| |
Conclusion
Thus, as highlighted by US Congressional sources and Indian officials there is nothing in the approved bill that would stop India and the US from making it the "symbolic center" of their bilateral relations and reap rich economic dividends. For the US, the deal opens up a huge market for US companies valued at over USD 100 billion. For India, it provides it access to environmentally-less destructive energy that can power its accelerating economy. Its dependence on highly-priced oil will go down and so will pollution that is already affecting climate patterns and crop output in mainly Agricultural India.
As rosy as it sounds, there are still several hurdles to cross. For one, the nations need to complete negotiations of a " 1-2-3 Agreement" that will codify the deal. In parallel, India has to work with the IAEA, NSG (with American and European help), and get their approval. A major stumbling block in the NSG is China -a major proliferator and a member who does not adhere to its values. Beijing has already attacked the deal but it is unclear if it is jostling to negotiate concessions from Washington and New Delhi or is seriously opposing the deal. There are other Ayatollahs in the NSG (mainly Scandinavian and Australia ) who can be convinced to accept the deal. The IAEA has already said that it will support the deal and its Director had written to the US Congress encouraging it to support the deal.
Indian criticism of US policy making in the past has consistently been that Washington was mechanistic and robotic in how it viewed the world as black and white. Developments over the past 17 years following the end of the Cold War and especially the start of the "War on Terror" have seen it morph into a discriminating view of right and wrong. While India may not completely agree with the US's perception of right and wrong, it cannot argue that freedom, independence, globalization, and free trade based on democratic principles and pluralistic society is bad. After all, those have been India's age-old values and heritage. After thousands of years of following these values, arguing against them seem a bit silly.
|