mindwanderings | the weblog of som benegal

There is little point in further argument, discussion, dissection in minute detail about the India-USA Nuclear Deal. We have now reached a situation of splitting hairs. In the process India has shown a remarkable discord on the meaning of national interest. True we have a democracy which permits, indeed insists on, a fair and detailed expression of differing views till a broad majority consensus is arrived for action to be taken which all must agree to honour. That is the democratic way of progress. But this seems to be more now observed in the breach. And the N-deal is a good example. It is astonishing, if not astounding, that betrayal of national interest is bandied about indiscriminately as though its loyalty is the monopoly of any person, group, party or interest. Except for proven traitors we must accept respectfully that all are eager, willing and dedicated to the national interest. After all we did not fight a freedom battle for nothing.

To hold up China as an example of national virtuosity which we should match or copy is absurd. The Chinese, mainland Chinese distinct from Overseas Chinese, are moved historically by ideas and convictions that are quite alien to us. Lao Tse, Mao Tse, and others including Dengs, Pengs, etc. have shaped the Chinese in their distinctive mould. We have our own history, heritage, moral sense and behaviour bequeathed to us through centuries impacting on our lives. We are as contemporary and modern as any other people from our standpoint. We are not dogmatic, and willing to appreciate differences.

The N-deal is a good example of Indian and Chinese approaches – after all they also have entered into such a deal with the United States of America. They have accepted certain stringent restrictions while we crib about less. But the point is that they see the deal in their own perspective. Why should we not go our own distinctive way and see it in our perspective? To sink to the level of saying that the Chinese would have put a bullet into the head of a Prime Minister is absurd. The Chinese have put bullets into the heads of thousands, if not millions! – Have we? But these are trivialities.

Instead of getting into combative positions and toppling brinkmanship, let us take sensible, positive steps for forward movement. After all the N-deal is not a life and death matter, or even option.

The 63rd birth anniversary of Rajiv Gandhi observed this week is a good occasion to retrospect on this dynamic but modest, daring but level-headed, young but far-sighted Prime Minister we had whose imperishable leadership of India was cut short so grievously and pathetically. I say this not in extravagant or servile terms. But because in the all-too short period given to him, he displayed, for his youth, a surprising ability to enthuse the country into the vision of an exciting journey in the present and imminent new century just around the corner. Rajiv Gandhi inspired the country without really fantasizing but stopping just one step behind to make the present and future a tangible possibility of excitement.

Rajiv Gandhi, of course, did not have an easy and cut-and-dried challenge before him. Coming against the appalling, numbing end of his mother who herself inspite of mountainous hurdles and problems had bestowed acknowledged greatness on the country, Rajiv had to show his mettle before anyone could question his youth, inexperience of the realities of governance, especially of a democratic country where democracy flourished in all its magnificence and the international complexities embroiling the world. It is remarkable that he did so with a distinct and shining flair. Critics, cantankerous critics, may seize upon trivialities to belittle him. But that only exposes their own limitations.

No one can deny that wherever he went at home or abroad – among great eminences or the common people he delighted them with youthful charm, humour and serious purpose so skillfully and open-heartedly. But no one could question his sincerity and dedication. That dedication was shown most convincingly in his address in the United States when he pleaded for disarmament in a world engaged in a mad arms race, even thinking of star-wars. Today India is in the coils of a debate on a nuclear deal, a strategic alliance. Rajiv’s words have an imperative resonance:

“We are against any escalation in the arms race. The world is finding it hard enough to control the arms race today without adding a totally new dimension in the arms race and opening up a new area for discussions on disarmament. We feel that this will only escalate the race, make it more complicated and make it much harder to come down from the levels of tension that it will reach.”

The Nuclear Deal between India and USA is the biggest and most controversial disquiet tormenting the country today. There are so many actors in this vexatious problem who are offering standpoints and explanations that are at odds with each other that common people, the vast majority who constitute our nation, can only be totally confused whether to hail it or denounce it. I cannot think of any issue that has so divided this country without exploding into violence. That is, so far. I do not think, however, fortunately for us all, the matter can lead to uncontrollable passion. The passion is there, of course, particularly at this very moment when the nation celebrates one of its greatest moments in its history when it regained a lost freedom and held it tenaciously and with pride. The fear lurks in many minds, whether justified or not, that we may be compromised into a situation where we might be helplessly drawn into a web or network which affects our sovereignty and freedom of international action.

