'Dirty Politics!'

Sitting halfway across the world, the Indian American community is watchingwith dismay and frustration as the Left and Bharatiya Janata Party in Indiaattempt to scuttle a civilian nuclear agreement with the United States.

On July 18, 2005, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singhhad signed the deal, which overturns three decades of U.S. policy by providingIndia with nuclear supplies. Since then, members of the nearly 2-million strongcommunity had come together to persuade their lawmakers in Congress to supportthe agreement. Prominent professionals put their careers on hold and dug deepinto their own pockets to travel to Washington and meet lawmakers. Ads wereplaced in newspapers enumerating the virtues of the deal; and PR packages wereproduced explaining its finer points.

Swadesh Chatterjee, North Carolina-based chairman of the U.S.-IndiaFriendship Council, played a significant role in winning congressional support.He says while members of Congress have adopted a wait-and-watch attitude towardthe debate in India, it is the Indian American community which is anxious aboutthe future of the deal.

Mr. Chatterjee, who was awarded a Padma Bhushan for his work toward fosteringbetter U.S.-India ties, is worried that the "dirty politics" in Indiamay cause a "tremendous setback" to the relationship. "India's credibility would be shattered" if this deal does not gothrough, he cautions.

Ashok Mago, Texas-based chairman of the U.S.-India Forum, admits he is"disappointed" at the events taking place in India. "It seemslike politics as usual. Parties opposing it are placing their political interestover national interest," he says. Mr. Mago helped ensure the support ofmembers of Congress from Texas for the nuclear deal, which was overwhelminglyapproved by Congress late last year.

"Everyone knew the terms of the Hyde Act," he points out, referringto the enabling legislation signed into law by Mr. Bush in December 2006."Then why did the parties opposing it wait this long to oppose it sostrongly and now want to kill it?" he asks. If the deal fails, Mr. Magosays, it would be "a great disappointment to the Indian-American community,which has worked very hard to get it approved in the Congress."

"This administration has worked very hard, along with those who want tosee India become an economic power, to get congressional approval and killingthis agreement will send a signal not only to this administration but to futureadministrations too that the government of India cannot be counted on to getsupport of agreements that it accepts in the Parliament," he adds.

In Massachusetts, Ramesh Kapur, president of the Indian American SecurityLeadership Council, helped win over his share of lawmakers. He notes that thedebate in India is "politics as usual" but adds, "I didn't knowpolitics in India was this dirty."

Mr. Mago hopes political leaders in New Delhi "will put theirdifferences aside and remember the importance of much-needed clean energy forcontinued growth of the Indian economy and better future for people ofIndia."

Kanwal Rekhi, California-based managing partner of Inventus Capital Partners,on the other hand, welcomes the debate in India. "All these concerns haveto be aired now," he says, adding, "It is best we have everyone onboard for this deal."  Mr. Rekhi notes that the opposition in Indiamay help silence critics of the deal in the U.S. who feel "India isgloating over having had its way" with the deal. "People here can nowsee that there is also a lot of opposition to this deal in India and get abetter sense of what the prime minister is up against."

Sanjay Puri, of the U.S.-India Political Action Committee, says he wasdisappointed by the delaying tactics, but adds that such debate is an essentialpart of a democracy. He underscores the fact that time is running out for theBush administration and that members of Congress will become increasinglyfocused on the elections as 2008 gets underway.

Mr. Chatterjee says the deal would be in jeopardy if the U.S. Congressdoesn't vote on it by December 31. If it goes into next year, past February orMarch, it will enter the "Red Zone," he predicts. He notes that thedeal has been debated and discussed in public since it was signed in 2005."The Hyde Act was signed in December [2006]. Why are they now asking for apanel to address their concerns?" he asks.

"Why didn't they think of this before?" he adds, then answers hisown question: "They didn't think it would go through."