Political debate on nuclear cooperation between India and the US, beginning with the joint statement between the US president and Indian prime minister on July 18, 2005, has revealed serious weaknesses in the functioning of Indian democracy. An impression has been created that every shade of public opinion has been expressed on the pros and cons of India-US nuclear cooperation. The reality is that this debate has been one-sided. A serious issue like the nuclearisation of India, has been hijacked by an elite which believes that India should be a powerful military and nuclear weapon state.

True, the issue has been discussed in Parliament and the prime minister has also made statements on it in both Houses. It is also the case that the Congress, the BJP and the Left parties have not only been actively engaged in the discourse, they have expressed strong differences of opinion. Third, the media have played a yeoman role in providing a platform for the expression of every shade of opinion in the country. A perusal of Indian newspapers beginning with July 18, 2005 to December 18, 2006, will show that generals, bureaucrats, atomic energy experts and managers have all discussed the pros and cons of the nuclear deal in the media.

All this may give the impression that the debate demonstrated the strengths of Indian democracy. But that is not the case. It must be clearly stated that the discourse not only been one-sided, it has clearly revealed that powerful sections of society can manipulate and manufacture public opinion in their favour by using every fora of democratic debate and decision-making. The whole debate has been an exercise in shadow boxing because the only major concern of the critics, or so-called opponents of the government, has been the issue of India’s ‘nuclear sovereignty’. The terms of debate have been set by the government and the critics around only one issue: whether the country can conduct future nuclear tests to maintain its nuclear weapon capability in response to China and Pakistan.

... contd.