Return to: Home | World Affairs | Asia

India's nuclear battle

Nick Harvey

Published 25 July 2008

As George Bush urges India to push ahead with a highly controversial civil nuclear deal corruption allegations have only heightened suspicions on the subcontinent

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been under US pressure to endorse a controversial nuclear power deal

US President George W Bush has urged India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to push ahead with a controversial deal on nuclear power between the two countries in the wake of a key confidence vote in New Delhi.

The issue has divided opinion as supporters argue it is the only way to keep pace with the energy demands of India's fast-growing economy. But many remain deeply suspicious of a deal they fear will cede too much influence to America.

“The whole thing is not about what is best for the Indian people,” said Samil Kumar, a businessman from Calcutta. “It is about lining the pockets of politicians on both sides of this filthy covenant.”

For though India’s government may have survived this week's vote of confidence the win was marred by serious corruption allegations pouring fuel on the fire of already flaming suspicion.

The ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came through by an unexpectedly high margin of 19 votes. Yet only hours before the vote took place there were scenes of high drama in the Lok Sabha parliament building when members of the opposing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) marched up to the secretary general’s table and began pulling out large bundles of cash from a black holdall. They claimed the money, totalling 10 million rupees (£118,000) was the first installment of a 90 million rupee (£1.1 million) bribe paid to the party by government supporting politicians to ensure three BJP members would abstain from the crucial vote.

The vote was triggered after the government’s left-wing allies withdrew their support for the nuclear deal struck with the US in 2005. The pact will give India, which has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, access to US nuclear technology and fuel for civilian use. In return, India’s civilian nuclear facilities would be opened to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Those in favour of the deal argue it will help meet India’s escalating energy demands:

“Our economy has been growing at a rate of 8-9% over the last decade,” says Vishal Budda, an engineer from Delhi. “We simply need nuclear energy to keep the momentum running.”

Yet many Indians are suspicious of America’s interest as well as its intentions.

“This deal will just make us a junior partner of the U.S.,” says Vikram Mittal, President of the Haryana Student Federation of India. “America is trying to hijack our foreign and national policies. First it will be the nuclear deal, then it will be agricultural deals, then education- before we know it we will be another puppet of the U.S.”

India is under pressure from Washington to sign the accord before the U.S. presidential elections in November. Some think this pressure is an indication that America will be the real winners from this agreement.

“This deal will generate over 100 billion dollars worth of business for the U.S,” says Bhadra Kumar, a left-wing diplomat. “And it will also give them more power to maintain there dominance over the Muslim world if India is a close ally. But what do we get? Expensive power when our people are already going hungry.”

Many on the left suspect the deal has nothing to do with India’s energy needs.

“Nuclear power provides only 3 per cent of India’s current energy and this will not change massively in the near future,” says Mohammed Thallath, student of International Relations. “We have an abundance of natural resources here as well as energy security through the supply of gas from Iran. No, this is all about money - it may generate business for India but more importantly it will generate massive kickbacks for the politicians.”

India is indeed only too familiar with such corruption. A study by the campaign group Transparency International in 2005 found that more than 50 per cent of Indians had firsthand experience of paying a bribe or peddling influence to get a job done in public office. Even before the thick bundles of cash were waved around in the parliament building on Tuesday, there had been serious allegations of foul-play surrounding this vote. A week before, the leader of the Communist Party, A.B. Bhardan, argued it was no secret that votes were being exchanged for large amounts of money: “It is not a question of a few million but more than 250 million rupees (£3 million) for this horsetrading,” he said at a public meeting last week.

It is an indication of the importance of the deal with the US that both those in favour as well as those against the agreement have been trying desperately to woo members of parliament with promises of influence and lucrative jobs. One prominent MP, Ajit Singh, was even offered to have an airport named after his father, Charan Singh, a former prime minister. The government insisted the timing of this offer was purely coincidental.

As well as the cash, the BJP claim to have hidden camera footage of a member of the government-supporting Samajwadi Party (SP) handing them the money.

SP leader Amar Singh, one of the MP’s being accused, insists the allegations are baseless: “This is a conspiracy by the BJP. If they have such a tape why don’t they just show it?”

