India Nuclear News & Discussion - 31 Aug 2007

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 03 Sep 2007 12:35

Without working on a path clearly marked "way to escape pod", why is the opposition's concern any more genuine to consider proposals to re-design the craft again. Keeping in mind we agree that the 123 deal does not push India into the ditch outright.

If you are asking why doesn't MMS behave like PVNR. Its because he is not PVNR

.

Keep batting, every voice makes the system strong.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 03 Sep 2007 12:39

>>>People like yourself have been working overtime, telling the world that this is what India is about - a bunch of yahoos intent on putting up a whole rack of nuclear missiles to threaten civilization, like Hitler did, or like Saddam tried to do. So that no one in their right mind would want to deal with India.

He He! Indian people are like that onlee..When the most 'civilized' nation on earth points all kinds of nuclear missiles at every nook and corner of the earth, there is no threat to civilization. Brownie Indians running around like Idiotic EBs, that too not knowing where the trigger is a BIG BIG threat to world civilization.

The makers of the film 'Shivaji' have software to change the colour of the skin. Try it - that is the only think left now for complete transformation to YB

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Sep 2007 12:41

pradeepe wrote: If you are asking why doesn't MMS behave like PVNR. Its because he is not PVNR .
.

There are some things best done by PVNR type people is it not

; another thought: who is congress can take over the mantle of PVNR and replace MMS and guide the deal to safety? That would be another good way to go. Are there any contenders with Kangress who can do this?

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 03 Sep 2007 12:47

NRao wrote:
joey wrote:the above article is a good one but then why kakodkar and chidambaran are supoprting this deal?
AK has not "supported" this deal. At best he has sat on the fence. For every time we feel that he supports India should sign it, he has stated that the deal is "satisfactory" and now ""The possible unshackling". And then,

Speaking at a function in BARC (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre) recently, Kakodkar also cautioned that the country needed to be self reliant in its research and development.

"We must preserve and enhance this capability undistracted by the lure of readily external inputs which may bring constraints along with them.
AK started with something in mind, he articulated it very clearly. That still has not changed.

I very much doubt a confident head would state:

Safeguarding our domestic capability programmes has to be the touchstone in dealing with nuclear co-operation in the nuclear area," he said.
His trip to DC - for that one week - IMHO, was a fig leaf trip. And, it is even today being used as such in arguments.

This deal is what India could get, it should be signed. But let AK deal with IAEA, for, there is no one in India that can replace him for that task.

WRT China, let them sink the deal - if they have the guts. My feel is that they will not. Those capitalists are only wearing a commi coat. Want all the $$, do not want to share the wealth. Lead will sink anyone.

N_rao,

Well said ! AK was taken to US, but cleverly kept outside the negotiating team as a boss !!? And AK always said its a way to move forward and NEVER said its a BEST/GOOD deal ! Remember AGK's objections on the same grounds ? AK says "i think its a satisfactory", and on re- processing, "i think consent is there" and "perhaps yes", "I think so".

AK is DOES NOT say with full conviction, it is the VERY GOOD deal ! If MMS says it is EXCELLENT deal then why AK does not say so ?? And WHY in the Great 60th Indepoendance day speach, MMS simply ignores such a Great achievement ??!, if it is really so ??

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Sep 2007 14:10

geeth wrote:He He! Sen to count his 'headless chicken' in front of the Privilege Committee.....

http://publication.samachar.com/pub_art ... ?id=147015

NEW DELHI: In a decision that could embarrass the government, Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has referred privilege notices over Indian ambassador to US Ronen Sen's "headless chickens" remark to the privileges committee. This means Sen will have to appear before the parliamentary panel.

Mr. Sen's predicament reminds of a famous saying. It goes like this -

Don't count your (butter) chickens before they are beheaded

Or something like that.

While I respect the man for his capability, there is something to be learnt from this episode for every diplomat.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Sep 2007 14:20

ShibaPJ wrote:Interesting read.. Chinese show more colours.. & see why commies are opposing the deal..

View from China: India seeking 'big power' status through N-deal

In a second salvo within a fortnight against the India-United States civilian nuclear deal, a leading official Chinese newspaper has accused New Delhi of seeking 'big power' status with Washington's backing and even stretching its 'tentacles' outside Asia.

'The US-Indian nuclear agreement has strong symbolic significance for India in achieving its dream of a powerful nation,' the People's Daily, the official mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party of China, said in a commentary.

'As a big country with rapid economic growth, India is keen on gaining greater influence in international affairs and playing a decisive role in the international arena. At this point, maybe it is not an exaggeration to say that the India-US civilian nuclear energy agreement actually demonstrates its dream to become a big power,' the commentary, second since August 17, says.

'In addition, the United States has explicitly proposed in the agreement that it would not hamper or intervene in the development of India's military nuclear plan, which will also help the country achieve its goals to be a nuclear power,' it notes with concern.

'In fact, the purpose of the United States to sign civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement with India is to enclose India into its global partners' camp, so as to balance the forces of Asia. This fits in exactly with India's wishes,' the paper said.

