The India-US Nuclear Deal has been hanging fire for over two years. The way things are going (as on 25 October 2007), it is more accurate to say that the Deal is merely hanging or hanging like the proverbial Damocles sword over the most famous turban in the land! The political context around the Deal has been evolving from Deal to No Deal and on to May Be which subsumes May Be Not. Even as the text of the Hyde Act is frozen in print, a plethora of interpretations of what the key articles mean and/or do not mean and a lot of speculation on what are their implications and the likely consequences are clouding the Deal itself. What you come up with depends upon whom you talk to and when? From Kakodkar to Karat the spectrum of conjecture is wider than the rainbow spanning the sky. In this context, it is good that we received a well-written article from one of the experts on the Panel Discussion on the Deal convened by the School of Public Policy some time ago (7 September 2006). Retired Vice-Admiral Raman Puri's article could not make it to the special issue of the Journal entitled India-US Nuclear Deal: Hurdle or Gateway? published in March 2007. Better late, than never! as they say.

The main objective of the Deal is to access nuclear technology for augmenting the nation's energy generation capabilities, Puri points out rightly. Energy security is necessary to sustain the rapid economic growth the country has been able to achieve during the last decade or more. After discussing the relative merits of the technologies available in the field, Puri makes out a strong case for moving forward with our own PHWR power plants and the three-stage fast breeder reactor programme outlined by Dr. Homi J. Bhaba long ago. Puri advocates the redoubling of our national efforts to mine the superior uranium deposits available in the country. Puri is not in favour of the technology shift in the nuclear power generation envisaged in the proposed Deal. He is also against our being dependent on the US and others for enriched uranium as well as reprocessing. Puri concludes by asserting that the India-US Nuclear Deal is of no great consequence as far as the country's nuclear power generation capacities are concerned.

It so happens that we have three well-researched papers on Jammu and Kashmir, the most contentious issue between India and Pakistan for over five decades. Dr. B. N. Mehrish, a specialist in international law, examines the many factors responsible for the prevalence of militancy in the troubled state. `Kashmiriyat' or Kashmiri nationalism, he contends, does not provide an adequate foundation for a separate nation state under the rubric of national self-determination as established in international law. Mehrish offers an elaborate analysis of the Gallup-Outlook Poll on Kashmir conducted in Pakistan. After a brief look at what he calls `the psyche' of the Indian Muslims, Mehrish goes on to analyse the latest composite dialogue process underway between India and Pakistan, which was initiated by Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh on the one hand and Parvez Musharraf on the other. He is disappointed with the lack of progress in resolving the Kashmir dispute.

Dr. Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra offers a different perspective on the peace process. The large scale involvement of people from both sides of the LOC in the peace process in recent years is the new dynamic element, and it has gained a momentum of its own in both countries, especially after the opening of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus route in April 2005. He highlights the positive aspects of the ongoing peace process and hopes that it would succeed despite the many hurdles. Mahapatra draws heavily on his own field surveys and personal interviews to buttress his optimistic prognosis. Let us hope that his diagnosis that the peace process has now become irreversible will stand the test of time. Mrs. Bhutto's return and the projected return of Mr. Nawaz Sharif to Pakistan will hopefully put democracy back on the rails in the country in the near future, and that may carry the peace process forward, if the people are really passionate about it.

Dr. Seema Shekhawat offers an in-depth analysis of the role and reach of women caught up in the Kashmir conflict over the decades. The many roles of women as victims, survivors, peace mongers and also perpetrators of conflict are elucidated objectively and forcefully. She argues that there are negative and positive effects in all these roles. Despite their passionate support for Islamic militancy and Kashmiri separatism, Shekhawat points out how the Kashmiri women (Dukhtaran-e-Millat) bravely refused to wear the veil. At the same time, as widows, as victims of rape and gender abuse, as mothers who lost their sons and forced to become the bread winners for their families, women in Kashmir also became stakeholders in resolving conflicts and restoring peace. She rues the fact that the multifaceted role of women, i.e., the gender dimension of the peace process is always neglected. She did her bit to remedy the inadequacy, it may be added.

From Kashmir we move to local government in Australia. Dr. Brian Dollery and Mr. Darren Dallinger probe deep into the difficult issue of efficiency versus democracy at the grass roots. They discuss the many forms of community engagement with the local government institutions prevalent in Queensland and how the Federal and State guidelines come sometimes in conflict with the participatory input of citizens at the local level. Though the focus is on the theory and practice with respect to local government reforms in Queensland, their findings enhance our understanding of the tension between self-governance (i.e., the democratic component) and efficiency of administration, which is given greater importance by the State and Federal Governments in Australia. The authors apparently value the democratic component more than the mere compliance with the rules and norms imposed from outside under the garb of efficiency.

We are happy that this time a reader has responded to our standing invitation to initiate dialogue/debate on the issues raised in the Journal. His comment on the India-US Nuclear Deal is well taken and included in this issue of the Journal.

Dialogue/Debate

Let me take this opportunity to invite the learned readers to raise issues, offer comments and criticism, and suggest ways and means of enhancing the implementation of what is advocated by the various authors. Readers are invited to send their response to the particular article(s) in not more than 1,000 words, which will be published along with the author's rejoinder in the next issue of the Journal, as per the usual editorial discretion.

- B. Ramesh Babu
Consulting Editor
rameshbabu