The Nuclear Ballot Dance

The Nuclear Ballot Dance


Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar


General elections are not exactly 'once in a blue moon' events. Though meant to occur quinquennially, I suspect they are held more often, perhaps every three-four years on average. Each election is touted as a momentous, historically important event; yet, few are as important as the one being suggested among political circles these days. Dissension in the UPA coalition regarding the 123 agreement and comments by Advani give credence to rumours of an impending election. With the economy in overdrive, the monsoons obliging, and inflation tamed for the immediate future, this is as good an opportunity that Sonia will ever get to 'spring a surprise'.

An election is not just the choice of one candidate or party over another to rule us. It is an occasion to take stock of promises, achievements and failures, and prepare the nation to renew the battle and confront various issues – from the past and of the future. The nuclear agreement with the US is a once in a century or country's lifetime sort of deal. It stands as the testament to the resolve of two nations to forge a peaceful nuclear future. Standing at the threshold of a peaceful nuclear future, as we do, today, this election, whether scheduled for the next month or next year, is one of unparalleled importance to the country. Undoubtedly, it will be labeled a nuclear ballot – a ballot that the US will watch closely to gauge the interest and involvement, opinions, preferences and resolve of India's masses with regard to the 123 accord.

Admittedly, there are many issues. Should nuclear treaties be negotiated by a coalition government in which the right hand would rather not know what the left is doing? Should political parties explicitly come out with their position on the 123 agreement and on the larger question of nuclear disarmament vs nuclear detente (and will they stick to those positions if surprised at the ballot box)? What does the 123 agreement imply for our nuclear fortunes vis-a-vis Pakistan and China or for that matter, nuclear terrorism (now that a nuke can be camouflaged inside a briefcase and detonated by remote instruction from the ISS!)? More to the point, should voters declare their nuclear preferences independent of their vote for party candidates, ie, should we add an issue ballot to the election? In any case, how do we deal with issues that affect future generations, perhaps the country's future for centuries, not just the next 3 years and 49 weeks?

Most parties have come out with their stand on the matter. Not surprisingly and apparently, the Left has back stabbed the UPA from within the government, stalling the ratification process. But that raises the question as to why the US would negotiate for years with a left-supported coalition government? Surely, they don't want a general election to ratify the treaty? Something is amiss, if you ask me. Perhaps the Left is but a mouthpiece for the NDA, which has strategically chosen not to take a hardline positions ahead of the polls (speaking for another is a tried and tested strategy of evasion). Perhaps the US seeks the ratification of the Indian people – a general election - to the agreement? Perhaps it is the US Presidential elections. Perhaps Global Warming politics. Perhaps a little of each. Whatever the truth, the prospect of elections are real. That brings to the fore the question of 'bundled agenda'. How will the left, the right and regional parties rank and group their platforms on various issues? Will political parties take their stand on 123 taking account of the leanings of their supporters, or will they try to have them buy in to it by offering a 'candy' of an 'FDI funded' stock market? Will the traditional vote banks stand if the left does a 180 degree turn on the nuke issue? Thankfully, it seems that the 123 agreement will not bring about specific-sector biases. Thus, a decision one way or another will only affect our overall prospects, not the fertilizer or fuel subsidy – at least in the short-run. Besides, the fact that 'bread and butter issues' dominate the reasoning of the common man, implies that a popular mandate for one party cannot be interpreted as endorsement of its stand on the 123 agreement. Thus, the return of UPA or, more realistically, some form of Congress-led coalition cannot be presumed the nation's approval apropos the agreement (unless, it so campaigns – which it is unlikely to). For this reason, the only resolution to this dilemma is, perhaps, a parallel issue ballot on the 123 agreement with the general election. We should require parties to explicitly state their position on the proposed agreement as part of their campaign platform. Citizens then vote twice at the ballot box, once for a government, and once regarding the 123 agreement. In the latter ballot, the vote could be for a party or a yes/no on the agreement or its significant issues/clauses. In this manner, the entire country could be polled and its opinion reflected in our final decision on the nuclear agreement.

An average voter would ask what the costs and benefits of signing on to the 123 agreement are. For one, signing an accord with the US relieves us of participating in an escalating nuclear cold war of nerves with Pakistan and China. A war can devastate a country by wiping out decades of progress and handicap its future beside washing away trillions in wealth. Ask the Iraqis. Peace is worth a lot of money. India could divert the ballooning defense budget to peacetime needs and meet its goals of better infrastructure, universal education, a better equipped law and order machinery and basic human needs (In layman's terms, a hundred schools instead of one Agni ICBM). With the US as an ally, we could forge commercial alliances that exploit their advanced technology and our human resource expertise. The US gains a much-needed foothold in to South-Asia to counterbalance the growing might of the Chinese and the dangerous impatience and resentment in Pakistan. And of course, George Bush may claim another feather in the cap in his quest for nuclear demilitarization. There are costs too. We will no longer be a NAM country, bound as we will be in to sub-serving the cause of the US (not that non-alignment ever mattered much). Our reactors and research centers will be under 'IAEA' inspection. We know what that means. Our researchers will be put under the horseblinds of the US and the IAEA. Funds meant for thorium-cycle research will be diverted to food irradiation and nuclear refining of crude oil. And India will take a back-seat in global warming matters and follow the lead of a country that has anticipated the phenomenon so well that it now benefits both by adapting and responding to it. (Hell, we might as well grow wheat on the land leased underneath the Iceland icecap!). A benefits-maximizing decision in the context of these and other strategic angles is well-nigh impossible. But that should not stop our politicians, policymakers and indeed, us citizens, from examining and weighing the 123 agreement in different contexts before coming to a decision. It is our duty to act pro-actively and ensure that our country takes an informed decision on the nuclear pact with the West - one that could be the first step in our eventual integration with the G-8, but could also be our doom if we choose to play petty politics that has many a time made our democracy the laughing stock around the world.