“A Country is Not a Company,” argued Paul Krugman in a celebrated 1996 paper published in the Harvard Business Review. He made the point that “the style of thinking necessary for economic analysis is very different from that which leads to success in business” and further that a failure to understand this can lead to disastrous mistakes. The economist in Dr. Singh needs to realise that arguments drawing from ‘decarbonising the economy’ exercises done in the Planning Commission combining with ill-founded ambitions of becoming a great power by becoming the sole superpower’s camp follower are likely to flop in the democratic political arena. It may be perfectly true that the Bharatiya Janata Party is the co-progenitor of this nuclear deal. But the reality is that the principal opposition party has aggressively attacked the deal as a sell-out of national interests, and specifically of the country’s ambition of developing “a minimum credible nuclear deterrent.” Its leaders are salivating at the thought of this Congress-led regime falling on so sensitive an issue. As important politically is the nature of opposition from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its left partners whose bloc of 61 MPs provide life support for the UPA government. The CPI(M) has made it clear that it has serious problems with some of the specifics of the 123 read along with the Hyde Act and has asked the government not to go ahead even with the next step towards operationalisation. But its larger political objection is that the nuclear deal is part of a strategic alliance with the U.S. encompassing political, economic, and military aspects; and therefore has “adverse consequences for an independent foreign policy, sovereignty, and the economic interests of the people.” And the Manmohan Singh regime knows it will get no quarter from the recently formed ‘third force’ bloc, the UNPA.This is from a newspaper that wrote an equally long editorial claiming that the technical aspects of the agreement were favorable to India. What makes this editorial even more funny is, the opinion piece across the page is written by a certain Prakash Karat. Just so that you don't forget, the editors of this glorious newspaper on August 6th, 2007, wrote:
As for the other BJP objection that the 123 agreement will cripple India’s strategic programme, the less said the better. A non-hindrance clause incorporated in Article 2.4 ensures that the development of India’s unsafeguarded or military nuclear facilities will not be hindered or interfered with in any way. There is nothing in the 123 that takes away India’s sovereign right to conduct nuclear explosive tests, or enlarge its nuclear arsenal should it choose to do so. The problem, if anything, is the opposite of what the BJP suggests: thus accommodated in a U.S.-led unequal global nuclear bargain, India may be even less inclined than it is today to pursue the goal of universal disarmament.I'd rather read Sudhish Kamath writing something about straight men, gay men and their nightmares.