You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
Without the slightest doubt, the prime minister made the best speech of his career on August 17. He was replying to the debate on the Indo-US nuclear deal in the Rajya Sabha.
Naturally, our leaderrattis, if I may coin a term, were rightly effusive in their praise but they missed the larger point: could the deal survive the speech?
In fact, the Hindustan Times, after accusing those opposing the deal of speaking half-truths, spoke one of its own. " Both the Bush Administration and the Manmohan Singh government have made it clear that they will not accept any language that puts obligations beyond those accepted in the July 18th agreement." Both, Mr Editor? Even the US? Can you source this for us, please?
The Hindu was at its prolix worst. The first sentence of its edit had 36 words, but said little.
The Indian Express wept quiet tears of joy. "These are moments that come rarely to prime ministers. Moments when they earn the adjective, prime ministerial… The question now is, will Thursday`s be the 80 minutes that change Dr Singh`s prime ministership?"
The Hindustan Times was not much better. "Heroism, Hemingway once said in another context, is grace under pressure. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh`s defence of the Indo-US nuclear deal was poised, polished and passionate. He took on the combined forces of the Left and the Right and undid them…"
The Telegraph chirped that it was "happy to eat some of its words" because "had commented on the prime minister`s failure to speak strongly on important matters as well as on his apparent tendency to allow matters to drift…. demanded that Mr Manmohan Singh should behave like a leader…(but) for once, he spoke forcefully… countered with great effectiveness all irrelevant criticism… (with) grace and charm… At long last, Mr Singh`s supporters and admirers felt proud."
The Hindu took the party line. It blamed the US for "the unreasonable attempts being made by the U.S. Congress to turn the July agreement into something India never intended it to be — an albatross round its neck." This was a reference to the July 18 agreement turning from an energy agreement into a non-proliferation one.
The paper added "Dr. Singh has declared that his Government will act only on the basis of India`s national interest and will not allow foreign governments or legislatures to decide its foreign policy. He needs to demonstrate this in action far better than his Government has done thus far."
This was pretty much what the Pioneer also said, which shows close the CPM and the BJP are on this issue. " By stressing that the UPA Government shall not agree to a deal unless it conforms to the India-US joint statement of July 18, 2005, Mr Singh has set the benchmark for the bilateral agreement which the two countries will sign after the US Congress has approved the enabling Bill… If the final text is not in consonance with the July 18 joint statement, then the Prime Minister… must refuse to ink the agreement…"
Sadly, no one made the point that was obvious to all who follow international negotiations, that the prime minister had left no negotiating room for the US. He had laid down India`s final position: July 18 agreement or nothing.
It was the US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, who had made the original departure in April when she said "We have been very clear with the Indians that the permanence of the safeguards is permanence of the safeguards, without condition. In fact, we reserve the right, should India test, as it has agreed not to, or should India violate in any way IAEA safeguard agreement to which it would be adhering, that the deal from our point of view would at that point be off."
What is she going to do now? Roll over and die?
Contact: Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com