for technology - the Indian nuclear establishment has done a pretty good job.

The way I see it, Americans sensed an opportunity in clipping India's wings before it became too powerful. They saw a week, ineffective leader who happens to be an economic liberal and therefore pro-America with a limited tenure who could be easily lured by visions of grandeur and legacy. Throw in some good ol' American marketing on "strategic partnership" and you have a nuclear deal that basically creates tremendous economic leverage over India by controlling the fuel source for huge power generation capacity, and puts severe constraints on India's weaponization capabilities. Of course, the proof is in the pudding and what is hyped as "strategic partnership" has really presented India with a deal that is much worse than the one that Americans signed with everyone else, including even the Chinese - whose might India is supposed to check as a US ally! Ummm...run that by me again - wouldn't the Americans want Indians to have fully unconstrained nuclear weaponization capabilities if they really wanted Indians to become powerful enough to check the Chinese?

If you separate the hype from the reality, there's really nothing in this deal that serves India's interests. Rejecting the deal has pretty well no downside at this juncture - even if, as chachaji frets, India's economic boom falters then it'd just lead to more reforms because a population that has got used to 8%-10% economic growth is going to be pretty impatient with any politicians who can't deliver it for a few quarters. The Indian system is so bloody screwed up that India can keep growing for a couple of decades just by slowly chipping away are the colossally screwed up Nehruvian legacy. If, on the other hand, if India does continue to become economically stronger than it won't be too long before the western companies themselves are paying off their politicians to sell their stuff into a big, juicy market. India's growth is not export-oriented, nor is it FDI-led : it's all domestic consumption and investments. India has been a coiled spring for way too long, all the policy makers need to do is calibrate its unwinding at a measured pace. Both the NDA and MMS government have done a reasonably decent job of managing this.

Not only that, American power itself is on the decline. Over the next little while, it's not going to be a very good place to be an American. America's economic power is on the wane, its reputation lies in tatters, its moral authority is bankrupt and its media is no longer effective at propagandizing. America's popularity is at an all-time low, the dollar is falling and it's turning into Saudi Christianistan which will, in the long run, make it even less popular in the middle east.

India just did not negotiate this deal from a position of strength, while Americans negotiated from a position as strong as they are going to be in the foreseeable future. The Indian PM is weak, his party is weak, the government has pretty well lurched from one crisis to another. This is not a good time to negotiate anything as critical as the nuclear deal with an outsider. In a world where Al Jazeera is winning against CNN, it only makes sense for India to make itself more powerful, watch America stew in its own mess and wait for the time when Americnas will be even more desperate for friends. That's the right time for India to strike the deal, not now.

BTW - I think Gujjubhai makes excellent points about the effects of the nuclear deal on India's strategic independence. But I don't think this is what the Communists had in mind in their opposition - for them, it was pure anti-Americanism.

If the Indian Communists are in the pay of the Chinese then the British / Australian pollies are in the pay of the CIA.
The deal benefits USA way more than it benefits India. Good stuff 'sagavey'.

India's growth is not export-oriented, nor is it FDI-led : it's all domestic consumption and investments.

This has nothing to do with Singh....the BJP used this as a political ploy to win an election. Singh is one of the smartest PMs the country has seen, a true honest man who tries to move the country forward while BJP looks to pull it back.
read more on my site www.usinpac2008.com

Gujjubhai,
" For one, India's electricity sector problems are not fuel source or technology, it's economics, regulatory regime, investment in transmission infrastructure and so on. Well-administered states such as Gujarat are, in fact, doing very well on the energy front through privatization etc"
Gujarat is one of the few states that is well managed. Besides you seem to sweep the issues of regulation and investment in infrastructure as though they could be corrected with the snap of a finger. They are'nt going to be - for one Gujarat, I can point out any number of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar like states.

"Americans sensed an opportunity in clipping India's wings before it became too powerful. They saw a week, ineffective leader who happens to be an economic liberal and therefore pro-America with a limited tenure who could be easily lured by visions of grandeur and legacy. Throw in some good ol' American marketing on "strategic partnership" and you have a nuclear deal that basically creates tremendous economic leverage over India by controlling the fuel source for huge power generation capacity, and puts severe constraints on India's weaponization capabilities."

- Before it became too powerful ?? I am sorry but when you have close to 600 million people living in conditions that are too terrible to even speak of, with a society which is basically collectivist and has very little appreciation for individual liberty or free market enterprise, Governments which are so ingrained in socialism that even baby steps towards a capitalist economy is met with intense opposition from every marxist moron, it is terribly hard to believe that the US is concerned about India being powerful !!

What exactly is the US afraid of ? That India would be an all powerful state that would threaten American supremacy ?? Or gang up with China to counter its influence ?? Give me a break !!!

"Not only that, American power itself is on the decline. Over the next little while, it's not going to be a very good place to be an American. America's economic power is on the wane, its reputation lies in tatters, its moral authority is bankrupt and its media is no longer effective at propagandizing. America's popularity is at an all-time low, the dollar is falling and it's turning into Saudi Christianistan which will, in the long run, make it even less popular in the middle east."

Really ? What is your evidence for this decline in power ?? America's economic power is in wane ?? What evidence do you have to back that up? If a falling dollar is the best example you can think of, you probably have not heard of the recent economic problems like the sub prime mess. And even worse, you are taking a short term trend to make a sweeping statement about the nature of the US economy over a long time.

For all its frailites the United States is the economic engine that drives the world and will continue to be for quite some time to come- tell the Chinese that the US economy is failing and i would love to hear back what they think about it.

Manmohan Singh may be a weak Prime Minister, but he is fundamentally an economist and most definitely no idiot - he is smart and informed enough to know where India is in its path to greater growth and is capable of doing a cost benefit analysis of the situation.

India being a super duper nuclear weapon state is going to give it more strategic depth against China but nothing more. In fact China is stronger today than before not because of its nuclear weapons program but because of the fact that it is the factory for the world. All the nuclear weapons in the world is not going to turn you into an economic power.

We should be more worried as to how the hell we are going to sustain economic growth, how we are going to provide opportunites to millions of people joining the workforce EVERY YEAR - all this while trying to break free of the shackles of the Indian bureaucracy that is such a monstrous behemoth working against us.

scroll to the bottom of the page

http://greatbong.net/2007/08/15/flying-full-mast/#more-440

I think Gujjubhai states it well in 96, if someone has doubts of declining American economic might, please check the IPO listings in the European exchnages in the last two years, check the FX volumes traded and see if UAE is developing a state of the art finance center. By 2010 India will have approximately $20 billion worth PE investment. Even though I don't believe any of this will make a significant dent in American Financial Markets, but unlike the past, large numbers are moving abroad. For me personally it is simple math, it is better to bet on a growing economy. IMF has the growth in India at 8.9%, which is impressive by any Benchmark.

Interesting read from Lehman on India's growth for the next decade and the possible performance of it stock market indices.

Apropos comment #74 citing Shashi Tharoor's column in TOI;maybe this short hagiography of veteran communist ideologue of yore EMS Nampoodiripad at Wikipedia would shed some light on India's fifth column.

Gujjubhai,

I have to agree with Chachaji’s critique of your position. You’re on strong ground when you address concerns about preserving Indian strategic independence, but you are on shakier ground when you go into America’s motives. If the U.S. really wanted to keep India down, why go through an elaborate, time-consuming 2-year negotiation? Bush could have simply kept traditional American policy going – that India was an outlaw nation that should sign the NPT and CTBT without conditions immediately, and rollback it’s nuclear program. Instead, when it came to fissile material that would be produced by these new reactors, America said, “That’s India’s business.”

Americans are more concerned about the threat posed by Indian workers than any military threat. If anything, there is a risk future American administrations will have a “Why bother?” attitude when it comes to dealing with India. American companies may stand to gain by spending resources in dealing with Indian bureaucrats, but the American government may just treat India as an ordinary country.

Contrast India’s behavior to Vietnam. The U.S. waged a massive war for over a decade that wreaked havoc, the U.S. lost and its reputation was in tatters. But as Chachiji pointed out, a short-term situation is not always indicative of a long term trend. The U.S bounced back. Vietnam itself seemed to be on the verge of being another Cuba – run by dictators, while the population lived in poverty. But that was short-term was well.

And yet, Vietnam is growing rapidly, and pretty much in an alliance now with the United States, because both nations realize that the circumstances have changed and they both stand to gain from a new partnership. Seems that the Communists in Vietnam are more capable to engage in long-term strategic thinking than their Indian counterparts.

Just a few quick points.

KXB, I think it was NS who directly critiqued Gujjubhai's position. Props to NS.

While I think Gujjubhai made his point well, the fundamental premise of positing an oppositional dynamic between the US and India is wrong, it is also anachronistic, from the Cold War and the socialistic mindset. India is now more vested, whether all Indians yet realize it or not, in the world economy, and about a quarter of that is still the United States. Getting to a point where it has about the same fraction of world activity as the US would be a splendid motivational challenge for India. Setting up oppositional mindsets is not the way to get there.

On the internal sources of growth argument Gujjubhai makes - it's based on an autarkic worldview. While I agree that merely undoing the effects of Nehruvian socialism provides some growth, internal sources alone cannot provide all the investment required, especially in infrastructure. Even given the high savings rate which India currently has.

India is counting on international capital flows to help with infrastructure, and the nuclear deal establishes the overall framework for investment, including foreign long-term investment, in one part of the energy sector. (I agree with Gujjubhai when he points out that India's problems in the energy sector include regulatory regime and pricing - but changing these improves the investment climate so that capacity can be increased, which is paramount. Listen to Montek Ahluwalia at Davos 2007 here, and he clearly says India wants international capital flows for infrastructure development.)

I disagree that natural gas can easily contribute another couple hundred GW. Even if it could, that would not be wise, both from the carbon emissions pov and from a strategic energy security pov, although natural gas does burn cleaner than coal.

