New Delhi, Feb 11 (NationPress) Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi’s assertion that the current government has "sold out Bharat Mata" concerning a trade and tariff framework with the United States gains significance only when contrasted with his own party’s history, political analysts suggest.

To understand the weight of his accusations, one must revisit the events of 2008 when the Congress-led UPA administration negotiated and finalized the Indo–US Civil Nuclear Agreement, which they hailed as a monumental diplomatic success, according to analysts.

The 123 Agreement was promoted as a major achievement that would lift India out of its so-called "nuclear isolation." It indeed opened avenues for global nuclear trade and secured a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. However, this access came tethered with explicit, binding commitments that critics argue have intrusively reshaped India's nuclear framework.

As part of the agreement, India was mandated to present a formal "Separation Plan". This was a critical requirement, not just a symbolic act. India was obligated to split its nuclear infrastructure into civilian and military components, placing the entire civilian sector under permanent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Fourteen out of twenty-two power reactors at that time—including future civilian facilities—were subjected to inspection "in perpetuity." This meant that a substantial portion of India’s energy infrastructure was open to ongoing international oversight.

Observers note that the United States was explicit about its expectations. The US stated: "India has committed to separate its military and civil activities and submit its entire civil program to international inspection." This was not merely the interpretation of critics; it was the official stance of Washington.

The Hyde Act, a US domestic law that activated the deal, mandated the US President to submit annual compliance reports to the US Congress regarding India’s actions, as noted by nuclear analysts. Thus, a part of India’s sovereign program fell under foreign legislative scrutiny.

By consenting to enduring safeguards and restrictions on the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies, India accepted limitations that impacted its long-term three-stage nuclear vision and closed fuel cycle strategy, experts explain. Additionally, the agreement was tied to India’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, which imposed strategic constraints in a volatile regional security context.

At that time, the UPA celebrated this as one of its greatest accomplishments. “Yet today, the same political leadership questions the patriotism of a government negotiating trade terms that are transparent, reciprocal, and subject to parliamentary oversight,” experts suggest. They argue that sweeping claims of "selling out" appear hollow when contrasted with historical events.