Nuclear Deal Bad for India

On this one I agree with the Left. But the they are not framing it in the right way. To put it bluntly, the deal trades off long-term interests of India for short term business interests. Let me explain.

India is running low on Uranium. All India needs is high grade Uranium for the existing Nuclear Power Plants. The outputs of these plants have and continue to provide weapons grade nuclear material. India is self-sufficient regarding everything else to build Nuclear Power Plants and develop what is needed for National Security. India can build an International Grade Nuclear Power Plant in 5 yrs that runs more efficiently than western designed power plants. The Tarapore plant was built using US technology and is riddled with problems. The US has not built a power plant in 20 years!

The nuclear deal is positioned as a panacea for power. And understandably there is a strong business lobby to accept the deal. P.K. Iyengar in his op-ed in The Asian Age (Friday Aug 17th) calls it a "Guilded Cage". He also goes onto explain that the price of Uranium is high and it is not clear that Nuclear Power would be cheap. "Cheap" is a relevant term and it could be that Nuclear Power has a viable price point in India. Auditing the current Nuclear Power Plants and determining if they are providing power at an economically viable rate can validate this assumption.

Arun Shourie has written a three part article in the Indian Express (Part III, Sunday, Aug 19th) where he expands upon the Power dilemma.

From the long term perspective, the Nuclear Deal has the potential to thwart India’s national security! Currently, if India does something that violates the US National Laws, not only supplies can be stopped, there could be a potential recall.

It also requires India to open up its commercial reactors to IAEA inspection, which would be an expensive and cumbersome undertaking in itself. Why should India agree to any guidelines that the major powers themselves are not adopting. India should not open ourselves to any formal inspection of any plants. Any visits should be conducted bilaterally and in the spirit of cooperation not conformance.

The bottom line is that India is going about this issue in the wrong way. Every rational critique of this deal reports that it is bad for India. It's not just the deal, it is India’s "Subservient Attitude" that is a major problem. There are two role models that Indians can look to, to get things done...the Nehruvian way, which is the way India is currently approaching this issue and the Tata way. During the British Rule, there was a hotel near Kala Ghoda that the Brits used exclusively for themselves. J.N. Tata took offense and said he will build a better hotel that will welcome Indians and went on the build the Taj. Taj now owns the most prestigious hotel in Boston. That is how India should approach International Politics. India should take the, "Moral High Ground", in that India has been conducting a Nuclear Program responsibly, unlike other countries, and India will continue to behave responsibly. Indians have to realize that they we are now Big Boys and they can acquire their Big Toys in a manner that does not entail the "Club" dictating what India can and cannot do. It really boils down to the issue of whether India wants to be treated as an equal or subordinate! STAND UP INDIA! India should not agree to take on a "Second or Third Class Country" status. India’s standpoint should be India needs Uranium and India will acquire it from the "Club" or obtain it through alliances with “non-Club” countries.

There was a time when India was dependent on Western technology and India had to "bow down" to their demands. Now India is ahead! There is no need to prostrate in front of each of the 45 members of the Nuclear Club to obtain their approval AND prostrate in front of the IAEA for their blessings. There are other ways to obtain the Uranium that India needs.

This is an International natak of, “we have the stick and you don't”. India ought to change the rules of the game and diplomatically disengage or get unconditional terms. India should say, "Thank You, but no Thank You, there is tremendous opposition to the deal within”, and go on to form a club of their own.

The Irrelevance of Marxism Today

Marx (1818-1883) lived during the height of the Industrial Revolution during which there were many injustices brought upon laborers. Also in this era, many landowners grabbed land from lesser owners who owed them money and were unable to pay. During this era there was no effective method of communication other than by print media and local meetings. Radio was invented in 1895 and broadcast radio came about in the early 1900s. Consequently the oppressed were poor, illiterate, ignorant and ill informed. Marxist ideology in this context prescribed a centralized mode of authority and control. Things changed much slowly those days and it appealed to the anti-capitalist intellectual. It was possible to rouse the “oppressed” and wrest control and power from the “oppressor”.

Marx's intentions were noble. The “capitalists” were enriching themselves while oppressing the ones who toiled at making them richer. The poor remained poor. The wealth was not being shared. It is interesting to note that during a period in the first half of the 1850’s, Marx’s major source of income was from Engels whose source of wealth was from his family’s cotton spinning interest in Manchester. Marx supplemented his income by writing weekly articles for the New York Daily Tribune, as a foreign correspondent. The father of Marxism was supported by “capitalist” endeavors. What would have happened to Marx, if Engels hadn’t bank rolled him?

