In the history of every nation, there are events and decisions that with the benefit of hindsight can be said to have altered the trajectory of its development and the behaviour of a large number of its citizens.?The Partition of the subcontinent is an obvious example for India; the adoption by Nehru of the ?command and control? state-directed model of economic development in the 1950s is another; the end of the License Raj and onset of liberal economics in the 1990s is one more.?
The 123 agreement, if eventually legislated, will also in time be seen to have had comparable impact. This is not because it will have secured us the fuel for nuclear energy; nor because it will have brought us formal recognition as a nuclear power; nor indeed because it will have cemented our relations with the US.?It will be because it re-ordered our national priorities to place economic growth, social stability and environmental protection firmly above military prowess on the policy agenda.?It will be because by removing the?roadblocks that prevent us today from accessing??cutting-edge? technologies, it will have given us the?boost to be a competitive 21st century economic superpower.?It will be because it will have strengthened our national security more than had our? decision-makers continued to see security through the conventional prism of bombs and bullets.
Critics of the 123 agreement argue that the deal will abridge our sovereignty. They rail against the constraints placed on our freedom to ?test? more nuclear bombs and the conditionalities related to fuel supply.?I am not sure I fully understand the intricacies of the juridical and technical debate.?But I do know that in today?s global and connected world, the conventional notions of sovereignty have been stood on their head; and that those critics who believe that a closer affiliation with the US will compromise our sovereignty must introspect honestly as to whether their view reflects the reality of 21st century geopolitics or simply ideological atavism.?If the latter, then clearly no amount of reasoning will shift their position.?But if the former, then perhaps they should contemplate the experiences of the Soviet Union, Russia and America.
The Soviet Union was a nuclear superpower, but ?lost? its sovereignty. It did so not because of external aggression but, inter alia,?the economic and social costs of seeking nuclear parity with the US.?Russia inherited the bulk of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, but whilst its economy stumbled, it was hardly ?secure?.?It acquired its current standing?only after it had set its economic house in order.?The US is undoubtedly the strongest military power in the world. But time and time again, weaker nations have cocked their sovereign nose at the US. It is struggling to subdue the Taliban and its Iraq campaign is a political and military disaster.?The international influence of the US does not flow from the Pentagon.?It flows from the depth of its civic institutions, the size and potential of its market, the excellence of its educational system and?the superiority of its technology.
The messages are clear.?The greatest threat to a country?s sovereignty comes not from without?the expansionist aspirations of an adversary?but from within, the fallout of economic mismanagement, social dislocation and political bankruptcy.?The determinants of national interest are a composite of relationships covering politics, economics and society.?The?country?s military strength is only one component of this interwoven fabric.?The 123 agreement is pathbreaking because it?acknowledges this inter-relationship.?It is pathbreaking because it contemporises the notion of sovereignty and national security.?
Critics have pointed out that even under the most optimistic of scenarios, nuclear energy will only contribute 7% of our energy requirements by 2020-25.?So why, they ask, is the government risking so much for apparently so little??They are, of course, right.?The percentage contribution of nuclear power will be small.?But they are wrong in presuming that the benefits of this agreement will flow only towards the development of nuclear energy. The fact is that it will throw open a broad spectrum of technological options. We must not?forget three realities.?One, the Indian economy is hugely dependent on hydrocarbons.?This dependence will continue for the foreseeable future.?Two, the linkage between economic growth, energy demand and environmental degradation has to weaken if we are to safeguard ourselves against the worst consequences of global warming.?And three, technology is the key to?economic and social progress.
The 123 agreement should be supported not simply because it rewrites the paradigms on sovereignty and security, but because it provides the springboard from which India can forge the crucial technological partnerships on which growth can be sustainably built.?These partnerships could cover a broad spectrum of activities, including medicine, agriculture, industry and services.
In energy, in particular, they could?facilitate the ?greening? of?fossil fuels (such as coal to liquids and gasification) and the development of practical, commercially viable and affordable alternatives to hydrocarbons (such as hydrogen fuel cells, cellulosic bio fuels, thin film solar and nuclear energy).
?The author is chairman of Shell Group in India. These are his personal views