'Since India declared independence in 1947, it has always been determined to become a big power,' it said while noting that although there are still people questioning the possibility, India did make 'good achievement' in the following 60 years.

The comments in the official media came just three days after Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao stated that China sought friendly ties with India and did not consider New Delhi's rise as a threat.

"We wish the Indian people happiness and India prosperity. We also wish continued progress in the friendly relations and cooperation between China and India. Both Prime Minister Singh and I repeated on many occasions that China's development and India's development are each others opportunity rather than a threat," Wen had said in an
interview to PTI in Beijing [Images].

The People's Daily commentary also noted that India has been reaching out to the international community, especially in East Asia, traditionally considered China's backyard.

'In recent years, it introduced and implemented a 'Look-East' policy and joined most regional organisations in the East Asian region. India also sought to stretch its tentacles outside Asia and even actively chased after strategic cooperation some African countries.'
At the same time, the commentary noted that for more than a month after the US House of Representatives passed the agreement between the United States and India on civilian nuclear energy cooperation by an overwhelming majority on July 26, it has suffered constant setbacks.

At first, it created 'friction' between India and Pakistan and then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's [Images] claim on India's right to conduct nuclear tests in future and the warning from the United States that if New Delhi conducted nuclear tests, it will terminate the implementation of its agreement with India on civilian nuclear energy cooperation, the commentary noted.

The commentary took note that even as the 'Leftist forces' wanted the government to stop 'promoting' the Indo-US nuclear deal, Singh has asserted that he would not do so even if the Left-wing threatens to 'topple' the government.

The commentary also came to the conclusion that despite the hiccups, with the majority of the Indian public supporting the nuclear deal, India and the United States will continue to move ahead with the implementation of the agreement.

Analysts believe that although the Leftists were worried that the agreement will deprive India of independence in its foreign policy and Singh's government will encounter some resistance in promoting nuclear cooperation between India and the United States, the two will continue to advance the agreement.

In the end, the commentary acknowledges that India is energy deficient and the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal will help India greatly to ease the power shortage and provide guarantee to a steady economic development.

'As a matter of fact, India is extremely short of energy. Electricity shortage has been a big problem that has plagued people's normal life and sustainable economic development,' noted.

It is helpful to read history when deciphering the words of the Chicoms.

China, since Mao's times, has accused India of being an 'imperialist' country.

In the good old days of Panchsheel, these words meant that India was seeking hegemony over its immediate neighbourhood. The Chinese consider the Indian state an heir to the British Empire

, especially as far as surrounding parts of Asia are concerned. This is true as far as foreign policy objectives are concerned.

But is today's context, Beijing accusing us of wanting to be a 'big power' mean that India's influence is beginning to make its mark felt. It irks China no end that Indian influence is spreading to areas it considers its backyard - SEA and EA. Worse, it is readily being welcomed. And worst of all, it is being welcomed precisely for the reason of countering Chinese influence.

No wonder the middle kingdom feels shafted.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 03 Sep 2007 14:29

Renegotiate deal: Advani

Seeks law to counter Hyde Act

[/url]

In sum, If India's position can become stronger by amending Indian national laws, (In any case it is next to obsolte, 1950's/60's) WHY NOT ?? why congress Govt and congress types(!) are Adamant in not looking in to finer details ?? After all it is in our interests !!

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 03 Sep 2007 14:33

Shankar,

Quote:
-it is irrelevant the objection was made and a turn around was made too without any change in the basic understanding that is putting 2/3 of our nuclear fissile material making capability under safeguard for perpetuity

This is the second time that you have made this statement. You can not get more disingenuous and dishonest than this.

How much unsafeguarded fissile material do we need for both military and protected civilian research purposes? And how are we sacrificing the capability to get that under the separation plan?

[/b]

Before you make such sweeping comments may be you should go into some more depth about our nuclear weapons program me and from where the fissile material for the bombs and missile warheads come

Most of our weapons are based on plutonium or more correctly weapons grade plutonium having more than 95% plutonium this is not some thing you go and buy from reliance fresh youhave to extract is painstakingly from the spent fuel of uranium fed reactors . Since the percentage of fissile u-235 in natural uranium is very very small and an even smaller part of it gets converted to Pu 239/241 during the burn up process and then purified and then cast into ingots and then machined to exact shape whole load of spent fuel is required for even a single fission warhead .That is why we need all the spent fuel that is available today .

The moment the safeguard kicks in and we start using imported uranium 705 of the spent of fuels become out of bound for plutonium extraction at least for the weapon use and that was 2/3 rd of of fissile material production capability is cut off .As it is we have a few reactors if you take out 705 of that from the plutonium recovery cycle for military use you effectively put a cap on nuclear weapon production too

Hope I am clear

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Sep 2007 15:05

Prabu wrote:Renegotiate deal: Advani

Seeks law to counter Hyde Act

[/url]

In sum, If India's position can become stronger by amending Indian national laws, (In any case it is next to obsolte, 1950's/60's) WHY NOT ?? why congress Govt and congress types(!) are Adamant in not looking in to finer details ?? After all it is in our interests !!