If the accusations are proven to be true it will prove a massive embarrassment for the government and its allies and those involved could face lengthy prison sentences under the 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act.

The BJP may be taking the high moral ground this time but the party is no stranger to corruption allegations itself. In 2001, the BJP’s president at the time, Bangaru Laxman, was caught on film casually accepting the equivalent of a £1500 bribe to give the go-ahead for the Indian military to buy hand-held thermal imaging cameras from journalists posing as arms dealers.

This high profile sting exposed an intricate web of official corruption which ran vertically to almost the very top of Indian politics. But after the initial uproar things soon returned to normal, the defence minister resigned only to be reinstated, and it became clear exposure made little difference.

The Indian government may have won its confidence vote but many Indians feel the chaotic scenes shown on Tuesday from inside the parliament, the first time a vote of this kind had been fully covered live on television, have left a permanent stain on India’s reputation as the world’s largest democracy.

“It is so embarrassing,” says Monika Mehra, a shop worker from Delhi. “The whole world was watching that circus, I can only guess what they must be thinking about our country.”

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

14 comments from readers

Serosch
25 July 2008 at 15:19

India has just signed away its Sovereignty.

gnuneo
25 July 2008 at 18:29

at least the Indian 'side' of this deal are investigating the blatant corruption going on - who would like to lay a bet the US side will also look into corruption on it?

But then corruption is such a normalised part of Western political culture, its not even recognised as such anymore.

knave
25 July 2008 at 20:42

Iran and Pakistan will love this.

Douglas Chalmers
25 July 2008 at 23:04

Another country that insists that its carbon alternative (note the singular) is nuclear alone. Same with countries in the neighboring Middle East which have signed up to deals with France to build nuclear reactors (yes, oil supplying states!) since the recent tour by Sarko the Neocon.

Not one of them couldn't have more easily, more cheaply and more quickly built solar-thermal power stations in the first instance along with wind turbine farms for electricity generation. So, what does all this really mean?

Not only is it OK for any country except Iran (Russia's + China's ally) to have nuclear power, it is all meant to be supplied courtesy of Neocon countries and France is now one of them. Further, there is an exclusive cartel being formed to supply enriched uranium, all Neocon-approved, of course.

In other words, the oil cartels are being replaced by a single enriched uranium cartel which will grow like some monster as time goes on. It is thus intended that there will be the same gunboat diplomacy to enforce compliance on both purchasers and uranium miners.

Much of it will go unseen as nuclear submarines and eventually Star Wars-style orbiting weaponry and monitoring platforms will be used covertly as well as the usual economic sanctions and currency manipulations through whatever takes the place of the soon-to-be-defunct hedge funds in future.

gnuneo
26 July 2008 at 03:31

"In other words, the oil cartels are being replaced by a single enriched uranium cartel which will grow like some monster as time goes on. It is thus intended that there will be the same gunboat diplomacy to enforce compliance on both purchasers and uranium miners. "

hydraulic despotism.

proudlyleft
26 July 2008 at 07:13

One of the sadder points relates to how this has dismantled India's past -- and principled -- stand on GLOBAL nuclear restraint, instead of a double-standard policy that allows the US and some superpowers to 'develop' nuclear facilities (peaceful or not)... If India signs, the US has achieved something it has sought for decades: to establish itself as the arbiter of a nuclear future and dismantle any prospect of democratic global controls.

selambannan
26 July 2008 at 12:14

Money power has even bought the speaker of the house who enjoyed 10 loksabha terms from communist ticket.

