| Physicists refer to mapping the orbits of three mutually interacting masses such as the sun-earth-moon as the "three-body problem". Monetarists define the problem of controlling exchange rate, inflation rate and interest rate simultaneously, as the "impossible trinity". These are multi-dimensional problems inside a single discipline. |
| The nuclear pact with the US sets up an "impossible trinity" except that it links problems spread across separate disciplines. While each in itself may admit of an optimal solution, it's impossible to consider any one in isolation. |
| A single treaty impacting all three issues may lead to sub-optimal solutions on one, maybe two fronts. The total benefits will still be positive if the payoff on any one issue is high enough to outweigh sub-par returns on the other two. |
| One issue is, what does the pact do to cement future Indo-US relations and improve India's geopolitical clout? The second issue is the cost-benefits and feasibility of separating civilian nuclear establishments from military deterrent. The third is the impact on future energy needs. |
| It's easy to have an opinion on the geopolitics. It doesn't require specialised technical knowledge or access to restricted data. Panel-discussions entitled "Whither India?" and even "Whither Indo-US engagement dialectics?" are already pencilled into the calendars of talking-heads and policy wonks. |
| It's nice to have paperwork formalising an extant relationship; that's why people get married. Sovereign nations can wriggle out of written clauses when it suits them. India and the US cannot wriggle out of being major trade partners tied together with the human equivalent of hoops of steel aka the large, hugely successful Indian diaspora. The paperwork might accelerate the synergies of competence and geo-political interest that already hold both nations together. |
| The second question requires both finely-tuned administrative judgment as well as a fair grasp of the technological issues to even begin to find answers. It isn't an easy job to separate military technology from civilian. The officially nuclear-capable nations of the world have not been policed into this. There is no model to adapt. |
| It will cost a lot and it may prove impossible. For one thing, there will always be a movement of qualified people from one branch to the other. If you think about it, other high-tech industries""plastics, electronics, etc.""have never gone through this process. |
| Classified processes in everything other than the nuclear industry end up declassified and off-the-shelf, given the efflux of time. Xerox machines, Kevlar jackets and Hummers can be bought off the Net, which is itself an adapted defence technology. Civilians play "Flight Simulator", hikers use GPS and Swiss Army Knives, webcams use laser gunsights. |
| There will presumably be a lot of hassle and irritation along the way to erecting some sort of fence and there will be large associated costs. Is it worth it? The payoff is directly connected to the third issue of energy security. |
| If India is guaranteed fuel supplies for its civilian establishments, can the nuclear power industry become a significant source of power? India is O&G deficient. It has problems with sourcing coal for its thermal generation capacities. There are known environmental problems and population-displacement problems associated with hydel. |
| While nuclear power carries connotations of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, it has been used for decades without major issues in nations as heavily populated and "clean" as France and Japan. It may be a reasonable alternative to hydel. But there are no significant plans to expand nuclear power capacity right now. |
| How much in the way of extra trade and lower non-tariff barriers will the agreement generate? How much access to fuel will be guaranteed and how much easier will that make it for the power sector to compensate for poor coal and expensive naphtha? How quickly and easily can the nuclear establishment be partitioned? |
| It's impossible to generate hard answers for these questions. And that makes it all subjective. Do you need to formalise a "pardnership"? Well, go ahead, spit on your hands and shake! |
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
