Story of half-truths and a deal

The Lok Sabha, at last, debated the Indo-US nuclear deal on Wednesday. The prime minister’s participation in it was an exercise in minimalism. Intervening while Leader of the Opposition L.K. Advani was speaking, Manmohan Singh sought to rebut the latter’s criticism. “There is nothing in the 123 agreement,” he said, “that debars us from conducting nuclear tests.” He was uttering an ardha satya (half-truth) — one, moreover, of a technical nature. People should beware of leaders who tell them technical truths.

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.

... contd.

Ads By Google

Message*	Maximum characters allowed

Name*		Email ID*
Subject*		Country*

TERMS OF USE:
The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).

I agree to the terms of use.

Mail this page