US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent comments on the US-India nuclear agreement seem to have once again galvanised opposition to the deal in New Delhi. “We will support nothing with India in the NSG that is in contradiction to the Hyde Act. It will have to be completely consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act,” Rice reportedly said in response to a question from Congressman Howard Berman at a hearing a few days ago. Her response to the committee was not entirely surprising given that Berman, now the acting chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, has been one of the most outspoken critics of the deal in Congress.

Yet Rice’s statement — made in passing — has been taken by opponents of the deal in India as evidence that the Hyde Act overrides the bilateral 123 Agreement between the US and India. Other arguments made in 2006 against the Hyde Act have also resurfaced. Many of these, including the assertion that there are no non-binding sections of the legislation, are categorically false.

For better or for worse, the Hyde Act is now US law, and US actions must be conducted within its parameters. At the same time, the US cannot legislate for India, for whom only the 123 Agreement remains binding. There are certain sections where the two documents contradict one another. In such cases, it would likely prove easier to amend US law to accommodate the two countries’ intentions, than to renegotiate the entire 123 Agreement. Consequently, rejecting the deal on the basis of the Hyde Act alone makes little sense.

... contd.