Nuclear on the other hand can be truly self-sustaining once the fast breeder cycle kicks in, with so much thorium in the monazite sands of Kerala. The Indo-US nuclear deal enables India to strategically reconfigure and reorient its internal civilian nuclear efforts, for example, to concentrate on the fast breeder - while leaving other technologies - whether natural uranium or enriched uranium to the private sector, including the foreign private sector. In this case I disagree with Gujjubhai that the deal is a smokescreen for India to get foreign uranium for its weapons, which in any case are based on plutonium!

Amit, of the 1400 GWe India is aiming for in 2050, only 300 GWe is supposed to be nuclear. The rest of the 1100 GWe can include solar, which, if it actually works, can eventually provide almost all of India's needs. It's not here right now though, and it would be unwise to jettison something that works (nuclear) for something which doesn't yet work with the needed efficiency. You do need things that work at night and on cloudy days.

Oops - thanks. Credit goes to NS

KXB,

are you going to leave this unanswered or have you done so already? I'm not trying to be snarky, i've just read everything on the thread and didn't see a response to what is a strongly worded comment.

Amit, of the 1400 GWe India is aiming for in 2050, only 300 GWe is supposed to be nuclear. The rest of the 1100 GWe can include solar, which, if it actually works, can eventually provide almost all of India's needs. It's not here right now though, and it would be unwise to jettison something that works (nuclear) for something which doesn't yet work with the needed efficiency.
chachaji, bit of a catch-22/chicken-and-egg situation as I see it. :)
Also it depends on how "wisdom" is defined. For me, investing in and using renewable energy resources is much wiser (and long-term thinking) than storing radio-active waste for centuries, the pollution+health costs associated with mining the ore, and risks associated with a malfunctioning nuclear reactor. There are always trade-offs.
I also don't agree with your iffy attitude towards it, based on this wiki page on solar power in India and latent potential according to some reports.

You do need things that work at night and on cloudy days.
Well, solar panels work in conjunction with energy storing devices, so that takes care of cloudy days. But yes, as of now, there is still a need to be connected to the grid as a backup. And nuclear reactors can and do malfunction. Remember Chernobyl? Let's tally up all the costs associated with cleanup and health issues that originated in neighboring European countries because of it, and see what the (actual) price of electricity was.

My point is that if Indian government spends on solar energy even a fraction of efforts and energy that it poured into 123 for only 300GWe, there's a likelihood that it will become viable and practical (which is not to say that it'll be a smooth ride free of any challenges). But that's the way the cookie crumbles - 123 is not just about fulfilling India's energy requirements, but goes much beyond that into geo-political games and status symbol etc., which I am less interested in. :)

I also think it is better to know about the authors and commenters to put their opinions in perspective, I can be the first, I am DBD, working for a private bank with personal investment interests in the India.

Muralimannered,

Here you go:

KXB, I am not sure on what your credentials are, but a lot of what you have written here, shows your lack of understanding on how India works.
To start off, the past decade, Indian voters have been split when it comes to electing people to power. The growth of regional parties and lack of voters have been major contributors. Another ill timed election will have serious consequences for India.

True – but the election was not being threatened by supporters of the deal, but it’s opponents. As a rule, there is no penalty for being obstinate in Indian politics, whether it is walking out of Parliament, supporting bandhs, etc. The deal did not bring to the fore a hidden defect in India's Parliamentary setup, it was just a new subject.

One of the important reasons the US pursued this deal was to balance the power in Asia. In fact very recently there were joint military exercises between India and the US that irked China. To say that the US invested a lot is the half truth. India did too.

True – but considering that Singh is stalling due to the behavior of 41 MPs, it can be fair to say that he does not know how to value time spent on negotiations. All that work, by both sides, was just disposed of by a man not willing to face down a reflexively anti-American malcontents.

If you look at India's stance towards the US, they have never been too comfortable. In fact when the Tsunami hit South Asia, India refused US help.

So? India traditionally does not accept help in times of catastrophe, because pride is more important to its politicians than the welfare of its people. It helps that Tamil Nadu, which was the state that bore the brunt of the tsunami, has done a better job of providing services. Switch to Bihar, with its woeful record, and would India's refusal be as admirable?

There are a number of policies India pursues that makes Americans uncomfortable. Plenty of Americans are uncomfortable with the India-Iran relationship, but such criticism by the administration has been muted, because they valued the nuclear deal more. Whether that criticism will be so soft-spoken now that deal is kaput is anybody’s guess.

Given such a stance (and it has been the same way throughout history) it was amazing that we opened our doors and we engaged in dialog. You cannot expect us to jump into bed when you are ready, there is also the part where you want to dictate terms.

Nothing really amazing about it – India realized it cannot catch up with China solely through its own efforts, the U.S. has no interest in seeing China be the dominant power in the region, so the deal was one step in trying to meet this concern. Considering that India began getting closer to the U.S. starting in 1991, and the deal was officially announced 14 years later, that is one long jump into bed.

Also, I think India earned this. Out of all the developing counties if one can be trusted with technology, it is India. Sure we have our flaws, at least we are not secretly selling ammunition.

An empty argument – it was precisely because India has a sterling reputation in the area of non-proliferation area that Bush felt it was a good idea to go ahead with the deal. It is American opponents of the deal that say India cannot be trusted with the technology.

Like you quote else where, Singh is not a career politician, but no matter who was in power, this deal was never going to go take off as easily as people assumed. Most issues you have pointed out here have always existed. Given that Nepal, Bangladesh and Burma are all having trouble at the same time has focussed a lot of international attention to the region. The Sri Lanka problem has existed for over a decade, none of which, Singh is responsible for.

I can’t think of one prominent supporter of the deal who said it was going to be easy, so again you are dismissing an argument that nobody made. After the India-U.S. portion of negotiations, there was going to be negotiations with the IAEA and NSG – it was seen as a long road by everyone involved. Calling a timeout until 2009 places an unwarranted faith that the circumstances will be roughly the same.

As far as the increased international attention on South Asia is concerned, what exactly is India doing to stabilize it? Would that be looking the other way while Burma shoots monks in the hopes of securing contracts that will probably go to China anyway? India is twiddling its thumbs while the Maoists in Nepal are about to re-start their hostilities. There have been few administrations like this where there is such a glaring lack of strategic thinking.

I would appreciate links. What economic reforms have been stalled? (The link you have now updated the post with red tape, not economic reforms) The growth that India was experiencing was never sustainable for a long time, talk to economists they will tell you. Although we produce a gazillion educated people, who enter the workforce every year, you will find that unless they come from a top ranking school, they skills in the world stage are lacking. A lot of it has to do with the lack of infrastructure and syllabus that is outdated. Again, problems that have been plaguing India for a long time, nothing that Singh could change in a few years at the helm.

State of agricultural reforms? Fertilizer subsidies going to be cut? The practice of cheap or free water for farmers going to be curtailed anytime soon?

Small isn't beautiful

While 56 per cent of those employed today are self-employed, another 29 per cent fall under the category of ‘casual employment’; just 15 per cent are ‘regular’ employees. This proportion has changed little since 1990. As a result, not only are wage/salary levels low, the productivity gains that should accrue to the economy with greater employment are not taking place either.

The lack of labor market reforms: A Himalayan Challenge

87% of employment in Indian manufacturing is in firms with fewer than ten employees, compared with only 5% in China. Small firms cannot reap economies of scale or exploit the latest technology, and so suffer from lower productivity than big firms.

India's hiring and firing laws also explain why the growth in manufacturing has been weak compared with the boom in services, which are not covered by the same rules.

Sadly, further bold reform is currently blocked by the communist parties on which the coalition government depends for its majority

As for the argument that Singh has onlya few years at the helm, given that he is looking to complete his term by 2009, he will be the first Prime Minister since 1991 to complete a full term in office. He had far more time than say Vajpayee or Rao.

Blame this on the Indian voter bank and the democratic system in India, some of it on Singh, not all.

I can't blame the voters, because rural Indians did not care, urban Indians were generally in favor of it. But, you are right on the part about the "system." A system which allows an un-official member of a governing coalition so much power is in urgent need of reform - but like agriculture and labor, it will be a long time before reform takes place. Considering that Singh has a higher approval rating than Bush, and was unwilling to take the risk, yes, I will blame him.

Overall, this post shows that you are out of touch with reality, at least when it comes to India. I am thankful that none of the SM regular's work on such sweeping and ill researched assumptions. To say that I am very very disappointed is an understatement.

Whatever - your post was largely a series of talking points, not backed up with anything substantial. No one suggest the deal would solve all of India's energy problems, but it looks like Indians will deal with the status quo of unreliable and frequently stolen electricty.

off-topic:

I'm looking for a comprehensive list of countries with which the US has nuclear energy agreements. Could someone point me in the right direction? my e-mail is vivek[at]passtheroti[dot]com

thanks.

KXB,

I have an issue with the economist story that you linked as it doesn't provide any historical context of the labor practices. Although the article states that even at current situation the economy can grow at 8% which is impressive.

I'm looking for a comprehensive list of countries with which the US has nuclear energy agreements. Could someone point me in the right direction? my e-mail is vivek[at]passtheroti[dot]com

China is number #.1

Comprehensive list would require some research.

I have an issue with the economist story that you linked as it doesn't provide any historical context of the labor practices. Although the article states that even at current situation the economy can grow at 8% which is impressive.

I've been critical of some recent South Asian coverage in The Economist too, but not here. The historical context is really not all that important - all nations have pecularlities in their past that explains some labor practice, but India should not be excused for it. And 8% growth is good, but even mild reforms will make it go higher.

What I mean is, it is not as cut and dry as saying amend policies where laying off people becomes easy, it is never going to happen in India as long as coalition politics are a reality.