The same reason why the nuclear program was underfunded in 1990s and the reason why this deal is being pushed.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Sep 2007 15:14

Shankar wrote:Most of our weapons are based on plutonium or more correctly weapons grade plutonium having more than 95% plutonium this is not some thing you go and buy from reliance fresh youhave to extract is painstakingly from the spent fuel of uranium fed reactors.

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Sep 2007 15:15

Sanku,
I've been keenly following the raging debate between the anti-deal and pro-deal folks here and I see that you've come across as one of the most articulate persons in the anti-deal camp (please note I am not calling you an EB!).

Since you think that the India can renegoitate a better deal from the US, why don't you give some thought on which are the specific areas that we can get a better deal from the US if we renegotiate with say a Advani or ABV as PM with perhaps a BC as the chief negotiator.

I think that will bring more clarity to the debate, especially for person whose neither a EB or YB (like me) and is trying to understand whether this deal is the best we could have got.

If you do accept my request do keep in mind that in the real world any deal, be it between two people or two countries, involves a certain amount of give and take and it would be unrealsitic to think that a ABV-BC combination (for example) would be able to get an ideal 123 for India.

Also, to everyone on BR a big hello. I've been on lurk mode, on and off, on this forum for quite some time and I think this is the right time to jump in and try to contribute to the high level of discussions that goes on here.
(Note: I firmly believe BR debates are not for the faint hearted!)

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Sep 2007 15:22

Hello Amit.

Welcome to BR.

And you are right. BRF is not for the faint hearted.

That's why we are jingos.

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Sep 2007 15:27

Thanks abhischekcc.

I get a feeling that I'm going to enjoy myself on this forum. Just looking forward to my first scrap!

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 03 Sep 2007 15:39

[url=http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/03/stories ... 620300.htm]"We must have access to nuclear energyâ€

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Sep 2007 15:42

Hello Amit;

Welcome to BRF; yes it is not for the faint of heart indeed and many thanks for your rather kind words (where exactly is the little red dot though; whether on somebodys forehead I wonder

).

Okay jokes apart; a "good" deal would can come about in a number of ways; in terms of how the clauses are stated; however the following points in my opinion must be covered (please note I have mentioned most of these thoughts before in pervious posts; in a broken up order):

1) The deal must be complete in itself; i.e. I would not like the deal to refer to external vauge contracts. The deal must un-ambigulously state that. Any restrictions that either side wants to keep on the other must be in the document. There should be a clear provision of duties and responsiblities of each party codified in the document.

2) The deal must provide for fuel supplies in perpetuity unless one of the clauses (which will be in the deal) is broken.

3) The deal should permit clear nuclear trade including all materials and technologies under the same for the safeguarded nuclear regime. I.e. US will not block our efforts for purchasing centrifuges (say) for the safeguarded facility we are building.

4) The right to reprocess under the special facility promised right now; both in intent as well the exact shape of the clauses guarding it. i.e. no a deal at a time.

5) No clause for right of return.

The other nice to have things in the deal (IMHO)
6) The deal must permit unsafeguarded fuel to be used in safeguarded facilities without the resultant output being safeguarded.

7) All safeguards to be applied by external agencies only; failing which the material remains

Any change in the deal to happen with consent of both parties; and no further iterations may remove the core parts of the deal as enshrined above.

In short I am essentially asking for what I think the PM promised the country in the parliament.

Now whether the clauses are real:: A lot on whether we can get "more" from the deal (please note that many points in the above deal are not a demand for more merely a demand for removing ambiguity) depends on the strenght of our position. It is here I lack enough knowledge; for example: just how severe is the uranium crunch. However assuming that we have enough to keep our 3 cycle path alive; I would argue that anything less is underselling our position.

In which case I propose to keep the talks going till a time either the GoI can make a clear case to Indian public for making some compromises; or the US relents.

Please note that the above can happen in many ways;

1) One way is to capture the above in a Indian law and tell americans that; "hey buddy this is what we will do for the real 123"; the renegotiation then could be only tacit approval.
2) The other is an agreement that we go slow on moving our reactors under safeguards.
3) The third can be a clear indian law which lays down the framework for future discussions with IAEA and safeguards we accept.
4) A white paper by the Govt. showing the way forward with the thorium cycle.

So the basic above points can be made real through various means.

Whew.......

Well these are the initial seed thoughts; they can be made better by our babu's if the right political will exists.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 03 Sep 2007 15:52

>>>If you do accept my request do keep in mind that in the real world any deal, be it between two people or two countries, involves a certain amount of give and take and it would be unrealsitic to think that a ABV-BC combination (for example) would be able to get an ideal 123 for India.

ABV and Co., may or may not be able to get a better deal - because 'better' or 'worse' is subjective. In fact ABV Govt had been trying to get a good deal., and they could not conclude the deal during the life of their Govt. What is alarming is the spin that without this deal India's future is doomed.

