The BJP top leaders have discussed the nuclear deal in a recent meeting, but the party refuses to acknowledge any deviation in its opposition to the deal. Party president Rajnath Singh, senior leaders Sushma Swaraj, Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, Arun Jaitley and V K Malhotra were present at this meeting at the residence of L K Advani, Leader of the Opposition. Sources in the BJP confirmed that US Ambassador, David Mulford, had visited Yashwant Sinha to persuade the BJP to soften its line and support the government on the proposed civilian nuclear deal. The argument made to the BJP is that the 123 agreement is as good as it can get, and any effort to renegotiate the deal could lead to complications. The leaders claim that the 123 Agreement is bound by US domestic laws like the Hyde Act of 2006, the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954; hence supply of nuclear material to India will be guided by these laws. Secondly, all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle are not covered under the agreement. Finally, the US retains the right to recall any nuclear material, equipment, non-nuclear material or components transferred under this Agreement and any special fissionable material produced by their use.

The BJP, while favoring stronger ties with the US, has opposed the deal saying it would affect the country's military nuclear programme and independent foreign policy. Had the BJP been in power, would it have done anything different? There are clear indications that the BJP leaders are more concerned with their vote banks than any ideological considerations to oppose the US. There is a lurking fear that Vajpayee's legacy of making India a nuclear-weapon-state will be taken over by the Congress if the deal goes through. What appears to have perturbed BJP ideologues is that their project of 'robust nationalism' will be compromised in the emerging political scenario. Vajpayee, Brajesh Mishra and Jaswant Singh, and many other strategic experts and commentators, have sharply criticized the nuclear deal for seriously compromising Indian security and its sovereign decision-making regarding the size of its" nuclear deterrent". They argue that separating India's military nuclear facilities from its civilian power plants and placing the latter under IAEA safeguards will limit the quantity of fissile material available to the military program, effectively capping India's nuclear arsenal.

In a recent interview, former National Security Advisor, Brajesh Mishra, said that if the government could talk to the opposition and assure them that the country's nuclear programme would not be capped, then they could support the deal. Advani said the BJP stood by its initial assessment that the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act seriously impair India's nuclear weapons programme and jeopardize its strategic objectives. Advani also held that the BJP could not accept a situation that resulted, not in strategic partnership, but in strategic subservience. India's foreign policy could not be subordinated to the US.

The underlying assumption of this critique is that Indian security lies in nuclear weaponization and its unfettered expansion. Peace-loving forces in India have long held that Indian security is not dependent on nuclear weapons, and have demanded first a cap and then a rollback of the nuclearization of India and the South Asian region. In practical terms, the deal is expected to assist India in its quest for nuclear fuel to achieve its stated goal of 20,000 MWe of nuclear power in the next decade compared to its present installed capacity of about 4,000 MWe. The essential features of the deal as promoted by the UPA clearly outline that it will make India strong and self-reliant in energy, open up avenues for foreign investments, and end its isolation in the international nuclear regime. All top leaders BJP admit privately that they would not have done anything different had they been in power.

So, advancing the nuclear doctrine of minimum deterrence and the pride of nationalism are merely signs of anger in the BJP. It has to preserve its much-celebrated claim to making India a nuclear state. But the national interest demands a broader vision. BJP has to be a responsible opposition party by keeping in view the national interests. The next winter session of parliament will start from 15 November. The nuclear deal will be debated and it may be followed by voting.

If the deal comes up for voting the BJP will be opposing the Congress. The BJP's purpose is to deepen the standoff between the Congress and the Left parties on the deal and it does not want to say or do anything that may bring them together. The BJP would like to see the UPA disintegrate due to its inner contradictions.