Agree and apologies for multiple comments, I absoutely agree for the higher velocity of reforms. To speculate a lot of small companies I know of count on ignorance of laws as to be honest for all the laws enforcement is always an issue. I am not even sure how many employees that work in small and medium enterprises are aware of these laws.

A few quick responses:

Besides you seem to sweep the issues of regulation and investment in infrastructure as though they could be corrected with the snap of a finger. They are'nt going to be - for one Gujarat, I can point out any number of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar like states.

But how does adding nuclear power plants that depend upon foreign source of fuel solve these issues? If you just want to add generation, throw in coal, gas, wind and renewables. Pune-based Suzlon is the world's largest wind energy company, for crying out loud!

Before it became too powerful?? I am sorry but when you have close to 600 million people living in conditions that are too terrible to even speak of...

Of the 600m, 100m were lifted out of poverty in the nineties and the trend is only likely to accelerate as the 2000's have so far outperformed the 90's. You are looking at today, American strategy is projecting trends and looking at 20-30 years out.

Really ? What is your evidence for this decline in power ?? America's economic power is in wane ??

OK, I don't want to get into the whole analysis thing, but the trend is very obvious even if you consider just a few factors : the emergence of very powerful non-Western potential competitors, mainly China & Russia globally and regional hegemons India & Brazil, the reduced credibility of America ability to project military force based on the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, and the irreparable damage to America's moral authority in the wake of the war. Evidence? It's all around, my friend. Just watch Putin and Iran.

I disagree that natural gas can easily contribute another couple hundred GW. Even if it could, that would not be wise, both from the carbon emissions pov and from a strategic energy security pov, although natural gas does burn cleaner than coal.

Confusing means for ends. If reducing carbon emissions is the end, then the means does not have to be non-polluting electricity generation : largest GHG emitters are agriculture, airlines, transportation and so on. Hell, Indiam are going gangbusters on the emission reduction business! If energy security is the end, then a judicious mix of gas, coal and wind is the answer.

For all its frailites the United States is the economic engine that drives the world...

Ah, the usual US-centrism. Pray tell why the rest of the world is in such a huge bull market while the US is about to get hit by a subprime-led recession and oil is trading at $88/barrel?

All the nuclear weapons in the world is not going to turn you into an economic power.

Bush could have simply kept traditional American policy going – that India was an outlaw nation that should sign the NPT and CTBT without conditions immediately, and rollback it’s nuclear program.

Ummm....might it have something to do with five little explosions at a remote site in Rajasthan in 1998? Pokhran blasted NPT and CTBT into oblivion, so wouldn't the US need to come up with something that actually *might work* in constricting India's nuclear weaponization?

American government may just treat India as an ordinary country....And yet, Vietnam is growing rapidly, and pretty much in an alliance now with the United States, because both nations realize that the circumstances have changed and they both stand to gain from a new partnership.

the fundamental premise of positing an oppositional dynamic between the US and India is wrong, it is also anachronistic, from the Cold War and the socialistic mindset.

India is counting on international capital flows to help with infrastructure, and the nuclear deal establishes the overall framework for investment, including foreign long-term investment, in one part of the energy sector.

Gujjubhai,
See my responses below.

"But how does adding nuclear power plants that depend upon foreign source of fuel solve these issues? If you just want to add generation, throw in coal, gas, wind and renewables. Pune-based Suzlon is the world's largest wind energy company, for crying out loud! "

Throwing in gas, wind, renewables ?? Heck, our power transmission and distribution systems are so woeful and need urgent reform, it would be nothing short of a fantasy to even think about new energy systems emerging successfully when these alternatives are not proven to be useful for mass production and distribution. We need to produce GigaWatts of energy for hundreds of millions of consumers. Alternative energies are ... well alternative.

Besides this is more than a question of nuclear energy - this is a step towards formalizing a forward looking, strategic relationship.

"mainly China & Russia globally and regional hegemons India & Brazil, the reduced credibility of America ability to project military force based on the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, and the irreparable damage to America's moral authority in the wake of the war. Evidence? It's all around, my friend. Just watch Putin and Iran."

China would be NOWHERE today without Nixon beginning the first step in a relationship that has transformed the world. Its rise to power directly coincides with the intricate economic relationship that it has with the United States. Period.

Russia now controls a lot of energy resources in Europe but it is far cry away from the Cold war days. Also Putin is nt exactly going to be thrilled to have an Islamic fundamentalist state that is nuclear capable. In fact he might put more pressure on Iran than any one else thereby benefitting America in the end.

Irreparable damages to moral authority ? I really would like to know why people can some times make sweeping statements to illustrate a point that could be made without using them? The US has done a lot of damage to to its moral authority. No question. But irreparable? I dont know if you live here in the US or not, but not a day goes by without people strongly questioning the tactics used in this war on terrorism.
The US is a liberal democracy and has liberated more people from tyranny than any other country in the world. Its democracy is robust enough to survive challenges to its moral underpinnings and correct the course. It has survived a Civil War, two World Wars, a Cold War and is beginning to see some light in its current fight in Iraq. The debacle can still turn around, how ever hopeless it looks, if the current strategy that the US military is using to bring around Sunni's who have turned back on Al Qaeda succeeds with the Shias too.

"Ah, the usual US-centrism. Pray tell why the rest of the world is in such a huge bull market while the US is about to get hit by a subprime-led recession and oil is trading at $88/barrel? "

The usual US centrism derives from the fact that the US is a trillion dollar economy and the fact that it is still the center of the global economy. The sub prime mortage can induce recessionary trends but if you noticed carefully, the Feds have pumped in more money into the financial systems and so did the European central banks to improve the situation. So, again you are quoting a trend and using that to derive a radical conclusion.

The rest of the world or atleast the developing world have a lot at stake in their individual relationships with the US and the overall health of the US economy. And oil will trade in the high 80's if the demand from China and India grows by the day and OPEC tries to profitize this situation to the hilt. What exactly was your point here ?

"Sacrificing nuclear weapons to appease the State Department is not going to make India an economic supoerpower either, is it? It is strategically imperative for India to match China not only in terms of economic power but also military power. Otherwise, India's security will be jeopardized. Becoming America's client state is just too risky a proposition for India - India must be in control of its own economic AND military security."

I am sorry but i have to use the words that i hate to use - inferiority complex. Gujjubhai, on the one hand you say that this country is capable of growth of 8% or more inspite of all the difficluties. On the other hand, you use words like "sacrificing nuclear weapons" to appease the State Department. How can a growing economic power become America's "client state".? You seem to have made a lot of good points in this thread but please explain your fears of India becoming a "client state".

Can you please, please illustrate how exactly India is sacrificing its nuclear weapon capabilites.? And how exactly does the US gain by weakening India's nuclear aresenal ? Do you think it is downright giddy to see China growing by leaps and bounds and is hurrying to contain and control India so that China can grow even stronger ?

Just because you feel that it is imperative to keep up with China in the nuclear weapons department, does not make it so. Where exctly is the great Soviet Union today ?? Which tried to match USA , weapon for weapon , system for system? It dissolved like a house of cards when it could not stand up any more to the forces of human freedom and liberty. The German Wall's fall hastened its demise.

For all its muscle today, China is still an authoritarian system - in the long run this WILL catch up with them. Not to mention the fact that their one child policy has already brought demographic changes that are only beginning to be felt. Ahh, i forgot to mention that pretty soon they will have a large number of senior citizens and their workforce reduced.

There will be repercussions if this deal is not going to come through. Some of it will be in the form of FDI. But most importantly it will be in the arena of trustworthiness. No Government will ever respect or expect India to follow up on its promises and would tread cautiously.
Respect is some thing that is hard earned and of course a terrible thing to lose.

Bush is bucking a whole nuclear establishment here to go thru with this deal having the big picture in mind. It is terrible to hear the PM say that the nuclear deal failing would not be the end of the world. May be he should have told this to the Indian citizens ,US Govt, NSG, IAEA in 2005 and saved us all this show of weakness which inspires no one.

One last note - I am terribly disappointed by the narrowness of BJP's vision in this situation. This will come back to haunt them and rightfully so.

related news on australia's tentative deal with india. sorry, i haven't read all the comments above in full, but does anybody know what the relative sizes of these deals are, and what proportion of india's long term fuel supply would come from the u.s.? also, are any other countries potential suppliers to india?

It would be nothing short of a fantasy to even think about new energy systems emerging successfully when these alternatives are not proven to be useful for mass production and distribution.

Unproven? Educate yourself: gas is the second largest fuel source for power gen in the US, and accounted for 28% of US electricity production in 2006.

The US is a liberal democracy and has liberated more people from tyranny than any other country in the world. Its democracy is robust enough to survive challenges to its moral underpinnings and correct the course.

Ah, drinking the CNN kool-aid. Frankly, my dear, the world doesn't give a rat's a$$ that US is a liberal democracy. The world remembers US supporting tinpot dictators and napalming little children. The world remembers half a million dead Iraqi civilians. The world remembers Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo. The world sees that even today your best allies include barbarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. The world does not like to watch CNN anymore, the world prefers Al Jazeera.

Your arguments remind me of the neo-con delusions about how Iraqis' would greet Americans as liberators. Sloganeering about freedom and democracy while US's chief allies are a fundamentalist Islamic kingdom and a couple of tinpot dictators is actually quite hilarious.

The usual US centrism derives from the fact that the US is a trillion dollar economy and the fact that it is still the center of the global economy.

The rest of the world or atleast the developing world have a lot at stake in their individual relationships with the US and the overall health of the US economy.

How can a growing economic power become America's "client state".?

Just because you feel that it is imperative to keep up with China in the nuclear weapons department, does not make it so. Where exctly is the great Soviet Union today ?? Which tried to match USA , weapon for weapon , system for system?