Everybody would like to have the deal in place (except may be the commies for whatever reason they have), but the attitude of the MMS Govt is that we want to do it at any cost. They say "we tried our best and this is what is available". Their spin doctors want us to believe that they have not surrendered anything and that Bush is a really nice person and any future president will be that much more difficult onlee to deal with - so grab it when they are offering some crumps. Or else you bunnies won't even get those crumps in future.

To top it all, these spin masters say that the naysayers have no self belief and they don't know India's potential in future.

But the naysayers are hammering exactly that point - that they know India's future is good and don't behave like beggars - to put in Kalam's words, "strength only respects strength" - If you behave like a poodle, you will be treated like one.

So what if the deal is delayed - Bargain harder. If the other side is not coming to the table, continue with the domestic programme. The more the number of domestic reactors, the more worried are unkeel.

After all it was unkeel who initiated the talks and they are in such a hurry to conclude the deal - why?. If the next president is not going to help things, he/she is going to do exactly that, with or without the deal in place.

The naysayers are of the firm view that MMS and Co., are putting the interests of India in jeopardy.

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Sep 2007 16:17

Sanku,

Thanks for taking the trouble to articulate these 7 points. While I don't think anyone can be serious and still disagree with you that all these points are very desirable from an Indain perspective, what I am wondering is how much of it is practical and achievable.

Wouldn't be a bit unrealistic to assume that George Bush has the carte blanche to give us all these if we can put enough pressure on him?

The NPA Ayatollahs still command considerable clout on Capitol Hill and we all know how the Democrats feel as regards nuclear cooperation with India.

It is precisely for this reason I am looking at what is achievable as opposed to what is desirable -- that is what's practical as opposed to what's ideal.

I think there are no easy answers - that is whether this was the best we could have got or if we hold firm we could get a better deal.

I do however, believe that nuclear isolation is something we've got to get out of -- how we do that and when we do that is off course an entirely different question.

Cheers!

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 03 Sep 2007 16:20

Scientists suggest pushing IST to save energy

Scientists suggest pushing IST to save energy

New Delhi, Sept. 3 (PTI): A group of scientists have suggested pushing the Indian Standard Time (IST) by half-an-hour to six hours ahead of GMT citing several benefits, including peak load energy savings to the tune of 16 per cent.

The new suggestion avoids the risks associated with introducing two separate time zones, a proposal that has already been rejected by the government.

"We propose advancing of the Indian Standard Time by half-an-hour to being six hours ahead of the Universal Coordinated Time," senior scientists Dilip Ahuja and D P Sen Gupta said in a communication in Current Science.

Such an advance would give an extra 30 minutes of daylight in the evenings when it is most useful for all of us.

They suggest advancing the IST from being the time at 82.5 degrees East on the longitude (Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh) to 90 degrees East on the longitude (Bengal-Assam border).

This move would make the IST six hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), or the Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), and make it the same as Bangladesh Standard Time.

The scientists said that the total saving extrapolated for the year came to approximately 1.82 terra watt hour (TWh) out of the total nation-wide consumption of 592 TWh during 2003-04, which might not seem large.

"The percentage savings in the evening peak energy, however, are about 16 per cent, which is substantial," they said.

The duo calculated the money value of the savings in the range of Rs 1,000 crore every year.

----------------------------------------------
Similar report was seen in THE HINDU some time back, and posted also in BR, but this has some clear cut data on adjustment of Time zones and savings from scientists ! If it is Good for India, WHY NOT ??

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Sep 2007 16:25

amit wrote: I do however, believe that nuclear isolation is something we've got to get out of -- how we do that and when we do that is off course an entirely different question.

I agree that we need to get out of nuclear isolation; however the question is how; and what price are we willing to pay. Very early on in another era -6 years ago I was one of the people asking for the deal and supporting the need to engage US when the majority of the board was dismal about the possibility of a discussion with US so I clearly dont have an issue with either US or who does the deal but the nature of deal itself.

As I mentioned; I am willing to be convinced; but it has to be more than "I did it and thus it must be good" approach that we see from the govt.

Pleaser remember a lot of concerns around the deal are about he manner in which made (I had made a long post as to to how the manner in which things happen; dont want to repeat)

GoI needs to let uus know why this deal is good in real sense; I am sure it will win a huge victory for hearts and minds if it can engage in a clear debate.

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Sep 2007 16:27

geeth wrote: ABV and Co., may or may not be able to get a better deal - because 'better' or 'worse' is subjective. In fact ABV Govt had been trying to get a good deal., and they could not conclude the deal during the life of their Govt. What is alarming is the spin that without this deal India's future is doomed.

Everybody would like to have the deal in place (except may be the commies for whatever reason they have), but the attitude of the MMS Govt is that we want to do it at any cost. They say "we tried our best and this is what is available". Their spin doctors want us to believe that they have not surrendered anything and that Bush is a really nice person and any future president will be that much more difficult onlee to deal with - so grab it when they are offering some crumps. Or else you bunnies won't even get those crumps in future.