The Prime Minister who carried forward an already initiated course of action on a nuclear deal before his time toward its logical conclusion, has made a forceful statement defending the deal to let it come into force. He has sought vigorously to allay fears of open or hidden traps, which might set India into inextricable perils. Not all sections of opinion and national concern are convinced and satisfied. The problem is that the subject is so complicated requiring an understanding of science, technology, international relations and conflicting interests in the geo-political world scene that much misunderstood positions are inevitable.

I will not be mean to make value judgments of any Indian individual or group or party. I believe in affairs affecting national life we all try to take decisions in the national interest though the perspectives may be different. Basically we want to be fair and when it comes to dealing with other countries and people, we are generous but cautious. Our historical memories tend to make us so. In the present case we deal with a power, which is quite honestly unabashed about its supreme standing and destiny. Hence the hesitancy and uncertainty among many of us. We cannot forget what the US President Eisenhower, a distinguished soldier himself warned his countrymen to guard against: the “military-industrial complex” in their midst. Above all, India, which stands for peace in the world, must take note of this warning. We don’t want to be its victim!

On the 15th of August India would be celebrating the Sixtieth year of its Independence from British rule after a long, hard, and unique non-violent struggle, (not always non-violent, though). 60 years is the time (in our culture) for introspection, weighing of gains and losses, of a renewal of faith in ourselves and the world around us. As it happens, August is also an august month for some very decisive moments in our history and the world. August was the month, on the 9th in 1942 when Gandhiji declared the last surge for our freedom struggle when he called upon Britain to “Quit India”, and his own countrymen to “Do or Die”. And August was the month when World War II came to a decisive end when the United States dropped the first global atom bomb on Hiroshima in Japan demolishing the city and its people 180,000 of them in half a minute. Not content, nearby Nagasaki also went into oblivion two days later in a second atomic attack.

It would not be wrong to say that in the circumstances August at various times saw the most profound changes in the world and possibly human history. Because following these Augusts, though World War II officially ended, a Cold War raged into the new century whose embers have been doused only recently but ignited by new tensions and violence on the most horrific scale in “shock and awe” operations. Relentless terrorisms of various kinds have plagued the world – our own country included.

In measuring our own country’s journey through these six decades shall we say we have done a good job, or as many nay-sayers, the ones who never say yes, claim, we are the most corrupt, the filthiest, the most beastly people on earth. Well, no one in the world is all-shining. Some of the so-called most advanced countries have corruption on a massive scale which make ours peanuts. But that is no consolation. Our democracy is a sham, they say. And yet, how many times the people have democratically punished their leaders and yet restored them democratically after forgiving them! That’s shining democracy. The point is that inspite of faults, mistakes, impious acts, wrongs to society and people, greed, and other abominations, we, the people and their responsible leaders have vigorously fought to right the wrong, to establish human rights, the rights of man, woman and child. We have not stood by silent and just watching or fell to abject surrender. That is the redeeming feature. That is our salvation and our victory in the times to come.

That is the meaning of our momentous August.

The situation about the N-deal between India and the United States of America is at the moment as clear as mud, perhaps even worse. The long two-year negotiations between our countries, attracted intense public debate involving experts, politicians, intellectuals and others. At least in India it did. Whether the U.S. public couldn’t care less, I do not know. But certainly in their political set up it did. This is understandable because the U.S. political establishment or community of any persuasion believes very sincerely that any agreement with other countries must be on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Any let-up must be reluctant and only as a last resort. This, understandably, affects all human beings where one is outstandingly stronger than the other; the stronger assumes an inalienable right to impose its will. Rare is the case where the stronger shows some accommodation.

In the case of the N-deal it look two years of complex negotiation through bewildering hurdles of self-interest and technical intricacies and twists. There were questions on interpretation of words and their implications. And above all India, as the U.S. rather bluntly clarified, has to accept that U.S. laws will not and cannot be changed. But it must be said that India did not take kindly to this kind of pressure tactics. The U.S. Atomic Energy Act was the basis and foundation of Indo-US collaboration in the nuclear field, and Section 123 the fountainhead. It held the make-or-break imperative between success and failure. The crux of the matter was that India must forfeit any right to conduct any further nuclear tests or detonation of nuclear devices. This seems unacceptable to many critics amidst us who think it compromises our sovereignty and also see China helping Pakistan forging ahead in this area. They may be right. However, till the details are revealed we must accept that most critics, at any rate from among our scientists, have been mollified. It remains to be seen how our political and other players will react.

For my part, I must confess that after 85 years of this life during which I have not been just a bystander but participated in my unspectacular way in my country’s affairs with the world, I have been anguished and agonised by the utter futility of wars and violence, and the vain creeds of men, unutterably vain, tearing the world apart. I am told I do not face the realities of life. Perhaps the unreal is real. The rest is predition.