Bush is bucking a whole nuclear establishment here to go thru with this deal having the big picture in mind.

gas is the second largest fuel source for power gen in the US, and accounted for 28% of US electricity production in 2006.

Natural gas, no doubt is the energy source of tomorrow.

However, it is still a fossil fuel.

In past, they would only exploit it if there was a transport mechanism in place, or often burn it at the rig. That is why you see the "trade mark" torch on top of oil rigs.

Recently, a lot of infrastructure is being built like for LNG (liquefied Natural Gas) for mass transport.

India has lot of coal bed methane, another fossil fuel, but certainly not enough to sustain the country's growth.

Natural Gas is definitely not an alternate energy.

Wind, Solar, Gobar Gas, Hydrogen cell, Geothermal (except Iceland) are interesting alternate energy sources worth pursuing, however, none of them fit economies of scale, except farting.

Man-moron (MM) is an apt name, only because he has shown that right wingers and BJP worshippers are morons. When he became Prime minister they predicted the share market would drop, investments would dry up and growth would reduce. Ha, ha. They are now left to claim that the growth seen recently is due to momentum created by the BJP. For hundutva-ites, an example of momentum is when you push a ball and it starts rolling a year later and then continues to pick up speed every year!

They fail to understand why MM is succeeding because, generally, communalists are poor economists and often come up with the wrong prescriptions. MM is an expert on the art of the possible but his greatest successes are opaque to the average communalist. MM is a bit like God, in that the rationale of some of the things he has done will be visible only over the course of a generation. Try understanding why Amartya Sen gave his government 8 on 10 on economic management, and why I give it 9. Just a few are listed here:

1. He brought a laser like focus on state (provincial) finances and rapidly implemented VAT. Infrastructure is India's greatest challenge and state finances are the stumbling block in improving them. The improvements seen in state and city roads all over India are directly linked to the buoyancy of VAT revenues.

2. He changed focus from divestments to investments. He correctly recognizes that just 3 % of the investment required to build India to world averages has yet been made, and it is more important to rapidly bring in new investments than to spend time reworking old ones. Due to this gross capital formation is at record highs, from record lows of the BJP era.

3. He has engineered a huge switch from indirect to direct taxes. Direct taxes are considered better since they tax income, rather than transactions, and hence do not depress trade.

Number 1 and 3 are steps that will provide "momentum" for decades to come. (By momentum I mean that even if the BJP comes back to power, the economy will continue to grow, but may slow down). The nuclear deal is just one of many darts this man has thrown on the board, and he doesnt need each to land bulls eye,

There are many more successes to his credit, but would be wasted on the communalist mob. I can agree with just one thing they say. MM is lucky, not because the BJP provided him momentum, but because between the bomb, the war and the riot, the BJP depressed investments during their tenure. Part of the pick up in MM's tenure is a rebound after the peace.

wo! phew! i got tired reading these comments- almost forgot what the article was 'bout. but love the democratic sentiments it threw up.
KXB-- I do think you are over-reacting. I am India based and i think the tone of the article led to the Dr. Singh bashing. He has before he came to the position of PM had clearly established his credentials. As for as India being regressive with going back on the nuclear deal, i don't know if that is the right decision. Only time will tell.
As far as India being economically in a bad shape...hmmm...i sincerely doubt it. The country, and i travel a lot within, is on a boom everywhere. But yes, the progress could've happened and could happen at a faster pace.
My views on the nuclear deal- in agreement with the guy who is painting my house (a 46 year old 10th standard dropout from Moradabad, U.P.)who said it perfectly: " didn't we have it in the first place? and if we are discussing putting a space mission to the moon, don't you think we can develop this what we intend buying into, ourselves? we might get behind by a few years but wont we be self reliant? sir, you tell me, Indians are everywhere, they develop all the computers and all technical things around the world, i am sure we will find a way..."
not that i support the CPI and I really don't think they are controlled by their 'masters' in China but I think their tone is the same. Their argument is develop it within without kowtowing to anyone.

Ah, drinking the CNN kool-aid. Frankly, my dear, the world doesn't give a rat's a$$ that US is a liberal democracy.

If that's true, then shouldn't they stop complaining about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? OTOH, maybe it's because the U.S. was not living up to its reputation as a liberal democracy that it came in for such fierce criticism. No one criticizes China much for its human rights records because it makes no pretense of being a democracy. You can't have it both ways - the world cannot urge the U.S. to take action in Darfur, Burma, Israel-Palestine, arguing it is the leader of the free world and then turn around and say it is not and demand an equal say, despite not taking on an equal burden. This is not an attempt to gloss over the blunders of the Bush administration, but it is a remark on the inconsistency of such arguments.

EU has been a larger economy than US for a while now

Yes - but does India trade more with US or the EU? Since you are Indo-centric in your policy prescriptions, shouldn't you be concerned that a market as large as the EU seems to be such a tough market to enter for Indian companies. Secondly, despite the attraction of that large market, Indians are not applying for visas to work there. Lookw here Indian companies are investing their money and where Indian workers are applying to go - that is a better indicator of how Indians feel about the U.S.

Yes - but does India trade more with US or the EU?

You think!!!??? Well, look what Google dragged in:

Trade with the EU represents almost 20% of India's exports and imports and the EU thus as a bloc is India's largest trading partner....Negotiations for this EU-India FTA were launched on 28/29 June 2007 in Brussels. Further negotiating rounds are planned to take place later this year in both Delhi and Brussels.

Why your argument about world reaction to US vs China is logically absurd is left as an exercise for you. Now be a good brown and do your homework - figure that out for yourself. Hint: the world really does not give a rat's a$$ that the US is a liberal democracy.

KXB, overall I am seriously disappointed with your lack of awareness of relevant facts and inability to make logically coherent arguments to support your position. I am not a Yalie but I too feel compelled to question your competence to take on and pronounce judgment upon this fairly weighty topic. I expect better from an SM blogger. You have pretty big shoes to fill - current and ex-bloggers on this site such as Anna, Vij and Amardeep are serious heavyweights. You've got a lot of catching up to do.

ok, i read the comments above, and assuming that nuclear power is an important part of india's long term energy independence strategy (something which is reasonable to believe, given the current level of maturity of alternative sources), the real concern with this deal seems to me to be whether india will become dependent on u.s supply of fuel for its economy? can somebody answer my questions in 119 to help evaluate the extent of the risk here?

Professor Gujjubhai, first I would protest the hectoring tone you adopted with KXB. His econo-political-strategic vision is different from yours, but it is well-informed, and he has done a good job with this post. Secondly, if you are using a real life title to assert privilege online - I suggest it is counterproductive. If you have good online arguments, nobody cares who you are in real life (IRL).

Now - I certainly agree that India has a lot to learn from the EU - including innovative governance, operationalization of multilingual, multi-ethnic federative structures, making monetary unions work in areas at different levels of macroeconomic evolution, among other things. EU-India trade is also growing strongly, and will grow further, as you point out yourself.

1.) However, if we're going to talk about the EU, let's talk also about North America. While it probably won't have de jure political (or even monetary) union any time soon, it is certainly quite integrated economically, and is only becoming more so, earning the right to be thought of as a single economy.

And while NAFTA is already in place, let's not forget CAFTA for the Caribbean and Central America, plus, as long as we're thinking long-term - the coming FTAA.

North America-23, including the Caribbean and all countries north of the Panama Canal - is larger than the EU-27 - both in size of economies and populations.

North America 2006: Population of NA-23 514.6 million. PPP GDP for NA-3 alone $ 15.3 Trillion (IMF, 2006)
EU-27 2006: Population 495.5 million. PPP GDP $ 13.9 Trillion (IMF, 2006)

The point of all this being, NA is no pushover, is still the larger and richer market - arguably better integrated than EU at this time. So an apples-to-apples would be trade figures for the entity (at least NA-3 but even NA-23) vs the EU-27.

2.) But - in spite of all that can be said in favor of the EU, and despite all that has happened in the recent history of the US - in economic, soft-power and military terms it still comes out ahead by quite a good bit. The military and soft-power balances are overwhelmingly in favor of the US, the economic not nearly as much. The figures above speak for themselves.

3.) I suggest to you that, given this situation, it still makes much more sense for India to consider a strategic partnership with the US, while also building up both its own power and its economic and political relationships with other power blocs. There is always a small risk that India will lose a little, both locally and in more global settings, but looking at China and Japan, and the history of alliances between emerging powers and hegemons more generally - there are times when it makes sense for the emerging power to ally with the hegemon, or risk being snuffed out by competitors who will do so instead, or who are indeed already in de facto alliances, or both. I suggest that this is the case with India today. Japan chose to ally with the US post-1945, but during the 1920s and 30s attempted to compete with the US across the Pacific. We know how that turned out. You call it a client state, but for a client state it has certainly done amazingly well for itself. There are worse fates India could be cursed with! This is not theoretical, we know how the 1945-1990 period worked for India both internally and externally. I see no need to repeat it, and without a second pole in the world system today, the consequences could be unbelievably catastrophic if India tried it again.

Gujjubhai,

Your rank anti Americanism needs a suitable response. See below

"Unproven? Educate yourself: gas is the second largest fuel source for power gen in the US, and accounted for 28% of US electricity production in 2006."
Who is denying this fact ? My concerns are not just about alternative energy sources but the fact that India still has a lot of maturing to do. You speak as though private enterprises will spring up where ever there are proven natural gas resources and start delivering energy to the masses.

Again, i want to go back to the power systems that we already have and are so poorly managing. When is India going to ever going to allow full fledged privatisation ? Every damn thing has to be run by the Government.There are fundamental changes that India needs to make towards becoming a more liberal and free market economy which allows private enterprise to flourish. We are'nt there yet - and all this talk about alternative energy is good to hear. But it overlooks certain fundamental aspects of how things are run.

