Answers to the questions the latest controversy on the nuclear deal has thrown up

Q: What is the controversy about?

A: A 26-page document containing answers from the US state department to 45 questions posed by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs makes it clear that should India detonate a nuclear explosive device, America has the right to cease all nuclear co-operation, including fuel supply , with India immediately.

Q: Wouldn’t other US laws ensure that the deal is off in any case once India tests?

A: Yes. The Atomic Energy Act and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 and the Glenn Amendment have been used by the US to impose sanctions on India after nuclear tests. However, the US President has the right to waive the sanctions.

Q: Does the deal in any way prevent India from testing?

A: If we test, we pay the price. In theory, India can test anytime it wants. In reality, the decision to test always involves a cost-benefit analysis. Indian governments had to engage in such a cost-benefit exercise in 1974 and again in 1998. On each occasion, India has faced sanctions — the price to pay for nuclear tests.

Sanctions can hurt indigenous technology development programmes through delays and cost overruns. But the price to be paid could be much higher after India makes massive investments in imported nuclear reactors than in the past. The pain of sanctions could be more intense than on the earlier occasions.

Q: Is there a need for India to carry out more tests? If not, does the question of violating the 123 Agreement arise?

A: It depends on India’s long-term objectives — what kind of a nuclear arsenal does India want? Nuclear weapons specialists have argued that a reliable, strategic arsenal would require India to conduct more tests.

But within weeks after the five nuclear tests in 1998, top atomic energy scientists had indicated that India had mastered both the design and fabrication of nuclear weapons as well as the method of delivering these weapons to their targets. Some analysts believe testing will be necessary to increase reliability of the weapons.

Q: Did the Prime Minister mislead the country?

A: The Prime Minister delivered the convenient truth, but left the inconvenient bits out. As a sovereign country, India can indeed test a nuclear weapon anytime it wants. But what was left unspecified was the likely consequences of such an action.

The suggestions by the Indian government that India would be treated on a par with the five nuclear powers is inconsistent with the assertion by the US state department that if India tests, the US has the right to cease civilian nuclear trade.

Q: What is the difference between what is said in the 123 Agreement and this correspondence?

A: The correspondence makes it clear in layman’s language what action the US would take if India conducts a nuclear test; so far, it was couched in diplomatese.

Q: Is the government likely to call an early Parliament session?

A: Highly unlikely. It postponed the monsoon session from August 11 to October 17.

Q: What are the legal and political options before the Opposition to ensure an early session?

A: They can only fight politically by appealing to the President and taking the battle to the streets.