Having heard my scientist colleagues in the NSAB, I was convinced that the case in favour of India signing the 123 Agreement with the US was so strong and unequivocal that there would be a broadbased consensus in its support in India. But there?s no such lucky break for our motherland and its people. The BJP, which had initiated the process, would have done well to share the kudos, but instead, for completely opportunistic reasons, it has opposed it and will surely lose further popular support. Opportunism has its costs, for sure. And for me, it has been most disappointing to read Arun Shourie?s pieces in the Indian Express. He tries to make a case against the deal arguing that it erodes India?s sovereignty but is completely unconvincing.

It is clear from the 123 text that both India and the US are free to determine their future course of action in the light of their interests. Yes, there are consequences for both sides of any such action, but then, is this not always the case? Why does it compromise our sovereignty to be aware of both our interests and consequences of our actions? And why on earth would the US simply walk away from a resurgent India if this country were to test a device in response perhaps to some unacceptable provocation from one of its adversaries? And why again will other suppliers like Russia and France not look to their interests before breaking relations with an India whose markets are expanding and which will have significant influence in the world in the near future? Raising the spectre of loss of sovereignty in the distant future is shortsighted. This attitude arises from an inferiority complex that denies the possibility that the resurgent Indian entrepreneur, when freed from binding infrastructure constraints, will lead this country to become one of the most influential global powers in the short span of three decades. The perception and concerns about sovereignty will then be completely different, as we will interact with our external partners from a position of significant strength.

And yes, by that time our hydro power resources and indigenous nuclear fuel supply from reprocessing will also have been far more developed. And we would have mastered the technology for carbon sequestration as well. So, why hold the present a hostage to the future and prevent the country from achieving its true potential? As scientist after scientist has testified, and I heard the doyen amongst them, Dr Arunachalam, make the same argument most eloquently, the critical constraint we face is fuel shortages that are crippling our existing nuclear generators. Why would a nationalist like him make the mistake of evoking the ghost of the East Indian Company and use it to thwart a course which his own party and government had embarked upon? It is most distressing, indeed, to see him in cohorts with the comrades.

The organised Left seems to be driven only by personal egos and ideology that can cloud any rational thought or discussion. Can they not see that India?s modernization, industrial development and the expansion of the manufacturing sector is today deeply and critically constrained by lack of energy supply? Can they also not see that increasing dependence on hydrocarbon imports, the prices of which are set to increase in the coming years, denotes a far greater and real threat to India?s sovereignty than any presumed behaviour on the part of the US? A future whose contours they cannot even begin to imagine, caught in their understanding that India is still a semi-feudal semi-colonial country.

But there are some facts even the Left presumably cannot deny. Our current nuclear power generation is only 4,500 mw, compared to 8,500 mw in China, and our current energy consumption per capita is a mere 600 kwh, compared to 1,200 in China, a developing country average of 2,500 kwh and a massive 10,000 kwh or more in OECD economies. Are we Indians not entitled to rising energy consumption? Can we not aspire to get at least 1,000 kwh for all our citizens whether in towns or villages? That is still far below the developing country average. But will denote true independence and advance on equity.

Can the Left suggest any other alternatives to generate the required electricity that protects our environment, does not increase our dependence on imported hydrocarbons and generates the industrial development and positive external economies that are expected from a programme of building two 1,000 mw nuclear generators every year for the next 20 years in this country? I can safely bet that they cannot, because according to our most eminent and nationalist scientists, such alternatives simply do not exist. But then ideology and the glint of power have always been allowed to discount facts in the traditional understanding that objectives justify the means. I hope the Left will learn to adapt to this country?s ethos, where until very recently (January 30, 1948) we had a leader for whom ethics and morality were the criteria for both the means used and the ends we aspired for.

?The author is director and chief executive of Icrier, a Delhi-based think tank and member of India?s National Security Advisory Board