Geeth,

There's no point in getting into a political wrangling match. This is Indian politics for you. BJP is behaving just like a typical opposition party while the Congress like a typical party in power.

And the less said about the Commies the better.

I guess we need to put all the politics aside and look at the merits and/or demerits of the deal and not cloud our judgment based on our political leanings as such.

One good thing going for India is that at the end of the day the must maligned Babudom has a lot of inputs in such international deals and I firmly believe that they take the best interests of India into account. Not because the are they are exceptional human beings but because the systems has too many checks and balances.

Cheers!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Sep 2007 16:37

On the question of politics; we have seen in the past that govts. have kept aside the "typical" political behavior in intrests of forgein policy. This deal is a important enough marker in Indian affairs such that non-typical behavior is needed from current political powers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Sep 2007 17:10

Mohan Raju wrote: Seriously, we need to consider the possibility that India is not, and will never be, ready for prime time on the international scene. All this BS talk about "future superpower", and when the possibility arises of even tentative steps toward being a regional power, the patriots wet their drawers.

Very well put.

Seconds the thought that MMS should have asked for nothing short of J18 and full NWS.

Instead he instructed his team to build a 123 that would not cross either country's Laws - thereby agreeing to the Hyde Act. If he wanted India to be a power - of any sorts - he should and could have told the US before the Hyde Act was signed that India will reject anything close to the Hyde Act in 123. No?

Check out the verbiage between MMS and AK. MMS says this deal is a must (for the econ) and AK says it is a additonality.

This weakness started with MMS (the negotiator and NOT the politician).

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Sep 2007 17:17

Dr Singh is a politician? New to be NRao

, but then you always erred on the side of civility didnt you

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 03 Sep 2007 17:38

>>>There's no point in getting into a political wrangling match. This is Indian politics for you.

I am not talking politics. If so, I would have said something else. If at all I mentioned some political parties or politicians, it is only in the context of the Nuclear deal. if you thought otherwise, it is a misunderstanding.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Sep 2007 17:51

amit wrote:It is precisely for this reason I am looking at what is achievable as opposed to what is desirable -- that is what's practical as opposed to what's ideal.

I think there are no easy answers - that is whether this was the best we could have got or if we hold firm we could get a better deal.

I do however, believe that nuclear isolation is something we've got to get out of -- how we do that and when we do that is off course an entirely different question.

Cheers!

Very well put. Nice to see someone very precise & concise at the sametime enticing in publicizing the idea.

Coming to the timming or when to have the deal, better now or later. I think everyone agree to achieve something let say X+Y. Anti-* says we will get X+Y after sometime when we acquired necessary clout or when the time is ripe. What i understand from KS and similar minded people's articulation is that we too agree that it is possible to get more with greater clout. To achieve that clout you(anti-*) are saying we will go in our own pace but what we(pro-*) saying is we will get X now and achieve the clout as soon as possible with that and then we will think about getting Y with the achieved clout.

The problem i see from anti-*', here and elsewhere, in that thinking is that they are not believing in that. Bcoz, They say US is non-trustable. But what they mostly miss is that even with all necessary wordings & treaties, US if decided to renege, it can do if we dont have the necessary clout.

So to get that clout, what to do...go to starting point of the story...this what repeated everywhere again & again in different ways so far...so the saga will continue for ever like trying to get the answer to the question: which comes first, chicken or egg ?

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 03 Sep 2007 18:05

Nuke deal aimed at pushing through the US 'agenda': CPI-M

From PTI :

New Delhi, Sep 3 (PTI) A day after warning the government that it would "plunge into crisis" if the Indo-US nuclear deal was operationalised, the CPI(M) today said the agreement was part of the Manmohan Singh Government's attempts "to integrate India more closely with the US".
Observing that the deal was part of "a much larger programme in which India is to become a partner in the US strategic vision," a party pamphlet said "this deal should be seen as a part of Manmohan Singh Government's attempt to integrate India more closely with the US".

Ahead of its planned protests with other Left parties against the multi-nation naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal, which will also see the US participation, the CPI(M) brought out a series of pamphlets on the strategic ties between the two countries, projecting that the accord was aimed at "pushing through the US agenda" in all fields of concern to the people.

"The majority of Indian Parliament" was against the deal, but the government refused to accept this, it said.

"By refusing to accept the majority view, government sends a message which is harmful for Indian democracy," it said in a pamphlet titled "Don't Proceed With the Nuclear Deal".

"The deal is more than just one nuclear deal. It is part of pushing through the US agenda in all fields of concern to our people, whether it is the sovereignty of India, the interests of common people, farmers, of workers and employees," the party said in another pamphlet.

While refuting the government's position on different aspects of the issue, the pamphlets also reiterated why it should not operationalise the 123 agreement. PTI

-------------------------------------
And this :

From CNN-IBN

FROM N-DEAL TO NAVAL EXERCISE

PM Manmohan Singh is Bush's best friend: Left

Published on Monday , September 03, 2007 at 14:48 in Nation section

New Delhi: Even as Government and Left allies look forward to dousing the fire on the nuclear deal issue, the delicate relationship seems to be running into troubled waters, literally.

