Time to deal

The moot question is whether the much-debated India-US civilian nuclear deal — also known as the 123 Agreement — will go through the US Congress in this American election year. Earlier this month three senior senators — including senate foreign relations committee chairman Joseph Biden  and 2004 Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry, who were in Delhi and met prime minister Manmohan Singh — had indicated that time was running out. July, they said, was the outer limit for getting the deal passed. US defence secretary Robert Gates who is on a visit to Delhi has also stressed the urgency, but pushed the deadline further to September.

More importantly, Gates had made the general observation that India-US relations would continue to grow whoever be the incumbent in the White House. Gates’s comments have two clear implications. First, the time-frame for passing the deal is a little more than was envisaged earlier. Second, it also turns out that such is the depth and importance of the bilateral relations that these are not any more dependent on partisan support.
 
The Gates’ visit is also crucial because it revealed that India need not, and will not go along with every US demand. India has not agreed to sharing logistic support. But this has not put any strain on relations. Gates has clarified that logistical support does not involve the US acquiring bases in India and that it is only the sharing of facilities on payment and for joint operations for humanitarian relief work. But defence minister AK Antony has deferred the issue.

The nuclear deal then should be viewed in the overall context of India-US relations. It means, among other things, that the deal, though very important in its own right, is not the only dimension of the bilateral relationship. The main opposition of the Indian naysayers — that signing the deal would firmly put India under the thumb of US interests — is therefore an exaggerated fear. The critics have been harping on the issue that it is an all-or-nothing agreement. They are plainly wrong and these clarifications should clear up a lot of misunderstandings.

It is also the case that the nuclear deal is not just the hobby horse of president George W Bush or that of prime minister Singh. It would not necessarily suffer from the falling popularity ratings of the lame duck president, or due to a change of guard at the White House, though work on it may have to start all over again, which will bring with it all manner of uncertainties. Strategic relations are defined by national interests rather than by personal biases of the leaders. Mature political leaders in both countries would definitely understand that.