"Ah, drinking the CNN kool-aid. Frankly, my dear, the world doesn't give a rat's a$$ that US is a liberal democracy. The world remembers US supporting tinpot dictators and napalming little children. The world remembers half a million dead Iraqi civilians. The world remembers Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo. The world sees that even today your best allies include barbarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. The world does not like to watch CNN anymore, the world prefers Al Jazeera."

Very presumptuous arent we Mr.GujjuBhai ? I dont even watch CNN !! Also, when did you start speaking for the world :-) I do not think that any one denies how much the US has compromised with its founding principles in dealing with unsavory regimes. But very few people seem to know or understand the difficulties it finds itself in and how it tries to manage these difficulties. But then again, when you start out being anti-American who has pretty much closed his mind to the fact that this country has done a lot of enormous good to human civilization, what can i do ?

The world remembers how Vietnamese people were napalamed - but it does seem eager to overlook the relations Vietnam has with the US right NOW!! Are you telling me that the Vietnamese care less about what happened in that war than what you do? They have'nt forgotten. But at the same time even they arent blinded by reflexive anti Americanism !! Go, figure !!

The world is all too ready to believe exaggerated number of people dead in Iraq while at the same time forgetting the millions of Iraqis who were freed from the tyranny of one of the most brutal dictators in the middle east. GujjuBhai, did you happen to see the execution of Saddam Hussein ? May be you would have got a glimpse of how terribly the Shias suffered under Saddam that they were ready to wring his neck off at the first opportunity.

The world remembers Abu Ghraib and forgets how it was exposed in the first place or who exposed it. Ever heard of Joe Darby ? Hmm, may be Al Jazeera hasnt bothered to figure out how the scandal was exposed. The world also has no idea in hell how much these incidents deeply anguish decent Americans who cant wait for Bush's tenure to come to an end.

Here's a question for you - How would you deal with a country which gave rise to fundamentalist Wahabbism , has the largest known reserves of oil known to mankind on which the world is terribly dependent and you have the world's largest economy that needs crazy amounts of energy? It's very easy to pass judgement from a safe distance when you are not the one who has to make a choice between the devil(Islamic jihadis) and the deep blue sea ( the fucked up house of Saud)

Did you see how India had to tread very carefully with Burma despite the recent round of brutality against innocent Burmese civilians and Buddhist monks ?? Does this mean that the largest democracy in the world prefers or supports a military junta whole heartedly as opposed to supporting Burma's legitimate aspirations for freedom ? Absolutely NOT !! India realizes that it is not in a situation to do what it would actually like to do. And yet at the same time, it has decided to engage with the Burmese thugs alteast for now. Not because it prefers the thugs over Aung San Suu Kyi. But because it has to counter the enormous Chinese influence in Burma. And some day because of this traction it may gain with these thugs it may be in a position to force the thugs to share power with Aung San Suu Kyi.

Notice how many "mays" i used in the last paragraph. That is the kind of situation, India is in vis-a-vis Burma. But it has to take this unpleasant path that may be successful as opposed to totally rejecting the Burmese thugs (which it did right up to the 90's until PVN Rao came to his senses and realized that the more India opposed Burma, the more its leaders were engulfed by China.)

"Your arguments remind me of the neo-con delusions about how Iraqis' would greet Americans as liberators. Sloganeering about freedom and democracy while US's chief allies are a fundamentalist Islamic kingdom and a couple of tinpot dictators is actually quite hilarious."

Funny how the Iraqis need neo-colonial delusions to free them is'nt it? And by the way if you want to know how badly Iraqi's feel about the American invasion, please read Mohammed at Iraq the Model (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/) or intrepid reporters like Michael Totten at http://www.michaeltotten.com/. And no, its not "CNN propaganda". These are accounts of every day life in Iraq by an Iraqi Sunni and an independent journalist who is there in Ramadi,Iraq (heart of the Sunni insurgency) to see how the situation is first hand.

"Unlike the past, now there are others of comparable size too. BTW, EU has been a larger economy than US for a while now. Listen to the message of the market. Sure, the US economy still matters quite a bit - just not as much as it used to. "

And how exactly did these "others of comparable size" come around in the world today? Europe was in tatters after the 2nd World War and if you knew that there was something called the Marshall plan that helped them kickstart the economy or the trans Atlantic relationship that they have had for 150+ years and counting, you would nt be pooh poohing the US away.

No prizes for guessing who exactly brought China on to the world scene or how much India's fortune turned around because of its economic interactions with the bad bad USA ?

"Thanks to the WTO, not so much as it used to. Google recent globalization studies that show changing trade flow patterns and emergence of strong regional trading compared to the past. "
Hmm the WTO ? I wonder how this organization came into place ?? Or what exactly it is purported to be there for ? I dont know, but may be it helps trade flourish globally and between countries or something to that effect ?

Tell me that you are joking when you cite Japan and say that we will be following down that path. Can you apply something called context ? Japan was for ever transformed by the 2nd world war and the way it ended. It has a pacifist constitution and will not declare war or have much of a standing army. It is more than glad to have the US give it protection given the likes of China and North Korea in its neighborhood.

India has the fourth largest army in the world and needs NO ONES protection for its economic or national security. It does need to counter China's growth and is trying to work with countries like US, Australia and Japan to remind China that it can play the strategy game too. If you have noticed China has actively been containing India, outbidding it for every serious oil contract, becoming a observer member of SAARC (!!) while managing to keep India away from ASEAN, and supporting every nation in Indias neighborhood inimical to its interests.

At this point, India has rightly hitched its strategy of countering China to a closer relationship with the US. It does not want this relationship so that it can become a "client state" but because it is beneficial to its self interests and these converge with those of America.

"Just because you feel it's not imperative does not not make it so. Soviet Union lost the economic war - read again what I wrote".
I thought that you were the one who wrote that this deal will erode India's nuclear weapons credibility (even though nothing of that sort is happening) and that it is imperative for India to be equal with China at the very least when it comes to nuclear weaponization.

My point was that all the nuclear weapons in the world wont help you if you dont have the economic power to back it up. I used the example of the Soviet Union to prove just that. And now you re directly weakening your own idea of the imperative of India to have top gun nuclear weapons when you yourself agree that it could nt save the Soviet Union from disintegrating.

"India bucked the unflinching US support and weapons aid to its major non-Nato ally ruled by a dictator who happens to be the chief sponsor of terrorism to India. So what's your point? "

Ahh, if you have not been sleeping, the violence in Kashmir has been its lowest in years. Principally because Musharaff is under tremedous support from the US to stop the Taliban. The weapons that are given are for this purpose and not for attacking India !! Are you even following the news nowadays ? Most people in here have come to realize that Mush is a double dealing SOB and have openly expressed doubts about his leadership. Barack Obama, leading Democratic candidate for President went so far as to threaten Pakistan with a missile launch on Pakistani soil if he wanted to get at Al Qaeda terrorists.

Things are not always what they seem. It is very clear that you are not in the US and you dont know the ground realities of this support for Musharaff. If you noticed , the US just engineered Bhutto's entry into Pakistan, made Musharaff to nominate a successor to lead Pakistan army and made him promise to shed his uniform when the Pak SC allows his election as President. It also stopped him from declaring martial law when the protests in pakistan got out of hand and musharaff was losing his nerve.(Condi Rice bluntly warned him not to declare martial law.)

- Getting instructions on how to run your Government, forced to share power, and allowing your arch nemesis to re-enter the country after dropping all corruption charges against her- all because your "biggest supporter" told you to do so!!

Now that my friend, that would be the VERY DEFINITION of a CLIENT STATE !!

I don't see why such a hue-and cry is being made about the deal getting delayed. Even if we do a rapid-fire agreement with IAEA within three months we will be entering a lame-duck US congress/President starting Jan 08 coz everybody will be busy with primaries and Nov elections. So why not wait and take a slow and steady step and complete the agreement wit IAEA over the course of the 6-12 months and then lets the new congress approve the 123 deal. Wht the hell are we going to lose in a 1 years time. No reactor can be approved or nuclear technology bought within a year anyway and there is a whole lot of bidding process and site selection, legal issues to be resolved. And the world is not going to slow its consumption of oil anyway within a year so it matters little to the environment

Gujjubhai,

The last person I knew who referred to himself as "Professor" was Professor Griff of the 1980's rap group Public Enemy - and if you don't know who is, it's OK. But he did have the same knack for starting out speaking in a reasonable manner, and then going off the rails where no one could take him seriously.

With that sort of prickliness in your last post, I almost expect you to be a current or former Indian diplomat. Edward Luce, in his recent book In Spite of the Gods, wrote,

"Foreign diplomats sometimes barely get past the opening remarks if their Indian counterparts do not feel satisfied they will be treated with exceptional respect." At times, India's diplomats appear to mind more about etiquette than they do about substance. India wants constantly to be reminded about how important it is, and to be complemented on the profundity of its civilization." (p. 283)

I have enough kakas in my family to know of this tired tactic - once you run out of ideas, engage in name-calling.

If trade between India and the U.S. is lagging that with the EU, you may want to know why? You know why trade between the U.S. and India is as (quoting Blackwill) "flat as a chapati"? It's not because America has limited the entry of Indian software firms into the U.S - remember, big bad Bush did not object to outsourcing during his re-election campaign in 2004 while the more worldly John Kerry called any American company that outsourced a "Benedict Arnold CEO". You two don't live in the same neighborhood, do you?

India has done pretty much nothing in opening protected and heavily regulated sectors such as insurance, retail, and banking. Even Indian-based Reliance is having trouble expanding its chain of supermarkets, because politically-protected thugs trash their stores while government officials look the other way. Americans look at that and think, "If that's how they treat their own companies, how will we be greeted?"

