Time to see that Europe has to catch up, chachaji.

OK, Amritaji, just a few counterpoints. It’s not so much that my frame of reference was Europe, but that the concept of the nation-state itself evolved in Europe. And it was, shall we say, fairly optimized (as a concept) to the size distribution of ‘countries’ and ‘kingdoms’ and ‘principalities’ of late Medieval Europe, and naturally, also their culture and ethos. If even those nation-states are now dissolving, and simultaneously ceding some powers to supranational entities and devolving others downward to city and local bodies, then civilizational entities such as India, which always existed with multiple overlapping sovereignties in the past (and even during the colonial period), but were shoe-horned into nation-states in the post-colonial aftermath – need even more to do the same thing. And thank goodness they are.

And change is coming to India extremely fast – the highest generational ‘delta’ in the aspirational level today is with the lower and lower-middle classes. DDiA made some good points in this respect upthread. While it has been a commonplace to claim that the ‘middle class’ is the natural constituency for liberalization – it is actually the lower classes, which were locked out of the salariat, or found themselves at its lowest rungs, that are now beginning to become its strongest supporters. The logic of liberalization has upset pre-existing economic as well as social structures, and has begun to give more economic power as well as social clout to the ‘lowest rungs’. They naturally want more of it, and want it to go ahead. The Indo-US nuclear deal simply sets up an ‘enabling environment’ to meet these needs, both internationally/geostrategically; and nationally/infrastructurally.

Amaun makes the good point that initially India’s atomic establishment found many reasons to oppose the deal, including the fact that it would open up some of their work to international scrutiny – and while they have also had some great successes (for example with the fast breeder reactor program), they’d just as soon not have to be accountable to anyone for the gap between their promises and performance more broadly.

It all comes down to the ‘autarkic mindset’ – the most poisonous thing there can be when the zeitgeist screams ‘globalization’. Whether it is protectionism or anti-immigrant xenophobia or nativism in the West, or the extra-over-defensiveness and boulder-on-the-shoulder in India underpinning the anti-deal sentiment – they both reflect the autarkic mindset, and they all have to go.

Rajeev as you say many people, other than communists, oppose the deal. Most of these folks use information from scientist/bureaucrat affiliated to the Dept. of Atomic Energy (DAE). Homi Bhabha/Nehru tasked this department with the mission to provide power to people. They have failed in their mission and to cover up their failure they were the first out the block in criticizing the deal. Look up the amount of taxpayer money that they have wasted. Even if there are no weaponization benefits to this deal I would support it simply on the basis of saving a ton of money that could be diverted to …

(DAE revised power goal was 20,000 MW by 2000. It delivers 1,500 MW.)

BJP says, congress government has not negotiated properly and hence opposes the deal. So one has to see who will succeed in their political ambitions.

this is why I take umbrage when Muslim women in the West claim ‘religion’ for wearing a burqa. It is not a religious reason – it is a socio cultural reason. Now that I think of it- most of my Muslim friends have been non-Urdu speakers. Have a couple of Hindi speaking Muslim friends as well. So we have a clear difference between Urdu speaking Muslims and Non-Urdu Speaking muslims. I daresay that this translates into social and cultural mores with the Urdu speaking Muslims generally being more conservative.

Well said, Priya. Lord knows what else on its way will be second hand.

I understand that the state is changing in the context of globalization, but states have reconceptualized in many ways to accommodate globalization. Power of the state and the elites who run the state isn’t really waning. Consider the notion of the neoliberal state promoted by Reagan and Thatcher. Obviously the dynamics are radically different when comparing developed to developing countries.

Agree again with Rajeev, esp since chachaji’s frame of reference was Europe, where the nation state by any other name may indeed dissolve sooner rather thsn any later, because they are such very tiny nation states (which ought finally to be called provinces as they are in reality) and because they are totally out of proportion to the mega nations of today that some of them helped create while maintaining their separate identities past the expiration date. Also, it id highly unlikely that Indians of all classes and persuasions are even thinking about joining the world, as equals or otherwise. The huge problem is that so many of the Indian and NRI elite think that by signing on to this agreement they are “joining the world as equals.”

There is s Warner Bros. cartoon aspect to blaming all resistance to the deal on “Communists” though it may be helpful for some media consumers to grasp news stories couched in those terms.

Rajeev, I am not Chachaji, and I will therefore refrain from the avuncular tone that you find objectionable. heh.

However, I don’t see a logical error in both having (a) having hundreds of millions of Indians being able to decide that they WANT to be equal global citizens and (b) having hundreds and millions of Indians BEING currently unable to stand as equals.

I’d like to highlight the distinction that (a) refers to aspiration, whereas (b) refers to the current status. In fact, arguably, the aspiration in (a) may empower the poor and the marginalized to move beyong their current status (a).

Moreover, implicit in your statement, Rajeev, is the understanding that somehow there is benefit if we constrain the wealthy and the able to wait till some sort of domestic wage equality is reached before trying to be equal global citizens. In fact, it is the very opposite: to be truly progressive (and be world citizens), India needs to implement widespead infrastructure and policy (legal, economic) reforms.

Also, on a scientific note:

There are still a number of problems with disposing radioactive waste and the easiest thing to do is to use it for weapons purposes

… is not quite true. I read somewhere that it takes about 9000 years for nuclear reactor waste to become weapons grade. Wikipedia is not the best source for this sort of thing, but here goes.

Finally, Germany may be phasing out its nuclear reactors, but France is doing the exact opposite. Truth be told, no one quite knows what to make of the current energy prices, and at what levels the capital expenditure on a nuclear power plant is feasible.