Hyde Act - yes. Internal - yes. 123 does NOT state that - yes.
NRao - even if we assume that there was no Hyde act, any Indian interaction with the US comes under US law for Americans.
If a US law states that the US may not export wheat between July and December, and India needs wheat in August, US laws will prevent that export unless
the law is amended, or there is an exclusionary clause written in.
The 123 does not state that kickbacks are disallowed. A US entity might seek to gain an advantage with a kickback. Provided Indian laws kick in, India laws will act on that US entity and the Indians it has dealt with.
What is interesting is that the 123 agreement is not subject to merely the Hyde act - it is subject to every single law in the US and any one of these can be invoke if relevant. The same holds true for Indian laws.
The only difference is that India did not have a law that said "Do not buy or sell nuke material to the US"
The US had such a law preventing sale to non-NPT signatories. That law was changed by the Hyde act.
If India had laws that prevented dealing with the US - India as an ostensible law-abiding nation (and not a dictatorship) would have had to amend those laws by the means allowed under the constitution. That would have been an Indian "Hyde law"
As far as I know the Indian constitution gives the power to the cabinet to reach certain deals without consulting parliament. Members of Parliament do not appear to like this law, but the only way of getting around it is to protest - because they may well be fighting Indian law.
Members of parliament are demanding greater involvement in this deal, and MMS is not obliged to give them that.
It is equally true that if the Parliament takes a decision that the people don't like, the latter will be out on the streets. But surely, for a matter so important, shouldn't a referendum be held and 600 million voting Indians be asked what they want to do about the nuclear future of India? Why just Karat/Bardhan and co? The only problem is the wording of the referendum - because if you ask Indians whether they want power supply or nukes - I suspect they will vote for power supply. The law does not really allow for that.
Under the circumstances, it is up to the opposition and government to sit and understand the deal and stop yakking to the press like ignoramuses and allowing the press to have a ball by saying "Marriage on the rocks" etc.
The opposition can quietly say that we need more details about the deal. But in India - politics does not work that way. They will say that someone is a traitor, and anti-national and "appeal to the masses" to protest. And the masses too go around thinking that Parliament is like the court of some Raja where there is a traitorous vizier trying to undermine the Kingdom. And they bay for someone's blood or the other and root for whoever they think appeals to them.
I believe that there is an all round discarding of even a semblance of common sense.
Did anyone hear Cmdre Uday Bhaskar and Parthasarathy on DD News (Hindis) last night? These people must be traitors for their support to the deal.