In the history of every nation, there are events that with the benefit of hindsight can be said to have altered the trajectory of its development. The partition of the subcontinent is an example; the adoption by Nehru of the state-directed model of economic development in the 1950s is another; the dismantlement of the “License Raj” and the onset of liberal economics in the 1990s is one more.

It is my view that the 123 agreement, if eventually legislated, will 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 because it will have cemented our relations with the US. It will be because it reordered our national priorities to place economic growth, social stability and environmental protection firmly above military prowess in the policy agenda. It will be because it will have removed the roadblocks that prevent us today from accessing “cutting edge” technologies and becoming a competitive 21st century economic super power. 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.

The critics of the 123 agreement argue that the deal will abridge our sovereignty. 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.

... contd.