Returning to your hopes for India's energy swadeshi, in the same book, here is this little bit of info:

On energy, however, India's internal shortfall is large and growing. At the moment India imports 70% of its oil needs, and that figure is expected to rise to 90 percent in the next two decades as the domestic economy expands.(page 290)

BTW - if you are so adamant the India can look after its own energy needs without any help from the imperialist U.S., then I trust you are writing to you MP, urging him that henceforth the Indian navy should provide all security to ships leaving the Persian Gulf bound for India? Because right now, almost 100% of the region's oil is pumped and shipped under security provided by the U.S. Navy. The U.S imports more oil from Nigeria and Venezuela than it does from the Middle East, yet it provides all the security for world's petroleum markets. So America secures the passage of oil to India, where the Indian government then proceeds to subsidize the price to a low level to win votes, and encourages wasteful consumption. Nice deal.

Think of that - oil is the blood if of the world economy, and it's all guarded by the big bad Americans. Perhaps America should just tell the rest of the world to guard their own damn oil, send their own ships to the Straits of Hormuz, and you try your hand at dealing with the medieval time-warped men that run Saudi Arabia? The again, India cannot even work up the nerve to ask Saudi Arabia to treat Indian workers in their country with even a modicum of dignity. Too busy inviting their leader to the Republic Day parade in New Delhi, I suppose, to worry about some Indian getting his head chopped off in a public square.

And you still have not squared the circle of your most obvious flaw - you said the U.S. is interested in keeping India's nuclear weapons program under its heel, despite the fact that the treaty largely leaves the handling of fissile materials to India's discretion. But if China is the biggest strategic concern that America has in Asia, but what stretch of the imagination does it make any sense for America to limit India's nuclear arsenal? Robert Blackwill himself said that it makes no sense to limit India's nuclear or ballistic missile program so long as China is ramping up theirs.

Were you able to secure tenure with that kind of argument?

You know why trade between the U.S. and India is as (quoting Blackwill) "flat as a chapati"? It's not because America has limited the entry of Indian software firms into the U.S - remember, big bad Bush did not object to outsourcing during his re-election campaign in 2004 while the more worldly John Kerry called any American company that outsourced a "Benedict Arnold CEO".

As if India has to grateful to the US for the low level call-center/back-office jobs which US allows to be outsourced ( after lot of compliants by liberal Democrats and President Bush himself in his speech in the lawns in India ). If US cares about increasing trade why doesn't it reduce the subsidy of its farm sector so that Indian agricultural products can be sold, why not allow more Indian banks be allowed to opened in US.

Because right now, almost 100% of the region's oil is pumped and shipped under security provided by the U.S. Navy. The U.S imports more oil from Nigeria and Venezuela than it does from the Middle East, yet it provides all the security for world's petroleum markets. So America secures the passage of oil to India, where the Indian government then proceeds to subsidize the price to a low level to win votes, and encourages wasteful consumption. Nice deal.

US is not protecting security to all other ship carrying oil just for nothing. They need to maintian that force in order to undertake surveillance activties going on in that region for e.g. Chinese presence in Gwadar port in Pakistan and also be able to shoot ballistic missile/ maintain ready attack force for any eventuality in the Iran and Afghan region. The will probably consume more oil if they have to keep moving the ship to that region so better remain stationed there and do some work.

Priya,

No one is suggesting that India be grateful, but this idea that the U.S. has been and will always trying to undermine India is not based in any fact. As for agriculture, to mark this first year of Indian mangoes imported into America, some American opponents of the nuclear deal came up with the slogan, "India gets power plants, and all we got are mangoes"

As for oil security - who else is volunteering to protect the oil? If Putin shows up in Riyadh and offers protection, you think the Saudis are going to accept? Again, exhibiting self-interest while taking on responsibilities greater than is expected are not two mutually exclusive conditions.

If Putin shows up in Riyadh and offers protection, you think the Saudis are going to accept?

I'm following your reasoning thus far but this seems like a poor example for the simple fact that there is no other navy in the world, currently capable of doing the oil-transportation protection duties that the US is currently taking up. Putin's seaworthy fleet is hardly sufficient even for the task of policing the Indian Ocean.

but this idea that the U.S. has been and will always trying to undermine India is not based in any fact

this kind of rhetoric is common to chauvinistic nationalist and populist parties in the region. The JHU in Sri Lanka uses very similar rhetoric to justify their national security 'platform'--i.e. the West (especially the American intelligence services) is out to get us because they know the importance and power of Sinhala culture and are willing to pull out all the stops to prevent it from growing in importance and getting it's due on the global stage.

It really makes me laugh every time I read someone writing in from Desh denigrating Japan--WTF--that's placing way too much on so-called pride at the expense of so may other more plausible social & moral goals--& even "cultural preservation."

KXB--don't let the haters get you down--you have a lot of fans too!

related news on australia's tentative deal with india. sorry, i haven't read all the comments above in full, but does anybody know what the relative sizes of these deals are, and what proportion of india's long term fuel supply would come from the u.s.? also, are any other countries potential suppliers to india?

dravidian lurker, sorry if you felt a little left out on this question, which is quite basic. The answer is nobody knows (yet). A figure of $100 Billion is being bandied about for the reactor deals in India over the next 20 years. But this is not even back-of-the-envelope, it is 'out of a hat'. The actual deal size will depend on the precise configuration of technology options that India chooses - light water vs heavy water, enriched vs natural uranium vs thorium reactor, etc. - from US or Canada or France or Russia. I don't think even India ws yet, and since it is envisaged that nuclear power will open to the private sector - after appropriate changes to regulatory and pricing regimes - the actual deal value might depend on demand and supply in a big way, so nobody can predict how big things might get.

As to the uranium supply, again the deal dollar value depends on what kind of uranium - currently Australia does not enrich its uranium, but later on it might choose to - and of course it depends on the price of uranium in the future - kind of like oil, it can vary. So the answer again is 'nobody knows' (yet).

so why did this debate evolve into whether america is a lovely purveyor of utopia or the great satan? india's acceptance or otherwise of the nuclear deal to dent america's prestige is like using a pea shooter to blow the moon out of the night sky. heck, india was not even able to get its guy elected to the token position of secretary general, or get a permanent security council seat, so it would truly be a delusion of grandeur to think that this deal is make or break for the u.s. further, let's face it, both america and india need each other as trade partners and that is not going to change independent of this deal.

what matters is what india needs to do to be able to meet the energy demands of its growing economy. is there a strategy that can address the projected needs till 2050 or so? india would need a substantial increase in its energy production, as well as investments in its infrastructure, to meet these needs. nuclear power definitely seems like the best medium term option for this energy production, and the u.s. deal seems the best way to kickstart it. the big question is what share of the nuclear power production will be dependent on u.s. supply, because clearly india would not want its economy to be held hostage by the u.s. in this manner. other potential suppliers are china, russia, australia, france etc., but i really see only russia being a bulwark to any u.s. shenanigans with the supply (i doubt that china will go out of its way to help india grow its economy, when they are probably going to be the likely competitors in 25 years or so). provided india has a strategy with other countries so that it is not reliant on any one supplier of fuel, or the foreseeable cartels (like u.s/australia/maybe france), i don't see the downside with this deal. but per chachaji's response in 136, i have not seen any analysis or evaluation of this specific question.

arguments based on macho swaggering claims of self reliance, and unfounded fears of ceding autonomy to the u.s. are completely unproductive to this decision making.

(i am assuming that since the military nuclear plants are out of inspection purview, it is not some ceding of our sovereignty or autonomy etc. to sign this agreeement. plus i am biased because really all i care about is alphonso mangoes.)

As for agriculture, to mark this first year of Indian mangoes imported into America, some American opponents of the nuclear deal came up with the slogan, "India gets power plants, and all we got are mangoes"

Mangoes is not the issue why the Doha round of talks was stalled. Mangoes were allowed by the US to enter its market only because India agreed to more stringent quality control. There are subsidies for american agriculture across the board which kills the livelihood of poor farmer across the developing countries and Africa.

And to come back on course... I still don't understand what the big deal if the deal is delayed by one year ? One of the main components of the Left - CPI-M from Bengal is in favour of the deal. All they are asking for is more time and analysis and no haste.

i am assuming that since the military nuclear plants are out of inspection purview, it is not some ceding of our sovereignty or autonomy etc. to

that is partly true only. as a buyer of american fuel/technology the state dept/cia and other sources etc. have to still submit a report to the US president abt the how much amt of fissile material India has produced from both military and non-military sources in order to be able to continue with the trade. that sounds fair from the american non-proliferation perpspective but the indian hawks interpret it as yet another possible way to arm twist indian autonomy in future ( remember tarapur and technology restrictions )
But as KXB mentioned "exhibiting self-interest while taking on responsibilities greater than is expected are not two mutually exclusive conditions" ...so in that sense it is not bad for India to go for the deal all out but nothing wrong in going slow. There are whole lot of legal,technical, beuracratic issues that need to resolved and understood and as India negotiates with IAEA we can slowly hatch out all these.

What wrong with foreplay and flirting going on for some more time before America and India tie the knot ?

KXB--don't let the haters get you down--you have a lot of fans too!

I know, ain't nothin' but a thang.

india was not even able to get its guy elected to the token position of secretary general, or get a permanent security council seat

You raise a good point dravidian lurker. This is, (of course) related to the issue of how India - and its near term intentions, are seen by the world system. It might also have to do with the fact that South Korea ran a good campaign. According to Shashi Tharoor, the President of South Korea traveled to many of the major countries in the world, trade and parliamentary delegations visited, a major diplomatic offensive was launched on behalf of their candidate. I feel that these things helped, but the US wanted to make a point (if Japan is a 'client state' then South Korea is even more of one - a prosperous and technologically advanced one, and one which is now much more democratic than it once was) - that it could get someone from South Korea elected.