The Left has openly attacked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the pamphlets they have brought out against the joint Indo-US naval exercise slated to begin in Vishakapatnam on Tuesday. Apart from US, naval ships from countries like Australia and Japan are also to participate in the exercise.

In the pamphlets published to explain their stand on nuclear deal to the "common man", Left has described Singh as US President George Bush's best friend.

The move comes close on the heels of Sonia Gandhi coming out in full support of Manmohan Singh in the Congress monthly, Sandesh.

The messages show clearly that the decline in Left-UPA relationship continues.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems like our left friends dont want MMS/SONIA & co. to sleep !! But GOI should not shy away from a OPEN discussion/ debate and perhaps a JPC, if it can be used as a tool against uncle for possible re-negotiation !! After all 123 pact provides room for that !!

RaviCV · Post by **RaviCV** » 03 Sep 2007 18:06

NRao wrote:
Mohan Raju wrote: Seriously, we need to consider the possibility that India is not, and will never be, ready for prime time on the international scene. All this BS talk about "future superpower", and when the possibility arises of even tentative steps toward being a regional power, the patriots wet their drawers.
Very well put.

Seconds the thought that MMS should have asked for nothing short of J18 and full NWS.

Instead he instructed his team to build a 123 that would not cross either country's Laws - thereby agreeing to the Hyde Act. If he wanted India to be a power - of any sorts - he should and could have told the US before the Hyde Act was signed that India will reject anything close to the Hyde Act in 123. No?

Check out the verbiage between MMS and AK. MMS says this deal is a must (for the econ) and AK says it is a additonality.

This weakness started with MMS (the negotiator and NOT the politician).

Perhaps MMS the Quisling would be a more appropriate description. But then again, once a stoogeâ€¦ always a stooge. When MMS as FM introduced his famous (sic!!!) treatise in parliament on unshackling India's economy, some documents that were placed on the table of the house still contained the US style English usage intrinsic to the IMF dictates. In all honesty, it's the IMF and not MMS who unshackled the Indian economy! Returning to more relevant issues, could one imagine India's situation shackled to the present 123 agreement, with a hypothetical US Democrat Presidency having a proven history of closeness to Chinese money (a strong possibility), armed with the Hyde Act, supported by a Democrat ruled US Congress, goaded on by the nuclear ayatollah's, and, having a close association with such worthies as Maleeha Lodhi???? Certain US think tanks have already started assuming that India's "ascension to the nonproliferation order as a non-weapons nation" (i.e. a resident of the III class compartment) is fait-accompli!

In summary, clauses invalidating any interference by domestic legislature (read, the Hyde Act), and, tacit admissal of NWS status for India should have been explicit in the wording of the 123 agreement! Anything short of this is a sell out!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Sep 2007 18:07

Kanson wrote: So to get that clout, what to do...go to starting point of the story...this what repeated everywhere again & again in different ways so far...so the saga will continue for ever like trying to get the answer to the question: which comes first, chicken or egg ?

No Kanson that is not the correct summary; what we who sees issues are saying is thus:

1) What we think Dr Singh promised to parilament is not what we are getting; how did the game change from J18 to 123. Why did it change? Will the govt. accept that there is a change and debate the reasons why changes were required? In the current scenario; we have Kapil Sibal telling us on the behalf of the govt that Hyde act does not exist and 123 has all the promises fulfiled. Where as the gaps have clearly been outlined for all to see.

2) If we dont possess the necessary werewithal to get a good deal on paper; does it not sound logical that practice will be no different. After all if we cant get a promise; how magically do we expect fulfilment of a promise which has never been made. It is a case of

"hamne wo sun liya; jo usne kaha bhee nahi..." remember the song

US can get out of the deal without even having to renege on the deal.

3) What exact good are we getting from the deal; will the Govt or pro-deal people please make that statement in a broad policy term.

4) What is the basis that we will get more clout; from what the anti-deal folks see and have pointed out (in painstaking detail) is how we stand to lose clout.

5) Please refer to pages 1-3 of this thread on discussion of reneging on agreements etc. The "renge on agreement" thus the agreement does not matter is a strawman at best and sheer inanity at best. If you provoke me I can copy paste those again but why do you want me to do that?

The issues are quite clear; unfortunately the pro-deal people are trivializing and generalizing arguments and resort to homilies instead of sticking

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 03 Sep 2007 18:15

Yeah, yeah, India is going to be a superpower very shortly, and China will make sure it happens.