Corruption in India is the highest in the world and there is huge commission waiting in every sphere and in India those who allotted 2G spectrum for mobile communication are today one of the richest persons and are buying land spread across the country from farmers and it looks like at one stage the farmers may end up landless because of politicians buying land.Indian politicians only are the topranking depositors in 60 offshore secret banking heavens!

stanlee
26 July 2008 at 14:08

Why Manmohan Singh, India's Prime Minister, is so eager to clinch the deal that he even sent the safeguards agreement soon after the Left parties withdrew their support to his government? At a time when the country is reeling under high inflation and soaring prices, the prime minister was more concerned of the promise he gave to George. W. Bush. There were so many agreements. A newspaper advertisement by the Samajwadi Party, the new ally of Manmohan, says the nuclear deal will help India light up all houses in the country. Unfortunately, our politicians think we all Indians are fools. Dont forget that this country has not yet been able to provide electricity to all houholds in its capital city, Delhi, even after the 60 years of independence. Now they say, with this nuclear deal with the US Empire, they are gonna provde electricity to the whole India. Rahul Gandhi, the new heir apparant of the dynasty, says nuclear deal would help eradicate poverty. These guys really say so!! India was bought by the Americans. Unfortunately, our ruling class doen't have the will power to stand up. Alas!

Carl Jones
26 July 2008 at 23:45

Oh dear....was the truth tooo painful?LOL Did I really lay reallity on the line?

nawawimohamad
27 July 2008 at 06:01

Corruption in India is detrimental to the entire world.

The lack of supervision during construction (with short-cuts, shoddy material and poor workmanship) and the ultimate lack in long term maintenance of the nuclear facilities in India will definitely lead to disaster or rather armagedon to the whole planet.

Even countries like Japan and the US with stringent checks cannot prevent leaks in their plants, how can India be trusted? Russia's Chernobyl (lackasaidal communists) is a recent example of the disaster.

India lacks the human dicipline and the probability of human error in India is definite. Just look at the country and its infrastructure, it is a nightmare!

innamburan
28 July 2008 at 07:17

My comment is on the fall-out - The Speaker. The text below did not gain publication in a reputed Indian daily.

---

A marxist by persuasion and one, also aware of the tension between democratic values and despotism of the communist movements, I share Mr. Soli Sorabjee’s anguish over the expulsion of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee by CPM. The Constitution of India is paramount and Mr. Chatterjee, the Speaker elected by all the parties, would have done a disservice to the Constitution and parliamentary conventions by resigning his post for no impropriety committed. Party ideologies, constitution and Politbureaux take the back seat, in this context.

This reminds me of the expulsion of Comrade P.C. Joshi in 1947 by the Communist Party of India. The instigation was extra-territorial from Edward Kardelji of the Cominform, through S.A. Dange and B.T.Ranadive. Disgraced, he was forced to recant by the Communist Party of India. He said of it later, “…I voluntarily appeared in sack cloth and ashes as the main and real culprit. I was myself that stupid, when I should have known better..,” In the event, he was readmitted in 1951 (‘…the expulsion of Comrade P.C. Joshi was wrong and unjustified…”); B.T. Ranadive took his turn in getting expelled.

Rajani Palme Dutt said in 1952 that ideological weakness is the collective problem in the CPI. It is still so with the Communists in all their avatars.

Soundararajan

proudlyleft
28 July 2008 at 09:26

Much as I remain suspicious of and opposed to the nuclear deal, I must say that one has to be a bit careful with these accusations of corruption. No doubt there are corrupt politicians in India; they are there in the US too. But it is largely a colonialist mentality (often adopted by middle class and affluent Indians) to see one's own leaders as MORE corrupt, MORE unrepresentative etc than leaders elsewhere, especially in the 'democratic' West. It betrays a lack of confidence in one's own institutions and one's own people -- and, hence, implicitly in one self, a largely colonial trait.

One can argue that corruption in places like India is more visible because of three reasons: it involves lower amounts (because a small sum goes a long way in a largely poor country); it is the focus of OPEN public debate (though not often political initiative, it must be conceded); and it is SUPPOSED and ACCEPTED to be the status quo by educated Indians as well as Western commentators (the what can you expect syndrome!). Much as I appreciate the above article in terms of what it says about the nuclear deal, I fear that it too easily echoes vague accusations of corruption -- of the sort that the Indian middle class whisper all the time, with or without reason...

gnuneo
30 July 2008 at 02:10

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/24-chene...

at least corruption in India is sometimes reported.

knave
30 July 2008 at 08:53

I'm not one for conspiracy theories but could the reason the US is helping India is to have their logistic support in an invasion of Pakistan.

No, surely not.

The worlds first nuclear war eh

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker