NY Times and the Indo-US Nuclear Deal

Yet another NYT article on the Indo-US nuclear deal. This article (Indian-Americans Test Their Clout on Atom Pact - New York Times) focusses on political activity by Indian-Americans in trying to get the deal approved, but as many of the articles by NYT on this issue have done, this one does not mention the argument in favor of the deal. It's all very nice to throw in a group of terms that seem to be related to the issue ("rogue nations", "nuclear non-proliferation", "Pakistani-Americans", rivalry with Pakistan, etc.) but like a name-dropping influence-peddler wannabe, their overall germaneness to the issue is completely missing. In my humble opinion, the questions that none of the NYT articles and their numerous editorials on this issue have dealt with are:

• Yes, India is a non-signatory to the NPT (so is the USA): what part of proliferation has India not obeyed however? And if India is not a signatory to NPT, shouldn't India having "violated" it (no proof of that in the absolute sense of the word proliferation, but yet) the agreement be irrelevant? I know that parts of the NPT call for complete halting of testing and India violated that part by its most recent testing. But isn't that quibbling about the word of the law? After all, everyone knows India already tested in 1974, so it's not as if it didn't have the capability. Does one have to be so openly hypocritical to write NYT editorials?
  
• Is their any proof that nuclear "secrets" obtained by any other nation have originated from India? There is proof that such proliferation has occurred from Pakistan: so why the need to counterbalance every article/editorial with rhetorical questions about treating other nuclear nations unfairly as if there was no difference at all between these nations in terms of their impact on proliferation?
• Do the folks at NYT really see no difference between India on the one hand and Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea on the other so they would worry their heads silly that something done to India would serve as an implicit encouragement to other rogue nations? Can these other nations not see Indo-US nuclear ties under this deal as an explicit encouragement for democratic ideals, voluntary acts of non-proliferation, and strict safeguard of a nation's nuclear methods and capabilities?
• And on the benefit side: haven't the US and India, the world's two largest democracies been at loggerheads long enough? Won't such nuclear cooperation be a sign to India that US is finally serious enough about relations with the world's largest democracy that it is willing to trust it on as sensitive an issue as nuclear technology?
  

What pains me about the NYT coverage of this issue is that they have chosen to criticize focussing on cliches and platitudes without even attempting to address these questions in their coverage.

By the way, I enjoyed this quote in the article. No opportunities for political activity in India? Take your head out of your arse, Mr. Sharma.

Many Indian-Americans have enthusiastically embraced political activity in part "because such opportunities were not always available in India," said Kapil Sharma, a former legislative assistant to Mr. Pallone who helped organize the House India caucus.