Is the Indo-US nuclear deal truly against India''s interest? A close look at the clauses of the 22-page agreement shows that it is not. By Prem Shankar Jha

For three years, as an outside partner of the Manmohan Singh government, the Left has acted as a self-appointed watchdog of the peoples'' interests. Its interventions have often been salutary, and on balance the country may have gained more than it has lost from them.

It has been able to perform this function because it made it clear in the very first days of the UPA government that it would not push disagreement to the point of bringing the government down.

Why is it threatening to depart from this promise now? One reason may be Dr Manmohan Singh''s unexpected show of strength in absolutely refusing to submit the Indo-US nuclear treaty to further ratification by Parliament. To the Left this has not only come as an unpleasant surprise, but a calling of its bluff. If it backs down now, the entire nation will know that its feet are made of clay.

Dr Singh''s challenge too is most probably not the momentary lapse of a harassed prime minister who has finally lost his patience. The Congress knows that the next elections are at best 18 months away. It also knows that the anti-incumbency swing in the various states is, on balance, going to work against it, just it had worked for it in 2004.

It may therefore have more to gain from an early election, especially if it can legitimately claim that it has been prevented from transforming the future of the country.

In the end, the drama that we are witnessing will probably turn out to be a storm in a teacup.

The Left too must know that the anti-incumbency factor is likely to go against it in the next election. In Bengal it can hardly be unaware of the anger and disillusionment that it has created in its most devoted followers through it''s, to them inexplicable, attempt to expropriate land from farmers to hand over to a private company at Singur. It needs time to heal wounds and repair the damage.

That may be why both Mr. Jyoti Basu and Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharya have cautioned the Politburo not to push the confrontation too far.

But politics apart, is the Indo-US nuclear deal truly not in India''s interest? A close look at the clauses of the 22-page agreement shows that it is quite the opposite. The sole plank on which the Left has sought to denigrate it is that the Hyde Act, by which the US administration is bound, contains provisions that could easily be used to force India to surrender control of its foreign policy to Washington.

But a close look at the 123 agreement, which is legally binding on both countries shows that this is completely untrue.

The Bush administration has very largely met three of the four objections that a panel of eminent nuclear scientists had raised in Mumbai on 15 December, last year. Although India has not been guaranteed access to US enrichment technology, it has secured the right to reprocess the spent fuel it uses in its civilian reactors under IAEA supervision.

The treaty contains not only provisions designed to prevent the disruption of fuel supplies, but binds the US to doing all it can to prevent it. Finally, there is not a single word in the Treaty that requires India to pursue a foreign policy that is ''congruent'' with that of the US.

It is only on India''s right to test, that there has been no substantive departure from the Hyde Act. This is not surprising because a Congressional enactment of the late ''70s mandated the suspension of all nuclear, and several other, forms of cooperation with countries that are actively pursuing a nuclear weaponisation programme.

Any administration in Washington is as much bound to respect the sovereign legislative power of the US Congress, as any Indian government is constrained to uphold the country''s sovereignty if the security environment deteriorates dramatically. Both countries will have to live with the consequences of these constraints. India may have to forego carrying out ''hot'' tests whenever its scientists feel they have developed a new generation of warhead. The US will have to live with the preference of private investors for more reliable collaborators and fuel suppliers.

The Left''s, and for that matter the BJP''s, objections to the treaty are unfounded for two other reasons.

First, the treaty is not aimed solely, or perhaps even mainly, at building closer relations with the US. An equally important purpose, which now seems very likely to be achieved, is to unlock the gates to the supply of dual-use technology by the 45-member nuclear suppliers'' group.

Over the last four decades the cost of this technology embargo had risen. But what India had lost so far is nothing compared to what it stands to lose in the future.

Second, even in the field of nuclear power generation, India was stuck with a four-decade old 235 MW uranium-based reactors, and was running out of uranium.

To make up the current power shortage and maintain even an average of seven per cent growth, it will have to add 440,000 MW of additional power generation capacity by 2027. It is difficult to see it can do this without having a catastrophic effect on the environment, without relying extensively on nuclear power.

Yet the uranium we have is sufficient to run only 10,000 MW of power reactors in the foreseeable future.