Font size: 
The United States was looking for allies to encircle the Soviet Union and China. Pakistan fit into that mold well; India did not. Hence the United States chose Pakistan -- which they are regretting today. This resulted in an overall anti-U.S. flavor in India's political circles. This also led to Indian communists becoming power players, especially in the state of West Bengal, and with a significant presence in the Indian Parliament.
A whole new breed of leftist intellectuals emerged, who dominate today's media and think tanks, and even the ruling Congress Party. It took 50 years for the moderate right-wing politicians in the Bhartiya Janata Party to change that. They initiated a dialogue with Washington to shake up the past in 1998, which resulted in accelerated economic growth and a little better appreciation of India.
The Chinese had done what the BJP did 25 years earlier, in 1973, and have been reaping the benefits since then.
The Congress Party of India took a cue from these changes, won the elections in 2004 and continued with the policies initiated by the BJP. One outcome was the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, which would end the nuclear apartheid against India instituted some 30 years ago by the United States. Still better, it would give India technology and uranium to relieve the extreme power shortage in the country. Additional fringe benefits would include foreign direct investment, higher exports and strategic cooperation to enhance India's influence. In short, the deal would make India catch up with China -- which had a 20-year head start -- in 20 years.
What is wrong with that, except that the communist parties and a handful of like-minded leftists in Parliament do not like India dealing with the United States? They have quoted Nehru's stand on an independent foreign and economic policy for the last 60 years, although Nehru did not like the communists. They wish to stay independent but backward, forgetting that communist China is where it is today only because it compromised 25 years back.
Are there any other reasons that the communists are dead set against the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal? First, the deal would catapult India into the 21st-century power bloc. The budding ambitions of China as a dominant Asian power in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean would be set back. An economic powerhouse in India would prevent China from taking over completely.
This is not acceptable to the communists in India, who love their communist brethren in China and would do nothing to hamper their ambitions. This is one reason they oppose the nuclear deal. In addition, by diminishing U.S. influence in India they would be able to hand over all of Asia, including India, to communism. This fits into the overall stated pattern of the communists' world strategy, which is to rule the world and end capitalism.
Second, keeping India backward fits into the communists' ultimate power game. Backward and hungry people want change and the communists will be waiting in the wings to take over, democratically. Truthfully, in India communists are not successful at all. The West Bengal chief minister is embracing capitalism at the displeasure of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India. He knows well that progress can be achieved with an infusion of money and this money will come from capitalist sources. Therefore, for the welfare of the people, he wishes to make up with the capitalists.
Surprisingly, two-thirds of the people polled in West Bengal and Kerala, another state ruled by communists, recently came out in favor of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. The rest of the nation is already pro-United States anyway. These results scared the communist leadership a bit. If elections are ordered on this issue, they may find themselves on a slippery slope.
Third, communists are union organizers. They advise laborers to make tall demands. This they do to gain the hearts and minds of the working people with tall tales of capitalist exploitation. Thanks to Nehru and his successors, India is already a labor-friendly state. It is in India, not China, that factories cannot be closed and labor cannot be fired, even if the product line is outdated and unwanted. The introduction of technology and modernization is discouraged as anti-labor.
This author witnessed this attitude firsthand in New Delhi in 2006, when communists led a short-lived opposition to the modernization of Indian airports. They organized the employees to strike against the change under the pretext that the employees would modernize the airports themselves. They knew full well that the employees did not have the technological and management experience to do the job. Nevertheless, a five-day strike was organized, which shut down the national airports. Later the communists relented.
None of this speaks well of the communists' attitude toward India's progress. Are they helping China become a superpower by suppressing India? Or do they truly believe that progress can be achieved with their self-centered ways? Of course there are possible shortcomings in the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. Time will tell who was right and who was wrong; but right now, it is the best India could achieve.
As India reaches its zenith of power, everything will be negotiable. India could ask the United States to withdraw all the annoying conditions in the deal. As India progresses Washington will be delighted to do so. Something similar occurred when Chinese leader Mao Zedong, in need of nuclear technology from the Soviet Union, signed an agreement to hand over control of Chinese uranium mines to the Soviets. He retrieved control five years later when the Soviets needed Chinese support in the Cold War. China made its support conditional upon the return of the mines.
To progress, India needs electric power. The current extreme power shortage in the country has to be relieved, either via coal-fired plants or nuclear power. The former is a bad option. One truly has to witness Beijing's air pollution to grasp the full scope of the coal-burning option. Oil is already in short supply and should be ruled out as an option.
The nuclear option along with the latest technological innovations, including cold fusion when it is ready, is the only way to go. For India it would be foolhardy to miss this opportunity at the insistence of the communists. The next opportunity may not come along for a generation. I would recommend that India finish this deal before U.S. President George W. Bush lays down his office in January 2009.
The best course of action would be to ignore the communists and proceed with the next step in the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. In the worst-case scenario, the communists must be defeated in an election.
--
(Hari Sud is a retired vice president of C-I-L Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. ©Copyright Hari Sud.)
