And just when I thought I have had enough of this political drollery, Indo-US deal continues to entertain.

First there was domestic political farce amongst the government, the Left & the BJP. Left had to oppose the deal because they have to oppose America. BJP’s stand looked most confusing and instead of taking credit for the deal (which was initiated by Brajesh Mishra), it kept harping on the issue of Indian Sovereignty. The Left threatened to withdraw and finally did so only to find that the government was living safely & merrily.

The confusion continued as to its impact on India’s military nuclear programme, the exact scope of fuel reprocessing rights, the timeframe defined, the definition of ’state-of-art’ reprocessing facility & so on.

    Then at the NSG meet, China did some summersaults and at the end could hardly save its face as smaller countries did budge under strong political muscles. Austria kept repeating that there were some fundamental disputes and when they surrendered eventually, they had to take refuge in the statement of Pranab Mukharjee, which incidentally proclaimed nothing new and only endorsed India’s age-old stand of unilateral moratorium.

    Then there was that letter leaked ‘through’ the Washington Post. And just when the Indian government had managed to somehow sidetrack the issue, Bush has now declared that US is under ‘no legal obligation’ to provide uninterrupted fuel supply to India.

    Now what does this really means? Bush prefers to describe this agreement as a ‘framework agreement’ & hence not binding one. Now are there any ‘types’ of international agreements? As far as my knowledge of international law goes, international agreement is an international agreement. And it is binding just like any other treaty between the nations. What US domestic law says is not of any relevance to India as only thing that will matter is 123 agreement. Even as per Article VI of the US Constitution (as interpreted by US Supreme Court), obligations of an international agreement supersede provisions of domestic laws.

    It is true that our 123 agreement has one clause missing when compared with 123 agreement that China got viz. Clause 2.1 which says that “the parties recognize, with respect to observance of this agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”. But that does not mean that provisions of Hyde Act trump the 123 agreement. Because Indian negotiators did manage to push through another clause i.e. Clause 16.4, “that the agreement shall be implemented in good faith & in accordance with principles of international law”. Now this phrase ‘in accordance with the principles of international law’ refers to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of Law of Treaties, which clarifies that, “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”. Same effect!!!

    So legally speaking, it doesn’t matter what Hyde Act says; it doesn’t matter what leaked letter says; it doesn’t matter what Bush says; the only thing that matters is 123 agreement, which unequivocally declares through Para 5.6 that US commitment of uninterrupted fuel supply would continue even after termination of 123 agreement.

But it is equally true that with muscly country like US, legal obligations may not always be enough. If we see, in such declarations and that too by none other than America’s Head of State, the reflections of ulterior intentions of US government, the path ahead needs to be treaded cautiously. We simply cannot afford to invest around 300 lakh crores in building nuclear infrastructure only to be left stranded without an ounce of fuel supply. However this danger looks least likely. Now that we are through NSG hurdle, whole of international market is open for fuel supply and we are not exclusively dependant on US.

US sources are saying that the latest statement from Bush comes out of domestic political compulsions (and thus would aid in getting the deal through Congress) and fuel assurance is very much part of 123 deal. It’s hard to buy this ‘domestic political reasons’ part though. Are they trying to say that Bush is trying to fool US Congress into believing that 123 agreement is just a political promise & nothing else? Whatever it might imply, one thing’s for sure, this epic melodrama of Indo-US deal has all the masala for a blockbuster movie. Any takers from Bollywood?