When Indians and Americans meet at the water cooler...

Today at work I found myself swept into one of those quasi-monologue/quasi-arguments with one of my patients. After treating him he seized the opportunity to talk at me for an hour past what I like to call 'Time to get the hell out of work because it's 5:30.'

The monologue began with an emphasis on Jews living in India and ended on Indian/Pakistani relations. Somewhere in his expositions he expressed his distaste for the way Gandhi convinced the Indian government to pay Pakistan money as a means to end Pakistan's aggression against northern India.

Later he mentioned the good quality of Indian higher learning institutions. Americans are sending their students to Indian universities to learn computer technology. He said that Indian academies are so much superior to American institutions because they give scholarships based upon merit, not upon minority status. This in turn led to his making the point that Indian ingenuity was excellent, especially with regards to their nuclear fuel development. He asserted that India has found a method to generate cheap nuclear fuel; cheaper than fuel anywhere else. From there he began to talk about the deal that President Bush sent to congress regarding trading nuclear fuel to India.

My patient commented that of course India has separated its nuclear program into two sectors: civilian and military; or energy and weapons. The reason why Bush wants to make a deal with India is because of the indigenous fuel techniques that India possesses. Of course the Indian government will not allow American inspection of Indian nuclear weapons plants, because they want to keep their indigenous techniques a secret. This is all very good and, as far as I could imagine, true. But here I had something to say which led to my first entrance into the conversation and also marked the turning of the monologue into an argument. The argument went as follows.

PAUL
I mentioned that many people in the non-proliferation group believe that America should not issue nuclear fuel to a nation if it is not able to inspect all of the nations plants to ensure that the fuel will not be used to develop nuclear arms.

PATIENT
He argued that America would not allow inspection of its military facilities so why should India be expected to allow America to inspect its facilities.

PAUL
In response I cited the non-proliferation treaty which America signed with Germany, France, England, Russia, China and others saying that it would by no means facilitate nuclear proliferation.

PATIENT
He asserted that China did not sign the treaty.

PAUL
I sat there and felt stupid. (Later research revealed that China did sign the treaty)

PATIENT
He went on to say that India has been developing its program and has a high level of demand for nuclear energy. Also, India did not sign any treaty with America and has no responsibility to avoid proliferation.

PAUL
I argued that America did sign the treaty and did have a duty to abide by its word. Selling nuclear fuel to India is cleared by the treaty only if America can ensure that the fuel is not being turned into weapons. This cannot happen when America is not allowed access to some of the Indian fuel plants (i.e.: weapons plants).

PATIENT
He replied that the treaty was signed for purpose of political expediency; the nations who signed it at that time had no dealings in nuclear proliferation. He also commented that when a country makes a decision to avoid the trade of a highly demanded good it isolates itself from other countries and becomes obsolete. It is not practical to avoid dealing in the good.


PAUL
I replied that the deal between America and India would be made at the expense of America keeping its word to avoid nuclear proliferation. It is important for a nation to keep its word. Language is based on a connection between expressed word, behavior and meaning. If we say the word 'yes' and mean 'yes' but act as if the word 'no' were spoken then the meaning of the word 'yes' becomes ambiguous. Communication enters a hall of mirrors in which no one knows which is real: word, behavior or meaning.

At this point the patient went on to monologue further about Indian politics. He recommended a movie (with subtitles) that I should watch which tells the story of Gandhi's assassination from the assassins perspective.