For the world, the Indo-US Civilian nuclear deal almost seems a "win-win" situation; what is unfathomable is the domestic opposition - a fact that cannot be wished away. It is incredibly hard to explain that all hues of Indian politicians are really trying to protect that ill-defined ethereal commodity called "national interest".
The Indo-US nuclear deal really is that atomic enigma that continues to befuddle people across the world. There is now a growing acceptance of this agreement and its concomitant fallouts in the international circuit, even as it continues to cause immense angst in the domestic political circles.
Today, when the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh government struggles to stack up the numbers to gain a "vote of confidence", the first and most necessary step to keep the nuclear deal alive, on the contrary, international opposition to the deal is melting away rather fast, with numbers stacking up for the ayes. The international and domestic disconnect is certainly unnerving.
On the global stage, the tension was almost palpable in the Indian delegation as it went in for the much-hyped "private" and almost secret briefing that India held in Vienna on July 18 to bring about a consensus on the India Specific Safeguards Agreement among the 60 countries it invited and felt could make a difference when the very crucial meetings take place at the global nuclear watch dog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); and then at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the self-appointed global dadas, who control all nuclear trade in the world.
However, when the six-member Indian delegation emerged, they were relaxed and smiling. Before this closed door briefing was held in an upmarket hotel in Vienna, there was a general feeling that getting an approval for the safeguards agreement from the 35-member Board of Governors of the IAEA may not be easy.
But as the 90 diplomats from 60 countries, whom one can only describe as the global wise men and women, who hold the reins of India's unending quest for nuclear energy security and economic growth, trooped in for the 50-minute briefing held by India's Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon, most seemed to have gone back convinced that the Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Agreement was good for the world, good for non-proliferation and good for India.
A ranking Indian diplomat, who attended the briefing, recounted the experience as being "seriously easy". A western diplomat who seeks anonymity till at least the vote of confidence is won by the United Progressive Alliance said "no one opposed" the India Safeguards Agreement. It almost seems the global numbers have stacked up hugely in favor of the Indo-US nuclear deal. It seems the world is all set to give India a unique status on the so-called nuclear high table, the country of a billion plus people is finally being offered a stool if not a chair on this global pedestal.
In the corridors of the global nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, there is an increasing recognition that the world is no longer going to be merely divided just into two, the nuclear "haves", the so-called nation states that had nuclear weapons when they signed up for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) which includes USA, Russia, France, China and Great Britain, and the rest being the nuclear "have-nots" or the nation states that did not possess nuclear weapons before January 1, 1967.
Today, there is a unique third category that has emerged and which constitutes only India at present, the so-called "nuclear opt out" since India rejected the NPT as being "highly discriminatory" and refused to sign it and even went on to become a nuclear weapon state in 1974. Today, India is emerging as a "nuclear have both".
To the world community, it almost seems India gets to eat the cake and have it too! Hence, if that is the case, why are the global Ayatollahs of the nuclear age applauding this tectonic restructuring of global relations?
The catch could well be that today we are only hearing voices of the global cheerleaders of the deal. Are the international dissenters keeping their counsel? Possibly to strike when it matters most, either on August 1, 2008 in the fourth-floor Board of Governors room of the IAEA, or later whenever the Nuclear Suppliers Group meets to grant India that necessary "clean, clear and unconditional" waiver to begin nuclear trade.
In the international circuit, it almost seems everybody is happy and getting something out of the deal. The IAEA thinks it got a lot out of India by letting it initial a document that is almost a "standard safeguards agreement". The Indians think they got whatever they had wanted from the IAEA, "not so perpetual" safeguards; the right to take "unspecified sovereign actions" that constitute corrective measures and a nod to make a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to tide over disruptions.
The Americans unabashedly claim it to be a victory towards global non-proliferation as they suggest India will no longer be an outlier but well within that non-proliferation tent. For France it opens up a hitherto untouchable billion-dollar market to sell nuclear reactors and for Russia, another chance to stand by an old ally while making some money as well in the bargain. For the world it almost seems a "win-win" situation, yet domestic opposition cannot be wished away or underestimated either.
In India, today, at least the political class seems equally divided among people who support the deal and those who oppose it. This is an irony that is difficult for the world at large to fathom. In the long corridors of the IAEA and on the streets of Vienna I was frequently asked what is with the Indian communists who still want to live in an era of the past, why are they opposing it tooth and nail?
There were also a large number of people who asked the most obvious question - what is in it for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that he has risked his very own existence? It is hard to explain that all Indian politicians are really trying to protect that ill-defined ethereal commodity called "national interest".
Does this current debate exemplify the highly opinionated argumentative trait of Indians or the robustness of a deeply entrenched democracy? There are no answers but the irony is very stark.
(Pallava Bagla is Science Editor for NDTV. Views expressed here are his own.)