The 123 Agreement does not explicitly bar a future Indian nuclear test. But Article 106 of the Hyde Act, the US national law that governs its enforcement, does so. It warns that a fresh Indian test would invite punitive action. Thus, the other — politically salient — ardha satya, which Singh did not tell Parliament, is that he has accepted America’s right to penalise India in case a future Indian prime minister decides to conduct Pokharan III.

His intervention made me consult my Kahlil Gibran, who cautions that he “who is moderate in announcing the truth is presenting half-truth; he conceals the other half out of fear of the people’s wrath.” One hopes that Singh will show the courage to own up the other half-truth in his reply to the debate in the Rajya Sabha next week.

The media debate, for and against the deal, has been vigorous and educative, testifying to the vibrancy of our democracy. It prompts me to respond to an interesting article in this newspaper by K. Subrahmanyam, an eminent defence expert, who strongly supports the deal (‘The right to test again’, November 20, 2007). Clearly aimed at countering the BJP’s criticism, Subrahmanyam writes: “Some of the opponents to the 123 Agreement between India and US have asked whether India can conduct a Pokharan III nuclear test as it did Pokharan I and II. The answer is a categorical yes, with a caveat. It depends on who is the Indian prime minister at the time and under what circumstances this decision is taken.”

The devil, as they say, lies in the detail — in this case, in the caveat. If a future prime minister is bold enough to face the consequences, India could test; but punitive action would follow if she or he failed to satisfy the US regarding the ‘circumstances’ that necessitated the test. This tempts me to sketch a fictional debate in Parliament circa 2027.

A non-Congress Indian prime minister has conducted Pokharan III. An angry US, a much weaker power than today, condemns it, as it did in the case of Pokharan I and Pokharan II, and decides to take back the nuclear reactors it sold to India as per the 123 agreement. The temporary energy crisis that ensues prompts a Congress leader, a sixth-generation scion of a much-weakened Nehru dynasty, to attack the prime minister in Parliament by saying: “Your ill-considered action is responsible for this crisis.”

Future prime minister: “No, the Congress-led UPA government’s ill-considered 123 agreement in 2008 is responsible for this.”

Congress leader (repeating Singh’s criticism of Pokharan II in the Rajya Sabha in 1998): “But didn’t you know the economic consequences of your action?”

Future prime minister: “Contrary to Singh’s warning, Pokharan II didn’t weaken India at all. Coming to the US action against India now, I can understand if it had acted unilaterally, as it did in 1974 and 1998. But it has sought to punish India as per a bilateral deal signed by your government twenty years ago. It’s shocking that Sonia Gandhi agreed to this. Indira Gandhi would never have done so.”

Congress leader: “But the 123 agreement had become necessary to solve the bijli crisis.”

Future prime minister: “Where has that promise been fulfilled? A 2006 report of the Planning Commission had rightly predicted that, even with a 20-fold increase in nuclear power by 2030, its contribution to India’s energy needs would not exceed six per cent. I am told that Sonia Gandhi had then called the nuclear deal’s opponents ‘enemies of India’s development’. I am proud to say that India’s GDP has been growing at an average rate of 10 per cent for the past twenty years, not because of the 123 agreement but in spite of it.”

Congress leader: “But why didn’t you even not try to explain to the US authorities the circumstances that, according to you, necessitated Pokharan III?”

Future prime minister: “India is a self-respecting and sovereign nation. We don’t go around pleading before others why they should not act against us in reaction to something that we have done purely for self-defence. Remember that Indira Gandhi showed courage even when India was a much weaker nation economically. Similarly, Atal Bihari Vajpayee showed courage in 1998, even though India was not economically as strong as it is today. On both occasions, India withstood sanctions and emerged stronger. Today, in 2027, in the 80th year of India’s independence, India has indeed become a global power, one of principal poles in a multi-polar world. Nobody can harm us, threaten us or treat us as a junior partner. We neither accept, nor will do anything to perpetuate, a discriminatory global order. The 2008 agreement was between unequals. That bad deal has now been terminated by Washington’s own insolent action. Good riddance.”