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.”

... contd.