I think the Security Council seat will come only when the Council itself is reformed to remove the veto from all permanent members - and replaced with a supermajority. A permanent membership of (say) 13 would need a supermajority of (say) 8 to act - the other 5 won't be able to hold things up. I don't think anyone in the current P-5 wants another country with a veto - leave alone one such as India who might be seen as having a boulder on its shoulder. And when it does come, of course, expect to see Germany, Japan, Brazil and South Africa (at least) elevated alongside India. It won't be a P-5 + 1 situation.

And India really ought to settle with Pakistan before - because they will otherwise want to be on it too - and if being a nuclear power gets you there, they can hardly be refused. Pakistan has also carried out a lot of Peacekeeping missions for the UN, just as India has (and which is part of its claim to permanent membership, not just being 1 billion strong and a nuclear power). Also, it would be unwise for the world system to let India have a Security Council seat so it can feel 'one-up' on Pakistan. The wiser thing - both locally and globally - would be to give South Asia a seat after India has settled with Pakistan, the two have evolved a joint strategic consensus, or even moved toward a federation. Actually, I think it would be splendid both as a prize to South Asia for solving that issue and as an incentive. Before that can happen, Pakistan will have to show that it is moving decisively in the direction of democracy, and that it has truly put behind its support for Islamic terrorism. I am encouraged by recent developments, and see the beginnings of movement toward both those goals. I hope Indian strategic thinking also moves to take advantage of these opportunities.

KXB,

as you may already seen the news tab here is another interesting intereview on us-india deal

India represents 1 billion people of a type not represented elsewhere in the Secdurity Council. That in itself is reason enough to include them. And Brazil should be included too. And after a few years, South Africa should be on that list to give some representation to Africa. India doesnt need to clean up its affairs to deserve a seat. China hasn't and it has one.

India represents 1 billion people of a type not represented elsewhere in the Secdurity Council. That in itself is reason enough to include them. And Brazil should be included too. And after a few years, South Africa should be on that list to give some representation to Africa. India doesnt need to clean up its affairs to deserve a seat. China hasn't and it has one.

Pakistan can also claim there is no permanent 'Muslim nation' on the Council, and if population alone mattered, it has more people than France and the UK put together.

It simply won't be in the interest of world system stability to 'elevate' a country like India that has a running feud with another that has nuclear weapons, and which also wants in to the Security Council. Besides which, it is in India and Pakistan's own best interest - Security Council or not - to move away from nuclear confrontation and settle the Kashmir issue.

Why should India get a voice in the 'higher councils' of the world system and have a bigger hand in settling other big issues of the world - if it can't settle with its own neighbor? Pakistan would then permanently mistrust any decision coming out of the Security Council, and so I simply don't think that would ever happen. I think once India and Pakistan settle, and realize it's not a zero-sum game, they could also more easily move toward developing a shared strategic consensus, and get a shared seat, or if they federate before that, then a South Asia seat. A solution in which they both get seats is also possible if Pakistan cleans up its internal act much quicker than the India-Pakistan mess is sorted out, but I rather feel that if the internal act is clean, India can also settle with Pakistan soon enough - especially because India would not want to be in a situation where both have permanent seats - because that would instantly dilute the meaning of India's seat!

Also, these things don't occur piecemeal - so it's not like India will get it next year and Germany in a couple years, Japan next, while South Africa cools its heels for a decade before coming in. No, all these things are going to happen as part of an overhaul of the entire world system governance structure, and I would guess it would be in the second term of the next US President to have two terms - before these things even get considered, and at least a half-decade of consultation and consensus building before it is implemented.

So: India and Pakistan, seize the moment, settle up!

@ 137,

i am assuming that since the military nuclear plants are out of inspection purview, it is not some ceding of our sovereignty or autonomy etc.

If this is really true then the point-man of US-Indian negotiation Mr Nicholas Burns wouldn't be making this statement in one of the interviews

"...And within twenty-five years, I think 90 to 95 percent of their entire establishment will be fully safeguarded. So the choice is: Should we isolate India for the next thirty-five years, or bring it in partially now and nearly totally in the future? I think's an easy choice for us to make strategically..."

Such statements are ready made ammunition for indian hawks and the left and betrays the real intentions of US establishment. So in that sense it makes sense to go slow, analyze, take all the time to finalize the deal.

Such statements are ready made ammunition for indian hawks and the left and betrays the real intentions of US establishment. So in that sense it makes sense to go slow, analyze, take all the time to finalize the deal.

I certainly agree that all implications of the deal must be openly discussed and understood, on both sides, including, especially, this one - but remember that what is contemplated is a privatization of the nuclear power sector in India.

Both Indian and foreign companies will be allowed to set up nuclear reactors to provide power. These private sector nuclear reactors is the 90-95 percent he means.

If foreign private entities are setting up nuclear reactors, with their own financial investment and technological knowhow, why is there any loss of sovereignty in ensuring they come under international safeguards, especially since India is allowed to have reactors outside the system for its own 'strategic' needs? Wouldn't you rather that these private reactors be safeguarded, (not only in India but in every other country they are set up in) - by an international agency to which India will contribute technical manpower?

Alternatively, would you expect, for example, that the plutonium created from foreign uranium in those foreign-owned reactors should be available to India (or any other country) for its bombs? I wouldn't!

It simply won't be in the interest of world system stability to 'elevate' a country like India that has a running

Why not. Is India worse than China at bullying neighbors? India by itself represents 1 billion people and there are no redundant populations of that type in the Council. The size and uniqueness of its population should be good enough reason. Not to mention that they are a democracy which should be give it the edge if it's case to be included in the council is considered borderline. Britain should actually be removed from the Council once the commonwealth is deemed totally useless. If a muslim country has the size anywhere comparable to India, then by all means, suggest one. India, by the way, represents more muslims than most Muslim countries. And it has supported Palestinian rights over the years.

Pravin, I fully grant that India has a comparable (or greater) Muslim population than Pakistan - I'm only pointing out how Pakistan will perceive India's elevation (if it occurs) and what objections it will raise to prevent it or at least get the same recognition, and how India could proactively forestall them, besides also doing things in its own best interests, and Pakistan's. And BTW, Indonesia might be considered a candidate too, as the largest Muslim country, and a large country in its own right.

There are two things about the whole way you're coming at this that seem questionable. One, you're assuming the UNSC structure will remain the same going forward - it most likely won't, and changing it in any direction will not be easy, hasn't happened for 60+ years - and admitting a brand new member with a veto is most unlikely of all. Second, it isn't logic or demographic weight or the spirit of inclusiveness, but the needs of the powerful that decide who gets to sit at world high tables.

China's case illustrates this most clearly. It was admitted as a permanent member of UNSC in 1945 after it was conferred 'Great Power' status in 1943 by the Allies during WW2. It was a very different politial entity at that time, and was expected to, and did, vote with the US in the UNSC. During 1949-71, after PRC came into being - it was Taiwan that held the seat because the US refused to recognize the PRC. India argued for PRC, as a matter of principle, hoping that would help its own case, but it made no difference.

When the UNSC membership was being considered in 1945, Britain, thought it, through the Commonwealth, would represent India's interests - so you're right that once that didn't happen to the extent India wanted or would have liked, some revision was in order. Who knows, if Partition hadn't occured, or the war had ended sooner, or independence had come earlier, India might have come in as a permanent member as a whole. But since that didn't happen, India can only work within the system now to gain admittance, and with Pakistan also having a reasonable case, it makes a whole lot of sense to work together; or at least to strengthen its own case by settling the dispute with Pakistan (and doing the right thing besides).

KXB:

maybe it's because the U.S. was not living up to its reputation as a liberal democracy that it came in for such fierce criticism. No one criticizes China much for its human rights records because it makes no pretense of being a democracy.

For your information, the U.S. is being criticized for Abu Graib, Guantanamo etc not because its "not living up to its reputation as a liberal democracy" but because its violating international laws and conventions.

Chachaji:

Japan chose to ally with the US post-1945, but during the 1920s and 30s attempted to compete with the US across the Pacific. We know how that turned out. You call it a client state, but for a client state it has certainly done amazingly well for itself. There are worse fates India could be cursed with!

For your information, Japan had no choice but to ally with the U.S. after being nuked (a war crime if ever there was one) and occupied by it. Secondly Japan was already a world power, mass producing fighter planes, aircraft carriers etc before it was defeated. India on the other hand is still incapable of building tanks, planes and even artillery pieces. Its laughable to compare India's position in the world with that of Japan which is first-world.

Kush Tandon:

, Solar, Gobar Gas, Hydrogen cell, Geothermal (except Iceland) are interesting alternate energy sources worth pursuing, however, none of them fit economies of scale, except farting

Ignorant nonsense. For your information, hydrogen cells are not 'alternate energy sources'. Secondly Solar energy scales far better and fits economies of scale far better than nuclear energy.

NS:

Here's a question for you - How would you deal with a country which gave rise to fundamentalist Wahabbism

FYI, it was the British Empire that empowered the wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. You must be one of the few people who didnt see the movie Lawrence of Arabia.

T. E. Lawrence, great hero of the Empire, can be considered the father of modern terrorism. The British Empire was founded on theft, genocide, piracy, drug running etc.

And the U.S. has continued the support of wahhabis. Bin Laden and his ilk were called freedom fighters by Reagan when they were fighting the Soviet Union, and wahhabi Saudi Arabia which finances all these jihadi producing madrassas worldwide is a long term american ally.

India has the fourth largest army in the world and needs NO ONES protection for its economic or national security.

You, KXB, chachaji et al obviously do not really believe this (correctly). Which is why you are so desperate to make India a subservient tool of the powerful anglosphere.