Today too, there is a huge "Gap" between the "Haves" and "Have Nots" in Developing and Under-developed Countries. And the stats show that this "Gap" is increasing even in the Developed countries. By and large, a progressive individual would agree that all who are responsible for creating wealth ought to have a share in it. The argument between the Left and the Right now centers around the proportion of sharing. The Left typically expects the Capitalists to absorb all the downside and force them to part with a bigger portion of the upside. The Right fights for more deregulation and more freedom for the Capitalist to do whatever they like.

If you consider the illiterate, ignorant and ill informed oppressed as sheep, then it could be argued that a centralized form of command and control is relevant. That they will be better off being told what is good for them for, if left to themselves to choose, they will not make the right choices.

That was then. This is a different era, where there are many modes of communication. People are not as ignorant as they were then. Wealth creation and sharing is possible through stock options and profit sharing. The environment is changing rapidly, and holding on to a philosophy that is over a hundred years old is absurd.

Oppression does exist it is primarily due to Human Greed and inherent social practices. The former needs to be reined in by Governance and Appropriate regulation. The latter can only be overcome by economically uplifting the oppressed. The communists in India are doing nothing to overcome the latter. Instead they woo the unions in protecting the entitlements of the few, while a larger population of unemployed, unskilled, uneducated labor force is ignored.

There is one basic human trait and that is each individual would like to be better off than they are. Some work for it, others rely on entitlements, which is a euphemism for handouts. The Public Sector companies incurring losses is an example of the latter which the Communists support. The true capitalist approach taken by the likes of Intel, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Infosys et al provides opportunities for those who work for it and as a result there is a rising tide that lifts everyone. The communist approach imposes an ideology that is supposed to uplift the poor, but does nothing in reality for them. Instead it woos the Unions, who do not represent the poor by any means.

The Left’s preoccupation with “Job Protectionism” often results in an excessive and inefficient payroll. It also prevents the downsizing or closing down of enterprises in the absence of a viable economic environment. Doing so transfers the burden of supporting the losses of a public enterprise to the taxpayer. It protects the entitlements of a select few at the expense of the society at large. Only 1.7% (18 million people) of Indians are the employees of the State and Union Government. Along with the employees of the organized private sector, (9 million people) represent a total of 2.6% (27 million people) of the population of India. Source: India 1st www.wakeupcall.org. Only 27 Million of a population over 1 Billion! The facts speak for themselves! The communists in India are obstructionists who throttle industry, productivity and job creation.

Why is it that the Indian Communists are hanging on to an ideology that was proposed during the later part of 1800's by a man who lived in a different time, in a different place and under different circumstances? Why are Indian Communists hanging on to this archaic ideology?

The “communists” of India in particular should ask themselves whether they are so intellectually challenged, that they have to follow an ideology proposed by a European who lived two centuries ago or are they capable of re-inventing and re-branding themselves to a more relevant time and context? Particularly, since this ideology has been discredited and abandoned by the most ardent supporters of it namely the Soviet Union and China? Are the communists of India that backward and intellectually bankrupt that they cannot formulate an ideology that is relevant to the cultural and social diversity of India? Is calling oneself a Marxist even relevant in today's context? Look at Kerala, there is no industry there. It is reported that Kerala has the third highest farmer suicide rate in India. West Bengal is struggling to attract industry. The only reason Kerala is surviving is because of the influx of Gulf money. Why are Keralites migrating to other parts of the country? If Kerala is such a great state why aren’t people migrating there from other parts of the country? Ditto for West Bengal. West Bengal has an influx of Bangladeshis only because they are worse off there than in West Bengal.

The writing is on the wall. There is a role for the Left in balancing the initiatives of the Right. Not through militancy and confrontation but through cooperation and partnership. If the Communists don't reinvent themselves and position themselves as worthy proponents of the poor, and the truly oppressed, they will be marginalized. The era of Union Power is over. Companies can just relocate and leave the workers stranded. In the end everyone will be worse off.

The debate now is between "State Capitalism" and "Democratic Capitalism" or some other form of Capitalism. The question is which is the preferred system?