Two
features of the hectic political events of the past
two weeks create worries about the nature of the UPA
government. The first relates to process, the second
to priorities. And both features reinforce the suspicion
that this is a government that has lost its way, certainly
in relation to its own National Common Minimum Programme,
and perhaps even more tellingly, in relation to understanding
the needs and aspirations of the people.
Consider first the process, whereby the Indo-US nuclear
deal is being sought to be foisted upon the nation.
I happen to be among those who feel that this deal is
against national interest. This is partly because of
the concerns raised by many scientists and others that
it will force India into an expensive and risky trajectory
for nuclear fuel supply that will at best supply 6-8
per cent of our total energy needs in twenty years’
time, while reducing the country’s options in terms
of developing indigenous programmes. But the greater
concern for me is that the need to maintain this economically
expensive option without interrupting fuel supplies
would also lock the country into a strategic and foreign
policy relationship placing it firmly in the lap of
US imperialism, with all the attendant adverse consequences.
But while this is my personal opinion, and possibly
the opinion of many others, I can understand that it
may not be shared by everyone. And therefore I would
expect and welcome a wide public debate on this issue,
which would allow for all views to be fully expressed
and thoroughly understood, since this is such an important
issue that affects not only the present but also the
future. I would also expect the matter to be debated
fully in Parliament and in the state legislatures, with
full knowledge of the details and the implications of
various other laws (such as the Hyde Act in the US)
that could impinge on the implementation of such an
agreement. I would further expect that the government
would consider such a deal in the light of a well-developed
long-term plan for the country’s energy security, that
would have systematically weighed the costs and benefits
of different energy options.
But none of these has happened. Instead, a veil of secrecy
has surrounded the negotiations, and the little information
that has been available has come mostly from media sources
that have behaved like pliant publicists for the government
rather than independent observers. Recently, for example,
the government went so far as to declare that it could
not reveal the contents of its draft proposal to the
IAEA to its own people, and it was that organisation
itself which had to call the Indian government’s bluff,
forcing it eventually to admit that there was no such
constraint. Even now, conflicting reports from Indian
and US sources about the implementation and various
implications of the deal continue to create confusion
and the suspicion of mendacity.
The only discussion that did occur in Parliament, last
year, made it clear that the majority of members were
opposed to the deal. The few state legislatures that
have discussed the deal have also generally opposed
it. The Expert committee of the Planning Commission
that has prepared a Report on Integrated Energy Policy
also specifies only a small role for nuclear energy
even up to 2050 and in this it notes the significance
of developing thorium-based options for nuclear reactors,
which would be entirely domestic.
There is no evidence of systematic cost-benefit studies
that have fully included all the implicit costs (such
as dealing with nuclear waste and risks of leakage)
and taken note of the implicit subsidies, which would
allow for an informed economic assessment of the relative
nuclear power compared to other sources. And there has
hardly been any public discussion of the many issues
associated with nuclear power generation.
Despite meeting any of the conditions that would seem
to be the minimum requirements for such an important
measure in a democracy, the central government has not
just persisted but has actually rushed through with
the deal. And in the process, because this necessarily
meant forcing the Left Parties that have consistently
opposed the deal to stop extending outside support to
the UPA, it has brought the government itself into jeopardy.
The vote of confidence that the UPA government is facing
may go in either direction, but even that is not the
point. The point is that this very act has revealed
the nature of its priorities.
Firstly, it is now clear that the government is more
concerned with pushing through the Indo-US nuclear deal
than with dealing with the issues that most directly
affect the Indian people today. Inflation is higher
than it has been for over a decade, and global pressures
for even higher prices continue. Industrial growth has
decelerated sharply, and may be further affected as
the US recession affects global market conditions, and
so employment is likely to suffer further. This is a
time when a responsible government would first address
these issues.
Yet all the urgency in the government seems to be directed
towards the nuclear deal. There is apparently no urgency
in ensuring a greater spread of the Public Distribution
System to ensure supplies of reasonably priced essential
food items to people all over the country. There is
no urgency in ensuring that the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme does actually provide the promised
100 days of employment to every rural household instead
of only one-third of that on average, or in enforcing
its correct implementation in every district. There
is no attempt to bring in other measures that would
dampen inflation or ensure that small scale producers
are not hit by the slowdown.
Secondly, the unfortunate priorities of the UPA government
come out starkly when it becomes apparent that, for
the sake of this deal, it is prepared to move from the
principled and issue-based support provided by the Left
parties, to a blatant system of political purchase and
horse-trading. The machinations and open or covert offers
of different blandishments and incentives that have
been part of the build-up to the vote of confidence
are no secret. While they obviously show the cynicism
and self-serving nature of many of the legislators and
political parties engaging in this, they certainly cannot
reflect well on the government that has so clearly chosen
this route to survival and to pushing through a dubious
deal. Such a choice is especially surprising since it
has been made by a Prime Minister who has an "honest"
image.
|