Sanku still has not come up with the differences between J18 and 123 and yet here he is slatering on the cowdung on the sh1t sandwich claiming that the PM " better explain why we are signing 123 instead of J18...based on the bogus claim that J18 is better than 123....when 123 is the end result of all the negotiations and J18 was the starting point. Enough said....all this mindless vomit on this thread won't die out any time soon.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Sep 2007 18:24

Sanku wrote:
Kanson wrote: So to get that clout, what to do...go to starting point of the story...this what repeated everywhere again & again in different ways so far...so the saga will continue for ever like trying to get the answer to the question: which comes first, chicken or egg ?
No Kanson that is not the correct summary; what we who sees issues are saying is thus:

1) What we think Dr Singh promised to parilament is not what we are getting; how did the game change from J18 to 123. Why did it change? Will the govt. accept that there is a change and debate the reasons why changes were required? In the current scenario; we have Kapil Sibal telling us on the behalf of the govt that Hyde act does not exist and 123 has all the promises fulfiled. Where as the gaps have clearly been outlined for all to see.

2) If we dont possess the necessary werewithal to get a good deal on paper; does it not sound logical that practice will be no different. After all if we cant get a promise; how magically do we expect fulfilment of a promise which has never been made. It is a case of

"hamne wo sun liya; jo usne kaha bhee nahi..." remember the song

US can get out of the deal without even having to renege on the deal.

3) What exact good are we getting from the deal; will the Govt or pro-deal people please make that statement in a broad policy term.

4) What is the basis that we will get more clout; from what the anti-deal folks see and have pointed out (in painstaking detail) is how we stand to lose clout.

5) Please refer to pages 1-3 of this thread on discussion of reneging on agreements etc. The "renge on agreement" thus the agreement does not matter is a strawman at best and sheer inanity at best. If you provoke me I can copy paste those again but why do you want me to do that?

The issues are quite clear; unfortunately the pro-deal people are trivializing and generalizing arguments and resort to homilies instead of sticking

Very good, if you are saying you can get a better deal, who am i to object... But, so far i heard from no one how it is going to be achieved. All i heard from them are like building castles in air.

ABM treaty is enacted becoz Russia/USSR had the clout to counter and it was scrapped unilateraly becoz Russia lost that clout.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Sep 2007 18:31

Kanson wrote: ABM treaty is enacted becoz Russia/USSR had the clout to counter and it was scrapped unilateraly becoz Russia lost that clout.

On the same count I have not heard from anyone why we must sign the deal or die; for the price we pay!!

OTOH NRao has detailed the process of deal making as it was playing out (it seems he has a ring side view) and says how exactly a better deal could have had.

Thirdly please read pages 1-3 to disabuse yourself of the notion that since ABM deal was broken => all deals can be broken at any point of time + America did not pay a price == All deals can be signed anyway as when the mood strikes.

PS>>
BTW what on earth is the comparison between ABM and 123??? As JCage would say Apples and Oranges.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 03 Sep 2007 18:37

RaviCV - please explain why you think MMS is a Quisling.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Sep 2007 18:41

Sanku, just curious though OT, r u anyway Saty-lite or Saty in new form ?

On the same count I have not heard from anyone why we must sign the deal or die; for the price we pay!!

Have you lived in Indian village. Do you know what starving means. Have you subjected to that without food for say min 5 days. I know all these things with first hand experience.

OTOH NRao has detailed the process of deal making as it was playing out (it seems he has a ring side view) and says how exactly a better deal could have had.

You have anything to say by yourself ?

Thirdly please read pages 1-3 to disabuse yourself of the notion that since ABM deal was broken => all deals can be broken at any point of time + America did not pay a price == All deals can be signed anyway as when the mood strikes.

This is a really disjointed, strawman argument.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 03 Sep 2007 18:48

Dr.Kalam supports PM!?

In a surprising move Dr.Kalam is reportedly supporting PM in the Nuke deal. Latest News from Tamil Daily. Details awaited !

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 03 Sep 2007 18:57

Kanson wrote:Sanku, just curious though OT, r u anyway Saty-lite or Saty in new form ?

On the same count I have not heard from anyone why we must sign the deal or die; for the price we pay!!
Have you lived in Indian village. Do you know what starving means. Have you subjected to that without food for say min 5 days. I know all these things with first hand experience.

And, you think this deal will solve those levels of poverty. Do you have any idea of the kind of waste in the Indian system, the level of loot and just scraping that from the outside will yield a lot more results towards alleviation of poverty than any such deal.

Now, go figure, which party has been most responsible for our system of waste? Which party, even today, stands in the way of basic reforms of the state machinery - today? Which party has promoted the mai baap government culture and continues to do so, with NREGS as its symbol of crowning glory as opposed to disinvestment?

This is the latest straw man argument- without aty basis in fact or reason. If not for this deal, India will continue to be in the dark and the city will never have those shining lights as seen in the west, when a plane lands at the airport, in the middle of the night.

All MMS has as the reason d'aitre for this deal, is a stupid planning commission report by his pet MSA.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 03 Sep 2007 18:58

Yes it is indeed true !

Kalam supports Manmohan on nuke deal

THE HINDU confirms it !

Kalam supports Manmohan on nuke deal

New Delhi, Sept. 3 (PTI): Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has found support for the Indo-US nuclear deal from former President A P J Abdul Kalam who has described it as "unique".

"It's unique, what he has done," Kalam said on NDTV's 'Walk the Talk' programme when asked whether the Prime Minister can be complimented for having clinched the deal.

