Once again in the 60th year of independence the thoughts of Dr B R Ambedkar are being proved right on China.
He had predicted that India would have to deal with growing Chinese influence and counties like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar and even Sri Lanka who would look to China for leadership.
The BJP, while it was in power, and now the Congress are suggesting that we become partners with America in subjugating China. But will this partnership be based on equality or use India as a tool?
Babasaheb Ambedkar was Left-oriented but during the framing of the Constitution he advocated that India’s foreign policy be closer to America rather than the Soviet Union. But the Government, led by Pandit Nehru, established the Non-Alignment Movement, which was supposed to keep equidistant from both the superpowers.
With time we leaned toward the Soviet Union and the effect of this was that America heavily invested in Pakistan to protect its own interests.
But with the rise of terrorism in the European and American continents, Americans now appreciate the stand taken by India, which has been insisting that Pakistan is breeding ground for terrorism.
America also realises the threat from China’s growing economic strength and to counter this it is proposing India to be its bride.
With three wars with Pakistan and one with China and with both America and China willing to arm Pakistan, India’s foreign policy was Pakistan-centric. But it has now acquired a new dimension—American appeasement. The player has changed: earlier we favoured the Soviet Union and now we lean toward America.
But this policy may go against China. A threat exists from China, no doubt. In fact, there are two kinds of threat: China’s economic strength and it fomenting trouble for India through its neighbours.
The second is a law and order problem and can be solved through proper leadership and right decisions.
China does pose an economic threat but more so to nations where populations are decreasing (America and countries in the European continent). They want to stop China from becoming economic super power.
PAGE_BREAK
America’s concern can be understood. The OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Companies), which is under Western control, is fast losing it relevance because of depletion in oil production and stock.
The world over the concern for environment and cleaner fuel has forced nations to shift towards LNG. In this situation, gas-producing countries are in the processes of forming an association like the OPEC.
The difference is that instead of America, Russia will be the leader of this ‘gas’ organisation. China makes the challenge more severe with its aim to capture the European and American markets.
No wonder then that Western powers feel more threatened by Russia and China. But then it is for the Western powers, and in particular America, to act against these threats and not India.
In this context, does the recent 123 Agreement contain assure India that it would be preferred over China?
The most decisive proof of that would be if Western countries confirmed India for permanent membership of United Nations Security Council. No such assurance is being given.
Instead, India has been offered a nuclear deal. The 123 Agreement is projected as being a civilian nuclear agreement. The nuclear energy sector in India is valued between Rs 20,000 crore and Rs 40,000 crore.
But does the 123 Agreement give an edge to India over China? The agreement does not mention technology transfer, nor does it assure active participation of the nuclear nation in case of conflict with China. Neither does it assure that Pakistan’s anti-India activities will be curtailed.
The question that arises is: do we or do we not have the basic technology to upgrade natural uranium to enriched uranium (the fissile material). The report submitted to Parliament by the Department of Energy Commission gives a clear picture.
The report says various organisations, like the Nuclear Fuel Complex in Hyderabad, the Department of Radiation and Isotope Technology in Mumbai, the Uranium Corporation (responsible for mining and milling uranium) have mastered the technology of fission in a controlled situation and in an uncontrolled situation.
PAGE_BREAK
The former is used in the production of energy and the latter for civilian and military purposes.
The Prime Minister’s statement on the nuclear deal has been a surprise. He said the agreement was a win- win situation for both India and America but it fails to pinpoint the win for India. We have developed the core technology and what we need now is application and diversification in various fields.
For this there is no need for the 123 Agreement, but involving human resources in the non- governmental sector in the research wing of the Nuclear Corporation of India.
I have limited knowledge on this subject, but I still say that India is the only country which has nuclear fission technology both for uranium and plutonium. World over, uranium-based armament has been tested and is considered reliable. Plutonium-based armament has not been tested on the battlefield but that doesn’t mean it does not hold a threat.
Not being tested is the biggest asset as nobody is sure of the full impact. The other point to be noted is the scientific community has developed a prototype of a 40-MW power plant using thorium as the base.
Once the prototype is commercialized, there will be no need to depend on uranium for energy and thus submit our self to an international body. Once we shift from uranium to thorium, what will happen to the 123 Agreement?
In this situation will the Prime Minster take the nation into confidence and tell us our foreign policy was till now Pakistan-centric but by the signing the 123 Agreement we should now be China-centric. Secondly, should we give up our goal of being a leader in our own right, and always be second fiddle.
(The author is a former MP and grandson of Dr B R Ambedkar. The views expressed in this article are personal. )
Comments
0 comment