It is doubtless true, as Mr. Morarji Desai has told the Rajya Sabha, that the United States has not formally broken the agreement with this country in respect of the supply of enriched uranium for Tarapur. But in essence it has. For it has placed on its statute book a law which permits the administration to continue to honour its commitment regarding the sale of this fuel up to 1994 as stipulated in the original deal only if New Delhi accepts the so-called full-scope safeguards for all its present and future nuclear facilities. By this action the United States has qualitatively modified the terms and thus in effect abrogated the agreement of 1963 and the contract of 1966. This is the crux of the issue between the United States and India and not the delay in the supply of 7.6 tonnes of enriched uranium, which should have reached this country last September and the refusal of the nuclear regulatory commission to approve that consignment even now. These two points are important inasmuch as the non-arrival of the material has, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, reduced the generation of power at Tarapur and prevented India from “utilizing the residual enriched uranium and the contained plutonium.” But they are not central because even if President Carter lives up to his solemn assurance and Congress does not overrule him in respect of the sale of 7.6 tonnes of enriched uranium, continued supply will not be assured and the agreement will stand cancelled at the latest in another 17 months. In all probability it will in fact have been abrogated much earlier because it is highly unlikely that President Carter will either be willing to sanction another shipment or get it approved by Congress.
The Prime Minister speaks for the people of India when he says that he is unable to appreciate the delay in the processing by the United States of New Delhi’s requisition. The American administration was morally and legally bound to see to it that it went through the necessary procedures required under its laws – reference to the regulatory commission and so on – “in full recognition of the need for timely compliance with our requisition.” It has failed to do so. It is not for Mr. Desai or anyone else in this country to say whether it is the result of a deliberate policy on President Carter’s part or of his weakness. Indeed, this is hardly pertinent. All that this country is concerned with is that the United States has not only enacted a law whereby it has deliberately modified the terms under which it will supply enriched uranium on a long-term basis but also failed to use a specific provision in the new legislation to fulfill its existing commitment for 18 months. Mr. Desai has duly taken note of this fact and left Washington in no doubt that he will not be blackmailed into surrender and that a breach of the agreement by it will free India from the reciprocal obligations it has assumed and honoured. He has spoken softly but firmly. President Carter should heed the warning implicit in his statement and do whatever he can at least to postpone a crisis in Indo-US relations.