US is a trillion dollar economy

FYI, the U.S. is a 13 to 14 trillion dollar economy. India on the other hand is not even close to being a trillion dollar economy (nominal) despite being more than 3 times as populous.

oil will trade in the high 80's if the demand from China and India grows by the day and OPEC tries to profitize this situation to the hilt

FYI, oil was already trading in the high 80s when you wrote that and is now trading in the 90s.

will be repercussions if this deal is not going to come through. Some of it will be in the form of FDI. But most importantly it will be in the arena of trustworthiness

Sheer cravenness and cluelessness. China gets multiple times the FDI that India gets without signing such deals.

, our power transmission and distribution systems are so woeful and need urgent reform, it would be nothing short of a fantasy to even think about new energy systems emerging successfully when these alternatives are not proven to be useful for mass production and distribution.

Laughably stupid. You are making a point against yourself. Its nuclear energy that is far more dependent on India's 'woeful power transmission and distribution' infrastructure. Solar energy can be independent of India's decrepit infrastructure; it can scale from powering tiny electronics to entire cities and solar panels can be mass produced far more easily than nuclear power plants.

US is a liberal democracy and has liberated more people from tyranny than any other country in the world.

The U.S. was forced into liberating a large percentage of its own people from long term tyranny (african-americans and other coloreds including desis) because of the moral pressure applied by communists during the Cold War. Thank the commies for the fact that your colored ass is even allowed to immigrate here.

Dhoni,

I don't think you have to resort to namecalling to make your point. Chachaji, KXB, Kush and others make their point respectfully and so far this has been a great exchange, I don't think there is any need to make it a pissing match.

Chachaji,I agree with you on the history of what went on in the UN. But where I disagree with you is that India somehow has to be admitted with Pakistan's feelings taken into consideration. Pakistan, to be blunt, is not a big enough country to demand such an influence by itself. It has nothing to do with good or bad. Almost every country in the Security Council had tensions with some other country and were perceived as bullies by others when they were admitted. SO I do not see why Pakistan's feelings should be considered for India's eligibility. India's size and form of government should be good enough to get it admitted regardless of whether it is being unfair to Pakistan or not. It is simply ridiculous for China to be the only non white permananent member. Indonesia has a large muslim population, but as a whole, it is still not that big of a country, and some might say it is in China's sphere, to put it very loosely. I think there is a stronger case to include a prominent South American country. And at some point, if South Africa continues to improve and demonstrate long term stability in leadership, it should be the first representative from Africa.

I do like the supermajority concept with 10 or so Permanent Members. 8 out of 10 sounds good. Or maybe they can come up with a mechanism to override a veto with a simple majority in the general membership and a supermajority in the permanent membership or some other formula including the permanent and temporary members of the Security Council.

Pravin, I think the real issue to think about is what India intends to do with a Security Council seat - and what the world system would achieve by elevating India to such a position. To a large extent, India has wanted the psychological boost, the 'recognition', the righting of a wrong inflicted during colonial times, the 'right' of one-fifth of humanity, an ancient civilization, etc. Your argument is along these lines.

But the world system will recognize it only if elevating it further buttresses and strengthens the system, or if it is so strong in its own right that not co-opting it runs the serious risk of severely disrupting it. The Pakistan issue figures as part of both these latter considerations - is the world system better if India is admitted to the SC without a resolution of the issue, or - does leaving India out increase the chance of something (like a nuclear exchange) which severely disrupts the system, at least locally and temporarily?

I think the India-Pakistan issue should be resolved anyway, just from the local pov; but even from the world system pov - elevating a state which has such a long-standing and seemingly unresolvable existential conflict to a position where it is supposed to strengthen and buttress the system - can affect the perception (and reality) of the legitimacy of the system. Sure, Taiwan probably doesn't like China in the P-5, (nor does India like the fact that China is in while it is out), and Ukraine and Poland probably don't like that Russia is in. But the India-Pakistan thing goes deeper - there have been four hot wars, much overt hostility, long-continuing low-intensity (but bloody) conflict, and several near-nuclear exchanges. So it is in India's own interest to resolve that, or concede that world-system intervention is necessary to resolve it (undercutting its claims to regional pre-eminence, and thus also to elevation in the SC).

As I see it, India has now realized that it makes a lot of sense to work within the system and get the things it really wants - greater local and global security, better terms of trade, greater international labor mobility (e.g., more H-1B visas, and similar visas into the EU) etc, while also working toward recognition and elevation. As the guarantor-hegemon of the world system today, and the core of the largest contintentally integrated economy - the US is in a position to help India - both to achieve its larger geopolitical aims as well as the specific aim of 'permanent membership', but won't do so unless it is fully convinced that India will be on its side both strategically and tactically, and for the long term.

The nuclear deal formalizes that strategic understanding, and I fully expect that once that happens and fully gets going, India will eventually be accomodated as a 'permanent' member of the Security Council, along with others, though without a veto (like all others, including the current P-5), sometime in the next decade and half - perhaps around 2020. But the settlement with Pakistan also has to happen, and it is in India's own interest to do that proactively, (and hopefully also evolve a strategic consensus with Pakistan, and claim that seat jointly).

India is also working separately with Japan and Germany (who are its peers in GDP PPP, and whose formal elevation is expected to strengthen and buttress the world system); and with Brazil and South Africa (who, like itself, are representatives of regions neglected in the permanent membership) - both as something useful in itself, and as a way of advancing their respective cases for permanent membership.

Dhoni,
Please see my response to your "enlightening" comments. With communist sympathizers like you, we dont really need enemies !

"FYI, it was the British Empire that empowered the wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. You must be one of the few people who didnt see the movie Lawrence of Arabia. T. E. Lawrence, great hero of the Empire, can be considered the father of modern terrorism. The British Empire was founded on theft, genocide, piracy, drug running etc. "

Dhoni, why dont you stop living in a time warp ? What will make people like you to stop living in the 19th century? Who cares what the Brits did in 1904 ?? It doesnt wash away the fact the Saudis gave the world Wahabbist idealogy.

"And the U.S. has continued the support of wahhabis. Bin Laden and his ilk were called freedom fighters by Reagan when they were fighting the Soviet Union, and wahhabi Saudi Arabia which finances all these jihadi producing madrassas worldwide is a long term american ally."

Now they are repenting for that support - the 9/11 attacks have put all these policies under a very harsh light. Is it possible for a country to recover from its mistakes or do we just keep condemning it for ever ?

"You, KXB, chachaji et al obviously do not really believe this (correctly). Which is why you are so desperate to make India a subservient tool of the powerful anglosphere."

Yeah and you have the special knowledge about how we are going to become a subservient tool, dont you ? Inferiority complex is'nt going to help arguments, does it??

"will be repercussions if this deal is not going to come through. Some of it will be in the form of FDI. But most importantly it will be in the arena of trustworthiness
Sheer cravenness and cluelessness. China gets multiple times the FDI that India gets without signing such deals."

Cravenness ?? Cluelessness? Who the hell is craven to who ?? Do you know how much work was put into the deal and to come to this point ? Every one here in the US is admonishing the US Govt for giving into India , while you call us being craven to the US !! If any one needs to get a clue it is people like you.

"Laughably stupid. You are making a point against yourself. Its nuclear energy that is far more dependent on India's 'woeful power transmission and distribution' infrastructure. Solar energy can be independent of India's decrepit infrastructure; it can scale from powering tiny electronics to entire cities and solar panels can be mass produced far more easily than nuclear power plants."

Hmmm... Is it possible that we can get our power systems and grids to operate more efficiently or have you totally lost faith on India to do such a thing.? Is it possible to privatize the system, get Government hands off the whole thing and reduce inefficiencies ?? Is it possible that the nuclear power plants springing up a blessing to kick start our power systems being reformed ??

Who in the world has demonstrated the great extent to which you claim that solar energy can scale ?? Can you please give concrete examples of entire cities being powered by solar energy ?? You are welcome to live in your fantasy lands, just dont ask other people to join you.

"The U.S. was forced into liberating a large percentage of its own people from long term tyranny (african-americans and other coloreds including desis) because of the moral pressure applied by communists during the Cold War. Thank the commies for the fact that your colored ass is even allowed to immigrate here."

Moral pressure applied by the commies ?? If i have ever heard of a bigger joke about the morality of communism, this has to be it !!! You have no idea in hell of how many people here in the US have fought for equal civil liberties for people of all colors. They were'nt communists, not by any stretch of imagination !!

Communism is anithetical to basic human freedoms and individual liberty - it is laughable to even think that communists applied "moral pressure" to the US. Try telling this to East European countries like Poland, Romania, Hungary who suffered under Soviet Communism !! Try telling this to the millions of Russians who were sent to the gulags by Stalin and the millions of Chinese who were killed by Mao's "Great Leap Forward".

Such love for communism gets my blood boiling. And dont you dare to pass racist comments and get away scott free. I am not an immigrant and my colored ass is here because of my merits , not because of your F**KED UP communists !!

The U.S. was forced into liberating a large percentage of its own people from long term tyranny (african-americans and other coloreds including desis) because of the moral pressure applied by communists during the Cold War. Thank the commies for the fact that your colored ass is even allowed to immigrate here.

One of your more absurd statements, and it is hard to pick just one. Ask the Georgians, Armenians, Ukranians, Poles, Romanians how the communists dealt with ethnic differences. Secondly, communists were pressuring the U.S. into allowing immigrants? Wouldn't it make more sense for the Soviet Union to have allowed immigration into its own region from the developing world, if it wanted to win the battle of public opinion? Then again, if you had the misfortune of living in say, East Berlin, and decided to make a better life for yourself by fleeing to the west - your wishes were greeting by a few shots from a Kalishnikov fired into your back.

c'mon people. dhoni is a handle that comes from the same illustrious brain that brought us doordarshan and prema, recycling the same tired tropes over and over again with the same kind of vicious language guaranteed to get under people's skins and generate useless comment chains. can we please stop feeding the troll?

Karan Thapar speaks to Henry Kissinger on the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Video 1
Video 2
Video 3