Kalam's endorsement comes at a time when the Left parties have again upped their ante against the deal and warned the government of facing a "crisis" if it went ahead with its operationalisation.

Asked whether he thought scientists opposing the deal were going too far, Kalam, who demitted office in July, evaded a direct response. "Fortunately, in our democratic set-up, scientists can always approach at the highest level".

The former President also did not feel that the scientists were being ignored. "I didn't feel like that at all.

"Whatever has happened is (for) good," Kalam responded when his view was sought on the deal on which the Prime Minister had consulted him.

Kalam said he had met the Prime Minister before "finishing my assignment (as President)" and highlighted the importance of thorium reactors. "I told the Prime Minister that thorium reactors are very important," he said.

The Prime Minister too agreed that progress must be made on that front, the former President said.

"Parliament has to function"

Expressing his anguish over the repeated turmoil in the Parliament, Kalam said, "Parliament has to function. There may be lot of differences, but Parliament has to function.

"When the Rajya Sabha or the Lok Sabha are in session, people watch, particularly young people. Those in Parliament have to be role models for them," he said.

Kalam was candid on being asked whether he thought his decision to return the Office of Profit Bill to the Parliament had cost him a second term in office.

"Well, I don't care about it. That's not the issue. What I am concerned about are the people. The people were after me (for a second term). So I had to consider that," he said.

The former President, who has now taken up the teaching profession, made it clear that he had no regrets when the words were doing the rounds that he would contest the presidential election if there was a consensus. "Consensus. I stick to that", he said.

Kalam had good words for both Manmohan Singh and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee who led the NDA regime.

"Each of them has a unique core competence," he noted.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Sep 2007 19:07

ShauryaT wrote: And, you think this deal will solve those levels of poverty. Do you have any idea of the kind of waste in the Indian system, the level of loot and just scraping that from the outside will yield a lot more results towards alleviation of poverty than any such deal.

So, scrapping the deal will alleviate them from poverty ?

Now, go figure, which party has been most responsible for our system of waste? Which party, even today, stands in the way of basic reforms of the state machinery - today? Which party has promoted the mai baap government culture and continues to do so, with NREGS as its symbol of crowning glory as opposed to disinvestment?

So, with the other party in power you achieved everthing ? All are same donkeys from the same pond.

If not for this deal, India will continue to be in the dark and the city will never have those shining lights as seen in the west, when a plane lands at the airport, in the middle of the night.

Its like saying without globalization &opening of the market, we could have achieved the present status in the sametime.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 03 Sep 2007 19:18

>>>Kalam supports Manmohan on nuke deal

I have seen that interview in TV. He was saying imported reactors can help in achieving the short term goal of 20000 MW by 2020. He said 'the scientists have set a target of adding 1000MW every year till 2020. For that to be achieved, this deal will help.

Some more spin using the President - ofcourse Kalam (the Ex-President) is not going to say he doesn't support the PM

RaviCV · Post by **RaviCV** » 03 Sep 2007 19:20

Calvin wrote:RaviCV - please explain why you think MMS is a Quisling.

The nuclear deal will effect Indian's security for generations to come. The assurances MMS gave in parliament concerning the 123 agreement were orthogonal to the end result and at variance to the truth! In fact, he either tacitly denied or failed to admit (thereby lying by omission) the consequences of the Hyde Act on India's security posture.

Unless one is totally hooked on the Congress party's patented energizing drink "The Elixir of Lies" (such as the likes of Sibal, etc.), there are a few facts that one *must* admit: the Hyde Act does exist, it does supersede the 123 agreement in the eyes of US law, it will (detrimentally) affect *all* Indian nuclear projects should the 123 agreement be operationalized, and yes, the Earth isn't flat!

Surely, issues of such magnitude should have been discussed and debated in parliament, instead of getting a vote of confidence by the likes of NDTV, etc... Granted, the Indian constitution does not require parliamentary approval for International treaties. However, there's nothing that prevents it. Given the gravity and implications of the 123 agreement, and the fact that almost everybody including the US Congress, the NSG, ........, perhaps even the Stockholm municipality gets to vote on it, surely a serious debate in parliament by the representatives of the people who are most affected by the nuclear deal was necessary! The abrupt riding rough shod over such nuances is a pretty serious travesty of propriety and democracy on the part of MMS and the Congress party! Surely, given the above stated issues, the term Quisling might amount to a generous tribute to MMS!

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Sep 2007 19:33

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/vi ... x?id=16640

Dr. Kalam's viewpoint is that to Uranium based safeguards can be there since it is for power generation. He is wary of any sanctions in the future and expects all the reactors in future will be the Thorium based ones. Hopes that within five years we will be self reliant in nuclear energy generation using Thorium fuel.

Bharat Rakshak

India Nuclear News & Discussion - 31 Aug 2007

â€œWe must have access to nuclear energyâ€

Scientists suggest pushing IST to save energy

Nuke deal aimed at pushing through the US 'agenda': CPI-M