The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act (to give its full name) is named after a Democrat member of the US Senate (America's Upper House) as he moved the legislation before his retirement in 2006.Why was it enacted?Two reasons. One, the deep preoccupation of the Democrats with issues relating to nuclear proliferation "� remember the Democrats led the movement against the Vietnam War and are now questioning the involvement of US troops in Iraq. They have long held that US taxpayers should not pay for nuclear proliferation.Second, in the context of the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement that was being negotiated, the abiding US distrust of countries that have not signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) but want to be engaged in nuclear commerce like India. Several American lawmakers "� both Republican and Democrat "� asked the Administration: You are negotiating a nuclear agreement with a country that is not committed to non-proliferation because it hasn't signed the NPT? How do you know it won't help US' enemies like Iran that have a covert nuclear programme? Besides, what is so special about India that you need to seek exemptions to help India enter the nuclear club?Does that mean Democrats are against the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement and could invoke the Hyde Act to snap ties with India if they come to power?Yes and No. Not all Democrats are against the agreement. In fact, the Hyde Act says it is "Sense of Congress" that "the country has demonstrated responsible behavior with respect to the non-proliferation of technology related to nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and the country has a functioning and uninterrupted democratic system of government, has a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the United States, and is working with the United States on key foreign policy initiatives related to nonproliferation."But, and this is a Big but, the Hyde Act mandates that "any waiver under section 104 shall cease to be effective if the President determines that India has detonated a nuclear explosive device after the date of the enactment of this title."Put plainly, the Hyde Act tells India "� If you test, we will give you nothing, and, in fact, take back everything we've given you.Doesn't that render India vulnerable?Yes, it does. That's why while negotiating the 123 Agreement, negotiators put the clause that because India lives in a "rough neighbourhood", if others test a nuclear device, it should have the autonomy to do so.Besides, it can test when it wants but a multi-layered consultation must follow with the US on the reasons for its move.That seems like the US is giving everything to India and getting nothing...No, which is why there are a whole lot of caveats in the Hyde Act that tell India how to behave in the international arena. For instance, India must stop production of fissile material and must give a date by when it will do so, must sign treaties that makes it help the US to prevent proliferation (thus putting it squarely in the US sphere of influence, critics argue), assist the US in containing Iran and other countries in the bid to contain proliferation, etc.It also says the President of the United States must "secure India's full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability and the capability to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel, and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction."The Act mandates that the US President will report to Congress every year on whether all the conditions in the Hyde Act have been met.Does that mean the US will decide India's foreign policy in return for getting a couple of nuclear reactors?That's what the Left parties are saying "� the Hyde Act is so deeply linked to the 123 Agreement that the government will have to do everything that the Hyde Act says if it wants uranium.What does the government say?More than the Indian government, it is President Bush's arguments that are important. He says he is not bound to follow the advice of Henry Hyde and the Act because most clauses are just advisory. He has questioned the Hyde Act's efficacy on the grounds of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the United States, a matter that the country takes very seriously.Can Hyde Act be leveraged to India's advantage?For India, the original intent of the nuclear agreement was two-fold. On the nuclear front, India hoped to access civilian nuclear technology and fuel to expand its domestic program. On the foreign policy front, it hoped to create a India-specific niche for itself, justifying its nuclear non-proliferation and military credentials.The Henry Hyde Act is only one of many steps towards India's recognition as a nuclear state, entitled to full civilian co-operation with the Nuclear Suppliers Group.So, what is the worst case scenario? How badly can Hyde Act hit India?Just consider: Following this agreement, India builds five new, large reactors with American, Russian, and Japanese help. In 2012, the US asks India, once again, to vote against Iran at the IAEA, threatening to stop uranium supplies under the guise of annual reporting requirements.Considering that the Iran-India gas pipeline is now operational, India must now choose between the fire and the frying pan.And what is the best case scenario?On the nuclear front, the Act offers India access to technology for new, bigger, and better reactors as well as uranium for those reactors - something we are short of domestically.On the foreign policy front, the Act shows that India can now create a space for itself and eventually be recognised as a nuclear state. By no means are these achievements to be scoffed at...
